Socialist veteran honors Trotsky and Cannon

Scan page 18

709The following is an edited version of a speech by Milton Alvin in tribute to James P. Cannon and Leon Trotsky. Cannon and Trotsky both died Aug. 21, but 34 years apart; Cannon in 1974, Trotsky in 1940.

Alvin, who joined the Trotskyist movement in 1935, gave this speech in Los Angeles on Aug. 25, 1985. We are running it as a two-part series beginning with this issue.

The longtime collaboration between Leon Trotsky and James P. Cannon stands as a unique chapter, but not the only one in the history of revolutionary socialism.

One is reminded of Marx and Engels and their many years of work together. The Trotsky-Cannon team lasted from the early years after the Russian Revolution until Trotsky's death in 1940, a period of almost 20 years.

The first direct help on the part of Trotsky to Cannon came in 1922 at the time of the Communist International Fourth Congress held in Moscow. Cannon and others in the American Communist Party wanted to come out of the underground, where it had been since it was organized in 1919, and to function openly and legally.

Trotsky's help was solicited and received after Cannon described the situation to him, explaining that it was possible to work in an open manner. At this meeting Trotsky was amused to learn that the "undergroundists" in the United States made it a matter of principle to function in this way, as Bolsheviks had in Tsarist Russia before the revolution.

It was pointed out that the situation in the United States was entirely different from that of Tsarist Russia. Trotsky sided with Cannon's view and promised that if it became necessary, he would take the question up with Lenin. But this was not needed as the Congress commission on the question supported Cannon's position.

"Socialism in one country"

Beginning in 1924, a great struggle took place in the Soviet Communist Party over fundamental questions. These were mainly around Stalin's new theory that socialism could be built in the Soviet Union alone, without revolutions elsewhere.

It meant abandoning world revolution as the basis for a socialist society and reduced the international communist movement to border guards largely defending the Stalinist bureaucracy. Stalin's theory of "socialism in one country" was diametrically opposed to what Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky believed.

Also in dispute was the false policy imposed by Stalin and Bukharin upon the Chinese Communist Party, which was compelled to give up its independent status and join the Kuomintang, a capitalist party. This led to the defeat of the Chinese Revolution in 1927.

Also, Trotsky fought against growing bureaucracy in the Soviet Union itself. Before Lenin died in 1924, he had proposed to Trotsky that they mount a campaign against Stalin and the growing bureaucracy that Lenin feared. This was agreed to but Lenin's death prevented him from taking part in the fight.

Lenin did, however, leave a testament in which he called for the removal of Stalin from his post of general secretary of the party. In the same document, which was hidden from the party by Stalin, Lenin described Trotsky as the most able member of the Central Committee, thereby implying that Trotsky should be his successor.

Cannon sides with Trotsky None of this was known in the American Communist Party, nor was there any knowledge of the great struggle over principles that took place in the Soviet Union from 1924 to 1927. While denunciations of Trotsky and Trotskyism were plentifully supSOCIALIST ACTION SEPTEMBER 1985 SOCIALIST ACTION SEPTER plied to American communists, the actual issues in dispute were hidden from them.

Cannon refused to join the anti-Trotsky campaign, and when some of his supporters urged him to do so in order to protect themselves from attacks, he would not, explaining that it was not his place to oppose leaders of the Russian Revolution over issues that were unclear in the United States.

In 1927, after the defeat of the revolution in China, as well as other defeats—especially in Germany in 1924—Stalin was riding a wave of Thermidorian reaction and succeeded in expelling Trotsky and his followers from the Soviet Communist Party.

Trotsky was exiled to Alma Ata in Soviet Asia from where he kept track of events and corresponded actively with those who had been in general agreement with his views.

He then had no contact with American communists. The latter were going through factional fights of their own, but not over the questions that divided the Russian party into warring groups.

A congress of the Communist International was scheduled to be held in 1928. From his exile in Alma Ata, Trotsky sent a document to the congress for its consideration. It was titled "A Criticism of the Draft Program" and was a sustained attack upon a draft by Stalin and Bukharin which had been submitted to the congress.

Because Cannon and a leader of the Canadian Communist Party, Maurice Spector, were both members of the program commission at the congress, each received a copy of the Trotsky document which had been translated into English. This letter opened their eyes to what had been going on in the Russian party.

After studying it, Cannon and Spector agreed to fight for the ideas expressed in Trotsky's document. But they also decided not to open the fight in the Soviet Union, where they would not stand a chance, but to take the document back to the United States and Canada and open the fight there.

They did this and very quickly Cannon and two of his associates, Max Shachtman and Martin Abern, were expelled from the party. They then formed a new organization and went about the business of building a new party.

They concentrated upon the Communist Party, James P. Cannon: 1890-1974 where they had never had a hearing for their views, and considered themselves an unjustly expelled faction, demanding that they be readmitted to the Communist Party with democratic rights.

Stalinist betrayal

In 1929 Trotsky was expelled from the USSR and he and his companion, Natalia Sedova, and one of their sons, Leon Sedov, who was a political associate, took up residence on a Turkish island. From here Trotsky was able to continue his explanation of what had happened to the Soviet Union and the nature of Stalinism.

This work, begun in 1924, now proceeded to become one of his most important contributions: An understanding of Stalinism as a revisionist, counterrevolutionary tendency. He also did a great deal of writing, including his monumental three-volume "History of the Russian Revolution."

In the early 1930s, as the threat of Hitler hung over Germany, Trotsky turned his attention to that country. Urging the Communist Party and Social Democrats to form a united front against the Nazis, Trotsky turned out one article after another.

Between them, these two working-class parties were larger than Hitler's. But the Communist Party raised the slogan "After Hitler, Our Turn" and called the Social Democrats "Social Fascists" and a greater danger than Hitler. For the most part the Social Democrats looked with disfavor on the Communist Party and rejected any united front with them.

Thus Hitler was move into power without any real struggle.

This surrender to Hitler on the part of the Communist Party, which was carrying out Stalin's policy, convinced Trotsky that the Communist International was no longer viable as a revolutionary organization. He began the process of urging his co-thinkers to move toward the formation of a new, Fourth International.

Cannon and American Trotskyists were in agree"Trotsky fought against the growing bureaucracy in the Soviet Union Itself."

ment and began to work accordingly to popularize the idea of a new international.

In 1933, Trotsky received permission to live in France and he and his household moved there. But conditions were unfavorable and eventually Trotsky and his companion, Natalia Sedova, were compelled to seek another country in which to live. They moved to Norway in 1935.

During their stay in France Trotsky was able to help his French associates. He received a visit from Cannon during this period.

The steps taken by the Communist League of America-the 1934 merger with the Musteite American Workers Party, and their entry into the Socialist Party in 1936—were supported by Trotsky.

Cannon was the foremost leader of the Americans who worked in favor of these mergers, which resulted in increases in the number of Tratskyists in America. In addition, Trotskyism was given a boost by its leadership of the victorious 1934 teamsters' strikes in Minneapolis.

Cannon helped in these events which, together with the strikes in Toledo and San Francisco in the same year, led in clearing the road to the formation of the CIO and the growth of industrial unionism.

By 1937 the welcome that Trotsky had originally received in Norway had undergone a change. Conditions imposed upon the Trotsky household, making them virtual prisoners, made it impossible to remain in Norway.

An opportunity to go to Mexico arose through an invitation from President Cardenas. In 1937 they moved to Coyoacan, near Mexico City. The infamous Moscow trials were still taking place.

By decision of the Norwegian government, Trotsky had been prevented from replying to false Stalinist charges that he was an agent of Hitler and the Japanese, among other things. But from Mexico his voice was heard.

"Not guilty"

In the United States a Commission of Inquiry was organized to hear Trotsky's side. Cannon was instrumental in getting the eminent philosopher and educator John Dewey to act as a chair of the Commission.

Hearings were held in Mexico during 1937 and the result was the publication of two books: "The Case of Leon Trotsky" and "Not Guilty."

The Commission's work absolved Trotsky from any of the charges made by the Moscow Stalinists and did a great deal to expose the falsity of the frame-up trials staged by Soviet bureaucrats.

In 1938 the Fourth International was founded at a meeting in Paris where Cannon was a delegate from the United States. The founding document, commonly known as the "Transitional Program For Socialist Revolution, was drafted by Trotsky. He asked Cannon to submit this document in the name of the Socialist Workers Party, the newly formed Trotskyist party in the United States. This was a gesture of his close collaboration and confidence in Cannon's team.

Part two of speech month.

Scan page 19

Dear editor, In a recent article, Ann Robertson claims that the significance of Lenin's "April Thesis" is not in its continuity but rather in its discontinuity with the program he had shaped since 1905.

In her examination of the Bolsheviks' activity, she writes that prior to Lenin's arrival in Russia, "other leaders such as Stalin and Kamenev were forced to implement the Bolshevik program alone... Nonetheless, she continues, they were proud of their activity and eagerly anticipated Lenin's approval. They were shocked, however, to learn that Lenin denounced their "implementation" of the Bolshevik program and was demanding a new course.

Given that the central leadership then in Russia lent critical support to the Provisional Government of Lvov, the strong implication arises that Lenin's Bolshevik program had misled those who were loyally implementing it. Lenin apparently recognized this error at the last minute and was able to re-educate the Party by adapting to Trotsky or at least scrapping his previous strategy.

All of this follows if it were true that the Party leadership was implementing the Bolshevik program prior to April. Yet, in order to critically support the liberal capitalist and semimonarchist government, Stalin, Kamenev, et al., actually had to consciously break from the Bolshevik program that dated back to at least 1905, and instead defect to the program of the Mensheviks.

This was recognized several times by Trotsky himself. In "Stalin, he writes that "It is even hard to understand how any Old Bolshevik could have so forgotten the 14-year old history of his faction as to resort at the most crucial moment to the most odious of the Menshevik formulae."

And, "the very idea ran too drastically counter to the whole tradition of Bolshevism."

It seems that Trotsky, unlike Robertson, recognized that the central feature of Lenin's strategy throughout the "tradition" of Bolshevism was the opposition to liberal and Menshevik scheme of moderation toward capitalist governments on the part of the proletariat.

Whatever else one may think of Lenin's strategy for revolution prior to April, it seems impossible to argue that the Bolshevik leaders of February could justify their compromising attitude upon it.

In fact, in "Stalin," Trotsky goes on to critique Lenin's strategy in 190S, but this does not prevent him from recognizing this point, which united them throughout their careers as revolutionary Marxists, distinguishable from the liberals or Mensheviks.

It may be a matter of convenience for Robertson to hang Lenin and his program with the opportunist actions of some of the central leaders prior to April; if that were the case, then his supposed conversion to permanent revolution would appear all the more dramatic. William Baker, San Francisco A response Reply to Baker, It is true that Lenin argued that the big bourgeoisie could not lead the bourgeois-democratic revolution because of its economic ties with the landed aristocracy. And it was this bourgeoisie which was ushered into power with the February 1917 Revolution.

Hence one might infer, as William Baker has done, that Lenin's analysis implied unyielding opposition to the February Provisional Government. But this analysis, in my opinion, overlooks a deeper issue in Lenin's development.

In 1905, in "Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin emphatically asserted, "Marxists are absolutely convinced of the bourgeois character of the Russian revolution. What does that mean? It means that the democratic reforms in the political system, and the social and economic reforms that have become a necessity for Russia do not in themselves imply the undermining of capitalism...; on the contrary, they will, for the first time, really clear the ground for a wide and rapid, European, and not Asiatic, development of capitalism; they will, for the first time, make it possible for the bourgeoisie to rule as a class." (Vol. 9, pg. 48—emphasis added)

Because of the big bourgeoisie's impotence, this bourgeois-democratic revolution, continued Lenin, would be led by the proletariat and peasants. "But of course it will be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship." (pg. 56)

In January 1918, however, Lenin had the following retrospective comment: "The Bolsheviks spoke of a bourgeois-democratic revolution in 1905, but today, when the Soviets are in power, when the workers, soldiers and peasants have said—in a war situation unprecedented for hardships and horrors, in an atmosphere of ruin, and in the face of death by starvation-that they will assume full power and will themselves set about building a new life, there can be no question of a bourgeois-democratic revolution. And the Bolsheviks said as much at their congresses and meetings and conferences, and in their resolutions and decisions, as early as last April."

(Vol. 26, pg. 475-emphasis added)

In other words, in April 1917, Lenin was rallying in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat, while Stalin et. al. were still working within the 1905 framework which, although it did not designate the bourgeoisie as revolutionary, nevertheless talked in terms of a revolution which would allow "the bourgeoisie to rule as a class."

In this respect it is understandable why Stalin gave critical support to the February Provisional Government. Ann Robertson, San Francisco It is certainly nice to hear about the heartening electoral accomplishments of Rosario Ibarra de Piedra and other victorious candidates who ran on the PRT slate in Mexico [Socialist Action, August 19851. Obviously, to gain 1.7 percent of the vote and elect six federal deputies is a very significant step forward.

It is striking that before the elections, the capitalist press in this country-especially the "liberal" press-chose to completely ignore that aspect of the story. On May 6, 1985, in The New Republic, William Orme styled them as the "fractious, ineffectual, Marxist left."

Moreover, Orme believed the "pro-business" National Action Party (PAN) was "the main beneficiary of popular resentment at the massive corruption and managerial ineptitude exposed by Mexico's debt crisis of mid-1982." scares all segments of the U.S. ruling class.

Keep up the good work in telling the real story.

Miles S. Richards Columbia, S.C.

Editor's reply, There is much more to the Mexican elections' story than what we were able to print last month. In coming issues we plan to focus on the situation in Mexico and the important role played by the PRT, the Mexican section of the Fourth International.

But for now a few additional bits of information: (1) The least-mentioned fact of these elections was the enormous rate of abstention. All independent sources agree that this rate was 60 percent nationally, a severe blow to the ruling party (PRI) and to the PAN, which was unable to capitalize on the tremendous discontent against the government's policies. 2) The three major left parties as a whole increased their electoral strength significantly: The PSUM (the Mexican Stalinist party) obtained 3.55 percent of the vote and 12 deputies; the PMT (Mexican Workers' Party, a radical nationalist party) obtained 1.71 percent of the vote and six deputies; and the PRT, as we reported earlier, obtained 1.70 percent of the vote and six deputies.

The presence of 24 deputies from the left in the Chamber of Deputies is unprecedented in Mexico. But as Adolfo Gilly, a well-known Trotskyist living in Mexico, correctly pointed out in an article in the July 29, 1985, issue of Procesco magazine: "If parliamentary cretinism is bad in those countries with a strong parliamentary regime; it is even worse in a system such as Mexico's, in which the parliament makes absolutely no decisions. "The presence of the left in the parliament simply means that an important tribune has been obtained to support the mobilizations of the workers and the people-not to substitute for these struggles or even to lead them from the parliament." - The Editor We welcome letters from all viewpoints on subjects of gen. eral interest to our readers. Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged.

----- pull-quotes -----

AN TERMAMONAY STAUNIST SECTION

Disagrees on Lenin

Likes artick on Mexico

Update on Mexican vote