A Non-Communist View Of The Formation Of The American Communsit Party- Thedore Draper's "The Roots Of American Communism- A Book Review

Click on the headline to link to the James P.Cannon Internet Archives segment, Notes To An Historian, as a welcome supplement to Theodore Draper's important work.

BOOK REVIEW

THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN COMMUNISM, THEODORE DRAPER, The Viking Press, New York, 1957

As an addition to the historical record of the period from the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the formation and consolidation of the legal, open party in 1923 The Roots of American Communism and its companion volume detailing the period from 1923 to 1929-Soviet Russia and American Communism (which will be reviewed separately) – is the definitive scholarly study on the early history of the American Communist Party. The author, an ex-communist but at the time of writing an anti-communist, unlike other former communists nevertheless does a thorough job or presenting the personalities and issues in a reasonably straightforward manner. Given that these volumes were researched and published during the heart of the Cold War hysteria against the Soviet Union in the 1950’s this is not faint praise.

Also useful for this period in conjunction with these two volumes and to round them out, from the pro-Communist partisan perspective of one of the main leaders, is James P. Cannon’s The First Ten Years of American Communism and the Prometheus Research Library’s James P. Cannon and the Early Communist Movement. Absent from Mr. Draper’s analysis is any real feel for why the early leaders and rank and file of the party put themselves on the line, faced harassment, imprisonment or worst to create an American Bolshevik party. While there is no dearth of memoirs of other participants in the early movement, Cannon’s analysis most honestly fills that gap.

That said, why must militants read these works today? After the demise of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe anything positively related to Communist studies has been deeply discounted in the academy and in bourgeois politics. 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 when it became merely a tool of Soviet diplomacy in the late 1920s. Now is the time for militants to study the mistakes and draw the lessons of that history.

For those not familiar with this period a few helpful introductory chapters by Mr. Draper give an analysis of the forces that made up the radical scene prior to World War I. Those forces included the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), independent syndicalists influenced by the French movement and the anti-war left-wing of the Socialist party, including various foreign language federations. Thus, in its formative period the American party (or parties, to be more correct) gathered all those fresh elements which responded to the Bolshevik victory in Russia in 1917, saw it as the wave of the future and wanted to establish that kind of socialism here. As this reviewer has noted elsewhere, while those diffuse forces proved to be difficult to organize, this mix provided for a better internal party life than, say, in England where the Celtic and anarcho-syndicalist elements were not recruited resulting in a ‘stillborn’ party.

Mr. Draper also addresses the various important faction fights which occurred inside the party. To make sense of this is sometimes no simple task. That overview also highlights some of the now more obscure personalities, 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 defense as well as how to rein in the intense internal struggle of the various factions for organizational control of the party.

This presentation 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 the party 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 American 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. That subject is more fully addressed in the second volume. Read this book.

*From The Pen Of James P. Cannon- On The Communist International Leader Gregory Zinoviev

Click on the title to link to the "James P. Cannon Internet Archive" for a comment that Cannon made to historian Theodore Draper about the Russian Bolshevik and early Communist International leader, Gregory Zinoviev.

Markin comment:

Much of what passes for a critique of James P. Cannon's leadership, especially in his leadership of the American Trotskyist movement in the early days, centers on some alleged affinity to the so-called consummate bureaucrat, Gregory Zinoviev. I, like Cannon, believe that Zinoviev, warts and all, was underrated as a revolutionary, when he was a revolutionary. Surely his "strikebreaker" role in the October Revolution and his subsequent bowing down to Stalin and his coterie were hardly the stuff of a stiff-necked revolutionary but he did more than yeoman's service for the cause, and it has not, as Cannon points out here, been recognized. So call me a Zinovievist "window smasher", right? No, a Trotskyist who has a better grasp of what it takes, and with whom, to make revolutions than in his youth.

*From The Pen Of James P. Cannon- The 1923 Struggle Inside The American Communist Party On The Labor Party Question

*From The Pen Of James P. Cannon-

Click on the title to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archive's copy of his 1956 letter to historian Theodore Draper about key events in the early days of the American communist movement of the 1920s of which he was a central leader.

Markin comment:

This is another important piece of the early struggle to develop an independent workers party that would operate on a communist program based on the centrality of the working class. A one class party (which other oppressed sectors could look to for leadership, as well). That idea and the manuevering behind it, was, as the letter shows, not what was happening in those days and one can tell that many years later Cannon is still red-faced about.

*From The Pen Of James P. Cannon- On The Early Concept Of The Labor Party In The United States

Click on the title to link to the James P. Cannon Internet Archive's copy of his 1956 letter to historian Theodore Draper about key events in the early days of the American communist movement in the 1920s of which he was a central leader.

Markin comment:

This letter is mainly of interest to show the on-going struggle of our communist movement toward the creation of some kind of independent, mass workers party in this country. Of course, in the final analysis a revolutionary labor party committed to a communist program would be the easiest way to go about the problem, but history does not always work out that way.

*Labor's Untold Story- The Twisted Political Career Of Communist Party Leader William Z. Foster

Click on title to link to James P. Cannon's article (in the form of letters in 1954 to historian of the early American Communist Party, Theodore Draper)about the political perspective of William Z. Foster in the early days when they were political associates. Very interesting reading about Foster's political appetites and direction early on.

Every Month Is Labor History Month

This Commentary is part of a series under the following general title: Labor’s Untold Story- Reclaiming Our Labor History In Order To Fight Another Day-And Win!

As a first run through, and in some cases until I can get enough other sources in order to make a decent presentation, I will start with short entries on each topic that I will eventually go into greater detail about. Or, better yet, take my suggested topic and run with it yourself.