“In 1928, at the insistence of the Comintern, the CP took up the idea that Black people had the right to self-determination as a nation in the so-called Black belt, a region in the South where Blacks were a numerical majority. It was a mistaken application of the Marxist position of support for the right for self-determination of oppressed nations, including the right to form their own state. This concept, first developed by Lenin, was an essential aspect of the program of the Bolshevik party in Russia.  But it was a theory that only applied when an oppressed group has the material basis to form their own state, i.e., a separate language, culture, and territory that sets them apart from other peoples. While Black people in the U.S. were an oppressed section of U.S. society, they did not have a separate language, and with increased migration to the northern cities, did not have a common territory.  In practice, the Black belt theory and the call for self-determination were not central to the CP’s work among Black workers which centered on the fight to end discrimination and winning integration in U.S. society – the opposite of separation. But this mistaken theory played a role in miseducating a generation of radicals, and was not understood by radicalizing Black workers in the Northern cities.”

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2021/03/22/the-communist-party-in-the-1930s-what-lessons-for-socialists-today/

Language, culture, and territory do separate black people from the rest of the U.S., especially if viewed in the Marxist way, that is historically, and in a political way, or subjectively. Language barriers do exist, and these may come from the media or the school system, or an intentional effort on the part of black people themselves to differentiate from European-American culture. Culture has a clear demarcation separating white and black with some intermixing. Territory may not seem so clear from a bourgeois perspective of the state, that is, with a focus on maintaining the sanctified unity of the empire. Viewed historically, however, the territory obviously went from Native Americans to European powers with Africans used as slaves. By your definition, Africa should be incorporated into Europe, since migration has erased the borders. That is clearly not true with the U.S.-Mexico border or with the drowning of African refugees crossing to Europe. Socialists must argue that migrations can be traced scientifically, and present political borders can be adjusted to reflect historical migration by means of debate and votes.

“Despite its more militant tactics, Foster became disillusioned with the IWW policy of refusing to work inside the established AFL unions. He launched the Trade Union Education League (TUEL) in 1922 based on bringing together union activists to transform existing unions based on solid militant trade union principles. These included: rejection of dual unionism; rejection of the AFL’s class-collaborationist policies and adoption of the principle of class struggle; amalgamation of existing unions into wider industrial unions; organization of the unorganized; unemployment insurance to support the unemployed; and for a labor party. (Foner, p. 130) The TUEL began to build a real base in the labor movement.

“The CP played an important role in the mid-1920s in building a core of militant workers in the U.S. Unfortunately, this excellent work was broken up by the dramatic shift towards ‘Third Period’ policies by the Comintern in 1928. Under Third Period policies, the American CP was told in 1929 to wind up TUEL, get out of the AFL, and set off on a sectarian path by launching their own “red unions” under the banner of the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL) Now, the CP militants were cordoned off in small, isolated radical unions.”

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2021/03/22/the-communist-party-in-the-1930s-what-lessons-for-socialists-today/

1. Rejection of dual unionism helped the AFL and forced out the IWW. It clearly stands against the interests of the workers. Why should they not have the right to participate in two unions if they choose? Why should the workers allow the unions to divide them up like territory?
2. The rejection of the AFL’s class collaboration and a one-sided policy opposing socialist unions contradict one another. The IWW opposed participation for its members in any political party. The unions refused participation to members of the IWW. These two factors combined to eliminate the IWW and the idea of a revolutionary union, but this could have been remedied either with a political party for the IWW or dual unionism. That no IWW party and no dual unionism existed to unite the working class in different ways meant that the Red Scare and McCarthyism could far more easily chase all the communists out of the labor movement.
3. A “sectarian path” is the flip side of the opportunist path. A balanced approach would support both traditional unionism and radical unionism, without forming illusions in either as an absolute good. This position does not appear often for a specific reason: the organizations have either connections to trade unions and corporations, or they have a connection to a Stalinist government. In those times, Stalinist funding would require a break from traditional unions, and corporate funding would require a break from radical or “sectarian” unions. (At other times this was reversed. As Lenin argued, there are no cults in Marxism.) In order for petty-bourgeois leaders to maintain control of their organizations, they would need to fall under the umbrella of the Stalinist bureaucracy or the imperialist corporations and their unions. For example, Socialist Alternative’s newspaper features an ATU union local president, and member of Socialist Alternative. In order to gain and hold union positions, compromises must be made, namely opposition to “sectarian” unions. This policy puts off the call for workers’ committees, but it has also been disproven in the case of the Amazon union, ALU, led by Chris Smalls, who organized in opposition to the trade unions of the AFL-CIO.

Interesting:

“A measure of this capitulation can be seen in the South where in 1937 the CP endorsed Alabama Democrat, Lister Hill, for Congress – a seasoned representative of racist Jim Crow politics and an opponent of anti-lynching legislation.”

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2021/03/22/the-communist-party-in-the-1930s-what-lessons-for-socialists-today/

We can expect similar swings to the right, especially from the DSA, who take many of the same positions as the CP in the 1930s. Socialist Alternative may gain attention from the association, but it should also fear the reactionaries waiting for them in the DSA. Their celebration of the assassination of Trotsky and their open support for imperialism should serve as proof enough a real danger exists. A safer approach would open lines of communication and cooperation with those groups who openly defend Trotskyism: the SEP, Socialist Action, SWP, etc. Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Stalinism continues to oversee the Left on behalf of imperialism, and groups like the DSA make no effort to review this history and prevent tragedy for the revolution. Even the SWP has sought to cover up the role of Stalinism in infiltrating the Fourth International.

“The policy of supporting the Democrats as the ‘lesser evil’ capitalist party had a devastating effect in miseducating the rest of the U.S. left, instead of fighting for independent working-class politics.”

https://www.socialistalternative.org/2021/03/22/the-communist-party-in-the-1930s-what-lessons-for-socialists-today/

The CP and the Stalinist bureaucracy, like the Democratic Party, did not form to represent the people but to suppress them. The idea that one leader can stand above the whole of society has nothing to do with communism and resembles monarchy. Stalinists upheld this model anyway, just like the Democratic Party places the owners, the oligarchy, above the common man while claiming to provide democracy. This does not negate the need for the establishment of more parties, but it does place the responsibility on the workers themselves. This is not a moral judgement but an appreciation of the power of the workers to unite, through the various parties and groups, and form a revolutionary government. In taking such large steps, the workers should not fall in the last minute due to a trick on the part of the petty-bourgeiosie to usurp the power through internal party politics. We should recognize the Soviet bureaucracy as formed from its relations to the means of production, that is its traitorous relations with imperialism at the expense of the workers and for the bureaucrats’ own material privileges. Historically, this class arose from the Tsarist regime itself, from educated professionals, and from the rich peasants. They could not resist the offers and threats of imperialism, and they did not hand power over to the workers. Instead, they suppressed opposition, betrayed Rosa Luxemburg and others, and fought the Left Opposition as the last remaining representatives of the people. Only a unified workers’ revolution with worker-Marxists for leaders can force out these invaders, occupiers, and gentrifiers of the Marxist workers’ party.