On The 73^rd Anniversary Of The Assassination Of The Great 20^th Century Revolutionary Leon Trotsky-   

 THE LESSONS OF THE SPANISH REVOLUTION

In honor of the tragically too few Bolshevik-Leninists who fought for socialist revolution in the Spanish Civil War. Below is a customer review I wrote on Leon Trotsky’s The Spanish Revolution, 1931-39 for Amazon.com which can serve as a tribute to their efforts.

AS WE APPROACH THE 77^TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BEGINNING OF THE SPANISHCIVIL WAR MILITANTS NEED TO DRAW THE LESSONS FOR THE DEFEAT OF THAT REVOLUTION.

I have been interested, as a pro-Republican partisan, in the Spanish Civil War since I was a teenager.What initially perked my interest, and remains of interest, is the passionate struggle of the Spanish working class to create its own political organization of society, its leadership of the struggle against Spanish fascism and the romance surrounding the entry of the International Brigades, particularly the American Abraham Lincoln Battalion of the 15^th Brigade, into the struggle.

Underlying my interests has always been a nagging question of how that struggle could have been won by the working class. The Spanish proletariat certainly was capable of both heroic action and the ability to create organizations that reflected its own class interests i.e. the worker militias and factory committees. Of all modern working class revolutions after the Russian revolution Spainshowed the most promise of success. Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky noted that the political class consciousness of the Spanish proletariat was higher than that of the Russian proletariat in 1917. Yet it failed in Spain.Trotsky's writings on this period represent a provocative and thoughtful approach to an understanding of the causes of that failure. Moreover, with all proper historical proportions considered, his analysis has continuing value as the international working class struggles against the seemingly one-sided class war being waged by the international bourgeoisies today.

The Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939 has been the subject of innumerable works from every possible political and military perspective possible. A fair number of such treatises, especially from those responsible for the military and political policies on the Republican side, are merely alibis for the disastrous policies that led to defeat. Trotsky's complication of articles, letters, pamphlets, etc. which make up the volume reviewed here is an exception. Trotsky was actively trying to intervene in the unfolding events in order to present a program of socialist revolution that most of the active forces on the Republican side were fighting, or believed they were fighting for. Thus, Trotsky's analysis brings a breath of fresh air to the historical debate. That in the end Trotsky could not organize the necessary cadres to carry out his program or meaningfully impact the unfolding events in Spainis one of the ultimate tragedies of that revolution. Nevertheless, Trotsky had a damn good idea of what forces were acting as a roadblock to revolution. He also had a strategic conception of the road to victory. And that most definitely was not through the Popular Front.

The central question Trotsky addresses throughout the whole period under review here was the crisis of revolutionary leadership of the proletarian forces. That premise entailed, in short, a view that the objective conditions for the success of a socialist program for society had ripened. Nevertheless, until that time, despite several revolutionary upheavals elsewhere, the international working class had not been successful anywhere except in backward Russia. Trotsky thus argued that it was necessary to focus on the question of forging the missing element of revolutionary leadership that would assure victory or at least put up a fight to the finish.

This underlying premise was the continuation of an analysis that Trotsky developed in earnest in his struggle to fight the Stalinist degeneration of the Russian Revolution in the mid-1920's. The need to learn the lessons of the Russian Revolution and to extend that revolution internationally was thus not a merely a theoretical question for Trotsky. Spain, moreover, represented a struggle where the best of the various leftist forces were in confusion about how to move forward. Those forces could have profitable heeded Trotsky's advice. Moreover, the question of the crisis of revolutionary leadership still remains to be resolved by the international working class.

Trotsky's polemics in this volume are highlighted by the article ‘The Lessons of Spain-Last Warning’, his definitive assessment of the Spanish situation in the wake of the defeat of the Barcelonauprising in May 1937. Those polemics center on the failure of the Party of Marxist Unification (hereafter, POUM) to provide revolutionary leadership. That party, partially created by cadre formerly associated with Trotsky in the Spanish Left Opposition, failed on virtually every count. Those conscious mistakes included, but were not limited to, the creation of an unprincipled bloc between the former Left Oppositionists and the former Right Oppositionists (Bukharinites) of Maurin to form the POUM in 1935;political support to the Popular Front including entry into the government coalition by its leader; creation of its own small trade union federation instead of entry in the anarchist led-CNT; creation of its own militia units reflecting a hands-off attitude towardpolitical struggle with other parties; and, fatally, an at best equivocal role in the Barcelona uprising of 1937.

Trotsky had no illusions about the roadblock to revolution of the policies carried out by the old-time Anarchist, Socialist and Communist Parties. Unfortunately the POUM did. Moreover, despite being the most honest revolutionary party in Spainit failed to keep up an intransigent struggle to push the revolution forward. The Trotsky - Andreas Nin (key leader of the POUM and former Left Oppositionist) correspondence in the Appendix makes that problem painfully clear.

The most compelling example of this failure -As a result of the failure of the Communist Party of Germany to oppose the rise of Hitler in 1933 and the subsequent decapitation and the defeat of the Austrian working class in 1934 the European workers especially the younger workers of the traditional Socialist Parties started to move left. Trotsky observed this situation and told his supporters to intersect that development by an entry, called the ‘French turn’, into those parties. Nin and the Spanish Left Opposition, and later the POUM failed to do that. As a result the Socialist Party youth were recruited to the Communist Party en masse. This accretion formed the basic for its expansion as a party and key cadre of its notorious security apparatus that would, after the Barcelonauprising, suppress the more left ward organizations. For more such examples of the results of the crisis of leadership in the Spanish Revolution read this book.

Isaac Deutscher’s three-volume biography of the great Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky

THIS YEAR MARKS THE 73rd ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSASSINATION OF LEON TROTSKY-ONE OF HISTORY’S GREAT REVOLUTIONARIES. IT IS THEREFORE FITTING TO REVIEW THE THREE VOLUME WORK OF HIS DEFINITIVE BIOGRAPHER, THE PROPHET ARMED, THE PROPHET UNARMED, THE OUTCAST.

Isaac Deutscher’s three-volume biography of the great Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky although written over one half century ago remains the standard biography of the man. Although this writer disagrees , as I believe that Trotsky himself would have, about the appropriateness of the title of prophet and its underlying premise that a tragic hero had fallen defeated in a worthy cause, the vast sum of work produced and researched makes up for those basically literary differences. Deutscher, himself, became in the end an adversary of Trotsky’s politics around his differing interpretation of the historic role of Stalinism and the fate of the Fourth International but he makes those differences clear and in general they does not mar the work. I do not believe even with the eventual full opening of all the old Soviet-era files any future biographer will dramatically increase our knowledge about Trotsky and his revolutionary struggles. Moreover, as I have mentioned elsewhere in other reviews while he has not been historically fully vindicated he is in no need of any certificate of revolutionary good conduct.
At the beginning of the 21^stcentury when the validity of socialist political programs as tools for change is in apparent decline or disregarded as utopian it may be hard to imagine the spirit that drove Trotsky to dedicate his whole life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20^th century he represented only the one of the most consistent and audacious of a revolutionary generation of mainly Eastern Europeans and Russians who set out to change the history of the 20^thcentury. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world. As Trotsky noted elsewhere this element was missing, with the exceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and precious few others, in the Western labor movement. Deutscher using Trotsky’s own experiences tells the story of the creation of this revolutionary cadre with care and generally proper proportions. Here are some highlights militant leftists should think about.

On the face of it Trotsky’s personal profile does not stand out as that of a born revolutionary. Born of a hard working, eventually prosperous Jewish farming family in the Ukraine(of all places) there is something anomalous about his eventual political occupation. Always a vociferous reader, good writer and top student under other circumstances he would have found easy success, as others did, in the bourgeois academy, if not in Russia then in Western Europe. But there is the rub; it was the intolerable and personally repellant political and cultural conditions of Czarist Russia in the late 19^th century that eventually drove Trotsky to the revolutionary movement- first as a ‘ragtag’ populist and then to his life long dedication to orthodox Marxism. As noted above, a glance at the biographies of Eastern European revolutionary leaders such as Lenin, Martov, Christian Rakovsky, Bukharin and others shows that Trotsky was hardly alone in his anger at the status quo. And the determination to something about it.

For those who argue, as many did in the New Left in the 1960’s, that the most oppressed are the most revolutionary the lives of the Russian and Eastern European revolutionaries provide a cautionary note. The most oppressed, those most in need of the benefits of socialist revolution, are mainly wrapped up in the sheer struggle for survival and do not enter the political arena until late, if at all. Even a quick glance at the biographies of the secondary leadership of various revolutionary movements, actual revolutionary workers who formed the links to the working class , generally show skilled or semi-skilled workers striving to better themselves rather than the most downtrodden lumpenproletarian elements. The sailors of Kronstadt and the Putilov workers inSaint Petersburgcome to mind. The point is that ‘the wild boys and girls’ of the street do not lead revolutions; they simply do not have the staying power. On this point, militants can also take Trotsky’s biography as a case study of what it takes to stay the course in the difficult struggle to create a new social order. While the Russian revolutionary movement, like the later New Left mentioned above, had more than its share of dropouts, especially after the failure of the 1905 revolution, it is notably how many stayed with the movement under much more difficult circumstances than we ever faced. For better or worst, and I think for the better, that is how revolutions are made.

Once Trotsky made the transition to Marxism he became embroiled in the struggles to create a unity Russian Social Democratic Party, a party of the whole class, or at least a party representing the historic interests of that class. This led him to participate in the famous Bolshevik/Menshevik struggle in 1903 which defined what the party would be, its program, its methods of work and who would qualify for membership. The shorthand for this fight can be stated as the battle between the ‘hards’ (Bolsheviks, who stood for a party of professional revolutionaries) and the ‘softs’ (Mensheviks, who stood for a looser conception of party membership) although those terms do not do full justice to these fights. Strangely, given his later attitudes, Trotsky stood with the ‘softs’, the Mensheviks, in the initial fight in 1903. Although Trotsky almost immediately afterward broke from that faction I do not believe that his position in the 1903 fight contradicted the impulses he exhibited throughout his career-personally ‘libertarian’, for lack of a better word , and politically hard in the clutch.

Even a cursory glance at most of Trotsky’s career indicates that it was not spent in organizational in-fighting, or at least not successfully. Trotsky stands out as the consummate free-lancer. More than one biographer has noted this condition, including his definitive biographer Isaac Deutscher. Let me make a couple of points to take the edge of this characterization though. In that 1903 fight mentioned above Trotsky did fight against Economism (the tendency to only fight over trade union issues and not fight overtly political struggles against the Czarist regime) and he did fight against Bundism (the tendency for one group, in this case the Jewish workers, to set the political agenda for that particular group). Moreover, he most certainly favored a centralized organization. These were the key issues at that time. Furthermore, the controversial organizational question did not preclude the very strong notion that a ‘big tent’ unitary party was necessary. The ‘big tent’ German Social Democratic model held very strong sway among the Russian revolutionaries for a long time, including Lenin’s Bolsheviks. The long and short of it was that Trotsky was not an organization man, per se. He knew how to organize revolutions, armies, Internationals, economies and so on when he needed to but on a day to day basis no. Thus, to compare or contrast him to Lenin and his very different successes is unfair. Both have an honorable place in the revolutionary movement; it is just a different place.

***Out In The Be-Bop Be-Bop 1960s Night- Save The Last Dance For Me-With The Drifters’ Song Of The Same Name In Mind.

CD Review

AM Gold: The Early ‘60s, various artists, Time-Life Music, 1992

Scene: Brought to mind by one of the songs in this compilation, The Drifters classic end of the night high school dance number, Save The Last Dance For Me.

Recently, when I was reviewing a companion CD in this Time-Life Music series, AM Gold: 1962, I mentioned, in detailing some of the events surrounding the North Adamsville Class of 1962-sponsored version of the traditional late September Falling Leaves Dance that one of the perks that year was getting to hear the vocals of local singer and classmate, Diana Nelson, backed up by local rock band favorite, The Rockin’ Ramrods. I also mentioned that her selection had been the result of a singing competition held by the town fathers and that I would relate some of the details of that competition at a later date. That time has come. Additionally, I related that I had had a “crush” on Miss (Ms.) Nelson since I started staring, permanently staring, at her ass when she sat a few seats in front of me in ninth grade. At the time of the above-mentioned dance she was “going steady” with some college joe, and had not given me the time of day, flirting or encouraging-wise, since about tenth grade, although we always talked about stuff, music and political stuff, two of my passions, and hers' too. Here’s the “skinny.”
******
No question that about 1960, maybe into 1961, girl vocalists were the cat’s meow. (Okay, young women, but we didn’t call them that then, no way. Also no way as well is what we called them, called them among we corner boys at Salducci’s Pizza Parlor, especially when we got “no action.” I don’t have to draw you a diagram on what that meant, right?). You can, if you were around then, reel off the names just as well as I can, Connie Francis, Carla Thomas, Patsy Cline, and the sparkplug Brenda Lee. I won’t even mention wanna-bes like Connie Stevens and Sandra Dee, Christ. See, serious classic rock by guys like Elvis, Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry and Jerry Lee Lewis were, well, passé, in that musical counter-revolution night. But music, like lots of other things abhors a vacuum and while guys were still singing, I guess, the girl singers (read young women, okay, and we will leave it at that) “spoke” to us more. Especially to record- buying girls who wanted to hear about teen romance, teen alienation, lost love, unstoppable hurts, betrayal (usually by the girl’s best friend and her boyfriend, although not always), lonely Friday nights, and other stuff that teenagers, boys and girls equally, have been mulling over, well, since they invented teenagers a long time ago.

So it was natural for the musically-talented girls around North Adamsville, and maybe around the country for all I know, to test themselves against the big name talents and see what they had. See if they could make teen heaven- a record contract with all that entailed. In North Adamsville that was actually made easier by the town fathers (and they were all men, mostly old men in those days so fathers is right), if you can believe that. Why? Because for a couple of years in the early 1960s, maybe longer, they had been sponsoring a singing contest, a female vocalist, singing contest. I heard later, and maybe it was true, that what drove them was that, unlike those mid-1950s evil male rockers mentioned above, the women vocalist models had a “calming effect” on the hard-bitten be-bop teen night. And calm was what the town fathers cared about most of all. That, and making sure that everything was in preparedness for any Soviet missile strike, complete with periodic air raid drills, christ again.

In 1962 this contest, as it was in previous years, was held in the spring in the town hall auditorium. And among the contestants, obviously, was that already "spoken for" Diana Nelson who was by even the casual music listener the odds-on favorite. She had prepped a few of us with her unique rendition of Brenda Lee’s I’m Sorry so I knew she was a shoo-in. And she was. What was interesting about the competition was not her victory as much as the assorted talents, so-called, that entered this thing. If I recall there were perhaps fifteen vocalists in all. The way the thing got resolved was a kind of sing-off. A process of elimination sing-off.

Half a dozen, naturally, were some variation of off-key and dismissible out of hand. These girls fought the worst when they got the hook. Especially one girl, Elena G., if anyone remembers her who did one of the worst versions of Connie Francis’ Who’s Sorry Now I had (and have) ever heard. The more talented girls took their lost with more grace, probably realizing as Diana got into high gear that they were doomed. But here is the funny part. One of the final four girls was not a girl at all. Jimmy C. from right down the end of my street dressed himself up as girl (and not badly either although none of us knew much about “drag queen” culture then) and sang a great version of Mary Wells’ Two Lovers. Like I said we knew from nothing about different sexual preferences and thought he just did it as a goof. (I heard a couple of years later that he had finally settled in Provincetown and that fact alone “hipped” me to what he was about, sexually.)

I probably told you before that one part of winning was a one thousand dollar scholarship. That was important, but Diana, when she talked to me about it a couple of days later just before class, said she really wanted to win so she could be featured at the Falling Leaves Dance. Now, like I said, I had a big crush on her, no question, so I was amazed that she also said that she wanted me to be sure to be at the dance that next late September. Well, if you have been paying attention at all then you know I was there. I went alone, because just then I didn’t have a girlfriend, a girlfriend strong enough for me to want to go to the dance with anyway. But I was having a pretty good time. I even danced with Chrissie McNamara, a genuine fox, who every guy had the “hots” for since she, just the night before, had busted up with Johnny Callahan, the football player. Diana sang great, especially on Brenda Lee’s I Want To Be Wanted. She reached somewhere deep for that one.

Toward the end of the evening, while the Rockin’ Ramrods were doing some heavy rock covers, Chuck Berry’s Sweet Little Sixteen I think, and she was taking a break, Diana came over to me and said, I swear she said it exactly like this- “save the last dance for me.” I asked her to repeat herself. She said Bobby (her college joe) was not here that evening for some reason I do not remember and that she wanted to dance the last dance with someone she liked. Well, what’s a guy to do when someone like Diana gives her imperial command? I checked my dance card and said “sure.”

Now this last dance thing has been going on every since they have had dances and ever since they have had teenagers at such events so no big deal, really. Oh, except this, as we were dancing that last dance to the Ramrod’s cover of The Dubs Could This Be Magic Diana, out of the blue, said this. “You know if you had done more than just stared at my ass in class (and in the corridors too, she added) in ninth grade maybe I wouldn’t have latched onto Bobby when he came around in tenth grade.” No, a thousand times no, no, no, no…

The Wild Boys –Part 264 – Hank Williams’ The Last Ride- A Film Review

 

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

DVD Review

The Last Ride, 2012  

Live fast, die young, and make a good corpse is a mantra that Hank Williams’ who last ride before his premature death is the subject of the film under review, ah, called The Last Ride, lived by. Every generation, every niche cultural enclave has its iconic wild boys (thus far mainly wild boys, although if things even out the wild women, wild women in my sense, should not be far behind) who stirred the imagination, who made their devotees believe, believe that the moment had to be seized and shaken for what it was worth. Names like John Reed, Hemingway, the young Marlon Brando, James Dean, Jack Kerouac (and his mad band of associates, Neal Cassady, Allen Ginsberg, Gregory Corso and William Burroughs), Jim Morrison of The Doors, Hunter Thompson and so on. Not all of them died young as Hank William did, although not for not trying, but they all listened to their own drummer and left a cultural marker on the planet.    

Of course Hank’s niche was new style (then new style –okay) country music that shifted the beat from slow mournful old timey Jimmy Rodgers back road and Carter Family mountain-etched music to more contemporary and personal concerns with a jump band as back up. My connection, my tenuous and rebellious connection, to Hank’s kind of music was hearing it waft through my growing up in the late1950s house in Hullsville south of Boston when my father, a son of Appalachia, would play or listen to old Hank and companions. I, a child of rock and roll insistent in listening to my own drummer, took a long time, a very long time to learn to appreciate Hank beyond my father’s hard rock-etched dreams.

All this above as prelude to the simple fact that as a late-comer I was not privy to a lot of Hank Williams’ life story and so rather let his music speak for him. So I was not aware until viewing this film about the manner of his death, although I had an inkling from reading liner notes on some of his CDs that he was another in that short line of wild boys who had to keep moving, had to keep pushing the envelope, had to live out there on edge city where the wild boys need to hang out.              

So the plot here is not what drives this film, hell, the title says it all, it’s a cinematic recreation of Hank’s last ride but what drive it is the bonding between an essentially lonely, sick man (at only 29 so you know he sowed some serious wild oats) and the last man who saw him alive, his young hired for the occasion of getting him to his next concert chauffer. What drives this thing is the interplay between the two, between the country boy chauffer’s coming of age and Hank’s tumble into that die young good night. Most of the interchange done inside that big old Caddy that was a symbol that one had arrived in the big time in America. And that simple plot interplay worked whatever the cinematic licenses were taken about the actual facts of Brother Williams’ death. But see dying young for some guys (or gals) is only prelude, some sixty years later his songs like Cold, Cold Heart that I heard like I said almost from the cradle still sound fresh. And the soundtrack here has some very good material acting as backdrop as Hank moves to that last long lonely ride.              

*First Let’s Kill All The Lawyers-Not- Part Two- George Clooney’ “Michael Clayton”-A Film Review

DVD Review

Michael Clayton, starring George Clooney, Sidney Pollack, Tilda Swinton, Warner Brothers, 2007

Everybody, everybody probably ever since if not earlier that Richard III in Shakespeares’ play, I think, uttered the notion that lawyers should be done away with first to cleanse the kingdom of evil spirits has hated lawyers. Well every lawyer except your own lawyer, of course. Not the one who got you out of that DUI jam that time you had a little too much to drink, or out from under that drug bust where you were just sitting in that living room while the reefer/snow/whatever was being passed around, nothing more. Maybe, moving up the chain, when that nasty accident happened that had to dreaming of three to five up in the state pen and you were bailed out with some friendly legal help. And even further up the chain when you, big-time impersonal corporation you, got out from under that very nasty and costly class-action suit stemming from the very real hazardous (cancerous chemical) to somebody, many somebodys, health that you injured, grievously.

And the difference between the low-end save your ass from jail example and the high-end keep your company solvent? Well the fixer man, of course. The fixer lawyer man here at the high end which drives this story line. You, under no circumstances, no circumstances at all, want to tick off ( I am being nice here) the fixer man. And especially not a very vengeful and a street smart Michael Clayton, as played by hard-guy George Clooney. Wrong, always wrong.

Up in the rarefied air of the legal counsel's office of a large corporation (U-North) they (or rather she, Karen Crowder, played by Tilda Swinton) didn’t get that little nugget of wisdom straight (she must have missed that class in law school) and well, frankly, panicked once it became clear that the ace litigator of the company had gone off the deep-end and was ready to “spill the beans” in favor of the other side-the plaintiffs. Michael Clayton, brought in for just such “fixing,” got his hind legs up in the air when his services were not appreciated (and said ace litigator got killed). But here is where it all breaks down. See a fixer man is just that, he fixes things. He gets mucho dough for doing these kinds of things. He can be “bought off,” or neutralized. But not when you panic and try to kill him. Not Michael Clayton, hell, not even a guy or gal two days out of law school. So let this be a cautionary tale. Please.

***Out In The Be-Bop, Be-Bop 1960s Night- The World Turned Upside Down-The Great Teenage Triangle

CD Review

The Heart Of Rock ‘n’ Roll: 1962-1963, take two, various artists, Time-Life Music, 1997

Scene: Brought to mind by one of the songs in this compilation, Dale Ward performing his classic 1960s teen angst Letter From Sherry, with lyrics provide below, in order to give a flavor of the times to this piece.

Nobody said being a teenager was going to be easy now, in 1860 or whenever they invented teenagers, 1960 the time period of this piece, or, hell, 2360. Teen angst, short term or long, comes with the territory. However sometimes something, in this case a song, will sum up just exactly how hard teen life really is. I admit this one had me a little weepy for a while over the fate, a common fate, of one of the characters. That is until I realized, wait a minute this is teen stuff, next week the configuration will have totally changed, or the boys (or girl) in this teen triangle will have sworn off girls (or boys, for the girl). Yeah, right.

Rather than leave the reader in any more suspense let me give the details of the heart-rending dilemma. It seems that Robert, well let’s call him Robert because Roberts always seem to be the kind of guys who draw the short end of the stick in teen life, was head over heels in love with Sherry, and had been ever since they met a couple of summers back down at the far end, the teen far end, of Olde Saco Beach up in cold climate Maine so it must have been July, no later. Needless to say they were both “enjoying” the rite of passage teen bored-to-death vacation with their ever-loving families (dogs, optional, although included here since they met while walking the respective family dogs) when the dogs met, and presto Robert and Sherry met. Things went fine for a while, as such summer romances go, and they wrote during the winter with all kinds of expectations of another high school teen romance summer, with maybe a little more than just kissing this time.

As luck would have it though Robert, studious, shoulder to the wheel if smitten Robert, had an opportunity to work at Ben’s Market in Olde Saco that next summer in order to help with his soon to be impeding college tuition. Naturally he had to “jump” at the opportunity (with a very big “friendly” push from his parents). And that is when things started to fall apart.

Nature, and teen nature is a pure scientific example of that law, abhors a vacuum. Especially a foxy Sherry on the beach alone, no Robert alone, (and no dog along for introductions this time) when Eddie, let’s call him Eddie, not Edward, not, Ed, not Eduardo, just Eddie because it is always Eddies who scoop up the foxes in teen life came swaggering up the beach, sat right beside Sherry and started, well, started in his version of fast eddie love talk. Just like that. And Sherry, well, Sherry was just in the mood to hear such talk, if not from "shoulder the wheel" Robert then Eddie, kind of hunky Eddie, would do just fine. After all a girl has to look out for herself in this wicked old world. The long and short of it was that Sherry made a date with Eddie, a happy date when she found out that Eddie had a “boss” ’57 Chevy for that date. Robert was working at his silly old market job anyway so he would be none the wiser. That night, it might have been the stars, it might have been the moon, it might have been Sherry mad at Robert, or it just might have been the time of her time, but Sherry let Eddie have his way with her down at the far, far, far end of Olde Saco beach. The place where only teenagers with something on their minds other than throwing pebbles in the surf go, no one else not even the cops.

So far still nothing remarkable, right. A million teens lost in the moon-beam night learning about the ways of the world, the adult sex world that they, the adults either out of fear, ignornace or hubris, keep hush-hush about but which every teen since Socrates, maybe before, gets hip to, one way or another. But here is where it gets dicey. See Eddie already had a foxy girlfriend back home, Lula Belle, who outfoxes Sherry six ways to Sunday. And is rather possessive of her man. Switchblade-like possessive if it came to it. And Eddie, frankly, while he enjoyed Sherry was in it for kicks, for just doing it when the opportunity arose, and moving on. So that is exactly what he did. Sherry though, after the short summer tryst was over, started writing Eddie asking when he was coming back and all that kind of stuff, girl crush stuff.

Still not that remarkable though. What was though was that Eddie and Robert attended the same regional high school, Arundel High over the other side of Sanford (although they do not live in the same town) together and were both on the football team. (Robert the steady plebeian pulling guard, Fast Eddie, well, the fleet-footed halfback, natch) So one afternoon Eddie, Eddie acting as peacock, showed Robert, in the presence of his best friend, Josh Breslin and so that is how this situation became public, well, school knowledge, one of Sherry’s letters. Eddie went on a little about what he and Sherry did and what a cluck she was for writing a breeze guy like Eddie such stuff. And Eddie said right then and there that he bet Robert five dollars, five serious dollars, that he could write a couple of lines to Sherry about not having enough dough for postage stamps to write her before, or something, as his reason for not writing and he could be right back down there at the far, far, far end of Olde Saco Beach with Sherry anytime he wanted. Well, maybe not anytime because on hearing that Robert reared back and gave Eddie a punch that dropped him to the ground in nothing flat. So floor-fast Eddie and his jaw were on the bench for a while if Sherry wanted to know his whereabouts just then.
***********
Letter From Sherry lyrics-Dale War

A letter from Sherry
Oh boy, what a girl
But to the boy who really loves her
Its the end of the world.

A letter from Sherry
Brings teardrops to my eyes
A letter from Sherry
Oh why, Sherry, why?

My best friend named Eddie
Came by just yesterday
With a letter from Sherry
Heres what she had to say



Dear Eddie Dear Eddie, I love you I love you
With all my heart with all my heart
Vacation last summer
Was grand

And though you
You never write
I pray I pray
Each day and night

For Im yours
And yours alone
And dear Sherry, shes comin home


A letter from Sherry
Oh boy, what a girl
But to the boy who really loves her

Emergency Rally After Private Bradley Manning Sentence In Boston -President Obama Pardon Private Bradley Manning

Judge Lind will read her sentencing decsions tomorrow Wednesday August 21, 2013 at 10 AM so we are on…

Come to Park Street Station at 5 PM on the day heroic Wikileaks whistleblower Private Bradley Manning is sentenced-tentatively set for Wednesday August 21

Following on Facebook for updates as the sentencing date arrives:

https://www.facebook.com/events/636309546393872/permalink/636310726393754/

The Bradley Manning Support Network has called for the following:

Immediately following the sentencing announcement of heroic WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning by the military court at Fort Meade, Maryland, join us in the streets to declare, “Free Bradley Now!”

Many communities have a historic gathering location, such as a downtown intersection, central park, or other visible location. Please spread the word for folks to join you immediately following the sentencing to celebrate, protest, and/or simply show your support for Bradley.

We will likely have one day notice before sentencing occurs, so we’ll have some heads up. If it takes place in the morning, we suggest gathering that evening. If it takes place in the afternoon or evening, we suggest the following day. Same-day events are more likely to be covered by your local media in conjunction with the national breaking story of Bradley’s sentencing. Please contact the Support Network for posters, stickers, and info cards.

Our primary message for these response rallies: “President Obama: Pardon Bradley Manning”

BREAKING NEWS: Sentence to be read Wed., Aug. 21, 10am

digg

A few moments ago, during a brief 12:00 pm court session, military judge Col. Denise Lind announced that she will read Bradley Manning’s sentence tomorrow, Wednesday, August 21, at 10:00 am. [12:30pm ET, 20 Aug 2013]

Hundred supporters gathered outside the White House the evening of the verdicts.

Whistle-blower Bradley Manning’s sentence to be read
Wednesday, August 21, 10:00 am
* At Fort Meade, join us tomorrow at the Main Gate (US 175 and Reece Rd., Ft. Meade, MD) for a 7:30 am to 9:00 am vigil.
* Following sentencing tomorrow, join the Bradley Manning Support Network for a press conference near Fort Meade at approximately 1:30 pm. Location TBA to courtroom attendees, and on bradleymanning.org immediately after sentencing.
* Join is in Washington DC for a rally at the White House at 7:30 pm tomorrow, Wednesday, August 21.
* Elsewhere, take to the streets in your community!

From The Marxist Archives-Bourgeois Liberalism vs. Black Liberation

Workers Vanguard No. 925 21 November 2008 TROTSKY LENIN Bourgeois Liberalism vs. Black Liberation (Quote of the Week) In a 1933 document called “Communism and the Negro” (published by Verso in 2003 under the title Race and Revolution), Max Shachtman, then a Trotskyist leader, exposed the hypocrisy of bourgeois liberals who claimed to support black rights. While the civil rights movement later shattered Jim Crow segregation in the South and won formal legal equality for black people, the role of bourgeois liberalism today remains, at bottom, as Shachtman described it some 75 years ago: defense of the American capitalist order. Black oppression, a fundamental component of American capitalism, can only be eradicated with the overthrow of bourgeois rule through socialist revolution. The liberal wing of the bourgeoisie does not rise to greater heights than outright reaction in the essential aspects of its “solution.” The greatest concern of these “friends of the Negro” is to pour cold water on his flaming protests; to console him with soothing phrases in the moments of his anguish and misery, to beseech the Negro to have patience, while they are in turn beseeching the big bourgeoisie to make enough concessions to the black to prevent him from revolting. They insinuate into the mind of the Negro the treacherous idea that nothing is to be gained by flying in the face of prejudices, that the Negro must wait until his oppressors have evolved to a “higher understanding of his problems.” They give him significant warnings that the “right people” will not be won to the cause of sweetness and light if the Negro does not behave like a good Christian, bearing his cross with dignity and grace, until those who have burdened him with it relent their unfairness. The best of the liberal friends of the Negro (save the mark!) reveal their fundamental white chauvinism the minute the latter turns toward the revolutionary movement or engages in a genuinely militant struggle which requires that the pretended friends lend their assistance in more concrete form than mere oratory and literature…. What they warn against is that the master class will be “offended” if the Negroes “offensively insist” upon those elementary rights which should be the common property of the citizens of even a democratic capitalist republic. And what the Negro must always bear in mind, teach these auction-block liberals, is that it is foolish to “butt one’s head” against the social and economic system of the ruling class. —Max Shachtman, “Communism and the Negro” (1933) ********** Max Shachtman The People’s Front: The New Panacea of Stalinism (1935) Source: Max Shachtman, The People’s Front: The New Panacea of Stalinism, Sydney: Workers Party of Australia, 1935. Transcribed by Daniel Gaido. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive. If Fascism, in seizing power in Germany without encountering the slightest resistance from the working class, revealed how utterly savage and reactionary capitalism has become in the years of its decay, it nevertheless yielded one positive result. It brutally jerked the proletarian movement out of its complacency with the old labor parties, their theories, their practical policies and their leadership, and compelled it to undertake a search for a course different from those which led it to such a calamitous and humiliating defeat. At the same time that Fascism brought to the workers everywhere an acute awareness of the hideous inferno which it holds in store for them whenever and wherever it triumphs, it also impelled them to think deeply about why it took over the helm so easily in Germany and what line of action must henceforward be adopted so that the reptile may be strangled before it strangles them. Nothing is more understandable than the fact that the workers, alarmed by the spread of Fascism to one country after another, should lend a receptive ear to every plausible plan presented as a means whereby they may deal an effective blow to what menaces their very existence. And of the plans recently put forward, none appears so simple, so plausible, so effective as the one now so vociferously advanced by the Stalinist parties, following the 7th Congress of the Communist International, for virtually all the countries of the globe. But only appears! For a closer examination of the Stalinist panacea against Fascism and war, which goes by the alluring name of “The People’s Front,” will not only reveal that the “plan” is far from a new one but also that its execution would have just exactly the opposite effects from those it promises to produce. The opposite effects? Precisely. Do you then mean that the Stalinists, instead of wanting to avert Fascism and war would rather bring them on? Not at all, any more than the German Social Democrats wanted the war of 1914–1918 or the victory of Hitler in 1933; for that matter, any more than the bulk of the members of the capitalist class “want” imperialist war. What is, decisive in this, as in all other social questions, is not what you want, but what will logically result from the POLICY you pursue. Mot even the most ardent and anxious mountain climber has ever been known to reach the top of Mont Blanc by starting to dig a ditch at the foot of it; such a method would hardly bring him half-way up the side of it. How the German Social Democrats Followed the Road to Ruin The classic party of the “practical” struggle against Fascism, for peace and democracy, was the German social democracy. Its policy, generously complemented by the German Stalinists, resulted in the facile victory of Fascism, the enhancement of the danger of a new world war, the destruction of the last remnants even of bourgeois democracy. Briefly its course was based upon the following conceptions: Not having behind us the majority, we cannot yet take control of the country, establish a Socialist government, and inaugurate a socialist society. The Weimar Republic is better for the working class than the Hohenzollern monarchy; Hitlerism is worse than the Weimar Republic. We must therefore defend the bourgeois republic, for the alternative is not Socialism or Capitalism, but Democracy or Fascism. Being in the minority in the country, we can find a majority to defend the republic (“democracies require majorities”) only if we ally ourselves with the democratic elements of ALL classes. They will ally themselves with us in the struggle against Fascism only if we do not drive them into its arms by a systematic prosecution of the class struggle. The class struggle, in such critical times as exist by virtue of the Fascist threat to seize power, is superseded by the struggle of the PEOPLE (all classes, the good people of all classes) against the psychopathological Brown shirts. The unity of the people is represented by the Iron Front. That we have won the democratic bourgeoisie to the struggle against Fascism, is represented by the fact that Hindenburg is our candidate for the presidency of the republic (God knows he isn’t perfect, but Hitler is worse). The struggle against the Fascists must not exceed parliamentary bounds, for actual physical struggle would precipitate a civil war of the classes in the country, which would frighten our allies into the camp of Hitler. Better a thousand times that both sides should disarm, for workers need no arms in order to conquer a majority at the ballot box. The consequences of this course are too frightful and recent in the memory of all to require detailed comment. Now, wherein does the Stalinist policy of the “People’s Front” differ essentially, in France or in the United States, from the policy of the German Social Democrats? In only one respect. The Germans pursued this line of thought and action out of a deeply-felt desire to protect the mighty organizations and institutions of labor, built up by years of effort and sacrifice, as the living basis for the coming socialist society in Germany. These organizations and institutions the leaders identified with themselves. The Stalinists have adopted the same line out of just as deep a desire to protect the proletarian institutions and the foundations of Socialism which are being laid in the Soviet Union. In turn, they too identify them with the Soviet bureaucracy and its interests. In both cases, such a line must ultimately lead – as it already has in, Germany – not only to the wiping out of these institutions and conquests of past years, but even to the smashing of the very bureaucracy whose course brings on the catastrophe. Why the Stalinists Made the Turn to the “People’s Front” Up to the time Hitler took power, the Stalinist line in Germany (as in all other countries) was derived from the theory and practice of “Socialism in one country.” The source of the new Stalinist line is exactly the same theory. At bottom, the latter is based upon a loss of faith in the revolutionary capacities of the world’s working class, for the Soviet bureaucracy simply says, when it formulates and fights so furiously for the idolization of its theory, that backward Russia will arrive at the classless socialist society, with a standard of living higher than that ever enjoyed by any working class in any capitalist country at any stage of development, sooner than the German, French, English or American workers will overthrow their bourgeoisie. Arrive there IF military intervention can be prevented, IF the capitalist, world, especially Europe, can be made to preserve (more or less) the “status quo” without eruptions or convulsions. A civil war in Germany to prevent Hitler from coming to power would precipitate international complications and probably war, without the German workers being able to win. (That prospect, the Moscow bureaucracy simply ridicules over its teacups). That would endanger the construction of Socialism in the Soviet Union. Therefore, retreat before Fascism without giving battle. Far from dispelling the danger to the Soviet Union, this abysmally blind policy vastly heightened it. Hitler in power became, to quote Trotsky, the super-Wrangel, the sword poised for Russia’s heart. Frightened, panic-stricken by the results of their whole “Third Period” policy, the Soviet bureaucrats who manipulate the Third International like jugglers, made a complete turn-about-face in line, which was consecrated at the 7th World Congress. Believing even less in the fighting capacities of the world proletariat now that it was prostrate in Germany, and impelled by the same nationalistic theory, the Stalinists have turned for allies to defend “Socialism in one country” from Hitler to the bourgeoisie of other countries. The entry of the Soviet Union into the League of Nations, and, its disgraceful adaptation to the interests and policies of the dominant imperialist gang at Geneva; the seamy pacts made with French imperialism and its Czechoslovakian vassal; the frantic efforts to consummate similar alliances with England and the United States – all these attest the extent to which the Stalin clique is relying for salvation upon the presumed friendship of capitalist allies. If is not within the province of this article to discuss the Soviet foreign policy, to which the same criteria should not and cannot be applied as are applied to the policy of a proletarian party, be it in Russia or in a capitalist country. What is important, however, is the fact that, contrary to Lenin’s policy of subordinating the foreign diplomacy of the workers’ state to the international interests of the proletariat, the Stalinists have subordinated the proletarian movement they control to the interests of the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs. The “People’s Front,” wherever it is created, is essentially a movement organized by the Stalinists as a guarantee and a prop under their Soviet foreign policy of alliances and military pacts. As such, it cannot be other than an agency for preserving in power in each country that bourgeoisie, or section of the bourgeoisie, which is either “friendly” or “allied” with the Soviet. Union, or whose “friendship” the Soviet Union seeks. This “friendship” (how temporary, how treacherous such friends always prove to be in a crisis!) is purchased by the Stalinists at the price of converting – more accurately of organizing – their “People’s Fronts” into recruiting agencies (figuratively and literally) of the “democratic” imperialist bourgeoisie in the respective countries. It is at this point that the difference between the Stalinists and the German Social Democratic courses comes to an end, and their identity is resumed. The difference is of little or no fundamental account, and of no practical significance; it relates to the Why and the Who, but it alters nothing in the How and the What ... or in the results. The Soviet government signs a military-political pact with Czechoslovakia; the Stalinists, “pleased” reads the New York Times cable (Dec. 22, 1935), “with a Soviet pact for defense against German aggression which Mr. Benes’ realism induced him to conclude, voted alongside the bourgeois Catholic parties for their former enemy.” Cause and effect! Litvinov signs a pact (good, bad or indifferent, that is not the point at the moment) with the Czech bourgeoisie. The Czech Stalinists promptly suspend the class struggle, and every other revolutionary principle, by voting for the military budget in parliament and by joining with the bourgeois parties to elect Eduard Benes, shrewd and faithful servitor of Czech and French imperialism, as president of the republic. A Roland for an Oliver! A Benes for a Hindenburg! Ditto in France. Only here, instead of Benes or Hindenburg, the name is Herriot, or Daladier, whose renown as a fighter against Fascism was first gained on that famous February 6 when he crumpled up at the mere sight of several thousand Fascists, armed with razor-blade-tipped canes, demonstrating in front of the Chamber of Deputies. Ditto in Mexico, the “friendship” of whose bourgeoisie the Soviet bureaucracy thirsts after. The clever bourgeois demagogue, President Cardenas, during whose less than two years, in office more than 2,000 militant peasants have been assassinated in the state of Vera Cruz alone, has the ardent support of the ludicrous little Communist Party of Mexico. Its manifesto only a few weeks ago, pasted all over the capital, began: “With Cardenas! Against the Callesist reaction!” and ended: “Let us support Cardenas in his struggle against the Callesist reaction!” Half the Mexican Communist Party membership working in the government apparatus is only added reason for such ardor. Now let us see the “People’s Front” as it labors to be born in the United States. “People’s Front” Democracy and Fascism Almost up to yesterday, the Stalinists not only rejected a united front with the Socialist parties and the reformist trade unions, but renounced those revolutionists who advocated such a bloc against Fascism as being themselves a species of “social-Fascists.” Not a united front with the Social Democracy against Fascism, said the “Stalintern.” but first crush the Social Democracy, and there will be no Fascist problem. The head of the world proletariat, the beloved Stalin, delivered himself in 1925 of the dictum which became canonical doctrine in the International: “Social Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of Fascism. These organizations do not negate, but supplement one another.” The hindquarters of the world proletariat, the slightly less beloved Manuilsky, warned at the 11th Plenum of the C.I., in March, 1931, that “the Social Democrats, in order to deceive the masses deliberately proclaim that the chief enemy of the working class is Fascism, in order thereby to divert attention from the question of the struggle against the dictatorship of Capitalism in general, to idealize the democratic forms of the latter and to create among the workers the impression that they must struggle for the ‘democratic’ forms of their exploitation and against the Fascist forms.” But all this was in the period when the Stalinists guaranteed us that there was a universal stormy revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat, a mass radicalization, which threatened the innermost fortresses of world Capitalism. The upsurge has apparently abated considerably under the genial leadership of the Stalinist general staff, and from the struggle on all fronts for the proletarian dictatorship the Third International has made a forced march forward to the “struggle for the ‘democratic’ forms of their exploitation and against the fascist forms.” But all this was in the period when the Stalinists guaranteed us that there was a universal stormy revolutionary upsurge of the proletariat, a mass radicalization, which threatened the innermost fortresses of world Capitalism. The upsurge has apparently abated considerably under the genial leadership of the Stalinist general staff, and from the struggle on all fronts for the proletarian dictatorship the Third International has made a forced march forward to the struggle for “the democratic forms of ... the dictatorship of Capitalism in general.” “Now the toiling masses are faced with the necessity of making a DEFINITE choice, and of making it today,” announced Helmsman Dimitroff at the 7th Congress, “not between proletarian dictatorship and bourgeois democracy but between bourgeois democracy and Fascism.” To the extent that there is a kernel of truth in this assertion, the responsibility for a situation in which – in the era of imperialist decay and social revolution – the struggle for working class power has been set low on the order of the day, lies with the reform – Social Democracy, and the no less treacherous policy of Stalinism. The conclusion, however, which the Stalinists draw does not differ by a hair from the conclusions drawn by the Social Democracy for years, from the FACT that on this, that or the other day the working class did not yet stand on the eve of the fight for power, the German reformists concluded that not only was this fight postponed to the Greek Calends, but that no steps should be taken to organize the class struggle in such a manner as to bring the proletariat constantly closer to the decisive battle. It is false to think that the German Socialist leaders ever declared that the ideal of a socialist government was abandoned by them – any more than the Stalinists now declare their renunciation of the struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat some day in the future – the distant future. The crime of the Social Democrats consisted not in failing to take power when it could not be taken, but in supporting the spurious capitalist democracy of the WeimarRepublic, they helped the bourgeoisie consolidate itself in power on the grounds that Fascism would thereby be warded off. Then, having demoralized and devitalized the proletariat, they stood by helplessly while Fascism rose to power quite legally and constitutionally and “democratically” on the basis of that very same Weimar Republic. The intentions of Stalin and Co. may be of the noblest type, but we see no reason why the general run of the German Socialist bureaucracy should not be characterized similarly; in any case, it is not important. What is important is the identity of their positions. The so-called “conditions” that Dimitroff sets for casting his vote for bourgeois democracy are essentially the same as those promulgated by the German Socialists in their time. The latter also demanded that the bourgeois democratic governments which it supported or “tolerated” should “disarm the Fascists” and do this, that and the other thing. Like the Stalinists, they too spoke of a “real struggle” against the fascists. Like the Stalinists, they toe said that “FINAL SALVATION this government CANNOT bring.” And like the Stalinists, they supported bourgeois democracy as the “lesser evil.” Lenin too made demands on the bourgeois democratic government of Kerensky in the struggle against the “Fascist” Kornilov. Quite true. But – and here lies the fundamental, unobliterable difference – at no time did Lenin SUPPORT the Kerensky regime at no time did he put the Social Democratic-Stalinist alternative. In the very struggle against Kornilov he subjected the bourgeois “democracy” and its government to a pitiless criticism, organizing the masses independently, warning against the counterfeit “democracy,” patiently explaining, and systematically mobilizing the masses for the struggle for power. The same policy is now denounced by the French Stalinists, in terms lifted directly from the Russian Mensheviks of 1917; except that where the latter said “a Leninist-Trotskyist provocation,” the former merely say “a Trotskyist provocation.” In its consequences; the POLICY of the German Social Democracy led to the victory of Fascism, despite the fact that it was calculated to prevent it. “The defense of bourgeois democracy,” of the Weimar Republic, as the lesser evil, did not bring the workers to power, did not stop Hitler, from taking power, and did not even save bourgeois democracy from inundation. Let that not be forgotten! At the 7th Congress, the beloved Czech Stalinist spokesman, Gottwald, impudently plagiarizing Hilferding, Wels and Loebe, declared: “If this bourgeois democratic republic is threatened by Bloody Fascism, then we defend this republic against Fascism and call upon all real socialists, democrats and republicans to a united front for the joint fight so that this republic shall be spared the greatest disgrace of all, and the toiling people the greatest catastrophe of all, viz., bloody Fascist dictatorship.” When this is followed by the Stalinist vote for Hindenburg-Benes for president of the Czechoslovakian Republic one must ask (no answer will be forthcoming!): Where is the difference between the social democratic Iron Front in Germany, which was so mercilessly attacked by the revolutionists, and the Stalinist “People’s Front”? And wherein will the consequences differ? In the official textbook of the Stalinists, published only a few months ago – Fascism and Social Revolution – the author, Dutt, comments as follows on the resignation of Daladier after the February ‘ 6 Fascist demonstration in’ Paris: “Therewith the whole card-castle of bourgeois democracy, of the ‘democratic’ defense against Fascism, of ‘democracy’ versus ‘dictatorship,’ of the whole Social Democratic line, came tumbling down. The line of the ‘Left Cartel,’ of the French Socialist party, of the parliamentary-democratic defense against Fascism, was once again only to have smoothed the way for the advance of Fascism, for a government of the Right, for intensified dictatorship against the workers.” (p. 275.) And further: “To preach confidence in legalism, in constitutionalism, in bourgeois democracy, that is, in the capitalist state, means to invite and to guarantee the victory of Fascism. That is the lesson of Germany and Austria.” (p. 299.) Perfect! If anything is to be added to it, it is this: The place of the Left Cartel in France has now been taken by the Stalinist-organized “People’s Front”; the Stalinists now cry for the same Daladier to take power! The line of the “People’s Front,” instead of averting Fascism, will, if continued – we are merely echoing the pre-7th Congress Dutt – smooth the way for the advance of Fascism, for a government of the Right, for intensified dictatorship against the workers. And not only in France. The Farmer-Labor Party and the “People’s Front” Like Theseus in the labyrinth of mythology, one would need a large ball of string to enable him to get to the center (and out again) of the maze through which the American Communist Party has traveled in its futile search for a Farmer-Labor party in the course of the last dozen or more years. Shelved with a sign of relief several years ago, it was taken down – not the party, but the hope – shortly before the 7th World Congress and dusted off. Now, a few months afterwards, it appears, considerably the worse for alteration, as the specific American form of the People's Front. In the October 1935 issue of The Communist, W.Z. Foster, who has also been taken off the shelf and dusted off, explains that unlike France, where the masses have “parties, of their own, which could serve as the basis of such a united front,” the United States possesses no large mass party. If the decisions of the 7th Congress are to be carried out in this country – and God knows they must be – the CP must unite with somebody or something to form the “People’s Front.” If there is no somebody or something, it will have to be manufactured. The fabled sculptor, Pygmalion, became enamored of the lovely but inanimate statue he had chiseled, and wished so ardently that it might come to life that the gods finally granted his request. The marble gave way to the flesh and blood of Galatea, whom Pygmalion espoused and lived happily with for a goodly period of time. Let us see what the Stalinist Pygmalions aim to infuse their marble-headed ideas with in order that they may come to life as the American People's Front. In the resolution adopted by the Central Committee of the CP on January 18, 1935, upon Browder’s return from Moscow with the straight information that the American masses were clamoring for a Labor party, four types of Labor parties are described, “reflecting the two chief political tendencies of this movement – the class struggle or class collaboration – (a) a “Popular’ or ‘progressive’ party based on the LaFollette, Sinclair, Olson and Long movements, and typified by these leaders and their programs; (b) a ‘Farmer-Labor’ or ‘Labor’ party of the same character, differing only in name and the degree of its demagogy; (c) a ‘Labor party’ with a predominantly trade union basis, with a program consisting of immediate demands (possibly with vague demagogy about the “co-operative commonwealth” à la Olson), dominated by a section of the trade union bureaucracy, assisted by the Socialist party and excluding the Communists; (d) a Labor party built up from below on a trade union basis but in conflict with the bureaucracy, putting forward a program of demands closely connected with mass struggles, strikes, etc., with the leading role played by the militant elements, including the Communists” (The Communist, Feb. 1935, p. 123). Being, as they were, in a position to choose, the Stalinists decided only a year ago to having nothing to do with any of the variants except Type D. Anything less represented class collaboration. But that was before the 7th Congress. What does the “People’s Front,” anti-Fascist, mass Farmer-Labor party look like now, in the Stalinist conception? “Les’ und staun’!” as the Germans say; read and gasp. “The anti-Fascist mass party,” writes Foster in the October 1935 Communist, “should be based on the trade unions (What? Not from below?) and should include farmers’ organizations, the Communist party, Socialist party, State Farmer-Labor parties, veterans’ organizations, working women’s organizations, workers and farmers co-operatives, workers’ fraternal societies, tenants’ leagues, anti-war societies, groups of intellectuals, etc.” (p. 901.) One would think that these were enough, that everyone has been covered. But no, the “etc.” impels us to read further and to gasp more: “The new mass party of toilers should also strive to include sections of the sprouting Fascist or partly Fascist organizations and tendencies; such as company unions, American Legion posts, and groups of the Coughlin and Long movements, etc.” (Ibid.) If, after this stupefyingly comprehensive enumeration, there is still one man, woman, child or beast omitted from the roll call, he, she or it will undoubtedly be covered by the second, more ominous “etc.” What more pointed indication could the sager sections of the American bourgeoisie have of the fact that, as another installment on the price for Russian recognition, and as a promise of what greater gifts the Soviet bureaucracy is prepared to make to the “democratic” American rulers in return for an alliance against Japan, the Stalinists are working with might and main to blur all class lines, to soften the class struggle, to reduce themselves voluntarily to the position of an innocuous, all-embracing, national extension of LaFollette petty bourgeois “progressivism”? Or do we owe the LaFollette dynasty in Wisconsin an apology? If we are not mistaken, it draws the line at “sprouting Fascist or partly Fascist organizations and tendencies” in its ranks, and the trade unions which are part of the “progressive” movement, being uneducated in the precepts of overhauled Stalinism, would probably baulk, in their unreasonably sectarian way, at sitting in the same party with company unions and Coughlin-Long groups. Just read what is palmed off nowadays, without a smile, as Leninism: “The hour,” reads the 1935 election platform of the Stalinists in New York, “demands the building of the broadest people’s front, uniting workers, farmers, unemployed, professionals, small business men, Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Socialists, Communists, Democrats and Republicans, a people’s front, fighting in the interests of the common people, the working people and the poor farmers.” – “Every means and effort,” reads a circular, dated August 26, 1935, sent to all CP units by the New York district literature department, “must be made to widen and broaden our united front among all classes of people in New York City ... The necessity for the widest distribution of this platform, as you can see, is very great, much greater than ordinarily, because of our attempt to unite all people in an anti-Fascist front.” Socialists, Communists, Republicans, Democrats, all classes of people, all people, fighting in the interests of the common people – where is there room for the class struggle in all this vulgar verbiage so adeptly lifted from the platform speeches of every capitalist demagogue in the history of modern politics? The “People’s Front” will embrace all parties and political views (except the revolutionary, to be sure!) and it will therefore be an appendage of the bourgeoisie just as unfailingly as was the Iron Front, paralyzing the independent movement of the proletariat. The “People’s Front” will embrace all classes of people and it will therefore represent none of them. Comprehensive in its scope and composition as it will be, it will have few to struggle against, just a few, like Mr. W.R. Hearst who – O knave impure in body and soul! – in addition to being a Fascist is further indicted by the Stalinists for his shocking habit of conjugal infidelity. And in such a struggle, what more powerful, even if – how shall we put it? – not entirely reliable and not entirely consistent ally can the “People’s Front” have than that distinguished paladin of bourgeois democracy versus autocratic dictatorship, Franklin D. Roosevelt?