Talk:Communist Party USA

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:American Communist Party (Haz Al-Din) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:56, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership

Hello Wegaan (talk · contribs). Thank you for your concern about the validity of my conduct on Wikipedia. However, I think you may have misunderstood what I said on my edit summary and the content of the source. Yes, the article by the Guardian uses the term "American communist party" rather than the Communist Party of the United States of America, and yes, the article was about MAGA Communism, Jackson Hinkle, and Haz Al-Din. However, the Guardian source actually predates the American Communist Party that was established by Al-Din and Hinkle. The Guardian source is not referring to the ACP, but instead the CPUSA, as the author explictly states "the century-old American Communist party, whose numbers have dwindled to 5,000". The ACP neither is a century old, nor does it have 5,000 members. Therefore it is obviously the case that the author is referring to the CPUSA, and the term American communist party is a term that has always been used to describe the CPUSA in a shortened way anyway.

Just because it is mostly on a seperate topic it does not mean it doesn't talk about the CPUSA at all. For instance, the source you used, which was the AP News source, was mostly about Trump, not the CPUSA.

Additionally, the AP News source about the membership of the CPUSA, while technically a secondary source from the AP, is based off Joe Sim's self-reported figures. This is no different from the C-SPAN source where Joe Sims claims the membership is 20,000 the next year. Whereas the Guardian source is more accurate as it is not based off Joe Sim's claims, which carries a conflict of interest due to him being co-Chair of the CPUSA, and is instead an independent assessment. Therefore I think that there should be on the membership infobox section both a self-reported membership of 20,000 based on the C-SPAN source and the 5,000 figure by the independent source. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not sure if this has been brought up or not already, but I haven't seen it. The Guardian article, which is being used to cite the 5,000 member source, is more likely than not just basing their figures off of what was stated on Wikipedia at the time. I can't find where they sourced the number from, but coincidentally the membership number listed on this Wiki page for May 24, 2024 is 5,000, dating from a 2017 estimate, and was marked as needing an update. I do not see the validity in discounting the C-SPAN article because it is quoting a primary source. Eventually all secondary sources must come from primary sources. There are similar articles on similar subjects that use similar sources. For instance, the page for DSA cites a JTA article for it's 80k member figure. The article itself cites DSA. How else do you propose that a source gets membership numbers other than the numbers the organization itself publishes? This just feels incredibly silly to me. Blocky858 (talk) 09:05, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this response. I will attempt to articulate my epistemic reasoning better.
It is true that all secondary sources trace back to primary sources for information, but the information it traces back to can either be reliable or unreliable. For the C-SPAN source, it is just Joe Sims' claim while he is being interviewed by the network, rather than citing a primary source of an independent assessment for the membership of the party. It is true that a party might be genuine in what they claim their membership is. However for the CPUSA it is not reliable because they include their mailing list as membership, which means they are inflating their membership count.
For The Guardian article, the author could have just looked at the Wikipedia page and wrote that into the article. However this seems unlikely as this would be journalistic malpractice for a reputable outlet like The Guardian that Wikipedia considers reliable. The paragraph is not fully clear as to where the author gets the figure from, and if they made an independent assessment themselves they would most likely say that they did. Although, it could be the case that the author is referring to an assessment made by Haz Al-Din. While it would be easy to assume that Haz Al-Din has a conflict of interest due to his opposition to the CPUSA, it is also the case that the CPUSA has a conflict of interest and it is blatantly the case, as per the inflated membership numbers. Therefore if the unreliable figure by Joe Sims is cited, then The Guardian's figure, which is potentially from Haz Al-Din, should also be used to improve balance. Those opposed to the CPUSA will say that the membership is actually much lower, and the CPUSA itself has obviously inflated their membership numbers. Therefore both should be referenced as one of them by themselves is unbalanced. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks for writing back. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, primary sources when talking about themselves are fine to be used, with some exceptions. None of those exceptions apply here, unless you wish to claim that the membership number is somehow exceptional. Do you have any evidence at all to say that CPUSA's membership number is in anyway inflated purposefully or that it is just a 'mailing list'? This seems to not have any actual source and seems to just be hearsay by editors and would go against WP:FRINGE. Both the AP and C-SPAN report the number as is from Joe Sims. 20,000 is not completely out there in my view, given the growth of American leftist groups within the past few years, although still small compared to the US at large. I would say that this specific Guardian article does not meet WP:V. The number that is presented is not cited at all in the article. Given it is in between a lot of what Haz was saying as direct quotes, I would assume it is trying to cite Haz. What is Haz's source here? I would say that fails WP:NOR as well as WP:COISOURCE and WP:NOTRELIABLE. I don't think the Guardian number should be used at all. At most what should be done is something added to the article talking about growth of the party in recent years and how it is disputed. But I think that in and of itself is not necessary given how The Guardian article fails to meet many requirements. Blocky858 (talk) 06:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the Guardian article is that the author is reporting Al-Din's argument, which means using the facts that Al-Din provided to him. Even if I am wrong, the Guardian is a reliable source for news only, not analysis. Also, Context matters: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable."
Even if we had no policies or guidelines, common sense tells us that a comment made in passing by a reporter writing about a different topic is not a good source. TFD (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is such mailing list, and it seems to be used to embellish the membership count to claim that it is 20,000. At 8 minutes and 45 seconds in this C-SPAN interview Joe Sims says "When we are mailing today, we are mailing to close to 20,000 people." Daniel Rosenberg in the journal American Communist History said that the membership of the CPUSA is inflated. Just because leftist parties have grown doesn't mean that the CPUSA isn't also embellishing their membership count. Counting people in a mailing list or "online adherents" will inflate what the membership count actually is of the party. ApricotAvalanche037 (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks again for the response.
It seems you are potentially misunderstanding what I am asking. I am not questioning the existence of a mailing list and that is not what is up for debate, Joe Sims clearly states they are 'mailing' to people. I am asking for any evidence on your part that explicitly says that the mailing list number and the membership numbers are different. Unless I have missed something, that seems to be an interpretation on your part instead of being based on what the sources themselves say WP:NOR. Within the broader context of what Joe Sims is talking about, it is pretty obvious to me that he is clearly speaking about membership within CPUSA when he speaks about 'mailing', especially since he immediately follows the statement up with how to join the party, not to mention beforehand he also speaks about the growth of the party and new applications they are receiving to join. The sources treat his comments as describing membership as well, it seems.
As I read it, you are proposing that there are two separate numbers, one of 'actual' membership, and one of a 'mailing list'. I don't think that is supported by the sources. Furthermore you say that the 20,000 number stated 'seems to be used to embellish the membership' - according to what exactly? This appears to be interpretation not supported by the cited sources, and seems to again fall under WP:FRINGE. You reference Daniel Rosenberg, and as far as I can tell the article is historical (not to mention 6+ years old) and all it says is 'Nearly half the online joiners paid no dues' when talking about a specific time period in the 2000s. I don't find this useful for modern day membership, although it may be useful for context. Moreover, looking at the CPUSA constitution and website, it appears that the party does not require one to pay dues to become a member. It seems problematic to me, as well as outside of our scope, to apply a strict definition of 'true' membership in this case without also applying it across the whole of Wikipedia.
In short, unless there is a reliable and verifiable source explicitly drawing a distinction between mailing list and membership, as well as any reliable and verifiable source stating specific numbers of members within the 20,000 number are 'faked', I don't think it is useful to continue to litigate this amongst ourselves. In my view, per WP:NPOV, it would be better to go with Sims' statement as reported by the AP and C-SPAN. Blocky858 (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology

I see that, currently, the party's ideology is listed as "Marxism," when previously it was listed as Marxism-Leninism. The citation leads to the Party's constitution which reads:

"We apply the scientific outlook developed by Marx, Engels, Lenin and others in the context of U.S. history, culture and traditions."

This description more accurately fits Marxism-Leninism than it does simply Marxism, as it specifies Lenin's teachings as well. Not only that, but the party specifies their Marxist-Leninist ideology in their Program.

"The Communist Party is guided by Marxism-Leninism, the theory and practice of scientific socialism." 2601:100:8600:3260:5C49:9B04:FFDE:12F8 (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we label it revisionist and reactionary because it sided with the democrats (a bourgeoisie party) Kommandant-Brot (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blargh PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What follows below is a reply to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kommandant-Brot Chris Lowe (talk) 08:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Both of those terms violate Neutral Point of View (NPV), and "reactionary" IMO is simply definitionally erroneous.
'Revisionism' is a term that has specific meanings in the intellectual history of socialism and communism, and in the history of political division and factionalism in the socialist and communist movements in the broadest sense. Around the turn of the 20th century it was a term used by orthodox Marxists to critique socialists like Edouard Bernstein who had start to argue that socialism could be achieved simply by legislation within existing parliamentary systems, rather than requiring revolutionary struggle and change. More recently, it was an accusatory term used by Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party to characterize the criticisms of Stalin and resultant political changes developed by Khrushchev and others within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Such defenders of Stalin called themselves anti-revisionist.
It would not violate NPV to write that the CPUSA followed the line of the CPSU and were called revisionists by the groupings in the broadly speaking Maoist New Communist Movement of the 1970s and 1980s in the U.S., citing appropriate sources. But to simply state as fact that the CPUSA was and is revisionist in that sense is to take a side in the dispute, and abandon NPV, greatly weakening ability to explain the dispute to a reader unfamiliar with it.
'Reactionary' specifically refers to forms of anti-modernist far right conservatism that wish to undo the effects of the bourgeois liberal revolutions in Europe between the 1770s and the 1920s. N.B. that 'liberal' in this sense includes what many U.S. conservatives call 'classical liberalism' focused on individual freedom and 'free markets.' Reactionaries historically have wanted things like the restoration of ascribed power to inherited monarchies and aristocracies. Insofar as MAGA as a movement wants to reverse gains in civil rights and liberties by women, people of color, and LGBTQ people, MAGA is a reactionary movement, and indeed narratives of lost greatness that needs to be restored have always been central to reactionary politics, from late 19th century French monarchists to Mussolini's fascism.
Marx, on the other hand, regarded the bourgeoisie as a progressive force in history, insofar as they dismantled feudalism and removed the fetters it placed on the development of the forces of production. In the new conditions of class struggle that bourgeois triumph created, the bourgeoisie dispossessed and oppressed workers, creating conditions for new kinds of consciousness, organizing and struggle. But Marx and the main lines of the Marxist traditions have never regarded liberal or even neoliberal capitalism as reactionary.
So as between the CPUSA and the oxymoronic (IMO) 'MAGA Communism' apparently embraced by the American Communist Party, I'd have to say that 'reactionary' better fits the ACP. But I wouldn't just write that about them either, which would also violate NPV, since it's mostly a term of abuse and insult. Rather I'd seek reliable sources reporting such characterizations, along with others reporting how the ACP responds. Chris Lowe (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The party has abandoned revolution and is siding with bourgeoisie parties for anti-fascism.. this is how the revolution ends - allying with the social demicrats. Look at the german revolution. The party isn't revolutionary Communist they're reactionary. Kommandant-Brot (talk) 11:55, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Blocky858 (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude lol PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War resolution

I've seen an edit war concerning a statistic of elected officials in office right now for the CPUSA. I'd like the edit warring to stop, and for the information to be excluded unless a reliable source comes across. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 21:03, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reliable sources. The victor's name is Hannah Shvets, and here's three sources:
Conservative leaning New York Post states, "Hannah Shvets, 20, a student organizer and member of the Communist Party USA, was elected to the Ithaca Common Council on Thursday in the Democratic stronghold’s Fifth Ward, which covers the western half of Cornell University’s campus in the city."
See website: https://nypost.com/2025/11/10/us-news/communist-student-elected-to-ithaca-common-council/
People's World, a left leaning newspaper, also acknowledges the TRUE proletarian victory, "In a stunning victory, local Ithacan, student organizer, and member of the Communist Party USA, Hannah Shvets decisively defeated Gepe Zurenda in a hotly contested race for the Fifth Ward Common Council seat. Shvets was propelled to her seat by a growing coalition composed of labor unions, community organizations, and the numerous local formations of the progressive left."
See website: https://peoplesworld.org/article/communist-councilwoman-from-ithaca-hannah-shvets-defeats-landlord-candidate/
Here's the episode of Good Morning Revolution in which the General Secretary OF the CPUSA both has Shvets on the air and acknowledges her victory in the introduction:
https://www.cpusa.org/party_voices/gmr-today-socialism-wins-cpusa-candidates-too/
The People have won a seat. Acknowledge our victory, liberals. I'm sure that it wouldn't take three sources to confirm literally anyone else. Collie beans (talk) 06:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have however seen someone change it to 3, then to 0, and back again.
Also, while the NY Post is reliable, People’s World and the CPUSA website are both CPUSA sources. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:48, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, i think that’s more suited for this page: List of Communist Party USA members who have held office in the United States. We don’t need the number of elected officials. I believe there’s 2. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule against using sources talking about themselves, it is allowed per WP:ABOUTSELF . People's World is the official newspaper of CPUSA. The Communist Party says these 3 people, Shvets, Carson, and de Paula Santos are members. They all seem to accept that. Outside sources like the NY Post say that too. They don't deny the affiliation. I don't know why this is a controversial discussion. Just put the relevant citations in the article.
Now, I don't think a number is necessary on the infobox. Other organizations that exist, for example, DSA, do not have that info in their box despite having many more elected members. But other groups like ACP do. Instead, maybe something in History or somewhere else talking about it is better. As far as I can tell, this has been the most successful single election for CPUSA dating back to the 30s or 40s. Blocky858 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The membership number was changed to 5,000. There is NO source for accurate membership numbers besides the CPUSA claims. Can we remove membership entirely, or come up wiith some other way to give an accurate number? ~2025-35549-69 (talk) 11:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third party sources, or the number in People’s World, the official CPUSA newspaper. PhilDaBirdMan (Talk |WikiProject Socialism | Current Incubator Initiative) 12:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be sourced even if it comes from the party itself. Maybe add something like "self-reported." It seems like a reasonable ballpark figure. There are probably more than a dozen members but fewer than 100,000. TFD (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian members of the Communist Party USA

new category for wikipedians to disclose their membership 🐦DrWho42👻 00:47, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Party_USA