In one of my contributions in the debate about revolutionary defeatism,
I criticized mistakes of Cannon/SWP in WWII by not opposing consistently
social-chauvinism. Mark refuted my critique and wrote:
“/Pro-imperialist consciousness? The country was attacked by Japan.
People were fearful and angry. The issue wasn't just false consciousness
but material conditions./
/The SWP adapted to this. When the war began after the attack on Pearl
Harbour, it took the party several weeks to publish a statement about
the U.S. entering the war! And this was only after oppositionists in the
party (inspired by the Spanish-Mexican Trotskyist Grandizo Munis//)
protested against the silence./
/The attack on Pearl Harbor was in December 1941. Five months earlier,
in July 1971, Cannon along with most of the central leadership of the
SWP and Teamsters Local 544 were put under federal indictment. Many of
these activists led the Minneapolis General Strike seven years earlier.
This was the first step by which the FBI replaced the socialist
leadership of the long-distance truckers union with the US Italian mob.
They were in dire straits and threatened with having the party declared
illegal. Cannon dealt with that in 1919 and the early 20s when the early
communists went underground./
/So the leadership are indicted and facing prison for advocating
revolutionary defeatism, the country has been attacked and is wildly
prowar, working people are looking for answers so they won't be overrun
by foreign adversaries, and you are quibbling that the Militant
newspaper was not strident enough in presenting a
revolutionary-defeatist line. Do you really think think this was the
time to repeat in the party organ the same statements that got them
indicted?/
/That was a time when a delusional leadership could end up wrecking the
entire organization; the class enemy had the overwhelming advantage, the
leadership were facing prison for exercising their constitutional
rights, the party's civil-libertarian allies were stymied by the popular
mood, and a clear-headed leadership chose to preserve the ability to
fight in the future rather than have the entire organization destroyed.
In other words, they didn't do what Hamas did./”
I think Mark’s reply reflects the problem and defends the logic which
led social democracy to capitulation in WWI. First, no “the country” was
not attacked – it was the U.S. Navy in Pearl Harbour. “/People were
fearful and angry/” because of the chauvinist propaganda of the American
media – not because of “material conditions”. If there were “material
conditions” in place, it was the fact that the U.S. was the richest
country in the world with a relatively privileged labor aristocracy.
Naturally, the U.S. was never in danger to be conquered by Japan. Still,
most parts of the labor movement did not protest against the detention
of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent during the war. In short,
official anti-fascism in the U.S. was a cover for supporting U.S.
imperialism.
Social democratic parties in World War I had many more reasons to fear
repression. In Germany, the state had already produced long lists with
all the party cadres to be arrested, and the army pushed to do so (they
were stopped by Chancler Bethmann Hollweg who understood that the social
democrats could be integrated.) One of the key arguments of social
democratic leaders not to oppose the war was exactly this danger – that
this would mean the destruction of their party. Marxists in the
tradition of Lenin always denounced this opportunist policy.
Following Mark’s logic, the French socialists were right to defend their
imperialist country because it was really attacked by Germany and
foreign occupation was a real threat (in contrast to the U.S. in WWII).
And, of course, the party leaders did refer to this danger in order to
justify their social-chauvinist capitulation.
Mark defends the mistaken policy of Cannon/SWP by referring – as a
cautionary tale – to the heroic Palestinian resistance. But why not
referring to the Bolsheviks? They did face mass arrests and suppression
of their press in 1914. Their parliamentary faction was arrested and put
on trial (where they could have faced death sentences). Why was it not
possible for the SWP to send leaders abroad, to go underground,
preparing illegal press, etc. Because the U.S. is such a civilized
country and you don’t do such things?! Or because this would temporarily
isolate the party from social-chauvinist sectors of the masses?
Am 30.06.2026 um 20:26 schrieb Mark Baugher:
Unsurprisingly, there existed a strong chauvinist sentiment among the
masses in the first phase of the war (this was pro-U.S. imperialist
consciousness, not so much “anti-fascist”).
Pro-imperialist consciousness? The country was attacked by Japan.
People were fearful and angry. The issue wasn't just false
consciousness but material conditions.
The SWP adapted to this. When the war began after the attack on Pearl
Harbour, it took the party several weeks to publish a statement about
the U.S. entering the war! And this was only after oppositionists in
the party (inspired by the Spanish-Mexican Trotskyist Grandizo Munis)
protested against the silence.
The attack on Pearl Harbor was in December 1941. Five months earlier,
in July 1971, Cannon along with most of the central leadership of the
SWP and Teamsters Local 544 were put under federal indictment. Many of
these activists led the Minneapolis General Strike seven years
earlier. This was the first step by which the FBI replaced the
socialist leadership of the long-distance truckers union with the US
Italian mob. They were in dire straits and threatened with having the
party declared illegal. Cannon dealt with that in 1919 and the early
20s when the early communists went underground.
So the leadership are indicted and facing prison for advocating
revolutionary defeatism, the country has been attacked and is wildly
prowar, working people are looking for answers so they won't be
overrun by foreign adversaries, and you are quibbling that the
Militant newspaper was not strident enough in presenting a
revolutionary-defeatist line. Do you really think think this was the
time to repeat in the party organ the same statements that got them
indicted?
That was a time when a delusional leadership could end up wrecking the
entire organization; the class enemy had the overwhelming advantage,
the leadership were facing prison for exercising their constitutional
rights, the party's civil-libertarian allies were stymied by the
popular mood, and a clear-headed leadership chose to preserve the
ability to fight in the future rather than have the entire
organization destroyed. In other words, they didn't do what Hamas did.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#42321): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42321
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/119987077/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
#4 Do not exceed five posts a day.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
