CPUSA: Moscow's stooge

Justin Schwartz jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us
Thu Apr 27 07:40:22 MDT 1995


On Wed, 26 Apr 1995 TimW333521 at aol.com wrote:

> I agree with your political analysis of the CPUSA and what was and is wrong
> with it.  However, I do think it matters that: 1) it received massive
> subsidies from the USSR which could not help but  effect its independence;

Quite. But the problem was the lack of independence, not the subsidies per
se. Some groups thus subsidized (the ANC, e.g.) retained their
independence.

 2)
> that its top leadership knowingly facilitated the utilization of some party
> members as espionage agents of the USSR;

Well, this is part and parcel of the subsistition of the USSR for the
revolutionary proletariat.

But in general I wouldn't want to focus on the None Dare Call It Treason
stuff that Scott rightly derided--it's not treason to the US govt but
treason to the working class that's the problem.

When I was in the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the early
80's we ran a fundraising ad in Sanity, CND's journal, with a photo of a
bar of gold inscribed with Cyrillic writing, and English text says Help!
The Moscow Gold Hasn't Arrived! (Since of course we were accused of being
funded by the Russians.

  3) And, quite frankly, I admit to
> an emotional attachment to "The Old Man" (Leon Trotsky) and therefore find
> repugnant the thought that top leaders of the American CP facilitated his axe
> murder.

Of course. But it's not just because LD was a hero and a rather likeable
coot, as well as a great writer of prose that his murder was morally
dreadful, and abetting it loathesome. The problem was the policy of
murdering Stalin's political opponents, even those who wwere less noble,
attarctive, and articulate.

> I do not hold the rank file honest working class militants in the CPUSA
> responsible for this reprehensible conduct.  They became its victims as the
> leadership's conduct made it far easier to persecute the CP than it would
> have been if the organization's relationship with the Soviet Government, its
> monies and its secret agents, had been different.

Well they bear some responsibility. Nobody made them (a) stay in the
Party, (b) ignore overwhelming evidence of the behavior of the Soviet
regime, inclusing murder, (c) defend these policies--even if they didn't
initiate them. Charles Mills has a piece onn The Moral Psycholofy of
Stalinism in--I think--Politics and Society, relatively recently or
forthcoming. Like everything he writes it is worth reading. I'll get the
exact reference. Anyway, they might have fought for inner-Party democracy
and political independence.


--Justin Schwartz





     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list