[Marxism] Earl Browder

Charles Brown cbrown at michiganlegal.org
Sun Oct 2 17:21:54 MDT 2005

I understand the rationale, but the result was not at all the protection
of socialism. Rather it was the destruction of the opportunity for
proletarian revolution in Europe and the Americas for a couple of

CB: You might say more than a couple of decades, however, it is not, of
course, certain that had there been no "no strike" pledge, that there would
have been proletarian revs in those locations within two decades. There may
not have been same, even if fascism had still been defeated.  If fascism had
not been defeated ( because of no pressure on the Western front or
whatever), then still, no prol rev for two decades.

So, it is not quite definite at all that "it was the destruction of the
opportunity for
proletarian revolution in Europe and the Americas for a couple of


Rr:Despite my lack of orthodoxy when it comes to Leninism or Trotskyism, I
think it is essential to grasp, in analysis, program, tactics, and
strategy that both Lenin and Trotsky maintained that their survival, and the
survival of the Bolshevik rule, was secondary to the prospects for success
of international revolution.

CB; More like their survival depended upon rev in advanced capitalist
nations. Not much they can do for international revolution , but have one in
their own country.

There is no "international" location. The international revolution takes
place in nations, like Russia.

Anyway, it was not a case of giving up the rev in the U.S., in order to
defend the SU. Afterall, by the U.S. alliance with the SU, the Communist
nation,  the CP had some reason to think abatement of anti-communism might
be one contingency, though it did not materialize, quite the opposite.

The notion that defense or protection of the "socialism" of the Soviet state
through class-collaboration is identical with or superior to the prospects
for international revolution predates WW2 and in fact is one of the
contributing factors to the "inevitability" of that conflict.

The moderator puts it right when he says that the best defense of the USSR
resided in increased class struggle.

CB: Disagree, The SU _was_ successfully defended by the Popular Front
strategy. "Increased class struggle" very well may have failed in that.


No strikes in Detroit a reasonable position in WW2?   But how about one day
after?  How do you ever recuperate your validity with the workers when you
go from no strikes to OK strikes based on the temporary accommodations
between states?  

CB: I'm sure it was all explained very plainly in the _Daily Worker_.  


The disorienation and disorganization of
the working class introduced by a "no strike"  social patriotism merely
sets the stage for expulsion of left wing elements from the workers
movement as a whole during and after the accommodation.

CB: That's right.  Ironic sideeffect was that the real class-collaborators,
the Reutherites, the Mensheviks, feigned militancy , got in, and then really
started collaborating.


How about after the Battle of Kursk, when it was quite clear that the Red
Army would defeat the Nazis?  Shouldn't it, strikes, been OK then?

CB: Yea, you know, but "treason" and all that.


And if African-Americans refused to serve in the armed forces?  If
Native Americans refused to serve?  Would arrest and imprisonment be a
reasonable position also?

CB: "If" ? Actually, the African Americans were fighting to fight, so no
contradiction arose there.


When the Vietnamese workers movement was told to abandon its struggle
against France in order to reaffirm the PF strategy of the USSR, and
reassure the PF government of France, was that reasonable?

CB: Might have been. Sounds similar. Maybe "suspend" there on that front in
order to fight on the biggest front of the class struggle with fascism. But
then you might not say publically "suspend".


On the contrary, all those reasonable positions amount to abandonment of
class struggle,
CB: "Suspension" of the class struggle on the fronts in those capitalist
countries that were part of the Pop Front. _The biggest front of the class
struggle at that time in history was the war against fascism_,truly the
front of the international revolution then. So, it is quite incorrect to
characterize the Popular Front as abandoning the class struggle. The class
struggle raged more furiously than ever before on the Popular Front against
fascism and Nazism.


 decapitation of the workers' leadership, and the
inevitability of increased attacks on every single gain workers have
made, especially the "deformed" gains of its first worker's state.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charles Brown" <cbrown at michiganlegal.org
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism> >
To: <marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism> >
> ^^^
> CB: At the time of the party position, it wasn't clear that the Red
> would defeat the Nazis somewhat on the Red Army's own, so it might
have been
> necessary to have places like the "Arsenal of Democracy" going full
blast to
> defeat the Nazis. Thus, no strikes during the war in Detroit , etc.,
was a
> reasonable position.
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu
> Set your options at:

More information about the Marxism mailing list