>>> nathan at newman.org 11/15/00 02:34PM >>>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us>
>Because of the CPUSA's rigid
>position on the no-strike clause, even as the capitalists drove down the
>standard of living of workers during the war, by the time we entered the
>post-war period, the CP-led left in the union's no longer was seen as the
>militant wing of the movement. More conservative but more militant union
>leaders like Walter Reuther were able to take over control of unions like
>the UAW, leading to the 1948-49 expulsion of the left-led unions.
>Which in the end was hardly in the strategic interests of the Soviets. So
>it was bad on both fronts.
(((((((((((((
CB: This is one of the typical blame the victim conclusions that comes out of the betrayal of the working class "logic" of U.S. Reutherites, -social dems, and those who arrogate to themselves the status of judging the Soviets , rather than realizing it is they themselves who history -shows to have betrayed the world working class, including the U.S. working class , by a shallow analysis of the 1937 and post war -period.
))))))))))
I am criticizing a strategy that led to the results described. I am not praising the Reutherites, but condemning the CPUSA for giving them an opening to take power.
))))))))
CB: The "opening" the CPUSA gave the opportunist Reutherites was due to taking a principled position on winning the war against fascism. At the time , it was not known ahead of time that the Soviets would win, so it could not be seen that full fledged support of the U.S. war front was not required. That is only known with hindsight. The CPUSA didn't have the luxury of avoiding the advantage it gave Reutherite opportunism in UAW infighting. After, using opportunism to get an advantage in the UAW, the Reutherites threwout the Left , including UAW General Counsel, Marxist ( non CP), labor attorney , Maurice Sugar, and progressive Black attorney George Crockett.
((((((((
Criticizing a bad strategy with foreseeable consequences is not "blaming the victim." I am arguing that the strategy you defend was not only bad in the short-term for US workers and unions, but ended up being bad for the Soviet Union, the supposed beneficiary of the early propaganda and no-strike positions.
(((((((((((
CB: This criticism does not consider the context. The no strike pledge was the correct position given the whole world situation. All for the defeat of fascism ! was correct, especially given that at the time it was not known who would win. I think failure to remove hindsight knowledge of the outcome of the war undermines understanding of how a Marxist and class conscious worker would cogently assess the concrete situation in 1937 through 1945.
The fact that there was vulnerability to the unprinipled opportunism of Reutherites within the UAW at the time was a lump the CPUSA had to take for its principled support of the SU. They probably knew it would hurt them some.
(((((((((
The result of the CPUSA policy from the Hitler-Soviet pact through WWII was a weakened, divided and more conservative working class movement in the United States. I don't think that was good for workers in the US or for workers in the rest of the world.
((((((((((
CB: The analogy would be blaming the CP for losing support in the UAW for coming up with the idea of super seniority ( affirmative action) for Black workers. Reuther opposed superseniority for Black workers , and I am sure gained some opportunist advantage over the CP for its principled plan.
The proximate cause ( as in torts,cupable cause) of the weakening and division and more conservative working class movement in the US was the actions of the Reutherites, the rightwingers and the chatty, moralizing , naive Left who criticized the CPUSA for its policy of supporting the German-Soviet non-aggression pact, etc.