“Question 24 : How do communists differ from socialists?
Answer : The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.
The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been and is still daily being destroyed by large-scale industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes from the evils of existing society that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils.
By hook or by crook, all their proposals are directed to this end. This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, will nevertheless be energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:
1. It strives for something which is utterly impossible.
2. It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guild-masters and the manufacturers, with their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers and priests, a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought with it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberaion through a communist society.
3. Whenever the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colours by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.
The second category consists of adherents of present-day society whose fears for its future have been roused by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they desire, therefore, is to maintain the existing order of society while getting rid of the evils which are inherent in it. To this end, some propose mere welfare measures while others come forward with grandiose schemes of reform which under the pretence of reorganizing society are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of the existing order of society. The communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of the communists and protect the society which the communists aim to overthrow.
Finally, the third category consists of democratic socialists, who favour some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question[*], not as part of the transition to communism, however, but rather as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society. These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions for the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat. It follows that in moments of action the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists and in general to follow as far as possible, for the time being, a common policy with them, provided these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences with them.”
It is quite clear that Sam Webb, indeed the bulk of the current membership of the “C”PUSA falls into the category of the Bourgeois Socialist(see the passage in bold above), perhaps fringing on the category of the Democratic Socialist.
To ensure the victory of Communism, we must fight against this trend in the World Communist Movement – as it has been stated, Bourgeois Socialists work for the enemies of Communism.
I would call on all members of the “C”PUSA to renounce Sam Webb and his supporters, and demand a restoration of the Marxist-Leninist ideals which are our only weapon against the Bourgeoisie.