On The 73rd Anniversary
Of The Assassination Of The Great 20th Century Revolutionary Leon
Trotsky-
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.
**************
WHAT TO DO WHEN IT IS NECESSARY START OVER
BOOK REVIEW
THE LEFT OPPOSITION IN THE U.S. 1928-31; JAMES P. CANNON, WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, 1928-31, MONAD PRESS, NEW YORK, 1981
As an expelled faction of the American Communist Party, which continued to stand on the program of the defense of the Russian Revolution, the Cannon group needed an orientation. That they considered themselves as an expelled by loyal faction of the party was the correct orientation for a small propaganda group. The Party was where the vast bulk of the advanced political workers were. Going to the “masses”, as has occurred with other expelled groupings would have proved disastrous. Cannon’s group needed to present a programmatic basis to win over workers and intellectuals from the party. This it did with its Platform of the Communist Opposition, a generally good programmatic statement. I would, however, like to address two points in that document that are of interest today. That is the slogans for a workers party and for the right of national self-determination for blacks (at that time, called Negroes).
If conditions are right and you a in a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary period a revolutionary workers organization would recruit militants directly to the party. Thus, to use some algebraic formula for drawing workers to the organization is not necessary. At other times, and the late 1920’s and 1930’s was such a period in the United States, at least the call for a workers party, presumably based on less than the full program, by a propaganda group would be appropriate. In short, propaganda and agitation in favor of a generic workers party is a tactic. The call for such a formation today by militants is appropriate. In any case, no militants are talking about a party modeled on, for example, the British Labor Party, then or now.
The left-wing movement in America, including the Communist Party and its offshoots has always had problems with what has been called the Black Question. The Communist Opposition’s position on this question reflects that misconception, taken over from the party. Marxists have always considers support to the right of national self-determination to be a wedge against the nationalists and to put a class axis on the situation. In any case, that has always been predicated on there being a possibility for the group to form a nation. Absent that, other methods of struggle are necessary to deal with the special oppression, here of black people. Part of the problem with the American Communist position is that the conditions which would have created the possibility of a black state were being destroyed with the mechanization of agriculture, the migration of blacks to the Northern industrial centers and the overwhelming need to fight for black people’s rights to survive under the conditions of the Great Depression. This misconception later came back to haunt Cannon’s group when the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950’s and 1960’s presented opportunities for intervention in the black struggle.
The Cannon group was not the only group expelled from the American Communist Party during the period under review. One cannot understand this period inside the Communist movement if one does not consider which ways the winds were blowing from Moscow. A furious struggle for power in the Russian Communist Party, reflected in the conduct of the Communist International, was under way during this period. First, the Trotsky-led Left Opposition was defeated by the Stalin faction, and then shortly thereafter the Bukharin-led Right Opposition was defeated. This was reflected in the expulsion of the Lovestone group, previously the leadership of the Party. The political shakeout from this was a certain pressure to unite the two expelled factions. From Trotsky’s perspective and these influences Cannon this was not permissible.
Most bourgeois parties, and here the writer includes reformist workers parties, do not confront a question such as this for the simple reason they are not, and do not want to, carry out a revolution. Therefore, such parties, basically parliamentary organizations will freely block with any other organization under any advantageous conditions. Not so a revolutionary party. While it may unite, for the moment, with a wide range of organizations for general democratic demands it must have a fairly homogeneous program if it is to lead a revolution. The program of the Right Opposition, in effect, was a transmission belt for reformism. In short, if you unite you have two parties, at least in embryo in one organization. The Russian Revolution and later the Communist International in its better days should have put that question to rest. For the Left Opposition this necessary division, and the correctness of its policy, was shown most dramatically in Spain when the formerly Trotskyist Left Opposition led by Andreas Nin fused with the Right Opposition led by his friend Maurin in 1935. The result, the Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), while being the most honest revolutionary party in the Spanish Civil War floundered over revolutionary strategy due to its confused orientation on the popular front, military support to the bourgeois government and a whole range of questions. The POUM experience is the textbook of what not to do in a revolutionary period. Unfortunately, Nin lost his life at the hands of the Stalinists and the POUM leadership was arrested for this confusion.
In Communist history, the period under review is called the ‘Third Period’, allegedly the period of the final crisis of capitalism. The conclusions drawn by the Stalinists from this theory was that revolution was on the immediate agenda everywhere and that it was not necessary, and in fact, counterproductive to make alliances with other forces. This writer has read a far amount of material about this ‘Third Period’, mainly at the level of high policy from the Communist International, especially in regard to Germany where it was a disaster. The book under review gives a very nice appreciation by Cannon in a number of articles of how that policy works at the base, the trade unions and the unemployed. It is painful to see how the Stalinist withdrew from the organized trade union movement and set up their own “red” unions composed mainly of Communist sympathizers. That the Stalinist did not suffer more damage and isolation after the policy was changed later during the great labor battles of the 1930’s testifies more to the desperate nature of those struggles than any wisdom learned by the Stalinists. Read this book for more on how to build a workers organization in tough times.
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.
**************
WHAT TO DO WHEN IT IS NECESSARY START OVER
BOOK REVIEW
THE LEFT OPPOSITION IN THE U.S. 1928-31; JAMES P. CANNON, WRITINGS AND SPEECHES, 1928-31, MONAD PRESS, NEW YORK, 1981
As an expelled faction of the American Communist Party, which continued to stand on the program of the defense of the Russian Revolution, the Cannon group needed an orientation. That they considered themselves as an expelled by loyal faction of the party was the correct orientation for a small propaganda group. The Party was where the vast bulk of the advanced political workers were. Going to the “masses”, as has occurred with other expelled groupings would have proved disastrous. Cannon’s group needed to present a programmatic basis to win over workers and intellectuals from the party. This it did with its Platform of the Communist Opposition, a generally good programmatic statement. I would, however, like to address two points in that document that are of interest today. That is the slogans for a workers party and for the right of national self-determination for blacks (at that time, called Negroes).
If conditions are right and you a in a pre-revolutionary or revolutionary period a revolutionary workers organization would recruit militants directly to the party. Thus, to use some algebraic formula for drawing workers to the organization is not necessary. At other times, and the late 1920’s and 1930’s was such a period in the United States, at least the call for a workers party, presumably based on less than the full program, by a propaganda group would be appropriate. In short, propaganda and agitation in favor of a generic workers party is a tactic. The call for such a formation today by militants is appropriate. In any case, no militants are talking about a party modeled on, for example, the British Labor Party, then or now.
The left-wing movement in America, including the Communist Party and its offshoots has always had problems with what has been called the Black Question. The Communist Opposition’s position on this question reflects that misconception, taken over from the party. Marxists have always considers support to the right of national self-determination to be a wedge against the nationalists and to put a class axis on the situation. In any case, that has always been predicated on there being a possibility for the group to form a nation. Absent that, other methods of struggle are necessary to deal with the special oppression, here of black people. Part of the problem with the American Communist position is that the conditions which would have created the possibility of a black state were being destroyed with the mechanization of agriculture, the migration of blacks to the Northern industrial centers and the overwhelming need to fight for black people’s rights to survive under the conditions of the Great Depression. This misconception later came back to haunt Cannon’s group when the Civil Rights struggles of the 1950’s and 1960’s presented opportunities for intervention in the black struggle.
The Cannon group was not the only group expelled from the American Communist Party during the period under review. One cannot understand this period inside the Communist movement if one does not consider which ways the winds were blowing from Moscow. A furious struggle for power in the Russian Communist Party, reflected in the conduct of the Communist International, was under way during this period. First, the Trotsky-led Left Opposition was defeated by the Stalin faction, and then shortly thereafter the Bukharin-led Right Opposition was defeated. This was reflected in the expulsion of the Lovestone group, previously the leadership of the Party. The political shakeout from this was a certain pressure to unite the two expelled factions. From Trotsky’s perspective and these influences Cannon this was not permissible.
Most bourgeois parties, and here the writer includes reformist workers parties, do not confront a question such as this for the simple reason they are not, and do not want to, carry out a revolution. Therefore, such parties, basically parliamentary organizations will freely block with any other organization under any advantageous conditions. Not so a revolutionary party. While it may unite, for the moment, with a wide range of organizations for general democratic demands it must have a fairly homogeneous program if it is to lead a revolution. The program of the Right Opposition, in effect, was a transmission belt for reformism. In short, if you unite you have two parties, at least in embryo in one organization. The Russian Revolution and later the Communist International in its better days should have put that question to rest. For the Left Opposition this necessary division, and the correctness of its policy, was shown most dramatically in Spain when the formerly Trotskyist Left Opposition led by Andreas Nin fused with the Right Opposition led by his friend Maurin in 1935. The result, the Party of Marxist Unification (POUM), while being the most honest revolutionary party in the Spanish Civil War floundered over revolutionary strategy due to its confused orientation on the popular front, military support to the bourgeois government and a whole range of questions. The POUM experience is the textbook of what not to do in a revolutionary period. Unfortunately, Nin lost his life at the hands of the Stalinists and the POUM leadership was arrested for this confusion.
In Communist history, the period under review is called the ‘Third Period’, allegedly the period of the final crisis of capitalism. The conclusions drawn by the Stalinists from this theory was that revolution was on the immediate agenda everywhere and that it was not necessary, and in fact, counterproductive to make alliances with other forces. This writer has read a far amount of material about this ‘Third Period’, mainly at the level of high policy from the Communist International, especially in regard to Germany where it was a disaster. The book under review gives a very nice appreciation by Cannon in a number of articles of how that policy works at the base, the trade unions and the unemployed. It is painful to see how the Stalinist withdrew from the organized trade union movement and set up their own “red” unions composed mainly of Communist sympathizers. That the Stalinist did not suffer more damage and isolation after the policy was changed later during the great labor battles of the 1930’s testifies more to the desperate nature of those struggles than any wisdom learned by the Stalinists. Read this book for more on how to build a workers organization in tough times.
No comments:
Post a Comment