>>> Jamie Owen Daniel writes
This thread has started up (thanks, Doug) just as I've been reading Ellen Schrecker's *Many are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America*, which argues that many of the CPUSA's more self-destructive official policies (secrecy, top-down decision-making, etc.) were formulated in response to red-baiting, illegal government harassment, and so forth, mostly because the gov't and the business interests to which it was/is beholden were scared shitless of how efficient communists were in union organizing and operating, and in advocating for everyone and everything other folks were too timid to touch, such as meaningful racial integration and equality. Like some of the discussion on this thread, she is careful to separate the weaknesses of the Party's official strategies and policies from the extraordinary dedication and commitment of its members. ___________
Chas.: It's nice to hear some rethinking about the CP. In arguing that Communist Party members and other Lefts were key in organizing the UAW and prior autoworker unions, I forgot to mention that John L.Lewis (the guy with the big eyebrows) explicitly recruited Communist Party members as organizers for the CIO because they were the best organizers. By the way the "Thomas" I mentioned was a vice-president, not the president of the UAW. But he was a signatory of the first contract with GM. Anyway, Reuther wasn't in the top leadership when the UAW was founded.
Of course the Party's "official weaknesses" should be honestly faced. But it would be a mistake to romanticize the party rank and file, and ignore the strengths, courage, commitment, dedication and correct thinking of the leadership as well. The failures and weaknesses of the leadership were not at all the whole story, and those weaknesses,
of course, have been emphasized by most who consider this history so far (not on this list but in general). What is needed now is some balance in assessing the CP , leadership included.
Scientific method must proceed by trial and error. A new generation of communists can learn from the mistakes AND SUCCESSES of the CP, and there were the latter as well. For example, the successful formation of most of the industrial unions is significant part due to correct CP policies.
It is a solid historical fact that Communists were known by everybody to be more advanced than any other white organization or segment of society in the struggle against racism and for racial equality. In the 1930's and 40's this was an accepted fact in the Black community. So for example, the New York Councilmember from Harlem was of course a CP leader, Benjamin Davis. The expression "Scratch a redbaiter and find a racehater" was empirically based. Racists automatically called any white person who fought racism a Communist. Paul Robeson , a main leader of the Negro People was not a scientific socialist for nothing. WEB Dubois, the preeminent intellectual of Black America of the era ( and probably all time) joined the CP at the end of his life to send a message to future generations of Black intellectuals, after years of observing the conduct of the CP. It is impossible to over emphasize how telling these acts of Robeson and Dubois were as proof of the extraordinarily positive policy of the CP on the issue of race equality and genuinely pro-working class struggle.
The CP and its leaders really had a difficult dilemma as to whether to be secretive. What would you have done ? There was something of a dual policy on this: some underground , some above ground. In general given the willingness of the U.S government and society to use viciously undemocratic methods to suppress the party, is there anything the Party could have done to avoid being virtually destroyed ? (The treachery of this is augmented by the fact that Communists had just been allies in the biggest war in the history of humanity).This is an important question for the American Left This is an important question for a nation that claims to be the most democratic in history. Some of the "blame" goes on the working class for not defending its most conscious element. You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. The CP had put out sufficient information and word for the masses to get IT (class society, the need to get rid of capitalism) even though it wasn't perfect.
In general there is an important logical error that is made when all pro-Soviet parties, even parties pro-Soviet in the time of Stalin are treated and ever single member is treated as if they are mass murderers and inherently or incorrigibly undemocratic. Especially, when in general most of those who make this type of criticism think that Western "democracy" is more democratic. Especially, in this specific case when U.S. anti-communism and McCarthyism were just as undemocratic in maintaining hegemony from the totally peaceful and legal rise of American Communism. This is a signifcant and tragic irony for the American working class and Left. This thread is a glimmer of an awakening of the American Left that its heritage and legacy was stolen from it. Truman's "Fair" Deal was one of the dirtiest deals in history. The fact that it did not involve mass murder does not make it less undemocratic, in important senses. This point is very difficult for most to understand. But from a political standpoint, those who are politically "dead" are just as muted as those who are physically dead. ______
This has been borne out by my own experience with former communists here in Chicago. In spite of the fact that many of them are now in their eighties and some in failing health, they come out for every demonstration against strawberry growers, for UPS, for the Coalition to Protect Public Housing and Chicago Jobs with Justice; they volunteer to call on congresspersons, stamp envelopes, clean up meeting halls, you name it, with an energy-level and apparent optimism in spite of everything that shames me. __________ Chas.: Indeed, and some are not in their eighties and some are not "former". _________
So, in response to Doug, I'm not sure that it's too early to begin de-demonizing the term "communist." Why not start now, while these folks are still around? While we and folks coming up can still learn from them? Tony, I'm wondering how the "afterlife" of former CP people in Australia might be different from here in the States, where most people still feel it's something to be cautious about talking about...? _____________
Charles Brown
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Tony Evans wrote:
> We (Australian coms) used to say that the ex-coms were the largest group in
> society as there were always so many more of them than card the carrying
> members. Now of course I'm an ex-com as well because the Party here disbanded
> just before the Wall came down.
>
> All the mass movements are suffering as a consequence of the demise of the
> "revolutionary" left, but particulaly the unions. A generation of activists are
> coming of age without the experience and perspective provided by the hard-nosed
> (but generally pragmatic) analysis that the Party used to provide through it's
> internal debates.
>
> Tony Evans
>
> michael perelman wrote:
>
> > Let me second Doug's analysis of the communist party. His example of the
> > taxi drivers suggest that it was not so much the policies of the party but
> > the people. I cannot think of a group that seemed to have more good people
> > (and not just good in a political sense) than the ex-communists that I have
> > met.
> >
> > Of course, to some extent, this kind of person gravitated to the party; but
> > even so the party helped many to gain a sense of community and political
> > experience that might have been difficult otherwise.
> >
> > Louis Proyect has told stories of the contributions of the Trotskyist
> > movement to union organizing. I do not know many of those people -- only
> > the Hal Draper and the Independent Socialists that I knew in Berkeley. So I
> > do not know how to compare and contrast the contributions of the two groups.
> >
> > --
> > Michael Perelman
> > Economics Department
> > California State University
> > Chico, CA 95929
> >
> > Tel. 530-898-5321
> > E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
>
>
>