From The Pages Of "Workers Vanguard"-From The Late Communist Leader James P. Cannon-"Those Who Labor Must Rule!"

Click on the headline to link to the International Communist League website.

Workers Vanguard No. 999
30 March 2012

Those Who Labor Must Rule!

(Quote of the Week)

In the midst of a hard-fought 1936-37 West Coast maritime strike, Trotskyist leader James P. Cannon emphasized that labor can advance its cause only by relying on its own class strength and solidarity against the capitalist class enemy. Ben Hanford, who is referred to in the selection below, was a leader of the U.S. Socialist Party in the early 20th century.

A good deal is said about strike “strategy”—and that has its uses within certain clearly defined limits—but when you get down to cases this strike, like every other strike, is simply a bullheaded struggle between two forces whose interests are in constant and irreconcilable conflict. The partnership of capital and labor is a lie. The immediate issue in every case is decided by the relative strength of the opposing forces at the moment. The only strike strategy worth a tinker’s dam is the strategy that begins with this conception.

The problem of the strikers consists in estimating what their strength is, and then mobilizing it in full force and pressing against the enemy until something cracks and a settlement is achieved in consonance with the relation of forces between the unions and the organizations of the bosses. That’s all there is to strike strategy. You cannot maneuver over the head of the class struggle.

We pass over entirely the question of who is “right” in the maritime strike, for we believe with Ben Hanford that the working class is always right. From our point of view the workers have a perfect right to the full control of industry and all the fruits thereof. The employers on the other hand—not merely the shipowners; all bosses are alike—would like a situation where the workers are deprived of all organization and all say about their work and are paid only enough to keep body and soul together and raise a new generation of slaves to take their places when they drop in their tracks.

Any settlement in between these two extremes is only a temporary truce and the nature of such a settlement is decided by power; “justice” has nothing to do with it. The workers will not have justice until they take over the world. The demands of the workers in a strike are to be judged solely by their timeliness and the way they fit realistically into the actual relation of forces at the time.

—James P. Cannon, “The Maritime Strike” (November 1936), reprinted in Notebook of an Agitator (1958)

From The "LEFT IN EAST DAKOTA" Blog-"A Brief History of Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party"

Wednesday, May 04, 2011

A Brief History of Minnesota's Farmer-Labor Party

The following was written for issue number 60 of Socialist Appeal.

Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party was the most successful labor party in United States history. Starting in 1918, it was a labor party in the true sense, not just a “pro-labor“ party. It was a political federation of labor unions. The Minnesota Farmer-Labor Association, a grouping of associated unions and farmers, provided the organic connection between labor and the party. Before the party merged with the Democrats in 1944, they had elected three governors, four U.S. Senators, and eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

1918 was a tumultuous year. The Bolshevik Revolution was being consolidated in Russia. The German Revolution had sprung across Deutschland. In November World War I formally ended. Here at home Woodrow Wilson had signed into law the Sedition Act and used it to throw Eugene Debs in jail. Across the Midwest, as well as the nation, the Socialist Party had influence. The weekly publication “Appeal to Reason” had a circulation of one million. During this era Wisconsin sent Socialist Party founding member Victor Berger to Congress. In Minneapolis a Socialist Party candidate was elected mayor. The Non-Partisan League, a political organization started by Socialists, had gained the governor’s office in North Dakota.

This was also a time of great industrial expansion. America was becoming an industrial superpower. The way of life many had grown accustomed to was changing. Small businesses were getting destroyed by big monopolies. Workers were being sent back to the lands they left to fight a war they had no interest in. Farmers were constantly fighting for a decent price for their crop. While State repression and internal conflict marginalized the influence of the Socialist Party, other class independent political formations arose. It is within this context we see the rise of Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party.

As the name would suggest, the party was a merger of rural farmers and urban workers. Many small business owners found a home within the party as well. Nationally this was a time of many populist movements aimed at small business. There was Teddy Roosevelt and his independent run for President, the Populist Democrats, as well as various others. Due to their social existence, many of these farmers and small business owners had a different consciousness level than many of the workers. This created conflict from the beginning until the end of the party. The Republicans, the main bourgeois party in Minnesota, attempted to exploit this division. At this time the party who claimed to be a “friend of labor” was the Republicans. Many of the early supporters, from the Non-Partisan League to the Farmer-Labor party, were at one time Republicans. The Democrats would often come in a distant third in the polls. With no fundamental ties to any organized group other than the wealthy, the two parties of capital can, and often do, switch blocs of voters they lean on for support. Now, as we well know, Republicans court the far right and Democrats masquerade as being pro-labor.

In 1918, during the Minnesota State Federation of Labor convention, Socialists called for a state labor political convention. This was indeed a bold move as the Russian and German revolutions had left many within the American ruling class shaken to their foundation and not at all tolerant of political dissent. Nevertheless, the resolution passed. The formation was called the “Working People’s Political Non-Partisan League.” This was an obvious acknowledgement of the Non-Partisan league and their widening success, culminating in neighboring North Dakota. The name was later changed to the “Farmer-Labor Association” and each group, both farmer and labor, paid yearly dues.

In a wonderful analysis written in 1946, former Secretary of the Educational Bureau in the Farmer-Labor Association, Warren Creel, outlines the Association’s “Declaration of Principals:”


The Farmer-Labor movement seeks to unite into a political organization all persons engaged in agriculture and other useful industry, and those in sympathy with their interests, for the purpose of securing legislation that will protect and promote the economic welfare of the wealth producers.

He went on to say:


It aims to rescue the government from the control of the privileged few and make it function for the use and benefit of all by abolishing monopoly in every form, and to establish in place thereof a system of public ownership and operation of monopolized industries, which will afford every able and willing worker an opportunity to work and will guarantee the enjoyment of the proceeds thereof, thus increasing the amount of available wealth, eradicating unemployment and destitution, and abolishing industrial autocracy.

It became a proper political party when it started running independent candidates against the two parties of capital. The Farmer-Labor Party was not alone. There were several other similar political movements across the nation. But what separated Minnesota was the fact that they had official backing of the labor movement. The unions had, and have, the resources and structure to maintain an independent political presence. This is a huge lesson for us today and a main reason the current Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor calls for the unions to break their fickle ties with the Democrats.

It wasn’t long before the Farmer-Labor Party started gaining seats in the state legislature. With this brought all sorts of contradictions. Petty bourgeois politicians who came running to Farmer-Labor when they smelled a possible career boost constantly attempted to water down the program and, most of all, break the organic tie with labor and turn it into a typical bourgeois political party. Despite these internal battles, Farmer-Labor came in second in governor’s race every election cycle from 1918 until 1930. In 1930, in the context of the Great Depression, the first Farmer-Labor Administration was elected.

While the farmer and labor contingencies of the party worked well on immediate issues, there proved to be disagreements on the overall strategy of the party. Creel gives a first hand view of the problems:


…the genuine farmers as well as pseudo-farmers--small town bankers and lawyers--were an influence for retreat from a working class orientation. When the movement was taking shape there were sharp battles over opportunist steps, such as the nomination of Henrik Shipstead for U.S. Senator in 1922. The farmers, of course, considered themselves as holding the party on the correct middle of the road.

These “middle of the road” tactics ultimately lead to the demise of party. It was on the strength of the “Declaration of Principals” that Farmer-Labor candidates were elected and straying from that turned out to be a death blow. The main problem was the farmer section of the Association had far too much power. While it was founded with an equal farmer-labor alliance, many rural clubs had stopped paying dues and did not at all participate in the internal political process. Unfortunately, due to a poor provision in the Association’s constitution, so long as farmers would show up on election day and vote, they kept their regional delegates. This made the farmers’ influence far greater than their day to day participation.

As far as the labor section, Creel had this to say:


The labor section was basically a political federation of labor unions, a, genuine labor party organization. It had in operation the elementary machinery that is necessary for real working class politics. Political activity started in the affiliated labor union locals, where political discussion, reports of political delegates, and political campaign activity were part of the regular business of each meeting, and payment of per-capita to the labor political organization was a constant part of the budget. Delegates from the unions of each city met in monthly meetings or oftener, as the Farmer-Labor Association city central committee. This went on month after month and year after year.

This is another lesson to be learned. While today farmers don’t have the numbers they once did, they, in the same vein as small business owners, still hold formidable political power. Labor, from the bottom, must have the ultimate say in how their political presence is orchestrated. There must be measures to protect the party platform from being hijacked by coalitions or careerist bureaucrats from within.

The biggest challenge for the integrity of the Farmer-Labor Party came from Floyd B. Olsen. Olsen was a popular man across Minnesota. He was also controversial. From cries that he was a “socialist,” to alleged mob ties, to a well known muckraker nemesis being shot down in the streets of Minneapolis, Olsen captivated Minnesota and gained national attention. He was a wonderful showman and a shrewd politician. In exchange for him running on a Farmer-Labor ticket, he demanded complete control over appointees. With the possibility of a victory in 1930 humming in their ears, the Farmer-Labor Association gave him that power.

In 1930 Olsen was indeed elected. He immediately set up committees outside of the Association consisting of careerist politicians that were loyal to him. His strategy was “vote for me, I’m a good guy.” The program of the party be damned. For years Olsen's main goal was to limit labor’s influence within the party. As many state jobs as he could possibly give out, he gave out to supporters. Despite his attempted undermining of labor’s direct influence, he was forced to recognize its power. I suspect this was the reason Olsen went after the reforms he is known for, much more so than any sort of burning desire “to help the working man” he may have felt within.

Given Olsen’s maneuverings, it’s not at all surprising contradictions were everywhere. For example, it was Olsen who ordered the National Guard to Minneapolis during the famous 1934 Teamster Strike. Some unions, particularly and understandably in the Twin Cities, openly opposed him. The downward spiral of the party was heightened by Olsen’s unexpected death from stomach cancer in 1936.

From then on the party was in ruins. Despite still having a tremendous support based on their earlier program, the party was ousted from the Governor’s mansion by a great margin in 1938. By 1944 the party had officially merged into the Democratic Party. The Stalinists, who had been instrumental in bureaucratically shutting down any disagreeing voice from the unions, had now successfully merged the workers’ party into a bourgeois party. Stalin was on good terms with Roosevelt. Moscow, despite the rhetoric, had absolutely no interest in a true workers’ party, neither here nor there.

There are many lessons we can learn from the experience of Minnesota’s Farmer-Labor Party. Most of all, it shatters the myth that workers in the United States have no interest in political independence. In the final analysis, workers in the United States have the same needs, wants, and aspirations as workers in Venezuela, Egypt, Russia or Germany. This is why we are involved in the Campaign for a Mass Party of Labor. We, the Marxists, know it would prove a costly mistake not to be part of that process. We must help build our political presence. When the mighty working class in the United States moves, the world will tremble.

*Those Who Fought For Our Communist Future Are Kindred Spirits- Honor American Trotskyist Leader James P. Cannon

Click on the title to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archive's copy of his 1944 chapter on the history of the early American Trotskyist movement, "The Dog Days Of The Left Opposition".

Every January, as readers of this blog are now, hopefully, familiar with the international communist movement honors the 3 Ls-Lenin, Luxemburg and Leibknecht, fallen leaders of the early 20th century communist movement who died in this month (and whose untimely deaths left a huge, irreplaceable gap in the international leadership of that time). January is thus a time for us to reflect on the roots of our movement and those who brought us along this far. In order to give a fuller measure of honor to our fallen forbears this January, and in future Januarys, this space will honor others who have contributed in some way to the struggle for our communist future. That future classless society, however, will be the true memorial to their sacrifices.

*****

Note on inclusion: As in other series on this site (“Labor’s Untold Story”, “Leaders Of The Bolshevik Revolution”, etc.) this year’s honorees do not exhaust the list of every possible communist worthy of the name. Nor, in fact, is the list limited to Bolshevik-style communists. There will be names included from other traditions (like anarchism, social democracy, the Diggers, Levellers, Jacobins, etc.) whose efforts contributed to the international struggle. Also, as was true of previous series this year’s efforts are no more than an introduction to these heroes of the class struggle. Future years will see more detailed information on each entry, particularly about many of the lesser known figures. Better yet, the reader can pick up the ball and run with it if he or she has more knowledge about the particular exploits of some communist militant, or to include a missing one.

Markin comment:

I will stand by my previously stated remarks made in many earlier entries about the place of James P. Cannon in the American revolutionary pantheon- he had, in his prime, the capacity, warts and all, to help lead the American socialist revolution, if the opportunity had ever presented itself. The above-linked article is placed here as evidence of that capacity and to show the current generation that, even though we are in a trough in the class struggle better days are coming, or we had better act like they are.

*Labor'Untold Story- The Historic Minneapolis Teamsters Strikes Of 1934 In Pictures

Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of the great Minneapolis Teamsters strikes of 1934. The class struggle continues.

Every month is labor history month.

THE HEROIC AGE OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM-From The Pen Of James P.Cannon

BOOK REVIEW

THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN TROTSKYISM, James P. Cannon, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1972

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 communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.

In their 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 that has underlined this reviewer's approach to these volumes. 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, and the beginning of a long political collaboration working with Trotsky. The period under discussion- from the late 1920’s when he was expelled as leader of the American Communist Party through the early 1930’s with the start of the great labor upsurge which would bring wide spread unionization to the working class to 1938 and the formation of the SWP. Cannon won his spurs in this struggle to orient those organizations toward a revolutionary path. 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. That he never had an opportunity to lead a revolution is his personal tragedy and ours as well.

This book is based on a series of lectures that Cannon gave in New York in 1943 before he, along with 17 other party leaders, went to prison for revolutionary opposition to World War II. Volumes of his writings, as noted above, published later have dealt much more fully with some of the subjects of these lectures. I note The History of American Communism on the origins of the Communist party; The Left Opposition, 1928-31 on the early “dog days” after his expulsion from the Communist Party; The Communist League of America, 1932-1934 on the fight to go to the masses with an upsurge in labor struggles; and, the separately published James P. Cannon and the Early American Communist Movement on the internal struggle in the early period.

Thus, I want to take up for review and analysis here the last part of the present book the period and policies which have come down in the history of the international Trotskyist movement as the ‘French turn’. In America this policy meant that the Workers Party, predecessor of the SWP formed in 1934, dissolved and entered the Socialist Party (SP) as part of an international tactic of revolutionary regroupment in the process of forming a vanguard party.

This writer has long been interested in and a little uneasy about the implementation of the policy of the ‘French turn’. Since it is not immediately apparent why one political organization would enter another organization for such a purpose and because many of today’s militants may not be familiar with the period a little pre-history is in order. After the rise of Hitler in Germany in 1933 and after the defeat of the heroic Austrian working class in 1934 there was great turmoil toward the left in the international labor movement. That movement, in reaction and disgust at the erroneous policies of the Communist International and its ‘third period’ catastrophic theory of capitalist collapse, gravitated toward the international social democracy.

Trotsky, after declaring the Communist International and its parties dead as revolutionary organizations in the wake of Hitler’s rise in Germany maintained that new parties internationally and a new International was on the political agenda. Thus, the question for the mainly small and somewhat poorly organized pro-Trotskyist propaganda groupings was the need to move away from acting as a faction of the Comintern in order to take advantage of turmoil in the international labor movement in order to break out of their isolation and create at least small vanguard parties. Trotsky responded by strongly suggesting that his followers, at first in France then later elsewhere, enter social democratic and labor organizations in order to take advantage of this leftward movement.

In America, under Cannon’s leadership, the Communist League of America (CLA) after successfully leading labor strikes in Minneapolis and elsewhere, fused with other radical labor activists in 1934 into the American Workers Party headed by A.J. Muste to form the Workers Party (WP) in 1934. While the cadre of the CLA were politically well-educated and theoretically grounded that was not as true of Muste’s forces. In a sense this fusion represented on the American terrain an application of the Trotsky-inspired international entry policy. Nevertheless, Cannon led the drive for what amounted to a second use of the entry tactic into the Socialist Party in order to intersect the growing left wing there.

The implementation of this policy was the subject of two internal fights in the WP before the policy was finally approved. The first fight was led those who were opposed to such an entry on the principle that revolutionaries could not enter a party affiliated with the betrayers of the Second International (the Oehlerites). That policy leads to sectarianism and isolation. The second fight, led by Muste himself, was concerned with the separate organizational integrity of the WP. That policy leads to organizational fetishism and isolation. At the time, and in hindsight, no militant could or should have argued on either of these grounds. Nevertheless, this writer believes an argument could be made on tactical grounds against entry in the Socialist Party. Why? Because of the untested nature of the newly-formed and politically undereducated WP. A sophisicated maneuver such as entry against a hardened, opportunist Socialist left wing with such forces would cause later problems. As indeed they did. The reviewer’s alternative. United front, that is march separately but fight together, the Socialist Party to death whenever and wherenever common issues came up, especially on trade union policy in the rising CIO, the role of their comrades in the Spanish Civil War and their response to the Moscow Trials.

Cannon, in defending the policy at the time mentions that, despite the onerous conditions of entry set by the left-wing leadership, he believed, as did Trotsky, that the results of entry were justified by the organizational wreckage of the Socialist Party after the expulsion of the Trotskyist forces. Additional factors included the accrual of new forces, the freezing out of the Stalinists from influence in the Socialist Party and the work of the Trotsky Defense Committee. Those results may be creditable but this writer believes that such results could have been obtained more easily from the outside.

The reviewer’s position has always been colored by looking at the policy from the hindsight of the divisive and fundamental faction fight of the 1939-40 period which basically split the party in two over the question of defense of the Soviet Union when it became operative in the lead up to World War II. Not an inconsiderable section of the opposition to defense of the Soviet Union came from the forces, especially from the socialist youth group, recruited during the entry. Thus, I still remain troubled by the policy. In the future militants will once again have to face this problem of how to regroup revolutionary forces, although naturally it will be under different conditions. Nevertheless the question of whether to use or not use this tactic in any particular situation will come up. Read this section of the book and make up your own mind on this question.

SOME OF THE BOOKS REVIEWED HERE MAY NOT BE READILY AVAILABLE AT LOCAL LIBRARIES OR BOOKSTORES. CHECK AMAZON.COM FOR AVAILABILITY THERE, BOTH NEW AND USED. YOU CAN ALSO GOOGLE THE JAMES P. CANNON INTERNET ARCHIVES.