The American Party of Labor, which attempts to mimic the Party of Labor of Albania, is another in a string of American Communist parties which fall far short of the Marxist-Leninist ideal.
Let me say that one of its (probably very few) members has recently attempted to interest me in joining. Oddly, however, this very same member accused me of being “ideologically weak and naive”. One wonders why in the world they would go through so much effort to recruit such a person! Obviously, when you’re starving you don’t turn down anything which might be eaten, and when you’re a minor, insignificant, party you’ll accept anyone so long as he can read and correctly write his own name.
The numerous statements made to me by this member were reminiscent of a Maoist trying to prove how great “Mao Tse-tung Thought” is – long-winded, but having all the substance of a puff of smoke.
Take, for example, this statement (made by me): “The first successful Socialist Revolution, after the Russian, occurred in Mongolia in 1924.” The response of the APL? “That is incorrect. The next successful Revolution was in Hungary.” Obviously, since the Hungarian Revolution collapsed almost instantly, they have a very different definition of success. Mongolia was the second successful Revolution – because it lasted. The Hungarian Revolutionaries might have succeeded, but their Revolution failed.
Another statement (made by me): “The Russian Revolution collapsed.” Their response? “It only collapsed because of years of Revisionism.” And? I made no mention as to why it collapsed, I simply mentioned that it did collapse. We, in the anti-Revisionist camp, know why the Soviet Union fell. I don’t think the APL is required to explain why it did – except, perhaps, to the most green of Communists.
Semantic games are fun, but not from a political party desperate to recruit members.
Their position on Tibet, though deliberately altered in conversation to appeal to me, is similar to the Maoists: “Tibet belongs to China!”, “It always has!”, “The Chinese ruled Tibet all the way back to the Han Dynasty!” (see the maps in my previous post to see the real truth on this subject – namely that the statements from the APL are as false as the statements from the Maoist propaganda sheets.), and, my favourite: “Tibet has always been a part of China, but the invasion of Tibet was an Imperialist action.” Can a country commit an Imperialist action against itself?
They clearly have no understanding of the writings of Lenin, as they attempted to use his writings to justify their position on Tibet. They made the statement that: “Tibet was only independent from 1911 – 1950.” Of course this in untrue. Even if it were true, it is still a violation of Marxist-Leninist theory – as pointed out by Lenin himself (which I also covered in a previous entry).
When I continued to give evidence of my position, they simply ended the conversation by saying: “It doesn’t matter because the American Proletariat doesn’t care anything about Tibet.” Perhaps this is true, but it is a poor excuse for an argument! I might also point out that the average member of the American Proletariat does not care about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or Hoxha, either. Would the APL suggest we not mention them?
The APL, in the final analysis, is an insignificant party with major doctrinal issues. Their positions are all over the map, they do not understand the difference between an intellectual exercise and a statement of belief, and they have an extreme lack of understanding of Marxist Dialectics.
I recommend avoiding them.
(I have another edit to serve as a postscript: As can be seen from the comments to this post, the APL is not interested in adult discussion [they do not discuss, they gibber]. Even “C”PUSA members have responded to me in an adult manner, attempting to explain why their views are as they are. As much as I dislike what the “C”PUSA has become, I must give them credit for behaving like civilised, intelligent, people. I have always been willing to answer legitimate criticism of the things I’ve written, and have even expressed that I would change my mind [and publicly announce that change] if presented with evidence that contradicts my statements. People are willing to act like cavemen to defend their notions, but most of them are unwilling to, even accidentally, betray their ignorance by making statements that are easily refuted by any with an even rudimentary knowledge of Marxism-Leninism [or world history].)