We are two people separated by the common tradition that we share, Michael: You see me as a reformist, imperialist stooge, and I think you are a sectarian ultraleftist. It's the Trotskyist tradition.
> On Jul 5, 2026, at 21:48, RKOB via groups.io <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > Yes, this is the subject of the note. Let's keep that in mind. > 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”. > You think that the propagation of ideas defined the "material conditions." I think that the material conditions on December 8 included over 2400 dead sailors and civilians, over 1700 wounded, 200 aircraft destroyed, four battleships sunk, and your typical US American probably felt that San Francisco might be next. These are the material conditions. The idea that this was solely a response to the newspaper articles and radio broadcast is idealism, not materialism. Many people saw Pearl Harbor as the last line of defense against an attack from the Pacific. There was a well-documented, pro-war reaction by the US population after December 7, 1941 to an attack on what they considered, wrongly, the USA: Hawaii was not yet a US state but a colonial possession (a "US Territory") since the 19th century. We don't have to imagine what it was like after December 7, 1941. The reaction of the US people was no doubt more extreme than the popular response to 9/11, which we in the US experienced. At that time, one TV host pointed out that it made no sense to call the 9/11 attackers as "cowards" since theirs was not a cowardly act; he was immediately banished from US TV. Much of the US mood was captured by Susan Faludi's book 'Terror Dream." > 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. > Right, just like in Austin, Germany, France, Great Britain, and etc. It is not a US American phenomenon, is it? Why are you citing conditions that existed throughout the advanced capitalist countries? And what does this have to do with the original subject noted above? > Naturally, the U.S. was never in danger to be conquered by Japan. > What matters is what people believed, not what a clique of experts understood at the time. The US was never a nation of geopolitical analysts. Far from it. The reaction to 9/11 was irrational, ferocious, but much less than after Pearl Harbor. After 9/11, one radio host wanted to know what are we waiting for and said he won't feel better until we attack them back. But no one knew who "them" were. It was a section of the Persian Gulf elite, but our elites manage to blame Iraq because, in part, Saudi Arabia was already a petrostate ally of the US that denominated their product in US dollars. And what does this have to do with the original subject we are discussing? > Still, most parts of the labor movement did not protest against the detention > of about 120,000 people of Japanese descent during the war. > Is the incarceration of the US Japanese population that much different from the Anschluss? The people of Austria welcomed a Nazi invasion by throwing flowers at the invading Army. Within days of the Blumenkrieg, ordinary Viennese citizens, neighbors, and classmates began humiliating and assaulting Jewish residents publicly, forcing them to scrub pro-Austrian independence slogans off the streets on their hands and knees while crowds jeered. And we know what happened after that. And what does this have to do with the subject of note? > In short, official anti-fascism in the U.S. was a cover for supporting U.S. > imperialism. > What imperialist country's "official anti-fascim" was anything other than a cover for supporting the nation's imperialism? What does this have to do with the subject of note? We have a saying in the US: You are throwing shit on the wall to see what sticks. > 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. > Please cite your proof of the SWP's "opportunistic 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. > That's just a smear without citing where I wrote that the US was right to defend their imperialist country. You have produced ZERO evidence about the alleged SWP capitulation to WW II, and that's lazy. If we are going to continue this debate, which I think unwise, please start with evidence rather than story-telling. https://themilitant.com/1941/0550/MIL0550.pdf is a good place to start, and https://themilitant.com/Militant_Back_Issues/1940_1949/1940_1949.html should provide all the evidence you need to document the opportunism; unless you are wrong. > Mark defends the mistaken policy of Cannon/SWP by referring – as a cautionary > tale – to the heroic Palestinian resistance. > Hamas and Gaza should be left for another thread. We are having enough problems with this topic. > 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?! > That's a straw man argument that relies on nothing that I wrote or said. It is simply a smear. > Or because this would temporarily isolate the party from social-chauvinist > sectors of the masses? > You must have more insight than Leon Trotsky, Michael; he never even noticed that rampant opportunism in the US party or in James P Cannon. Or did the SWP immediately degenerate into opportunism a year after Trotsky's murder? Mark > > 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 (#42333): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42333 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
