Talk:Communist Party USA

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Looks much better now, but it could do with a few citations. Röstigraben (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Religious majorities" footnote[edit]

Basically, I felt the footnote had to come out because if someone is going to take up the cause of the underdog at most every turn, they probably figure that the top dogs can take care of themselves. In other words, of course they'll support minorities, because the religious majority, from their point of view, is part of the power structure they're against. EVDebs (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. In precisely what sense were the Christian majority the "top dogs" in the Soviet Union? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
We're talking about the USA here, no? Their cast of villains would be somewhat different here. Not that the Soviets were all that keen on the Russian Orthodox Church, mind you, given that they were pretty closely associated with the tsars -- the ROC represented a challenger for Bolshevik power, and the CPUSA was unlikely not to be aware of that. Anyway, given the history of Jim Crow and the like, it wouldn't exactly have been difficult to paint Protestant fundamentalists as the villains given what they were trying to accomplish. Fundies haven't changed very much since the 20s. EVDebs (talk) 02:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The CPUSA followed the Comintern's marching orders; their "casts of villains" were exactly the same. The Soviet Union aimed to eradicate all religion, and did not just bark on that point, either. This is where people who do not have bungs stuffed in most of their sensory orifices would be saying "QED."
As to the fundamentalist question, let us leave aside for a minute the fact that the fundamentalists were a religious minority. The Reds, with their propaganda sourced largely from European intestines, made the error of labeling the Christian church as an integral part of the Bourgeois-Oppressor Complex in all instances, not taking our traditions of subversive low-church Christianity into account nearly enough.
Fundies haven't changed very much since the 20s... You seem to be implying that the CPUSA has. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:50, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, to the extent that the CPUSA is still kind of lunatic fringe and so radical it even pissed off the Soviets, not very much, no. But there's another point here -- don't forget, a lot of this was part of a propaganda war. To quite an extent, it was less about reality than perception, and it seems likely (as it is today with many atheists) that Christianity in and of itself was seen as a bad thing, especially where it blatantly conflicts with Jesus' teachings. On top of that, the CPUSA, being what it was, didn't exactly have to stretch very far to associate Christianity with oppression -- the Southern Baptists who supported Jim Crow were very much mainstream, and there was a strong Fascist streak in US conservative politics before WWII (Lindbergh, Ford, Coughlin, et al). I'd guess the CPUSA's support of minority religions was somewhat along the lines of "the enemy of my enemy", and probably would have those done away with eventually as well, but as long as they were an oppressed minority, the Commies were willing to play ball. I might also note that at least until Stalin's abuses became common knowledge, US Communism was quite idealistic, because the failings of the system weren't experienced or exposed quite so profoundly yet. It's only in hindsight we know what a mess Russian Marxism and its descendants were.
Also worth noting, and sort of related: it might be useful to assume that while a good number of the party intelligentsia's actions (especially the spying) were reprehensible, they likely viewed their actions as pro-American because they truly believed Marxism was the correct way to run the world. Relating to the above, like I said, "enemy of my enemy", whether that be a minority church or an NKVD/KGB agent. The ends justified the means, as long as the workers benefited in the long run. EVDebs (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I would agree with most of that; Marx's "enemy of my enemy" policy was followed on and off through Soviet history, to the confusion of all. The footnote was intended to take a jab at the practice of supporting "religious minorities" in one's political program right up to the point at which they are not useful anymore. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:45, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this a constructive edit?[edit] It looks like a bad edit(changes the point of view, no edit summary, by BON) but I really have no idea weather it is. Just wondering if my heuristics are correct here. --NonPerson (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)