American Trotskyism child of the CPUSA

Waistline2 at Waistline2 at
Thu Sep 25 09:27:05 MDT 2003

>This is a settled matter. We won this one.  I prefer to debate those who 
still disagree onmatters on which they are more willing to accept the test of 
reality. This isnot 1937 when Trotsky, Sedov, Shachtman, Novack, and others had 
to spend dayafter day pounding away at the trials.  Its a settled issue, 
extremelywell documented by thousands of people both better and worse qualified 
thanBertram Wolfe. Nothing Bob Gould can say will convince the stragglers, 
nothinghe can say strengthens the verdict that the human race, almost as a 
species,has reached on this matter.

Those of us who can securely chalk this battle up in our win column should 
beeager to move on and determined to do so, as I am.

Fred Feldman<


You hit the nail on the head inadvertently or rather from an old 
ideologicalpolarity. There are no columns of win and lose except to the polarity 
thatevolved in America called the CPUSA and the Trotskyite Ideological"Movement.&
quot; These two sides - reflections, of the political process shadowingthe 
social movement in America, have never really had anything in common with aMarxist 
or rather materialist grasp of American history and the historicalrecord 
exist to prove this. The reason I state nothing about the Moscow trialsis because 
I speak of the trails in America during the period in question. Ifail to 
understand why the Moscow trials are historically important to ourworking class in 
the first place. 

The Trotskyite movement evolved from the inner politics of the Soviet state 
andnot from social movements in society.  This is obvious to anyone that 
haslooked at the history.  

What a tragedy for the workers to say, "our" side won. What did 

Here is a story that maybring out the logic of how one can be blind to events 
when they exist as apolarity of a distortion.

It was one of those days in the jungle when it was not to hot, but a little 
dryand the elephant was standing under some shade drinking from a small pond. 
Thelion came roaring up to the elephant beating on his chest screaming, "I 
amthe king of the jungle."   The small animals scatteredeverywhere and 
the monkey climbed high up a tree to stay out of the lion's way.

The elephant said nothing and threw a hardy splash of water on his back. 

The Lion shouted out, "I am the King of the jungle and will kick 
anyoneass that says different." 

The elephant said nothing and the lions ran up to him and bite him on the 
leg.The elephant brush him to the side with his trunk and resumed his bathing. 

The monkey broke out in laughter and told the other animals the lion 
wasn'tshit and they start laughing at the lion. 

The lion became angry and let out a loud roar and scream, "I AM THE 

The elephant looked at the lion, said nothing and went on bathing. 

In a fraction of a second the lion leaped from the ground onto the back of 
theelephant and started biting him in the back of his neck. The elephant 
quicklystepped to the side, inverted his back and with a swift movement of his 
trunksnatched the lion of his back and stepped on his several times. 

The elephant looked at the lion, said nothing and went on bathing. 

Moments from death the lion raised his front leg and said, "I AM THE 

The monkey climbed from the tree and went over to the elephant and signaled 
forhim to bend down to tell him something. The elephant bent down to 
listenbecause the monkey be signifying but picked up a lot of wisdom from hanging 
outhigh in the trees. 

The monkey says, "some know and some don't know. Some know but don't 
knowthey know. Some don't know and do not know they do not know, but think 
theyknow. The lion is a mutherfucker that don't know and thinks he knows. When acat 
doesn't know, a cat don't know and that is a cat that definitely don't 
knowshit. Then again there are a bunch of cats out there that don't know."

The idea of winning, in a "no win" situation reminds me of the 
catthat don't know.  Here is a cat that don't know. 

In America the communists of the generation of the Moscow trails - a couple 
ofgenerations ago, were not students of jurisprudence but lined up on the 
basisof political alignment, which was rooted in history and the work in front 
ofthem. World War 1 cased a realignment in the political movement and groups 
wasreconfigured on the basis of the October Revolution. The significance of thebook 
"The Great Conspiracy" in this regard is the description of 
ahistorical political alignment and not the trails. 

It is so hard for some to say good-bye to yesterday and deny the origins 
oftheir birth. Trotskyism in America has always understood that it was a 
polarityto the CPUSA and unknowingly admits the origin of its birth. Trotskyism 
inAmerica did not evolve on the basis of the October Revolution but the CPUSA.  
Trotskyismin America is an abortion because it comes from an aborted and 
disfiguredpolitical movement. Shit does not know it stinks. 

Cats do not understand American history except on the basis of 
ideologicalcategories. It is hard to accept that everyone can be historically wrong, butthat 
is how history unfolds for everyone. I did not come out of this polarityof 
the CPUSA and ideological Trotskyism. My activity evolved at a differentjuncture 
in American history. 

During the last era, the qualitative transition in the internal 
politicalfabric in America occurred in the form of the Watts Rebellion of 1965. 
Anotherjuncture would be reached on the basis of this new qualitative configurationthat 
is Watts in 1967 Detroit, but that is a story for later.  During therebellion 
Dick Gregory ran into the street and mounted a podium to claim themasses in 

There was a young man standing about 100 feet from a police officer 
listeningattentively to what Dick Gregory was saying. Dick was pleading with the 
massesto return home and allow the leaders of the community to solve the issues 
ofpolice brutality and poverty. 

The young man was very angry over the police violence and social decay in 
whichhe lived. He looked at the police officer and stuck his hand in his jacket 
andput it firmly around the handle of his pistol. He looked at Dick Gregory 
andthen looked at the police. He looked at the police and then Dick again. For 
afull thirty seconds his head turned back and forth from the police to 
DickGregory and finally he pulled out his pistol and shot Dick Gregory. The 
newqualitative ingredient was not the rebellion but the rejection of the politicalmiddle, 
which momentarily "broke" the connection of a historicalpolitical 
contradictory motion in American politics.  Dick Gregory was thepolitical 
middle. This is the logic of American history – the rejection andcollapse of the 
political middle. 
This is a true story and hereis the point where the petty bourgeois leaders 
were rejected with a bullet anda new level of struggle emerged in America that 
rendered the CPUSA and theTrotskyite ideological movements obsolete. Things 
went further in Detroit and apolitical development emerged placing a section of 
the proletarians leadersforever outside the orbit of the CPUSA/Trotskyite 
polarity because they areideological groups of disgruntled intellectuals and not 
political groups on theone hand. On the other hand they are formation of 
another era.  If is notthat "we" made an analysis of "the rejection 
of the politicalmiddle" and then evolved on that basis, but rather we 
evolved on the basisof this rejection - or old political alignment and then 
analyzed why. 

Here is the point. No one in American history even attempts to write about 
thereal history of the working class movement and its political logic except 
thecommunist workers. Everyone else writes ideological pronouncements. 
Thedegeneracy of the Trotskyite ideology is no different from that of the CPUSAand both 
did not see new ingredients in the working class movement but a socialmovement 
of a race of people. When we said, "No you are making a horriblemistake&
quot; both aspects of the polarity of distortion said, "No, youpeople do 
not understand the importance of race." 

To this very day this is the polarity on Marxline, which I am forever 
outsideof. Not because of thinking, but the communist workers cannot enter 
anideological polarity outside of their class instincts. Here is why the comradescannot 
understand the Civil War. A fight between two groupings is nevercomplex. The 
complexity is the inner logic compelling one to fight and how thisinner logic 
transforms the combatants and gives shape to slogans, rallyingcries and the 
historical assertions. I do not sound like any of the comradesbecause of the 
history juncture from which I emerged. Yet, anyone canunderstand the simple logic 
of the complexity of the social process withstraight talk. 

A win column? Who are you fighting? Let me guess, the folks who sided with 
theproletariat state. Here is why we reprinted "The Great Conspiracy" 
toteach political alignments. As if we cared about the Moscow trails forty 
yearsthe fact!  For that matter we simply do not care about the Lysenko 
Controversyor for that matter the murder of Kirov or the horrible imprisonment 
ofMolotov's wife. I have personally have profound feeling about what happened 
toMolotov's wife, but I will not cross the line that send one into the camp ofthe 
enemy. In America our workers ask one question and one question only:"Which 
Side Our You On!" 

The only difference between the Trotskyite ideological movements - they are 
notpolitical movements because politics deal with the art of people, classes 
andmaneuver, and their mother in and as the CPUSA in America is that the 
CPUSAbetter understands how to appear on the side of the workers. Both"movements&
quot; are adjuncts of the intelligence communities in America.We are not 
going to defeat "intelligence" but they flip because theyare in the last 
instance an adjunct of a class rule. 

Take the gold and run with it. 

But then again, when a cat don't know a cat don't know. 

A win column? Nothing was won or could be won until the last phase of 
thepolarity exhausted itself ! 

I call this a Marxist understanding of history but that is not really 
truebecause there is no such thing as a "Marxist understanding of history inthe 
first place."  All that exist is the materialist conception ofhistory and 
the study of ones own peculiarity. Ideological doctrine will helpno one in 
this task. 

Melvin P. 

PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.

More information about the Marxism mailing list