Carlos's questions to CPUSA

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As someone who is no supporter of the CPUSA, but who reserves the right
to like contributions by its members, I find it ironic that after all
it has been blamed for, even its critics would like the CPUSA to be
the CPUSA, and to know where they stand.

I just want to comment that the answer to Carlos's penetrating list of
questions might not be either yes or no. One of the lessons of the 20th
century was the distorting effect of having lists of parties that
"recognised" each other as "fraternal" parties.

The contradictions involved in this, sometimes of course had to be
handled by "frank and comradely exchanges", which were presumably more
civilised than purges.

The reality now is probably closer to a network in which there are contacts
of various sorts with shifting degress of mutual evaluation.

I don't exactly expect the current equivalent of the former Central Committee
of the CPUSA to come out with a declaration in vaour ofof fuzzy logic, but I
think we should expect a response from Scott to Carlos's challenge which is
more nuanced than might have occurred previously. Maybe it is winging its
way towards us as I type, even if Scott would probably squirm with
embarrassment at the idea of nuances too.

To be concrete, if within a party, just as on this list, if one member
has taken the trouble to read a lot about Sendero Luminoso and another
to read a lot about the MRTA, could that not be an advantage to
synthesise a more all sided approach? In reality no-one ever agrees totally
with anyone else, whatever they say.


Regards to all,

Chris B
London.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------