At 10:48 AM 10/11/98 -0800, Jim Devine wrote >As I interpret it, recent social history of the CP-USA suggests that this >characterization (which follows the tradition of Theodore Draper and the >Cold War consensus) is much much too simple, if not pernicious. > >The "slavish obedience to the Kremlin" part applied best to the top >leadership, but even they would interpret the "line" to serve their own >goals. The rank and file of the CP, on the other hand, often didn't care >much about the party line as it applied to slavish devotion to the USSR. It seems to me this actually makes Brad's point about the **political** definition of Stalinism. CP leaders defined Stalinist politics in the USA, not rank and file members who may or may not have believed or followed them, for other reasons. I recently re-read Victor Serge's book _From Lenin to Stalin_. In his description of how many 'old Bolshevics' capitulated to Stalin's murderous campaign against the Left Opposition, he provides a powerful statement of the political premium on **not** repeating lies and slanders, or even being silent, on the excuse that the Party is still "building socialism" and will "correct itself" later. (Serge also details how the capitulators were generally executed or died in the camps anyway). CP members everywhere made these choices, including here. Some of them split or were expelled in order to remain communists rather than become Stalinists, on all the big political issues of the day. Sure, many went off the rails, but without their choice most of us would only know the Readers Digest line: Stalinism=communism. Back to Althusser: I may be wrong it was Althusser, but I think I remember a quote from him defending the Stalinist argument that there is only one party in the working class and the rest are objectively counter-revolutionary (OK, I don't actually remember the "objectively counter-revolutionary" part, but I think the *main* point is the same). Sure, he may have changed his mind, but this is what CP members said and acted on, no matter what they thought in private. Hitler became Chancellor while the CP congratulated themselves for their electoral gains against social democracy. Stalinists are not the only political tendency to swing from ultra-left to the right and back again, but I would argue that Althusser's legacy is not unlike these politics. I can't endorse L. Proyect's praise of Althusser for re-thinking the Stalinist base-superstructure. There is a clear line from Althusser to postmodernists and other idealists who drop the base completely and think only of superstructure (OK, more exaggeration, but the main point is obvious). Any day now the opposite error will become fashionable again. >When the CP was larger, as during the Popular Front period of the 1930s, >there were all sorts of people who supported the CP because it was against >capitalism and serious about changing and/or abolishing capitalism or >because it was actively fighting fascism. Yes, and the Popular Front was the veering to the right after the ultra left binge where social demcracy was the "twin" of fascism, and Hitler became Chancellor while the CP congratulated themselves for their 'victory' in taking votes from social democracy. Once the only party of the working class, the CP now opted to subordinate the working class to the 'democratic' bourgeoisie. And then there was Spain.... >The rank and file tried to make the CP their own, so that the political >pull on the organization was not just from the top. Given the facts that >(1) the party needed its members to hand out leaflets, speak to members of >the public, participate in activities, etc.; (2) the party leadership >wanted a large party; and (3) the leadership's ability to dictate to the >membership was limited (lacking, for example, a capitalist boss's ability >to sack his or her employees), the membership had an impact on the >practical interpretation of the line and on many of the details that had >not been filled in by Moscow or the top leadership. The membership had an >impact on the _practice_ of the party, even if it may have had limited >impact on its theory. Yes, of course, but what is the *point* of a communist party if not *good* political leadership? The CPUSA political leadership chose Stalinism. After a period of time for tests about whether this will change it becomes obvious the CP became a Stalinist party. Otherwise why bother with political categories? > >I also think that if you look seriously at the record of the old USSR-type >economies, you'll find that these systems weren't simply a reflection of >their leaderships' goals. The leaders themselves were shaped and selected >according to the logic of the organizations they rose to the top of and led. Same point - what is the point of a communist government if not organizing the transition to socialism? Even if it is trying, but making errors - even fatal errors? Stalinism is not communists making errors. Bill Burgess
