You're just clearly upset that some of us dare to critique the Communist Party. And no, I'm not talking about those who equate communism with nazism. Deal with our critiques, please.
Uh, no. I have my own critique as well. It would be nice if some CPers actually posted here. Then you could really rip into them. heh.
At the moment I'm trying to work my way through their pre-Convention documents. It really seems like you are badly mis-representing their perspective - shadow-boxing with an opponent who isn't there. I read their documents as saying that they are trying to strengthen the mass movements (on their own terms) and they're also elaborating what they bring to the table: an awareness of the limitations of the bourgeois state, stuff like that. I don't see that as arrogant at all.
So let me paraphrase, as I see it. They want a larger organization, press, youth section, etc. so they can build the mass movements, bring their perspective to the table, advocate for socialism, etc.
Maybe show an exact quote from the Draft document. Use their wording and show how awful their approach is. No, really.
I would have had more respect and curiosity about their program if they had said something about the need to strengthen ALL progressive and left organizations, movements, tendencies ...
An interesting point. Of course that would mean that others should do the same, no?
Certainly they take the view that it's either socialism or capitalism. There is no "third way". And there are plenty of Marxist intellectuals - the late E M Wood to give just one example - who share this view. It' s just plain, orthodox Marxism. Certainly not unique to the CP. Not by a long shot.
The "self-flagellation is the way to go" part of your contribution I'm not going to quote. Sorry, but that seems ... oh never mind.I would just ask how long this "self criticism" is meant to last. Clubbing yourself over the head is not going to win new members (which is a key goal of theirs) so this is kind of important.
I mean, a reminder here. One of the fundamental Marxist critiques of any mass movement - even the trade union movement I might add - is that as a movement none of them rise to the level of leading the struggle for fundamental change. That's not their goal. They don't see, they do not articulate, the need for revolution. But the CP is a revolutionary party. At least, that's their proclaimed aim. Fundamental change. They argue it is necessary for society to move forward, to improve the lives of the people. So they have to elaborate some steps on the way, some means to that end. And if we denounce them for the hubris for thinking that revolution is what's needed, while others we support and like do not think that, (like the mass movements) then we're really just denouncing revolution in general. If they are wrong about it, then by all means make some points about how this necessary revolution ought to develop or go. But if we leave this out then it's entirely fair to insist that we place ourselves on one side or the other: is fundamental change - socialism as some of us see it - needed to make our society better in the way that's needed for the common good, hence the necessity of revolution, or can society be improved by staying within capitalism? Revoltionaries insist on this and reformers want to avoid it. Shit or get off the pot. I think that's fair.
If what you mean - that they're utterly worthless and inherently incapable of change (an interesting claim) - then by all means say so. But that's a different sort of argument.