On 2013-05-09, at 8:24 AM, c b wrote:
> ...US Communists were substantially defeated as a mass political
> party in the late 40's and early 50's in part by the feds criminally framing it
> as advocating the overthrow of the US government by illegal force and
> violence, armed struggle, guns in hand. This claim was false...
> in the sense that the CPUSA was advocating only use of legal ,
> electoral means for the working class to attain state power.
>
> Thus, all US leftists must be very careful not to advocate armed insurrection (as
> the rightwingers are now privileged to do today). In fact, Communists have
> to be "extra" careful and explicit that they are _only_ advocating
> voting. Of course , the need for this care is even greater with the
> Patriot Act, new anti-terrorist laws.
Yes. It's worth noting that the leadership of the Trotskyist SWP was also prosecuted and jailed under the Smith Act, ostensibly for advocating violent revolution. In fact, it was an effort quash the fledgling party which was actively seeking to undermine the no-strike pact between the labour leadership and the Roosevelt administration during World War II. The CP, which supported the war effort and no-strike pledge and sought to eliminate Trotskyism, endorsed the government's action. Ironically, the CP would be later forced to defend itself when its leaders were indicted under the Smith Act with the onset of the Cold War along the same lines as had the SWP in 1941.
James Cannon and other SWP leaders insisted at their trial that, while a peaceful transition to socialism was obviously the preferred outcome, the bourgeoisie would never surrender its power and property voluntarily and would instead choose to violently repress the workers' movement. In these circumstances, it was the duty of a revolutionary party to alert the working class and to encourage it to arm itself in self-defence as it neared power.
As Cannon later explained:
We were charged in the first count of the indictment with “conspiracy to overthrow the government by force and violence” in violation of the statute of 1861 which was originally directed against the slaveholders’ rebellion. In the second count we were charged, among other things, with “conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the government by force and violence” in violation of the Smith Act of 1940.
In our defence we flatly denied we had either “conspired” or “advocated” violence, and by that we did not in the least intend to deny or repudiate any principle of Marxism. We claimed the right to explain our position. We testified that we prefer a peaceful social transformation; that the bourgeoisie takes the initiative in violence and will not permit a peaceful change; that we advise the workers to bear this in mind and prepare to defend themselves against the violence of the outlived reactionary minority class.
[…]
What did we say about violence in the transformation of society from capitalism to socialism? This is what we said:
1) The Marxists prefer a peaceful transition. “The position of the Marxists is that the most economical and preferable, the most desirable method of social transformation, by all means, is to have it done peacefully.”
2) “It is the opinion of all Marxists that it will be accompanied by violence.”
3) That opinion “is based, like all Marxist doctrine, on a study of history, the historical experiences of mankind in the numerous changes of society from one form to another, the revolutions which accompanied it, and the resistance which the outlived classes invariably put up against the new order. Their attempt to defend themselves against the new order, or to suppress by violence the movement for the new order, has resulted in every important social transformation up to now being accompanied by violence.”
4) The ruling class always initiates the violence, “always the ruling class; always the outlived class that doesn’t want to leave the stage when the time has come. They want to hang on to their privileges, to reinforce them by violent measures, against the rising majority and they run up against the mass violence of the new class, which history has ordained shall come to power.”
5) That is our prediction. But “of course, we don’t limit ourselves simply to that prediction. We go further, and advise the workers to bear this in mind and prepare themselves not to permit the reactionary outlived minority to frustrate the will of the majority.”
Q: What role does the rise and existence of fascism play with reference to the possibility of violence?
A: Well, that is really the nub of the whole question, because the reactionary violence of the capitalist class, expressed through fascism, is invoked against the workers. Long before the revolutionary movement of the workers gains the majority, fascist gangs are organised and subsidised by millions in funds from the biggest industrialists and financiers, as the example of Germany showed—and these fascist gangs undertake to break up the labor movement by force, raid the halls, assassinate the leaders, break up the meetings, burn the printing plants, and destroy the possibility of functioning long before the labor movement has taken the road of revolution.
I say that is the nub of the whole question of violence. If the workers don’t recognise that and do not begin to defend themselves against the fascists, they will never be given the possibility of voting on the question of revolution. They will face the fate of the German and Italian proletariat and they will be in the chains of fascist slavery before they have a chance of any kind of a fair vote on whether they want socialism or not.
It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late. That is the program of our party.
That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
Comrade Munis, however, is not satisfied with our “lamentable dialogue”, allegedly “destined to pacify the easily frightened conscience of the jury about who initiates the violence”. The above-quoted answer advising the workers to “bear in mind” the violent course of the ruling class and “prepare themselves”, is not “sufficiently explicit and energetic”. (He underestimates the acuteness of the workers.) “Why not”, says Comrade Munis, “raise the voice at this point and call upon the workers to organise their own violence against the reactionary violence?”
Why not? Because it was not necessary or advisable either to raise the voice or issue any call for action at this time. We were talking, in the first place, for the benefit of the uninitiated worker who would be reading the testimony in the paper or in pamphlet form. We needed a calm and careful exposition in order to get his attention. This worker is by no means waiting impatiently for our call to violent action. Quite the contrary, he ardently believes in the so-called democracy, and the first question he will ask, if he becomes interested in socialism, is: “Why can’t we get it peacefully, by the ballot?” It is necessary to patiently explain to him that, while we would prefer it that way, the bosses will not permit it, will resort to violence against the majority, and that the workers must defend themselves and their right to change things. Our defensive formula is not only legally unassailable, “for the jury”, as our critics contemptuously remark—as though twenty-eight indicted people in their right senses, and a party threatened with illegality, can afford the luxury of disregarding the jury. It is also the best formula for effective propaganda.
These defensive formulas are not our invention; they come directly from the great Marxists who did not believe in the good will of the class enemies and knew how to organise action, that is, mass action, against them. And these same teachers and organisers of mass actions likewise never failed to appreciate the value of democratic forms and party legality and to hang onto them and utilise them to the fullest extent possible. Our teachers did not shrink from force; they never deluded the workers with the promise of a peaceful, democratic transformation of society. But they didn’t speak of violence always in the same way, in the same tone and with the same emphasis. Always, in circumstances in any way comparable to ours, they have spoken as we spoke at the trial. Proof of this is abundant and overwhelming.
The first formulated statement of the communist position on the question of violence and the transition to socialism appears in Engels’ “Principles of Communism”, a “catechism” written in 1847 which is generally regarded as the first draft of the Communist Manifesto. Engels wrote:
Question: Will it be possible to bring about the abolition of private property by peaceful methods?
Answer: It is to be desired that this could happen, and Communists certainly would be the last to resist it.
Engels didn’t promise such a solution and he didn’t forget to add: “Should the oppressed proletariat at long last be goaded into a revolution, the communists will rally to the cause of the workers and be just as prompt to act as they are now to speak.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism/ch05.htm