From The Pen Of American Communist Party Founder And
Trotskyist Leader James P. Cannon
Click below to link to the
“James P. Cannon Internet Archives.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/index.htm
*************
Frank Jackman comment on founding
member James P. Cannon and the early American Communist Party taken from a book
review, James P. Cannon and the Early American Communist Party, on
the “American Left History” blog:
If you are interested in the history
of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past
mistakes of our history and want to know some of the problems that confronted
the early American Communist Party and some of the key personalities, including
James Cannon, who formed that party this book is for you.
At the beginning of the 21st century
after the demise of the Soviet Union and the apparent ‘death of communism’ it
may seem fantastic and utopian to today’s militants that early in the 20th
century many anarchist, socialist, syndicalist and other working class
militants of this country coalesced to form an American Communist Party. For
the most part, these militants honestly did so in order to organize an American
socialist revolution patterned on and influenced by the Russian October
Revolution of 1917. James P. Cannon represents one of the important individuals
and faction leaders in that effort and was in the thick of the battle as a
central leader of the Party in this period. Whatever his political mistakes at
the time, or later, one could certainly use such a militant leader today. His
mistakes were the mistakes of a man looking for a revolutionary path.
For those not familiar with this
period a helpful introduction by the editors gives an analysis of the important
fights which occurred inside the party. That overview highlights some of the
now more obscure personalities (a helpful biographical glossary is provided),
where they stood on the issues and insights into the significance of the
crucial early fights in the party.
These include questions which are
still relevant today; a legal vs. an underground party; the proper attitude
toward parliamentary politics; support to third- party bourgeois
candidates;trade union policy; class-war prisoner defense as well as how to
rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for
organizational control of the party. This makes it somewhat easier for those
not well-versed in the intricacies of the political disputes which wracked the
early American party to understand how these questions tended to pull it in on
itself. In many ways, given the undisputed rise of American imperialism in the
immediate aftermath of World War I, this is a story of the ‘dog days’ of the
party. Unfortunately, that rise combined with the international ramifications
of the internal disputes in the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist
International shipwrecked the party as a revolutionary party toward the end of
this period.
In the introduction the editors
motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was
the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing
question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership
of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist
Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the
documentation provided here show? I would argue that the period under study
represented Cannon’s apprenticeship. Although the hothouse politics of the
early party clarified some of the issues of revolutionary strategy for him I
believe that it was not until he linked up with Trotsky in the late 1920’s that
he became the kind of leader who could lead a revolution. Of course, since
Cannon never got a serious opportunity to lead revolutionary struggles in
America this is mainly reduced to speculation on my part. Later books written
by him make the case better. One thing is sure- in his prime he had the
instincts to want to lead a revolution.
As an addition to the historical
record of this period this book is a very good companion to the two-volume set
by Theodore Draper - The Roots of
American Communism and Soviet Russia
and American Communism- the definitive study on the early history of the
American Communist Party. It is also a useful companion to Cannon’s own The First Ten Years of American Communism.
I would add that this is something of a labor of love on the part of the
editors. This book was published at a time when the demise of the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe was in full swing and anything related to Communist
studies was deeply discounted. Nevertheless, for better or worse, the American
Communist Party (and its offshoots) needs to be studied as an ultimately flawed
example of a party that failed in its mission to create a radical version of
society in America. Now is the time to study this history.
*********
BOOK REVIEW
NOTEBOOK OF AN AGITATOR- JAMES P. CANNON, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1971
NOTEBOOK OF AN AGITATOR- JAMES P. CANNON, PATHFINDER PRESS, NEW YORK, 1971
If you are interested in the history
of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past
lessons of our history concerning the socialist response to various social and
labor questions this book is for you.
This book is part of a continuing series
of the writings of James P. Cannon that was published by the organization he
founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s. Look in this space for
other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important
American Communist.
In the introduction the editors
motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was
the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing
question. The editors trace their political lineage back to Cannon’s leadership
of the early Communist Party and later after his expulsion to the Trotskyist
Socialist Workers Party so their perspective is obvious. What does the
documentation provided here show? This certainly is the period of Cannon’s
political maturation, especially after his long collaboration working with
Trotsky. The period under discussion- from the 1920’s when he was a leader of
the American Communist Party to the red-baiting years after World War II-
started with his leadership of the fight against the degeneration of the
Russian Revolution and then later against those who no longer wanted to defend
the gains of the Russian Revolution despite the Stalinist degeneration of that
revolution. Cannon won his spurs in those fights and in his 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.
I note here that among socialists,
particularly the non-Stalinist socialists of those days, there was controversy
on what to do and, more importantly, what forces socialists should support. If
you want to find a more profound response initiated by revolutionary socialists
to the social and labor problems of those days than is evident in today’s
leftist responses to such issues Cannon’s writings here will assist you. I draw
your attention to the early part of the book when Cannon led the
Communist-initiated International Labor Defense (ILD), most famously around the
fight to save the anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti here in Massachusetts. That
campaign put the Communist Party on the map for many workers and others
unfamiliar with the party’s work. For my perspective the early class-war
prisoner defense work was exemplary.
The issue of class-war prisoners is
one that is close to my heart. I support the work of the Partisan Defense
Committee, Box 99 Canal Street Station, New York, N.Y 10013, an organization
which traces its roots and policy to Cannon’s ILD. That policy is based on an
old labor slogan- ‘An injury to one is an injury to all’ therefore I would like
to write a few words here on Cannon’s conception of the nature of the work. As
noted above, Cannon (along with Max Shachtman and Martin Abern and Cannon’s
long time companion Rose Karsner who would later be expelled from American
Communist Party for Trotskyism with him and who helped him form what would
eventually become the Socialist Workers Party) was assigned by the party in
1925 to set up the American section of the International Red Aid known here as
the International Labor Defense.
It is important to note here that
Cannon’s selection as leader of the ILD was insisted on by the Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW) because of his pre-war association with that
organization and with the prodding of “Big Bill’ Haywood, the famous labor organizer
exiled in Moscow. Since many of the militants still languishing in prison were
anarchists or syndicalists the selection of Cannon was important. The ILD’s
most famous early case was that of the heroic anarchist workers, Sacco and
Vanzetti. The lessons learned in that campaign show the way forward in
class-war prisoner defense.
I believe that it was Trotsky who
noted that, except in the immediate pre-revolutionary and revolutionary
periods, the tasks of militants revolve around the struggle to win democratic
and other partial demands. The case of class-war legal defense falls in that
category with the added impetus of getting the prisoners back into the class
struggle as quickly as possible. The task then is to get them out of prison by
mass action for their release. Without going into the details of the Sacco and
Vanzetti case the two workers had been awaiting execution for a number of years
and had been languishing in jail. As is the nature of death penalty cases
various appeals on various grounds were tried and failed and they were then in
imminent danger of execution.
Other forces outside the labor
movement were also interested in the Sacco and Vanzetti case based on obtaining
clemency, reduction of their sentences to life imprisonment or a new trial. The
ILD’s position was to try to win their release by mass action- demonstrations,
strikes and other forms of mass mobilization. This strategy obviously also
included, in a subordinate position, any legal strategies that might be helpful
to win their freedom. In this effort the stated goal of the organization was to
organize non-sectarian class defense but also not to rely on the legal system
alone portraying it as a simple miscarriage of justice. The organization
publicized the case worldwide, held conferences, demonstrations and strikes on
behalf of Sacco and Vanzetti. Although the campaign was not successful and the
pair were executed in 1927 it stands as a model for class war prisoner defense.
Needless to say, the names Sacco and Vanzetti continue to be honored to this
day wherever militants fight against this system.
I also suggest a close look at
Cannon’s articles in the early 1950’s. Some of them are solely of historical
interest around the effects of the red purges on the organized labor movement at
the start of the Cold War. Others, however, around health insurance, labor
standards, the role of the media and the separation of church and state read as
if they were written in 2014 That’s a sorry statement to have to make any way
one looks at it.
