Charles asks in his post below whether we or at least some of us might be interested in continuing this thread in greater depth.
I would be, in part for two of the reasons he mentions. First, I agree wholeheartedly that the Left has been crippled by its general refusal (or inability) to, first of all, accept the CP (the party itself) and the contributions of actual on-the-ground communists as a vitally important part of its heritage--hard to know where you're going if you don't know where you're coming from, or pretend not to know. Not only do they (the communists) have all the books; they also had most of the experience, in coalition building, advocacy, organizing, all those things the contemporary Left is so inept at.
Second, linked to this--I'm increasingly disturbed by the extent to which this legacy is simply dismissed on the basis of either 1) broad generalizations based on very little knowledge of what actually happened (the Right has always done this, but as Charles points out, there are folks who would self-identify as Leftists and even as Marxists who do the same thing), and 2) an intellectual and/or moral laziness that is content to look only at official CP policies, directives, strategies (yes, some of them were disastrous) without taking into account what the party, but especially the people working "within or near" the CP actually attempted and accomplished. I don't think taking the experiential (lived), instead of just the official legacy of the party seriously amounts to wearing rose-, or even red-, tinted glasses.
So, if anyone else is interested in taking up Charles' good suggestion to educate ourselves around this history, I'm in.
Jamie
On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Charles Brown wrote:
> Thanks to Louis Pro for his long essay on CP
> history with some balance between negative
> and postive criticism. There are historians
> of that tale other than Draper who have a different take
> on the level of control by or independence from
> Moscow and Stalin, role and rank and file
> support for Lovestone, and the other issues.
> For example, William Foster,
> Carl Winter, Roger Keeran and others.
> An example of a factual difference is
> that the CP differentiated itself from the Socialist
> Party from the beginning in its split from
> the SP (portrayed in the movie Reds) on
> the status of Black workers. The SP dissolved
> the race question into the class question. Negro
> workers are just workers. The CP from the beginning
> analyzed Negro workers as specially nationally
> oppressed. A group the Black Blood Brotherhood joined
> the CP en masse, as a group at its founding
> because of this difference. Also, the Comintern
> and the CPUSA considered the Negro People
> to have the right to national self-determination, i.e.
> the right to secede and form a separate nation.
>
> The tough issue here, which Louis' summary of
> the horrendous and wellknown
> crimes of Stalin and Stalinism rightfully helps
> pose, is that those crimes do not mean
> that every position or idea that Stalin or
> Stalinists had on other issues
> was incorrect because of
> the specific crimes and criminal ideas
> listed. This is morally repugnant, but
> logically true, a very difficult paradox.
> An example is the right of self-determination
> of the Negro People ( which is a very
> dialectical application of the principles
> of the national question )or even the issues, Popular
> Front or Browder's expulsion ,that Louis discusses.
>
> I don't know whether this thread will
> continue. If it does, I don't know whether
> what today's Left needs from CP history
> is more debate and discussion of the issues
> Louis raises, although he does suggest we
> learn from the history. I guess the list "collective"
> will decide this. If the decision is to examine
> it further, I will go get some other sources on
> the history, not because I say they are all
> right and Louis' all wrong, but because
> they are not just nothings on this issue. They
> cannot just be dismissed as works of
> Moscow hacks. I am sure most don't want
> to argue who really had the majoirty in
> 1925 in the CP. On the otherhand, whether
> Browder's proposal to dissolve the CP as
> a political party and become an educational
> association was correct might
> have some pertinence today.
> For example, I would say the CPUSA has
> become a museum or college in fact at
> this point, ironically fulfilling Browder's
> goal. That is only half a joke. It also
> gets back to the same tough issue that
> a lot of non-Party Lefts , especially academic
> Lefts think they can just
> dismiss the CP as brainless or anti-intellectual.
> This is a big error by the intellectual Left, if
> only because the CP has a lot of the books.
> But even more because practice is critical
> to Marxist epistemology, academic Marxism
> is fundamentally handicapped.
>
> Certainly, if the Left is to become an activist
> and not mostly discussion sector, the trials
> and errors of the CP practice must educate us.
>
>
> Charles Brown
>
>
> >>> Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com> 08/06 11:29 AM >>>
> "Our Party alone knows where to direct the cause; and it is leading it
> forward successfully. To what does our Party owe its superiority? To the
> fact that is a Marxian Party, a Leninist Party. It owes it to the fact that
> it is guided in its work by the tenets of Marx, Engels and Lenin. There
> cannot be any doubt that as long as we remain true to these tenets, as long
> as we have this compass, we will achieve success in our work."
>
> What could this be, words from a Maoist sect's leaflet vintage 1967?
> Actually, the words are by Joseph Stalin, from "Foundations to Leninism".
> That Stalin could represent himself as the foremost Marxist thinker in the
> world from the late 1920's to the 1950's does more to explain the current
> crisis in socialism today than anything else. Not only did this hogwash
> pass for Marxism during this period, if anybody attempted to present a
> political alternative they would end up with broken teeth or a bullet to
> the head.
>
> etc. etc. etc. at length
>