Marx, Engels and Lenin and the party question (was Re: To Juan (PS))

M A Jones mark at
Mon Aug 2 00:53:51 MDT 1999

Carrol Cox wrote:
>>"Jose G. Perez" wrote:

> This would have been the real test for the Comintern: if they had been
> to hold back the American hotheads and super-revolutionary foreign
> federations from cutting themselves off from the mass of native-born and
> west-European origin workers, and from the radicalized small farmers who
> were being driven to the wall in successive layers during this whole
> historic period, then  it might have been said that the general staff in
> Kremlin was worth something. But the truth is the Comintern encouraged the
> U.S. split.

The U.S. working class had *always* been fatally split by white racism.
It was impossible to split it any further than it already was. A U.S.
working class that does not make anti-racism the cutting edge of its
struggles is a class unfit for any revolutionary task. The CPUSA,
prodded by the Comintern, first made race a significant issue for
the U.S. left.<<

Carrol is surely right. I am intrigued by this whole Comintern discussion.
It's another case of scapegoating, this time by blaming the
USSR/Zinoviev/Bolshevism for the abject
historical failures of our own 'revolutionary' movements, whose history has
generally been characterised by cowardice, caprice and treason. There is not
much in the history of the US or British revolutionary communist movements
(taking them at their own estimation) to suggest that their contemptible
performance this century would have been any different whatever line had
come out of Moscow (incidentally, Stalin evidently agreed with Louis and
Jose, since he had the Comintern scrapped at the beginning of WW2). It had
already been dead for 20 years, and not because of 'stalinism' but because
of the inability of the CPs to strike into the entrails of their own
capitalisms. Whose was the failure, actually? And what, actually, is the


More information about the Marxism mailing list