Comrade Gus Hall analyzed some of the elements indicating a mass breakaway from the old parties in his report to the post-election November 1976 meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. He then said:

Growing Disaffection 

Is there an objective basis for initiatives in the direction of a new, mass anti-monopoly party?

Nationally, it is increasingly obvious that despite President Jimmy Carter’s standing in the polls, there is a swelling current of disenchantment with him, particularly among those who voted for him as “the lesser evil” and whose expectations he aroused. Evidence on this score piles up daily:

• In the ranks of organized labor there developed early considerable criticism of the Carter Administration’s refusal to support its demand for a $3 hourly minimum wage and of Carter’s miserly counter-proposals.
  Similarly, many trade unionists are bitter about the Administration’s failure to make real efforts to win passage of the situs picketing bill, long a demand of the building trades unions. Further, there is considerable resentment at the Administration for putting on ice any repealer of Section 14B of the Taft Hartley law, which legalizes the so-called right-to-work law, the notorious measure used, particularly in the South, to strangle the union shop and, indeed, union organization. This resentment continues to exist in the labor movement, notwithstanding the maneuvering of AFL-CIO President George Meany to patch up matters with Carter. If anything, the placid acceptance by Carter of a high level of unemployment for years to come has solidified a critical attitude toward him in labor’s ranks. The issue of jobs has become the number one question for organized labor, as it has for unorganized workers. Even Meany, feeling the pressure from the ranks, has had to attack Carter publicly for stressing “balancing the budget” as against jobs for the jobless.
• In the Black people’s movement there is a tidal wave of discontent with the Carter Administration. It reached something of a peak in late August with an extraordinary “summit meeting” of representatives of 15 leading organizations of Black people, including the Congressional Black Caucus. Earlier, there were expressions of criticism at the NAACP national convention by Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., executive director of the National Urban League; by the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, head of PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), and by others.
  But the summit session had a qualitatively new character. There was an evident shattering of illusions and the emergence of a common strategy for a counter-offensive against what the Rev. Jackson called “the callous neglect” by the Carter Administration of the Blacks and the poor generally. The central aim, the summit agreed, was the fight for jobs, for a full employment policy, with special emphasis on jobs for the Black youth, among whom unemployment ranges up to 86 percent, according to some estimates.
  This criticism of Carter from wide sections of the Black community, cutting across ideological and organization lines, is tinged with a special bitterness. The Black people feel — and this is supported by the election figures — that they, plus some sections of labor, provided the margin of Carter’s narrow election victory over Republican Gerald Ford. There is a deep feeling that Carter betrayed his campaign promises, especially in respect to the bread and-butter issues. Significantly, Carter, who earlier had referred to Jordan’s criticism as “demagogic,” talked differently after the summit meeting. The White House response, according to Jody Powell, Carter’s press secretary, “ought to be moderate and responsible.” Subsequently, Carter met with the House Black Caucus.
• Among liberal Democrats there is also disillusionment, reflected most clearly by the sharply critical speech of Senator George McGovern at this year’s convention of Americans for Democratic Action. McGovern and other liberal Democrats are attacking Carter not only for reneging on his campaign pledges but also for refusing to fight for his own measures when the political going gets rough. For example, the Administration sponsored a universal voter registration measure, the effect of which would be to simplify procedures, thus increasing the number of people who actually vote. (Such a law is on the statute books of Minnesota and Wisconsin and has in fact raised the total percentage of voters beyond that of the other states.) However, the Administration backed away from its own bill, a simple democratic measure, after the Republican high command and some Southern Democratic Senators emitted a few growls. 

Neutron Bomb and L’Affair Lance 

Likewise, criticism of Carter’s betrayal of his pledge to cut the military budget has surfaced along with expressions of outrage at the proposal to build the neutron bomb (“spare the property and kill the people”). The giant American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers (AFSCME), which supported him in the 1976 campaign, waged an effective drive against the B-l bomber, undoubtedly a factor in the decision to halt it. Opposition to the neutron bomb is widespread, even in circles which rarely speak up on such questions. Thus, for instance, the National Coalition of American Nuns, according to the lay Catholic magazine Commonwealth, wrote Carter:

Nor does this exhaust the issues around which there is discontent. Carter’s stalling on a national health bill has evoked criticism among people who were his 1976 supporters. And even his high-pressure “human rights” campaign has met with considerable skepticism, with more than one commentator noting acidly that Carter exempts such tyrannies as South Korea and Iran for reasons of alleged “national security.”

Beyond these clearly defined groupings of labor, the Black people’s organizations and liberal Democrats, the Bert Lance scandal has set off widespread comment about “cronyism” in the White House. Carter’s defense of his old Georgia pal and appointee to the key post of director of the Office of Management and Budget in the face of the evidence of the latter’s financial shenanigans as banker politician drew attacks from many quarters, including some old southern supporters. The sharp contrast between Carter’s sanctimonious pre-election preachments and his behavior in L’Affaire Lance is widely noted. Some columnists have even hinted that Carter’s election campaign may have been partially financed through Lance’s curious fiscal didoes.

Not all the discontent is aimed at Washington, however. In city after city there are local struggles around cutbacks of social services, layoffs of municipal workers and the perennial City Hall scandals. New York City is the most dramatic example, but the situation is virtually epidemic since the urban areas have borne the main shock of the banker and monopoly drive to lower the living standards of the people. 

Developments Toward Independence 

How is all this affecting the electoral process?

It has been noted for some time that there has been a steady alienation of the electorate from the process. Nearly half the eligible voters did not participate in the 1976 elections (less than 54 per cent) and the curve has been generally downward since 1960 when about 60 percent voted in the presidential elections.

Nor is 1977 showing much change, judging by the municipal primaries which with rare exceptions — New York City — continued to indicate wide disinterest in the selection of candidates by the old parties.

Among those who do take part in the electoral process there is mounting evidence of independence from the two old parties. For example, of 2,150 candidates whose names appeared on a primary and/or a general election ballot for the House of Representatives or Senate in 1976, 13 per cent (about 280) were independents, that is, they ran either without a party designation or as minor party candidates. (By no means, however, should all these be regarded as progressive candidates. Some of these “independents” were clearly ultra-Rightists.)

Independence among the registered voters, in the sense of non-affiliation with either of the two old parties, continues to grow. The New York State Board of Elections reported recently that the number of independents had passed beyond the 1 million mark for the first time in the state’s history. In varying degree, the same trend is apparent in other states.

But this phenomenon, while reflecting a lack of enthusiasm for either old party, is not yet true independence, that is, a break with the two old parties. Most of those who decline to enroll themselves as either Republicans or Democrats are generally “swing” voters. They say they vote “the candidate, not the party.” Frequently, it means shuttling between the two old parties and “splitting” their tickets between candidates of both.

Evidence of this shuttling was seen even in the first months of the Carter Administration. In the special election in Washington State’s 7^th Congressional District to replace Rep. Brock Adams, a Democrat appointed Secretary of Transportation, a Republican won in this traditionally Democratic area. Reportedly, Carter’s threat of a gasoline tax was a major issue in the election. Most of the voters, reflecting a widespread anti-monopoly mood, regarded the tax as a ripoff designed to benefit the oil trusts and voted accordingly. They switched to the GOP to register their protest, apparently because they saw no viable alternative. (Significantly, the three byelections since Carter’s inauguration in January have all seen Democratic candidates defeated, the last being in a rock-ribbed Democratic district in Louisiana.)

What can be expected in the organized labor movement in respect to political action?

Within the labor movement some degree of change can be anticipated, particularly if the United Auto Workers union votes to re-affiliate to the AFL-CIO. The UAW and the new leadership of the Machinists union, together with the Communication Workers, AFSCME and the other unions which opposed George Meany’s “neutrality” in the Nixon-McGovern race of 1972 (and even formed their own committee) will tend to group together again. These unions tend to be critical of the Carter Administration. Some see the necessity of forming a political pressure bloc. But it will be a bloc within the general administration orbit, a bloc to the Left of Meany and the Administration, designed largely to offset pressures from the Right. It should have a limited usefulness in checking anti-labor legislation and advancing social welfare and civil rights measures and perhaps even supporting some liberal moves in foreign policy.

But, soberly viewed, all this is a considerable way from a new people’s anti-monopoly party, although it cannot be ruled out that one or another labor leader, under pressure from the rank and file, may become associated with a movement for a mass people’s party.

It must be concluded at this moment that while there is considerable ferment in the country and disenchantment with the two old parties, this does not yet spell out a solid national movement for a new mass, anti-monopoly party. There are a few local coalitions that are promising but a national movement along these lines does not exist today. In this respect the situation is considerably different than that preceding the 1948 election when the Progressive Party fielded a third party presidential ticket headed by Henry Wallace. In late 1946 and throughout 1947 there was active agitation and organization on a nation-wide scale for such a national ticket, all of it laying the groundwork for the 1948 presidential campaign. In the 1976 election campaign the question of building a mass anti-monopoly party was raised in the speeches of Gus Hall and Jarvis Tyner, the Communist candidates for President and Vice President, respectively. While mass reaction was friendly to the idea, few public figures other than Hall and Tyner chose to discuss the question. 

Needed: Ongoing Grassroots Work 

Clearly, ferment and disenchantment may create a political climate in which a new mass party can be built but no more than that. The actual process — and the term process must be stressed — by which such a party will be built in the U.S. is exceedingly complex. It of course requires constant agitation for such a party but it will not be built by ringing rhetoric calling for masses of voters to leave the two old parties.

Experience over the years demonstrates that effective third parties grow out of mass movements on great social issues. Thus, the Republican party of the mid-19^th century arose out of the struggle around For Peace, Jobs, Equality chattel slavery. The LaFollette presidential candidacy of 1924 on the Progressive Party line had as its basis the struggle of the trade union movement against the post-World War I anti-labor drive, as well as the revolt of the small farmers against monopoly. The Progressive Party of 1948 arose primarily in the struggle against the cold war.

From this it follows that a new mass people’s party can arise today only through the participation of masses in the main economic and political struggles of the day — for jobs and wage increases, against monopoly prices and extortionate utility rates, for rent control and public housing, against cutbacks of social services, against the swollen military budget and for nuclear disarmament. A special element of today’s struggle must be the fight against pervasive racism and the systematic effort to destroy the gains made in the civil rights battles of the ’60s. The totality of all this is a many-sided struggle against monopoly capital.

But even participation in struggle, while basic, is of itself not enough. Millions have participated in economic and political struggles in the past but have not drawn the conclusion of the need for a break with the two-party system. In short, there is nothing automatic about the birth of a new mass united front anti-monopoly party. The conscious element is decisive, given the movement of millions in struggle.

What is required is concrete work for such a party on many levels, starting at the grassroots with legislative and political activity that stems from and is fused with the struggles around day-to-day issues. This work — on a 365-days-a-year basis — must have as one of its major objectives the building of independent coalition movements around labor candidates, Black candidates, candidates of other national groups, women candidates, youth candidates — in short, candidates standing on a platform of united anti-monopoly struggle. There will be no mass anti-monopoly party in the field in the 1980 presidential elections unless solid grassroots bases are built in 1977, 1978 and 1979. 

United Front Approach 

It is true that only a relative minority of those involved in grassroots coalitions will have the outlook of a formal breakaway from the two old parties. Many will retain some old party ties. Many will continue to participate in old party primaries even as they express increasing independence on issues and help to build independent movements. That means that the forces committed to seeking a genuine political alternative cannot ignore the old party primaries. These primaries can sometimes become the arenas of struggle around issues that are part of the process of building a new anti-monopoly party.

It should be remembered that progressive congressmen like John Conyers and Ron Dellums, for example, while taking advanced positions and increasingly associating themselves with independent forces, still feel it necessary to use the Democratic Party locally as a political vehicle. Nor can we forget political history. The late Vito Marcantonio, probably the most progressive congressman of this century, began as a Republican and used the Republican ballot line as a vehicle. At the same time he was building up an independent apparatus and advancing an independent progressive program, remaining a nominal Republican until the American Labor Party of the 1930’s developed as a balance-of-power party in New York State.

There will undoubtedly be similar developments along the road to a new mass people’s party today. Committed third party forces may find themselves in grassroots political coalitions with supporters of Jimmy Carter. They may find themselves working for independent local candidates who on a national level back the Carter Administration. This is an inevitable element of any genuine mass united front anti monopoly movement.

This was the case in the superb Mark Allen campaign in Berkeley last Spring, a non-partisan election for local office in which a splendid united front of struggle was built, a united front in which the non-Communist participants (the majority) were regarded — and felt themselves — as equals in the united front. Great credit goes to those who understood and correctly applied these united front policies, particularly to Mark Allen, a candidate in the great tradition of Communist Councilman Pete Cacchione and Ben Davis, and also to the leadership of the California Communist Party.

On a somewhat different level is New York, where the Coalition for Independent Politics is slowly building a movement that includes people who are prepared to accept a progressive program but still regard the Democratic primary as an indispensable element of their campaigns. And in Connecticut, a citizens’ group for independent political action, including labor people, Black leaders and community activists, has been convoked.

Similar situations exist, perhaps only in embryos, in other areas. Tactical elements will vary from state to state but the essential strategic task remains the same — the gathering of the forces moving in the direction of independent progressive political action.

But perhaps a word of warning would not be out of order. Day-to-day organization is required but it must be pervaded by the underlying concept that the building of an effective anti-monopoly movement and party is the next great task on the agenda of the working class and its allies. It is a historic struggle for democracy and will be bitterly resisted by the ruling class. It is a massive undertaking, greater even than the battle for the organization of the unorganized workers into industrial unions in the 30s and 40s. Already we see efforts in some states to tighten further the already restrictive election laws and limit access to the ballot for independents and minority parties.

But a mighty people’s movement can overcome these obstacles. Uniting the great majority who are the victims of monopoly capital, it can sweep aside the ruling class barriers and move towards the formation of a mass anti-monopoly people’s party that will effectively challenge the two old parties of capitalism.

1. Adapted (and updated) from remarks delivered to a meeting of the Communist Party Central Committee and National Council, May 30, 1977. ︎
2. Hall, Gus, The 1976 Elections — Mandate for Struggle; New Outlook Publishers: New York, 1976, pp. 13-14. ︎
3. Commonweal, August 19, 1977. ︎

The post On Building a Mass Anti-Monopoly Party appeared first on The Communist.

Longshoremen walked off the job at 12:01 am October 1^st for a strike that lasted three days. The demands included a 77% pay raise over six years, maintaining ILA jurisdiction, protecting Container Royalties^[1], and no automation of ILA jobs.

Bourgeois Attacks on the Strike

In typical bourgeois fashion, the country was sent into a panic by the three-day strike as the media warned of empty shelves, and a shattered economy in the weeks leading up to the strike. After the devastating Hurricane Helene made landfall in late September, the capitalist-controlled media rushed to further fear-monger about how the strike would “block the recovery” for the hurricane’s victims.

Attacks on the strike escalated against the workers after the New York Post had a field day with the contradictions regarding the bourgeois lifestyle led by ILA President, Harold Daggett.^[2] The bloated salaries and lavish lifestyles of many business unionist bureaucrats, including Daggett, do not reflect the living standards of the rank-and-file members and are used to diminish the workers’ struggle. There will be more on this, what Lenin dubbed the “labor aristocracy,” later.

Fitting in their “exposé”, the NY Post article had no mention of the exorbitant salaries paid out to the CEOs of the port carriers, represented by the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX). USMX is a modern-day cartel aimed at monopolizing control of the East and Gulf Coast ports in the United States. USMX plays a similar role in the collective bargaining process that the National Carriers Conference Committee (NCCC) did in the railroad dispute in 2022.

We also saw the typical attacks from Conservative and Republican Party politicians, and even sections of the Democratic Party as the so-called “party of labor” had its share of attacks on striking dock workers.

Citing an article on the ILA’s website where Daggett showed empathy for Trump after his alleged assassination attempt, many Democratic Party operatives, including former Obama staffer Jon Cooper, attacked the strike as a stunt to damage the economy to get Donald Trump elected. This rhetoric lasted throughout the entire strike, refusing to take into account the union’s attempts at negotiating a new Master Contract well in advance of the prior contract’s expiration. In a statement the ILA released on the first day of the strike, the union noted how negotiations went with the USMX:

“Let’s be clear: the ILA has been fully prepared to negotiate a fair contract since two years before its expiration. USMX’s claim that they are ready to bargain rings hollow when they waited until the eve of a potential strike to present this offer. The last offer from USMX was back in February 2023, and the ILA has been listening to our members’ concerns ever since.”

We cannot also forget the role played by Daggett and the ILA leadership in securing the AFL-CIO endorsement for President Biden in the 2020 election. This endorsement was in doubt after the resolution passed by the AFL-CIO convention in 2017 ending labor’s support for the “lesser of two evils.”^[3]

The Ultra-Left, Objective Agents of the Bourgeoisie, Attack Striking Workers

To be clear, we cannot be surprised by bourgeois attacks on strike actions, even from political operatives of parties that claim to support the labor movement. Those attacks are expected. It’s the attacks by groupings who claim to be “fighters for the working class”, many of whom even call themselves Socialists and Communists who openly attacked the strike, boldly pronounced their position against it, all while claiming to push a “leftist” agenda.

Such a position can be described as nothing short of “left in form, right in essence,” a phrase many of us within the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) use to describe the various elements of the ultra-left. To understand the nature of these attacks it is important to understand the petty-bourgeois nature of ultra-leftism, no matter what form it may take—i.e., Anarchism, Trotskyism, Maoism, Hoxhaism, generic “Leftism”, Sakaiism, etc.

It must be noted that the basic concept of class struggle has been rejected by the modern ultra-left. We can routinely see these forces attack actual Communists with the phrase “class reductionist” while hiding behind a hammer and sickle. In his work, “Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism”, former CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall noted:

“The very essence of capitalism is class exploitation. It is exploitation of people, again in mass. The essence of any struggle is the class struggle. The central moving force is the exploited class–the working class.”^[4]

He went on to say:

“Petty-bourgeois radicalism as a concept rejects the basic class nature of society and the class struggle as a pivotal element in the fight for progress. It rejects the role of mass movements because it does not see its basic ingredient–the working class. A class approach to struggle is of necessity a mass approach. The petty-bourgeois radical rhetoric is a sanctuary for those who have given up the possibilities of leading masses, and in the first place the working-class masses, in struggle. It is a way of keeping a radical image when in fact one has retreated and given up the struggle.”^[5]

The ultra-left attacks were aimed at the agreement made by ILA leadership to continue moving military cargo during the strike, a practice dating back to strikes as far back as the First World War. The current genocide being waged against the Palestinians by the Netanyahu regime was used as a reason to not back striking workers. The ultra-left even used a statement by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10, backing the blocking of arms shipments to justify their position.^[6] What they left out is that the ILWU, including Local 10, supported the striking ILA workers. This support was carried out in multiple ways. First and foremost, the ILWU respected the ILA picket lines by not unloading cargo diverted to the West Coast ports; the ILWU also sent a contingent of members to join the ILA picket lines.

It must be noted that for the ILA strike to have been most effective, not just for the longshoremen themselves, but for the anti-imperialist struggle, it would have been necessary to block the shipments of military cargo. So this brings us to another criticism the ultra-left had, which was that the strike was merely an economic one. It is easy to criticize the strike for its failure to block the shipment of weapons from the outside, but what is being done to organize and educate these workers politically? The lack of seriousness in these attacks is demonstrated by the ultra-left’s use of J. Sakai’s abomination of a text, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat.  (See Image )

It is also worth noting that within the framework of the ultra-left position is the rejection of working within the trade union movement. These forces reject the working class in the US as having any revolutionary potential (along the lines of the thesis of Sakai’s Settlers) despite the rise in militancy, and in spite of the fact there is no vanguard to lead the way. What this amounts to is a rejection of Lenin’s thesis that revolutionaries must work within reactionary trade unions to push them left, and to make them a leading force in a future dictatorship of the proletariat. As Leninists we must also remember the wise words of Comrade Lenin in his brilliant polemic against the ultra-left of his time:

“The Party must more than ever and in a new way, not only in the old way, educate and guide the trade unions, at the same time bearing in mind that they are and will long remain an indispensable ‘school of Communism’ and a preparatory school that trains the proletarians to exercise their dictatorship.”^[7]

Comrade Gus Hall further explained plainly why we should not take these attacks seriously:

“Concepts of struggle not based on the above reality will sooner or later come into conflict with it. The advocates of petty-bourgeois radicalism try to bypass this reality. They believe they can avoid the necessary and unavoidable consistent and sustained work, the work of organizing, educating, mobilizing and leading people in mass, of leading people on the level of their understanding, of their own self-interest, and in this sense reflecting the objective processes leading to a revolutionary struggle against capitalism. For this they seek to substitute radical rhetoric with general slogans, or advanced actions that have no relationship to struggles to which the masses do respond. Thus, when the concepts based on unreality meet the reality of class struggle they bounce back. If such tactics are further pursued they become an obstacle to struggle. They become a destructive and divisive force. Organized groups which pursue such policies not only tend to move away from the working class, but they reject mass concepts of struggle altogether.”^[8]

Are the Ultra-Left Correct?

It is worth noting that having the correct ideas is not enough; if they are not applied properly and you are unable to win over the masses, it means nothing. Gus Hall once again said it perfectly:

“The concepts, the ideas, motivating petty-bourgeois radicalism are not necessarily wrong in the abstract. Those who follow wrong concepts, in most cases, are dedicated and sincere individuals. The concepts are wrong when they do not reflect the specific reality of the moment. Therefore, the more determined such individuals are, the more damaging they can be. … [The workers] do not respond to ideas–even good ideas–if they do not see their self-interests involved in these ideas.”^[9]

With this in mind, the ultra-left position in the abstract is a correct one. It is up to the working class to take the fight to imperialism, and blocking military cargo in a time when US imperialists are arming the genocide of the Palestinian people would be at the forefront of this fight. What is missing is the state of the labor movement at present time; we are living in a time where we are working to rebuild our vanguard role in the working-class movement since the post-Gus Hall leadership of the old Party abandoned class struggle for tailism.

Without a Communist presence in the rank and file to build a class-oriented movement we cannot expect the masses, who lack class consciousness, to lead this struggle by themselves. For a strike to lead to a political strug­gle, we must embed ourselves in the rank and file to lead an edu­cation campaign to build the class consciousness of the work­ers.

In laying out the Comintern plan to “bolshevize” the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries, O. Piatnitsky laid out how the Bolsheviks worked within the trade unions:

“… at the very beginning of the development of the labor movement the Bolsheviks established a connection between the economic struggle and the political. When the sentiments of the workers in the factories became favorable towards a strike, the Bolshevik cells immediately placed themselves in the leadership. The strikes in single shops spread to all departments, a strike in a single factory spread to all the other factories, and the strikes of the factory workers, under the influence and leadership of the Bolshevik Party organizations (our emphasis—Ed.), frequently assumed the forms of street demonstrations, and in this way the economic strikes developed into a political struggle.”^[10]

In the immediate lead-up to the strike, Democratic President Joe Biden announced he would not enact the Taft-Hartley act which would have imposed a 90-day “cooling-off period” that would have forced the dock workers back to work until January. There is no doubt that if military cargo was blocked, Biden would have forced this Taft-Hartley cooling-off period on the longshoremen. At the dock worker picket line on the first day of the strike, several rank-and-file members did not express a prior understanding of how the strike can impact the political situation. After some discussion, workers seemed to confirm the idea that shutting down military cargo would have led to Biden enforcing Taft-Hartley on the striking longshoremen. This would have meant the total destruction of the strike itself.

On the ultra-left’s aversion to working within reactionary trade unions, we must note that it is unequivocally wrong for anyone who claims to be a Communist to hold this anti-Leninist position. In talking about the German “Left” in his day, Lenin made it clear:

“In their opinion, decla­mations, and angry ejacu­lations … against ‘reac­tionary’ and ‘counter-rev­olutionary’ trade unions are sufficient ‘proof’ that it is unnecessary and even impermissible for revolu­tionaries and communists to work in yellow, social-chauvinist, compromising, counter-revolutionary trade unions. …

“But however strongly the German ‘Lefts’ may be convinced of the revolutionism of such tactics, these tactics are in fact fundamentally wrong, and amount to no more than empty phrase-mongering.”^[11]

Improving Our Work on Industrial Concentration is Essential to Becoming a Vanguard Party

The ILA strike, in addition to other strikes of recent years, has demonstrated that the labor movement in the United States is ripe for the development of a higher class-consciousness. The ultra-left with their comments against the strike have shown that they will not be able to lead this movement. The vanguard Party which emerges to lead the American labor movement must instead be rooted in the working class through the policy of industrial concentration.

Since our Second Congress, the PCUSA has embarked on a plan of Industrial Concentration. This plan is important for multiple reasons, most notably to increase Communist cadre within the key industries. In order to be the vanguard of the working class, Communists must root themselves in the working class.

It is, however, not enough to push a policy of Industrial Concentration merely for Party building. It is imperative that we build these cadres within the key industries in the United States. Special focus must be made on the industries that have seen an increase of labor militancy within the recent strike wave. These industries include the railroad, automotive, shipping/logistics and specifically the longshore industry as these constitute the most essential foundations of the US imperialist order.

It seems we are still in a stage where Communists do not grasp the importance of an Industrial Concentration policy. We need to increase this understanding, which is why we held the recent Peoples School for Marxist-Leninist Studies class on Industrial Concentration. Also, the PCUSA Labor Commission is working with the Jones-Foster School for Party Education to develop a class to be included in its cadre ascension curriculum.

To help build this understanding, we must look to the former CPUSA Organizational Secretary Henry Winston, who said it best in 1948:

“What is the essence of a concentration policy?

“First of all, it requires a fundamental understanding of the role of the workers in the basic industries, in relation to the working class and the life of the country as a whole. It is precisely these workers employed in the huge plants by the tens of thousands who, as Lenin pointed out, become educated to understand the need for unity, collective action and solidarity by the very process of large-scale production itself. One cannot conceive of successfully building the Progressive Party [or the labor-led anti-monopoly coalition of today—Ed.], of organizing an effective fight against the Draft [conscription], or in defense of civil liberties, a successful fight against war and fascism, unless this section of the working class is fully mobilized. And, of course, one cannot speak of winning the American workers for Socialism without winning the majority of this section of the working class. It is necessary to permeate the entire Party with this consciousness.

“Secondly, such a policy requires the selection of the points of concentration where a base must be secured, if we are to set in motion the entire labor movement. This means knowing which districts must be given major national attention, which industries are key and what plants are decisive. … While we must strengthen the Party in all basic industries, we must particularly select for major concentration such industries as steel, auto, mining, maritime, electrical and railroad. Within these industries we must pursue a policy of concentration in key industrial towns and key plants and departments—with special consideration to the most underpaid sections of the workers, the unskilled and semi-skilled. …

“Thirdly, the full mobilization of the Party is required to achieve the objectives of our concentration policy. Concretely, this means that all Party clubs must have a share in the responsibility for work at the concentration points. Communists in the mass organizations, trade unions, etc., should try to convince these organizations similarly to pursue a concentration policy.

“Fourthly, beginning with the national and state leaderships, the entire Party must be involved in planning, guiding, and assuming systematic control and check-up of concentration objectives. All political and organizational problems must be discussed and reviewed from the standpoint of how to realize them in concentration industries. Systematic discussion of the problems in concentration industries must be organized in the top political bodies of the Party. Our leadership must be unsparing in the allocation of capable forces, finances, literature, and other material assistance.”^[12]

This excerpt comes from Winston’s speech to the 14^th CPUSA Convention. It must be understood that this took place during the early stages of the second “Red Scare” in the United States. Specifically, it came a little more than one year after the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was passed forcing labor leaders to sign affidavits stating they were not members of the Communist Party. To go along with this campaign the business unionists within the CIO worked with the Truman’s Democratic Party administration to purge all militants from their unions under the guise of anti-Communism.

When the CIO was not successful in their purging of Communists in member-unions they purged the unions themselves as they did with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU); International Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers (Mine Mill); Food and Tobacco Workers (FTA); International Fur and Leather Workers Union (IFLWU) and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (UE). The CIO even went so far as to work with the State Department and Westinghouse Corporation to create the International United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (IUE) as a dual union to raid the membership of the UE.^[13]

The Party’s policy of Industrial Concentration has been aimed at rebuilding the influence the Communists once had in the American trade union movement. To this point neither the PCUSA nor the CPUSA has yet been able to reclaim this great legacy. It has not been all failure though, as the CPUSA, under the leadership of Gus Hall, was involved in the expansion of the rank-and-file movement in the 1970s. This involvement started with the Rank and File Conference in Chicago on June 27-28, 1970 which set up the National Coordinating Committee for Trade Union Action and Democracy (TUAD).^[14] Today, the trade union movement is just now beginning to emerge from the lowest point since its inception. Communists now have the opportunity to take the militant rumblings and develop them into a class-oriented force capable of taking on the stranglehold of modern monopoly capital. A well-implemented policy of Industrial Concentration is the only means with which this historic task can be accomplished.

[1] Container Royalties—special payments made to longshoremen to compensate for a decrease in employment opportunities caused by the use of containerized shipping. These payments are calculated based off of tonnage.

[2] https://nypost.com/2024/10/02/business/harold-daggetts-sprawling-nj-mansion-has-bentley-5-car-garage-and-guest-house/

[3] https://aflcio.org/resolutions/resolution-2-independent-political-voice.

[4] Hall, Gus, “Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism”, The Communist, Vol. 2; PCUSA Ideological Department: Seattle, 2022, p. 44.

[5] Ibid., p. 48.

[6] https://www.internationalist.org/ilwu-local-10-calls-for-labor-boycott-arms-to-israel-2405.html.

[7] Lenin, V.I., “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, p. 46.

[8] Hall, Op. Cit., 2022, p. 44.

[9] Hall, Op. Cit., 2022, pp. 43-44.

[10] Piatnitsky, O., The Bolshevization of the Communist Parties in the Capitalist Countries: By Eradicating Social-Democratic Traditions; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2024, pp. 13-14.

[11] Lenin, Op. Cit., 2022, p. 41.

[12] Winston, Henry, “For a Fighting Party Rooted Among the Industrial Workers”, Selected Works of Henry Winston, Vol. 1; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2024, pp. 92-94.

[13] Sears, John Bennett, The Electrical Unions and the Cold War; International Publishers: New York, 2019, pp. 67-72.

[14] Morris, George, Rebellion in the Unions: A Handbook for Rank-and-File Action; New Outlook Publishers: New York, New York, 1971, p. 145.

The post The International Longshoremen’s Association Strike, the Bankruptcy of the Ultra-Left, and the Need for a Policy of Industrial Concentration appeared first on The Communist.

“Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership. … Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat.”

For the past few decades, American electoral politics has been shifting evermore rightward while pitting working-class Americans against one another. Today, we see that, just as FDR predicted, the American people have chosen the side of reaction as a result of the worsening economic realities they face.

As Communists, we have a duty to explain the general crisis in the capitalist society and how that creates the conditions for a sharpening of reactionary politics. Furthermore, we will present the labor-led anti-monopoly coalition will be the path for Communists and all progressive Americans to work towards an administration which will be beneficial to the American working class.

Trump: Representative of Monopoly Capital

On November 5, 2024, real estate billionaire Donald Trump was elected as the 47^th President of the United States of America. Trump was elected based on a belief that he would bring about a more prosperous economy for working people who have suffered under the post-COVID inflation of the Biden administration. However, as shown by his previous term, Trump, as a  member of the reactionary monopoly capitalist class will not come close to satisfying any of the criteria which Communists put forward for support of a candidate, namely, support for labor, anti-racism, and anti-imperialism.

In terms of organized labor, while the leadership of almost all AFL-CIO unions endorsed the Democratic Party in the 2024 election, the reality among the rank-and-file was significantly different. Many American workers think that Trump’s anti-immigrant policies will make the job market be more in their favor, making it easier for them to find and keep work.

In reality, Trump has been, and will be, as antagonistic to organized labor as any monopoly capitalist would be expected to be. Donald Trump has refused to guarantee that he will veto right to work legislation, as the Teamsters have called for. His appointees in the Supreme Court are likely to rule the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unconstitutional in the pending Amazon v. NLRB case, which would be a massive step backwards for labor’s right to organize in America. Recently, Elon Musk, who has sued to throw out the NLRB, has been named to the leadership of Trump’s proposed “Department of Government Efficiency.” This organization will likely push deregulation, including labor standards like OSHA and NLRB regulations that protect labor unions.

On the issue of oppressed peoples, Trump has already made openly xenophobic comments during the 2024 presidential race itself. In his speeches, Trump has attempted to stir reactionary anti-immigrant sentiments by falsely stating that Haitian immigrants were “eating pets.”

Furthermore, on the issue of LGBT+ rights, Trump has promised that his administration will rescind federal policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, and will assert that federal civil rights laws do not cover anti-LGBT+ discrimination. Already, Trump has stated he will introduce a day-one bill recognizing only male and female genders. He has stated, “We will promote positive education about the nuclear family, the roles of mothers and fathers, and celebrating rather than erasing the things that make men and women different and unique.”

There are some on the Left who claim that Trump will be better than Harris would have been when it comes to the issues of war and imperialism. However, the reality is that Trump shows many of the same issues in this area.

On the issue of Israel-Palestine, Trump is a good friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is currently waging a genocide on the Palestinian people in Gaza. Trump has called for the recognition of the whole of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and he has derailed the road to a US-recognized Palestinian state by unilaterally moving the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This is contrary to the UN position of including East Jerusalem in Palestine. Furthermore, Trump has stated that he will install Mike Huckabee, a prominent Christian Zionist who is fully opposed to the creation of an independent Palestinian state, as the ambassador to Israel.

Furthermore, Trump has already signaled that he will be just as hawkish on People’s China as the Democratic Party would be, which is particularly important in the context of the potential upcoming conflict involving the Chinese province of Taiwan. As a representative of monopoly capital, his interest is in removing America’s dependency on the Chinese semiconductor industry.

There are some ultra-left forces in the US, especially the so-called “MAGA Communists”, which have, through their actions, objectively endorsed Trump as “the lesser of two evils” for President in 2024. However, the reality is that a Trump Administration would be just as, if not more, detrimental to the cause of labor, anti-imperialism, and anti-racism as the Democratic Party will be.

Despite all of Trump’s drawbacks, he was still elected over the Democratic candidate Kamala Harris. The American people indicated through their vote that they were unhappy with the Biden administration, and that they were looking for a change. Because no viable progressive Democratic Party alternative was presented, the people instead moved to the right, towards Trump.

What is to Be Done?

The International Communist Movement throughout its history has been successful when it was able to identify the primary contradictions in society. From these contradictions the communists then clearly forge a path that exploits the divisions within the camps of the working class’ enemies.

From 2016 onward, we have seen such a division within the big bourgeoisie. The conservative bourgeoisie has a desire to shift American politics to the extreme right whereas the liberal bourgeoisie is struggling to hold onto old methods to preserve the status quo. We can see that while liberal Democrat voters may have a desire to preserve democracy, it is clear the Democratic Party leadership will not be willing to do what needs to be done to preserve the Union. Communists must understand this while helping to lead the Anti-Monopoly coalition. Through a well-organized leadership of the American working class, the pro-democratic sentiment that liberal Democrats hold can be preserved.

As the rank-and-file of the trade union movement begins to understandably turn away from the Democratic Party, Communists must work to halt and reverse the growth of reactionary politics (i.e., extreme conservativism) within the American working class and steer them in a progressive direction. In order to do this, we will need to return to the days of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) when all American unions had a class-oriented political education.

This also means the creation of independent political action in the form of the anti-monopoly coalition led by organized labor. The heart of this movement will be a rank-and-file-led class-oriented trade union movement uniting all progressive elements of society.

Communists have historically been instrumental in the development of independent, progressive political action in the United States. This has been exemplified with Communist participation in the Progressive Party and Henry Wallace’s campaign for President in 1948. The Communist Party activity within the Progressive Party demonstrated the commitment to coalition building with all progressive forces. This was also called the Center-Left Coalition, especially under the leadership of Comrade Gus Hall.

The Communist Party also worked with and supported Congressman Vito Marcantonio, a member of the American Labor Party from the State of New York. Marcantonio was the only elected representative in Congress who stood up and voted against US interventionism in the Korean War. The Communist Party also backed Marcantonio because of his pro-Puerto Rican immigration policies which reflected his progressive ideology.

As the Third Congress of the Party of Communists USA affirmed:

“We call for the formation of an Anti-Monopoly Coalition as the specific form that the Popular Front will take in the USA. This will be composed of all democratic and anti-imperialist forces, including the progressive elements of the labor movement, the anti-war/peace movements, local progressive forces, and emerging third-party electoral formations which oppose US imperialism and monopoly capital.”

In today’s world, new opportunities are emerging to work with organized labor outside of the two-party duopoly. The United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Worker’s Union of America (UE) has recently condemned the anti-labor activities of the picks of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and called for the creation of a labor party in the United States.

Furthermore, the Teamsters, the Firefighter’s Union, and Local 3000 of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) have all chosen to not endorse either major presidential candidate. This behavior marks a shift away from the support for the Democratic Party as a party of labor, and a realization that it has become a party of big business. Now, some in organized labor are going to begin to realize that they need a party of their own. What can be clearer than to see Trump flying the unelected billionaire Elon Musk, who represents only himself and his own profits, out around the world to meet with foreign leaders on the behalf of Americans? We have seen that the people are no longer interested in following the two-party duopoly. The American people are now beginning to see that there is in reality only one major American political party, and that is the money party of monopoly capital. From November 6, the day after the election, onward, the job of American Communists is to work tirelessly and start building the anti-monopoly coalition based in organized labor.

The post The 2024 Presidential Election: Where Do We Go From Here? appeared first on The Communist.

There are differing factors that led Trump to win the 2016 election, such as the unpopularity of the Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and the perception that Trump was an “outsider” from DC-Beltway politics (though Trump is a member of the capitalist class, don’t think otherwise). However, Trump’s rhetoric continued beyond his election.

The phrase “MAGA” came to represent an idea of bringing America back to a former greatness which is exemplified by an idealized vision of America’s past. This nostalgic vision forgets that America’s past has included the following: slavery, Jim Crow, indigenous genocide, McCarthy-ism, concentration camps for the Japanese, repression of LGBT+ and Women, and more. In short, though America has had progressive ideas, it has never been “great.”

In reality, the MAGA movement under Trump’s first term led to the emboldening of reactionary, quasi-fascist movements, including the march of white nationalists in Charlottesville, a rise in reactionary thought movements like Q-Anon, and a further shifting of politics to the right where religious white nationalists like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who initially found their footing in the Tea Party movement, became acceptable public figures.

But how did Communism get mixed up in this? MAGA Communism has its origins in online areas where right-leaning streamers took the ideals of “MAGA” and dressed them in a veneer of Communism and began to spout the idea that “Communism will make America great again”. Its origins include online personalities like Haz Al-Din and Jackson Hinkle, later promoted by other terminally online groups like the Midwestern Marx Institute and others.

A few threads tie them together. All of these groups and people have an uncritical view of present-day capitalist Russia, underlying socially conservative ideas like believing women should be stay-at-home mothers and slandering of the LGBT+ movement under the guise of so-called “family values.” All speak positively of Russia, but hardly ever the Soviet Union. They praised Maduro, including when he attacked opposition groups which included the Communist Party of Venezuela (PCV). There is nearly zero mention of either Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin. These groups are social chauvinists who opportunistically tail the masses, and their ideology appears closer to Strasserism and National Bolshevism than Communism. Finally, they ideologically praise right-wing demagogues like Alexander Dugin and Lyndon LaRouche.

Strasserism and MAGA Communism: Two Peas in a Pod

This new obscure political trend, MAGA Communism, through its reactionary policies and vague platform, leads the working class into supporting billionaire populists like President Trump against sections of the working class and the downtrodden masses. In fact there are parallels between MAGA Communism and the so-called National “Socialism” of the Strasserist variety.

Strasserism draws its name from its founders, the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser, who were seen as the “left-wing” of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), also known as the Nazi Party of Germany. To understand the comparison drawn between Strasserism and MAGA Communism, we need to understand what Strasserism was in its essence.

Strasserism as a political movement was the expression of the dissatisfied petty-bourgeoisie (small entrepreneurs), who after WWI were unable to sell their goods, as wages for the working class had dropped to poverty levels and inflation made the German Mark basically worthless. Workers were permanently removed from industry and thus relegated to the underbelly of society as de-classed to the status of lumpenproletariat. These de-classed workers, reduced to fighting for their daily survival, became a breeding ground for the radicalism of this reactionary movement. Even certain sections of the proletariat, being driven from Marxism-Leninism due to the prevailing anti-Communist sentiment and suppression, were also absorbed into the reactionary radical movement. Strasserism purported to build a “socialism” that rejected the proletarian internationalism and materialist philosophy of Bolshevism in favor of an emphasis on the spiritual superiority of the Christian Germanic values.

The base of MAGA Communism is not as well-known as of now but what is known is that the origins of MAGA Communism reside in a group of online personalities such as Haz Al-Din whose infamy is derived from his YouTube platform, Infrared, and Jackson Hinkle, known for  being host of the YouTube channel Deep Dive with Jackson Hinkle. These individuals developed their platform by appealing to the backwards views (as Lenin called them) of the dispossessed. Such rallying points include their anti-LGBT+ scapegoating, going so far to say the LGBT+ movement is the new Nazi movement. Further discussion of the reactionary social policies of the MAGA Communist movement will be in another section. In a debate on the male chauvinist podcast called Fresh and Fit^[1], MAGA Communist leader Haz Al-Din claims that private enterprise is compatible with Communism so long as it “benefits the goal of the country or ultimate goals of the Party.” This is reminiscent of an excerpt from Otto Strasser’s Germany Tomorrow:

“The exchange will not be effected in accordance with the arbitrary wishes of the individual producers, but in accordance with a plan drafted to suit the needs of the State, and this will involve the existence of a State monopoly of foreign trade. Such a State monopoly will not (as does the Russian) aim at itself conducting the foreign trade, but will merely supervise, and give licenses for export to such persons as may need them..” ^[2]

Strasserism, though rejecting the racial theories of the Hitlerites, manifested anti-Semitism in the form of “economic anti-Semitism.” The anti-Jewish sentiment of the Strasserites was based on the idea that the Jewish people were inherently bourgeois and financial elites who were the cause of the economic crisis that shocked Germany and the capitalist world in general. According to Gregor Strasser himself:

“Down with the slavery of capitalism! Down with bloodsucking international world finance! Down with their leaders, their spokesmen, their henchmen: nationally-poisonous Judaism! [Our emphasis—Ed.] Long live the National Revolution! Long live the Social Revolution! Long live their common goal: The common front of productive national labor as the community of all productive German folk-comrades, united in the coming, salvation-bringing National Socialist state.” ^[3]

It is clear from this quote that the Strasserites believed that the Jewish people were a financial elite that were by their nature a parasitic class. This idea of Jewish elitism “pulling the strings of society” is not new and has its origins in the myth that the Jewish people as a collective killed Jesus Christ. Today, even MAGA Communist leaders such as Jackson Hinkle echo these scapegoating views. In the tweet shown below, while criticizing the Israeli government for its war crimes, he could not help but take a jab at Jews, which is obvious to deduce given that Zionism did not exist at the time of Jesus Christ.

Though these elements claim to pursue a socialist end, it could never come to fruition with their base among the dying petty-bourgeois class. As Karl Marx clearly stated in the Manifesto of the Communist Party:

“In its positive aims, however, this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange, within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.”^[4]

In essence, Marx shows that the petty bourgeoisie, being an appendage of the bourgeoisie, can only serve ends that restore capitalist property relations. For this reason, and for the reason that the petty bourgeoisie is a class that is condemned to vanish as contradictions in capitalism sharpen, Strasserism and MAGA Communism can only serve the interests of the big bourgeoisie, in this case the most reactionary elements of finance capital, i.e., fascism. This is seen in the example of the Nazi Party, which started as a grouping of disgruntled elements and later served as a vehicle for the Monopolists and a hotbed for their reactionary methods.

Lyndon LaRouche: Ideological Father of MAGA Communism

The MAGA Communist movement from its inception has worked closely with followers of Lyndon LaRouche and its Schiller Institute organization, despite LaRouche’s history of blatant anti-communism.

Jackson Hinkle, MAGA Communist leader, spoke at the Schiller Institute Conference in October of 2022, where he stated:

“Lyndon LaRouche, for those of you who don’t know him, was a great visionary, ran for President, a great thinker … He was involved in many presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republican, in advising them on complex foreign policy matters. He envisioned a world in which … we would, as humans, tap into our unlimited potentiality for growth, and creativity, and build a brighter future by working with the economic powerhouses of the world, the commodities producers of the world, to produce a more prosperous environment for all.”^[5]

Furthermore, Haz Al-Din of Infrared has stated that he considers LaRouche to be “one of the most, if not the most, profound theorist and thinker [sic] of policy in the modern age.”

These are strange views indeed from people who claim to be Communists, given the views which were brought forth by LaRouche and the history of his organization and its activities.

LaRouche began his political life as a Trotskyite, joining the Socialist Workers Party in 1948. Later, he briefly joined the Spartacist League (another Trotskyite organization) before announcing his intention to build a “Fifth International.”

In the 1970s, LaRouche organized the National Caucus of Labor Committees (NCLC). This group was initially closely associated with the New Left – and thus petty-bourgeois radical – Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). After being expelled by the SDS, the NCLC abandoned any pretense of Marxism-Leninism and quickly became explicitly anti-Communist and anti-Soviet.

The NCLC was, beyond being just a political organization; it was a cult, where members gave up their jobs to devote themselves totally to the cause. They believed that the NCLC would imminently take over the trade union movement and from there proceed to overthrow the American government.

The NCLC membership’s cultish devotion to LaRouche soon manifested in physical violence against their opposition. This began with fights that broke out against Mark Rudd’s faction of Students for a Democratic Society, and later culminated in the infamous “Operation Mop-Up.” Operation Mop-Up was an attack intended to dispose of the “stinking corpse” of the Communist Party USA, whereby Jewish members of the CPUSA were targeted and physically assaulted with lead pipes wrapped in newspapers by members of the NCLC. This act highlights the anti-Semitism which is present within both the LaRouche movement and within MAGA Communism as a whole.

In addition to these acts of physical violence, LaRouche also endorsed “psywar techniques” to be used against his detractors and opponents on the Left. It was a common tactic for targets to be accused of homosexuality in an attempt to ruin their reputation. This is reflected in the chauvinism and homophobia of the modern MAGA Communist movement, which tails many of the most reactionary views against LGBT+ liberation found today.

After the failure of the NCLC, the LaRouche movement formed a front group called the US Labor Party as a platform for La-Rouche’s Presidential ambitions. LaRouche’s characteristic cult methods continued, and even intensified, in this formation. Members were subject to “ego-stripping” and brainwashing sessions, and they were made to place their savings and possessions in the hands of the party to increase its control over them. While the US Labor Party initially preached “Marxist revolution”, it quickly shifted to the far-right, rubbing shoulders with groups like the Ku Klux Klan and the rightist Liberty Lobby. The Liberty Lobby defended the US Labor Party on the basis that it had “confused, disoriented, and disunified the Left,” just as the MAGA Communist movement stands to do today.

Later, in the 1980s, the Schiller Institute formed in West Germany to spread LaRouche’s ideology even further. The Schiller Institute continued LaRouche’s anti-Sovietism, going so far as to accuse the 1984 Democratic Party presidential candidate Walter Mondale of being a “Soviet agent.” The Schiller Institute also supported Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (often called the “Star Wars program”), which sought to develop laser weapons to be deployed to space to further pressure the Soviet Union, in addition to the nuclear arms race which was instigated by the United States government.

LaRouche would later claim to have invented the Strategic Defense Initiative, and this was extended to his so-called “Biological Strategic Defense Initiative”, whereby he proposed quarantining people who had been infected by HIV in the 1980s. LaRouche’s unscientific claim that HIV could be spread as easily as the common cold was a thinly veiled pretext for the rampant homophobia expressed by his initiative.

Today, the Schiller Institute is alive and well, having recently ran Diane Sare as their candidate for New York Senator in 2024. MAGA Communist figures like Jackson Hinkle continue their association and praise of the Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement to the present day.

The history of the LaRouche movement is marked by chauvinism, anti-Semitism, anti-environmentalism, and anti-Communism. The fact that the leaders of the MAGA Communist movement have given such praise to LaRouche and the Schiller Institute should be taken as a warning to the true nature of their ideology.

Strange Bed-Fellows: Alexander Dugin and MAGA Communism

In addition to their idolization of LaRouche, leaders of the MAGA Communist movement have also identified themselves as followers of Alexander Dugin, supporter of the Russian Tsarist monarchy who endorsed the anti-Communist propaganda of Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Again, an examination of Dugin’s thought, as stated in his own words, will be enlightening as to the actual ideology of the MAGA Communists.

The Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin claims “there is no difference between capitalism, socialism, or communism”. All require rules and regulations that can run over “traditional values” in their wake. “The way out of this dilemma is to achieve freedom. But not a freedom confined to one set of rules and regulations or constitutions.”

Dugin considers liberalism a culprit in the degradation of current social forces by “repudiating practically all social political institutions, right up to the family and sexual differentiation”. Another culprit is the “theory of progress” that “has caused the loss of traditional values sacrificed on the altar of progress, and thereby have just created another form of social and economic slavery”. This shows that the MAGA Communists  are an American branch of Dugin’s reactionary thinking.

The MAGA Communists also consistently preach of social conservatism^[6], similar to this passage from Dugin himself:

“We must also abandon the philosophy of development and propose the following slogan: life is more important than growth. Instead of the ideology of development, we must place our bets on the ideology of conservatism and conservation. However, we not only require conservatism in our daily lives, but also philosophical conservatism. We need the philosophy of conservatism.”[7]

Haz Al-Din has openly praised Dugin as “one of the most powerful minds of our era,”^[8] going as far as saying that “Marxist theory in the West is meaningless without the aid of Dugin and Heidegger’s [a card-carrying member of the Nazi Party] thinking.”^[9] The same Dugin whose goal is to remove materialism from Socialism:

“If we free socialism from its materialist, atheistic and modernist features, we arrive at a completely new kind of political ideology. We call it the Fourth Political Theory, or 4PT. …”[10]

Dugin continues with his anti-Communism with:

“… (The first being liberalism, that we essentially challenge, the second being the classical form of communism, the third being national-socialism and fascism). Its elaboration starts from the point of intersection between different anti-liberal political theories of the past (namely communism and the Third way theories). So we arrive at the national-bolshevism that represents socialism without materialism, atheism, progressivism, and Modernism …”[11]

MAGA Communists have thus far focused their attacks on liberalism and other progressive movements including the LGBT+ movement, Starbucks union organizing, and others. Given their parallels to Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory, we wonder who they’re going to attack next.

Alexander Dugin concluded with, “I sincerely believe that the Fourth Political Theory, and its secondary variations, National Bolshevism and Eurasianism, can be of great use for our peoples, our countries, and our civilizations.” This would be in line with the common thread among MAGA Communists who largely are active in support of the non-Soviet Russophile movement based in the concept of Eurasianism.^[12]

Though Dugin claims to transcend all other political ideologies, Lenin made it clear that:

“Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is — either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a ‘third’ ideology, and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a non-class or an above-class ideology). Hence, to belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology.”[13]

MAGA Communism: Center of Social Chauvinism

Leadership of the movement such as Haz and Hinkle, along with their followers, are very anti-LGBT. They justify their bigotry by claiming that acceptance of LGBT people is a sign of “western bourgeois decadence” and compatible with fascism. They ignore socialist countries which have pro-LGBT policies, such as Cuba, Vietnam and the German Democratic Republic (GDR). Instead, they focus on instances of LGBT people being repressed in socialist countries. For instance, Hinkle posted a video of a Chinese police officer berating a man for wearing a skirt with the caption “China is a moral nation.”[14]

Women are hardly represented in the MAGA Communist movement, apart from the “Hegelian e-girls,” who could hardly be considered followers of socialism as they tout Hegel, not Marx. Prominent figures of MAGA Communism do not advocate for the rights of working women. Instead, they push a regressive position on the traditional role of the woman as a homemaker and child bearer. They obsess over masculinity and speak as guests on podcasts of right-wing figures who tout misogyny to promote “traditional masculinity” (such as Fresh and Fit, mentioned above).

The movement is led by overtly anti-Semitic individuals. Many claim to be pro-Palestine, though they focus less on the Palestinian liberation movement and more on directing hatred towards Israel and Jewish people. Online posts in these circles about the topic of Israel have anti-Semitic dog whistles. One such dog whistle is the “clown world” conspiracy theory, claiming that the government (or the world) is run by Jewish people. They spout the rhetoric of the Catholic church, that “Jews killed Christ.”

All of this is MAGA Communism, a movement that is left in form, right in essence. MAGA Communism furthermore appears to have, as Comrade Gus Hall would say, a “whiff of fascism”, and while Communist Parties worldwide shout “Workers and Oppressed people of the World Unite”, MAGA Communists are petty-bourgeois radicals who through an opportunistic approach to organization confuse the working class and disarm them against fascism. We see that MAGA Communism has many similarities with right-wing, even fascist, forces while using revolutionary phrase-mongering. Time will tell if such “Communist” demagogues will fall into the “Graveyard of [so-called] Communist groups” splattered across the landscape.

[1] https://youtu.be/iww_kD6ZQhA?t=3314

[2] Strasser, Otto, Germany Tomorrow; Jonathan Cape: London, 1940, p. 139.

[3] Strasser, Gregor, “The Slave-Market of Capitalism”. August 23, 1926.

[4] Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick, The Communist Manifesto; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, p. 41.

[5]https://larouchepub.com/pr/2022/20221102_hinkle.html

[6] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1495363547240538118

[7] Dugin, Alexander, The Fourth Political Theory; The Eurasian Movement: Moscow, 2012, p. 62.

[8] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1766211760770429035. (See Image 3)

[9] https://x.com/InfraHaz/status/1672279455732215809. (See Image 4)

[10] Ibid., p. 205.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Eurasianism — is a socio-political movement in Russia that emerged in the early 20^th century under the Russian Empire, it states that Russia does not belong in the “European” or “Asian” categories but instead to the geopolitical concept of Eurasia and the “Russian world”, forming an ostensibly standalone Russian civilization. The goal of the Eurasianists was the unification of the main Christian churches under the leadership of the Russian Orthodox Church.

[13] Lenin, V.I., What is to Be Done?; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2023, pp. 51-52.

[14] https://x.com/jacksonhinklle/status/1842506425639297315.

The post “MAGA Communism”: A Whiff of Fascism appeared first on The Communist.

The presidential election show, which the ruling regime of Iran was eagerly hoping to turn into a grand endorsement of the theocratic regime, ended with the majority of the nation boycotting it. Even according to the official statistics, in several major cities, including the capital Tehran, voter turnout barely exceeded 30%. According to ISNA, the head of the election office in Tehran province said: “The number of eligible voters for the fourteenth presidential election was 10,199,742, and in this election, on June 25^th, 3,366,264 ballots were used in the capital.”

It was clear that the continued stark economic and social crisis, which could bring the society to the brink of another widespread nation-wide protest like the “Woman, Life, Freedom” popular uprising or other successive protests like the ones in the past two years, could seriously challenge the regime’s survival. That’s why the leaders of the regime were deeply worried about the fate of their rule and the serious difficulties they face in maintaining their power. The ongoing regional developments, including the risk of direct and disastrous conflict with the racist and criminal state of Israel and the US imperialism, must be added to the rulers’ concerns to highlight the depth of the crisis the regime is facing with, which is caused by its own irrational and adventurous policies.

With the unexpected and ambiguous death of Ebrahim Raisi, a member of the death commission responsible for the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in 1988, the regime saw an opportunity to rearrange its guards and divert the popular movement towards the illusion of “reformability” of the regime. They intended to create a safety valve to calm the society and quell the growing anger of the masses.

The qualification of Masoud Pezeshkian (who had been disqualified in two previous presidential elections and the most recent parliamentary election) was organized and directly ordered by the Supreme Leader. This move was intended to bring state-affiliated reformists into the scene to create illusions about Masoud Pezeshkian and generate false hope for a “window” of change, similar to what was tested during Hassan Rouhani’s election campaign. Additionally, extensive propaganda and fear-mongering about the possibility of Jalili’s “election” and worsening the situation in the country was part of a precise and organized campaign to encourage the people to vote and to create a made-up “heroic” act and portray it as an endorsement for the regime’s popularity, approval, and the illusion of freedom in the tyranny-ridden country.

Mr. Khatami, who understanding the deep anger and hatred of the people towards the opportunistic regime had refrained from participating in the parliamentary election show months earlier, returned to the scene this time to repeat and promote the illusion of the “election window.” Of course, people have not forgotten that Mr. Khatami once said: “If the reformists or some of them are to be sidelined, public and global opinion won’t matter. What is important is that those who they don’t want should not come in, and I am sure they don’t want us to come in. Even if we pass this stage, we are not allowed to win more votes than they want.” And ironically, Masoud Pezeshkian, who in his previous speeches emphasized being a “servant of the Supreme Leadership” and having no authority to make fundamental changes in many areas, in his first speech after the election, confirming Khatami’s assessment of the “election” process in the Islamic Republic, said: “I thank the Leader, because without him, our names would have not easily come out of these ballot boxes.” Ali Khamenei also reminded Pezeshkian, after the election results were announced, that he must continue Raisi’s course.

Creating Illusions about Pezeshkian’s Government to Calm the Situation, and the Tasks of the Popular Movement

The government of Masoud Pezeshkian, whose key members will be vetted by Ali Khamenei, and whose major economic policies will be dictated by the Supreme Leader’s office to his government and other legislative and executive structures, will have two key missions. First, to calm the severely crisis-ridden country and create the illusion that the regime has chosen the course of reform. Hence, preventing another social explosion, which this time could involve the powerful presence of the labour and working-class movement and could create insurmountable difficulties for the regime. Second, to resume secret negotiations with the US and the European Union, who all implicitly expressed hope for his election to improve mutual relations with Iran.

The experience of Hassan Rouhani’s two terms in power, supported by the state-affiliated reformists, followed a similar pattern. Contrary to Rouhani’s campaign promises, the house arrest of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Zahra Rahnavard, and Mehdi Karroubi did not end, prisoners of conscience and political prisoners were not freed, the brutal suppression of women’s rights was not prevented, and the demands of the workers and the working class were ignored. The economic crisis continued, the gap between poverty and wealth widened, widespread government corruption persisted and increased, and the bloody and brutal suppression of any mass protest, including in 2017 and 2019, continued. At the end of his term, Rouhani admitted that he had little authority and was merely an executor of the orders of the Supreme Leader, IRGC, and the security forces.

The Tudeh Party of Iran believes that aside from a small minority who participated in this “election” and voted for Jalili, the overwhelming majority of the nation, including those who voted for Masoud Pezeshkian with the hope of a “window” for change, strive for fundamental changes in the catastrophic current state of the country and moving towards establishing the people’s will over the affairs. The overwhelming majority of the nation, especially workers and the working class, who have been increasingly pushed below the line of poverty, want a relief from crushing economic pressures, suitable wages compatible with the inflation, an end to the extensive neoliberal privatization policies and workforce downsizing, the restoration of the country’s productive infrastructure, an end to the brutal and inhuman assault on women by the regime’s thugs, freedom of political-ideological prisoners, and an opening of the political atmosphere in the country. It is clear that none of these demands can be achieved within the theocratic regime and the current despotic and anti-people political system. The developments of recent decades have shown that only through massive and organized social struggle can the regime be forced to retreat. The recent historical development in France, where a broad spectrum of progressive forces from communists and socialists to greens united to prevent the victory of right-wing fascist-leaning forces, is a clear and proven sign of the power of organized and united action of progressive and freedom-loving forces, which can be noted for Iran.

Once again, we call on all patriotic and freedom-loving forces in the country to collaborate and prepare for a national dialogue to organize the frustrated masses and seriously challenge the anti-people ruling regime. Without joint efforts and organized struggle to bring about fundamental and lasting changes, the Islamic Republic, as it has shown in recent years, will continue its dreadful life, harming our country through various manoeuvres and changes in its guards.

The Tudeh Party of Iran

The post The Manoeuvres of the Theocratic Regime in Iran and the Changes in the Guards to Save the Dictatorship appeared first on The Communist.

Three years have passed since the Emergency National Convention. Looking back on that Convention from the vantage point of 1948, the entire Party can more easily grasp the full historic significance of its decisions. The Emergency Convention rejected Browder’s non-existent “progressive imperialism” and utopia of “class peace”; restored to the Party its Marxist-Leninist science, the priceless heritage of working-class theory and practice; and armed it for the struggles of the real postwar world.

The fight for the reconstitution of the Party as the Marxist vanguard of the American working class was carried through under the most difficult conditions.

The most ferocious attacks against our Party have spearheaded Wall Street’s offensive against the economic and political rights of labor and the people and its drive toward war and fascism. Here as everywhere anti-Communism is the hallmark of reaction and fascism. In our country, as formerly in Hitler-Germany, anti-Communism seeks to screen the imperialist and pro-fascist aims of reaction from the people.

In these past three years the Party has been forced to defend itself on many fronts. It has been threatened by a multitude of repressive measures, in the state legislatures and city councils, as well as in Congress. Communist leaders have been subjected to persecution, court prosecution, threats of imprisonment, and imprisonment.

Truman’s “loyalty order” bars Communists from Federal employment—and this infamous blacklist is being extended to private industry, the schools and colleges.

The anti-Communist provisions of the Taft-Hartley Law handicap not only the work of Communist trade unionists but that of all progressive unionists, thereby weakening all organized labor.

Foreign-born workers, Communist and non-Communist, have been harassed, denied the right to citizenship, arrested, and threatened with deportation. Already five members of our outgoing National Committee are faced with the threat of deportation, Comrades Williamson, Stachel, Bittelman, Jones and Potash.

The House Un-American Committee, which has fomented the most vicious anti-Communist hysteria, has become one of the major instrumentalities in the attempt of reaction to impose a fascist, militarist state upon our country.

The monopoly-controlled press, radio, and movies constantly bombard the American people with anti-Communist venom. Day in and day out, they lie and slander, deliberately, when they label Communists as “red-fascists, Communazis, spies, saboteurs, and foreign agents.” They deliberately lie and slander when they charge that Communists are “advocates of force and violence to overthrow the government of the United States.”

Our Party has confronted many obstacles in its efforts to counteract these Hitlerite lies with the truth. The commercial channels of communication are being denied our Party. Storm-troop violence is increasingly being unleashed against our members, our public meetings and the canvassers of our press.

We do not minimize the extent to which anti-Communist prejudices have penetrated sections of the labor movement and the American people. But we also see that the American working class and people are resisting the unprecedented effort to stampede them into the surrender of their gains and rights in this atmosphere of anti-Communist hysteria. Our Party can take pride in the tireless work of our membership and leadership to arouse the working people in the fight to block these plans of reaction.

The appearance of Comrade Dennis before the House Un-American Committee in March, 1947, despite the Committee’s refusal to hear his testimony, did much to inspire the Party and arouse the people for action against the Sheppard-Rankin Bill.

The earlier testimony of Comrades William Z. Foster and Ben Davis before the Un-American Committee transformed the hearing into a counter-attack against the un-Americans. Comrade Davis appeared before the Committee again in February, 1948, to expose the trickery of the “registration” proposals through which the Thomas-Rankin group is seeking to outlaw the Party and nullify the Bill of Rights.

The Fight Against the Outlawing of Our Party

A high point of Party activity was reached in the Spring of 1947, at the time when the late Secretary of Labor Schwellenbach, proposed the outlawing of the Party. In answer to this attack our Party raised a fighting fund of $250,000 in less than 25 days. In fact, more than $1,000,000 was actually raised by the Districts. In the months of March and April the Party reached 10,000,000 Americans through numerous advertisements in national newspapers, including trade-union, Negro and national group papers, as well as the big metropolitan press and liberal weeklies.

At the same time, despite many refusals, the Party reached the radio audience through no broadcasts—most of them organized locally. Comrades Foster and Dennis spoke on national hook-ups, and recordings of their speeches were made available for re-broadcast in the Districts. Literally millions of leaflets were issued by clubs, sections, counties, and districts. As a result of this activity, broad sections of the people rallied to the Party’s defense, and numerous individuals and organizations issued public statements. The popular response to the Party’s call in defense of the Bill of Rights killed the Schwellenbach proposal and upset reaction’s time-table.

The Mundt-Nixon Bill, sponsored by the House un-Americans in 1948, had wider support in Congress, in Administration circles, and in various organizations. This offered a more serious threat to the democratic rights of our Party, to the labor movement, and other progressive organizations.

There were some people in trade-union and liberal circles who, overwhelmed with a sense of defeatism, felt that the fight was over and that “nothing could be done.” But the sounding of the alarm by our Party and its appeal to labor and to all democratic-minded Americans, irrespective of their stand on Communism, to enlist in an all-out fight to defeat the Mundt-Nixon Bill, evoked a wide response. This appeal, issued by Comrades Foster and Dennis, was sent to every international union and national people’s organization and was circulated locally to civic, fraternal, political, and religious groups. Despite the denial of press and radio to our Party’s statements, we were able to rally popular opposition which assumed wide proportions.

The appearance of Comrades Foster and Gates at the Senate Committee hearing resulted in the exposure of the true nature of the Bill through a brilliant defense of the position of our Party. The fight for radio time resulted in the Foster-Mundt debate which reached millions.

Our Party again appealed for a $500,000 fund to fight the Mundt Bill, and the membership responded, even though it had just carried through the Party-Press Fighting Fund Drive. This activity broke through the attempted conspiracy of silence. Local after local, as well as central trades councils, in the A. F. of L.; city C.I.O. bodies; Railroad Brotherhood unions; and many international unions, both A. F. of L. and C.I.O., came out in opposition to the Bill. Even William Green and Philip Murray sent private letters to the Committee protesting the unconstitutionality of the Bill. Church groups, such as Northern and Southern Baptists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, and even isolated Catholic voices, joined the anti-Mundt Bill fight. And Washington saw an inspiring demonstration of more than 6,000 representative men and women converge upon it to defend the Bill of Rights. The call of our clubs—“Every man at his post”—witnessed the greatest activity of our membership in many a year. As is known, at the regular session of Congress, the Mundt-Nixon Bill was buried in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Reaction’s time-table was again upset.

During this entire period, locally and nationally, the Party has been involved in numerous court cases requiring legal defense of the Party leaders and members. The case of Comrade Dennis, whose conviction for contempt of the Un-American Committee and one year jail sentence is now being appealed, presents a basic challenge to the constitutionality of the House Un-American Committee. The Party takes pride in the fact that Comrade Dennis, in defending his personal liberty and the democratic rights of the Party, also converted his case into a weapon for striking a blow against the national oppression of the Negro people. His firm stand that John Rankin sits in Congress in violation of the 14^th Amendment has won wide support among all sections of the Negro people.

A significant victory was won in the fight for release on bail of the five hunger strikers, held in Tom Clark’s Ellis Island concentration camp. The Party expresses special pride in the political initiative of Comrades John Williamson and Irving Potash, members of the outgoing National Board, and of the staunch German Communist leader, Gerhart Eisler.

The attacks on our Party have not ceased. Having failed so far, the enemy now resorts to new plots in its frenzy to outlaw the Communist Party. The “Special Grand Jury” which labored nearly a year and a half to prove a non-existent “foreign agent conspiracy” gave birth to the present monstrous frame-up indictments of the twelve members of the outgoing National Board. This is the most serious attempt yet to outlaw the Communist Party. Should the enemy succeed in this frame-up, it will mean more than the imprisonment of the members of the National Board. For, involved in this indictment is the democratic right to membership in, and the legal existence of, the Communist Party. With every ounce of energy we must guarantee that the monopolists shall not have their way.

Our Party has shown a capacity to fight relentlessly and has proved that it can defend the rights of the American workers and people. However, we should note and correct certain shortcomings in our defense work up to now.

It was correct to guard against submerging the Party in defense work. It was not correct to neglect, as was the case at times, the defense of the Party and to fail to give this defense a mass character. Thus, for example, the successful mass struggle around the hunger strike must be contrasted to the failure of the Party to develop a sustained mass campaign in the Dennis and ’Josephson cases, or around the deportation cases involving numerous other members.

It was correct to call for the defense of the democratic rights of Communists on the broad issue of civil liberties; but it was not correct to gloss over, as was sometimes done, the vanguard role of the Party and to fail to explain to the masses why our Party is a special target for reaction in its drive toward war and fascism. We must convince the American people that it is precisely the Communists who must be defended—because the Communists are the best fighters for the immediate interests of the workers and all the common people, precisely because we are the Party of socialism.

It is correct to put up the best legal defense of the Party and its leadership. But it is also necessary to combat legalistic illusions which still exist. We must never allow legal defense to become a substitute for mass activity.

The Need of a Policy of Industrial Concentration

In spite of many hardships and difficulties since the Emergency Convention, we were able to make some important advances in the strengthening and building of our Party.

Under Browder the entire Party was organized primarily in 800 community clubs. Now we have approximately 3,000 clubs. In addition to 1,700 community clubs we have 309 shop, 425 industrial clubs as well as 200 professional and 200 student and youth clubs.

Our Party has 300 sections organized in 32 districts, 8 of which are new. The Party is organized in 600 cities, towns, and rural communities. During the three-year period since the Emergency Convention, our Party has grown from a membership of 52,824 to over 60,000. We now have a Party in seven Southern states. Of all the Party Districts, New York, California and Connecticut have shown the most consistent growth.

We all realize that this growth is inadequate. Not only inadequate in general, but above all in the light of the big tasks and responsibilities that our Party faces. This is why we have to examine critically all our work, determine what are the weaknesses and how to overcome them. Central to this task is the thorough examination of the results of our industrial concentration policy in order to draw the necessary lessons from this phase of our work. In this connection we can make the following section of the Main Resolution the starting point for this analysis.

For the American working class to advance to leadership of the developing people’s democratic coalition, and for the coalition itself to become a power for victory, there must be a growing and influential Communist Party.

Only a Communist Party of mass strength and influence, and functioning as an organized and inseparable part of the people’s coalition, can effectively promote the struggle for working-class leadership in the nation. Without such a Communist Party, this struggle cannot be won. In the course of daily and resolute struggle for working-class leadership in the progressive movements of the American people for peace and progress, for the defense of their vital interests, a mass Communist Party of great strength and influence must and will become a reality in the United States.

We must build our Party along these lines—politically, ideologically, and organizationally. It must be built daily in the realization of the Party’s vanguard role in the working class and among the people as a whole. It must be built, in the first place, among the basic industrial workers by a consistent, unflagging policy of concentration. The Party must be built in the struggle for its Marxist-Leninist principles and policies.

In examining the composition of our Party, the following factors must be noted: In the last three years, the industrial composition of our Party has increased only slightly. At present 51 percent of our members are industrial workers, and of these, 11 percent are at present unemployed.

At the same time, our trade-union membership in the last three years shows a decline from 46 percent to 44 percent; 28 percent belong to various C.I.O. unions; 13 1/2 percent are in the A.F. of L. and 24 percent in independent unions. Approximately 7 percent of our industrial workers are not members of any unions.

We get the following picture insofar as the basic industries are concerned: Of our employed membership, 18 1/2 percent are to be found in basic industry. Over the past three years the numerical growth of our Party in basic industry has shown no fundamental change. In the main our Party membership has remained static in such industries as steel, auto, rubber, and maritime. In some industries we have shown a slight growth, even though in some case it is unstable, as in electrical, coal mining, packing, longshore, and the building trades. In certain industries we have suffered a serious loss. In some cases this was due to a decline in production, as in shipbuilding. However, this was not the reason for the decline in the railroad and textile industries.

We must take note at this Convention that in the main industrial concentration states, with the exception of Ohio, we show a decline in membership. This is true of Illinois, Michigan, and Western Pennsylvania.

The mere presentation of this brief picture poses two questions: What is the cause of this situation, and how shall we proceed quickly to overcome it? To avoid repetition, we shall try to answer both questions simultaneously.

The central task before the Party is the fight for shifting the main base of our Party to the working class. This cannot be done unless we turn the face of the entire Party to the workers in the factories. There is already a new awareness in our entire Party of this urgent task. Every single state convention, and scores of comrades in the pre-Convention discussion, have given major attention to this question. We must transform this new awareness into deeds.

How to Apply the Concentration Policy

What is the essence of a concentration policy?

First of all, it requires a fundamental understanding of the role of the workers in the basic industries, in relation to the working class and the life of the country as a whole. It is precisely these workers employed in the huge plants by the tens of thousands who, as Lenin pointed out, become educated to understand the need for unity, collective action and solidarity by the very process of large-scale production itself. One cannot conceive of successfully building the Progressive Party, of organizing an effective fight against the Draft, or in defense of civil liberties, a successful fight against war and fascism, unless this section of the working class is fully mobilized. And, of course, one cannot speak of winning the American workers for Socialism without winning the majority of this section of the working class. It is necessary to permeate the entire Party with this consciousness.

Secondly, such a policy requires the selection of the points of concentration where a base must be secured, if we are to set in motion the entire labor movement. This means knowing which districts must be given major national attention, which industries are key and what plants are decisive. Concretely, while we must strengthen our base in all industrial states, we must above all shift our main emphasis to such states as Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan and to Western Pennsylvania. While we must strengthen the Party in all basic industries, we must particularly select for major concentration such industries as steel, auto, mining, maritime, electrical and railroad. Within these industries we must pursue a policy of concentration in key industrial towns and key plants and departments—with special consideration to the most underpaid sections of the workers, the unskilled and semiskilled. In some districts additional industries may be selected, as for instance textile in the South and New England; in Ohio rubber, in addition to steel and mining, etc.

Thirdly, the full mobilization of the Party is required to achieve the objectives of our concentration policy. Concretely, this means that all Party clubs must have a share in the responsibility for work at the concentration points. Communists in the mass organizations, trade unions, etc., should try to convince these organizations similarly to pursue a concentration policy.

Fourthly, beginning with the national and state leaderships, the entire Party must be involved in planning, guiding, and assuming systematic control and check-up of concentration objectives. All political and organizational problems must be discussed and reviewed from the standpoint of how to realize them in concentration industries. Systematic discussion of the problems in concentration industries must be organized in the top political bodies of the Party. Our leadership must be unsparing in the allocation of capable forces, finances, literature, and other material assistance.

Have we said some of these things before? We have. In fact, at our Emergency Convention three years ago the need for applying a consistent concentration policy was placed as a central objective. Why is it that we did not realize all of the objectives set for ourselves nationally and in the states?

It is not due to the fact that we did not select the key states, industries, shops and towns. In fact, some of our most capable comrades were assigned to these key districts, national coordinators were assigned to key industries, and many leading returned veterans were sent into a number of industrial towns.

We must frankly say that the failure to secure adequate results in our concentration work in the last three years is due, in the main, to an underestimation in practice of the vanguard role of the Party. In practice we concerned ourselves much more with specific policy and tactical questions of the unions, of relationship to top bodies, rather than to questions of building a base below to insure correct policies and tactics. What was incorrect? The separation of the building of the Party from the solution of questions of policy! What must not be forgotten is that it is not enough to have a correct policy in the industries, but in addition the organized strength of the Party must be thrown into the key points of concentration. From now on a drastic change must be made. Questions of policy and tactical line must always be related to the forces required to carry out the policy. This will demand a systematic and constant political check-up of our strength in the concentration areas: first, by the political bodies of the Party; and, secondly, through greater coordination of all departments and, most important, a fusion of the work of trade-union and organizational personnel.

The realization of the objectives of our concentration policy demands:

1. Developing and testing in life a correct policy for each industry.

2. Developing the united front from below to insure the carrying through of such a policy.

3. Drawing constant lessons from the experiences of the workers in the course of their struggles, thus helping to develop their class consciousness.

4. Systematically building the Party, by bringing into its ranks the most militant and advanced workers.

In the period immediately after this Convention the national and state leadership of our Party must work out the specific tasks of concentration which are to be carried out between now and the end of the year, and which should be checked at regular intervals by leading political bodies—a procedure which must be regularized and made a permanent feature of our work. Among these tasks, in addition to those mentioned, should be the following:

1. To review and allocate additional forces to provide leadership to work in the concentration industries.

2. To convince a selected number of comrades now employed in light industries, and from among white-collar and professional workers, veterans, and students—men and women—to secure work in basic industry.

3. To seek to influence key national groups, whose members are employed in concentration points, to direct their main emphasis to these industries.

4. To ensure the more effective utilization of the Daily Worker and the Worker in the concentration industries. In this connection, we must guarantee that the Daily Worker and the Worker secure and print material reflecting problems in these industries, and that the most consistent effort be made to .increase their circulation.

5. To improve the mass propaganda work of the Party in these industries through the medium of leaflets, pamphlets, and shop gate meetings. Especially important is the use of our numerous pamphlets for mass sale and distribution.

6. To institute a consistent policy of training and developing forces at the concentration points through political discussions, lectures, study groups, and schools.

The Party Club and Concentration

If we are to achieve these objectives, our attention has to be turned first of all to the Party clubs, and particularly to the shop and industrial clubs.

These clubs constitute the link between the Party and the basic industrial workers. It is through them that we shall be able to mobilize the workers to resist the drive of monopoly capitalism against their living standards and their trade unions, to resist the drive toward war and fascism. This means that a correct policy of concentration requires that the entire leadership concern itself with the problem of improving qualitatively the work of the shop and industrial clubs in general, and of the individual members in particular.

If these clubs are to be able to play their rightful role, the entire level of our theoretical and political work has to be raised. If these clubs are to reflect in the shops and industries the vanguard role of the Party, we must assist them to become the policy-making bodies within the shops and industries, firmly grounded in the knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. It is only in the struggle to realize such an objective that the clubs and individual members will be able to play the leading role in the development of the united front on a de­partmental, shop and industry level. Through such methods these clubs will be able to work with, and give leadership to, broad sections o£ the workers in the struggle for the defense of their economic needs and to spur the workers to independent political action and class consciousness. More and more workers will thus come to realize the class nature and role of the state, the crisis in the two-party system, the harmful role of Social-Democracy and the reformist trade-union bureaucrats, the need for becoming fully involved in the development of the Progressive Party, etc.

Our Party must take full advantage of every opportunity in the day-to-day struggles to champion and advance the fundamental interests of our class, thus demonstrating that:

“The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement.”[1]

Current developments in the labor movement indicate the readiness of the workers for political as well as economic struggle. For example, there is the recent gathering of 500 activists, including presidents and members of Executive Boards of UA.W. locals, which endorsed Wallace and the Progressive Party. Despite the position of the John L. Lewis leadership, important groups of the miners are rallying to Wallace. In the steel industry significant changes are already taking place as the steel workers help to put the new party on the ballot. In Gary, thousands of steel workers turned out to hear Wallace.

Our Party must help to develop further this new initiative, and boldly promote united struggles to speed all positive developments which can bring about a new relationship of forces among the workers; we must build our Party as a force that can help bring about this change in the shortest time.

While we must struggle for this Marxist-Leninist concept of the role of the Party shop club, unfortunately only 25 percent of our industrial members are in shop and industrial clubs. While we have successfully established shop clubs in many of the large plants, there are still too many decisive plants where we have no shop clubs. Even in some of the large plants where we have established shop clubs, we find that in some of the key departments we are still isolated from the workers. The industrial clubs, which were established in most places to serve as a form of organization transitional to the establishment of shop clubs, have instead become a frozen form of organization. There is a reluctance in too many places to release comrades who are now attached to community clubs, but who rightfully belong in shop branches, the argument being given that this would weaken the community club. While we appreci­ate the needs of, and the problems faced by, our community clubs, once our basic concentration policy becomes clear; we should overcome all hesitations to shifting every comrade who should be in it to a shop club. At the same time, we must find the methods whereby the comrades in the shop clubs can play an important role in the struggles of the communities in which they live.

Unfortunately, due to unclarity on the role of the shop clubs and inadequate attention to them, we find that many have a tendency to concern themselves almost exclusively with trade union questions—and this, on a trade-union level—failing to grasp their role of vanguard political organization. Under such conditions, harmful tendencies develop; expressed in a reliance on the spontaneity of the workers, a failure to promote the class consciousness of the workers, and an inadequate building of our press. All this results in a situation in which our Party in many instances tail-ends behind the workers.

An Example of Correct Work

Let me give an example of the correct work of an individual Communist and his club, whose very fruitful experiences are worthy of study by this Convention:

I want to relate the experiences of Nick Migas, a steel worker from Indiana Harbor, a member of the National Committee of our Party.

Nick works in a plant employing 10,000 workers. Because of his role and leadership in the fight for the defense of the workers’ needs in his department, he was elected as the Department Grievance Committeeman, in spite of the most vicious Red-baiting threats, and intimidation by the leadership of this Right-wing union.

Comrade Nick accepted the challenge in true Communist fashion. He attends his Party club meetings, he discusses his problems at the club meetings, and the entire club works out collectively how he and other members can conduct a more effective struggle in the interests of the workers. Through his effort, together with that of other progressives in his local union, and despite many obstacles and difficulties, thirteen out of fifteen progressives, including Nick, were elected to the local’s Executive Committee. Nick and other progressives while defending the economic interests of the workers, helped also to create a Wallace Committee which hundreds of workers from the plant joined.

During the recent round of wage struggles the international leadership of the steelworkers’ union said that it was impossible to obtain wage increases in 1948. But Nick Migas, by applying a correct policy of the united front from below, raised this issue in his local and was elected with other progressives to his international union convention. You all know what happened at that convention and of the brave and honorable role that Nick played. After the convention, the workers in basic steel were granted wage increases. In all modesty we can say that Nick and his colleagues played no small role in winning an increase in wages of $450,000 a day for the workers in basic steel. This means an annual increase of $135,000,000. No wonder that the big trusts hate the Communists! Just imagine what it would mean for the American working class and our Party if in one hundred key plants in the country, we could train our shop clubs and individual members to become Nick Migases. This can be done! It must be done! Therefore, we must undertake in all seriousness to strengthen existing shop clubs and build new ones in the light of this example. There are undoubtedly other examples, and I hope that the comrades will relate them in the discussion.

The Community Club

I am sure that our entire Party will greet this emphasis on developing a concentration policy for the building up of our shop and industrial clubs. This in no way detracts from the urgent need to strengthen and build our community clubs. The objectives we set in concentration can be realized only if we successfully assist the community clubs in orienting their work toward the shops. The vital role of the community clubs is not lessened but becomes of even greater importance in the light of the industrial concentration approach we are attempting to establish.

We have innumerable examples of the splendid mass work of our clubs in developing struggles around such issues as high prices and rents, Negro discrimination, in defense of Israel, to repeal the draft, and a score of other local and national issues. These clubs in the main have been the builders of our press and distributors of our literature. These types of activity must be strengthened in every way. But now it must be pointed in the first place to the big shops and working-class communities. The example of these clubs could be multiplied manifold. Other comrades will give other examples. But what is missing is the fact that such splendid activity is not directed toward united action with workers in the plants and shops. The fight to solve this problem is the fight for a policy of working-class leadership of the entire people.

From the point of view of improving the content and quality of our concentration work, the group system deserves major attention. The groups must become a basic link in our work among the masses. The groups provide a medium which not only gives us greater mobility but a form through which we can give greater attention to the individual problems of our members—their education and personal development, their adjustment to Party life, so that they may grow as Communists and enhance their contribution. Sometimes we overlook the shy and retiring members and take little interest in their personal problems—and the result is that many become inactive. The group, in addition to its educational and political mass work, must become the creator of warmth, understanding, and comradeship among our members. Such an approach will help increase attendance and establish closer ties with our members, increase dues payments, increase the circulation of the Daily Worker and the Worker, bring higher sales of our literature, and involve more of our members in Party activities.

What Kind of Party are we Building?

In the coming days we shall witness an increase in the enemy attacks against our Party, but we shall also witness an ascending wave of mass struggles. Our Party must take all the necessary steps to strengthen itself speedily in order to be able to help lead these struggles. We should therefore, while taking a realistic view of the situation, act with the firm conviction that we can win this fight.

Some comrades conclude that under conditions of monopoly’s offensive and the defensive battles of the working class “we must retrench” and “wait for more favorable times” for Party building, or that “we need to limit the Party membership to the most militant activists within the vanguard Party.” In the light of the tasks facing us as Communists, can we accept this “theory”? Obviously not! Those who advance this “theory” fail to see that the “more favorable times” of tomorrow are being determined, and can be determined only by what we do in today’s struggles. In a period of reactionary offensive, favorable opportunities cannot be created by a “wait and see” policy, by “retrenchment” or by “limiting the Party membership to the most militant activists.”

The concept of “retrenchment” is not a line of struggle; it is a retreat. This concept flows from a one-sided estimate of the situation in the country. Comrades who defend such concepts fail to see the emerging struggles and the militant cadres they will bring to the fore. The place of many of these cadres should be in the Communist Party. Our day-to-day struggles must be designed to reach and win them and the Leftward moving masses.

Their one-sided estimate of the situation leads these comrades to overestimate the strength of the enemy and underestimate the fighting moods of the masses, as well as the ability of our Party to influence the course of the developing struggles. This “theory” denies the vanguard role of our Party and is in essence a form of liquidationism. The present offensive of monopoly is not an argument against, but an argument for building the Communist Party. We must reject all counsels of retreat and retrenchment.

Other comrades conclude that the best way to meet reaction’s offensive is by submerging the Party in the mass movement. In practice this concept would lead to a state of affairs in which the Party becomes identical with the trade union or mass organization. These comrades see the need for work among the masses, but they do not clearly see the need for the vanguard Party of the working class. In reverse form they express a certain timidity and a fear of the masses. Moreover, their conception tends to create a tailist policy, and not a policy of leadership which aims to instill class consciousness, pride in, and direction to, the working-class and people’s movement. Instead of following a conscious and consistent policy of leadership, these comrades tend to rely on spontaneity. Here again we have an overestimation of the strength of the enemy and an underestimation of the ability of the masses to fight back effectively under the leadership of the Party. This conception likewise denies the vanguard role of the Party.

Nor is the problem resolved by establishing two types of Communists—one doing “mass” work and submerging the Party among the masses, and the other doing “Communist” work and moving independently of the masses. This division is fundamentally wrong and solves nothing. This combination of Leftist-sectarianism and Right opportunism stands in opposition to the Marxist-Leninist principle of Party organization. Comrades given to such thinking fail to see that the starting point of all Communist work is mass work that the Party can be built only through such activity.

Nor will the “go it alone” “theory,” which draws sectarian conclusions from the independent role of the Party, solve anything. Clearly, strengthening the Party to play its vanguard role in the working-class and people’s movement requires a clear understanding of what we mean by its vanguard role. The vanguard Party is not separated, from the masses. It is integrally linked with them, leading and helping them to move forward. We ourselves have the task of making clear to the masses our Party’s oneness with them. We must show them that the Party is the most advanced section of the most progressive and advanced class. We cannot convince the people of our vanguard role just by talking about it. We can convince them only by helping to increase the fighting capacity of the people at all levels of struggle. This we can do only by increasing our own fighting capacity, and by improving the quality of leadership we give to the mass movement on the basis of our scientific understanding. Our task is to grasp all opportunities to help build the united front of struggle in the shops, in the working-class neighborhoods, to build the Progressive Party and every democratic movement, and thus to fight to build our Party as the indispensable instrument for beating back the offensive of reaction, fascism and war.

In the further building of our Party, we must also pay considerable attention to the need of substantially lowering the age level of the Party by recruiting large numbers of young people. Here it is worth noting that in the past several years we have made some progress in this direction. We have more than doubled our membership among World War II veterans. We have established a foothold among students on 95 campuses. We have recruited young people generally through the existing youth clubs. But we cannot be satisfied with these results. In fact, we must state that we are seriously lagging on this front.

There is a great stirring among the youth, who are the first to be hit by Wall Street’s drive toward war and fascism. Reaction is leaving no stone unturned to win the youth for its reactionary program. There are numerous instances indicating that reactionary forces have been able to misdirect the youth (as, for instance, in some unions, in inspiring hoodlum acts, etc.), because of the absence of decisive leadership in the fight for the youth. Hence, our Party must not only considerably intensify its activity among the youth, particularly among the young workers in industry and among the youth in the Negro communities, but we must place as a central task the recruiting of substantial numbers of young Americans into our ranks in the coming months.

Our Party in the Struggle for Negro Rights

In challenging monopoly oppression, the working class finds a powerful ally in the Negro people who, by the very nature of their position in American life, are rallying to the banners of the struggle against Wall Street. Success in the struggle against monopoly requires the forging of the alliance of labor and the Negro people, the building of the Negro people’s unity and the building of our Party, the consistent champion of the Negro people’s struggle. For without our Party such an alliance cannot grow and permanently exist. In this connection, we should take note of the following passage from the Draft Resolution:

“The intensified attacks upon the Negro people demonstrate clearly the growth of imperialist reaction and national oppression in the United States. The Negro people are experiencing the most extreme, the most brutal manifestations of the growing fascist danger, especially in the South.”

It would be a most fatal error on the part of labor if it failed to see that this attack is an attempt to tear asunder the growing alliance of the workers and the Negro people, and thus to destroy the labor movement itself. Participation in the fight for the equal rights of the Negro people is an indispensable duty for the American working class, and essential to the maintenance and extension of democracy. Hence the necessity for unfolding an energetic struggle for the equal rights of the Negro people; for the outlawing of Jim Crow and the passage of the anti-lynching and anti-poll tax legislation for the abolition of all forms of discrimination against the Negro people in army and civilian life; for democratic agrarian reforms in the South, satisfying the needs of the Negro people for land, freedom, and equality; for the right to self-determination of the Negro people in the Black Belt.

The Draft Resolution calls upon the Party to make the demand for full economic, political and social equality, a demand which corresponds to the class interests of the workers, a demand which should become the battle cry of the entire labor movement.

Thus, our Party must keep in view the aim of making a radical turn in the direction of unleashing the full potential of the Negro liberation movement and building our Party as the proven leader of the Negro workers and the Negro people. This is an undertaking that we accept with honor.

Our Party since the Emergency Convention has conducted many significant struggles for Negro rights: anti-lynch, anti-poll tax, for F.E.P.C. legislation, against restrictive covenants, against discrimination in the armed services, in defense of the Ingrams, etc. Nevertheless, these struggles have developed unevenly, and in many cases sporadically.

The basic weakness in the fight for the rights of the Negro people is the failure to tackle the basic problem of which the other issues are but a reflection. I have in mind the fight on the job against discriminatory firings and layoffs of Negro workers, against the refusal of many companies, including many in the basic industries, to hire Negro workers; and against the refusal of many plants to upgrade Negro workers, and of unions to promote them as shop stewards, committeemen and leaders. Only here and there can we record notable exceptions.

While we re-established our Party in the South, we do not yet have an operative policy of attacking the very basis of Negro oppression on the land. What does this mean? It means that while we must continue to strengthen and further develop in every way the struggles already begun, we must likewise direct our attention to the solution of the fundamental economic and social problems which will give basic substance to the fight of our class, and real equality to the Negro people.

The failure of the labor movement to conduct a consistent struggle for the vital interests of the Negro people is due to the fact that it still lacks an understanding of the Negro question. This means at the same time that, in failing to forge an effective labor-Negro alliance, the working class is failing to defend its own class interests. In such a situation, enormous obligations are placed upon the working-class vanguard.

The Negro workers in the trade-union movement are in revolt against the Social-Democratic do-nothing policy on the issue of job inequality. But the majority of the white workers, due to the influence of bourgeois ideology in the labor movement, have not yet come forward in solidarity with the Negro workers on this vital issue. In many cases, even among progressives in the trade unions, there is a negative approach to this burning issue of Negro job inequality. The result is that the white workers are not helped to understand what this revolt means to labor as a whole. Neither are the Negro workers helped to appreciate more fully the need for class solidarity.

Meanwhile, the bourgeoisie asserts itself as never before, trying to head off class solidarity and win the Negro workers to its banners. The monopolists make full use of Social-Democratic labor leaders, as well as of some Negro leaders who spread the slogan: “Neither Jim Crow nor Communism.” Left-progressive unionists will unwittingly help those who seek to weaken and undermine the unions, unless they overcome existing weaknesses in their fight for full equality.

It is important for us to understand that, as the offensive of the monopolists increases against labor, the class-collaborationist moves away from the defense of labor’s interests in general and those of the Negro workers in particular.

The problem of discrimination against Negro people in the basic industries is not limited to Negro industrial workers. One of the worst forms of discrimination is to be found in the general offices. The general offices of the steel, auto, mining, maritime, electrical, railroad, public utilities and a host of other trusts, refuse to hire Negro men and women. These offices remain “lily white.” Clearly, we cannot ignore this situation any longer. It is another example of the attempt to split the working class from the Negro people and create divisions also within the Negro people themselves.

We must recognize the fact that weaknesses on this front of struggle are due to the existence of white chauvinism, expressed in policy and practice. The phrase, “We’re all equal,” equates formalistically the problems of Negro workers with those of all exploited and oppressed. Supporting F.E.P.C. by resolution alone is a means of avoiding the concrete fight against inequality in the departments, shops and plants. This we all know. The failure effectively to combat this kind of hidden white chauvinism, expresses a lack of faith in the white workers. The white workers will rally, if convinced that their own interests are at stake in the fight for Negro rights.

The Party must unfold an energetic struggle against white chauvinism, not only in the realm of ideology, but also in a practical fight for equality on every level. The result will be that greater numbers of white workers will enlist in the fight and Negro workers will become more active participants and builders of the union. In addition, they will become a leading force in the Negro communities, and our Party will grow more rapidly among Negro and white workers.

I do not propose to deal with the problems of the South, since they will be dealt with in a special report before this Convention. I want, however, to deal briefly with several problems of the Negro community itself.

The Negro communities are highly organized and progressive and have, in the last decade or so, always been found in their majority in the progressive column on all the basic issues. However, one of the major weaknesses from which the Negro communities still suffer is to be found in the totally inadequate position of leadership that the Negro workers have won and assumed within the Negro community. Until basic progress is made in this respect, the Negro community cannot play its full role in the struggle for the interests of the Negro people and within the general people’s coalition for peace, democracy, and progress. But progress in the solution of this question is to a large degree dependent on the unfolding of the struggle for full and equal rights of the Negro workers in each factory, in each industry, and in each trade union. Thus, the fight by our Party forces, and by the progressive forces in general within the labor movement, for equality for the Negro workers is the key to the solution of almost all questions within the Negro community.

Undoubtedly, our Party generally enjoys greater influence and support among the Negro people than among any other group. This has been shown on innumerable occasions when the Negro workers rallied to the support, not only of Negro Communist leaders but of our Party as a whole. But it is also true that there exists a very wide gap between this general support and influence and the numerical growth and stability of our Party in the Negro community. Why is this so? To answer this question we must take note of some of the basic weaknesses in the work of our Party, which contribute to this situation.

In the first place, we quite often raise slogans and develop movements on such issues as the fight against high prices, for rent control, more adequate recreational, health and hospital facilities, against police brutality, and against discrimination and inequality in whatever forms they are expressed. The Negro people readily join with us in this fight. But it is also true that we do not always carry on a consistent and sustained fight on these issues and that we allow various reformist and Social-Democratic groups to take advantage of this inconsistency and thus take over leadership of such movements. Such a situation is also made possible by the fact that we do not always expose those petty-bourgeois and reformist leaders who are out to mislead and behead the Negro people’s movement and because we do not give sufficient attention to showing the Negro people in practice, through struggle and through consistent education, the difference between a reformist class-collaboration policy and a policy of struggle. In a certain sense it might almost be said that, because of the readiness of the Negro people to struggle and the ease with which they can be led into struggle, we often, instead of utilizing these very positive factors, tend to rely on spontaneity and thus tend to lag behind the masses. Here again, the assumption by the Negro workers of leadership in the Negro community is essential to overcome this weakness and to guarantee a consistent and persistent development of the struggle.

Finally, we must say that any weakening of the fight against white-chauvinist tendencies within the ranks of the Party, whether manifested in the Negro community, in the Party as a whole, or in the labor and people’s movement generally, is one of the greatest obstacles to the steady, advancement and consolidation of the Negro people’s movement within the Negro community and to the building of our Party into a mass Party in the Negro community. The very influence and respect that the Party has won among the Negro people makes them most sensitive to any failures on our part. They rightly demand of us more than of anyone else. They use a different yardstick in measuring us than in measuring anyone else.

By fighting for equal rights for the Negro workers within the labor movement, by a consistent policy of struggle for the rights of the Negro people in the community, by advancing resolutely the leadership of the Negro workers in the Negro community, by an effective exposure of the reformist and Social-Democratic misleaders, by an uncompromising struggle against every manifestation of white chauvinism, our Party can quickly overcome the gap between its general influence and its organizational weaknesses and establish itself as a major force among the Negro people.

For a Consistent Cadre Policy

We Communists are fully conscious of our tasks; and, in all modesty recognize that on us devolves the political leadership to the working class for shaping the future of our country. Our Party needs men and women from the ranks of the working class capable of accomplishing great tasks. For, as Stalin says: “Once the political line has been established, cadres decide everything.” To reach our objectives, we need to develop a consistent cadre policy. This means, not only the training and development of cadres as full-time functionaries, but, in the first place, a wide corps of non-full time activists with daily ties among the masses in the shops and working-class communities. Such a Communist cadre policy should strive to develop workers with indigenous ties, whether in the shop, plant, community, or mass organizations. This guide applies to clubs, sections and counties, as well as to the districts. In the present political situation, the qualities of our cadres will in great part decide the issue of the struggle. An undertaking of such importance cannot be solved by any particular department. It must become the task of the entire Party.

The essence of a correct cadre policy is the training and development of men and women who have faith and confidence in their class, have love for, and pride in, their class; are militant fighters, enjoying the confidence of the workers and our membership, and unreservedly accept the policies and principles of our Marxist-Leninist program.

They must be men and women who are not only known inside the Party but who have live contact with non-Party masses. They must be men and women who, having fullest confidence in our Party’s policies, fight for their realization among the masses in general and the workers in particular.

What kind of cadres does the vanguard party need and how should we select cadres? Comrade Dimitrov gives the answer in his celebrated report to the Seventh World Congress of the Communist International, in 1935:

“First, absolute devotion to the cause of the working class, loyalty to the Party, tested in face of the enemy—in battle, in prison, in court.

“Second, the closest possible contact with the masses. The comrades concerned must be wholly absorbed in the interests of the masses, feel the life pulse of the masses, know their sentiments and requirements. The prestige of the leaders of our Party organization should be based, first of all, on the fact that the masses regard them as their leaders and are convinced through their own experience of their ability as leaders, and of their determination and self-sacrifice in struggle.

“Third, ability independently to find one’s bearings and not to be afraid of assuming responsibility in making decisions. He who fears to take responsibility is not a leader. He who is unable to display initiative, who says: ‘I will do only what I am told,’ is not a Bolshevik. Only he is a real Bolshevik leader who does not lose his head at moments of defeat, who does not get a swelled head at moments of success, who displays indomitable firmness in carrying out decisions. Cadres develop and grow best when they are placed in the position of having to solve concrete problems of the struggle independently and are aware that they are fully responsible for their decisions.

“Fourth, discipline and Bolshevik hardening in the struggle against the class enemy as well as in their irreconcilable opposition to all deviations from the Bolshevik line.”[2]

As can be seen, the ability to speak well and write well, while important elements in the struggle, are not the main criteria for the selection and bold promotion of working-class cadres in the Communist Party.

In fighting for such a cadre policy, our Party, in working out the solution to this decisive question, must take into account the fact that our cadres entered the Party at different periods—some, during the unemployed struggles; others, during the period of the democratic front; many, during the revisionist period; while many are joining today. In many cases the imprint of the period in which they joined remains with them. What does this mean? This means that our cadre policy must be designed to educate and re-educate our membership to understand the policies of our Party in the past, its history, but really to master our present-day policies and tactics.

On the other hand, the fight for a correct cadre policy also means that we take into account the fact that a few comrades who were outstanding Party leaders in the past now feel that the intensity of the struggle is too great, that they can take a back seat. There are a few who strive to move away from their proletarian base and origin and seek satisfaction in business outlets. There are some who balk at leaving the “comfort” of the big metropolitan cities for work among the masses in other industrial towns. There are some who have lost perspective under conditions of monopoly’s offensive, lack faith in the working class and consequently in the ability of the Party to rally the masses for a successful struggle. There are a few comrades in this category who also sit on the side lines. They are waiting for the leadership to make mistakes. They do not contribute to the struggle. But in all such cases history passes such comrades by. Is it not clear that such comrades cannot inspire confidence among the masses? Is it not clear that these comrades must either change their outlook or become sympathizers of the working-class struggles? It is equally clear that what the working class needs is more than sympathizers in those to whom it has a right to look for leadership. To the extent that our Party tackles this question, to that extent will it more rapidly embrace in its ranks such militant Communist leaders. This approach will enable us to put up an effective fight for the political line of our Party.

We must know our people, their qualities, difficulties and weaknesses, attitudes and tastes. Such knowledge will come from the course of the struggle itself; for struggles form and mold cadres. Schools and classes, which are also a form of struggle for cadres, constitute a basic auxiliary to the realization of the full potential of every individual. I repeat, we must pursue a bold policy of promotion of leading and active workers in every phase of activity.

We must be ever vigilant to the attempts of the class enemy to penetrate our ranks. This requires opening up a constant and consistent struggle against enemy influences and practices. In one district a stoolpigeon was a member of the District Committee for several years and was discovered only by accident. Is it not worth pondering over the question that too few of the enemy elements have been exposed in recent years?

Our Party has made the beginnings since the Emergency Convention in raising the theoretical level of the membership—through schools and classes, lectures and study circles, and an increase in the publication of the classics of our movement. Comrade Foster is leading the fight on this front. But what has been done is far from adequate in the light of the tasks we face. Thus, the all-around improvement of all our theoretical work is indispensable in the training and development of cadres. The importance of this entire question can be fully appreciated if we look at the composition of our leadership in the districts, counties and sections. The weaknesses that exist in terms of boldly promoting workers to operative leadership are due in the main to the fact that we are not fully conscious in our everyday work of the imperative need of tackling this problem. There exists in too many places a certain lack of patience in developing workers who are not so articulate. We promote them only when they are the full-fledged, finished product. This is obviously wrong. Our Party, to realize its aims, needs forces for basic industrial towns. America is a big country—and between Chicago and California there exists practically virgin territory for our Party’s work. We must build our Party here.

But in the quest for forces to solve this problem, the answer is often given that we have no forces. To this I give the reply of Lenin who in a similar situation replied:

“There are plenty of people, and yet we are short of people—this contradictory formula has long defined the contradictions in the organizational life and organizational requirements of Social-Democracy. And now this contradiction stands out with particular force; from all sides we often hear passionate appeals for new forces, complaints of the shortage of people in the organizations, and equally often and everywhere we have enormous offers of service, a growth of young forces, particularly in the working class. The practical organizer who complains of a shortage of people under such circumstances becomes the victim of the illusion from which Madame Roland suffered, during the period of the highest stage of development of the Great French Revolution, when she said in 1793: there are no men in France, we are surrounded by pigmies. Those who talk like this fail to see the wood for the trees; they confess that they are blinded by events; that it is not they, the revolutionaries, who control events in mind and activity, but that events control them and have overwhelmed them. Such organizers had better retire and leave the field clear for younger forces whose zeal may often compensate for lack of experience.”

There is no doubt that we will tackle this problem in the spirit that is required. Our Party is capable of accomplishing great things. We can do this because our Party’s policies are based on the science of Marxism-Leninism. Our Party will accomplish its objectives because in the fight to realize its line among the masses it will develop as a system in its work the Bolshevik weapon of criticism and self-criticism. And if we are able to lay bare our major weaknesses for discussion, it is due to the fact that we have every confidence that we can overcome them and strengthen every positive aspect in our Party’s work. The weapon of criticism and self-criticism is the sign of strength of a growing and maturing Communist Party under conditions of the sharpening monopoly offensive. We can look back with pride to our Emergency Convention’s action in rejecting Browder’s revisionism, which action restored to the Party at the same time the Leninist concept of democratic centralism. This Leninist principle of democratic centralism combines two concepts, which enables us to verify our policies and tactics among the masses and to strengthen the authority of Party leadership which resolutely defends the interests of the working class.

It was the application of this principle which enabled our Party to cleanse itself of such anti-Party and anti-working class elements as Browder, Darcy, Harrison George, Dunne, Vern Smith, and Franklin. The continued and energetic application of the principle is indispensable to a Communist Party fighting resolutely against bourgeois influences and practices which are alien to the spirit of working-class struggles. But to achieve this means to root out all petty-bourgeois concepts regarding Party democracy. We should once again return to the classics and refresh our understanding of democratic centralism, its need in the creation of a unified, monolithic Party which is so vital to our class today.

I should like to conclude with the closing section of the Draft Resolution:

“We live in stirring times, fraught with the most terrible dangers, but pregnant with unprecedented opportunities to advance toward the realization of mankind’s highest aspirations.

“As the vanguard Party of the American working class, we Communists have a heavy responsibility to our own people and to all the peace-loving peoples of the world.

“Only if our Party fulfills its vanguard obligations will the American working class succeed in leading the American people’s struggle to repel the dangers of war and fascism, and realize the objectives of peace, democracy, and social progress.

“We have confidence that our Communist Party will build itself, bigger and stronger, to measure up to the needs of our class and our country. We have confidence that the very fury of the coming storms will convince the best of the American workers to struggle with us, in our ranks.

“We will fight unflinchingly for the legality and constitutional rights of our Party. We do not shrink from the hammer blows of reaction. Under them we will steel our Party in Communist discipline, loyalty, and unity, develop its Marxist-Leninist understanding, and temper our cadres and leadership. Sharing the hardships and struggles of America’s working people; we will root our Party ever deeper in the American working-class soil from which it sprang. “As the vanguard Party of the American working class we take our place in the front line of battle, conscious of our responsibility to all Americans who struggle for peace, democracy, economic security, and social progress. We hold aloft the banner of our conviction that the American working people have the capacity, means, and allies to curb and defeat the fascists and warmongers, and, eventually, to advance toward the Socialist reorganization of society, which will forever end the dangers of fascism, crises, and war—the misery of exploitation and oppression. We face the oncoming struggles with confidence in our people, our class, and our Party.”

[1] Marx, Karl & Engels, Frederick, The Communist Manifesto; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, p. 53.

[2] Dimitrov, Georgi, The United Front: The Struggle Against Fascism and War; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2023, pp. 134-135.

The post For a Fighting Party Rooted Among the Industrial Workers appeared first on The Communist.

History of Opportunism in the Second International “Defense of the Fatherland”

Owing to the history of the development of the labor movement and revolution before both WWI and WWII there is a defining characteristic of parties in revolutionary periods. Contradictions between opportunist trends and Bolshevism are intensified, lines are clarified, and opportunist forces which had grown during peace time now try to smother revolution. The entire movement becomes engulfed in bitter conflict over the path forward for the class. Today we see nothing different. Thus, there is a direct connection between the at-present fractured Communist movement and the victory gained by opportunism in the west. As a consequence this requires revolutionaries to educate the working class on the importance of the conflict, its causes, and finish the split started by opportunists who will try by hook or crook to ally with the bourgeoisie.

But why, one might ask, do these opportunists who speak in Communist ways try to fight against revolution? Do they not speak of revolution themselves? Do they not follow Lenin and organize themselves into Communist parties? So how can there be “opportunist” Communist parties? How can opportunism have captured so many? And how are we sure who the real opportunists are today?

Remember that the parties of the Second International right up to the start of WWI had considered the looming war to be one of imperialist plunder. They understood that there was no progressive or just characteristic to the war at all, and the war was purely to divide markets. In 1912 the Ninth Congress of the Second International passed the Basle Manifesto which in words took a revolutionary stand against the coming imperialist war. Many socialists in Europe at the time could not see through the phrase mongering of the Second International leadership. After its passage Lenin remarked, “They have given us a large promissory note; let us see how they will meet it.”

The Basle Manifesto only passed because of the general anti-war atmosphere among the workers who had put pressure on their opportunist leaderships to adopt an anti-war position. The founder and most influential party of the Second International, the German Social-Democratic party, had shortly after passing the Basle Manifesto held a party congress in 1913 where it upheld Germany’s colonies. This clearly indicates that while the parties of the Second International were forced to adopt an anti-war position on the outside, they had every intention to support the war. The words of the Second International in the Basle Manifesto would not translate into deeds.

On July 28, 1914, Austria attacked Serbia. On August 3^rd the German Social-Democratic party voted 78 to 14 in the Reichstag in support of joining the war saying that Russia was soon to invade Germany and then declaring “in the hour of danger we shall not desert the fatherland.” The other European parties adopted the same justification and carried out the same line in their respective countries. The opportunists in the Second International had carried out the greatest betrayal to the working class in history at that time. They disguised their betrayal in a thin veil of “Marxism” saying that the German nation-state was threatened, that they must defend their workers against the invaders, and that Germany was the country with the most advanced Social-Democracy in Europe and necessitated defense. Of course, the parties in the Entente countries had their own social-chauvinism and raised the defense of their own countries to be paramount. Thus, these parties all fell into collaboration with the imperialists to wage an unjust war.

The German Social-Democratic party as the most influential party in the Second International played a large role in influencing other parties to follow suit in this greatest betrayal. It signified the ideological and political collapse of the Second International. The war had nothing in common with the interests of the working class. It was an unjust and reactionary war to loot and plunder.

The opportunists in the Second International cited the writings of Marx and Engels who had supported the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871 where Germany was liberated from the oppression of Napoleon III who had kept Germany in a state of feudal decentralization. This act made the war a progressive one on Prussia’s part by allowing the growth of the bourgeoisie, and therefore the proletariat, in Germany. Yet nothing about the conditions of WWI would lend itself to being compared to a struggle for national liberation. The leaders of the German Social-Democratic party grasped at straws trying to justify the involvement of the German proletariat in a war of plunder.

Karl Kautsky, who was the most prominent Marxist of the time and member of the German Social-Democratic party, said: “The Situation is different with the great solidly-based national countries. Their independence is certainly not threatened but apparently their integrity is not threatened either.” This may appear to be an argument against supporting the war, but he then follows this with, “But from this follows also the further duty of the Social-Democracy of every country to regard the war exclusively as a defensive war, to set up as its goal only protection from the enemy, not his ‘punishment’ or diminishment”. Thus in order to consider the war “just” Kautsky considered it “defensive” and the duty of German socialists to “defend the fatherland”.

The Basis of Opportunism

In Lenin’s work “The Collapse of the Second International” he says in chapter I,

“If we would formulate the question in a scientific fashion, i.e., from the standpoint of class relations in modern society, we will have to state that most of the Social Democratic parties, and at their head the German Party first and foremost—the biggest and most influential party in the Second International—have taken sides with their General Staffs, their governments, and their bourgeoisie, against the proletariat. This is an event of historic importance, one that calls for a most comprehensive analysis.”[1]

This comprehensive analysis Lenin mentions is that the betrayal of the socialist parties in the Second International stems from the economic basis, and significance, of the ideologically and materially influenced labor movement within Europe by the bourgeoisie. This is possible through super-profit derived bribes given to parts of the working class who are outside of industrial production and primarily engaged in what the English economist J. A. Hobson—in 1902 reflecting on the emergence of imperialism—saw as the inevitable predominance of “personal or minor industrial services” and the “final stages of production” within imperialist countries.

But the roots of opportunism in the labor movement were first expressed in the colonial and industrial monopoly maintained by Great Britain from 1848 to 1892. The analysis of this period comes best from Frederick Engels who remarked that the skilled tradesmen of his time had become “an aristocracy among the working-class.” Conditions in Great Britain as a result of its industrial monopoly had produced a stratum of the working class who had become “comfortable” and in good relations with the capitalist class. So much so that Engels considered this section of the working class to have become “bourgeois” in its outlook. In other words, this bought off section of the working class had become perverted and itself perverted the labor movement and turned it social-chauvinist.

This perversion of the labor movement is substantiated economically by the conditions of imperialism. Here we do not speak of chance mistakes in tactics. Opportunism is adapting the labor movement to the interests of the bourgeoisie. There is an economic basis to this corruption of the labor movement which introduces bourgeois ideology. And there are two main forms in which this corruption presents itself. Firstly it manifests as those who enjoy a privileged position among the working class and seek to maintain that position, i.e., the AFL-CIO “Higher Strategy of Labor”. Secondly, those in the privileged stratum who as a result of pressure from monopoly have been cast down into the ranks of the lower stratum of the working class but bring with them the interests of the bourgeoisie in left-disguise regardless of intentions.

This privileged stratum of the working class both ideologically and materially influenced by the bourgeoisie did not remain a solely English phenomenon. The loss of Great Britain’s industrial monopoly and the emergence of imperialism among several European countries meant that this privileged stratum of the working class had become a condition of all countries with monopoly capital. The establishment of this privileged strata of workers in all the advanced capitalist countries is why in nearly all socialist parties within the Second International following the most influential and whose leadership was populated primarily by these “comfortable workers” went to the defense of their respective “Fatherlands” when the division of the world market could no longer proceed under peaceful politics and threatened the “comfortable” conditions of the social-chauvinists.

Certainly, today it is a fact of life that manufacturing in the advanced capitalist countries is no longer what it once was. Services are the predominant industries in all imperialist countries. Hobson was quite correct in that regard. A large portion of workers in the imperialist countries only facilitate the realization of commodities. This means that merchant capital has become predominant in the circulation of commodities. The bourgeoisie of the imperialist countries have become parasites on the oppressed countries of the world, which they have forced to surrender a greater share of the surplus-value of commodities produced to create super-profits for the imperialists.

In the rest of the labor movement, the domination of opportunism over the most advanced sections of the working class is a result of the industrial restructuring of the advanced capitalist countries. The party’s loss of a firm footing in the industrial centers is why the Central Committee of the PCUSA stated in its Industrial Concentration Strategy and Plan that, “the restructuring of the basic industries in the United States [as well as Europe] meant the decline and deterioration of the old industrial sector of the working class.” The decline of what we might call “blue collar” factory work today has had a corresponding decline in the proportion of party members who came from the lower strata of the working class and the domination of the privileged upper strata – what we call petty-bourgeois radicals today.

This is not unique to the conditions of the US, but one that affects all Communist parties in the advanced capitalist countries. The incessant, seemingly overwhelming problem of opportunism, left or right, is simply part and parcel of the conditions of building a Communist party in the belly of the beast. Meaning this restructuring, i.e., decimation of the organized industrial sectors of the economy, reflected itself in the party. 

It is an important question to ask why the Communist Party of Germany failed to utilize the revolutionary situation. The Comintern considered the failure due to the lack of connection with workers in the factories, but why was this the case? Lenin’s answer to this question in “Left-Wing” Communism: an Infantile Disorder calls attention to a few factors in the German CP. For one, the German party adopted very childish notions of purity, going as far as to refuse to do any party work in “reactionary unions.” Thus the party had willingly cut itself off from sections of the workers leaving these workers under the influence of traitors and the bourgeoisie.

Secondly, Lenin says,

“In Germany, as in other European countries, people had become too accustomed to legality, to the free and proper election of ‘leaders’ at regular party congresses, to the convenient method of testing the class composition of parties through parliamentary elections, mass meetings, the press, the sentiments of the trade unions and other associations, etc. When, instead of this customary procedure, it became necessary, because of the stormy development of the revolution and the development of the civil war, to pass quickly from legality to illegality, to combine the two, and to adopt the ‘inconvenient’ and ‘undemocratic’ methods of singling out, or forming, or preserving “groups of leaders”—people lost their heads and began to think up some supernatural nonsense. Probably, the Dutch Tribunists who had the misfortune to be born in a small country where traditions and conditions of legality were particularly privileged and particularly stable, and who had never witnessed the changeover from legality to illegality, became confused, lost their heads, and helped to create these absurd inventions.”[2]

Since the German Communist Party had in part separated itself from the labor movement and did not have the experience to navigate the revolutionary situation, it failed to become a leader of the workers. How could it be that a Communist party is separated from the workers? Because the German Communist Party, like most Communist Parties of the west, were organized outside of the labor movement. Being outside of the daily struggle of workers was not the case for the Bolsheviks where out of the labor movement grew the Russian Social Democratic Party and then finally the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks).

Some Reflections On The Issue Of Industrial Structuring

The history of how Communist Parties were developed in the advanced capitalist countries offers potential insight into why the CPUSA had such an issue dealing with the decline of organized industrial sectors. In 1931 the 11^th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International noted several factors which retarded the growth of Communist parties in the imperialist countries. I will quote the pertinent observations,

“The illegal condition of the Bolshevik Party prompted it to establish Party groups in the factories, where it was easier and more convenient to work. The Party structure of the Bolsheviks thus began with the factories, and this yielded excellent results both during the years of the reaction, after the February revolution, and particularly during the October Revolution of 1917, the civil war and the great construction of Socialism. During the reaction following upon 1908, when in places the local party committees and the party leadership (the C.C.) were broken up, there still remained in the factories and mills a certain base, small party cells which continued the work. After the February Revolution, when the elections to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies were held, the factories and mills also served as the basis for the elections. It is noteworthy that the elections to the municipal and district councils and the Constituent Assembly, which were based not upon occupational but upon territorial principles, were also carried out by the Bolshevik Party very successfully after the February and October Revolutions, despite the fact that the party had no territorial organizations [emphasis mine – ed.], and its agitation was concentrated in the factories and barracks. The cells and the district and city committees conducted the election campaign without creating special territorial organizations for the purpose. During all periods the lower party organizations of the Bolsheviks existed at the place of work rather than at the place of residence.

Abroad the situation was entirely different. There elections were not held in the factories but in the election districts, in the places where the voters lived. The main task pursued by the Socialist Parties was to gain electoral victories, to fight by means of the ballot, and the Party organization was therefore built along residential lines, which made it easier to organize the Party members for the election campaign in the respective election districts.

[T]he organizations of the Communist Parties in the capitalist countries were built without permanent organizational connections with the factories. […]

That the absence of Party organizations in the factories strongly affects the work of the Communist Parties is shown by such an example, for instance, as that of Germany, in 1923, when the Party failed to utilize the revolutionary situation for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, this being due not only to the absence of a truly revolutionary leadership, but also to the absence of extensive and firm connections with the workers in the factories.”[3]

Most Communist Parties in the west were born from Socialist Parties who had no connection to the labor movement. Their primary source of membership came from cells that followed the same geographical-political party structure as bourgeois parties, i.e., city, county, state lines. As a result, the proportional share of cells within the party that are based in the factories are numerically outnumbered by geo-political cells which unify workers who are disconnected from large-scale production within the party. In other words, geo-political organization can be a boon to the white-collar city-petty bourgeoisie and corrupted workers within the party. 

As the 11^th Plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International noted above, in the illegal period of the Bolshevik Party they were a closed party and only admitted small numbers of candidates. Primarily due to oppression by the Tsar, trustworthiness was one of the main factors used to evaluate candidates. The core cadre of the party became steeled in experience and capable of teaching. When the party became legal after the 1905 Revolution it became a mass party and accepted many new members. Lenin remarked in Party Organization and Party Literature in 1905 that “We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements.”

As well, Lenin in 1916 in his article “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism” very clearly outlines the importance of where the party focuses and draws its strength,

“Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the ‘defenders of the fatherland’ in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.”[4]

If we have a broader reflection on the experience of the Bolsheviks we find that at very few points in their history did they ever accept a mass of new membership into their ranks and that they had from the beginning been based chiefly on the factories. The issue of petty-bourgeois radicalism had scarcely been a problem within their ranks until periods of the intensification of the revolutionary situation in Russia. Later in 1920 in Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder, Lenin remarks that the Bolsheviks at this point were now very apprehensive in allowing the party to grow too quickly during the October Revolution because of the fact that “careerists and charlatans, who deserve only to be shot, inevitably strive to attach themselves to the ruling party.”[5] This development signified a greater danger of the penetration of corrupting elements at that point in time.

The dangerous combination of petty bourgeois radicalism with a mass party structure is why the consequence of the policies adopted and implemented by the 7^th Congress of the Comintern in the pursuit of the Popular Front, which sought to bring together the broad masses and all progressive people against fascism, resulted in western parties which were ill-equipped to defend themselves from the sudden and large influence of petty-bourgeois radicalism. Western parties had not chiefly based themselves upon the factories, i.e., upon the lowest paid and unbribed sections of the working class. History has proven that all the western parties were unable to digest the “inconsistent elements” as they transitioned into mass parties. It is historical fact that only in the eastern European countries did the Popular Front result in the formation of Socialist Republics since this is where the parties were chiefly situated in the factories rather than along geo-political lines . Thus these parties could withstand allowing a certain portion of the higher stratum of the working class and petty bourgeois to enter the party.

In the 2021 issue of The Communist the General Secretary Angelo D’Angelo and I wrote that,

“What many call Browderism was in reality then a global right-opportunist phenomena which stemmed from imperialism and its effect on the policies of the international Communist movement during the war. Browderism is only how it manifested under the conditions of the US. This also explains why all the advanced capitalist countries fell victim to their own national variants of Browderism. Nevertheless, in essence, it can be said to have arisen in part out of an upward swing in conditions, a lull in the growth of the movement and from political immaturity. As well as the social composition of the parties in the advanced capitalist countries. Plainly, from opportunism.”[6]

It is evident from the experiences of the Bolsheviks and our own parties in the advanced capitalist countries that the predominance of cells organized along geo-political lines is a carryover from the Socialist Party, and that it can be self-defeating by allowing petty-bourgeois radicals to suffocate Bolshevism within the party. It is inevitable then that issues of daily conflict and splits occur over matters immaterial to the long-term goals of the Communist Party. This also means a greater chance for individuals (careerists and charlatans) who do not come from the lower-strata of the working class to rise to leadership positions within the party since the work of the party (i.e. its cells) is detached from struggle within large enterprises.

Marx was a thousand times correct to say that socialism is birth marked with characteristics of capitalism. It is also true to say that western Communist parties are birth marked with the characteristics of their former socialist parties. However, addressing the predominance of the geo-political method of organizing is only a small part of the struggle against opportunism within our party. It is through the geo-political organization of cells that renegades and opportunists are able to more easily gain leadership positions only to corrupt entire sections of the party. Primarily due to the fact that there are fewer workers connected to shops with thousands of other workers and because the work of the geo-political cells are not focused on the immediate needs of any one workplace. The work of these cells mainly revolves around periodical agitation in public places; in other words, no leading role in the labor movement or direct connection to it.

Yet, the struggle against opportunism does not end with fixing the method of cell organization. The struggle against opportunism within the CPSU is evidence that even in parties where shop cells are predominant that opportunism finds other ways to sap at the strength of the party. It is evident though that in today’s world all Communist parties have been affected by industrial restructuring. The industrial basis of western Communist parties has become weakened, and the opportunity for petty-bourgeois radicals to steal leadership of the parties has grown. It is not a coincidence then that like never before Communist parties have reached an impasse over very basic questions of socialist construction or the history and legacy of the Comintern.

Industrial Concentration is the foremost task of any Communist Party, but it is obvious that this policy has not been carried out by the parties of the world who refuse to see the truth of what the war in Ukraine represents. There is no central world leadership to teach its importance. In the vacuum left by the CPSU, many parties have become aimless and have decayed into complacency over the years of industrial restructuring.

The CPUSA in 1949 as a matter of its party education instilled upon all party members that:

“The policy of concentration is not a policy for a special group of comrades, nor a special sphere of work which is carried alongside of other tasks. There must be no counterposing of industrial concentration as ‘one specific activity’ to other mass activities. Winning the workers in the big shops and working class communities is a political task (the struggle for the political policies of the party – which embrace both economic and political issues). Industrial concentration must be the heart and core of the work of all party organizations and all party leaders.”[7]

By regaining a foothold in the big shops the party will secure the social composition of the party as decidedly working class and offer an advantage to the party in its struggle against opportunism within the Communist movement.

The Ultra-Left and Ukraine

Grave issues within the international Communist movement have meant a major difference of perspective about support and non-support for the current Russian military offensive. To understand the current situation it is important to understand the class character of war in the modern age. The historical features of war have changed owing to the development of society and capitalism to its highest stage. By contrast during the period starting from around 1776 with the American Revolution and ending with the Paris Commune in 1871, the major wars and civil wars at this time were bourgeois-progressive and often had a national-liberation characteristic.

All honest socialists participated in the overthrow of feudalism. Most notable among them was Karl Marx who constantly gave guidance and clarity to the character of the US Civil War through the First International, the International Workingmen’s Association. Marx saw clearly that it was a progressive war which could overthrow the feudal Bourbon-Landlords of the South and end chattel slavery. By overthrowing the slave masters in the South the conditions for socialism, which was impossible beforehand, now existed.

Such a war to overthrow the backwards aristocracy was instrumental in allowing capitalism to develop, which was a progressive step, but capitalism most of all concentrates capital and industry. Today, US capitalism has reached its highest stage—imperialism. All the major industries are concentrated into the hands of billionaire associations, and all the major capitalist nations have divided the world amongst themselves. When “peaceful” diplomacy fails to satisfy its re-division, war and violence is waged. Making war in the age of imperialism is the result of fierce competition over markets. This means peace between capitalist countries can only be transitory, and peaceful diplomacy among them only stalls the impending outbreak of war which represents the continuation of capitalist diplomacy in a violent form. As well, the war will bring many changes to Russia which will develop further as a capitalist nation should it defeat NATO and Ukraine.

As analyzed in the PCUSA 2021 Ideological Conference, the US is in a fierce competition with Russia and China for markets to export the highly industrialized commodities produced in the US. When Trump tried to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, it was explicitly done in order to offer Europe “Freedom” gas and oil, but at a higher cost than the EU was able to secure from Russia.

Immediately upon Russia committing to conflict in Ukraine, Germany indefinitely suspended the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, and the EU and US ceased importing Russian oil and natural gas. As much as 40% of EU energy was imported from Russia. The US had tried to capture this market by attempts to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Germany and Russia under Trump “peacefully”. Such a market is extremely important, which is why the US since 2014 had cultivated fascism and knowingly egged on NATO membership in Ukraine in order to get control over the energy markets of the EU and force Russia into a military response and subsequently isolate them from energy markets.

However, this maneuvering by the US has heavy costs. The PCUSA 2021 Ideological Conference analyzed the situation in Europe and noted that a divide between the EU and US was growing. This still remains largely true, even with Germany forgoing trade with Russia to its detriment. As the crisis of capitalism deepens it strains the ability of the US to maintain its alliances in NATO, meaning there is a weakening unity among members given the heavy handedness of the US forcing the EU into subpar deals. Shortly before the conference last year, China had signed the “largest trade deal in history” with the EU to the exclusion of the US.

Forcing EU NATO members to accept greater costs, and have less of a share of global profits in order to pad the pockets of US imperialists will result in worsening diplomacy between the US and EU. Even as Germany once more does the bidding of the US, Germany has signed a historic military spending bill, as much as 10x its previous military spending after being forced to suspend Nord Stream 2 bringing their total spending to an astounding €100 billion[8]. Germany and the EU have begun to lose confidence in the ability of the US to protect their profits, with the US under Trump even outright trying to strong-arm the EU into paying more for NATO[9]. In order for the EU to finally shake off US control, it will require a historic build-up of military forces.

However, there is also a more serious implication of a growing schism in global capitalism trending toward the build-up of these military forces around the world for an impending global conflict which can bring humanity to the brink of nuclear annihilation. This time is far more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis since Russia is no longer socialist and therefore is not guided by the same Communist morality.

As in 1914, all the American and European capitalists paint this war as one for the “freedom of nations.” In actuality, the capitalists egg on and cultivate this war for the oppression of nations, to fortify existing colonies, and to prolong capitalist rule. Though at the same time, as during WWII, the scourge of fascism walks the earth (cultivated by the US and NATO) giving an impetus to the growth of the grossest reaction the world over, and renders social revolution under such conditions as existing in Ukraine impossible. There can be no socialist revolution while the working class is kept under the thumb of fascism. Thus the defeat of fascism in the Ukraine is both essential and progressive.

This is why the PCUSA affirms its position that, because Russia has made it clear that its ambitions for the war serve to resolve the mounting crisis in Russia itself, that the ousting of the Bandera fascists and defense of the DPR and LPR can be used as a justification for a war of conquest, i.e. reclaiming the “common motherland” of the Tsarist Empire. Until the point when the actions of Russian capital move toward conquest, the PCUSA stands with all anti-fascist people in support of the Donbass and support the war against the Bandera fascists in Kiev. In our own country, we must remember that the American workers have no interest in waging a war for plunder, that it is forced upon them. The American workers are mentally ruined and physically worn out not only as a result of the growing intensification of their exploitation under US capitalism, but from decades of predatory wars, epidemics, and the acute suppression of their organization by a mass of labor misleaders. It is the  duty of all communists in the US during these times to build resistance against our country’s engagement in the cultivation of punitive fascist wars to re-divide the world market.

[1] Lenin, V.I., “The Collapse of the Second International” in Collected Works, Vol. 21; Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1974, pp. 207-208.

[2] Lenin, V.I., “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder; New Outlook Publishers: Seattle, 2022, pp. 32-33.

[3] Piatnitsky, O., The Bolshevization of the Communist Parties By Eradicating The Social-Democratic Traditions; Workers Library Publishers: New York, 1932,  p. 15-17.

[4] Lenin, V.I., “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism” in Collected Works, Vol. 23; Progress Publishers: Moscow, 1974a, p. 120.

[5] Lenin, Op. Cit., 2022, p. 42.

[6] Dirte, Timothy, “Opportunism and the Collapse of the Third International” in The Communist, Vol. 1, 2021, p. 52.

[7] Study Course on The Communist Party, The Working Class, and Industrial Concentration: Outline and Guide for Schools, Classes, Study Groups; The National Education Depart of the Communist Party USA: New York, 1949, p. 18.

[8] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/germany-hike-defense-spending-scholz-says-further-policy-shift-2022-02-27/

[9] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nato-trump/trump-says-nato-countries-burden-sharing-improving-wants-more-idUSKCN1RE23P

The post Imperialism and the Split Among “Communists” appeared first on The Communist.

The term “Cultural Marxism” is frequently used in political discussions, but its meaning is obscure. Those on the Right claim that it signifies the infiltration of Western academia by Jewish Marxists from the Frankfurt School. They argue that their goal is to undermine the United States and Europe by utilizing Critical Theory to advocate for feminism, multiculturalism, LGBTQ+ identities, anti-white racism, and other perceived societal problems. Conversely, the mainstream Left regards this as a baseless far-right conspiracy theory and draws a parallel to the term “Cultural Bolshevism” employed in fascist propaganda. While both sides offer some valid points about Cultural Marxism, neither provides a complete picture.

Critical Theory vs Marxism

“Critical Theory” refers to a social theory practiced by intellectuals from the Frankfurt School, associated with the Institute for Social Research in Weimar Germany.[1] These theorists expressed dissatisfaction with both capitalism and communism, leading them to develop a new ideology aimed at societal development. Max Horkheimer, in his 1937 essay “Traditional and Critical Theory,” first defined Critical Theory as a social theory that goes beyond explaining society as it is and instead seeks to critique and transform it. Horkheimer outlined the fundamental principles of Critical Theory, which include the criticism of societal flaws, identification of agents capable of effecting change, and the provision of goals for social transformation.

According to Critical Theory, ideology serves as the primary driver of oppression,[2] and the objective is to analyze and overcome these ideas that hinder human freedom. In contrast, Marxism utilizes dialectical materialism to understand that these ideas merely reflect reality rather than determine it. In pursuit of the goal to liberate humanity from all forms of oppression, additional critical theories have emerged alongside various social movements, including the civil rights movement, feminism, and the gay and lesbian movement. However, a question arises: Do these critical theories genuinely aim to emancipate the oppressed masses, or do they in fact work to fragment the working class and divert revolutionary momentum?

Every successful socialist revolution has resulted in better material conditions for the entire working class, including women and ethnic minorities. However, a contrasting situation has unfolded in the United States, where critical theories have thrived within academia while capitalism remains the prevailing mode of production. Instead of progress, the majority of Americans have experienced a decline in their living standards, coupled with an increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of a privileged few. Despite its pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric, Critical Theory has consistently served the interests of those who perpetuate human enslavement, while suppressing the achievements of Communist movements that have genuinely established societies oriented towards meeting the needs of the working class.

First, they came for the Communists …

Initially, when the Nazis rose to power in Germany, the Institute for Social Research chose to refrain from openly criticizing the government. Theodor Adorno believed that the regime would primarily target “the orthodox pro-Soviet Bolshevists and communists who had drawn attention to themselves politically”.[3] This observation was indeed accurate at that time, as the Communists were the first group to be sent to concentration camps. However, it didn’t take long for the Nazis to extend their persecution to the Jewish population. In the late 1930s, several Frankfurt intellectuals, including Horkheimer, Adorno, and Herbert Marcuse, relocated to the United States to escape persecution due to their Jewish heritage. Walter Benjamin, on the other hand, did not join them. Benjamin relied solely on the Institute for his income, and one might expect that his colleagues would have taken his financial situation into consideration and made efforts to help him escape Nazi terror. However, evidence suggests that his fellow scholars had ideological motivations behind their decision to relocate to the US without him.[4]

Benjamin maintained a close friendship with Bertolt Brecht, a Marxist playwright who openly criticized the Frankfurt theorists. Adorno harbored resentment towards Brecht due to his ideological influence on Benjamin. In a letter to Horkheimer on January 26, 1936, Adorno referred to Brecht as a “savage” and expressed his belief that Benjamin needed to be freed from his influence.[5] Two years later, Horkheimer informed Benjamin that he should anticipate a loss of funding from the Institute. Furthermore, Horkheimer claimed, shortly after transferring $50,000 to one of his own accounts, that he regretfully couldn’t provide financial assistance for Benjamin’s steamship ticket to escape to the United States and seek safety from encroaching fascist forces. In 1940, Benjamin tragically took his own life at the border between France and Spain, facing almost certain capture by Nazi forces. The leading Frankfurt intellectuals depicted his suicide as a tragic and incomprehensible personal decision, and claimed that they had tried to help him escape.

If Horkheimer were to rewrite Martin Niemoller’s famous poem, it would read something like this:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn’t speak up,
because I hated Communists.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I fled to the United States,
leaving my more Marxist-aligned Jewish colleague to die.

It is possible that the Frankfurt intellectuals harbored animosity towards Brecht because he recognized their compromising stance, as summarized by Stuart Jeffries, as “prostitutes in their quest for foundation support during their American exile, selling their skills and opinions as commodities in order to support the dominant ideology of oppressive U.S. society”.[6] When Horkheimer became director of the Institute in 1930, the Frankfurt School shifted its research focus away from comprehensive analyses of class struggle towards abstract investigations of culture and authority.[7] This approach aimed to appease future donors by refraining from suggesting alternatives to capitalism or an end to imperialism. Upon Adorno’s initial emigration to the US, he worked for the Princeton Radio Project, which received funding from the Rockefeller Foundation to investigate the impact of mass media on society.[8] Marcuse, meanwhile, served in the Office of Strategic Services, a precursor to the CIA, during which he authored critical works on the Soviet Union,[9] which were later published in his 1958 book Soviet Marxism: A Critical Analysis.

Supported by generous funding from the US government and the Rockefeller Foundation, the Frankfurt scholars were able to sustain their work throughout the early Cold War, eventually relocating the Institute back to West Germany in the late 1940s. The funds for this move were administered by John McCloy, who served as the US High Commissioner of Germany. In his earlier career as a Wall Street lawyer, McCloy had worked with various corporations operating in Nazi Germany, including IG Farben, the manufacturer of Zyklon B gas. Following the conclusion of World War II, McCloy granted clemency to several Nazi war criminals,[10] enabling them to retain a significant portion of their former wealth and influence. With the transition from a fascist regime to a US-supported anti-Communist government, West Germany provided a favorable environment for the Frankfurt School to continue its work and engage in new anti-Communist endeavors, as will be explored next in this series on Cultural Pseudo-Marxism.

*    *    *

After the Institute for Social Research relocated to Germany, its significance persisted just as it had in the United States. Fortunately for the Frankfurt intellectuals, they chose not to settle in East Germany. This decision stemmed not only from the government’s intolerance towards their counter-revolutionary activities but also from their desire to avoid encountering Bertolt Brecht, a close friend of the late Walter Benjamin, who had moved to the German Democratic Republic to contribute to socialist endeavors. Brecht continued his pointed critiques of the Frankfurt School in his play “Turandot” (The Whitewashers’ Congress), a satirical take on academics who compromise their intellectual integrity to manipulate reality in favor of the ruling class—referred to as “Tuis” by Brecht.[12]

Many assert that the Frankfurt Tuis were Marxists, driven by either ignorance or anti-Communist sentiment. If this were true, why were they embraced in West Germany while shunned in the GDR?

This misconception may have arisen from the fallacy that liberal democracies are in fact free and inclusive societies where individuals of all ideological stripes can freely express their convictions. In reality, the case of West Germany reveals that these principles of liberal democracy were, at best, selectively-employed. One could for example openly advocate for pedophilia,[13] but any praise for Stalin was met with contempt. The anti-Communist puppet government in the U.S.-occupied western region of Germany outlawed the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) distanced itself from Marxism, and U.S. intelligence decided to use the Institute for their next big operation.

The “Compatible Left”: A CIA Creation

In June 1950, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) was established in West Berlin.[14] Its members were mainly anti-Soviet leftists[15], but there were conservative participants too, like Irving Kristol[16], later known as the “godfather of neoconservatism”. With CIA backing, the CCF employed varied methods to spread anti-Communist propaganda: hosting conferences globally (primarily in Western Europe), publishing political and artistic journals, and awarding artists and musicians aligned with their goals. The CCF, guided by CIA agent Thomas Braden, cultivated what he called the “compatible”[17] Left—a faction rejecting Marxist analysis and criticizing actually-existing socialist countries.

As evidenced in Theodor Adorno’s correspondence, he worked closely with Melvin Lasky, the founder and chief editor of the CIA-backed publication Der Monat, and an original member of the CCF steering committee. Lasky offered to work with the Institute in any way possible, telling Adorno that he would quickly publish any works or statements from the Institute. Adorno took him up on this offer, going on to publish in Der Monat as well as Encounter and Tempo Presente. Given the backdrop of their prior collaboration, Lasky and the CIA were fully aware that the Frankfurt scholars were eminently suited for this role. Setting aside Herbert Marcuse’s career in US intelligence, the very ideology of the Frankfurt School was effective in neutralizing leftist sentiments while preserving somewhat of a revolutionary veneer.

Starting in 1930, when Max Horkheimer assumed the directorship of the Institute, the Frankfurt School shifted away from class analysis and instead delved into discussions on authority and culture.[18] Neglecting the crucial inquiry into which class holds authority, the CCF employed liberalism to narrow the focus exclusively onto individual freedom. Socialist realism in the Soviet Union was presented as “totalitarian” because it mandated artists to propagate constructive conduct within the working class. Conversely, in the US, an artist possessed the liberty to fling paint onto a canvas and deem it “art.” This contrast disregarded the reality that an artist’s success within capitalism rests entirely on the unpredictability of the market.

From 1944 to 1945, the Institute conducted a study titled “Anti-Semitism in American Labor”, concluding that the most anti-Semitic groups were Communist-led trade unions in the United States.[19] While Nazis received backing from capitalists for their genocidal acts, the Frankfurt scholars deemed certain American workers’ anti-Semitic views as a more urgent concern. The study served as an egregious example how identity politics can be employed to target Communists, a strategy still utilized by the Compatible Left. Furthermore, the Frankfurt School’s criticism of the notion of “authority” effectively discredited Communist parties and organized labor movements. The absence of authority renders revolutionary forces chaotic and vulnerable to counter-revolutionary assaults, aligning with capitalists’ desires to undermine the Left and uphold the bourgeois dictatorship of capital.

Critical Theory perhaps has some merit in scrutinizing ideology as a tool of domination. But the Frankfurt School deliberately obfuscates the role of class in analysis and portrays Critical Theory as immune to ideology. The capitalist class crafted Compatible Leftism as an ideological weapon to safeguard their control over the working class, neutralizing the Communist threat and upholding capitalism. It’s our duty as Communists to uphold the revolutionary ideology of Marxism-Leninism and consign the regressive ideology of the Compatible Left to its proper place in the dustbin of history.

*    *    *

Some may be quick to believe that the New Left is entirely to blame on the Frankfurt School, with its identitarianism and “Anything But Class” analysis. There is a point to be made here, but the Frankfurt theoreticians had differing views on the New Left which emerged in the 1960s. Theodor Adorno believed that the progressive student movements at the time could lead to “left fascism,” going as far as to call the cops on students who protested at the Institute for Social Research, including one of his own students.[20] Herbert Marcuse, however, was much more openly sympathetic to the social movements of the ‘60s and had influenced various noteworthy left-wing activists of that time period.

Many supporters of Marcuse willfully overlook his involvement in United States intelligence, focusing instead on his supposedly revolutionary advocacy. An article published in CounterPunch titled “What’s Behind the Recent Attacks on Herbert Marcuse?” described Marcuse as “a staunch advocate of movements for revolutionary change, a Marxist critic of capitalism, and firm supporter of African American liberation and feminism,” going on to praise him for being “[h]ated by both Soviet Communists and the Vatican, [and] adored by revolutionaries around the world”.[21]

Following the logic of Marcuse and his fans leads to some particularly reactionary conclusions. It’s ironic that For Marcuse to work for the precursor to the CIA—the US Office of Strategic Services—and trash the greatest threat to US imperialism at the time – the Soviet Union – is “revolutionary.” But for the USSR to ensure the full participation of women in society, to call on the international community to condemn the horrendous acts of racism against Black Americans, and to participate in the African decolonization struggles are all acts of “totalitarianism.” It is no surprise that capital and its faithful servants continue to push such propaganda.

Marcuse and Petty Bourgeois Radicalism

After the Black Panther Party split into factions, one headed by Huey P. Newton and the other by Eldridge Cleaver, Henry Winston (CPUSA national chair and an African-American) wrote “The Crisis of the Black Panther Party” as a criticism of the ultra-left ideological trends within the Party and their destructive effects.[22] Winston pointed out that the capitalist media had “popularized the caricature of Marxism-Leninism, appearing in the writings of Mao, Trotsky, Marcuse … and others,” and that many New Left radicals had adopted characteristics of this exaggerated image of what a “revolutionary” should be.

Published in 1971, Winston’s description of the ultra-leftists in the Black Panther Party is still quite relevant to the western Left in 2023:

“These Black and white radicals, including Cleaver and Newton, dismissed what they called “orthodox” Marxism. Taking a different direction from [Dr. Martin Luther] King [Jr.] (who promoted working class solidarity, as well as a popular front with the Church and with progressive elements of the middle class), they disdained the working class and glorified the super-”revolutionary” tactics of confrontation by an anarchistic elite. In this way, ultra-”revolutionaries” helped create an atmosphere in which the racist monopolists could falsely portray violence as coming from the Left—and cover up the fact that they themselves are the source of it.”[23] (Our emphasis—Ed.)

CPUSA General Secretary Gus Hall wrote “The Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism” in 1970, highlighting many of the same issues which Winston describes.[24]

This article explained how as class conflicts intensify and the masses become more revolutionary, petty-bourgeois radicalism redirects this energy into futile, short-term endeavors, leading to frustration and demoralization. While not explicitly naming Marcuse, Hall implies that many prominent activists who were influenced by Marcuse introduced his “radical” ideas into revolutionary groups.

Angela Davis: We Remember When You Were A Marxist

Angela Davis, renowned for her feminist and anti-racist activism, studied under Marcuse before joining the Communist Party USA. Both right-wing critics and left-wing Marcuse supporters emphasize this fact to assert Marcuse’s radical Marxism. However, both sides often overlook crucial nuances in Davis’s activist career.

In contrast to many petty-bourgeois radicals, Davis did not overtly reject Communism, but her anti-communism had a subtler, more insidious character. During the era of Glasnost and Perestroika in the Soviet Union, Davis, following Marcuse’s lead, championed the pro-Gorbachev faction within the CPUSA. However, her motivations may have leaned more toward personal gain than Marcuse’s specific grievances against Soviet “totalitarianism”. Gorbachev’s policies were simply more financially appealing than those of Stalin which Marcuse vehemently criticized, and the activism of Davis in following decades has mainly centered around her career in academia. From selling her books and speaking at liberal college campuses, Davis has amassed a net worth of approximately $800,000 as of 2023.[25]

The Committees of Correspondence, formed during the 1991 CPUSA Convention, represented this faction but ultimately failed to steer the CPUSA away from Marxism-Leninism, eventually splitting from the party.[26] They emerged in opposition to Gus Hall and Henry Winston’s “conservative” stance of supporting efforts to preserve the Soviet Union against Gorbachev’s counter-revolution. This group attracted various liberal and “democratic socialist” elements within the CPUSA,[27] prioritizing surface-level identity politics over meaningful class analysis. Supporters of the Committees of Correspondence often point out their leadership’s greater diversity,[28] as if meeting arbitrary diversity quotas automatically translated into tangible benefits for their “represented” demographics.

Angela Davis’s alignment with the left wing of capital is evident in her history, ranging from supporting market liberalization during the Soviet Union’s final days to urging leftists to vote for Joe Biden in 2020.[29] She further demonstrates this alignment through her ongoing advocacy for ultra-left ideas, which may be less appealing to the working class but find favor with those who have trust funds and see the hammer and sickle as nothing but a trendy accessory. An example of this is advocating for prison abolition[30] without giving genuine thought to the victims of violent crimes.

Conclusion

Despite the Right’s belief in a radical Marxist takeover of academia, the concept of “Cultural Marxism” fundamentally contradicts Marxism itself. Critical Theory seeks to shift the discourse from class analysis to discussions of authority and culture. Key figures in the Frankfurt School played roles in producing and spreading anticommunist propaganda. And Marcuse’s influence on the Western Left has perpetuated the misconception that communists are elitist and disconnected from the working class. Today, we face a critical juncture in history. Western living standards are declining, multipolarity challenges US hegemony, and capitalists hope to confine communism to academic and niche social media circles. It is imperative for Communists to avoid repeating the New Left and modern CPUSA’s mistake of embracing a carefully crafted “revolutionary” ideal propagated by the ruling class and academia.

[1] Critical Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). ( March 8, 2005).

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/

[2] Geuss, Raymond, The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1981.

[3] Müller-Doohm, Stefan, Adorno: A Biography; Polity: Cambridge, 2005, p. 181.

[4] Fries, U. (2021). “Ende der Legende Hintergründe zu Walter Benjamins Tod” in Germanic Review, 96(4), 409–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00168890.2021.1986802

[5] Adorno’s letter to Horkheimer on January 26, 1936, in Adorno and Horkheimer, Correspondence, Vol. I, p. 110.

[6] Jeffries, Stuart, Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School; Verso: London. 2016, p. 136.

[7] Solty, I. (February 15, 2020). “Max Horkheimer, a teacher without a class.” Jacobin.

https://jacobin.com/2020/02/max-horkheimer-frankfurt-school-adorno-working-class-marxism

[8] Cavin, S. Adorno. Lazarsfeld & The Princeton Radio Project, 1938-1941.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/151660755/Adorno-Lazarsfeld-The-Princeton-Radio-Project-1938-1941#

[9] Herbert Marcuse official website. https://www.marcuse.org/herbert/

[10] John J. McCloy. (August 25, 2023). In Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_J._McCloy#US_High_Commissioner_for_Germany

[11]Saunders, F. (October 22, 1995). “How the CIA used modern art during the cultural Cold War”, Sott.net.

https://www.sott.net/article/413324-How-the-CIA-used-modern-art-during-the-cultural-Cold-War

[12] Script for Turandot by Bertolt Brecht. https://www.scribd.com/document/389599206/Turandot-Bertolt-Brecht-pdf#

[13] Gebhardt, W. (June 17, 2020). “The dark legacy of sexual liberation in Germany”, dw.com.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-allowed-pedophiles-to-foster-children/a-53839291

[14]Origins of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, 1949-1950 – CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/studies-in-intelligence/archives/vol-38-no-5/origins-of-the-congress-for-cultural-freedom-1949-1950/

[15] Saunders, Francis Stoner, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters; The New Press: New York, 2013, Chapter 3.

[16]Ibid., p. 148.

[17] Braden, Thomas W. “I’m Glad the CIA is ‘Immoral’.” The Saturday Evening Post, May 20, 1967, pp. 10, 12, 14.

[18] Rose, Gillian, The Melancholy Science: An Introduction to the Thought of Theodor W. Adorno; Columbia University Press: New York, 1979, p. 2.

[19]Collomp, Catherine, “Anti-Semitism among American Labor: a study by the refugee scholars of the Frankfurt School of Sociology at the end of World War II”, Labor History, 52(4), 2011, pp. 417–439.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656x.2011.632513

[20] Romano, Carlin,  “The Agitation of Adorno”, The Chronicle., June 20, 2008.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-agitation-of-adorno/

[21] Katsiaficas, George, “What’s behind the recent attacks on Herbert Marcuse?” CounterPunch.org, December 15, 2021. https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/17/whats-behind-the-recent-attacks-on-herbert-marcuse/

[22] Winston, H. (1971, August). “The Crisis of the Black Panther Party” in The Communist, Vol 2, 2022 pp. 17-37.

[23] Ibid., pp. 21-22.

[24] Hall, Gus, “Crisis of Petty-Bourgeois Radicalism” in The Communist, Vol 2., 2022, pp. 43.-51.

[25] https://pennbookcenter.com/angela-davis-net-worth/

[26] Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line. (February 1, 1992). CPUSA breaks apart (P. Saba, Ed.). Marxists Internet Archive.

https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-7/mlp-cpusa-split.htm

[27] Struggle for Democratic Socialism. (July 23, 1994). [Video]. C-SPAN.org.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?59374-1/struggle-democratic-socialism

[28] Marquit, E., & Marquit, D. G. (1992, February 19). Party survives, but as a shell.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070311011756/http://www.mndaily.com/daily/gopher-archives/1992/02/19/Party_survives%2C_but_as_a_shell.txt

[29] Telusma, B. (July 14, 2020). Angela Davis backs Biden because he ‘can be most effectively pressured’ by the left. TheGrio.

https://thegrio.com/2020/07/14/angela-davis-backs-biden/

[30]            Kelly, K. (2019, December 26). What the Prison-Abolition movement wants. Teen Vogue.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/what-is-prison-abolition-movement

The post On The Frankfurt School appeared first on The Communist.

The lack of class-oriented trade unionists stems from the capitalist led McCarthyite purge of Communists and class-oriented unionists within our unions after WWII. The vacuum left by the purges was filled with a terrible swarm of charlatans,  mobsters, and reactionary elements who descended on our unions and did everything they could to make sure that American labor would not regain the strength it once had. With no strong Communist guidance our unions floundered and decayed, culminating in their absolutely pitiful representation of just 10.8% of American workers. A figure which is nearly the same as in the period of American labor history before the creation of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This low figure is not from a lack of interest in union representation (in a recent Gallup poll, 67% of Americans supported unions), but from an inability to achieve it. That means that the momentous achievement of union representation backed by federal legislation and recognized as a constitutionally protected right has been all but neutered.

Federal recognition meant increasingly stronger federal oversight and interference in unions. The bosses were forced to recognize our unions but since they still control the government, they knew that in the long run they would take control of the unions away from class-oriented workers and render them toothless.

Once unions were federally recognized and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) passed,  the State Department began to support right-wing candidates for union leadership, ultimately resulting in the expulsion of class-oriented trade unionists from the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the CIO right after WWII. The State Department did this so that it could use the unions as tools of US Foreign Policy, and prevent the unions from being influenced by foreign unions. This change in the leadership of the unions prevented US labor from affiliating with the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU), of which the CIO was a founding organization. This change in leadership was accomplished through the passage of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, more commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, which among other anti-union statutes, forced union leadership to sign anti-Communist affidavits effectively banning Communists from union leadership. Unions who refused to honor this stipulation were expelled from the CIO. In the case of the United Electrical Workers (UE), the CIO in conjunction with the State Department, General Electric and Westinghouse corporations led a dual-unionist campaign to replace UE as the union representative in their factories.

Today, with such close connections among  the AFL-CIO, US State Department and the Department of Labor, many “leaders” of labor were quick to announce support for the fascist government of Ukraine. The US State Department is using our unions to give a veneer of union backing to those thugs, who have led a massive anti-union campaign in the Ukraine, including the notorious House of Trade Unions massacre that took place in Odessa in 2014.[1]  We believe that the rank-and-file see through all those maneuvers. US involvement in Ukraine is an imperialist attempt to privatize Ukraine and balkanize Russia.

Many groups in the labor movement today claim to be trying to win back our unions from the entrenched and corrupt leadership that is primarily supported by the US State Department. Tragically they parrot the same language as the State Department. As reactionaries took leadership of the unions, the government cultivated “left” groups who they knew would promote instability and confusion in the labor movement through operation COINTELPRO.[2]

The effect of COINTELPRO is still felt today. Many of these “leftists”  are just reactionaries turned inside out. They are two sides of the same coin. They promote sectarianism, a holier than thou attitude and a general disdain for discipline, organization, and the working-class generally. They end up being useful tools for the bosses. Take for example the “Reform Caucus” in the Amazon Labor Union (ALU), who sued their own union with frivolous accusations. This caused Amazon to file against ALU in order to invalidate the election at Amazon warehouse JFK8, using the Reform Caucus’ lawsuit as evidence. The difference between the right-wing shills working with the State Department and the “left-wing radicals” is that the right-wing shills are getting paid for their treachery. The “left-wing” fools are wrecking the labor movement without pay.

It is up to all honest hard working people to approach the current situation with class-oriented trade unionism. Don’t let the “left-wing” sectarians gossip and weaken our unions, and don’t let the right-wing stifle democracy either. Now is a time of reflection, of learning, and growth for all of us to find the pathway to bringing a class-orientation back to our unions. It all starts with getting back to the basics, to the fundamentals of why we have unions in the first place, and then fighting for the burning issues of labor today.

History has shown that the only way to achieve these goals is to organize and educate a vanguard of the working-class movement. Willam Z. Foster explains this clearly in “The Principles and Program of The Trade Union Educational League”:

“One of the latest and greatest achievements of working-class thinking … is a clear understanding of the fundamental proposition that the fate of all labor organization in every country depends primarily upon the activities of a minute minority of clear-sighted, enthusiastic militants scattered throughout the great organized masses of sluggish workers. These live spirits are the natural head of the working-class, the driving force of the labor movement. They are the only ones who really understand what the labor struggle means and who have practical plans for its prosecution. Touched by the divine fire of proletarian revolt, they are the ones who furnish inspiration and guidance to the growing masses. They do the bulk of the thinking, working and fighting of the labor struggle. They run the dangers of death and the capitalist jails. Not only are they the burden bearers of the labor movement, but also its brains and heart and soul. In every country where these vital militants function effectively among the organized masses the labor movement flourishes and prospers. But wherever, for any reason, the militants fail to so function, just as inevitably the whole labor organization withers and stagnates. The activities of the militants are the “key” to the labor movement, the source of all its real life and progress.”[3]

[1] see “Ukrainian workers living standards have declined under Fascism,” also in this issue.

[2] COINTELPRO (Counter Intelligence Program) was an illegal secret FBI operation to infiltrate and disrupt American political organizations, e.g., the CPUSA, labor organizations, the civil rights movement, the Black Panther Party, the Nation of Islam, the New Left and others.

[3] Foster, William Z, “The Principles and Program of The Trade Union Educational League” in The Labor Herald, Vol 1, Issue 1, March 1922, p. 5.

The post Present Day Leadership Bankrupts the American Trade Union Movement appeared first on The Communist.

Furthermore, the Zelensky regime’s Law 5371, passed in 2022, will drive workers’ living standards down even further: it destroys workers’ rights. The International Labor Organization charged that the new legislation “weakens labor protection, narrows the scope of labor rights and social guarantees of employees, in comparison with the current legislation,” in contravention of Ukraine’s obligations to Brussels under the terms of its EU Association Agreement.[2] Andrey Reva, Ukraine’s former minister of social policy, has leveled similar charges: “Employees will no longer have any protection against arbitrary dismissal. Upon hiring, the employee will be asked to sign an employment agreement, which will allow the employer to obtain unilateral advantages during its conclusion and deprive the employee of any legal opportunities for his defense.”

[1] World Bank data. For more discussion of this statistic, cf. Gallagher, Robert L., Aristotle’s Critique of Political Economy; Routledge: London, 2018, chapters 13 and 14.

[2] https://www.sott.net/article/471638-Hidden-Western-hand-behind-new-British-style-Ukraine-anti-worker-laws-exposed-in-leaked-documents?fbclid=IwAR0nA6OmFlojh7yHAQrikUgjafMpL0BkW7AOWaMvukhTvVrDyOiovJQmfKw

The post Ukrainian Workers Living Standards Have Declined Under Fascism appeared first on The Communist.