>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 11/15/00 12:05PM >>>
I don't buy it. What is ultimately showed was that the CP in the USA would
subordinate the needs of workers and other folks in the US to the strategic
needs of the Soviet Union.
(
CB: Right. Proletarian Internationalism. The Soviet workers were much more on the hot
seat than U.S. workers at that concrete moment. A thousand times more so. As
proletarian internationalists, the CPUSA would not chauvinistically favor U.S.
workers' interests over the interests of the workers of the whole world. As _The
Manifesto of the Communist Party_ teaches, Communists are always to bring out the
common interests of the working class of the whole world or as a whole. Communists are
specifically differentiated from other elements in the working class by their
attention to the international whole ( workers of the WORLD , unite ).
Also, support for the Soviet Union had very little relative impact contra U.S.
workers's interests. Signing the non-Agression pact or the CPUSA supporting the pact
had virtually no adverse impact on the interests of U.S. workers, and in the larger
sense that defeating the Nazis was very important for all the workers of the world, it
was in the interest of U.S. workers as well.
((
You may see that as the right choice - even that
preserving a strong Soviet Union was more important than strong leftwing
unions in the US - but for those who did not, it discredited the CPUSA and
the left in general.
((
CB: Yes, and I am accusing those for whom it discredited the CPUSA of not thinking
through the full implication of the whole situation, and of committing terrible
political errors in that period. In other words, the anti-CP committed worse errors
than the CP.
This criticism thing goes both ways. Not only am I saying that the CPUSA was correct,
but those on the Left who criticized them are to be chastised for not being up to
speed in the international workers movement. This is not just a matter of defending
the SU and CPUSA , but of putting you other leftists or your equivalents in the late
30's on trial as you try the reverse. You are being judged, not just doing the judging
;
In other words, I don't buy what you are saying, either. I accuse those who take the
position that you do of undermining the international workers' movement and the
struggle against fascism.
There are many leftists then (and like myself today) who saw nothing
superior in Munich over the Hitler-Stalin pact, but saw the willingness of
the CPUSA to sell out US workers for the needs of the Soviets as
reprehensible. It extended not just to their initial twists in foreign
policy but to their rigid support for no-strike pledges during World War II,
to the point where conservatives in the union movement ended up looking more
militant than the so-called "left-wing." Because of the CPUSA's rigid
position on the no-strike clause, even as the capitalists drove down the
standard of living of workers during the war, by the time we entered the
post-war period, the CP-led left in the union's no longer was seen as the
militant wing of the movement. More conservative but more militant union
leaders like Walter Reuther were able to take over control of unions like
the UAW, leading to the 1948-49 expulsion of the left-led unions.
((
CB: Yes, you have not proven that the no strike pledge was not the correct position in
the period. The Reutherites merely pandered to the shallow consciousness that did not
realize that the fate of the world's workers' movement hinged critically on defeating
the Nazis more than carrying out a few strikes in the U.S. in a brief 4 year period.
J'accuse the Reutherite trend of betraying the working class movement, with their
wrong position on all these issues, their phony militancy and ultimate philosophy
class collaborationism that has given us the falling rate of union membership today. I
accuse Reutherism of betraying the working class movement at home and abroad, and
doing it using arguments such as the one you make on this thread. It is social
democratic, anti-Soviet class collaborationism that is on trial before the class
conscious workers' who study history now.
)))
Which in the end was hardly in the strategic interests of the Soviets. So
it was bad on both fronts.
(
CB: This is one of the typical blame the victim conclusions that comes out of the
betrayal of the working class "logic" of U.S. Reutherites, social dems, and those who
arrogate to themselves the status of judging the Soviets , rather than realizing it is
they themselves who history shows to have betrayed the world working class, including
the U.S. working class , by a shallow analysis of the 1937 and post war period.
___
Leninist-International mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpu
