Talk:Communist Party USA

Request: Add a section on splinter parties

Could someone add a section on splinter parties, the Trotskyite ones and others? I, and perhaps others, came here hoping to see a bit, or links, to American Communist Parties generally, not just the mainstream one. editeur24 (talk) 15:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Well, the article is about the main party. Are there articles on the other parties? Are they significant (via coverage in mainstream publications) to have an article? Can you provide links to reliable sources that talk about them? If you want changes, it helps if you provide more information, like the name, a site, a reliable article on them, etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  Who or what makes it the "main" party? There should be a disambiguation regardless. 76.86.155.146 (talk) 06:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

20000 vs 5000 members

People keep adding 20k members with only a primary source, whereas the secondary sources are saying 5,000. They removed the actual reliable source. I've tagged as dubious, and put in BOTH claims with sources. Watching the video to see if they actually mention the number, as the person who added it didn't bother to add a timestamp, the same as we would expect a page number for book cites. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• I've restored the 5,000 membership and the source. The 20,000 claim was not found in the source given. There has been a couple of people, for years, trying to pump up the numbers to show 20k members using primary sources and claims, but without any reliable sources, and this fake claim seems to be part of that. You are free to watch the whole video (mind numbing as it is) and point to the time stamp if you want to dispute my claim that it doesn't exist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Nonexistent or miscredited Source

This article cites David Shannon's "The Rise of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression" in Journal of American History, 54(2), 351–365, however vol 54 no 2 does not contain this article (https://www.jstor.org/stable/i305511) and in fact there is no evidence he ever wrote this article for this journal (https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?si=1&Query=au%3A%22David+A.+Shannon%22&so=rel). Can anyone else find evidence this exists? Evan5623 (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

ACP?

I have noticed that the American Communist Party (ACP), which split from CPUSA in July 2024, has had all references removed from this page. I cannot see how this is justified except by ideologues who are attempting to suppress a factual split in the CPUSA that has garnered major attention in the same political circles CPUSA occupies. I believe attempts to remove this without justification will clearly show this page is being edited according to the political motivations of its editors. That there is absolutely no mention of ACP, nor of the previous mention of ACP in this Talk section, is extremely concerning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZFoster11 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Strangely, all edits and mentions of ACP, even when citing legitimate sources, are removed. This is reminiscent of the previous pattern of behavior whereby the official ACP wikipedia page was graffitied with unsubstantiated nonsense before being taken down for the back-and-forth "edit wars."

The reliable source cited was the ACP website, which was properly linked.[1] ACP has been officially recognized and congratulated by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Palestinian People's Party, Palestinian Communist Party, People's Democracy Party (South Korea), Unified Communist Party of Georgia, Russian Communist Worker's Party, Socialist Party of Latvia, Congolese Communist Party, Communist Party of Zimbabwe, Vatan Partisi, Kurdistan Communist Party Iraq, Partito Comunista (Switzerland), The Pole of Communist Revival in France, Unión Proletaria (Spain). Additionally, it has been recognized by CPUSA itself in a letter signed by Joe Sims.[2] Here, Joe Sims denies that 28 chapters left to join the ACP. Additionally, it has undeniably become a major force in the political discourse, has accrued 71% of the following CPUSA has online, and is arguably far more influential than CPUSA as far as impressions go and as far as accruing online attention or impacting the public discourse; this can simply be verified by looking at views, likes, and attention generated online between the two organizations.[3] As far as its presence offline, it is arguably more active than CPUSA, and its activity is logged here.[4] Additionally, it has its own journal and ISSN number going on four editions.[5]

It would be interesting to know why a registered political party that has accrued the attention it has is repeatedly omitted from the CPUSA Wikipedia page, despite the CPUSA's Joe Sims acknowledging it (even if to deny its legitimacy). In my view, it is clear this is being edited with political motivations. For those accusing me of the same, I challenge you to find the bias in simply reporting that, in July of 2024, members from 28 Chapters of CPUSA and half of PCUSA formed the ACP. ZFoster11 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZFoster11 there is no evidence that any actual chapters split. the streamer infrared told his audience to make fake CPUSA Twitter profiles, and that was used as "proof". its irrelevant to the CPUSA which us still a very existent organization. this is just vandalism and self promotion. Leninscat (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leninscat That is simply untrue and unsubstantiated. The ACP is a very existent organization and is far more impactful on the public discourse than CPUSA. A quick search of the media outreach, in terms of likes, clicks, and views, verifies this very quickly. This is just disinformation. And assuming it was not, there is no basis for removing a factual split that occurred in the CPUSA that resulted in a Party that has a substantial social media and real-life presence. You may contest this, as was accounted in the section on ACP, but you have no right to say it does not exist because it is inconvenient for you. ZFoster11 (talk) 06:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZFoster11 this is the page for CPUSA not ACP. there was no split in CPUSA, no evidence of that from any source that isn't your party. Leninscat (talk) 06:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leninscat The ACP split from the CPUSA. Therefore, it is logical to include it into the CPUSA history. A membership roster of CPUSA members who are in ACP would easily suffice. Regarding the legitimacy of the organization, it (1) is a registered 501(c)(4) in Nevada, (2) has been recognized by Joe Sims in a letter to Solidnet, urging other parties to ignore the organization, and (3) has been recognized by several dozen Communist and workers' parties around the world, including the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP). I have cited to the statements made by this organization and several others which have congratulated the ACP on forming and which have expressed solidarity with the organization.

Your reason for removing it should be substantiated by facts and not your personal antipathy towards the ACP. If you believe the question of members splitting is factually incorrect, it would suffice to add "reportedly." Your insistence to remove the entire section on an organization that is far more relevant than CPUSA itself, especially online, points to a different motivation behind your edits. ZFoster11 (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leninscat I should also note that your perspective that such a split did not occur was represented in the section on ACP that I added, which simply reported a factual split that occured in July 2024. Quote: "Joe Sims, chairman of the CPUSA, published a letter to Solidnet denying that such a split took place and claiming ACP represented "pro-Trump individuals." This is a direct quote from Joe Sims and summarizes his view of the ACP. The original post on ACP was entirely factual and was not, as you falsely imply, "self-promotion," unless reporting on facts is self-promotion.

I should also note that your original note for removing the section is internally inconsistent, where you claim that the ACP is "a rival party to CPUSA" and yet "has no relation to CPUSA." A rivalry logically implies a relation. In any case, I see no evidence for such a rivalry given that ACP and CPUSA do not recognize each other as legitimate Parties; nevertheless, the relationship is clear in (1) the membership of ACP, whose members split from CPUSA, (2) the history and symbolism, which ACP claims to inherit from CPUSA, and (3) the statements Joe Sims has made regarding ACP. ZFoster11 (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZFoster11 there is no evidence that it split from the CPUSA that does not come from the ACP itself. this was a longterm project of the streamer INFRARED who created hundreds of fake CPUSA Twitter accounts to "takeover" the CPUSA. Leninscat (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

a rivalry doesn't imply that the ACP belongs in the page for CPUSA. there was no formal or informal split in the CPUSA, no evidence of anything other than a streamer attempting to hijack an existing parties legacy and history for self promotion as you are doing to this page. Leninscat (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leninscat There is no proof that the "streamer INFRARED created hundreds of fake CPUSA Twitter accounts to 'takeover' the CPUSA," and you should provide sources for this claim. Regarding the split, it is evidenced by the signatures of 28 chapters and the past and present membership of ACP, most of whom hail from CPUSA (while others hail from PCUSA, a CPUSA splinter). Again, you censoring mention of ACP because you are operating a policy of containment. You are additionally providing unsubstantiated claims about the nature of ACP, which may reflect your opinion and should be voiced in the Talk page, but absent citations should not be used to justify edits to the page reporting a factual split in CPUSA. ZFoster11 (talk) 07:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@ZFoster11 there is no split in the CPUSA. The ACP is not a valid source for reporting on the ACP. that's just self promotion which is what you are doing. Leninscat (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

what is your proof that CPUSA, an active organization based in New York, is "defunct"? Leninscat (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Leninscat Simply denying a split does not mean a split did not occur. You are very ignorantly refusing to recognize Joe Sims' own statement on the matter and the statements of dozens of parties, including those from the Palestinian resistance. ACP is not only more active than CPUSA, but is far more (1) influential on the public discourse, even if you disagree with this influence, and (2) impressionable online, with (for instance) the latest post by ACP at the time of writing this accruing 17k views while CPUSA's posted to the same day accruing 1.7k. This is the same with all online media between the organizations, wherein CPUSA's reach is simply dwarfed by ACP. While you may claim online impressions are insignificant, it clearly is significant enough for you to issue a policy of containment on this Wikipedia page and refer to my entirely neutral reporting on the split as "self-promoting." I am not sure why you are mentioning the CPUSA's "defunct" status when I have not mentioned this and only reported what ACP has claimed. This is a reoccurring issue where you take a statement of fact as a personal statement I am making. I have recorded Joe Sims' refusal to recognize ACP and his claim that it consists of "pro-Trump individuals;" this does not mean I agree with Joe Sims.

I believe anyone who views this exchange can see quite clearly how you are acting in bad faith and in a quite disgusting manner, so I will leave the conversation at that. ZFoster11 (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Your entire organization exists to build an alternate reality as written about in this article from 2023 https://socialistmag.us/2023/07/16/when-communists-sue-communists/. I'm not sure why you're trying to go so far as to vandalize Wikipedia now. There are plenty of sites out there where you can make up complete alternate universes, such as Fandom.com. 69.113.236.98 (talk) 14:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

What is required to mention this "split" in this Wikipedia article are references to coverage by truly reliable sources completely independent of this faction fight describing the ACP as splitting from the CPUSA, and assessing the significance of that. What is required to create a separate article about the ACP are references to reliable sources fully independent of the ACP that devote significant coverage to the ACP. Declarations from other Communist groups are far from sufficient. Wikipedia has content policies and guidelines and they apply across the board to butterfly species, trigonometry, asteroids, subatomic physics, ancient cave art, the cotton gin and factionalism among Communist organizations, among millions of other topics. Cullen328 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Cullen328 I believe the reporting by CPUSA's Chairman Joe Sims, as well as the articles put out by In Defense of Communism, Countercurrents, Free Press, etc., reflect sources that validate its inclusion; however, if these are deemed dependent on the factional dispute between ACP and CPUSA, they may not count as reliable sources. ZFoster11 (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ZFoster, if you stick around as a Wikipedia editor, you will soon learn that vague passing mentions of sources in the form of In Defense of Communism, Countercurrents, Free Press, etc accomplishes nothing here on Wikipedia. What is expected are actual links to actual sources that are actually reliable and independent by Wikipedia's standards, and that devote significant coverage to the topic in question. I have no idea how reliable those three publications are although I am pretty sure that the third is not the Detroit Free Press that I read as a teenager. As for Joe Sims (politician), I know who he is but a declaration from him about some new Communist startup is of very little value because it is not independent of the dispute between the CPUSA and the new group. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

As for the ACP, there was a thorough discussion in 2024, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Communist Party. Cullen328 (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Warning

Personal attacks against other editors are forbidden by policy. Any editor who engages in personal attacks against other editors may be blocked unless the attacks cease immediately. Cullen328 (talk) 07:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)