Talk:Communist Party USA and African Americans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Communist Party USA, historically and currently committed to complete racial equality in the United States, played a significant role in defending the rights of African-Americans during its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s."

Really? That? How about this: "The Communist Party USA, historically and currently committed to political opportunism at the margins of United States society, played a role in defending the rights of African-Americans during its heyday in the 1930s and 1940s, but stopped when black Americans decided not to play the role of brainwashed red Uncle Toms."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.10.1 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added relevant union and literary secondary sources to the "Further Reading" section. Trade Union and Literature subsections could be added to flesh this out.

Alternatively, I could create a new entry for African-Americans in the Communist Party. This would focus less on the public work and more on theoretical debate on theNegro Question and internal party life. The African Blood Brotherhood also deserves a separate entry. DJ Silverfish 17:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your proposed expansions are all valuable. This article was originally created as a satellite to Communist Party USA, which had no meaningful content on the issue, so it focused on the twists and turns of CP history.
I would favor keeping it all in one article for now. I can't see a way of splitting them that doesn't lead to quandaries about what goes where, unless we want a fair amount of redundancy in both. If we did split them, then I would put the discussion of the Negro Question and the Black Belt in this article and the discussion of practical work, culture and union issues in the other. But I favor unity over separatism for the time being.
The failure to cover trade union issues is baffling; I will try to get started on that by borrowing some text from other articles on the CP and the [[Congress of Industrial Organizations. As you can see, I'm not against redundancy when it's convenient.
And while you're writing the piece on the ABB, give some thought to the ILD as well. I'll post that as a requested article. -- Italo Svevo 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just created the entry on the African Blood Brotherhood. Please check it out. DJ Silverfish 21:44, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is the phrase "Communism is Twentieth Century Americanism" linked to the stub on Langston Hughes' "Let America Be America Again"? It's not that these two things are unrelated -- Hughes' poem is a classic example of African American Popular Front poetry and its sentiment can broadly be said to echo the famous slogan that links to it. But those connections aren't drawn out anywhere. And, as it now stands, the only thing mentioned in the stub in question is that John Kerry used this poem in the 2004 Presidential campaign, which can only lead to confusion and an odd sense that Kerry is being red-baited (whether or not that was anyone's intention). I obviously don't feel so sure about this to edit it, but might we want to delink that slogan, link it to the entry on the Popular Front, or edit the stub on the Hughes poem into some shape that makes the link make sense?--BenA 01:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I have reverted some changes[edit]

I hate to respond in this way but considering the length it is the only feasible means. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence describing the SP's attitude toward race discrimination does not need two qualifiers, one at each end. The phrase "as merely an extreme form of the exploitation of all workers under capitalism" describes what the SP thought; putting in the second qualifier makes it far too mushy.

I disagree and will stick by this one; I believe that it clearly qualifies the state of workers in capitalism. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "perceiving" as this makes it more apparent that the (less ambiguous, but I think not contestable on the part of the CPUSA) view of exploitation is being attributed where it belongs. The otherwise formatted inclusion of article "the" gives the article the implication of tacit acceptance of the presumption. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The changes to the last sentence of the paragraph about economism and anti-colonial struggles recast the sentence in the passive voice, for no apparent reason. In addition, as one who too often strings phrases together to make overlong sentences, I will defend those few short sentences.

This is where I begin to have a problem with the tone in the article generally. It is broaching too far into POV to posit a group as fighting for the "rights of workers", as if this is not even a general proposition as to what rights are but simply a fact of the CP's campaign. The change I made is fine because it removes the economic connotation and merely states that the CP was viewing civil rights for blacks as something broader (which was already what the paragraph was stating, just with less enthusiasm). --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing an evident compromise here between the two here. I don't agree with the constant emphasis on "struggle" or "workers". I would only presume the CPUSA didn't believe that middle- and upper-class blacks didn't deserve the same civil rights protections. If it is literally meant in the narrower sense that the CPUSA is explicitly emphasizing worker struggle then the tone needs to indicate this as their viewpoint less ambiguously. I have attempted to do so. It may also be that you are considering "couched" to be hostile but that is not my intention if so. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has that sort of "New Masses" tone, but I don't think we should change "struggle" to "plight." "Plight" is passive and not part of a global struggle, at least not as a 1920s Communist might have seen it. But we have overused that word in this article, so I tried a less redundant alternative in the latter part of the sentence.

You're right about the romanticist tone, which was my main concern. It is evident to me that this article was written by someone highly sympathetic to the party, which is fine as far as recounting facts of the matter (as I can not contest in most cases regarding this particular issue) but not where emotive terms come into play. "Plight" was simply the first plausible thing that came to mind, but I am not going to stick by this staunchly. Also, if we are going chronologically here, you left out the part about the Comintern, which I felt was too condescending. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I removed 'plight' which I came to full distaste for in this context. There's a slight tinkering and again the article is important. Kept out 'superior'. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left "unemployment relief" as is. Benefits is a bit too concrete: it would not embrace demands for jobs as well as financial sustenance.

Benefits is fine because it should be concrete--as I recall, the adjective concrete in front of "issues" was there before I was. If what was in demand was jobs or also jobs, then that should be enumerated. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edited to reflect this. This is a more minor point, though, but I would much prefer the consolidation to "unemployment" without the adverbs in lieu of the expanded enumeration. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also left out the word racist before lynchings. Granted that lynching, in the abstract, is not necessarily racist. In the South in this era it always was.

I was simply being more specific here; I deleted all of the adverbs because it seems to me a lapse into that romantic tone--everything is a "struggle", a "fight", a "demand". This isn't worker's lore, it's supposed to be disinterested commentary. They can be issues and just as important if not always struggles. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you reverted the Camp Hill link. It is unambiguous and I doubt there is more than one. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the words "the interests of" in the first paragraph concerning Organizing in the North. Simply saying "defending black Americans" makes it sound as if we are talking about defensive campaigns, e.g., against lynching or racist juries. But the change made me realize the word "defending," even when modified, conveyed the wrong impression, so I changed that too.

Again there is a condescension here that is barely tolerable. I don't believe it is proper to state that a particular group is acting in any fashion for "the interests of" such a large collective; that is far too presumptuous to be NPOV. It needs modified in some fashion (I am prepared to accept eliminating the verb "defend") or the paragraph sanitized altogether. The CP campaigns do not need to be characterized in such terms to get the facts across of what they did. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I really hope the current form is not contested by this reasoning. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see eliminating the last sentence of the paragraph relating to consumer boycotts. Unless you think that sentence is wrong, eliminating it leaves the distorted impression that the CP adopted this sort of ethnically targeted campaign as its own.

I would certainly challenge it, as it seems to be only a general defense for the action and not something concrete. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to be more specific in this instance? --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Ultraleftism" and "rigid communist orthodoxy" are not the same; ultraleftism refers to a specific set of Third Period precepts, while "orthodoxy" is in the eye of the beholder and is nearly undefinable, as the last 125 years of sectarian squabbles over what is genuine socialism shows. The reference to the Comintern in that sentence, at any rate, conveys the point that this was a policy dictated in large part by those who were not on the scene. If we leave in "ultraleftism," then we don't need to add "more moderate," since that goes without saying.

I am squirmish about these relativist terms because they are pejoratively loaded (e.g. "hard", "far"). Orthodoxy seems to me acceptable because that is the generally, and centrally, accepted line for communists at that point from which all sectarians must have deviated (whether doctrinally sound or not). I also believe the removal of the parentheses conveys acceptance of the vulgar terminology employed. I see no reason why this should stay. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about a specific solution to this one. Ultraleftism in the context you describe requires explanation that this site does not presently provide. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "justice for lynching victims" to "retribution for lynching" strikes me as tone-deaf. The CP demanded justice; calling that retribution says something different, and far more judgmental. "Demanding justice" leaves space for those who might disagree with the proposition that calling for the prosecution of murderers is justice.

I'd take a different tack if the CP had armed Black sharecroppers a la John Brown or the Black Panthers. To my knowledge they never did, but came in after the fact to defend those who had used arms in shootouts with sheriffs or local white vigilantes.

The other change—"demanding due process for criminal defendants"—goes too far in the other direction and misstates, by being too narrow, just what the ILD and others were demanding. "Justice" may be an emotive word, but coupled with "demanding justice" is just ambiguous enough for our purposes.

In hindsight you are probably correct on this, though I'm troubled by the vagueness of it. What specifically were they calling for in asking for justice? Why is that not mentioned in favor of what can easily be construed as a platitude? Ambiguity is not preferably when facts are apparently available. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm keeping my hands off this one with the expectation of a better edit. If my wording mistakenly presumes the rightness of narrow concerns of the party then the previous wording presumes their demands to be just without stating more precisely what they were. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The change of "progressive" to "left wing" in the Popular Front section is a mistake. The United Front sought to unite all left, i.e., socialist parties; the Popular Front was far more inclusive, leading to formal alliances with non-socialist organizations, such as the NAACP and Daddy Grace. I'd leave in "the threat of" too, because it reflects the way the party tended to make generalized connections between the fight against fascism in Ethiopia with the fight against discrimination, police abuse, lynching, etc. at home.

If the modifier "left wing" is too exclusive, then "progressive" is far too flattering. If the grouping of organizations was with a specific intent (i.e. anti-fascism, pro-integration) then this may be formulated without positively qualifying any general thrust of their politics. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Changed altogether to better reflect the anti-fascist thrust (without confirming the view). --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "ignoring the interests of working class blacks" to "remaining uninvolved in labor issues" likewise narrows the meaning of the text without improving it. The CP's criticism of the NAACP was that it was a middle-class organization that was not prepared to take an aggressive stance on working class concerns, e.g., tenants' rights issues as well as labor issues. That had more of a sting in the black community, which still had a very ambivalent attitude toward unions in general in the 1930s, than merely accusing the NAACP of being "uninvolved in labor issues" would have.

It is narrow but it remains disinterested. If "ignoring the interests...." is to remain it should be clarified as being the perspective of the NNC rather than the entry's sleight of hand. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Compromised, I believe. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You restored two parts here without mention. One reverts a statement concerning workers into the romanticist language and the other is a rather absurd proposition from anything approaching a neutral view. Everyone knows that "economic democracy" is a euphemism for socialism whatever one's opinion of it, and "political" and "racial" democracy merely implies civil rights, as I specified. There is no purpose for those words but to flatter the party (without actually stating what they wanted). --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The point stands, with the addendum of "in the South" redundancy, in which the least pertinent was deleted. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the phrase "while making opposition to white supremacy part of its platform" in the discussion of the NMU. It highlights both the earnestness and naivete of the CP at the time in hoping, during its Third Period, to be able to rally white miners who had little or no contact with blacks to make opposition to white supremacy a part of their campaign for better wages and working conditions. Cutting this out not only eliminates this but leaves a sentence that seems to say something completely different.

The sentence runs on too long. This was my only problem here. The entire paragraph needs modified somehow.
That should be acceptable. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "even as the McCarthy era went into full swing in the early 1950s" to "even into the 1950s when the party became unpopular" is overediting.

It's also misleading (and for the former this was true as well)--the CPUSA was becoming extremely unpopular in mainstream circles years before Tailgunner Joe came around or any "McCarthy era" which apparently speaks for any criticism whatever of the party or communism generally. That is completely out of order. --TJive 02:38, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the tone of my comments, I believe in carefully combing out fluff and have left in many worthwhile changes. But words that may appear to be emotionally charged also convey different meanings than their blander alternatives; in other cases ambiguity saves a lot of discussion that would not add all that much to the article. Where it makes a substantive difference I changed it back. --Italo Svevo 01:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I did not mean to revert the entire thing all at once, however I do find the bulk of this a bit ridiculous. Give me a minute. --TJive 02:01, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed soon after replying that this seems to be an original contribution of yours, which helped me understand the concerns a bit better. Your remark about conveying specific emotive concepts is valid so long as it does not take the form of an ideological viewpoint for the article itself, which is why I was involved to begin with. Hopefully the given changes are adequate to address both. --TJive 16:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which Communist Party?[edit]

Which Communist Party? There are dozens of Communist Parties around the world, most of which have had some dealings with African Americans.--TM 23:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

who were the first cp members[edit]

The intro should state where the members came from, how many there were. I'd also doubt, that Chester Himes was that prominent in the 1930s. Claude McCay was no party delegate to the Fourth Congress. The party delegation had actuall tried to prevent his attendance (if his biographer is to be believed). He became socialist and communist only after leaving Jamaica, in the USA and then in England. --Radh (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Communist Party USA and African Americans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The "The" in the title must have been a mistake and should be fixed.--80.180.196.242 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_Party_USA_and_African_Americans&oldid=1200719335"