Talk:Communist Party USA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Socialism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject United States (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Opening of the "History" section of the article[edit]

This is quite inadequate. It begins with a sentence stating "The Comintern was not happy with two communist parties" without having stated anything about the existence of two communist parties. Someone with expertise needs in the history of this subject needs to add a paragraph or two explaining the founding and the existence of the Communist Party of America and the Communist Labor Party, and why they were separate organizations.Saintonge235 (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

How many CPUSA mayors and aldermen are there? and were there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Older discussion can be found at:

Current membership[edit]

Recently, anonymously, without citation changed from 2,500 to 5,500. Neither number is cited, and I can't quickly find anything on line. Does someone have a decent citation on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The CPUSA does not publish membership figure (some might infer that this is because they are low) but party members I know suggest that even 2,500 is too high a number in reality.

The below news sources have sited that the membership is 3,000 Ap new york Newsday:,0,7022954.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork


I recall reading about Gus Hall when he died - perhaps in Time Magazine or one of the other popular periodicals, and I think I remmber it saying the actual card-carrying, active membership had dropped to less than 3,000...I recall being very surprised at how far they had dropped...In any event, 15,000 is surely too high...??? Engr105th 22:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The current membership of the CPUSA, as of 2011, is that of about 15,000. While, of course, not an exact down to the percent, number. It has more or less stayed at 15,000 for about seven to eight years. Since the Reagan years (1981-1989), membership has slowly, yet surely, increased. ZRetro (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As of late March 2011 there are precisely twenty members, forty of whom are FBI informants. TheScotch (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

as a party member we are not allowed to reveal the real number but it safe to say that its well above the twenty members and why does the FBI informants outnumbered the real members are you insulting our party sirEvensacornevensacorn (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

CPUSA and SWP[edit]

The article claims incorrectly that the CPUSA supported the prosecution of the Socialist Workers Party under the Smith Act. This is a terrible slander. It is true that the party didn't put much energy into defending SWP, but the Party's official position was always that it was against this prosecution. (Gerald Horne, Black Americans and American Socialism). The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bradj2424 (talk • contribs) 11 Dec 2005.

If the information in the article that CPUSA supported the prosecution of the Socialist Workers Party came from a source, that source has been lost or was never included in the article. I have seen that information in published sources but like all unsourced information it can be removed from the article. With respect to the source you provide you should also give the page the information is to be found on and perhaps the ISBN so your reference can be easily found. Fred Bauder 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that you fail to mention the fact that the SWP was used as a tool by the goverment to create factionalism and confusion. Below is the link:

Recent additions to lead[edit]

The lead paragraph currently refers to the party as "advocating the abolition of most privately-owned businesses, resources and goods and massive redistribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie." This is not necessarily inaccurate, but it may be a bit misleading. A few things:

  1. "Abolition of most privately-owned businesses" is certainly not in the party's "immediate program"; I suppose it is implicit in their call for socialist revolution, but the party has shown little sign in the last half-century of being a more than nominally revolutionary organization.
  2. "massive redistribution of wealth from the bourgeoisie" Again, insofar as the "immediate program" is concerned, the term "massive" seems out of line, unless one would also apply it to most of the European Union: much of what is called for in the "immediate program" is essentially commonplace in the EU.
  3. Using the word "bourgeoisie" here seems to be an effort to give a 19th-century cast to a present-day party: they rarely use this term themselves except when quoting old texts.

I have no objection to mentioning the party's stances in the lead section, but think there should at least be a distinction made between "immediate program" and vague calls for revolution. - Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this stuff is unsourced material that has no place in the article. My personal experience is that the Party has only one plank in their platform: control of any organization they participate in. Fred Bauder 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Fred (or his first sentence, I don't have the personal experience to confirm the second, though I've met plenty of other self-styled Marxist-Leninist organisations that would apply to). It sounds like somebody just lammed it all into the lead on the basis of what they thought a communist organisation must believe in. Palmiro | Talk 14:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


I think the sectioning has to be reorganized- this article has one of the scariest TOCs I've seen on wikipedia... Borisblue 21:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

CPUSA position on fascism[edit]

A recent edit has added the completely false allegation that, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the "CPUSA turned from fighting fascism." Further, a part of a newspaper page from the Washington Commonwealth Federation (WCF) has also been added.

It seems to me, if someone says that the CPUSA believed such and so, they should be able to quote from: 1) the offical organ of the Party, the Daily Worker, or 2) from books or pamphets by the national leadership of the Party, or 3) from resolutions passed at a national convention of the Party.

I don't see the relevance of the WCF newspaper at all. The unstated insinuation is that it was a Communist paper. The WCF was a liberal-left coaltion of groups for political and economic reform in the Puget Sound region of Washington State.

The WCF was a front group see A page on the Communist Party USA website which contains the following paragraph: "One anecdote from the 30s is about the Party caucus in the Washington State legislature. At one point, the caucus had six or seven members, all elected as Democrats, through the agency of the Washington Commonwealth Federation, including Tom Rabbit and Bill Pennock. When they wanted to meet, they would have the pages go around announcing a meeting of the “Committee on Roads and Bridges.” There was no such committee." So the illustration, though not fully explained, no one has yet tried to write the front group article, is fair enough. Fred Bauder 22:16, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Your "argument" is not convincing. 1) No evidence to call WCF a "front group". 2) No evidence that CP's peace talk was soft on fascism. 3) The insistence on using a third-hand source shows the weakness of the claims. --Jose Ramos 06:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No source has been supplied for the disputed allegations. If you cannot supply a primary source, shouldn't they be removed?

Encyclopaedia Britannica, or any other major encyclopedia, would never behave this way. --Jose Ramos 05:51, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

IN FACT Party propaganda against "Fascism" all but disappeared from the Party press. It is impossible to "cite" the dropping of a campaign other than to note that such propaganda no longer existed. This paralled the European-wide dropping of the struggle "against Fascism" as well with emphisis on fighting "imperialism".''--DW''

To address your ‘concerns’:
1) the offical organ of the Party, the Daily Worker
Earl Browder in the Daily Worker for February 25, 1941 "If my kind of crime rates four years in prison, what should be the punishment for Franklin Roosevelt, who got a third term [as president] on a false passport, a promise to keep America out of war? I think the supreme punishment for this crime will be written in history that he betrayed the peace and prosperity of the American people."
2) from books or pamphets by the national leadership of the Party
J Fields BEHIND THE WAR HEADLINES, Workers Library, 1940
3) from resolutions passed at a national convention of the Party
From May 31 to June 1, 1940 the 11CPUSA held a special antiwar conference in New York City that was attended by about two thousand party officials and delegates. A microfilmed transcript of the proceedings was sent to Moscow. Every party leader of note and many local members spoke at length opposing either assistance to Britain and France or American military preparation
A good source of information on this topic can be found in thr book, Soviet World of American Communism written by Harvey E. Klehr and John Earl Haynes. While I am sure you will doubt the creidibility of its authors, they have excelent documentation of what they write, backing it up with thousands of KGB documents, Venona transcripts, personal letters written by CPUSA officials, CIA and NSA documents, as well as plenty of clippings from the Daily worker. TDC 16:17, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There was strong support for fascism and anti-Semitism in America emanating from some very influential public figures, such as Henry Ford, Henry Luce (of Time Magazine), and the Catholic radio priest, Father Charles Coughlin, to name a few. There were forces who wanted the U.S. to go into war against the Soviet Union as an ally of Germany. If you examine the Communist peace talk in context, you will see that it opposed war against socialism and for fascism.

At the same time, U.S. industrialists were trading with Hitler. For example, the oil companies were actively arming Hitler, selling him crucial rubber technology and high-grade aviation fuel technology, obviously for his war machine. He had already used his airforce to bomb Spanish cities as, for example, Guernica.

To show the extent to which some were willing to go, look at what Senator Truman said: "If we see that Germany is winning the war we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible" (New York Times, June 24, 1941).

There was absolutely no diminution of anti-fascist feeling among Communists at any time whatsoever.

Communists had fought Hitler and Mussolini in Spain, a fight in which the U.S. was formally neutral. That is, Germany and Italy could invade Spain, but the U.S. government did not want to get involved to save the Spanish Republic, and actually interdicted aid to the legal government of Spain. This objectively aided the fascist cause. Germany and Italy were using Spain as a training ground for the coming war, and only the Left came to Spain's defense.

Further, the Soviet Union only entered into the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact after the pointed refusal of the U.S. and Britain to join the Soviet Union in multilateral action to "staitjacket the madman (Hitler)". Churchill was more interested in "strangling the Bolshevik baby in its crib". Communists saw this as an attempt by reactionary forces in the West to use Hitler to destroy the Soviet Union. --Jose Ramos 19:49, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Woah ... Slow down there. Most of your argument has nothing to do with the argument in question. Who cares about Ford, Couglin, Time magazine [btw, why would Hitler be a bad choice for man of the year in 38 when stalin was MOTY in 39, and the Nation Magazine's man of the decade in 1940?]. It has nothing o to with the article and not much to do with the point.
The CPUSA's members did loose respect for the party, well quite a few at any rate, when the CPUSA on direction from the Comitern, followed Moscow's stance on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Stalin, for whatever reason trusted Hitler, and entered into the pact thereby getting a chink of Poland.
A good example of this rank-n-file disillusionment is sci-fi author Frederick Pohl, who dropped out of the CPUSA around this time, when anti-facist talk went out the window for real-politick. It's detailed in his book _The Way the Future Was_.
If you still believe that Stalin did not trust Hitler then how does one explain the initial rout the Soviets faced during Barbarosa, when Soviet intel knew the exact date and time it was going to begin more than 6 weeks beforehand and relayed that info to Stalin.
From September 1939 to June 1941, when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, the CPUSA dropped its support for an antifascist Popular Front. It denounced President Roosevelt’s efforts to aid Britain, France, and other nations at war against Germany and opposed FDR’s reelection in 1940. The Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, led by Milton Wolff, tacked in parallel with the CPUSA and opposed all assistance to the anti-Nazi belligerents. After the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, all this changed. The CPUSA once again donned the cloak of antifascism, and the VALB called for American intervention in the war.
You seem to believe that the CPUSA was somehow driven by principal and ideology, instead of bieng nothing more than a puppet for whatever its Soviet bosses told them to do.
Well here are some revelations that can all be verified.
The CPUSA was controlled by Moscow.
All CPUSA officials were controlled by Moscow.
All CPUSA platforms reflected the will of Moscow.
Your bias is very obvious. --Jose Ramos 06:43, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
This is becoming more and more undeniable by the day, Mabey 10 or 15 years ago we could argue about the CPUSA and whether of not it was a Soviet puppet because at best all of my evidence would be circumstantial and hearsay.
This is no longer the case. Since 1991, there has been an avalanche of info on Soviet espionage and infiltration of western progressive movement like the anti nuclear movement.
As I continue to read and condense, this article will reflect these facts.TDC 20:45, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If the CPUSA wasn't a Soviet puppet, how do you explain all of the financial disbursements between the CPSU Central Committee to the CPUSA that were uncovered in the Soviet archives. That's not to mention that I interviewed Gen. Oleg Kalugin who personally oversaw the operation for the Soviets. He said the CPUSA was little more than a KGB front operation.-- 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The disputed language seems to be "Signing of a pact with Hitler meant that the CPUSA turned its focus from anti-fascism to advocacy of peace." This, of course, refers to the public activity of the Party, not to its ultimate goals, Perhaps, "Signing of a pact with Hitler meant that the CPUSA turned its focus of its public activity from anti-fascism to advocacy of peace." ? Fred Bauder 01:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My two cents: I am rarely in agreement with TDC on political matters, even historical ones, but there is no doubt that during the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact the CPUSA almost completely dropped the rhetoric of anti-fascism in favor of the rhetoric of peace. This is probably the greatest of the many embarrassments in the CPUSA's history, but that doesn't make it a lie. Plenty of CPUSA members said things during those few months that they disowned the moment the pact broke down.

On other matters discussed in this exchange: yes, CPUSA officials were pretty much controlled by Moscow; some of them at times tried to buck the Moscow line, but they were promptly booted out of the party. I would certainly agree that Moscow had a veto over the party platform, though I would not say that platforms were entirely dictated by Moscow: a veto is not the same thing as authorship. Conversely, at the local level, on particular actions or campaigns that were not of international significance, Moscow often had no clear line. As in almost any organization of this size in the U.S., there was a good deal of initiative from the bottom, and often it was allowed to go on for some time without much interference from above. But when it comes to things like Molotov-Ribbentrop? One could either follow the (repugnant) party line, lie low for a while, or leave the party. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ed Clark/Angela Davis ticket?[edit]

These two Ohio sites say,%201980-1989.pdf that in addition to the Libertarian Clark/Koch ticket, Clark was on the Communist Party ticket in place of the official candidate Gus Hall. Does anyone know why that might have been? Esquizombi 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

History or Propaganda?[edit]

Look the Cold War is over, we have the archives, the party was on the wrong side. Get over it. McCartyism destroyed the party as a political force. The actions of the Soviet Union did, and the party's habit of playing its tune on everything, from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to the Invasion of Afghanistan. It's over. Your parents were wrong, you were wrong. Anyone who still believes otherwise is a bloody narcissist. Let's do a real page here, warts and all -- which means in this case, a whole lot of warts! 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV. I have a different POV. Neither one belong in the article. One could make a case that COINTELPRO played a role. But it is true that a lot of factors were involved. I personlly think it was largely two things, problems with the policy taken by the CPUSA at a certain point, errors of leadership, and problems in Moscow, all exacerbated by COINTELPRO (the cointelpro files are open, after all, and like you said, there are a lot of warts!). Nonetheless, we don't need original research here. Comzero 15:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a crime to destroy a political party, whether communist, fascist, stalinist, theocrat, whatever, you can not say its OK to destroy the Communist Party, and then turn around and say oh look at the great thing the Constitution did in 1973, where it kicked out Richard Nixon, the only one ever to abuse executive power!

Is the end of the cold war a victory for capitalism? While for starters capitalism has only existed in a few parts of the third world, in all of history. Other economies have been similar to capitalism are fascism, corporate-state capitalism and mercantilism. Now socialists no longer have the noose of Stalin and the Soviet Union. I think it is a victory for Socialists and Communists(I am neither, however I am not an anti-communist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talkcontribs) 01:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not OR, many scholars have made this point. Defacto Soviet control of the part began long before COINTELPRO.
From the article:
The Washington Commonwealth Federation newspaper after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (The Washington Commonwealth Federation was an alleged Communist front organization)

The CPUSA was adamantly opposed to fascism during the Popular Front period. Although membership in the CPUSA rose to about 75,000 [1] by 1938, many members left the party after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Nonaggression Pact of 1939. Signing of a pact with Hitler meant that the CPUSA turned the focus of its public activities from anti-fascism to an advocate of peace. The CPUSA accused Winston Churchill and Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler and denouncing the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion. In allegiance to the Soviet Union, the party changed this policy again after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. So sudden was this change that CPUSA members of the UAW negotiating on behalf of the union reportedly changed their position from favoring strike action to opposing it in the same negotiating session.

The CPUSA was the one of the most vocal backers of the Smith Act; just so long as it was bieng used on Trotskyites. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
My point was that all of that nonsense about "wrong wrong wrong" is POV, and speculating about what "destroyed the party" is original research. I don't deny soviet money, support for the Smith Act against the SWP, etc. Comzero 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What's POV? To say that the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, to say they were wrong, or to say the C.P.U.S.A. were on the red side of the Cold War fence side? What this article should say is that every single member of the C.P.U.S.A was objectively (your terminology, not mine) working to bring the gulag to Idaho and were apologists for this . Having a section which should be entitled 'but, but, but We were nice to Blacks !!!!!' is sad, really, but whatever makes you feel better about your continued advcacy of the political equivalent of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre is fine I guess. I don't have time to keep changing the article every day like you guys - unlike the 'International Workers of the World', I have a job. 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of blacks, there is no mention of the Party's attitude toward blacks before the 1930's. Over the years I have seen several copies of the same pamphlet issued by the Party from the late 1920's. It advocated declaring all blacks ('Negroes') throughout the USA citizens of some 'United Negro Republic' they were going to establish in a couple of the states of the Deep South. The Negroes were then to be rounded up and deported to this 'Negro Republic' - the scheme was supposed to be based on Stalin's similar nationalities policy in the USSR at the time. Does anyone know where to find this? Some research on why the party changed its racial policy in the 1930's would also be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody in the CP argued for "round[ing] up and deport[ing]" blacks silly. The position of Moscow was that communist parties had to agitate for racial equality in their home countries and as a consequence the CP was the first primarily white organization not elusively devoted to civil rights to devote itself to the cause of african american human rights. This is what attracted prominent black intellectuals like du bois and paul robeson to the party. The Negro Republic in the south was an example of the consequences of depending on foreign directives for policy, since the comintern obviously didnt understand the realities of the u.s.. However there is nothing that far fetched about the idea, as would seem by contemporary standards. Numerous prominent and mainstream blacks called for racial separation or exodus back to africa. This was a reflection of the virulent institutionalization of white supremacy in the country with very violent attributes in the southern region. The Negro Republic was supposed to be formed in heavily black populated areas in the southern states and ethnic cleansing had nothing to do with it, otherwise this irreconcilably contradicts the CP's running of the first african american on a presidential ticket in the u.s. in 32, support for the scottsboro boys, which radicalized the naacp, etc.-af

POV edit[edit]

This edit [2] has some good points (I especially like the pipe from "Stalinist dictatorship" to Stalinism), but seems to simply substitute one point of view for another. Fred Bauder 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've restored my previous edits in a less POV way, leaving in the red scare and McCarthyism bits. Aside from jailing of party members, McCarthyism wasn't really responsible for the CP losing members so much as losing allies. Losing allies contributed to the party's loss of influence, of course, so I left it in this time, as I should have last time. From what I've read, what caused members of the CP to leave in the 50s wasn't McCarthy, but the growing realization of the truly evil nature of Communism. Argyriou 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:DJ Silverfish's reversion of my edits to Communist Party USA leaves the article with a very POV, and factually inaccurate, introduction. I have re-written the introduction again. Please discuss here or provide sources before reverting my edits.

Some notes:

  • The claim "played a defining role in the first phase of the US Labor movement" is ridiculous on its face, because the first phase of the US Labor movement occured in the 19th Century, before there was a CPUSA. The phrase "defining role" is also rather strong, given the evidence presented in the link.
  • The claim that the CPUSA "organized and led most major industrial unions" is also not supported by the evidence at the link, nor by the article on industrial unions or the article on the Congress of Industrial Organizations. The CP did play an important part in organizing some industrial unions, but not most.
  • There is no evidence presented in favor of the simplistic statement:
However, by the 1950s, the combined effects of the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, and the Cold War began to break apart the party's internal structure and confidence. Many members who did not wind up in long-term prison for party activity either quietly disappeared from its ranks or adopted more moderate political positions that were at odds with the CPUSA's basic program.
over my formulation
while the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, and the Cold War caused many of the party's former allies to distance themselves from the party, or to expel party members, diminishing the party's effectiveness.
The CPUSA says [3] that some of its leaders were jailed, but their version of history agrees more with my statement than yours.
  • My statement that "However, by the 1950s, the combined effects of Stalin dictatorship, the suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, and the publication of Kchrushchev's "Secret Speech" began to break apart the party's internal structure and confidence" was deleted, though evidence can be found in the History of the CPUSA over at], which reads in part:
Two international events of 1956 brought new chaos to the Party: the Soviet suppression of the Hungarian Revolution and revelations of Stalin’s misdeeds at the Twentieth Soviet Congress. Individuals long faithful to the Party now felt betrayed and wondered privately and openly if their political lives had been built upon self-delusion.
Self-appointed reformers centered around the Daily Worker briefly sought an internal transformation into an open, democratic movement. An unprecedented wave of collective self-criticism appeared in the pages of the Party’s national organ. The departure of many like-minded members, filled with despair or disgust, contributed to their defeat by doctrinaire loyalists. With the victors stood a considerable section of the ethnic faithful, many of whom had personally experienced the Palmer era repressions and now refused to be cowed by or to accept the various revelations as sufficient cause to leave the movement. Their now increasingly prominent presence, in a smaller organization, revealed a new demographic reality: the Party had been aging. This process was not as abrupt as it seemed. Recruitment of young people had peaked in the 1930s. That tendency would now
The citations used by Argyriou improve his/her edits. However, the edits themselves just have a different POV than the previous version, so probably still require a [citation needed] notation. It would be preferable to city these changes to scholarly articles, not othe Wikipedia pages or online encyclopedias. DJ Silverfish 01:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC), we *are* talking about this on the talk page. Where are you? Argyriou 02:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Phrases like "the Stalin dictatorship" are POV, so I compromised by adding "Secret Speech" into the list of things that helped break apart the CPUSA as an organization of mass influence and effectiveness. Perhaps the Hungarian Revolution piece should be re-added as well. However, as far as the phrasing of the reshuffling (read: mass exodus) of CP members at that time goes, my phrasing is meant to convey that there were three basic modes of departure other than, and separate from, the New Left. That is to say, three basic classifications for how these people left: 1) gone/disappeared/killed, 2) in jail; or 3) had turned to liberalism (that is, away from communism to a safer leftism). I agree with whoever wrote the "Self-appointed reformers" paragraph that yes, recruitment of young people peaked in the '30s, but it's also important to note that the New Left basically picked up where the CPUSA left off, and for its time and place, did nearly everything one (or a few times) better. 04:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The biggest annoyance I have with the changes people are making are the causes driving people from the party. Members of the CPUSA, by and large, didn't leave the party because of the McCarthyite repression, they left from disillusionment after the exposure of the contradictions of Communism. People and groups who had been sympathetic to the CPUSA dropped their alliances in the face of Red Scares and such, which contributed to the weakening of the CP's influence, but only indirectly to the diminishing of the membership.
On the other hand, I've been getting editor's myopia on this article, focusing too closely on the specifics of that paragraph while ignoring how badly that section is structured. I have a framework for a rewrite which I need to more fully work out. Argyriou 06:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of intro[edit]

The intro to this article is too long, is clumsy, and has some weird claims. I propose:

  • Retaining but rewriting the first paragraph. Is the CP no longer the largest communist party in the US? The first para should keep the stuff about unions and African-Americans (though the construction there is clumsy), but should also mention the obesiance to the directives of the CP Soviet Union, and the funding by the USSR from 1959-1989.
  • The second paragraph should be rewritten and moved to the history section, or deleted altogether.
  • The third paragraph should start about midway through the first sentence - Party leader and membership, party newspaper, and party goals are good info to have in the intro.
  • Fourth, fifth and sixth paragraphs should be moved into history, though the fifth and sixth might make a nice "future direction" section, like the Democratic Party and Republican Party articles.

Argyriou 01:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether the CP is still the largest communist party in the US. Trotskyists have such a habit of fissioning that it is hard to keep track. And so do the neo-Stalinists lately (Workers World Party / Party for Socialism and Liberation). Does anyone have anything citable on numbers?
Other than that, though, the lead doesn't seem disproportionate to the article. A good lead is a precis of the article, and this seems to be precisely that. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a crack at a full rewrite, here's the old version[edit]

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States.

For approximately the first half of the 20th century it was the largest and most widely influential communist party in the country, and played a prominent role in the U.S. labor movement from the 1920s through the 1940s, founding most of the country's major industrial unions (which would later implement the Smith Act) and pursuing intense anti-racist activity in workplaces and city communities throughout this first part of its existence. The CPUSA survived the Palmer Raids, the first Red Scare, and many similar attempts at suppression of communist activity by the Government of the United States through the end of World War II. By August 1919, only months after its founding, the CPUSA had 60,000 members, including anarchists and other radical leftists, while the more moderate Socialist Party of America had only 40,000.

By the 1950s, however, the combined effects of the second Red Scare, McCarthyism, the Secret Speech, and the Cold War began to break apart the party's internal structure and confidence. U.S. Government prosecution efforts were aided by the party's membership in the Comintern because it cast the Party not only as subversive, but also as a "foreign" agent. Members who did not end up in prison for party activities tended either to disappear quietly from its ranks or to adopt more moderate political positions that were at odds with the CPUSA's party line. By 1957, membership had dwindled to less than 10,000.

Effectively eliminated as a revolutionary opposition force, the party transformed its militant revolutionary line into a more evolutionary one, participating with more vigor in the U.S. electoral system and advocating "peaceful coexistence", a shift which by the early 1960s led to dozens of angry breakaways by more militant CP members who saw them as conciliatory "sellout" moves. This New Left continued to follow the idea of armed class war and generally turned to Mao Zedong for inspiration. The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 1968 led to further disillusionment and defections. Meanwhile, the major leaders of the American Civil Rights Movement were very careful to keep communists at arm's length for fear of also being branded communist—policies that isolated the CPUSA even further.

With continued erosion of what little mass support remained, and very little if any continued influence in mainstream politics, in the late 1980s the party finally became estranged even from the leadership of the Soviet Union itself. Its opposition to Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika meant the Communist Party of the Soviet Union cut off its support of the CPUSA in 1989. The party languished without state support from such a major entity. In 1991, the party held its convention and tried to resolve the issue of whether the collapse of the Soviet Union should mean that the Party reject Leninism. A Party majority reasserted its classic Marxist-Leninist line, and the faction urging social democracy left and established itself as the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.

The CPUSA has never regained the influence it wielded before the McCarthy period, and no longer espouses the ideology of its earlier days. Unlike similar groups in most parts of Europe, the CPUSA exercises no power within the U.S. government.

Although still proclaiming themselves advocates of a socialist revolution, the party today calls for a "peaceful transition to socialism" in the U.S. "wherever possible" and its constitution makes "advocacy of … force and violence or terrorism" a reason for expulsion from the party.(Constitution of the Communist Party of the United States of America, amended July 8, 2001 at the 27th National Convention, Milwaukee, WI. Article VII, Section 2: "…any member shall be expelled from the Party who is a strikebreaker, a provocateur, engaged in espionage, an informer, or who advocates force and violence or terrorism, or who participates in the activities of any group which acts to undermine or overthrow any democratic institutions through which the majority of the American people can express their right to determine their destiny." Accessed online 28 November 2006.)

The CP continues to exist as an organization, today under the leadership of Sam Webb, who asserts that the number of registered members has climbed to over 15,000.[4] The CPUSA is based in New York City, its newspaper is the People's Weekly World, and its monthly magazine is Political Affairs Magazine. The Party's stated goal is to achieve a free, prosperous, and peaceful society free of racism, sexism, homophobia, and exploitation, in which all people have the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential. Members from Gus Hall's period still remain within the party's ranks.

Carrite (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And here is the change version[edit]

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) is a Marxist-Leninist political party in the United States, established in 1919 and still existing today.

Emerging from the organized Left Wing of the Socialist Party of America, the first American Communists sought to build support among American workers for armed insurrection to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat and implement the soviet form of government. Fearful federal authorities reacted with a campaign of suppression, forcing the Communist movement into an underground existence of secret cells, where it was consumed by sectarian political infighting amongst the radicals themselves. At the behest of the Comintern the underground Communist organizations were unified and eased into to an aboveground existence over the course of the next several years. Bitter factional wrangling continued to grip the party throughout the decade of the 1920s, however, ending in the expulsions of Trotskyist and Lovestoneite factional dissidents.

The coming of the Great Depression and the emergence of fascism in Europe created a great opportunity for the CPUSA to build public support and to expand its role building the US labor movement. The party also was a leading voice in battles against lynching and other forms of blatant racial injustice and was decades ahead of the curve in arguing for social equality of the races. At the same time, the CPUSA proved itself to be blindly supportive of Joseph Stalin and the needs of Soviet foreign policy, ignoring or glossing over millions of deaths induced by forced collectivization of agriculture and secret police terror. Elements of the party were systematically employed for espionage on behalf of the Soviet intelligence service. As the Soviet-American World War II alliance came to a close, a new second Red Scare erupted, characterized by the blacklists and prosecutions of McCarthyism.

After Stalin's death in 1953, the revelations of Soviet Priemiere Nikita Khrushchev and violent suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution brought about a crisis of confidence among many rank and file members of the CPUSA. Membership dwindled. The party managed to recover its legs somewhat with its consistent opposition to the Vietnam War, but the uncritical support of the CPUSA for Leonid Brezhnev and an increasingly stultified and militaristic Soviet Union alienated liberals in the labor movement. At the same time, the party's aging membership demographics and bland calls for "peaceful coexistence" failed to speak to a new generation of American radicals.

With the rise of Mikhail Gorbachev and his effort to radically alter the Soviet economy and political system In the late 1980s, the CPUSA became estranged even from the leadership of the Soviet Union itself. Another crisis of confidence in the CPUSA shook the party's membership. In 1991, the party held its convention and tried to resolve the issue of whether the collapse of the Soviet Union should mean that the Party reject Leninism. The majority reasserted the party's traditional Marxist-Leninist line, prompting a minority faction which urged social democracy to exit the already depleted party.

The death of long-time party leader and Brezhnev stalwart Gus Hall in 2000 brought a new generation of leadership to the fore and the CPUSA has gradually evolved since into some approximation of a democratic socialist party.
Carrite (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


The effect of this sequence of edits, and, in particular, the way they are worded, is sheer red-baiting: "Look! The Democrats and are supported by the Communists". One mention, perhaps, but three? - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Having received no answer (and questioning also the uncited assertion that is "within the Democratic Party") I will remove all but one of these. By the way, the "citation" provided for some of this was simply to link the home page of the People's Weekly World, which of course changes weekly. - Jmabel | Talk 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the original point of those edits was to say "The CP is selling out to the Democrats", rather than to say "The Democrats are just Communists", so it's not really red-baiting. But it is stupidly done, unless there's a good source where someone in the CP says that they're urging people to vote Democrat because the Republicans are so much worse, or something like that. Go ahead and remove them, or find a way to re-write them. Argyriou 19:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As remarked, I removed all but one. Hmm, I didn't even consider that the intent might be to paint the CPUSA as Democrats rather than vice versa. Blue-baiting? - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"unless there's a good source where someone in the CP says that they're urging people to vote Democrat because the Republicans are so much worse, or something like that." Actually that is their policy and practice. I'll try to find a source, someday. Fred Bauder 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"We work to support candidates within the two-party system who offer real alternatives to the ultra-right, such as Paul Wellstone did." [5] Fred Bauder 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
"We also support progressive Democrats " [6] Fred Bauder 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Fred, go ahead and figure out a good way to say "The CP supports some elements in the Democrat Party", and the appropriate place to say it, and put it in the article, now that you've got some references. It's useful information, but the way it was presented previously was pretty POV. Argyriou 23:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Victor Perlo[edit]

Victor Perlo. The Economics of Racism, II. New York. International Publishers. 1996. ISBN 01717806987

This is an invalid ISBN. Does someone know the correct one? I find online references to The Economics of Racism by Perlo with ISBN 0717804186 (hardcover) and ISBN 0717804194 (softcover), both 1985; I presume this is a sequel. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Open secrets[edit]

"Some documents revealed that the CPUSA was actively involved in secretly recruiting party members from African-American groups and rural farm workers." Secretly? As I remember my history, they were doing this quite openly. - Jmabel | Talk 05:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a constant drive by some editors to deny any community context for CPUSA organizing, to affiliate every individual in a Popular Front organization with Joe Stalin, and to reduce the history of the CPUSA and all its participants to the "history of Soviet espionage in the United States". The quote cited by Jmabel is a good example of this effort. It makes a veiled refrence to the Share Croppers Union, which was organized by the TUUL. The union was no secret: it struck openly for contracts. Hosea Hudson's biography makes it clear that the CP was organizing fairly openly in Birmingham, Alabama in 1932. (Nell Irvin Painter; Hosea Hudson. Narrative of Hosea Hudson. pp. 85 – 87.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthor= (help)) Copies of the Daily Worker were distributed, meetings were held, etc. The organization was guarded, of course, because of the dangers of disruption or lynching. People didn't tell their employers they were joining the Party, but membership could be open in community contexts. DJ Silverfish 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Web Page[edit]

¿The CPUSA have a web page? ¡I can't find the link! (sorry by my english). Rakela 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's in the article, in the section Communist Party USA#CPUSA websites. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I was just having the same problem that Rakela had. Those links have to be organized better.--Jersey Devil 22:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A little to pro-communist for wikipedia?[edit]

Even the capitalist page isnt all rosy and great. But when I read this, the opening statements make it sound like the communist party of America was behind every great civil rights and/or equality movement of the 20th century in America.

I especially like this line: "Civil Rights leaders kept communists at arms length for fear of being branded a communist."

The Communist Party took an advanced position regarding minority rights. Whether their position was helpful or harmful is very difficult to say from this time. Certainly the average black person in America had no affinity for Stalinism, yet when they demanded civil rights were slandered. So the line makes sense and there is good authority for it. Fred Bauder 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That Line makes it sound like Civil Rights leaders were all pro-communism or at least not capitalist or socialist! Its an unbalanced, POV statement. Who says and what proof can be offered that Civil Rights leaders were not full fledged capitalists? Who says the same for socialists?

There are reliable sources for the statement, and, contrary to what you say, no position regarding Civil Rights leaders is implied, although other sources can show most had left wing tendencies. Fred Bauder 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen, CPUSA buds, its time we stop BSing everyone into trying to make em believe we are this rosy, great for all organization that is behind everything that helps normal people. I mean, this whole page reads like some kind of corporate press release, "we supported xxxx candidate that did xxxx for you because we believe in xxxx."

The Communist Party tries to track popular progressive sentiment for organizing purposes. They also strongly support the government of North Korea. Go figure. Fred Bauder 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop the BS. Thats all I have to say. **** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scryer 360 (talkcontribs) 26 November 2006.

We're doing the best we can. Generally no one known to be affiliated with the Communist Party edits this article, although there has been some anonymous editing by apparent activists. Fred Bauder 23:34, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any verifiction for the claim that "But in the decade ending in 1989, the membership in the CPUSA grew from 10,000 to 50,000, making it the fastest growing major party on the Left in the US"? I doubt this is true - if it is it would make the US party one of the few if any to grow in membership during this period. If citations are not added it should be deleted.

Not true at all, in fact, they split into two small factions, but they soldier on, fighting for the working people. Fred Bauder 21:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that this whole entry is ridiculous, and a whitewash on the CPUSA's history. One example: no mention of Alger Hiss anywhere in the whole entry? This entry should go under the "The Objectivity of this article is in dispute" heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

McCarthyism / Second Red Scare[edit]

DJ Silverfish, could you please explain why you insist on turning the broader term Second Red Scare into the narrower McCarthyism, and on not mentioning de-Stalinization as a major factor in the party's decline? On the former: the Second Red Scare includes McCarthyism, but the party continued to be under major attack from the U.S. government for a decade or so after Joe McCarthy died. On the latter: from what I understand from CPUSA members of the relevant generation (and there were several in my family) McCarthyism led to people lying low, but not usually actually quitting the party (since the latter clause of "are you now or have you ever been" didn't mean that leaving had much benefit), but the disillusionment after word got out about Khrushchev's repudiation of Stalin (not to mention the invasion of Hungary) was another matter: a year or so of intense discussion as to how the party could evolve, but resulting more in people deciding that their own evolution was away from the party. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Reason of decline[edit]

I'd like to bring into discussion this phrase: "The party has not yet fully recovered from the effects of McCarthyism, but it continues" Well, I think it is rather absurd to maintain that the problems with the party until today are linked to McCarthyism, more than with the upbringing of the poverty that communism left in a great part of Europe, the coming about of the horrors of stalinism etc. I don't think american people could agree with a regime that forbids younger than 18 to read the Bible (China), and that's quite probably the reason for the decline of the CPUSA. Of course, something like that wouldn't be written in the article like it is today, and I really think that is a shame for Wikipedia. If this was the first article I've read in Wikipedia, I'd think very low of it. (TSA)

I suppose something about the "dustbin of history".... Fred Bauder 19:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Peace Movement Ommission[edit]

It should be added in the "Peace Movement" section, that during the Vietnam War, the CPUSA called for "negotations" rather than an immediate end to the war. Other leftist groups were calling for the victory of the vietnamese national liberation struggle, others called for "bring the troops home", but the CPUSA said "negotiations" only. This is an important point about the way the CPUSA operates compared to other leftist groups. Saying they simply "opposed the war" without getting into nature of which they did so, misrepresents the political line of CPUSA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Please find a good source for this, and add it. Fred Bauder 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If true that would be an interesting point to add but as FB already stated such information must be properly cited.--Jersey Devil 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Period[edit]

I reverted some infantile vandalism in this section, but also cut out the following paragraphs:

At first Browder moved the party closer to Soviet interests, and helped to develop its secret apparatus or underground network. He also assisted in the recruitment of espionage sources and agents for the NKVD. Browder's own younger sister Margerite was an NKVD operative in Europe until removed from those duties at Browder's request.
It was at this point that the CPUSA's foreign policy platform came under the complete control of Stalin, who enforced his directives through his ruthless secret police and foreign intelligence service, the NKVD. The NKVD controlled the secret apparatus of the CPSA, including responsibility for political murders, kidnappings, and assassinations.
One of the founding members of the CPUSA was Juliet Stuart Poyntz, once a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR). Poyntz directed the CPUSA's women's department and the New York Workers School in the 1920s. Poyntz was on the staff of the Comintern affiliates' Friends of the Soviet Union and International Labor Defense. In 1934, Poyntz dropped out of open party activities and into Soviet military intelligence (GRU) through the CPUSA underground secret apparatus. She secretely visited Moscow in 1936, and while meeting with Soviet intelligence officials, observed Stalin's purges firsthand. She later returned to New York, where she complained bitterly to Carlo Tresca, a leading Italian-American radical of her disgust at witnessing the consequences of Stalin's Great Terror campaign.
Poyntz disappeared from her New York City home in 1937, and a police investigation turned up no clues to her fate. In early 1938 Carlo Tresca publicly accused the Soviets of kidnapping Poyntz in order to prevent her defection, recounting his prior conversation with Poyntz. Poyntz's kidnapping and apparent murder was the key to the ultimate unraveling of the CPUSA secret apparatus. Whittaker Chambers, a former Soviet NKVD agent, said he heard Poyntz had been killed for attempted desertion, and this rumor contributed to his caution when he defected from the party in 1938. Elizabeth Bentley, another Soviet agent who defected to U.S. intelligence, stated that in the late 1930s her controller Jacob Golos, and later in 1945 KGB officer, Anatoli Gromov, told her Poyntz had been a traitor and was now dead.

I don't take any position on whether any of this is true or false, since I've never heard of Poyntz or Browder's daughter. It is out of place, however, in a discussion of Third Period politics. It could be moved to the section on Espionage, but frankly it looks too speculative to merit inclusion even there. This article is, moreover, already too long and a little pruning would do it good; even the talk page is 38 kb long.

I also toned down the phrase "organized and led most major industrial unions," which is, as others have pointed out, an overstatement, to put it mildly. Italo Svevo 03:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

2008 Presidential Ticket[edit]

The article notes the exsistance of a presidential ticket for the year 2008, but no source. Is there any source for this claim--Engelmann15 11:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this is true. The party isn't strong enough yet for a national run. MC John

Not true at all. The CPUSA supported the Democratic nominee, as they have done for the last 5 or so electons. Carrite (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

CPUSA as a political party[edit]

I'm sorry, but what's the point of this being a political party that tries to get elected? Doesn't communism work by power being transferred during the revolution, not to a pre-existing political party, but a pre-existing workers' council? And then the party is there to administer it? Isn't the CPUSA just supporting the American electoral system in place, by existing within it and under it? Isn't that just encouraging the democratic form of government that Marx hoped to circumvent and defeat? This may not have much to do with the article, but can someone please just provide me with some answers anyway? VolatileChemical 09:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

VolatileChemical, For one answer to your question, please see: [7] --Horse Badorties 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, while this may seem far-fetched in American electoral politics, there have been instances of Communist Parties being democratically elected elsewhere in the world. The example that comes to mind is Moldova, post-Soviet breakup.--Apjohns54 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are so many opposed to the CPUSA being described as a social-democratic party? Any serious look at them has to arrive at that conclusion... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Communism != Social democracy. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed section "Anti-CPUSA Articles"[edit]

I removed the section "Anti-CPUSA Articles", which contained only one link, in any case. No other U.S. political party has such a section on its page. The Democratic Party has no such section. The Republican Party has no such section. The Libertarian Party has no such section. Even the Green Party has no such section. If the link to this article belongs anywhere, it would be on the Anti-communism page. --Horse Badorties 14:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits by TDC[edit]

User:TDC, a well known and frequently -blocked [8] reverter on this page, continues to remove the caveats given to the Mitrokhin Archive. I find this improper for two reasons:

  • 1. TDC presents Mitrokhin's claims as fact, when they are merely notes one man allegedly took over thirty years.
  • 2. Historians such as Getty have found the material problematic given it's single-sourced and fantastic claims. American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001) [9]

TDC claims Mitrokhin's material is cited, but look closely. The cites refer back to the Mitrokhin archive itself. This is circular verification. I believe removing the caveats given to the Mitrokhin material is tendentious at best, POV at worst.

Passage TDC removes:

Mitrokhin's claims were based on notes allegedly taken from the Former Soviet Union. Historian J. Arch Getty of the UCLA in the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): found Mitrokhin's material to be “fascinating," but he also questioned plausibility that Mitrokhin could have smuggled and transcribed thousands of KGB documents, undetected, over 30 years. Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [10] Raman points out that Mitrokhin did not bring either the original documents or photocopies. Instead, he brought handwritten/typed notes of the contents of the documents.

I believe the caveats should be reinstated. Abe Froman 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I dont think it should be reinstated. References #15-22 constitue the lions share of the material in the subsection. To state that I am presenting Mitrokhin's material is a lie. None of the material is cited to Andrew. The fact that the CPUSA was both funded by the Soviets and invovled in espionage for the Soviets is documented outside of just Andrew and Mitrokinh. The material in question has been in the article in its present form for nearly 2 years, and no one has found any objection to it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet funding of the Party and espionage[edit]

There are problems with TDC's citations used in Soviet funding of the Party and espionage. They do not categorically say what he claims. For example:
  • Citation 15. A clear case of WP:RS. The first citation anchoring the claim of KGB payment to CPUSA is a personal website, repeating allegations made in 1988. [11] One would think reliable information would have surfaced in the intervening 19 years. In the second citation anchoring the direct payment claim, "The Soviet World of American Communism," the authors state "although testimony by ex-communists and exposes' about CPUSA frequently allude to the subsidies (From the Former Soviet Union), there has been only limited documentary evidence they ever existed. But Tales of 'Moscow Gold' persist, based on secondhand reports and oral testimony." (page 108) [12] TDC overreaches using these cites to present the direct payments as fact. Indeed, his very own sources are uncomfortable with the "secondhand reports and oral testimony," [13] they must base their history on.
  • Citations 16, 17, 18, 19. There are no page numbers anchoring the cites for the specific claims of active CPUSA conspiracy. At the very least, there should be page numbers. See WP:CITE. Ideally, passages or pointers from the citations should be used to clarify from which cite these accusations are coming from.
The problems with these citations must be fixed before anything in this passage is presented as fact. Without fixed citations and caveats for information that is secondhand or oral, this section is incomplete.
Abe Froman 22:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Good post, this shows perfectly why we should not be presenting these controversial allegations as fact.
I would also like to add that the paragraph I made showing the context of the US government engaging in the same activities that some are accusing the Soviet Union and CPUSA of engaging in is highly relevant. If the accusations made against the CPUSA are true, readers would certainly be interested to know the fact that the US government was also funding political parties all around the world as well. My paragraph was cited - I even provided a link to a chapter of a book by a well known researcher on the topic, in addition to wikilinks to other relevant articles on this site. This paragraph should stay, in addition to the accurate version of events showing the dubious nature of the charges made against the CPUSA. Cmrdm 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is not about what the US did or did not do, but it is about the CPUSA. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
"Abe", these edits are not mine persay, but since you are gunning for a fight, I would be more than happy to cite them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation 15: Had you spent 2 minutes looking for the source instead of gunning for the worlds most disruptive editor, you would have found these:

In 1987, Hall received $2 million from the Soviet government for his party's expenses, according to formerly top secret documents quoted early in 1992 by The Washington Post. Payments to client parties ceased in 1990, after anti-communist revolutions swept across eastern Europe.

In the early days of the Communist International, the CPs around the world fought to defend the first workers state by conducting the struggle for socialism in their own countries, thus concretely aiding the embattled Revolution in Russia. Gus Hall's financial arrangements, however, had nothing to do with aiding the working class in the USSR. The money from Moscow showed that after decades of defending the indefensible, the American CP became dependent for its continued existence to no small degree on cash doled out by the regime it served politically.

In further documentary evidence, on February 29, 1992, the Washington Post published a picture of a receipt for two million dollars in CPSU funds, dated March 14, 1987, signed by Gus Hall, head of the Communist Party of the United States.

No one has ever doubted the veracity of the information before, so if there is a specific citation you require, tag it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You are taking the source out of context:

Pg 107

From virtually the moment it was created, the Communist Party of the united states of America depended on financial support from the Soviet Union.


A combination of scare domestic resources and ambitious far-reaching goals persuaded the American Communists to accept large subsidies from abroad in spite of the political and legal risks involved.


"The documentary evidence published here for the first time, however confirms the substantial role Soviet funding played in the life of the CPUSA, from the orgins of the party until the collapse of the Soviet Union. The RTsKhIDNI archives contain hundreds of documents that bear on the financial matters.

The release of the Venona papers, and other material from the Soviet archives in the 1990s, cast a dark shadow over this revisionism. Documents revealed that from its beginnings the Communist Party in the United States received huge clandestine subsidies from the Soviet Union; that Moscow dictated Party policy; that large numbers of Americans who joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War were executed by Soviet agents under direct orders from the Kremlin; and that, yes, many of those accused of spying during the early years of the Cold War actually were spies, including Harry Dexter White, Lauchlin Currie, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Victor Perlo, and Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

From TDC's recent reverts, I find it ironic TDC cannot see his own sources used to provide a contextual description of the information in his passage. It speaks lengths to his intentions on this page. The passage continually reverted is from TDC's source, "The Soviet World of American Communism" as quoted below:

Outside oral histories, historians studying the former Soviet Union cannot confirm the direct payments. "Although testimony by ex-communists and exposes' about CPUSA frequently allude to the subsidies (From the Former Soviet Union), there has been only limited documentary evidence they ever existed. But Tales of 'Moscow Gold' persist, based on secondhand reports and oral testimony." (page 108) [14]Abe Froman 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

TDC relies on "The Soviet World of American Communism" to establish payments between the KGB and CPUSA. But his source does not say what TDC claims. His source claims "secondhand" and "oral" testimony are responsible for establishing this claim. Deleting this caveat, especially given it hails from TDC's own source, violates WP:NPOV by deliberately hiding information that gives the full account of the citation's claims. Abe Froman 14:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
And the rest of the chapter goes on to talk about ''The documentary evidence published here for the first time to make a new mores olid and documented cas which did not previously exist. If you are going to take the time to investigate a source, read it in its totality. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Where is this evidence? Page numbers and passages will help. Abe Froman 14:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
pg 159 has a copy of a document from the First Main Directorate regarding the payment of $3million to the CPUSA, and pg 158 has the signed receipt. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I read through the source, and it's legitimate. I'm dropping this. Abe Froman 15:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd love to gloat here, but I think the record speaks for itself. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


I had know clue this exsisted and i am surprised that the party exists because most people (hopefully) find this a little frightning. have there been any attempts to eliminate the pary? Thats a little extreme in a democracy but still many people would understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please inform yourself a bit about communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Anti-Communist! Great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


The Intro Section is a bit too long, does anyone agree with me here? If I would have the necessary knowledge about the CPUSA I'd restructure it myself but unfortunately I don't. It would be great if anyone could actually adopt this for me. --RasNehemia (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The intro grossly inflates the party's importance. I haven't read the whole article, but most articles on communist parties at Wikipedia suffer from this fault. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to (Intelligent Mr Toad), CPUSA was and is one of the most contentious ideas in modern american history. I am not saying that they infleunced everything. But from the 30s to the late 60ss communism was an idea that severly threatened the u.s. governments control. You can find countless references to communist scares and demonization and fearmongering from the u.s. govt regarding communism. From the Red Scare, JFK, Mccarthyism & Huac, Raegan, even against perceived cuban socialism. Communism, though it is weakened at the moment was hands down the biggest threat to the u.s. govt since the civil war. They fought several wars over it vietnam, afghanistan, korea, and several other cold and hot wars against communism. CPUSA was Moscow's organization in the US, PLP was Beijing's organization in the U.S. They both had many people jailed or killed by direct responses and fears of the government. Even though communism has not taken hold in the U.S., I think that any person who learns about U.S. history knows that communism is the most dangerous enemy of capitalists. If anything the intro is understated in true CP form.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed recently a dramatic change of the intro to this article which is decidedly editorial in nature and makes many claims without citation. I cannot figure out where these edits came from or why. Please help me understand. For instance, "This approximates the goals of many social welfare-oriented leftists such as US-based social democrats and Progressive Democrats of America, despite the CPUSA's self-proclaimed communist label. Members from Gus Hall's period still remain within the party's ranks."

--ldellapiana (talk) 18:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Communist or Social Democratic[edit]

under the leadership of Sam Webb, many claim the party is Social-Democratic not Marxist. although there certainly some Marxist elements in the Party, can many recent positions count as complete disqualification for the "Communist, Marxist-Leninist" label in the info box? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The party is still officially Marxist Leninist, as you can see from their literature -- whereas the social democratic elements were present even under Gus Hall's leadership in the 1980s and 1990s. Since Marxist-Leninist parties do participate in electoral politics (and even form alliances with other sections of the political left - as, for instance, during the 1930s), I do not think that any revision needs to be made to the info box. (talk) 07:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be cited as both. Self proclaimed Marxist-Leninist and Social-Democratic in practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's place is not to judge whether a party that still calls itself the "Communist Party USA" is really Communist or not so Communist. The CP says it's still Marxist-Leninist, and while it's ok to note that critics have questioned this, it gets into POV territory when you start claiming that it's not "really" Communist. Cadriel (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it can be interesting to read the recent article of Sam Webb that support a socialdemocratification of the party and that provocked a great debate. -- (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

Would anyone like to make an external link to the Progressive Labor Party which is an offshoot of CPUSA. My idea is that a wiki can bring a lot of information to readers, so lets put more out there.--Willdw79 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DeLeon and the SLP[edit]

I added a citation added to the sentence calling DeLeon's political positions anarcho-syndicalist as both DeLeon and his followers and anarcho-syndicalists would deny it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No citation to this quote[edit]

As a result, there are many young Black and Hispanic members of the organization.

There is no citation to this quote. There is no way of knowing whether or not this is correct. Tom173.61.36.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC).

Bibliography moved[edit]

I took the liberty of splittiing out the very long bibliography into its own page, hoping to lose the VERY LONG tag up top. I suggest that the same thing needs to be done for the Ideology section, but that's more than I want to take on today... Carrite (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Political position[edit]

The political position in the info-box says "fiscal far left, social far left". This does not transmit meaningful information and therefore I will remove it. The info-box already says that their ideology is "Communist". TFD (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Emerging from the organized Left Wing of the Socialist Party of America, the first American Communists sought to build support among American workers to overthrow capitalism, support the Soviet Union and implement what later was known as Stalinism by establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat in America. (James P. Cannon, pp. 4-7, 11, 299-304, 353-55)[15]

I do not think that the source supports this statement and wonder why one sentence is sourced to so many pages. The book distinguishes Stalinism from Leninism (p. 7). Since the original party and its leadership split over loyalty to Stalin, Trotsky and the Right Opposition in the 1920s, it does not make sense to call them Stalinist in 1919. How could Cannon be described as a Stalinist? TFD (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Restoring valid edits[edit]

After I cleaned up the article in the ways listed below and identified in the comment line, another editor reverted most of my edits and added some citations, using the comment"adding citations". Adding citations is good, but reverting another editor's valid edits is rude. please do not do it. i have restored my version. Please make your edits to that version. Here are the explanations of my edits:

  • remove repeated links per WP:REPEATLINK - there is no need to link "Soviet Union" three times in the same section, or "NKVD" twice in the same paragraph
  • provided full names in stead of last names for fgures like "Vladimir Lenin" for example -- an encyclopedia deserves a more formal writing style
  • spell out acronyms like "FBI" on the first use per WP:MOS
  • direct quotations are not italicized in Wikipedia
  • spell out numbers ten and under per WP:MOSNUM
  • do not repeat the article title in subheadings per WP:HEAD
  • fix subheading capitalization per WP:HEAD

Ground Zero | t 22:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

the problems is that Ground Zero was doing too much simultaneously. He DELETED good text that needed citations (I replaced the text and added citations), and he also in the same edit made a lot of little changes, like spelling out FBI. It's much better to do one project at a time, and my apologies for the loss of his little edits. he now wants to "solve" the problem by erasing all the citations that have been added, as well as erasing the text they referenced. that makes the article much worse. Rjensen (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted text that had been marked with "citation needed" tags since February 2007, April 2007 or November 2009. That is what we are supposed to do. There was more than even time for interested people to provide citations for this material. Removing old, uncited material is how Wikipedia gets cleaned up. Wikipedia is not a repository for things that people make up. If something is contentious, and no source is provided, it must be removed.
See Template:Citation needed, which says "Where there is some uncertainty about its accuracy, most editors are willing to wait about a month to see whether a citation can be provided." These sections had been tagged for at least eleven months, and in some cases three and a half years.
You have restored lots of repeated links that add unnecessary clutter, like linking "NKVD" twice in the same paragraph, and repetitions of "Soviet Union" and "Comintern". You have restored incorrect boldfacing -- see WP:BOLDFACE. You have shortened full names like "Harry S. Truman" and "Vladimir Lenin" down to just the last name, which is incorrect when the name is appearing for the first time in the article.
You restored "4" where I had spelled out "four" per WP:MOSNUM and just about every style guide there is. You messed up the headings -- see WP:HEAD. And the "Potential Legal Implications" section is a complete mess. Quoting from the Criminal Code of Georgia is not necessary in the article. This should be in a footnote.
You could have re-added the material for which you were providing citations without restoring all of these errors. You can see the differences between our versions here. Please restore the corrections that you removed. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 13:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
All the serious ones have been restoped....the world can live with "4" for four, but it can't go on with info and citations erased. Rjensen (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you please restore the valid edits that you obliterated without cause? The deletions I made were valid -- they had been left unsourced for way too long. You could have restored the deleted materials with sources without screwing up the formatting and the linking again. I am glad that you added citations, but really ticked off that you messed up the formatting and linking for no good reason. Ground Zero | t 18:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Long live Communism!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


Theres a section I noticed called Communism expansion plan, I do not think it's neutral. if you read the source it sarcastically makes a plan how communist would do to take over. Also the source isn't from an official CPUSA member or official stating their goals. Spongie555 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose merging into this article the content from Chairman of the Communist Party of the United States of America, as it would fit well in the "Top party leaders" section. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

"Top Party Leaders" section only names the leaders and their title, not elaborate on the positions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

New Outlook publishing[edit]

It would be good to note that the party ran a publisher, New Outlook Publishing in the 1970s. I believe it ran "International Publishers" in the 1980s. A discussion of its publishing houses/fronts would be useful.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

James G. Ryan as a source[edit]

Almost every single bit of this article that cites James G. Ryan's piece does so wrongly. The piece in question does not mention any of the information it is cited as doing so. This needs to be addressed. This is a false citation. ( (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC))

Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism by James Gilbert Ryan (Dec 8, 1999). I'm buying it and will check. Some cited information seems rather far-fetched and out of character even for the Russians. "It was at this point that the CPUSA's foreign policy platform came under the complete control of Stalin, who enforced his directives through his secret police and foreign intelligence service, the NKVD. The NKVD controlled the secret apparatus of the CPUSA, including responsibility for political murders, kidnappings, and assassinations." User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to archive[edit]

Copied from User talk:Hu12:

Could you give a reason for removing this link? Please reply here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 17:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, This and this should help explain it. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have no comment on the general case, but the particular link you removed is to a very valuable archive that, as far as I know, is not available elsewhere. Part of the objection seems to be that someone connected with the website is inserting the links. I have examined the contents reached by the link and can determine that the content is quite informative and useful with respect to history of the subject. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Position in the political spectrum[edit]

How to describe various parties' position in the political spectrum comes up across all these articles. My recommendation is to remove them from the info-box. In this case we disclose in the info-box that the ideology of the Communist Party USA is a communism. (Usually the name of a party is a good indication of its ideology.) Let the reader determine where communism fits in the political spectrum. There is a consensus that communism is part of the Left. The term "far left" however is problematic. It usually means following an extreme form of communism and carrying out violent actions, neither of which describes the CPUSA. In journalese however the term can be used more loosely, so that some sitting congressmen are called far left. Note too that political position is no longer a field in the template. TFD (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Bush Doctrine[edit]

Is it really fair to hyperlink the phrase "invade any nation" to the Bush Doctrine? Defenders of the Bush Doctrine would surely not phrase it as such, or probably even defend such an idea. Seems too POV for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James XV (talkcontribs) 06:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

it was a bad link for many reasons - Bush Doctrine is already linked in the sentence leading to the quote, and content in direct quotes should not be linked anyway, particularly piped. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Creation of "History of the Communist Party USA"[edit]

History of the Communist Party USA currently redirects to this article; however, much of the content of this article consists of history rather than being descriptive of the current party and its organization and views. I would like to move this article to History of the Communist Party USA and create a new article here which would contain only a few paragraphs about its history and whatever we can determine about the current party. There are not a lot of current references available, despite the current ferment within it over what posture it should take. User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that we should follow WP:AVOIDSPLIT. It may be difficult writing an article due to few sources and general lack of interest. The information on the party today is taken from the party's website and should be scaled back. Otherwise the only rs on the party is a brief mention in a NYT article. I imagine that most readers who come to this article are most interested about the party in the 30s, 40s and 50s, not today. I suggest that we should first try to add information about the party today, using reliable third party sources, and split the article if that section becomes large enough to justify a separate article. TFD (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That the article would be a stub is perhaps unavoidable, but that is how all articles about subjects regarding which little is known begin. Our current article is about history and not much else. User:Fred Bauder Talk 08:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with The Four Deuces. The history of the party is the most notable thing about it. As a current entity, it barely exists. An article about CPUSA that mostly talks about its history is a completely appropriate article. john k (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
You say "As a current entity, it barely exists."; yet we have a big article. Should our article not reflect reality? We do have articles such as Roman Empire which consist wholly of history, but these are not about subjects which continue to exist. I'm not proposing that history be removed from the article, simply summarized. User:Fred Bauder Talk 13:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that this subject needs to be re-opened. The Communist Party USA is an active and growing contemporary political party, the page should reflect this by describing its current operations. As it is now, the article is about 90% history and 10% contemporary. Both the Republican and Democratic parties of the US have separate history pages, the CP has a complex history in the 20th Century which goes into such detail here it should be so elaborated on in its own article. This may well make for a decrease in quantity of content in this article, but the quality will be more appropriate.--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are insufficient secondary sources about the modern party to create more than a stub, if that. Can you provide any books, academic papers or even news stories that could be used? TFD (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think additional material is needed beyond what there currently is. The page History of the Communist Party USA should have what is currently under 'history' and move the bulk of the introduction into the 'history' section. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Once you strip out the history, all that I left is material source to the CPUSA. Such an article would fail "notability" and would either be deleted or merged into the history article. TFD (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: In that case could you please explain why the Communist Party is being singled out for such a reason, and why the majority of other minor political parties in the United States' pages are not held to such strictness? --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You responded to a discussion thread more than 6 months after I replied. Could you please start another discussion thread. TFD (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

"Stalinist sect" is bais term[edit]

This quote "a more nuanced portrayal of the party as both a Stalinist sect tied to a vicious regime and the most dynamic organization within the American Left during the 1930s and '40s" is negatively biased towards the communist party, USA. Since the word "Stalinism" is a term used against Marxist-Leninists and know one that identifies as a Marxist Leninist uses that term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earchiel (talkcontribs) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

While it may be that the author was prejudiced against the party, it is a mainstream view that is presented as an opinion. Since we are not endorsing the opinion, it is not POV. TFD (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Footnote error[edit]

The first footnote says "Missing or empty |title= ". How do we fix this? Should we copy and paste the page's title? Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. TFD (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

History of the Communist Party USA[edit]

As the article currently stand (and I believe that this is the result of a political agenda), one is swayed to believe that the Communist Party is a part of history that existed a long time ago rather than it being what it is which is an active and growing political party in the US. No other current US political party is given so much attention to its history and its current platform and activity given so little. I therefore corrected this and opened the History page so that the lengthy history section could have its own article and the lead which consisted of multiple paragraphs of past history into the history section, replacing its place in the lead with information on what the CPUSA actually advocates, the same content format as is used on nearly all other political party articles. This resulted in an ideal proportionality of content equal to most other political party articles, which led me to wonder why on earth this hasn't already been done since such an experimental idea resulted in something that makes perfect sense. I therefore decided to submit it, however it was met with a reversion which leads me here. I want to stress that this transition shouldn't have any gains in content, only relocating things to be more proportional. Any constructive contributions to carrying out this transition are welcome.-- (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not the result of a political agenda, but Wikipedia policy, although of course that policy may be the result of a political agenda. Articles are supposed to be based on reliable secondary sources. The fact is that no one writes about the CPUSA today, so notability probably would not allow an article were it not for its history. Notice that all your sources about the party today come from its website, which is contrary to policy.
If you believe the CPUSA should receive more coverage in secondary sources, then you could persuade news media to cover them and academics to publish articles and books about them. Then we would have sources that would justify separating out the history. However, editors are free to click on the link to the CPUSA website and read what they have to say about themselves and decide for themselves how to evaluate their claims.
TFD (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Then I would like to know why this policy isn't being enforced on all other US third party articles. For instance, the Green Party, American Conservative Party, Christian Liberty Party, Independent American Party, Party for Socialism and Liberation among many others are almost entirely referenced to their organization's national and state websites, especially the Green Party, on that article almost everything that isn't election results links to a Green Party website. Also, wouldn't that mean that most of the content that isn't pertaining to history should be removed? Because this change wouldn't not be adding any new content, it would be keeping the present content and if the present content wouldn't be able to stand after the change I don't see why it should stand now if we're going to be logically consistent. -- (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
For some reason, I have not gotten a response which leads me to conclude that the previous reorganizing was justified. -- (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your response. The fact that other articles are written in violation of policy does not justify violating policy here. See "Other stuff exists". Most of these articles are tagged for being in violation of policy: ACP (not notable), CLP (poorly sourced), ILP (poorly sourced, too many primary sources).
There have been lots disputes on articles about far right parties where their supporters want to include primary sources. The problem there is not that there is a shortage of reliable primary sources, but that their supporters object to their depiction in mainstream writing, for example here. Surely you can appreciate why articles about fascists should not be based on what they write about themselves. The same is true of all political groups.
TFD (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Use of "the" when referring to the party[edit]

When I look at the name of the communist party of the United States (Communist Party USA), I think of it as "the Communist Party" or "Communist Party USA (without the "the"). Saying "the Communist Party USA" does not seem right, even if the party itself uses "the" in this manner. Perhaps some clarification as to this usage of "the" could be given? Dustin (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems fine to me and the formal name is still "the Communist Party of the United States of America." TFD (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Promoting a book[edit]

The last paragraph in the section “Second Red Scare (1947–1958)” is basically an advertisement for William Z. Foster’s book History of the Communist Party of the United States, with a long quote of Foster’s view of Party history. I don’t see that this paragraph adds anything to the article other than promote the book and views of one person. Comments? Plazak (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A two sentence quote about the CPUSA by its leader at the time is not undue. While the article is rightly based on third party sources, occasional mentions of opinions of its leaders is fine. TFD (talk) 03:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Since the book was published in 1952 and has been out of print since 1968, it is hard to see including a quote from it as an "advertisement". The book is often cited by scholars writing about this party. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How did these people end up in Prison?[edit]

For Politics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

If you want to ask factual questions about the Communist Party USA, please use the reference desk. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening paragraph[edit]

"It is the largest communist party in the country." - what is the source for this? (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)