Our history - the CI, WPA, Cannon, Leninism, etc.

["Martin Schreader" <mschreader@xxxxxxxx>]

It is really easy to sit here, in 2002, and critique the actions of an
organization that existed 80 years ago, with the benefit of hindsight
spanning the intervening years. Nevertheless, this potentially ahistorical
approach to the CI benefits no one -- especially not Marxists who, today,
are looking to set things right (or at least try). In the end, all it does
is benefit the very sectarians and opportunists for whom the open democratic
centralism and critical thought of Marx and Lenin are "un-events", so to
speak.

Mark Lause, for example, asks (in reference to the "Rebuild the Workers
Party" website): "if it [the Workers Party of America -- MS] wasn't
politically healthy enough to survive, why would anyone want to rebuild it?"
I kind of feel like I've been asked, if the October Revolution or the Paris
Commune wasn't healthy enough to survive the blows of the bureaucrats and
bourgeoisie, why should we fight for socialism? Or, more commonly, if all
the Communist parties became Stalinist (or revisionist, or reformist, etc.),
why should we call ourselves communists or Leninists? For that matter, why
should we be communists?

The question is all wrong, IMO. It is not as much about the organization's
political health at a given moment, but rather what the organization was
trying to accomplish. The Workers Party of America was an attempt to unite
the opposition, not separate it. This is why the Party had a very active
orientation to the Socialist Party, the Socialist Labor Party and the
Proletarian Party (which were the three other major Left organizations in
the U.S.). This is why it also sought to intervene in the Garveyites and in
Lafollette's FLP. Now, they may have made mistakes along the way, which --
combined with the attacks of the bourgeoisie (the Bridgman Raids and
subsequent actions continued to take their toll throughout the mid-1920s)
and the degeneration of the CI -- ultimately led to the witchhunts, the
expulsions and the ultimate destruction of the WPA. But that does not negate
in any way the value and importance of what the WPA, as a pro-Party
movement, was attempting to accomplish.

Expressing this in a concrete sense -- i.e., "rebuild the Workers Party" --
is meant to convey two points: 1) there are alternative views of what
Leninism and communism mean, in comparison to what is offered by the
existing "communist" and "Leninist" Left; and, 2) this alternative is
historically linked to a previously existing movement of real people
fighting for real change.

Comrade Mark also asks about the Communist International: "what positive
contribution did it make that we cannot have today without rebuilding it?"
While this is not directly addressed on the website, it is nevertheless a
logical direction to take. The "positive contribution" that a rebuilt CI
would have is what the original one had in the 1920s: the discussion and
development of Marxist analysis as related to what were at the time "new"
areas of work -- e.g., the national and colonial questions. But, yes, such a
"contribution" could be done by individuals on e-mail lists like this
today -- that is, if we merely restrict our understanding of "discussion and
development" to literal boundaries. Ultimately, the value of the CI rested
in the belief that the products of those "discussions and developments"
would find concrete expression in the organizations and programs of the
various communist parties of the world. Because those organizations
discussed and educated themselves collectively, the opportunity existed to
take the lessons and generalize them, and develop a concrete program based
on those lessons and the material situation in a given country.

This is not to say that the CI itself was able to live up to its potential;
it certainly did not have the chance to do so. But that does not detract
from the intent of those organizations or their historical value.

Louis raises some other points:

> They [the early Comintern -- MS] 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.

I partially agree. We can argue about how schematic the "Bolshevization" of
the CI sections was (we certainly can). But comrade Louis' point on
democratic centralism is completely correct. Lenin's view of democratic
centralism is far removed from what most (not all, but most) so-called
"Leninist" organizations practice. Centralism was meant to be a
"centralization of communist activity" not a centralization of communist
thought.

That is, if the organization's majority decides to march in a demonstration,
then that's what the organization does. It does NOT mean that if the
organization has an ideological minority that differs with the majority over
an issue like the "Russian" question, the national question, etc., they are
expected to gag themselves. Minorities have the right to become majorities,
and that is impossible if they have no right to express their views.

> 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.

I think Louis is a little too hard on Cannon here. Cannon, too, attempted to
learn from the Cuban experience. I would recommend that comrades -- both
"Cannonite" and "anti-Cannonite" -- re-read his piece, "New Revolutionary
Forces are Emerging", written in 1961. (This piece is available online at
http://www.angelfire.com/pr/red/usswp/new_revolutionary_forces.htm )

> > 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.

It may be that what now passes for "Leninism" was "conveyed extremely well",
but Leninism itself was not. That unfortunate fact was, however, as much a
product of history as everything else. In that sense, the benefit of
hindsight is helpful. We have had 80 years to understand what Leninism is
and is not. A new pro-Party communist movement can take that experience and
move forward with it.

> 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.

True enough, but you forget to mention that much of what Trotsky's followers
did in Spain was AGAINST his advice. This is as true for the pre-POUM and
POUM as it was for the group that split from them after Nin entered the
Frente Popular.

> 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?

Certainly we do, but it must be done dialectically. We do have to question
methodology, but from the standpoint of dealing with the contradictions that
are embodied in them. Leninism, for example, produced several differing
ideological trends -- including Stalinism. But did this development happen
in a straight line, or was it a manifestation of dialectical negation? That
is, was Stalinism an outgrowth of Leninism in a (formally) logical sense, or
in a contradictory sense?

My point in all this is to say that what is called "Cannonism" may have
yielded Barnes, Robertson, North, etc. But that doesn't mean only these
elements will arise from that ideology. I came from a "Cannonist" tradition
as well (as did you, comrade Louis), and I am certainly not standing in the
same camp as these people.

> 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.

I agree on the practical aspects here. But, again, to simply call it
Cannonist is somewhat confusing.

> 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.

OK, Louis, but how do you translate all this into the real world? Will you
get involved in a pro-Party movement based on these kind of genuinely
Leninist traditions? Or, is it going to be more talk and less action?
Continuing to keep such an understanding confined to intellectual circles
aids no one. You should know this, comrade.

Comradely;
Martin
http://www.wpus.org/


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