Re: [Marxism] RE: Communist tasks

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Walter Lippmann wrote:
> Of course in the old SWP they thought it
> made no difference who won World War II, either.
>
> After all, it was just an inter-imperialist conflict, so
> the outcome was a matter of indifference to its eloquent
> editorialists.

To: <H-HOAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Macdonald on WWII
From Alan Wald awald@xxxxxxxxx

I think that Leo Casey oversimplifies considerably when he builds upon
Dwight Macdonald's quote to assert that it was:

"the official position of most Trotskyists throughout the war, who --
with classic ideological rigidity -- simply saw WW II as a replay of WW
I. The position that WW II was simply another inter-imperialist war is
the Trotskyist equivalent of the Stalinist's support for the
Hitler-Stalin Pact."

It is possible that Hook, in the mid-1930s, saw the coming WWII as
simply "a replay of WWI," and that may be parallel to the CP view at the
time of the Hitler-Stalin Pact. But the published writings of Trotsky
show that this was not the view of Trotsky himself at the time the war
broke out in Europe (after 1939), when he said: "The present war, as we
have stated on more than one occasion, is a continuation of the last
war. But a continuation does not signify a repetition. As a general
rule, a continuation signifies a development, a deepening, a sharpening."

Was this refusal to call WWII a "replay" just rhetoric, or did it mean
something in practice? Again, Trotsky's writings show that he moved from
his original WWI position of proposing a two stage approach (first
overthrow our own capitalist system through "revolutionary defeatism,"
then defend the new society) to a one stage approach (fight in the
capitalist-run army against fascism in a disciplined manner, but
maintain ideological agitation for one's socialist alternative).

Some followers of Trotsky carried this out faithfully. For example,
James P. Cannon, leader of the SWP (which was the largest Trotskyist
group in the US), stated in Sept. 1940: "We didn't visualize, nobody
visualized, a world situation in which whole countries would be
conquered by fascist armies. The workers don't want to be conquered by
foreign invaders, above all by the fascists. They require a program of
military struggle against foreign invaders which assures their class
independence." In the SWP's paper, THE MILITANT, the leading Trotskyist
attorney, Albert Goldman, wrote that Hitler was "the greatest enemy of
the working class" and that the SWP advocated that "all those we
influence must go to war and do what they are told by the
capitalists....we would not prevent war materials being shipped to fight
Germany and Japan." Of course, in Europe Trotskyists worked militarily
where they could with the anti-fascist partisans. Later on, adherents of
this WWII perspective (Steve Roberts, Ernest Mandel), produced studies
of WWII arguing that it was actually a number of different kinds of wars
occurring simultaneously, each of which involved different analyses and
strategic responses. (Sources for the above quotations, and similar
ones, can be found in my 1987 book, THE NEW YORK INTELLECTUALS, pp.
193-225).

Dwight Macdonald's approach to WWII was from a revolutionary pacifist
position, which is quite different from Trotsky's and the Trotskyists. I
think it is fair to say that Max Shachtman's Workers Party started with
a view closer to McDonald's, although Shachtman's WP was not pacifist.
At first the WP actually advocated draft resistance, then, for different
reasons, came to a position close to the SWP in practice (even expelling
draft dodgers). Other intellectuals influenced by Trotskyism, such as
Clement Greenberg and Meyer Schapiro (under the pseudonym. David Merian)
also expressed views on WWII in their own ways. So did the ENQUIRY group
(Irving Kristol et al), which had departed from Shachtman's WP.

No doubt some varieties of Trotskyists accused the SWP of selling out to
imperialism in its WWII position, and others suggested that the SWP was
actually supporting the war because it was really pro-Soviet. It is
possible that today, some groups or individuals claiming to be the true
heirs of the "Cannon" tradition may oversimplify the WWII analysis of
the SWP to something along the lines of Leo Casey's summary, especially
if oversimplification is characteristic of their general outlook.
However, the written record of Trotsky, and all these diverse groups and
individuals connected with "Trotskyism" at the time (WWII), along with
the actual record (not anecdotes) of activities of members of groups, is
the most accurate guide.

Of course, much of the prevailing Trotskyist analysis, even of the SWP,
was certainly off the mark to various degrees on many points--especially
the beliefs that the USA would itself turn totalitarian during war time;
that liberal capitalism would not be able to defeat fascism; that WWII
would be followed by a wave of liberating socialist revolutions in
Europe, and that the Stalinist regime might well be toppled by a genuine
workers' revolt; etc. (True enough, an "apologist" for orthodox
Trotyskyism could note that there was war-time repression and that the
SWP leaders themselves were jailed; but, to me, this repression was
hardly totalitarianism. Likewise, there were post-war social
transformations in China and Eastern Europe, but I myself don't believe
that these were of the kind predicted by the Trotskyists.) At the same
time, the skepticism of Cannon, Shachtman, et al about the official
ideology of WWII, their support of the right of workers to strike even
in wartime, their opposition to Japanese-American internment, their
consistent opposition to the segregated military (and support to A.
Phillip Randolph's March on Washington, opposed by the CP), and their
outrage at the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Japan (again, in contrast to
the CP's celebration of it), are important, positive contributions to a
broader, reconstructed radical tradition in the USA. Even Macdonald's
WWII writings, despite his (wholly unacceptable, to me) position of
opposing military struggle against Hitler, are extremely valuable in
affirming a legacy of the need to defend democratic rights during war
and expose atrocities, even in the face of accusations of lack of
patriotism.

In my personal opinion, characterrizing as "ultra-left insanity" the
range of views that actually took place in the context of understanding
of WWII as "a clash of rival imperialisms" is hardly conducive to a
dialogue among scholars seeking to understand the diversities and
complexities of Left theory and practice. Among more recent figures of
note, that basic anti-imperialist stance was promoted by A. J. Muste (a
revolutionary pacifist) and Howard Zinn. They may be mistaken in many
respects, but neither was/is insane.

Alan Wald, English Dept.,
University of Michigan. 3187 Angell Hall,
Ann Arbor, Mi. 48109-1003.




--

The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism