Re: Comintern (Re: DSP on Cannon) (Re: Camejo's article)

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, ben wrote:

> I think that the early Comintern was right to try and generalise the
> lessons the Bolsheviks learned, on organisational matters as much as
> anything else. I think they were right to call for separation of the


But they didn't generalize. They applied "Bolshevism" in a schematic
fashion. For example, when Bukharin openly challenged Lenin on the
national question in a Bolshevik newspaper, he was not expelled. This is
all explained in Stephen Cohen's study of Bukharin. If a DSP'er sent a
message to Marxmail challenging the party position on UN troops in East
Timor, he'd be brought up on charges. This is Zinovievism, not Bolshevism.

> We shouldn't blame all the mistakes and follies of the CPGB, CPUSA, CPA
> or any other CP on Moscow--whether it's Lenin's Moscow or Stalin's
> Moscow. The sectarianism and opportunism that came to characterise the
> CPs in many countries has its roots in the socialist movements of those
> countries: these problemswere not caused by Moscow.

This is not a question of "blame" but arriving at an alternative
methodology. We need to do what works. We need to study Fidel Castro's
intiatives in the early 1950s, not James P. Cannon's feckless attempt to
build a Trotskyist party in the USA. Unless we want to avoid failure. If
Fidel Castro had used the Trotskyist party building methodology (newspaper
with a party line; magazine obsessed with the "Russian" questions;
Stalinophobia, etc), Batista Jr. would be in power now.

> Because of the time and resource pressures facing it, the incompetence
> of the CPs in places like Britain, and the weaknesses indicated by B.
> Sivaraman above, the actual spirit of what's now called "Leninism" was
> conveyed only very poorly.

In fact it was conveyed extremely well. The Comintern micromanaged the
German CP in the early 1920s. When its own policies blew up in its face,
it only deepened the tendency to dictate party-building formulae.

> The actual mistakes made in various countries should not be
> automatically traced to the Executive Committee of the Communist
> International. For example, the counter-revolutionary role of the
> Spanish CP in 1937-39 is no doubt in large part due to Moscow, as the
> party was virtually created from Moscow on the back of the material aid
> given by the USSR. But the failures of the veteran revolutionary Andres
> Nin, and the whole POUM, or for that matter the treachery of the vastly
> influential "anarchist" leaders like Garcia Oliver and Federica
> Montseny--indicates that a revolution wasn't likely to be successful
> anyway.


In the old days, I used to gnash my teeth over CP, anarchist and POUM
perfidy. At the time I did not realize that the Trotskyist movement shared
in the blame for the defeat of the revolution. It had the "correct"
analysis, but put all sorts of sectarian obstacles in its own path. In
fact we need to study the POUM, which despite a number of serious errors,
did learn how to reach the masses. The POUM was rooted in Spanish reality,
while Trotsky's followers stood on the sidelines hectoring the mass
movement.

> On Cannon in the 1920s: I'm not an expert, but I don't think he ever
> tried to portray himself as some kind of saint from birth. During the
> 1920s he was one of the main factional players. Maybe he was more
> frequently in the right than the others, I don't know. In "History of
> American Trotskyism" he says that he was uneasy about the directions the
> other faction leaders were going, but had no alternative until he read
> Trotsky's  document for the 1928 Comintern congress. We should recognise
> that what he did prior to this was without his later political compass
> and understanding. (or some may disagree and say he was always the same
> bar-room brawler of a factionalist).


This is highly evasive. It is not a question of saint versus satan. We are
dealing with party-building methodologies which produce sects and cults.
While the DSP did not end up as crazy as the American SWP, it followed a
methodology that led certain other personalities to go off the deep end.
When a movement continues to produce leaders like Barnes, Healy, Lambert,
et al, who share in common an affinity for the Trotskyist method of
party-building, especially the Cannonist subset, we have to question the
methodology, don't we?


> Cannon said in that book "in the modern epoch you cannot build a
> revolutionary political party solely on a national basis. You must begin
> with an international program, and on that basis you build national
> sections of an international movement." Certainly the way that is
> sometimes interpreted by many later Trotskyists, including Cannon at
> times I think, can be wrong if not outright ridiculous. It can lead to
> ridiculous dogmatism rather than involvement in the struggle. But  if
> one takes "international program" as an international analysis, an
> internationalist outlook, that's certainly indispensable. Having a party
> with clear politics, with a well-understood line of march (with or
> without minority dissent) is important if we aren't going to end up with
> the mishmash that MacLean refers to, paralysed not only by its
> opportunist leaders, but by its internal disunity.


There are good mishmashes, however. The Russian social democracy was a
real mishmash in many ways. There were numerous public fights that went on
for years. Luxemburg, Trotsky, Bukharin, Lenin, et al aired their
differences before the working class. Obviously, this was a sign that the
party was rooted in the working class. The Cannonist methodology is
completely opposite. Every year or two, the Cannonist-Zinovievist party
announces "pre-convention" discussion which allows dissident viewpoints to
be aired. Once the convention ratifies the party line, everybody is under
discipline to defend it in public. Not only is this at odds with Bolshevik
practive, it can only produce ideological conformity.


> political work. Nobody has ever thought critically about what it means
> to have a "cell" or a "fraction" in a union or mass movement that speaks
> with the same voice on behalf of a single tactical orientation, but
> nevertheless the rule--hardly discussed at the Congress--became law."
>
> Well, I think that's definitely the most effective way for Marxists to
> work in the mass movement: as a co-ordinated political intervention. A
> fraction or cell exists for that co-ordination. Plenty of people _have_
> thought critically about this--mostly the anarchists, who substitute
> rampant individualism and egotism for collective co-operation in my
> experience. What alternative do you propose, Louis?


I advocate that Marxists function in the mass movement in the way that
they functioned in the Russian social democracy. In the entire history of
the Bolshevik party, only one person was expelled: Bogdanov. After
Kamenev, Stalin et al broke discipline over the October insurrection, they
were not even suspended. This should answer the question of
"co-ordination". In fact, the problem with DSP'ers and SWP'ers is that
they are really not familiar with how the Bolshevik party functioned in
the real world. Their understanding is based on Cannon's (or Tony Cliff et
al) recounting of Russian events. As is generally the case, you are better
off reading independent scholarship, such as Neil Harding's 2-volume study
of Lenin. Also, read Lenin.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.