^^^^^^^ Nathan: But I think the ideological subservience to foreign powers with their own nasty agendas (Soviet Union, China, etc.)
^^^^^^^
CB: How have you determined that it was subservience and not agreement ? What was nasty about the agendas of the SU and China ?
^^^^^
The rigid no-strike policy of the CP during World War II is a good example
^^^^^^
CB: What was wrong about the no strike policy ? Wasn't the most important goal for the world's working class, including the U.S. working class, at that moment in history, the defeat of Nazi fascism ? Recall that it is only with hindsight that we know the Nazis were defeated. At the time of the no strike position, it was not at all clear that the Nazis would be defeated. Wasn't defeating the Nazis more important than achieving the goals of an industrial strike at that time ? I am not aware of any issues that autoworkers needed to strike on at that time that were as important to the workers of the world, including in the U.S., as defeating the Nazis.
Furthermore recall ( or hear) that in the Manifesto, Marx and Engels said that what differentiates Communists from other workers' parties is that Communists consider the interest of the class as a whole, that is the whole world working class. In the Marxist conception, U.S. Communists consider the U.S. working class always in the context of the all workers of the world. It was not unreasonable to see the defeat of the Nazis and defense of the Soviet Union, the only socialist country in the world , as a more important interest of the class as a whole than striking for some specific and extremely limited economic and shop floor gains. They had just won the union in auto. This is without even mentioning the arch-opportunism of Reutherism, which was the biggest "no strike" policy you could imagine in the long run.
.
^^^^^^^
and their general indifference to the brutality of Stalinism and latter invasions in Hungary and Czeckoslovakia undermined a lot of left credibility on foreign policy issues.
^^^^^^^
CB: Please elaborate on what you say is the indifference of the CPUSA to the brutality of Stalinism.
What do you make of the fact that Hungary and Czechoslovakia had had fascism not long before ?
^^^^^^^
And yes, I think the failures of strategy on foreign policy was bad because many of the goals were righteous.
^^^^^^
CB: But what about all the other foreign policy positions I mentioned ? Don't they count to make the CPUSA "foreign policy" better than a failure ?
^^^^^^^
- -CB: Are you saying that the Old Left, especially the Communist Party, had significant successes in some domestic issues ?
Absolutely. The Popular Front of the 30s led to a string of successes and the CP's role was ofte admirable and decisive. Other left groups have made real contributions in other domestic struggles. I wouldn't have spent years of my life being a leftist otherwise.
And I only spend my time criticizing strategy because I want a successful one.
- -- Nathan Newman
^^^^^^^^
CB: ok