To put it as plainly as possible, if the proponents of the U.S. settler-colonialism theory are correct, then there is no basis whatsoever upon which to build a multinational working class communist party in this country. Indeed, such a view sees the “settler working class” as instruments of colonialism, hostile to the interests of the colonized people, rather than viewing all working and oppressed people as natural allies in the struggle against imperialism, our mutual oppressor.
A shame, a sad sad shame. For anyone that’s read settlers, or knows about the history of labor zionism, or prioritizes any kind of indigenous voice in their praxis, this is really bad. No peace for settlers! Settlers cannot lead the revolution! I hope we see an end to any respect given to this “settler colonialism is over” politic soon.
Successful seems really arbitrary here. CPUSA Pre-fuckery times was majority a white party, and yet it was virtually one of the few meaningful political bodies for black people at the time. We’re talking about becoming organized to reversing death convictions for Black men who were accused of raping a white girl, formation of the first sharecropper unions, being a cornerstone for agitating for the new deal, etc. No one race was leading over another, and they were all working in common.
Not necessarily true, and the new deal was really a big moment for continuing the American project over anything else. The support of FDR was the real death knell for the party. I really like the CPUSA history as covered in Settlers for this reason, those chapters do a great job explaining this.
The CPUSA initially being majority white isn’t true?
“The party’s work among the Negro masses has been negligible. It was in the main a white working-class movement and the masses of Negroes were not yet drawn to it in any large numbers.”
William Z Foster himself
The actual hunting and persecution of communists seems like a much bigger reason for the decline of the CPUSA, than the New Deal itself passing. The CPUSA didn’t advocate for the New Deal because they thought Capitalism was so great and needed to be preserved but because there are times where reforms should be fought for. Membership peaked in the mid 40’s because of their pushing for it.
I more so mean that this was before a lot of the “white” people were truly white. The new deal solidified Irish/Scottish whiteness and brought up their condition to the rest of white people. Also, many of the organizing done for black people among the CPUSA was largely inaffective and was directly criticized by BPP on many occasions. If supporting black people is the metric, this is a legit criticism to be had.
I also think communist persecution is an over emphasized point considering very few euro-american communists were persecuted in anyway close to even the average black person. Settlers also covers this point, and regardless of why the CPUSA advocated for the new deal it was still a bad move as it allowed the American project to continue ushering in likely more than a century of darkness
There were already anti-lynching laws aimed at protecting Italian immigrants as early as the 1800’s. It’s also irrelevant if they did “see themselves as white” when at the end of the day, Jim Crow was at full wing and well…CPUSA was primarily white in the early 1900’s.
Care to cite specifics? I don’t find it particularly useful to talk in such generalities. I highly doubt the BPP would describe anti-lynching, Black union work, and theories of Black self determination as “ineffective”.
And it’s not a Olympics of Persecution. This is an entirely irrelevant point when people like Debbs were being prosecuted, The palmer raids happened, the espionage act, etc. Also communist persecution and the persecution of black people aren’t really two separate circles.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1913/sep/12b.htm
Read lenin on reformism. It’s very short sighted to reduce the continuation of the American project to the New Deal being passed.
I would suggest “Armed Struggle? Panthers and Communists” the new Gerald Horne book for a good history on their relationship. I found this nice Substack article that goes over some points it makes, the failure to see american fascism, expulsion of Harry Haywood, removal of black belt nationalism from the program, etc… While some panthers appreciate the work of sympathetic whites many didn’t want white people in or around the org at all. Quotations of criticisms of the CPUSA are in the book, genuine apology I can’t give a quote here as I lended the book.
I also brought up the persecution point because it absolves the CPUSA from having internal problems, even if it was very real and did strip them of the organization they did have they had a very big problem with being unable to recognize settler colonialism and its effects. I see Browder is also another scapegoat for the ineffectiveness of the CPUSA, without analysis on why his open revisionism was so accepted amongst cadre. In my mind, the CPUSA supporting the bourgeois class that was offering them an out during a time hard particularly hard for white people instead of striking when the bourgeois was weak was the ultimate culmination of this. Again I would really suggest reading this chapter in Settlers for the analysis, I think Lenin’s thoughts on reformism are very useful but in the context of the American project I think this analysis is more relevant and important.