this post was submitted on 13 Feb 2026
38 points (100.0% liked)

Comradeship // Freechat

2794 readers
65 users here now

Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.

A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ComradeCircuit@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

joined my local DSA and CPUSA

I've learned that CPUSA are just Democratic Party's puppet (because they used to endorse Hillary Clinton) and DSA are reformism. Isn't it true?

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah. It all started with Popular Front strategy of the Communist Party USA (1936). During the 1930s, the CPUSA did have a visible presence in unions, black freedom struggles, and anti-fascist coalitions, but this did not come about due to the popular front strategy, but in spite of it. The major successes of the CPUSA in organizing workers occurred before the popular front was implemented when the party experimented with militant united front tactics and still maintained its revolutionary identity. After adopting the popular front strategy, the CPUSA retreated from all that and, in the interests of the Soviet bureaucracy, the Communists ceased all their criticism of the labor bureaucracy, the Roosevelt administration, and liberal organizations. Over the course of the 1930s, the class character of the CPUSA changed as its members took up positions within the labor bureaucracy and clamped down on working class militancy.

As a result of the popular front, the CPUSA retreated from its advocacy of communist revolution and ended up as the “left-wing” of the Democrats and the New Deal. The “hidden secret” of why the anticommunist Michael Harrington (the founder of DSA) idealized the popular front was not because it was proof that socialism had mass influence or spoke the language of ordinary people. Rather, he liked the popular front because it was when the communists ceased to be revolutionary and gave up on militant action, self-organization of the working class, and “sectarian” political independence in order to become loyal allies of the labor bureaucracy and liberals. In other words, it was when communists acted like Michael Harrington's ideal of a democratic socialist.