Hi Michael, > On Jul 8, 2026, at 05:39, RKOB via groups.io <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comrade Mark and Tony misunderstand me when I emphasise that the problem in > 1941 was the chauvinist consciousness of the majority of American worker. I > do not doubt that this consciousness was objective reality. Likewise, the > Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was objective reality. But this does not > change the fact that the majority of American workers reacted to this event > in a patriotic, i.e. chauvinist way. This is not surprising and it happened > in many other countries involved in imperialist conflicts (e.g. in Europe in > WWI and WWII, including in Austria). > > Lenin emphasized that such a reaction and the subsequent isolation of > revolutionaries – at least in the first period of the war – is nearly > inevitable in such a situation. > > “We must take special pains to explain that the question of “defence of the > fatherland” will inevitably arise, and that the overwhelming majority of the > working people will inevitably decide it in favour of their bourgeoisie. > Therefore, first, it is necessary to explain what “defence of the fatherland” > means. Second, in connection with this, it is necessary to explain what > “defeatism” means. Lastly, we must explain that the only possible method of > combating war is to preserve existing, and to form new, illegal organisations > in which all revolutionaries taking part in a war carry on prolonged anti-war > activities—all this must be brought into the forefront.” (V. I. Lenin: Notes > on Tasks of Our Delegation at The Hague, in: LCW Vol. 33, pp. 447-448) > "Illegal organizations" are mentioned, I suppose, because the above piece was for RSDLP delegates. > However, the reaction to such isolation must not be adaption to > social-chauvinism or preservation of legal existence of party and media at > any costs but political and organizational preparation for such a situation > (preparing for underground or semi-legal existence, some leaders going > abroad, illegal printing shops, etc.). In other words, the task is “to swim > against the stream” and not to swim with the masses who are temporarily > affected by chauvinism. It is no accident that Lenin’s and Zinoviev’s > compilation of writings during WWI was called “Against the Stream” and not > “Swimming with the Stream”. > That's true. I just don't think isolated quotes from Munis or the trial testimony establishes that adaptation occurred. Did you read Cannon's 50-page response to Munis. > I did say that Canon and the SWP failed to take a consistent defeatist > position (and I provided quotes with exact source for it, contrary to Mark’s > claims). However, this does not mean that they capitulated like the SPD did > in 1914. These exist not only black and white, but also shades in between. > > By the way, I can not fail to point out that in the above-mentioned quotes > from December 1922, Lenin points to “defeatism” – contrary to Draper’s and > Tony’s wrong claim that he would have “moved away” from this concept after > 1915. > > I don’t know why Mark introduces the “Anschluß” in the discussion. In any > case, this was a conflict between two imperialist states and the German and > Austrian Trotskyists refused to support either side. > I did not understand that your contention was that the WWII SWP was adapting to the chauvinism of the US workers. I missed your points about the US labor aristocracy and Japanese internment because that social formation and mass violence were hardly confined to the US at that time. Now, I understand why you brought it up. But there was no adaption in my view.
Since we last exchanged notes, I have read Munis' complaint about the trial testimony and Cannon's reply https://stars.library.ucf.edu/prism/734/). That essay reflects what I learned fifty-some years ago. So it's no surprise that I think Cannon's reasoning was in the best revolutionary tradition, and he demonstrated this in his essay by answering Munis' points by using quotes from the writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky. Wherever Munis put a minus, Cannon managed to find an example where these writers put a plus. In the process of his essay, I thought Cannon successfully tied Munis' admonitions to Blanquism. The trial testimony was intended for US workers in their present state rather than for Spanish Civil War veterans. And the testimony did walk a line between proselytizing to the US working class and defending against a longer incarceration, as explained in Cannon's essay cited above. Mark -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#42375): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/42375 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
