Click on the headline to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archives.
*************
Markin comment on James P. Cannon and the early American Communist Party from the American Left History blog:
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past mistakes of our history and want to know some of the problems that confronted the early American Communist Party and some of the key personalities, including James Cannon, who formed that party this book is for you.
At the beginning of the 21st century after the demise of the Soviet Union and the apparent ‘death of communism’ it may seem fantastic and utopian to today’s militants that early in the 20th century many anarchist, socialist, syndicalist and other working class militants of this country coalesced to form an American Communist Party. For the most part, these militants honestly did so in order to organize an American Socialist Revolution patterned on and influenced by the Russian October Revolution of 1917. James P. Cannon represents one of the important individuals and faction leaders in that effort and was in the thick of the battle as a central leader of the Party in this period. Whatever his political mistakes at the time, or later, one could certainly use such a militant leader today. His mistakes were the mistakes of a man looking for a revolutionary path.
For those not familiar with this period a helpful introduction by the editors gives an analysis of the important fights which occurred inside the party. That overview highlights some of the now more obscure personalities (a helpful biographical glossary is provided), where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the crucial early fights in the party. These include questions which are still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the proper attitude toward parliamentary politics; support to third party bourgeois candidates; trade union policy; class war defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party. This makes it somewhat easier for those not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull it in on itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the party. Unfortunately, that rise combined with the international ramifications of the internal dispute in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of this period.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? I would argue that the period under study represented Cannon’s apprenticeship. Although the hothouse politics of the early party clarified some of the issues of revolutionary strategy for him I believe that it was not until he linked up with Trotsky in the 1930’s that he became the kind of leader who could lead a revolution. Of course, since Cannon never got a serious opportunity to lead revolutionary struggles here this is mainly reduced to speculation on my part. Later books written by him make the case better. One thing is sure- in his prime he had the instincts to want to lead a revolution.
As an addition to the historical record of this period this book is a very good companion to the two-volume set by Theodore Draper - The Roots of American Communism and Soviet Russia and American Communism- the definitive study on the early history of the American Communist Party. It is also a useful companion to Cannon’s own The First Ten Years of American Communism (click see all my reviews for reviews of all of these books). I would add that this is something of a labor of love on the part of the editors. This book was published at a time when the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was in full swing and anything related to Communist studies was deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of society in America. Now is the time to study this history.
**********
The Struggle For A Revolutionary Workers Party In 1940
If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the socialist response to imperialist war this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of the writings of James P. Cannon that was published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the late 1970’s shortly after his death in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series on this important American Communist.
In the introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the documentation provided here show? This certainly is the period of Cannon’s political maturation after a long journeymanship working with Trotsky. The period under discussion- just before American entry into World War II- started with his leadership of the fight against those who no longer wanted to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution despite the Stalinist degeneration of that revolution. Cannon won his spurs in that fight and in his struggle to orient the party toward World War II. One thing is sure- in his prime which includes this period- Cannon had the instincts to want to lead a revolution and had the evident capacity to do so.
As I write this review we are in the midst of commemorating the 3rd anniversary of the start of the American invasion of Iraq. As I have argued elsewhere in this space militants must support the call for immediate United States and Allied forces withdrawal from that war-torn country. Over the long haul more drastic action is needed, much more, including a change in government but that demand is the minimum basis for action today. The proper response to the American invasion by leftists today has been the subject of much discussion (and precious little action). This dilemma is due in part to the lost of continuity with earlier leftist traditions of struggle in this country. Let us learn from them.
I note here that even among socialists, particularly the non-Stalinist socialists of that day, there was controversy on what to do and, more importantly, what forces socialists should support in the impeding world-wide war to come. If you want to find a more profound response initiated by revolutionary socialists to World War II than is evident in today’s leftist responses to Iraq Cannon’s writings here will assist you. I draw your attention to the early part of the book where Cannon offers a cogent polemic against those who no longer wanted to defend the gains of the Russian Revolution against an impeding imperialist onslaught. Perhaps as important is Cannon’s leadership of the organizational struggle against that tendency just prior to American entry into World War II.
For most of the period before World War II, and indeed for most of the 20th century, the so-called Russian Question was a central, if not the central question that divided the international labor movement. Where organizations and individuals stood on defense of the gains of the Russian Revolution because or despite the victorious Stalinist leadership shaped all other policies. As orthodox Trotskyists the Socialist Workers Party was committed to defend the Russian Revolution and hence the Soviet Union in case of war with any of the imperialist powers. Not for the first time, and probably not for the last, when it appeared that this question was going to go from an abstract slogan to reality in 1939-40 parts of that party rebelled. That rebellion was ignited under various theoretical justifications- in any case- it resulted from the pressure of middle class public opinion against the Soviet Union on the organization after the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. The good old days of the Popular Front when all were good fellows and true rapidly receded into the background. This question moreover split the central leadership of the party which had worked together through thick and thin for more than a decade. For more insights by Cannon this section bears a careful reading especially on the decisive importance of party program in orienting the membership through the rough spots.
As an aside, although the Russian question was the central political question dividing the party as it faced World War II a disproportionate amount of Cannon’s ink was spilled on the organization question. That is, in polemicizing against those elements in the leadership and their hangers-on who were unhappy with their positions or who were nursing slights by the Cannon ‘regime’. Trotsky faced some of the same accusations then and earlier during his leadership of various parts of the Soviet state. It is apparent that some of the oppositionists of the leadership were using the political situation to abandon the party altogether. Those elements (mainly around Shachtman and Abern) thought they could build a mass party on the cheap. After the split they lost no time setting up a new party which was supposed to be faster and speedier than the old party. That party’s (The Workers Party) later evolution to mainstream State Department social democracy and political disintegration should give one pause. Although the Russian question, with the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991-92, is no longer a day to day burning issue for the international labor movement a serious attitude toward program and politics is still warranted. Cannon’s work here shows how that should look.
No comments:
Post a Comment