Why Communists Do Not Celebrate July
4th- A Guest Commentary
Guest Commentary:
"Why We Don't Celebrate July
4-Marxism and the "Spirit Of '76"- Workers Vanguard, Number 116,
July 2, 1976
The burned-out tenements of America's
decaying slums are plastered with red, white and blue posters celebrating a
200-year-old revolution. From factory bulletin boards and the walls of
unemployment offices, patriotic displays urge American working people to join
with Gerald Ford and the butchers of Vietnam in commemorating the "Spirit
of '76." Class-conscious workers and militant blacks, like the colonial
masses ground down under the economic and military heel of arrogant American
imperialism, must recoil in revulsion from the U.S. bourgeoisie's hypocritical
pieties about "liberty."
The Fourth of July is not our holiday.
But the chauvinist ballyhoo of the "People's Bicentennial" does not
negate the need for a serious Marxist appreciation of colonial America's war of
independence against monarchical/ mercantilist England. Marxists have always
stressed the powerful impact of the classic bourgeois-democratic revolutions in
breaking feudal-aristocratic barriers to historical progress.
In appealing for support for the
Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin in his Letter to American Workers (1918) wrote:
"The history of modern, civilized
America opened with one of those really great, really liberating, really
revolutionary wars of which there have been so few compared to the vast number
of wars of conquest which, like the present imperialist war, were caused by
squabbles among kings, landowners or capitalists over the division of usurped
land or ill-gotten gains. That was the war the American people waged against
the British robbers who oppressed America and held her in colonial slavery.
"
It is also legitimate for
revolutionaries to appeal to the most radical-democratic traditions of the
great bourgeois revolutions. Yet the fact remains that the Fourth of July is a
fundamentally chauvinist holiday, a celebration of national greatness. In no sense
does it commemorate a popular uprising against an oppressive system, or even
pay tribute to democratic principles and individual freedom. Attempts to lend
the Fourth of July a populist coloration (or the Communist Party's
popular-front period slogan that "Communism is 20th century
Americanism") only express the capitulation of various fake-socialists to
the democratic pretensions of American imperialism.
But neither can the traditions of 1776
justly be claimed by the imperialist bourgeoisie. Compared to the leadership of
the colonial independence struggle, the present American capitalist class is
absolutely degenerate. One has only to think of Franklin or Jefferson, among
the intellectual giants of their time, and then consider Gerald Ford or Jimmy Carter.
The twentieth-century United States is the gendarme of world reaction, the
backer of every torture-chamber regime from Santiago to Tehran.
The "founding fathers" would
have been revolted by the men who today represent their class. The degeneration
of the American bourgeoisie is appropriate to the passing of its progressive
mission. The attitude toward religion is a good indicator. Virtually none of
the signers of the Declaration of Independence were orthodox Christians; they
held a rationalist attitude toward the concept of god. Jefferson would have
walked out in protest at today's prayer-intoning presidential inaugurations.
The America of 1976 is the contemporary
analogue of the tsarist Russia which the "founding fathers" held in
contempt as the bastion of world reaction—the tsarist Russia against whose
tyranny Lenin and the Bolsheviks organized the proletariat. It is to the world
working class that the liberating mission now falls.
Was the War of Independence a Social
Revolution?
Like the Fourth of July, Bastille Day
in France is an official, patriotic holiday, replete with military marches and
chauvinist speeches. Yet the events Bastille Day commemorates retain a certain
revolutionary significance to this day. The French people's understanding of 1789
is as a violent overthrow by the masses of an oppressive ruling class. The
French imperialist bourgeoisie's efforts to purge the French revolution of
present-day revolutionary significance have not succeeded. A Charles De Gaulle
or a Valery Giscard d'Estaing cannot embrace Robespierre or Marat, for the
latter stand too close to the primitive communist Gracchus Babeuf, who
considered himself a true Jacobin.
The American war of independence was
also a classic bourgeois-democratic revolution, but it was not really a social
revolution which overthrew the existing ruling class. The British loyalists
were largely concentrated in the propertied classes and governing elite.
However pro-independence forces among the planters and merchants were strong
enough to prevent any significant class polarization during the war.
The English and French
bourgeois-democratic revolutions had to destroy an entrenched aristocratic
order. That destruction required a radical, plebeian terrorist phase associated
with the figures of Cromwell and Robespierre. For the American colonies,
winning independence from England did not require a regime based on plebeian
terror. The war of independence did not produce a Cromwell or a Robespierre
because it did not need one. Nor did it give rise to radical egalitarian groups
like the Levellers and Diggers, or the Enrages and Babouvists. It never
remotely threatened the wealthiest, most conservative planters and merchants
who supported secession from Britain.
The consolidation of bourgeois rule in
the Puritan and French revolutions required a political counterrevolution in
which the Cromwellians and Jacobins were overthrown, persecuted and vilified.
The radical opposition which sprung up in resistance to this counterrevolution
became part—through the Babouvists in France—of the revolutionary tradition
which Marx embraced.
Because the American war of
independence did not experience a plebeian terrorist phase, neither did it
experience a conservative bourgeois counterrevolution. The leaders of the independence
struggle went on to found and govern the republic; greatly venerated, they died
of old age.
The men who met in Philadelphia's
Convention Hall 200 years ago realized their aims more satisfactorily than any
other similarly placed, insurrectionary group in history. This achievement does
not bespeak their greatness, but the limited, essentially conservative nature
of their goals. The legitimization of black chattel slavery in the
Constitution, without significant opposition, demonstrates the bourgeois
conservatism of the leaders of the American Revolution. The "founding
fathers" had no children who could claim that the principles of 1776 had
been betrayed in the interests of the rich and powerful. The era of the war of
independence did not give rise to a living revolutionary tradition.
John Brown's Body
There is a social revolution in
American history which troubles the imperialist bourgeoisie to this day. It did
not begin in 1776, but in the anti-slavery confrontations. The issue rose by
the civil war and particularly the period of Radical Reconstruction—the
intimate relationship between capitalism in America and racial
oppression—awaits its fundamental resolution in future revolutionary struggle.
The wasn't-it-tragic attitude of the bourgeoisie to the civil war era contrasts
sharply with their celebratory attitude toward the war of independence. The
signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, unlike the Declaration of
Independence, will never be a holiday in racist, imperialist America.
It is in the civil war era that there
are parallels with the plebeian component of the French Revolution. The
contemporary bourgeois treatment of John Brown resembles the French ruling
class attitude toward Robespierre. They cannot disown the anti-slavery cause
outright, but they condemn John Brown for his fanatical commitment and violent
methods. The Reconstruction era of 1867-1877 is the only period in U.S. history
which the present ruling class rejects an un-American extremism. Two important
films, D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and the later Gone With the Wind, are
outright apologies for white supremacist terror against the only
radical-democratic governments this country has ever experienced. The
Compromise of 1877, when the black freedmen were abandoned to the merciless
regimes of the ex-slaveholders, was the American bourgeois-democratic
revolution betrayed. And the reversal of that historic betrayal awaits the
victory of American communism.
Because of the American revolution's limited social
mobilization, those whose principles ultimately clashed with bourgeois rule—the
likes of Tom Paine and Sam Adams—were easily disposed of. The radical
abolitionists—John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass— are the only
figures in American history before the emergence of the workers movement whose
commitment to democratic principles actually threatened bourgeois rule. For the
same reason that the present-day bourgeoisie denounces John Brown as a
dangerous extremist, we communists can claim the radical abolitionists as ours.
Only a victorious American socialist revolution can give to the heroes and
martyrs of Harper's Ferry and the "underground railway" the honor
that is their historic right.