The Brouhaha Regarding CP Members

topic 46


The Brouhaha Regarding CP Members

deleonism.org Forum Index -> International De Leonist
Federation (IDF)


Karl H. Nudelman



Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Location: Bloomfield, New Jersey U.S.A.
Posted: 09 Apr 2005 09:20 pm



Sat. April 9,2005 I am Karl Nudelman, and I am the CPer to whom ,
I think, Vince DeBenedetto was referring. I joined the CP, because
tactically, I am a reformist, and it just so happens that the CP
has been doing really excellent, strongly motivated reformist
work. However, I also believe that the struggle for socialism
needs to take place on several levels, and one of those levels is
"visioning" and, in so doing, BEING SPECIFIC about the
institutions which workers and their allies ought to set up after
the revolution. To this latter end, I along with Matt Helme am
presently working on a project. Namely, we are in the process of
setting up a conference, and by the way, Vince has got a lot of
god-forsaken nerve trying to sabotage this conference. The
conference is entitled De Leonism, Participatory Democracy, and
Life After Capitalism. This conference will take place on Saturday
May 7, 2005 at Hudson County Community College 25 Journal Square
Jersey City, New Jersey from 10:00 A.M. to 4:00 PM. I'm using this
forum to tell you this, because unfortunately, there is a very
narrow niche-market for a conference on De Leonism, and those of
you who frequent the De Leonism.org website are, by and large,
"it." For more information and directions to the college, I urge
you to e-mail me at karlnud@yahoo.com , call me at home at (973)
748-9335 or call me at work at (973) 321-3368. Do not worry if you
get my co-worker's voice-mail. She will give me the message. So
long for now, and long live workers' self-management!




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 492

Posted: 09 Apr 2005 10:08 pm




Ooops! Karl, after I said I would post an ad for your meeting, and
then you sent me the info, I got bogged down trying to transfer my
email inbox from my broken computer to my new computer, so I
didn't do it for you.


Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 10 Apr 2005 06:21 am




"Long Live Workers Self Management"! Is that Socialism comrade?
Look at workers Self Management in many party of the Socialist
world in Eastern Europe and you will see it was nothing more than
thinly vailed capitalism.




Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 10 Apr 2005 07:26 am Post subject: Self Management




" The traditional Socialist principal of distribution- " To each
according to his work"- has been revised by the Yugoslaves,
becoming " To each according to the factors supplied by the human
agent or to wich the human agent has access , as valued on the (
imperfect) market. This principal is scarcely distinguishable from
that of private enterprise.

" What has happened in Yugoslavia is that the Social ownership of
productive factors has been eroded and private ownership has been
established. The concept of social ownership of productive
factors,always vague, in fact proved vacuous. Gradually, certin
members of society acquired effective property rights which
prevailed over social property.... Although title to the asset
remains in the name of society, exclusive rights granted
enterprise members amount to private property rights, albeit in
group rather than individual form ." Source: Deborah Milenkovitch,
" Which Direction for Yugoslavia's Economy?" East Europe ( July
1969), p. 17

The same thing is taking place in China and Vietnam today, and it
took place in the USSR in the mid 80's. Self management and Market
socialism are tools some people on the right use to distort and
destroy Socialism. That may be harsh language but Mao Tse-Tung the
former Chair of the Communist Party of China Called the current
breed of Chinese leaders " Capitalist Roaders" and many where
condemed during the Cultural Revolution in China in the 60's. Was
he right? I think history has proven him right.




davesearles



Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Vermont
Posted: 10 Apr 2005 02:44 pm Post subject:




Matt wrote:

The traditional Socialist principal of distribution- " To each
according to his work"-

Dave responds:

Isn't it actually, "From each according to his abilty to each
according to his need?"

My memory fails me, is this from the Manifesto? Definitely it's
Marx though. I always admired the irony that the source for this
is Acts of the Apostles found in the Bible at Chapt. 2, Verses
44-45.

What I see you suggesting Matt is that we not do what they did in
Yugoslavia. I suggest that we also not adopt Chineese Capitalism .
If they had what we want, I would not hesitate to pick up a
Chineese language tape on the way to the airport.

It's sad, I saw a report on the BBC that said that China looses 17
coal miners a day in unsafe mines. We loose 137 a day on our
highways and don't give it two thoughts unless it's a relative.

Dave




Karl H. Nudelman



Joined: 01 Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Location: Bloomfield, New Jersey U.S.A.
Posted: 10 Apr 2005 09:59 pm Post subject: The Meaning Of
Workers' Self-Management




Matt old buddy, you should know by now that when I use the
expression workers' self-management, I mean it LITERALLY. I'm not
referring to the Yugoslav arrangement, the late-Soviet or
post-Soviet arrangement, or that sort of thing.




Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 14 Apr 2005 02:13 am




We should recognize the LITERALE application of workers self
managementhas been a failure in terms of building a Socialist
Society. When you say LITERALE what is it that you mean?
Are you claiming that
workers self management in Yugoslavia was phony? Or are you
turning a blind eye to the events in China,USSR and many parts of
East Europe becouse you don't like what you see in the mirror of
history? Many people in the De Leonist movement have a habbit of
doing that.




Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 14 Apr 2005 02:33 am Post subject: To Dave




Marx thought that in a socialist society you would have
distribution acording to work done, and in a communist society you
could advance to distribution acording to need. Better than
capitalism wich is distribution acording to ownership.




davesearles



Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Vermont
Posted: 14 Apr 2005 11:01 am Post subject:




Can we establish a rule here that when someone attributes some
idea to Marx Engels Lenin or DeLeon that we be given a source -
otherwise it's not a discussion. This isn't just you Matt. I
apologize if you think that it is.

Dave




mikelepore
Site Admin


Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Posts: 492

Posted: 15 Apr 2005 12:02 am




"From each according to his ability, to each according to his
need" is from the book "Organization of Work" by Louis Blanc,
1840. Marx quoted it in "Critique of the Gotha Programme", 1875,
but didn't use quotation marks, and didn't cite the source. This
has led many readers to believe that it was Marx's phrase.

Marx referred to the "first phase of communist society" and the
"higher phase of communist society." (Ibid.) The popular myth that
Marx called the two phases "socialism" and "communism" is entirely
false.




Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 15 Apr 2005 02:11 am




I think you are wrong mike. Marx was a Communist. Or am i wrong?
Is the "Communist Manifesto" mislabeled? Should it read the
"Socialist Manifeso" or " The we are just kidding capitalism is
alright with us manifesto?". Marx and Engels saw Socialism as a
transition to a classless society in wich wages would be
abolished, but a Socialist Society would still be marked by a wage
sytem. This is part of the reason De Leonism is weak, most De
Leonist have a weak understanding of Marxism




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 62
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 15 Apr 2005 07:20 am




Greetings and Salutations,

I have been castigated by some Forum members for apprising the
board of the political affiliation of Matt Helme.

This began in the sub-forum "Socialism. Just a few thoughts,"
which itself resides in the top-level forum "Socialism."

In fact, this may present an opportunity to clarify some issues
regarding the present character and role of the CP within the
socialist movement, as well as illuminate critical differences
between the CP and the IDF and the De Leonist approach it embodies
and represents. It may thus present an opportunity for CP'ers and
non-CP'ers alike to re-examine their beliefs and corresponding
organizational affiliations.

First, some background.

I know Matt. I have attended meetings with him on several
occasions. At, and subsequent to, those meetings, I have discussed
with him his affiliation with the CP. I have expressed my disdain
for that organization, and argued against the desirability of
remaining a member. I've discussed this with Matt, and with Karl
Nudelman, another CP member. At these meetings, Fred Gratiot, the
other member of their three-person cell, has also denounced the
crimes of Stalin, and the gulags, while Matt defends the Soviet
system.

So this topic of Soviet and even Cuban "socialism" is not a new
topic between Matt and me, and certainly not a new topic between
Karl and me. It is not as if I had apprised the group of the
political affiliation of a complete stranger.

. . .

The crimes of the Soviet Union and its leaders, especially Stalin
and others, have been widely and specifically documented by any
number of scholars. They range from the murders by Lenin's secret
police in the early years, to the murders of the Kulaks and many
others under Stalin, to the horrors of the gulag, and to any
number of other crimes and atrocities.

The Soviet Union committed another kind of crime, however, as
well. A crime against the good name of Socialism. A crime against
those who labor and sacrifice in its honor, in the attempt to
promulgate its message, who are forced at every turn to try and
explain away the crimes of the Soviet Union, and that it was not
Socialist. People like me, in fact. And people like you.

The edifice of socialism is akin to a building under construction.
And those of us working for socialism, democratic socialism, are
akin to the carpenters erecting this building. In constructing the
edifice of socialism I take pains to use the most accurate
blueprint and sharpest tools available; this refers to the De
Leonist program or something similar, and the understanding that
socialism is, by definition, democratic. However, when I observe
that a fellow carpenter is using a fuzzy blueprint, and dull,
worn-out tools, I am duty-bound, by my interest in erecting the
most solid and long-lasting structure possible, to argue for the
removal of this fellow carpenter from the construction crew, until
he or she can acquire a more accurate blueprint to work from, and
sharper tools to work with.

Unfortunately, the blueprint of the CPUSA is fuzzy, and its tools
are dull. Its fuzzy blueprint and dull tools are its skewed
definition of socialism, its undemocratic tactics and strategy to
get us there, and its conception of government control once we're
there. All of which remain too closely rooted, apparently, to the
bloody, undemocratic, and even un-American legacy of this
organization.

In recommending to my friend Karl that he disaffiliate with the
CP, I wanted to ensure I was not misconstruing the CP as it
currently exists. So I went to the CP web site to educate myself.
I looked through the entire site, and I read their lengthy FAQ. I
here want to refer to three statement from that document. I will
then remark on something I did not find at the CP site, and I will
draw a conclusion based on all this. That conclusion will explain
why I disclosed the political affiliation of Matt Helme.

. . .

The CP FAQ stated:

"Socialism still requires a state that has an oppressive apparatus
to prevent the former ruling classes internally, and the
capitalist classes in other countries, from returning to power and
wiping out any and all gains."

And:

"We can't predict how long this transitional stage will take, and
it will take different lengths of time in different countries."

In light of the repressive history of the namesake of the CP, the
Soviet Union, we can understand the first two remarks, taken
together, as potentially justifying a Soviet-style repressive
state, and justifying the continuance of such repression for some
indeterminate period-exactly as happened in the Soviet Union. This
is unacceptable.

The document also states:

"Obviously, 70 years of socialist development in the Soviet
Union."

Based on my understanding of socialism, I reject the assertion
that the overall history of that nation constituted "socialist
development."

And the FAQ stated, finally:

"There are many popular misconceptions about the Party, communism
and socialism. One is that everything in the USSR and China and
Cuba and other socialist countries is totalitarian, repressive,
and undemocratic."

Thus is the CP explicitly asserting that the USSR, China, and
Cuba, are socialist countries. Three of the most repressive, and
in some cases murderous, nations in modern history, are implicitly
lauded here as somehow representative of the beautiful philosophy
of socialism.

Such do the above statement apparently represent the political
philosophy of the CP.

Now on to what I did not find, anywhere, at the CP web site.

I found no repudiation, of any sort, for the crimes of Stalin,
Lenin, or the Soviet system, generally. Not a word. It really was
a deafening and conspicuous silence.

When one combines the troubling implications of the assertions in
the FAQ, with the utter silence about the bloody history
associated with this party, one comes away with the impression
that this party, its reform work notwithstanding, remains
generally rooted in an absolutely counterproductive and
unacceptable conception of socialism. Adherence to which, and
failure to refute and condemn, both constitute folly.

Ultimately, there are two essential conceptions of socialism-the
peaceful, democratic sort, of which De Leonism is an example, and
the repressive and autocratic sort, of which the CP apparently
remains an example. Nothing at their web site persuades me
otherwise; they seem to have taken no pains to assert to newcomers
that they now stand for a clearly libertarian socialism, and they
forthrightly and forcefully repudiate the crimes of the Soviet
state.

I wish no personal harm or disrespect to Matt, Karl, or any CP
member. I'm sure CP'ers see themselves as good people doing
valuable reform work. I choose to believe, of course, that in the
main they are good people and in some respects I'm sure they are
doing valuable reform work. But in terms of the big picture, the
fact is CP'ers belong to an organization which still seems to
support the second conception of socialism, that of repression and
autocracy, and thus ultimately does a disservice to humankind. It
is our duty as socialists, and moral human beings, to eradicate
the influence of this tendency.

Support for an organization like the CP may not mean much now, but
imagine a future historical moment where such support over the
years has kept the organization alive, and it now wields power,
and is in a position to impose its corrupted interpretation of
socialism. That would be a nightmare, that we can only prevent by
countering such tendencies, now. And as I've remarked to Karl,
were there ever a socialist revolution with a CP power bloc, I
fear their beliefs and orientation are such that they would take
the "peaceful" and "democratic" socialists like the De Leonists,
line us up against a wall, and shoot us. In fact, didn't Lenin do
just that?

Fred Gratiot is the other individual who is a member of the
three-person cell Matt and Karl belong to (the cell itself is not
an official CP cell, and Fred is not a member of the CP). Fred is
a remarkable 80-year old man, a former comrade of mine from the
Industrial Union Party. Fred, like me, has denounced the crimes of
Stalin, and the tendency of Matt to defend the Soviet system.
Relatedly, and notably, the SP has told Karl he cannot be a member
of that organization while holding membership in the CP.

In all, then, I am of the opinion that this party, uniquely,
should be called on the carpet about the bloody history with which
it is associated. Unless and until it formally and officially
renounces the crimes of Stalin and the Soviet Union, at a minimum,
it must be censured. And until it likewise renounces its belief
that the USSR, Cuba, and China constitute socialism, and are
examples of laudable systems, it must be censured. Members of the
CP should be respectfully persuaded to disaffiliate. In the
meantime, their affiliation with this organization should be
disclosed, whenever they do not themselves reveal it. CP attitudes
about the Soviet Union and the nature of socialism represent a
clear danger to humanity, and a significant impediment to the
movement for democratic socialism. These attitudes and beliefs are
certainly completely counter to the De Leonist conception.

Ultimately, then, if one encounters a danger in their environment,
they will approach it with caution. If they are socially-minded,
they will then apprise others of its presence, so they can proceed
with caution, as well. Thus did I tell the group Matt is a member
of the Communist Party, and I'd do it again.

I don't wish to focus here so much on people, as on mistaken
beliefs. But why is this an issue.why isn't Matt's failure to
apprise us of his organizational affiliation the issue here? In
fact, in conversation Karl has acknowleged to me that CP'ers are
aware that the mention of their party turns people off. And
rightly so.

I repeat this is not a personal issue. I have met Matt and he is a
socially-conscious young man, trying to make his way through the
jungle of capitalism as are the rest of us. He simply needs to use
a better map.

Regarding the present posture of the CP as pertains to the crimes
of the former Soviet Union, I am not an expert; I assume if I am
wrong in any material fact, or in the general thrust of my
remarks, someone will correct me.

. . .

Now, regarding Karl Nudelman's remarks, above.

By way of background, Karl and me are (or at least were, until
now) reasonably good friends. We live just a few minutes from each
other, and we've known each other many years. We've actually known
each other longer than Karl has been acquainted with Matt Helme,
his CP comrade. Karl and me have been to meetings together and
have had many a conversation about the social project. In fact, to
his great credit, Karl is the only individual, so far, who has
actually joined The Agape Order, the entity I founded to advance
the love ethic. One can see him listed there at the site,
LoveEthic.org.

Amongst the subjects Karl and me have discussed, especially
recently, is the character, function, and desirability of
membership in the Communist Party, USA.

I have great respect for Karl. He's smart, thoughtful, a clear
thinker, dedicated to the social project in both its revolutionary
and reformist aspects (referring here to the argument some make in
the role of reformism in advancing revolution), and quite an
activist. And he, like me, recognizes the critical intersection
between personal transformation and social transformation (i.e.
revolution), in proceeding to the next and last level of social
organization, and elevating the human race. Karl also believes in
democratic socialism. And he is one of the few socialists I've
met-and I mean few-who is willing to actually offer concrete
assistance in the form of money to people in need. The only other
Socialist I met who was willing to give money away was Sam
Brandon, the former Secretary General of the Industrial Union
Party. People like Karl and Sam live the socialist ethic; they
don't just advocate theory, as do too many socialists. In my view,
people like Karl and Sam are the best kind of socialists.

(Sam Brandon is actually buried about twenty minutes from my
home.)

In fact, I have attempted to argue to Karl that his belief in the
love ethic, in libertarian socialism, and in De Leonism, makes him
something of an inappropriate candidate for membership in the CP.
And I have remarked that there are any number of organizations, of
both a socialist and reformist character, doing worthwhile reform
work. One might consider any of these groups as the vehicle for
such work, and avoid the considerable baggage that comes along
with affiliation with the Communist Party.

So, with this background, on to Karl's Forum remarks. He wrote:

".I am the CPer to whom , I think, Vince DeBenedetto was
referring."

No, Karl, it was Matt Helme to whom I referred in apprising the
forum of the CP affiliation.

Karl also wrote:

".Vince has got a lot of god-forsaken nerve trying to sabotage
this conference. The conference is entitled De Leonism,
Participatory Democracy, and Life After Capitalism."

I think use of the word "sabotage" unfairly vilifies my
intentions.

In any case, I think my good friend Karl is getting ahead of
events in his condemnation of me, because, though I did tell him I
was going to apprise the forum that 2/3 of the organizing
committee for the conference is composed of members of the
Communist Party, and I was going to urge Forum members and others
to abstain from this event, I had not done it yet as of the
posting of his remark, above!

I will do it now, however.

Karl remarks on the conference:

".I also believe that the struggle for socialism needs to take
place on several levels, and one of those.BEING SPECIFIC about the
institutions which workers and their allies ought to set up after
the revolution. To this latter end, I along with Matt Helme am
presently working on a project. Namely, we are in the process of
setting up a conference."

This conference is being sponsored and organized by a three-man
political group. Though it is not a CP event, two of the three
members are also members of the Communist Party. Thus, I formally
urge an abstention from involvement in this event. Support of this
event, given the unacceptable political beliefs of its organizers,
implies that we do not maintain any substantial protest about
those beliefs. It implies that we accept the existence of those
positions. If I was in attendance, and an event participant,
perhaps a novice to socialism, for example, were to ask me who had
organized the conference, I could not respond in good conscience
that it was principally elements of the Communist Party.

If we De Leonists wish a conference, let's organize it ourselves.
In fact, there are many political affiliations I would not object
to in comprising the organizational committee; the CP is uniquely
undesirable because of the bloody legacy of its parent entity, the
Soviet Union, and because it still appears wedded to the history
and political orientation of that former nation.

Karl requested that if I were to urge an abstention from the
conference, I also provide his email address so interested persons
could contact him. It is: karlnud@yahoo.com.

. . .

Matt remarked that my disclosure about his political affiliation
was actually just sour grapes, because I did not prevail in some
manner regarding the De Leonist conference. Matt has an
interesting way of interpreting events, because, in fact:

 Karl actually initiated the conference in the first place at my
prompting. This was some time ago, and
 I was to be a speaker at the conference, until I decided to
withdraw from it.

Additionally,

 Matt is actually opposed to this conference. He is opposed to De
Leonism as he understands it. Karl is the prime mover behind the
conference. He indicated he is doing it because he promised me he
would. But as I've learned more about the CP, and decided to
distance myself from the conference, accordingly, I requested he
abandon the project, since he said he was doing it to fulfill a
promise to me, in the first place. But he indicates that he wishes
to continue on with it.

. . .

Though he has called for my ejection from the Forum, I have
apologized to Matt, via email. Not for the disclosure, which was
necessary, but for any hurt the disclosure provoked.

Additionally, I called Karl for essentially the same reason. I
have not heard back from him yet.

. . .

Last, I want to note with dissatisfaction the apparent tendency of
at least one individual in this group, Dave Searles, to criticize
me far too readily, regardless of subject, and without the nicety
of waiting to hear my perspective. Not a desirable quality in a
person, much less a socialist. One wonders about an individual who
refers to me directly as a "creep," and by implication a "slime
ball," and advocates my ejection from the Forum, but then offers
me a summary apology at the behest of someone else, and ties it
all up by referring to the whole affair as providing a lot of
"fun." I'm afraid I just wouldn't see the "fun" in my expulsion
from this Forum.

However, I remain impressed with the fairness, even-handedness,
and intelligence with which Mike Lepore approaches these issues.
In certain respects this man is amazing.

That's it for now.

Sincerely,

vince de benedeto

PS. The above post was substantially rewritten after posting.
Thus, if you first read it before 4 pm Eastern Standard Time,
U.S., 04-15-05, please re-read it, now.

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org

Last edited by PowerKord on 16 Apr 2005 09:35 am; edited 12 times
in total




davesearles



Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Vermont
Posted: 15 Apr 2005 10:30 am




I see that once more the messenger of hope has come on and told us
about who he has learned is a member of the CP, etc.

He has no sense of boundaries what so ever. I will not acuse him
again of being a creep or imply that he is a slimeball. I
apologized for those comments. I will leave that to others to
ponder.

As to Matt:

Matt stated:

"Marx and Engels saw Socialism as a transition to a classless
society in wich wages would be abolished, but a Socialist Society
would still be marked by a wage sytem."

Dave asks:

Matt is there a citation for this?

I think that we ought to make it a practice that anytime anyone
attributes something to Marx Engels or DeLeon that the courteous
thing to do would be to provide a citation. I think that we also
ought to make it a practice that once a citation is asked for
there should be no further discussion until a citation is
provided. if a person says this is what Marx said, Engels said
etc. he or she ought to know what they are talking about enought
to provide a citation otherwise discussion is meaningless.

signed Dave




Matthelme



Joined: 05 Apr 2005
Posts: 41
Location: Old Bridge N.J.
Posted: 16 Apr 2005 01:23 am




You talk so well about "The crimes of Stalin" but not a word about
the crimes of the Kulaks i.e. Landloards against the working
peasants? What about the crimes of the Nep Men . i.e. Private
manufactures against the urban workers? It should be common
knowlege that the USSR did and should have payed a heavy price for
punishing legitamate opposition to the government . No one is
justifing that!! Not even the CPUSA!!




PowerKord



Joined: 13 Jan 2005
Posts: 62
Location: East Coast, U.S.A.
Posted: 16 Apr 2005 08:29 am
STATEMENT FROM THE CP




Dear Matt,

I think the CP would do itself a huge favor if it would publish,
on the Internet, a long and detailed official statement, outlining
exactly which aspects of the Soviet state, and the Soviet
experience, it rejects, and why, and which it still accepts, and
why.

That would clear up a lot of these potential misunderstandings.

When I go to the CP web site, as I did recently, I'm not looking
for the party to fail. I would certainly like to cheer for the
party. But I can only do that--talk about reform work--if the
party apprises me, and the rest of the world, that it has
sufficiently reformed itself.

Regards,

vince

PEOPLE FOR A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY
www.Cooperative-Society.org



davesearles



Joined: 01 Feb 2005
Posts: 447
Location: Vermont
Posted: 17 Apr 2005 02:12 am Post subject:




Why would DeLeonists care what the CPUSA has on its webite or what
it has and hasn't learned, etc?

signed Dave