*From The Archives Of The Socialist Workers Party (America)- Political Principles and Propaganda Methods-Defence Policy in the Minneapolis Trial-1941

Click on the headline to link to the article described in the title.

Marxism, no less than other political traditions, and perhaps more than most, places great emphasis on roots, the building blocks of current society and its political organizations. Nowhere is the notion of roots more prevalent in the Marxist movement that in the tracing of organizational and political links back to the founders, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the Communist Manifesto, and the Communist League. A recent example of that linkage in this space was when I argued in this space that, for those who stand in the Trotskyist tradition, one must examine closely the fate of Marx’s First International, the generic socialist Second International, Lenin and Trotsky’s Bolshevik Revolution-inspired Communist International, and Trotsky’s revolutionary successor, the Fourth International before one looks elsewhere for a centralized international working class organization that codifies the principle –“workers of the world unite.”

On the national terrain in the Trotskyist movement, and here I am speaking of America where the Marxist roots are much more attenuated than elsewhere, we look to Daniel DeLeon’s Socialist Labor League, Deb’s Socialist Party( mainly its left-wing, not its socialism for dentists wing), the Wobblies (IWW, Industrial Workers Of The World), the early Bolshevik-influenced Communist Party and the various formations that made up the organization under review, the James P. Cannon-led Socialist Workers Party, the section that Leon Trotsky’s relied on most while he was alive. Beyond that there are several directions to go in but these are the bedrock of revolutionary Marxist continuity, at least through the 1960s. If I am asked, and I have been, this is the material that I suggest young militants should start of studying to learn about our common political forbears. And that premise underlines the point of the entries that will posted under this headline in further exploration of the early days, “the dog days” of the Socialist Workers Party.

Note: I can just now almost hear some very nice and proper socialists (descendents of those socialism for dentist-types) just now, screaming in the night, yelling what about Max Shachtman (and, I presume, his henchman, Albert Glotzer, as well) and his various organizational formations starting with the Workers party when he split from the Socialist Workers Party in 1940? Well, what about old Max and his “third camp” tradition? I said the Trotskyist tradition not the State Department socialist tradition. If you want to trace Marxist continuity that way, go to it. That, in any case, is not my sense of continuity, although old Max knew how to “speak” Marxism early in his career under Jim Cannon’s prodding. Moreover at the name Max Shachtman I can hear some moaning, some serious moaning about blackguards and turncoats, from the revolutionary pantheon by Messrs. Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. I rest my case.

********************

*A Short Note, A Very Short Note On The 6th Anniversary Of The Bush/Obama Iraq War

Click on title to link to information about the observance of the 6th Anniversary of the Iraq War.

Commentary

On this the Sixth Anniversary of the Iraq invasion I repost my entries from previous years. There is essentially nothing new to add, except to replace the name Bush with Obama in the slogan- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All U.S./Allied Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan!

From March 19, 2008

Today I will go to downtown Boston and participate in my nth demonstration against the Iraq War. I will have my banner, I will shout and I ....will be frustrated that in many fundamentals we (meaning here the anti-war movement) are no closer to forcing a total troop withdrawal from Iraq than 5 years ago. But, my frustration will pass. In fact it has already. I will shout to the bitter end- Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal of All United States/Allied Troops and Mercenaries From Iraq and Afghanistan!

Below I have reposted, as much as it pains me, a comment I made as we approached last year’s 4th Anniversary of the Iraq War. Damn.

COMMENTARY

WRITTEN ON MARCH 19, 2007 THE FOUTH ANNIVESARY OF THE AMERICAN INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ.

This will be short and sweet for four years of war without an effective extra-parliamentary (or for that matter, parliamentary) opposition in an unpopular war led by an unpopular President speaks for itself. That said, the slogan Immediate Unconditional Withdrawal from Iraq by the United States and its rapidly dwindling coalition forces retains its validity. As does the fight for a straight no vote on the war budget. And, finally, as does the validity of the desperately necessary fight to form anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees. Otherwise this time next year we will be writing about the fifth year of the war. Forward.

From The Archives- The Struggle Against The Iraq War At The Base

Commentary

From The Archives- on the struggle in the lead up to the Iraq War in 2002

IT IS DESPERATELY NECESSARY TO WIN THIS BATTLE AGAINST BUSH’S WAR DRIVE….AND THE FIGHT BEYOND

Make no mistake Bush intends to go to war in Iraq despite the rational objection of the anti-war peoples of the world. We have, however, in rather short order been able to build an anti-war movement of massive proportions through shear determination. Now is the time to draw the lessons from the past about how to continue build this movement and lead it to political power so that we can end war once and for all. If we fail we may not soon have another chance. The following program can serve as a basis for such a change.


FOUR POINT PROGRAM FOR AN EFFECTIVE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

1. .TURN THE ANTIWAR MOVEMENT INTO AN ANTI-IMPERIALIST MOVEMENT- THE MAIN ENEMY IS AT HOME

One of the lessons drawn from the Vietnam anti-war movement was to demonstrate that the actions of the American government were not just a result of bad policies but were endemic to the nature of capitalism in the modern era. If we do not draw that same analysis now and bring it to those who can at least see that something is desperately wrong with this system then we never will. The pacifist mood of the masses while commendable is mainly unformed and directionless. We must draw the lessons of history. In that regard the lessons of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the only successful anti-war movement in history, must be absorbed. We must make our own the slogans stated by Karl Liebknecht the German socialist in voting against war credits to the German government in World War I. The main enemy is at home. Not one penny, not one person for this war.

2. STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH THE IRAQI PEOPLE. DEFEND IRAQ AGAINST IMPERIALIST ATTACK.

The disparity between the mightiest military power the world has ever known and semi-colonial Iraq is apparent. It is the duty of every internationalist to understand that in the coming war we must stand in solidarity with the Iraqi people. The main danger to the peoples of the world today is not Saddam but the American government and its allies. We give no political support to Saddam and call for the people of Iraq to overthrow him. However, when war starts we must defend the Iraqi people DESPITE Saddam.

3. SUPPORT AND INITIATE ACTIONS THAT UNDERMINE U.S. AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ.

All actions to now, mainly demonstrations, against an invasion are helpful, However, as the anti-war movement against Vietnam demonstrated these actions are not enough. It is necessary in your schools, labor unions, workplaces and in your activist groups to raise the question of concretely stopping the war. Call for student strikes, political strikes, labor strikes and other actions such as “hot-cargoing" military goods. Develop actions that undermine the government’s ability to carry out their war plans. Speak to soldiers and their families about actions to stop their participation in the war effort.

4. BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES. FIGHT FOR A WORKERS PARTY.

The essential unity of the traditional parties in this country the Republicans and Democrats on the question of Iraq and other social questions makes it clear that they do not represent the fundamental interests of working people and minorities in this country. We must build our own party centered on the workers and minorities of this country to fight against imperialism abroad and for a workers government at home

BRING THESE IDEAS TO YOUR SCHOOL, YOUR WORKPLACE, YOUR UNION AND YOUR ACTIVIST GROUPS-------FORWARD

CONTACT: THE BOSTON COMMITTEE FOR AN ANTI-IMPERIALIST UNITED FRONT

LABOR DONATED

The Iraq War Budget-Parliamentary Cretinism, Part 37

Commentary

Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of U.S. Troops from Iraq and Afghanistan!

Okay, let us go by the numbers on the Iraq War budget question again for about the 37th time. On Thursday May 15, 2008, once again the Democratically led (that is with a capital D) House of Representatives put on its periodic display of what has become an embarrassingly familiar scenario. With a little twist this time though to provide gist for the political humorists. The bulk of Democrats, looking to the fall elections, wanted to be put on record as opposing the current Iraq war appropriations. Fair enough. The Republicans, in a fit of pique, decided that they did not like the set-up for various reasons and many of them abstained on the vote. The long and short of the maneuver is that the bill was defeated. Hooray, right? No, no no.

This is just grandstanding for the folks at home. The bill goes to the much more serious Senate next week where the appropriations will pass. Moreover, hovering over all of this, at least until January 20, 2009, and believe me beyond, well beyond that as well, is the presidential veto for any action that limits in any way the executive branch’s authority to wage war anyway it wants to. Thus, we are back to that proverbial square one from five years ago- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal of all American and Allied Troops and Mercenaries. But, I will be damned if these cretins get it yet.

The Slippery Slope to War-Iran

Commentary

The recent swirl around Iran makes me nervous. Every since Seymour Hersh’s article on White House Iranian war preparations in the April 2006 New Yorker I have been taking sideway glances at developments around that issue. I do not like what I see right now. Let me just summarize the litany here.


• Over the past several weeks Admiral Fallon, the head of U. S. Central Command (that means the Middle East), has been knocking on or kicking downs doors all over the capitals of most Middle Eastern countries giving the word on American intentions toward Iran. Fallon, like all top American military officers, is not known for ‘blowing smoke’ (or, at least, too much)when war is in the air. He is also not known, when the deal goes down, for being slow on the trigger.

• The French Foreign Minister has ‘accidentally’ mentioned that the military option was not off the table in order to resolve the Iranian situation. His boss, Sarkozy immediately reigned him in on and then turned around and basically said the same thing at his speeech in the United Nations. The ‘cat is out of the bag’ now.

• The United States Senate, the same people who couldn’t muster up the energy to pass the placid Webb amendment on ‘troop rest’ has this past week gone out of its way to vote to label the nefarious Iranian Revolutionary Guard that sprung forth from the United States Embassy takeover in 1979 a “terrorist” organization. That means something unlike the non-binding tripartite partition of Iraq resolution. I note that leading Democratic presidential contender Senator Hillary Clinton voted for the designation. Thus bi-partisan support for any future actions against Iran has a running start. This time it would be nice if Senator Clinton and the others at least read the documentation and 'intelligence' reports before they vote for war. Vain hope.

• The periodic talk, recently louder, about the Iranian role, and the need to call them to account for it, in providing powerful IED’s that are claimed to be the number one of death to American troops to both Shiite and Sunni factions in Iraq.

• Reports that Iran is shelling in northern Iraq in an effort to break one of its internal oppositional guerilla groups based in that area.

• The ongoing international pressure to increase various sanctions against Iran in order to halt its nuclear development program. Many of these types of embargos and boycotts are ‘acts of war’ under international law.

• The recent visit of the cunningly bizarre Iranian president to New York where he was cheered and jeered, mainly jeered with a frenzy that matched some of the buildup against Saddam Hussein (remember him) before the occupation of Iraq. Whether the president is anything more than a front man for the mullahs on the Supreme Council or not he is still the ‘face ' of Iran to the international public.

• Finally, the key to the whole situation, one George W. Bush and his coterie. Bush, already in a neck and neck race with Millard Fillmore for the title of least popular president, has nothing to lose. He is probably thinking why shouldn’t he go out in a blaze of glory. And if he is not up to it, his puppet master Karl Rove, oops, fellow draft dodger Vice President Dick Cheney certainly has the appetite for it.

There are some impediments in the way like a depleted American army in Iraq but where there is a will there is a way. In some ways there is a hell of a lot more going on concerning Iran than before the run up to the Iraq war. Yes, I am definitely nervous. A three front war strategy is in the air. We better have a three front anti-war strategy. Better dust off the old slogan-Hands Off Iran!

Lest anyone think that I wish to ‘coddle’ the Iranian leadership I have posted a commentary from around the time of the Hersh’s article from my blog. Hersh’s intelligence report probably needs some updating but the thrust of his article and my comments still retain their validity.



YOU DON’T NEED SEYMOUR HERSH TO KNOW WHICH WAY THE WIND BLOWS.

In the wake of Seymour Hersh’s revelations in the New Yorker concerning the Bush administration’s potential military plans, including a possible nuclear option, toward Iran there has been a hue and cry in political circles against some of the rasher aspects of such action. From the traditional opponents of such an action plan -the Left? No! From liberal politicians? No! If anything those types have been more belligerent and to the right on the issue of Iran than the Bush administration. The cry has come from conservative think tank magazines and hawkish political commentators like New York Times writer Thomas Friedman. After the disastrous consequences of their support for the adventure in Iraq as least a few of the more rational conservatives have learned something. Whether they continue to hold out once the onslaught of patriotism and so-called national interest comes into play remains to be seen. However, their self-made dilemma is not what interests me.

As I write these lines the paint has not even dried on my poster in opposition to the continuing Iraq occupation for an anti-war rally. Now that the newest plans of the Wild Boys in the basements of the White House, Pentagon and State Department have been “leaked” I have to add another slogan to that banner- Hands Off Iran! Overreacting one might say. No!! If we have learned anything in the last few years from the Bush Administration it is that the distance from “war games” and “zero sum game theory” to front page newspaper and television screen casualty counts is a very, very short elevator ride away.

That, however, begs the question of whether the current Islamic leadership in Iran is a threat. Damn right it is a threat. This writer opposed the Shah of Iran when he was an agent of American imperialist interests in the Persian Gulf. This writer also opposed the rise and takeover by the Islamic fundamentalists in 1979 when many Western leftists were, overtly or covertly, supporting these elements as ‘anti-imperialist’ agents of change. Unfortunately, many Iranian militants also supported these same fundamentalists. That did not stop the mullahs from rounding up and executing or imprisoning every leftist or militant worker they could get their hands on. The fate of the Western leftist supporters of the ‘anti-imperialist’ mullahs was almost as tragic. They, at great personal sacrifice, mainly went on to careers in the academy, media or parliament.

So let us have no illusions about the women- hating, anti-Enlightenment, anti- post 8th century hating regime in Teheran (Except apparently, nuclear technology. Did anyone else find it surreal when a recent photograph showed several thousand heavily- veiled Iranian women demonstrating in defense of a nuclear facility?). However, do we really want to outsource “regime change” there to the Bush Administration (or any administration in Washington)? No!!! Just as working people cannot outsource “regime change” in Washington to the liberals here this job of ousting the mullahs belongs to the Iranian workers, students, poor slum dwellers and peasants.

Let’s be clear here though. If the United States, or an agent of the United States, moves militarily against Iran all militants, here and worldwide, are duty bound to defend Iran against such imperialist aggression. Even with the current mullah leadership? Yes. We will hold our noses and do our duty. Their ouster is a separate political battle. We will settle accounts with them in due course.

The anarchists and others have it all wrong when they confine their slogan to Class Against Class in a conflict between capitalist states. Yes, in the final analysis it will come down to that. The problem is today we are dealing with the most powerful military power, relatively and absolutely, the world has ever known against a smaller, almost militarily defenseless country. A victory for American imperialism is not in the interest of the international working class and its allies. Thus, we have a side under those circumstances. And we certainly do not take some ‘third camp’ pacifist position of a plague on both your houses. IMMEDIATE UNCONDITIONAL WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ! U.S.HANDS OFF IRAN!! BETTER YET- HANDS OFF THE WORLD!!!

*GOOD BYE, CINDY SHEEHAN

Click on the title to link to an "Under The Hood" (Fort Hood G.I. Coffeehouse)Web site online article about the "Oleo Strut" Coffeehouse, an important development in the anti-Vietnam War struggle. Hats off to those bygone anti-war fighters.

COMMENTARY

THE TIME FOR PARLIAMENTARY MANEUVERING ON IRAQ IS LONG PAST OVER-BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!

BUILD ANTI-WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES NOW!

FORGET REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS AND GREENS! BUILD A WORKERS PARTY THAT FIGHTS FOR SOCIALISM!

A few days ago the courageous anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq, announced that she was ‘retiring’ as the most visible ‘icon’ of the anti-war struggle. The reason she gave was that the failure of the Democrat-led parliamentary struggle over the Iraq war budget left her in despair over the their inability to end the war. In the final analysis whatever personal motivations initially drove her to opposition, and they were strong, were not enough to overcome the hard reality that the Democrats collectively were not serious about ending the war. Hell, in retrospect, why would anyone in her position who looked at the numbers in January have thought that the ‘new’ Democratically-controlled Congress, even if they had wanted to, had the votes or the fortitude to override a determined Bush Administration that they still feared.

Case in point. Long time anti-war Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Michael Capuano recently was quoted, after the Democrats waved the white flag on the Iraq War budget, as saying that the anti-war parliamentary forces must reach out to the wavering Republicans in order to end the war. Now remember he is supposedly one of the good guys on the war issue. Under that ‘reach out and touch someone’ strategy our grandchildren will be fighting in Iraq. No wonder Cindy threw her hands up in despair. And there is the rub.

Call this writer cynical. Call this writer a damn know-it-all. Call this writer an ultra-left fanatic if you will. But know this- the strategy of the mainstream anti-war movement of relying on a Democrat-led parliamentary opposition to the Iraq War, an opposition moreover that conveniently hid (and still hides) behind support for the troops, if not the policy, was doomed from the start. This understanding is not the result of looking into a crystal ball but, for one thing, a look at the history of the Vietnam War anti-war movement. The Democrats never stopped voting for the war appropriations until 1975 when the North Vietnamese were starting down Highway One for Ho Chi Minh City (then Saigon). Even they knew it was over then. A careful look at that history will also show that the real anti-war movement formed outside and in opposition to the Democrats starting in the summer of 1968. In short, if you want to end this war, as an act of elementary political hygiene the first order of business- BREAK WITH THE DEMOCRATS!

Hell, breaking with the Democrats is only the beginning of political wisdom though. That is not enough of a program to end this war. Short of a revolutionary upheaval like in the Russia of 1917, which given the current political constellation in America appears unlikely, the only effective to end the war is to get to the troops who are fighting, or are about to fight, the damn thing. For over a year now I have been fighting for an orientation in that direction. This is no substitute for the long term fight for a workers party to run a workers government but every day the need to form anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees to link up with the troops becomes more urgent. As I have stated before when the troops in Iraq start to support the slogan “Support the Troops-Hell, No” then we know the end of the war will be near. Cindy, are you listening?


THIS IS PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES OF COMMENTARY ON THE 2006-2008 ELECTION CYCLE UNDER THE HEADLINE- FORGET THE DONKEYS, ELEPHANTS, GREENS-BUILD A WORKERS PARTY!

FOR MORE POLITICAL COMMENTARY AND BOOKS REVIEWS CHECK MY BLOG AT- Http://markinbookreview.blogspot.com/

THE EARLY FIGHT FOR A WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE

BOOK REVIEW

THE WOMEN’S SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT, E. SYLVIA PANKHURST, 1931

MARCH IS WOMAN’S HISTORY MONTH.

I have written previously about Sylvia Pankhurst in reviewing a biography of her life by Patricia Romero. For those not familiar with her life this autobiography, although written in 1931, only takes us through her fight for the vote for women in England and her pacifist opposition to Britain’s participation in World War I. Thus, the reader is deprived of her take on her experiences as she moved leftward with Lenin and the Communist International after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 and her descent in the 1920’s into radical mysticism that ultimately led to her becoming, in essence, a publicity flak for Halie Selassie in Ethiopia. A rather sad ending for someone who in the pre-World War I period stood for votes for women, including working class women, and at least a formal opposition to British imperialist war designs.

The case of Sylvia Pankhurst, and her conflict with her mother Emmeline and older sister Christabel at various stages in the women’s suffrage fight, is almost a chemically pure case of the limits of bourgeois feminism. There is very little overlap between those politics and the socialist fight for women’s rights and social equality. It is hard to believe now what all the fuss was about but at the turn of the 20th century the fight for women’s suffrage in England, as in the United States, was a key issue that especially agitated middle and upper class women. The Pankhursts, mother and daughters, were in the forefront of the struggle with their Women’s Social and Political Union.

Although, for the most part, Sylvia was a cog in her mother and older sister’s machine, when the issue rose to the level of parliamentary action Sylvia proved far more radical, at least in form, than they were. While Emmeline and Christabel were ultimately concerned about votes for middle and upper class women of property, leaving the vast bulk of women disenfranchised, Sylvia in 1912 went on her own in order to fight for the vote in the working class districts of London’s East End. Thus, on even an entirely supportable democratic demand like the right to vote the class line, if somewhat blunted in this case, rather than the sex line proved decisive. The treacherous subordination of their movement by the elder Pankhursts on behalf of British participation in World War I and continued participation by the faltering Provisional Government in Russia further drew that line between socialism and bourgeois feminism.

The Pankhurst-led fight for the vote also brings up a couple of other issues around tactics and program. At one point the Pankhursts, including Sylvia, were involved in a campaign of private and governmental property smashing, civil disobedience and hunger strikes in order to publicize the fight for the vote. These are tactics associated with more militant types of politics. Nevertheless their campaigns, whether fruitful or not, while courageous and in Victorian England bound to stir trouble do not necessarily lead to radical conclusions. The case of Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King in the United States demonstrate that militant tactics absent any overriding strategy for fundamental social change are not enough.

On program two items stick out. First, the male-exclusionist nature of the Women’s Political and Social Union not only further demonstrates the limits of bourgeois feminism but also made no sense around the fight on a democratic issue by limiting the appeal that the organization made to men (some 20 per cent who were also excluded from the vote). Secondly, Sylvia made real progress in program by having her East End organization support universal suffrage and linking it to war- related issues. It is that move by her to the left and toward some form of socialist solution to women’s issues and the war question that militants can honor today. That she could not move forward politically says something about the British left milieu of the time as well as about her own limitations. Understanding those limitations going in one can nevertheless profit from reading this book.

*A SOLDIER'S STORY- The Anti-War G.I. Struggle Against The War

Click on the title to link to an "Under The Hood" (Fort Hood G.I. Coffeehouse)Web site online article about the "Oleo Strut" Coffeehouse, an important development in the anti-Vietnam War struggle. Hats off to those bygone anti-war fighters.


“THE WAR IN IRAQ IS WRONG, WAY WRONG, BUT I HAVE TO PROTECT MY BUDDIES.”

COMMENTARY

THE HELL WITH MEANINGLESS NON-BINDING CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS –BUILD ANTI-WAR SOLDIERS AND SAILORS SOLIDARITY COMMITTEES!

Sometimes just a little incident or an impromptu remark brings home a point much better than paragraph after paragraph of journalistic commentary. To cut to the chase the subject is, as almost always these days, Iraq. Recently a non-commissioned soldier, a squad leader, I have known for a long time came back home from Iraq. As it turns out his unit is heading back for a second tour in the near future. That, however, is neither here nor there. What is important is that he knows, and knows very well, that I have been a long time opponent of the war in Iraq in particular and American imperialism in general. When we met after a quick greeting of hello he, before I could get a word out, emotionally made the above quoted statement- "The war in Iraq is wrong, way wrong but I have to protect my buddies."

So this is what Iraq has come to. Forget the weapons of mass destruction. Forget getting rid of Saddam. Forget liberating Iraq. Forget bringing democracy to the Middle East. Forget the thousand and one geo-political reasons handed out by governmental policy makers and think tank wizards. What Iraq comes down to in the year 2007 is the need to take care of and protect the rank and file soldiers who are the cannon fodder for this bloody war, your 'buddies'. Every thoughtful person, revolutionary opponents of the war and imperialism included, can relate to the concept of honor, quiet courage and sense of duty to one’s fellows implicit in that short statement. Damn, we of the anti-war movement better change our focus quickly.
We are looking in the wrong places to end this war.

In light of the above remarks it is almost embarrassing to have to report on the question of what is being done about this situation in Congress. Today, the Senate has begun taking up discussion on a meaningless non-binding resolution to express displeasure that the Bush Administration has implemented its 'surge' policy despite the Congressional chatter against it. The cat was let out of the bag weeks ago on this, however, when Vice President Cheney dismissed the buildup to the resolution fight as so much hot air when he remarked "we will do what we want, despite the resolution". Of course I never tire of questioning the political courage of those who support these empty resolutions. Every bourgeois politician lives to vote for these things in order to refurbish their tarnished images, especially on Iraq. Forget Washington-look to the troops.

As readers of this space may perhaps be aware I have been harping on the idea of building anti-war soldiers and sailors solidarity committees for about a year now. According to the polls that echo that young soldier's statement above the discontent against the war in the military is there. We have to tap into it. But as the activities surrounding the January 27th weekend of anti-war demonstrations graphically illustrate the bulk of anti-war activists are looking in the wrong place. I have said before, and will continue to say, in the final analysis the short way to end the war is through the troops. Then that soldier will not have to worry over the fate of his buddies. IMMEDIATE, UNCONDITIONAL U.S./ALLIED WITHDRAWAL U.S. /ALLIED FROM IRAQ!-'BUDDIES' OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

*The Cause That Passes Through The Prisons- From The Pen Of James P. Cannon

Click on title to link to the James P.Cannon Internet Archive for James P. Cannon's trial testimony for revolutionary socialist opposition to World War II that is the basis for the book below, "Letters From Prison".

BOOK REVIEW


LETTERS FROM PRISON, JAMES P. CANNON, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1973


If you are interested in the history of the American Left or are a militant trying to understand some of the past lessons of our history concerning the communist response to various social and labor questions this book is for you. This book is part of a continuing series of volumes of the writings of James P. Cannon that were published by the organization he founded, the Socialist Workers Party, in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Cannon died in 1974. Look in this space for other related reviews of this series of documents on and by an important American Communist.

In their introduction the editors motivate the purpose for the publication of the book by stating the Cannon was the finest Communist leader that America had ever produced. This an intriguing question that underlies the reviewer's analysis of these volumes of Cannon's work. 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 after a long and fruitful political collaboration working with Leon Trotsky, the exiled Russian revolutionary. The period under discussion in his letters to his long time companion Rose Krasner- the years 1944-45, after Cannon and 17 other leaders of the Socialist Workers Party had been indicted, convicted, refused appeal by the United States Supreme Court and then imprisoned under the then new Smith Act provisions for their revolutionary opposition to American participation in World War II - demonstrate a continued commitment to the goals of revolutionary socialism and a desire to fight for those goals. 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.

When the American Government under Franklin D. Roosevelt goaded on by one of his favorite abject ‘labor lieutenants of capitalism’, Daniel Tobin, President of the International Teamsters Union, went after the real opponents of World war II, the Socialist Workers Party and the Teamsters local their supporters led in Minneapolis, they went to the right address. Unfortunately, unlike in World War I, those organizations were politically virtually the only ones in opposition to the war from the left. The American Socialist Party and the American Communist Party( after a short opposition during the infamous Hitler-Stalin Pact) had both made their peace with imperialism. If anything those organizations were among the chief labor cheerleaders of the prosecutions.

This volume of letters from Sandstone prison by James P. Cannon, central leader of the Socialist Workers Party, are testimony to what happens to revolutionaries when they fundamentally oppose a bourgeois government on its most cherished right, the right to make war. They go to jail. Kicking and screaming, yes, and using every avenue to avoid that fate. But, when the time comes that is what they do. In no case do they flinch from the consequences of the necessary action to oppose war. This comes with the territory of being a revolutionary. While few today remember such boldness in the face of a popular war, militants today who stand in opposition to the current Iraq War would do well to honor that commitment by the Minneapolis 18.

As his letters indicate, political people do not roll over when in prison but within the limiting circumstances they find themselves in they act as political people and carry on as best they can –whether it is Czarist, fascist, Stalinist or bourgeois prisons. In the present case it turned out to be an advantage that many of the party leaders were with Cannon and could essentially form a leadership in exile to supplement the official leadership left behind on the outside. Of course, all things being equal, prison definitely cuts into the effectiveness of a revolutionary but the enforced idleness from the outside struggle can be used as a time to study and for reflection. Cannon did this very ambitiously and systematically. Through Karsner and other sources Cannon kept up with internal party affairs and made plans for the future of the party.

Finally, it is rather ironic that Cannon, who was the guiding force in the American Communist Party’s class struggle defense organization-the International Labor Defense in the mid-1920’s should need the services of the Socialist Workers Party’s class struggle defense organization -the Non-Partisan Labor Defense. What Cannon said in the 1920’s applied to his own case. The struggle of the class-war prisoners- the cause that passes through the prisons- is the concern of the whole working class. An injury to one is an injury to all. That slogan is still valid for today’s militants to organize around.

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