*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-Two Contemporary Reviews of C.L.R. James" World Revolution (1937)

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
********
From Fight, organ of the Marxist Group, Vol.1, No.6, May 1937

World Revolution
A Review of C.L.R. James’ book on the Rise and Fall of the Communist International

This year marks the twentieth anniversary of the Russian Revolution. It is a decided advantage at a time when every politically conscious worker is being compelled to review the influence of the Russian revolution on the world’s workers movement, C.L.R. James’ book comes to hand. It is a book that every socialist should read and every revolutionary possess. (Secker and Warburg 12/6.)

Stalin, speaking at a recent meeting of the Central Committee of the Russian party, reminded his hearers that Russia was still living in a hostile world surrounded by hostile imperialist powers. This, it seems, is the outstanding contradiction of the Russian Revolution. That as yet the workers in no other country have been able to conquer power and hold it; electoral successes there have been; Labour governments have come and gone, but the sweeping changes in the property relationships introduced by the Russian October have so far been confined to the limits of the U.S.S.R. James in his book shows that there has been no absence of revolutionary situations. Since 1917 almost every country in Europe has been engulfed in revolutionary crisis. Why the proletarian revolution has failed to appear, despite the fact that the Third International was founded to give impetus and leadership to these revolutionary movements, is the subject of James’ brilliant study.

The pre-war movement of the workers is shown to have been castrated by the limited objectives given to the movement by revisionist socialism, which was then in the ascendant. The reformist conception of the steady improvement of the living standards of the workers, the identification of the workers’ movements in the different countries with the national aims and aspirations of their national bourgeoisie, led inevitably to the break up of the Second International in the crisis of 1914.

Emerging clearly from the crisis in the Socialist International was the party of Lenin, which carried on an uncompromising fight against any conception of national defence, and postulated the need to utilise the difficulties of the war situation to sharpen the class struggle, with the objective of establishing Workers’ Power. With this bold programme Lenin attracted to his side all the best currents in the International Socialist movement. With these cadres and a distinctly Internationalist Programme, Lenin in the years of Imperialist war laid the foundations of the new Third International. The subsequent history of this International has in the past received very little attention. The struggles in the different countries, the successes and failures are spread over a wide literature mostly today inaccessible. The discussions, decisions, speeches and pamphlets of the early years of the Third Communist International are now out of circulation. To circulate them today would only serve to show how far the present leaders of the Third International have travelled away from the conceptions of its founders, and reinforce the thesis of James that this movement has succumbed which it set out to cleanse the workers’ movement of, namely, National Socialism.

The importance of this book, however, lies in its exposure of the theoretical revisionism which made its appearance in Russia in the last period of Lenin’s life. The existence of an isolated Workers’ State, which remained unrelieved from Imperialist pressure; by the negative results of the post war revolutions in Western Europe, nourished the new revisionism; national exclusiveness. This in turn has had a decisive and disastrous influence on the second post war wave of revolutionary struggles.

The struggle in the Russian Communist Party around the theory of Socialism in One Country, was, until recent years, treated as an abstract disputation between two irreconcilable personalities. Hitler’s conquest of power without a defensive blow struck by the powerful German proletariat, served to shake that former conception. The new betrayals which the various Communist Parties are actively preparing on the cardinal question of war and national defence will shatter it.

The imprint this theory has left on the International movement since it was coined, is traced in the various countries by James. Those who are concerned with preparing the new generation, the cadres for as new resurgence of international socialism must do everything possible to get this book into the hands of young workers, to theoretically prepare them for the struggles ahead.
*********
From Controversy, theoretical journal of the ILP, Vol.1, No.8, May 1937, p.37. This number contained one Stalinist and one Trotskyist review of the James book.

(2) TROTSKYIST - H.WICKS
The great theoretical discussions which occupied the Russian Communist Party between the years 1923-27, at the time produced no echo in the English labour movement. Stalin’s theory of Socialism in a Single Country, against Trotsky’s concept of Permanent Revolution, was regarded in sufficiently wide circles as the abstraction which covered the reality of a personal struggle in the leadership for the mantle of Lenin.

The fateful events in Western Europe in recent years; Hitler’s assumption of power without a decisive blow being struck by the powerful German proletariat; the crushing of Austrian social democracy; civil war in Spain and the role of the Communist International in these events compels a revaluation of that early theoretical struggle. James’ book provides us with the first comprehensive study of the struggle within Russian Communism, and its influence on the world Communist movement.

The re-groupment of the revolutionary and socialist movement, a process which commenced during the imperialist war, and was accelerated by the October revolution, proceeded under the leadership of Lenin.

The first declarations of the Communist International declared “The national State, which in the past had given tremendous impetus to capitalist evolution, has become too narrow for the development of the productive forces.” To free the productive forces from the restrictions imposed by the national States, a new unity was necessary. This unity could be attained only by the proletarian revolution, which would unite all people in the closest economic co-operation. As a necessary preliminary step the proletariat must free itself from all those shibboleths of national unity, defence of the Fatherland, etc, which serve only to tie the working masses to the bourgeois order.

That profound internationalism of Lenin, which characterised all his writings during the war and throughout the Revolution, and which were finally concentrated in those early documents of the Communist International, is ably illustrated by James. Here is the source of those ideas which are today advanced by the Communist Party’s Left critics.

The recent speech of Stalin, which admonishes those party leaders for having forgotten such an elementary fact as the continued capitalist encirclement of the Soviet Union, indicates how far Party thought has receded from the world outlook of Lenin. This national patriotism which has reached such threatening proportions in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is an inevitable consequence of the theory of Socialism in a Single Country. Those who attempt to reconcile Lenin’s views with this nationalist theory of socialist development, will have a difficult task to answer the fifth chapter of James’ study.

Through all the later writings of Lenin, which was devoted to the problem of restoring the shattered economy of the country, there is not a trace of this revisionist theory.

The contradictions of development of an isolated Workers’ State were regarded as incapable of solution within national boundaries. The solution was sought in the international arena, by extending the base of the proletarian revolution.

It is necessary to emphasise that this approach to the problems of an isolated Workers’ State did not exclude the most careful attention to the measures for strengthening the economy of the country. This is best illustrated by the fact that the Left wing of the Russian Communist Party were the first to raise the slogan for a planned beginning.

The decisive influence which the triumph of this revisionist theory has had on the Communist International is outlined in great detail by James. The early demarcation lines which separated the Second and Third Internationals are completely effaced. Lenin’s banner, against national unity, against any concessions to national defence, for the revolutionary struggle against one’s own government, has been uprooted.

As the crisis of capitalism deepens, and a new imperialist war approaches, a growing body of socialist opinion turns for guidance to the programme which Lenin outlined for the Third International. For the first time the salient points in the history of this international are available. Around this exhaustive study and patent marshalling of materiel the controversies of the future will rage.

The Struggle For The Labor Party In The United States-American Socialist Workers Party Leader James P.Cannon-"Campaign For A Labor Party" (1943)

Click on the headline to link to a James P. Cannon Internet Archives online copy of Campaign For A Labor Party 1943)

Markin comment on this series:

Obviously, for a Marxist, the question of working class political power is central to the possibilities for the main thrust of his or her politics- the quest for that socialist revolution that initiates the socialist reconstruction of society. But working class politics, no less than any other kinds of political expressions has to take an organization form, a disciplined organizational form in the end, but organization nevertheless. In that sense every Marxist worth his or her salt, from individual labor militants to leagues, tendencies, and whatever other formations are out there these days on the left, struggles to built a revolutionary labor party, a Bolshevik-style party.

Glaringly, in the United States there is no such party, nor even a politically independent reformist labor party, as exists in Great Britain. And no, the Democratic Party, imperialist commander-in-chief Obama's Democratic Party is not a labor party. Although plenty of people believe it is an adequate substitute, including some avowed socialists. But they are just flat-out wrong. This series is thus predicated on providing information about, analysis of, and acting as a spur to a close look at the history of the labor party question in America by those who have actually attempted to create one, or at to propagandize for one.

As usual, I will start this series with the work of the International Communist League/Spartacist League/U.S. as I have been mining their archival materials of late. I am most familiar with the history of their work on this question, although on this question the Socialist Workers Party's efforts run a close second, especially in their revolutionary period. Lastly, and most importantly, I am comfortable starting with the ICL/SL efforts on the labor party question since after having reviewed in this space in previous series their G.I. work and youth work (Campus Spartacist and the Revolutionary Marxist Caucus Newsletter inside SDS) I noted that throughout their history they have consistently called for the creation of such a party in the various social arenas in which they have worked. Other organizational and independent efforts, most notably by the Socialist Workers Party and the American Communist Party will follow.

*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-C.L.R. James on Negroes and Bolshevism (1947)

*From The Archives Of The “Revolutionary History” Journal-C.L.R. James on Negroes and Bolshevism (1947)

Markin comment:

This is an excellent documentary source for today’s militants to “discovery” the work of our forbears, whether we agree with their programs or not. Mainly not, but that does not negate the value of such work done under the pressure of revolutionary times. Hopefully we will do better when our time comes.
********
C.L.R. James on Negroes and Bolshevism

Revolutionary History is grateful to Scott McLemee for permission to use his transcription of this and other CLR James texts. Standard american spellings have been retained here, on the assumption they were used in the original publication

The following article by C.L.R. James appeared under a pseudonym in the 7 April 1947 issue of LABOR ACTION, newspaper of the Workers Party of the United States.

Negroes and Bolshevism
The American government is today building up its campaign against the Communist Party, “the Reds.” Readers of LABOR ACTION know that the Workers Party has been the unswerving foe of the Communist Party. But we oppose the Communist Party because it betrays the revolutionary struggle. We attack it because, in its slavish subservience to the Moscow bureaucracy, it uses Negroes and the American labor movement purely to advance the projects and policies of Russia. Many Negroes know this. And they are filled with a deep skepticism of political movements which are in any way radical. At this time it will be useful to recall exactly what Bolshevism was and will always be. There are many lessons for Negroes, not only in judging political parties in general but in judging and forming organizations of their own.

Mass Action

First of all, Bolshevism represents revolution and the revolutionary struggle. All other political parties depend on parliamentary means, on petitions, telegrams to Senators, mass meetings at which “important” and “distinguished” politicians speak. Bolshevism does not disdain parliamentary means. But fundamentally it relies upon mass action – mass demonstrations of workers, strikes, picketing, mobilizing workers in order to bring the pressure of organized labor and its allies upon the capitalist states. Let us illustrate the difference by an example. In the years before World War I, the Bolsheviks elected about half a dozen members to the Duma – the Russian Parliament. These elected representatives at once became very active about bills, the budget, parliamentary procedure, etc. They went for advice to Lenin, who was living in exile. Lenin laughed heartily and told them what amounted to this:

“Don’t bother about their bills and their budget and their parliamentary procedure. When you turn comes stand up and tell them about the lives of the workers, tell them about all the exploitation and oppression by the classes they represent and then tell them that it would not be long before the workers will rise in their revolutionary wrath and sweep capitalism and its dishonest thieving parliaments into the dustbin.”

Something at once becomes clear. The Bolshvik deputies were not begging the capitalist politicians and the capitalist state for anything. They were not even speaking to the parliamentarians. They were speaking to the workers outside. They were using the Parliament as a forum to make revolutionary propaganda, to force the attention of the more backward workers, to make the middle classes listen, to expose the fraud of parliamentarism. Naturally the revolutionary party holds its own meetings, etc.

But its main interest in the capitalist Parliament was to use it for mobilizing the workers against capitalism and all its works.

Policy for Negroes

The Negroes of the United States would do wonderfully if they could impose upon any Congress or municipal candidate exactly some such policy. “You want to go to Congress by our vote. What do you propose to do there? Are you going to maneuver with the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Are you going to waste your time and our votes by arguing with Bilbo and Pappy O’Daniel and Taft and Pepper, that liberal from Florida who gets into Congress by preaching white supremacy? You are of no use to us. Go there not to convince and bargain with them, but to say loudly what we want and say it so that the nationa and all the world will hear. Then you will get our vote. Otherwise we have no use for you.” Bolshevism carried to an extraordinary pitch of skill this use of parliaments for revolutionary purposes. For example, the federal government every years passes financial bills for the salaries of a system ridden by Jim Crow. Would a Bolshevik vote for this? No, he would denounce the system and refuse to give his vote for this iniquitous measure. But if during the discussion of details of the bill, there was a division over whether the lowest ranks of government employees should have an increase of ten percent or not, a Bolshevik would speak in favor and vote in favor.

If parliamentary procedure allowed he would move for the reduction of all cabinet members’ salaries, just in order to expose the injustices of the system. If it were possible to get such motion passed, he would vote for it. But then, when it came to the final vote, he would vote a loud and resounding “No,” indicating thereby his repudiation of the whole system. That is the Bolshevik method. There is absolutely no reason why a Congressman elected by Negroes should not carry it out. The appropriations for war? No. And not a mere vote but a detailed exposure of the whole system. And having made these speeches and carried out these actions in Congress, the Congressman who acted in this way on behalf of the Negro people would do more good for Negroes than the whole Democratic Party.

Don’t Need “Friends”

Exactly the same policy is the Bolshevik policy for a labor Congressman. “Friends of labor” in Congress are no good to thw working class movement. “Friends of Negroes” are no good in Congress to the Negro people. They are no good on City Councils. All they do is to confuse and corrupt the people’s political thinking. Now we ask the Negroes: has this or anything like this been the policy of Ben Davis, for example, the Communist Party member on the New York City Council? One year he is supporting Leham and Mead. Then comes an upheaval in the Communist Party. Browder is thrown out. Foster comes in, a new policy is announced and – Ben Davis supports Mead and Lehman! A genuine Bolshevik is distinguished by the consistency of his opposition to all aspects of the capitalist system. He votes for or supports only those specific things which benefit the workers and the oppressed and he opposes everything else. Now it seems to us that a Negro community like Harlem would create a stir that would be felt in all parts of the country if it demanded of its candidate that his main task in and out of Congress or municipality was to denounce the system and use parliamentary forms and practices as a tribune for the education of the people. The great crime of the Communist Party is that it has prostituted the very name of Bolshevism in the service of Moscow, The American capitalist class is out to break these Stalinists. Negroes cannot stand aside and see this happen without protest. It is an invasion [sic] of democratic rights. But our way of defeating these corrupting rats is to put forward labor and Negro candidates who, by a genuinely revolutionary policy, will educate the people both as to the crimes of American imperialism and the betrayals of the Moscow stooges.