My Decision to Join the Trotskyist Camp in 1928

By James P. Cannon

---

This is a letter sent to Theodore Draper, a historian of the American communist movement. It was written in 1959. The entire series of letters sent from Cannon to Draper has been published under the title “The first ten years of American communism” by Lyle Stuart Inc, in 1962. It was later reprinted by Pathfinder Press, New York.

---

Trotsky in Cayoacon, Mexico 1940

May 27, 1959
It seems to me that I have already written myself out on “The Birth of American Trotskyism”—in which I played the central role because I just happened to be standing there at the time and there was no one else to do it. I couldn’t add much to what I have already written in the “History of American Trotskyism,” in my letters to you, and in the big article—“The Degeneration of the Communist Party and the New Beginning” in the Fall, 1954 issue of Fourth International.
That’s my case. If I were to write about it again I could only repeat what I have already said. You’ll find a better and fuller exposition there than I could write again today. I have the faculty, which for me is a happy one, of pushing things to the back of my mind once I have written them out. In order to write a fresh report on the origin of American Trotskyism, I would have to force myself back into a semi-coma, recalling and reliving the struggle of 31 years ago. That is too much for me to undertake again.
The only thing I left out of my extensive writing about that period, which I try to leave out of all my writing, was the special element of personal motivation for my action—which cynics would never believe and research workers never find in the files and cross-indexes. That is the compulsion of conscience when one is confronted by an obligation which, in given circumstances, is his alone to accept or to evade.

The whole damned thing was a frame-up!

In the summer of 1928 in Moscow, in addition to the theoretical and political revelation that came to me when I read Trotsky’s Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern, there was another consideration that hit me where I live. That was the fact that Trotsky had been expelled and deported to far-away Alma Ata; that his friends and supporters had been slandered and expelled and imprisoned; and that the whole damned thing was a frame-up! Had I set out as a boy to fight for justice for Moyer and Haywood in order to betray the cause of justice when it was put squarely up to me in a case of transcendent importance to the whole future of the human race? A copy-book moralist could easily answer that question by saying: “Of course not. The rule is plain. You do what you have to do, even if it costs you your head.”
But it wasn’t so simple for me in the summer of 1928. I was not a copybook moralist. I was a party politician and factionalist who had learned how to cut corners. I knew that at the time, and the self-knowledge made me uneasy. I had been gradually settling down into an assured position as a party official with an office and staff, a position that I could easily maintain—as long as I kept within definite limits and rules which I knew all about, and conducted myself with the facility and skill which had become almost second nature to me in the long drawn-out factional fights.
I knew that. And I knew something else that I never told anybody about, but which I had to tell myself for the first time in Moscow in the summer of 1928. The foot-loose Wobbly rebel that I used to be had imperceptibly begun to fit comfortably into a swivel chair, protecting himself in his seat by small maneuvers and evasions, and even permitting himself a certain conceit about his adroit accommodation to this shabby game. I saw myself for the first time then as another person, as a revolutionist who was on the road to becoming a bureaucrat. The image was hideous, and I turned away from it in disgust.
I never deceived myself for a moment about the most probable consequences of my decision to support Trotsky in the summer of 1928. I knew it was going to cost me my head and also my swivel chair, but I thought: What the hell—better men than I have risked their heads and their swivel chairs for truth and justice. Trotsky and his associates were doing it at that very moment in the exile camps and prisons of the Soviet Union. It was no more than right that one man, however limited his qualifications, should remember what he started out in his youth to fight for, and speak out for their cause and try to make the world hear, or at least to let the exiled and imprisoned Russian Oppositionists know that they had found a new friend and supporter.
In the History of American Trotskyism, p.61, I wrote:

The movement which then began in America brought repercussions throughout the entire world; overnight the whole picture, the whole perspective of the struggle changed. Trotskyism, officially pronounced dead, was resurrected on the international arena and inspired with new hope, new enthusiasm, new energy.

Denunciations against us were carried in the American press of the party and reprinted throughout the whole world, including the Moscow Pravda. Russian Oppositionists in prison and exile, where sooner or later copies of Pravda reached them, were notified of our action, our revolt in America. In the darkest hour of the Opposition’s struggle, they learned that fresh reinforcements had taken the field across the ocean in the United States, which by virtue of the power and weight of the country itself, gave importance and weight to the things done by the American communists.

Leon Trotsky, as I remarked, was isolated in the little Asiatic village of Alma Ata. The world movement outside Russia was in decline, leaderless, suppressed, isolated, practically non-existent. With this inspiring news of a new detachment in far-away America, the little papers and bulletins of the Opposition groups flared into life again. Most inspiring of all to us was the assurance that our hard-pressed Russian comrades had heard our voice.

I have always thought of this as one of the most gratifying aspects of the historic fight we undertook in 1928—that the news of our fight reached the Russian comrades in all corners of the prisons and exile camps, inspiring them with new hope and new energy to persevere in the struggle.

In Moscow, in the summer of 1928, I foresaw such a possible consequence of my decision and action. And I thought that that alone would justify it, regardless of what else might follow. Many things have changed since then, but that conviction has never changed.

---

1 Secretary of State under the Roosevelt administration.
2 The reference to Trotsky’s “army” is more than an ordinary metaphor. It had a double meaning in that it referred to his unique role as the organizer, the leader, the teacher, the general of the Soviet Red Army that led the revolutionary war in defense of the great Russian Socialist Revolution—as well as the political founder and leader of the world party of socialist revolution, the Fourth International.

North Korea: The nightmare continues

By Gerbrand Visser, Socialistisch Alternatief (CWI in Netherlands)

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/5499

The death of the long time Stalinist dictator of North Korea brings no relief to the workers of the country. They suffered many years under Japanese occupation (1905-1945), then during the Korean war (1953-1955) and many, many years of the most ruthless Stalinist rule. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the economy of North Korea suffered setbacks and it is estimated that more than two million people lost their lives during famines at the end of the 1990s. North Korea is now one of the poorer countries in the world, but until well into the 1970s, the income per head of the population was higher than in South Korea.

Stalinist rule in North Korea adheres to the “Juche“ ideology, of ‘self-sufficiency’. The North is unsuitable for food production, because it is mountainous and cold. It has many minerals in its soil, even quite rare ones. The Chinese government prefers the present regime because it gives them relatively easy access to these minerals, and North Korea provides it with a buffer. If North Korea ceased to exist, China would border a country that houses a large contingent of American military forces.

For Japan and South Korea, the presence of the Stalinist regime is discomforting, but it provides a useful excuse for obscene military expenditure. One of North Korea’s military trump cards is that it possesses a nuclear bomb. This seems to be a fairly primitive thing, like the American nuclear bombs in their early stages of development. It is probably too big to fit on a missile, but the North Koreans conducted two test blasts after the US invasion of Iraq, to show the world that they too had the bomb. North Korea’s large land force is meant to defend the country and to repress the population; there is no credible air force or navy.

Most of the expenditure of North Korea is on its military apparatus. This will not change. The new leader, Kim Yong Un, is young and there is no doubt that the military council will firmly hold on to the reins of power. If they do not fall prey to dissension, they could hold on to power for quite a while - the regime has shown itself to be quite tenacious. The regime has effectively isolated the country and ruthlessly repressed any independent working class activity.

Life in North Korea is a nightmare for workers: a harsh struggle for survival in a country with has almost no heating and extremely low temperatures in winter, little and/or very primitive food, and almost no lighting (often one bulb for an apartment). Life is difficult for workers even if you do not take into account the horrendous repression, the concentration camps, the controls over the family and the workplaces, the total lack of information (mobile phones and internet are prohibited) and the ubiquitous secret police.

The death of this tyrant has again provided the representatives of capitalism with an excuse to besmirch the ideas of socialism, despite the brutal reality that this regime, among the most horrific and oppressive band of despots ever to have falsely bore the name. The CWI stands for a struggle to overthrow the brutal corrupt Stalinist dynasty, an integral part of the international struggle to end the poverty, repression, dictatorship and conflict which dominates the region. Asia, through mass struggle. Such a struggle to establish a workers’ democracy and genuine socialism in Korea, based on the democratic control of government, and planning of the economy, may seem far away at this point in time, but like the North Korean football team, the Korean workers always manage to surprise.

Twenty years since failed coup in Soviet Union

Historical CWI document ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union’ translated into Chinese - http://chinaworker.info/en/content/news/1545/


19th August 1991 was a turning point in world history, signalling the break-up of the Soviet Union and the transformation of its member republics to corrupt and undemocratic ‘market economies’. This was followed by stepped up neo-liberal attacks on the working class internationally, and an unprecedented ideological offensive claiming the superiority of capitalism. On 19 August, the people of Moscow woke to the sound of tanks driving down the street. So-called ‘hardliners’ within the ruling Communist Party had launched a widely expected coup, but one that also collapsed within days due to its own internal weaknesses and refusal of military units to obey the coup leaders. These events were analysed at the time by the majority faction in the Committee for a Workers’ International (CWI) in the document ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union’.

The coup took place in the sixth year of Mikhail Gorbachev’s rule as general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Gorbachev and the ‘reform’ layer he led had attempted to steer the bureaucratic Stalinist system out of its deepening crisis by initiating economic and political reforms. Without this they feared a social explosion from discontented workers, peasants and discriminated nationalities that would sweep the entire system away. But the reforms themselves only aggravated the social and economic crisis, while not satisfying the masses’ desire for an end to economic decline and autocratic rule.

Genuine socialists had long explained that the planned economy, which was the outstanding and only remaining social conquest of the great Russian Revolution of 1917, could only function under a regime of full democracy and democratic planning by the working masses, not under the dictatorial bureaucratic elite that controlled society in the USSR. The so called ‘communist’ bureaucrats, both the ‘reformers’ and ‘hardliners’, some consciously and others less so, were preparing the ground for a return to a brutal form of capitalism.

The 1991 coup leaders – called the ‘Gang of Eight’ – miscalculated that they could profit from Gorbachev’s unpopularity and the general sense of crisis to re-assert a more centralized and dictatorial regime. They introduced martial law, a curfew and announced the aim of “fighting the black economy, corruption, theft, speculation and economic incompetence”. This, they said, was to “create favourable conditions to improve the real contribution of all types of entrepreneurial activity conducted within the law”.

Such statements showed that the coup leaders themselves did not represent 'socialism' or an attempt to go back towards a Stalinist system with its bureaucrat-controlled planned economy, but stood for a more controlled pace of capitalist ‘market reforms’ under a stronger, more centralised dictatorial regime. This was one of the contentious issues in the debate between the CWI majority faction and a minority faction led by Ted Grant and Alan Woods, who later left our ranks. This grouping was for many years in denial over the restoration of capitalism in the former USSR. The documents of both factions in this dispute are available on the marxist.net website.


The majority document ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union’ stands the test of time. In contrast to the euphoria of the world bourgeoisie at the time of the break-up of the USSR, and the demoralisation of many on the left, it provides an analysis of these world-changing events and a perspective that enabled our international to anticipate in general outlines the subsequent events and to orientate ourselves accordingly. This material, appearing for the first time in Chinese, can be of special interest to Chinese readers.

The collapse of the USSR and its chaotic road to capitalism, especially in the early 1990s (when Russia’s GDP collapsed by around 50%), had a decisive effect on the mentality of China’s ‘communist’ rulers, coming just two years after their bloody counter-revolutionary crushing of a mass democracy movement in 1989, which contained important elements of political (anti-bureaucratic) revolution. The massacre of 1989 had not led to a reconsolidation of Maoism-Stalinism; the economic base of the Chinese dictatorship underwent fundamental change. As the CWI majority document explained, “… after this short period of re-adjustment, Li Peng and the hardliners have adopted pro-capitalist policies which are not fundamentally different from Zhao [Ziyang]’s”. The events of 1991 further convinced Beijing both that there could be ‘no return’ to central planning, but also that alongside capitalist ‘market reforms’ they must preserve the centralised one-party dictatorship to prevent a similar break-up of China and contain the pressure of the masses.

This doctrine – ‘economic reform without political reform’ – has been central to the Chinese regime’s outlook ever since. To this day, voices for ‘political reform’ make up only a small minority within the regime. This is why socialists explain that the decisive force for democratic rights in China will come from the masses, especially the vast working class, not from ‘enlightened’ elements within the one-party state and not from the capitalists who share in the benefits of the current repressive system.

The English version of the document ‘Revolution and Counter-Revolution in the Soviet Union’ and other material related to this issue can be found on marxist.net

                        Revolution And Counter-Revolution In The Soviet Union

CWI document, September 1991

A turning point in world events

1. The recent upheavals in the Soviet Union represent a turning point in world events. While this process began some years ago, the crushing blow suffered by the "old guard" signifies the collapse of Stalinism in the USSR. It will have enormous repercussions internationally, even greater than those which followed the collapse of the proletarian Bonapartist regimes in Eastern Europe. Marxists must assess what the prospects are now for the restoration of capitalism in the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe where this process was already underway. We must assess what this means for the world balance of forces, the position of Imperialism, and the prospects for the remaining proletarian Bonapartist regimes. It is also necessary to gauge the effect of these events on the consciousness of the working class internationally...Read the rest here