CP stuff

[Charles Brown <cbrown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

*       From: Michael Hoover


cp mistakes?
dissolving itself in '44, although decision had certain logic given
that party's chief form of electoral activity had become supporting
candidates from other parties (believe browder - always an easy foil -
said something to effect that it made no sense for cp to pretend to be a
party contesting for power in its own right), perhaps this was
'consequence' of party having entered political mainstream in late
'30s/early '40s...


^^^^
Hello Michael, in general my attitude in judging these matters is that it
was not exactly easy to know then ( nor even now) what was the right thing
to do, and I don't know that I would have been able to make the correct
decision instead of the mistake in the situation. So with that disclaimer of
my knowing better and seconding the question mark at the end of your
"mistakes" above...

On this one, of course, Browder, the General Secretary , was expelled (!)
for liquidating the Party. Sort of indirectly demonstrates that the GS was
not allpowerful at the time, something that contradicts most
characterizations of CP. Evidently, Browder was not as powerful in the US
Party as Stalin in the SU.

 The majority of the Party then and the subsequent Party call this a
mistake. So, criticism/self-criticism is up to snuff from that standpoint,
no ? Also, mistake was "corrected" immediately.

The funny thing is sometimes I go Menshevik/Liquidationist on this , using
my advantage of hindsight, and wonder whether Browder read the "Truman"
forces ( can't say "warned by" them; conspiracy theory :>() that if he
didn't turn the Party into an educational organization, US would be cracking
down. So, that, get this, hey, maybe it would have been better to liquidate
and become an Educational Association. Maybe an educational association with
emphasis on working class education. Workers'colleges of struggle. Maybe
that would  be a sect like you say below.

In many ways today, the CPUSA _is_ a political education organization .
(Political education = propaganda , in the positive sense). History,
McCarthyism , etc. has brought about Browder's direction anyway, in the long
run.

How's that for non-Leninism ?

Of course, no guarantee that Uncle Sam wouldn't have claimed the educational
form was just a front for spying.

But the Phoenix will rise from the ashes.






^^^^^^
flip-flops in '39 (hitler-stalin pact) and '45 (eugene dennis' 'five
minutes to midnite' line describing foster's left sectarianism that
precluded 'conventional' politics), eroded most of whatever 'liberal
good will' party had developed...

^^^^^^
CB: I don't go with "flip/flop" as accurate characterization of nazi-soviet
non-aggression pact response. It's a long discussion, but I'd say in brief,
Soviets sought pacts with other imperialist powers _first_ and were refused,
had to try to divide the imperialist nations somehow, had little illusion
that Nazis wouldn't violate, et al. From standpoint of CPUSA, I'd call it
tactical flexibility not flip/flop. Those at that time, who presumably like
those who call this a mistake, would not have responded quickly to quick
changes in the actual world politics were not the Marxists. Marxists have
ability to change tactics quickly. Focussed support on SU was
correct,especially on "world" questions. Those who didn't take that approach
were wrong, i.e. RIGID etc. etc.

On the 1945 thing, there is evidence here of open debate and disagreement,
_democratic_ centralism even, top CP leaders arguing with each other openly.
This contradicts  the rigid , dictatorial, Stalinist image of CPUSA. Also,
does not jive with claim Party was tied to DP from 1936. Foster represented
major section of CP.

^^^^^^^


'48 decision to form independent party that drove away some still
important allies in left-wing of dem party and certain unions...

^^^^
CB: Tell Carrol about this.

^^^^^^^


'49 decision to have smith act defendants rely on marxist theory rather
than constitutional/civil libertarian arguments...


^^^^
CB: When I discussed this with Carl Winter,  one of the Foley Square
defendants, I don't recall him saying no First Amendment or Fifth A.
defense. When we read _Dennis_ in law school , I thought the CP _did_ raise
First Amendment defense, because  the U.S. Supreme Court held no First
Amendment protection. I guess I had an opposite understanding of what the CP
legal , tatical decision was. How could the US Supreme Court say no First
Amendment protection for Dennis, CP officer, if Dennis didn't raise First
Amendment defense , i.e. a civil libertarian defense ?

Marxist theory doesn't substantially contradict First or Fifth Amendment
defenses.

^^^^^^^


interestingly, cp might have survived had it been sect along lines of
most other 'marxist-socialist' groups, repeating comment i made in
previous post, post-ww2 anti-left attacks probably *doomed* party
No matter political direction it might have taken...   michael hoover


^^^^^
CB: Yes, it's ironic.  CP didn't survive ? :>)


The following is the letter from W.E.B Dubois ,applying for membership in
the Communist Party USA.


Gus Hall
Communist Party of the USA
New York, New York

On this first day of October 1961, I am applying for admission to membership
in the Communist Party of the United States. I have been long and slow in
coming to this conclusion, but at last my mind is settled.

In college, I heard the name of Karl Marx, but read none of his works,nor
heard them explained.. At the University of Berlin, I heard much of those
thinkers who had definitely answered the theories of Marx, but  again we did
not study what Marx himself had said. Nevertheless, I attended meetings of
the Socialist Party and considered myself a Socialist.

On my return to America, I taught and studied for sixteen years. I explored
the theory of socialism and studied the organized social life of American
Negroes; but still I neither read nor heard much of Marxism. Then I came to
New York as an official of the new NAACP and editor of _The Crisis_
magazine. The NAACP wasa capitalist-oriented, and expected support from rich
philanthropists.

But it had a strong socialist element in its leadership in persons like Mary
Ovington, William English Walling and Charles Edward Russell. Following
their advice, I joined the Socialist Party in 1911. I knew then nothing of
practical socialist politics and in the campaign of 1912 I found myself
unwilling to vote the Socialist ticket, but advised Negroes to vote for
Wilson. This was contrary to Socialist Party rules and consequently I
resigned from the Socialist Party.

For the next twenty years, I tried to develop a political way of life for
myself and my people. I attacked the Democrats and Republicans for monopoly
and disenfranchisement of Negroes; I attacked the Socialists for trying to
segregate Southern Negro members; I praised the racial attitudes of
Communists, but opposed their tactics in the case of the Scottsboro Boys and
their advocacy of a Negro state. At the same time, I began to study Karl
Marx and the Communists; I read _Das Kapital_ and other Communist
literature; I hailed the Russian Revolution of 1917, but was puzzled at the
contradictory news from Russia.

Finally, in 1926, I began a new effort; I visited Communist lands. I went to
the Soviet Union in 1926, 1936, 1949 and 1959; I saw the nation develop. I
visited East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Poland. I spent ten weeks in China,
traveling all over the land. Then , this summer, I rested a month in
Rumania.

I was early convinced that socialism was an excellent way of life, but I
thought it might be reached by various methods. For Russia, I was convinced
she had chosen the only way open to her at the time. I saw Scandinavia
choosing a different method, halfway  between socialism and capitalism. In
the United States, I saw Consumers Cooperation as a path from capitalism to
socialism, while England , France and Germany developed in the same
direction in their own way. After the Depression and the Second World War, I
was disillusioned. The progressive movement in the United States failed. The
Cold War started. Capitalism called communism a crime.

Today I have reached a firm conclusion: Capitalism can not reform itself; it
is doomed to self-destruction. No universal selfishness can bring social
good to all.

Communism - the effort to give all men (sic) what they need as to ask each
the best they can contribute - this is the only way of human life. It is a
difficult and hard end to reach - it has and will make mistakes, but today
it marches triumphantly on in education and science, in home and food, with
increased freedom of thought and deliverance from dogma. In the end
communism will triumph. I want to help bring that day.

The path of the American Communist Party is clear: It will provide the
United States with a real third party and thus restore democracy for this
land. It will call for:

1. Public ownership of natural resources and of all capital
2. Public control of transportation and communications
3  Abolition of poverty and limitation of personal income
4  No exploitation of labor
5  Social medicine, with hospitalization and care of the old
6. Free education for all
7. Training for jobs and jobs for all
8.  Discipline for growth and reform
9.  Freedom under law
10. No dogmatic religion

These aims are not crimes. They are practiced increasingly over the world.
No nation can call itself free which does not allow its citizens to work for
these ends.
                                                              W.E.B . Dubois