Talk:Communist Party USA/Archive 2

message: The Korean war article lists 600,000 as the nuber of Koreans killed in the conflict. I am not sure where these figures come from, but the nubers I found are much higher. The statistics given by Chinese and North Korean sources on Chinese and NK casualties are too low to be considered accurate. 
Korean civilian dead: between 1.8 and 2.6 million
North Korean combatants dead: between 100K and 1.2 millions 
Chinese combatants dead: between 50K and 1.8 million
Soviet forces: approx 400-600
South Korean combatants dead: 415,000 
US combatants dead: 33,629 
Other UN contingents dead: 4,266 
TDC 17:50, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Korean War

message: As the anon who edited material re October League and has added some other material to the article. I'll just make the comment that info on the OL and other Maoist groups is not hard to find. Max Elbaums recent book Revolution in the Air is a history of them. And in point of fact these groups did not come out of or develop out of the CPUSA with the exception of the PLP. I'll add more on that splinter some day. OL did not come from PLP in any case.
I'll also take this opportunity to note that its only sensible to have split the material dealing with Russian funding of the CPUSA into another article as it otherswise distorts this article.
Finally the expression Soviet should not be used to refer to Russia as its an Americanism and factually inaccurate.
:As to the October League, they are perhaps covered better in an article on the New Left or perhaps on the modern Stalinist movement. Many of the leading participants were raised in Communist families, but never joined the Party themselves, although some of them claimed to have gone to "camp". I am reading a book, The American Communist Movement which has some information. We might consider an article with a title like that. I'll take a look at Revolution in the Air. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
:Soviet funding of the Party belongs in the article. It is simply too well documented. If we were to write the article from a sympathetic point of view it would still belong in the article, but perhaps there could be more about the hopeful attitude of Gus Hall regarding political organizing opportunities and the desire of the Soviet Union to assist American workers and other oppressed Americans. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
:As to the expression, Soviet, my impression was that the Americanism was to call the Soviet Union, Russia, while using Soviet was appropriate. Perhaps you could suggest some alternatives. Fred Bauder 15:13, May 2, 2004 (UTC)
On the October League any mention needs to be minor as they had no organisational link from the CPUSA. Certainly some of the leaders of the OL were Red Diaper babies but thats outside of the ambit of a historical survey of the CPUSA. A separate article best covers them as would be needed for the RCP, and other New Communist Movement groups. I don't know the book you mention Fred but please bear in mind the territory is very prone to bias! Elbaums book is definitive on those groups he covers as is acknowledged by most participants. Russian is preferable to Soviet in my opinion as being more accurate - soviets simply did not exist in any meaningful sense after 1921. And I'm pro-Soviet! I've no objection to mention of Russian funding by the way, it must be mentioned, but to deal with in detail it needs its own coverage or it overly distorts this article.
Jock Haston
"Soviet" with a capital "S" is is a very different matter than "soviet" with a small "s". True, the Soviet Union (or Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) after its first few years had nothing to do with small-s soviets. However, it is extremely POV to refer to it as Russia, since a large portion of its territory was outside of Russia: an area now constituting 14 other countries, in fact! Yes, this association is rather malign to the concept of small-s soviets, but that's the way it is. Capital-S "Soviet" was the acceptable adjective for the Soviet Union in its time, and I can't think why we shouldn't continue to use it now. Just like "American" in most contexts is the English-language adjective to refer to the USA, much though that annoys people from elsewhere in the Americas. -- Jmabel 00:53, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The anonymous editor responds and raises additional questions

message: Right now, this article is something of a mess. In particular, there is a mix of US and British spellings. Since this is a specifically US topic, I'd be inclined to go with US spelling. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Jmabel 03:35, 3 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something of a mess 

message: Recent addition by TDC: "The USSR covertly subsidized the CPUSA all throughout the Cold War, with a third of their donated funds going toward illegal activities, including espionage. Releases from the Comintern archives show that many national communist parties were influenced in the same fashion." I'm not removing it, but I sure won't defend it in its present form if anyone does. I am not comfortable with this statement about "illegal activities" and "espionage" being made without clear attribution. Again, I find it utterly disingenuous to refer to "Releases from the Comintern archives" without specific attribution. I'm not saying that this is false, but I am saying that it is controversial and therefore should not be said in the narrative voice of the article without attribution. "[I]llegal activities, including espionage" is a particularly tricky phrase without any indication of what portion was espionage. For example, it would be true if the bulk of the money was spent on trying to circumvent the McCarren-Walter Act and any amount at all, however tiny, was spent on espionage. -- Jmabel 21:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: I have restored the section on the idealism and hard work done by Party members. This article is incomprehensible without some information of this nature, although the material could probably be more elegantly presented. Forming and joining an organization of this nature requires considerable motivation and not just of the sort, "They were contrary". Perhaps some detail on working class and ethnic motivations and that of intellectuals might be developed. Fred Bauder 14:55, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
Fair enough. I probably should have said something here before deleting it. Still, the paragraph strikes me as unnecessary, because it can be assumed that anyone working for any radical organization believes in its goals. If you said that Communists were notably more dedicated or idealistic than, say, Socialists or Prohibitionists or Birchers or whatever, then its inclusion would make more sense... but I'm not at all sure if that's true. Chowbok 17:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Idealism

message: The Communist Party and Black America is now ready to be edited, expanded, criticized, etc. Note that it is weak after 1939 and particularly so after 1956. Someone should also write a piece on the ILD which is not, of course, just Scottsboro.
Italo Svevo 05:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New article spun off

message: Wouldn't it be better to title the article The Communist Party and African Americans? "Black America" sounds as though American blacks are a monolith -- though I certainly don't believe Italo Svevo thinks this, the title seems to suggest it. Zantastik 05:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Communist Party and Black America]] 

message: User:80.217.161.77 has been making numerous additions to various left pages, adding Stalinist qualifiers, sometimes replacing socialist with more loaded terms.  This kind of substitution has been discussed before, so I've reverted the edits in hope of leading to discussion of how the CPUSA can be discussed as Stalinist and when. DJ Silverfish 20:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  80.217.161.77 

message: I just started a CPUSA publications reference subheading.  I plan to post links to party documents on party structure and function.  This will offer an opportunity to read primary sources in which the party comments on itself and its role in different eras. DJ Silverfish 16:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we establish the J. Peters referenced in the CPUSA publications section (Peters, J. The Communist Party: A Manual on Organisation  is the same Joseph Peters in the Soviet funding and espionage section and in the Venona project.  Also I intended to do a bio stub on Joseph Peters.Nobs 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we can assume that the three names (Sandor Goldberger, J. Peters and Joseph Peters) all refer to the same person.  It would be interesting to see what you can find out, though. I look forward to your Joseph Peters article. DJ Silverfish 23:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPUSA publications 

message: I reverted the description of the international brigades as unlawful combatants.  Is this an original designation, or is there a reference? Would they be considered unlawful if invited by the Republic of Spain? DJ Silverfish 20:51, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Columbia Historical Review Dutch Involvement in the Spanish Civil War, the League of Nations Non-intervention committee voted February 21 1937 to ban all "volunteers" and had no law to protect non-governmental "belligerent rights"; hence they were "unlawful comabatants" to use the modern term or discription. Nobs01 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Those seem to be the terms used, Comintern "volunteers" (i.e. non-state sponsored), and then they took up the discussion of "belligerent rights"; so the terms would be something like "volunteer belligerent rights", and the Non-intervention committee is the body reviewing the issue.  Also, that source has a good discussion on prohibitrions of the individual member states regarding "volunteers". Nobs01 22:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Abraham Lincoln Brigade]] 

message: The section CPUSA#Soviet funding of the Party and espionage duplicates much of the entry History of Soviet espionage in the United States and now is beginning to duplicate other portions of the CPUSA article (for example, re-introducing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Side articles are created to keep the main articles managable and as general as possible, not to serve as staging grounds for piecemeal cannibalization of the main article.  DJ Silverfish 20:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks like something like that is happening.  I trust your judgement to edit redunantcies. Nobs01 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I will study it.  I'll use the talk page for discussion first. Any big consolidation won't happen right way.  DJ Silverfish 21:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: DJ, did you get my note on the Talk:Earl Browder page? Nobs01 21:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the detailed entry on the Talk:Earl Browder page. I took a few days off, so I've only just seen it now.  I'll respond in detail there later, when I have more time.  I'll also need to read the Venona book you are referencing before I can really get a handle on the espionage and its chonology.   Regarding the CPUSA page, my opinion would be to keep a clean and linear narrative, with side entries taking on the research topics which require detailed chronologies.  If you break the narrative to privilege any one aspect of the party's history, it starts to get incoherent. This may mean that the CPUSA main page is a little bland, but accurate. DJ Silverfish 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good advice; there is plenty of room on the bio pages of the 179 known spies to expand text in detail.  I suspect "Secret apparatus" will become an article in itself. As to Venona, Venona FBI FOIA Files pgs 61-75 is absolute required reading, and I'd like to put a cleaned up version in Wikisource.Nobs01 22:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet funding of the Party and espionage 

message: Nobs01 cut this remark about the long quotation from the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, pointing out (accurately) that it lacks citation.
:This viewpoint is considered by most scholars of the Communist Party to be a gross simplification of the nature and history of the Party, emphasizing and exaggerating certain aspects while ignoring other important factors.
While it lacks citation, I would say it is almost certainly true; however I don't particularly wish to restore this (or its equivalent) without citation. Would someone who is more of a scholar in this field please provide an appropriate cited statement we can use instead? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:01, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
:Also, the original abridged version may be prefereable to the lengthy text, reads like this,
::"although purportedly a political party, is in fact an instrumentality of a conspiracy... prescribed for it by the foreign leaders... to carry into action slavishly the assignments given...acknowledges no constitutional or statutory limitations...its dedication to the proposition that the present constitutional Government of the United States ultimately must be brought to ruin by any available means, including resort to force and violence...as the agency of a hostile foreign power renders its existence a clear present and continuing danger"  nobs 02:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Scholars" and the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950 

message: 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)
thread_title: CPUSA and SWP

message: 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:
# "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.
# "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. 
#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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent additions to lead 

message: 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)
thread_title: Sectioning?

message: These two Ohio sites http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1980/presEle.htm say http://www.co.wood.oh.us/Boe/Wood%20County,%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)
thread_title: [[Ed Clark]]/[[Angela Davis]] ticket?

message: The effect of this sequence of edits, and, in particular, the way they are worded, is sheer red-baiting: "Look! The Democrats and MoveOn.org are supported by the Communists". One mention, perhaps, but three? - Jmabel | Talk 23:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having received no answer (and questioning also the uncited assertion that MoveOn.org 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: "We work to support candidates within the two-party system who offer real alternatives to the ultra-right, such as Paul Wellstone did."  Fred Bauder 20:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "We also support progressive Democrats "  Fred Bauder 20:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Red-baiting 

message: 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  (hardcover) and  (softcover), both 1985; I presume this is a sequel. - Jmabel | Talk 04:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Victor Perlo 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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. ()  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)
thread_title:  Open secrets 

message: ¿The CPUSA have a web page? ¡I can't find the link! (sorry by my english). Rakela 23:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the article, in the section Communist Party USA#CPUSA websites. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Web Page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  McCarthyism / Second Red Scare 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reason of decline 

message: 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 192.150.115.150 (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please find a good source for this, and add it. Fred Bauder 21:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Peace Movement Ommission 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Third Period 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed section "Anti-CPUSA Articles" 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:People Demand Peace.jpeg

message: User:TDC, a well known and frequently -blocked  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)   
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.  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Edits by TDC 

message: 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 71.112.2.145 (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  A little to pro-communist for wikipedia? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Removed. - Jmabel | Talk 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008 Presidential Ticket

message: 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)
replies: text: VolatileChemical, For one answer to your question, please see:  --Horse Badorties 13:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: Because Communism != Social democracy. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  CPUSA as a political party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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 76.111.61.58 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeLeon and the SLP 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No citation to this quote 

message: 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)
thread_title: Bibliography moved

message: 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)
thread_title: Political position

message: 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)
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)
thread_title: Stalinism

message: 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)
thread_title: Section

message: 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)
replies: text: "Top Party Leaders" section only names the leaders and their title, not elaborate on the positions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.82.59.108 (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Outlook publishing 

message: 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 75.197.25.214 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist or Social Democratic 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sure, This and this should help explain it. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Link to archive

message: 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. (129.137.182.12 (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  James G. Ryan as a source 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Position in the political spectrum 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Bush Doctrine 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Stalinist sect" is bais term 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Creation of "History of the Communist Party USA"

message: 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)
replies: text: Done.  TFD (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote error 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Use of "the" when referring to the party 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Promoting a book 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opening of the "History" section of the article

message: For Politics?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.230.26 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How did these people end up in Prison?

message: 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. 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)
thread_title:  I'm taking a crack at a full rewrite, here's the old version 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article currently carries a tag saying the lede is too short! Might be time to insert some of the above. Valetude (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  And here is the change version 

message: "It is the largest communist party in the country." - what is the source for this? 94.173.208.47 (talk) 22:28, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of articles had minimal sources when they were originally written years ago.  You can contribute by adding sources.  TFD (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Communist Party USA. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20031107092022/http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/565/0/ to http://www.cpusa.org/article/articleview/565/0/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090719194315/http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/906/ to http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/906/
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090708121226/http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/ to http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130414182408/http://cpusa.org/article/articleprint/931/ to http://cpusa.org/article/articleprint/931/
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090708121226/http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/ to http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/
*Added  tag to http://www.politicalaffairs.net/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Communist Party USA. 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:
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090708121226/http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/ to http://www.cpusa.org/article/static/511/
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090711155158/http://www.yclusa.org/ to http://www.yclusa.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified