First Published: Labor Action, Vol. 10, No. 50, December 16, 1946
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.
In our article of last week, we tried to show how the group of former members of the Communist Party was completely confused on the character of Stalinism and the nature of the Communist Parties of the world. Advocating a radical policy in the struggle for socialism now, they at the same time demand the construction of a genuine “Stalinist Party” in the United States. They point to the French and Italian Communist Parties as examples for a party in this country to follow. The French and Italian parties, they say, are making progress and are not isolated from the masses; the American is an isolated party. This is proof that the American party is different from its sister parties in the above two countries.
But the NCP (New Committee for Publications) is profoundly mistaken. The Communist Party of the United States is a genuine Stalinist Party, in no principled way different from French or Italian. The advantages of the latter are to be sought in the deeper social crisis which exists in those countries which enable the perfidious, double-dealing policies of the Stalinists there to exploit the masses far better than in the United States. The parties in France and Italy are closer to Russia and therefore receive stronger support. The proximity of Stalin’s army to their countries enabled them to take advantage of and capitalize on its victories.
But those parties pursued the same general line that the Communist Party followed in this country which can be described as: class collaborationist, anti-working class, counter-revolutionary. Wherever and whenever the working classes of France and Italy endeavored to carry out a revolutionary struggle that threatened the very existence of capitalism in those countries, the Communist Parties, on the basis of their influence and strength, were able to head them off.
In Italy as in France, the Communist Parties repeatedly said that they were not for a revolutionary struggle today, that they did not consider the fight for socialism to be the perspective in our times. One need only glance at the policies carried out there for proof of this.
Both parties were against the seizure of the factories by the workers and the establishment of Soviets.
Both parties opposed the setting up of a government by the workers at a time when it was possible to develop the revolutionary struggle of the masses.
Both parties declared as their aims the establishment of governments in collaboration with the capitalist parties.
Both parties have cautioned the workers against engaging in nation wide strikes and militant struggles against their present unbearable living conditions.
Both parties have participated in rotten capitalist governments against the best interests of the people.
In France, the Communist Party collaborated with that would-be dictator de Gaulle. Thereafter it joined hands with the party of the Catholic Center under Bidault’s leadership.
In Italy, the Communist Party first supported Badoglio then the successive governments of capitalist futility.
This, does not mean that the Stalinist parties of France and Italy are not willing to take power in common with other “left” parties, such as the socialists–in order to share their betrayal of the working class. But in seeking that kind of power, they are primarily concerned with serving the interests of Stalinist Russia at the expense of the French and Italian masses. Already, in both countries they have acted as strikebreakers.
Bulletin No. 1 of the NCP, for example, in order to prove that the Communist Party in this country is reactionary and anti-socialist, cites a directive of the party to a San Francisco branch to act as strikebreakers in the strike of Local 68 of the International Association of Machinists. We cannot vouch for the precise character of the directive, but reprint the letter of a member NCP published. Its authenticity can be judged by the fact that the CP pursued a strikebreaking policy during the war and continues to do so against its opponents. The letter says:
“With the strike of Local 68, IAM, together with the CIO machinists In the East Bay area, the split began to widen in CPUSA forces. After issuing perfunctory approval of the strike demands as ’just’ CP began to break the strike. It issued leaflets and had articles published in People’s World (CP paper on West Coast) openly advising the machinists that they couldn’t win the strike and urging them to go back to work.
“The best CP branch here, made up of machinists and having the best reputation in the whole country, was directed by CP to attack the strike leaders as Trotskyite (which was a damned lie, as usual) and to demand a rank-and-file committee to lead a back-to-work movement.
“The reasons for all this were that CP wanted the strike to fall. The CIO leaders In this area, closely associated and interpenetrated with CP did not want a victory in the strike. They feared a victory that would make the machinists more influential and expose the 18 per cent sell-out In which the warehousemen, a part of the ILWU (Bridges’ union), had ’pioneered.’ To the state committee of CP, Dick Lyndon, president of the warehousemen, declared that a machinists’ victory in the strike would be a ’tragedy of the first magnitude.’ In the newspapers he called on workers to break the picket lines.
“Naturally, the machinists’ branch would not go along with CP policy, and so the branch was liquidated In the usual smart way: at the end of a meeting called for another purpose, the liquidation of the branch was announced with a ruling: ’There will be no discussion of this.’ Expulsions came thick and fast. Comrades who refused to hall the maritime settlement of June 16, ’46 as a victory were expelled. Walter Lambert, once state CP trade union secretary, and Homer Mulligan of ACA were also expelled for opposing these actions.”
If NCPers think this is something new in CP policy let them only remember the war years. Let them remember how Bridges scabbed on the strike of the Retail Clerks led by Wolchok. Let them remember how the OP trade union leaders spearheaded the struggle for incentive pay, for the no-strike pledge and labor-management committees. Let them remember how the CP trade union fractions acted like imperialist watch-dogs in the labor movement. If they recall these things they will, upon examination of the sister CP’s in Europe discover that that is exactly what they had done during the war and immediate post-war period.
And, if NCPers want to understand why, let them examine Russian foreign policy. They will then discover that so long as Stalin’s alliance with Anglo-American imperialism was solid, his parties in all other countries were on good behavior and saw to it that the war economies of his allies were unhindered and the masses kept to the grindstone. Now, however, that the war is over and the enemy defeated, now that relations between the erstwhile allies have deteriorated in their own conflict for world power, the CPs have been given the word: you can go ahead for a while, exploit the militancy of the working class, pretend that you are revolutionary socialist parties, embarrass your ruling governments. I, Stalin, am showing my rivals that I have allies in their own countries and can make trouble for them at home if necessary. And this too, only to a degree, because Stalin is just as much opposed to the socialist revolution and the power of the workers as are the capitalist powers whom he opposes.
Once NCPers begin to understand this, they will begin to understand the antics of Foster-Dennis and Company. They will then discover the reason why there is not a great deal to chose between them and Browder whom they replaced. But for such an understanding they must break with Stalinism itself.