Why wasn't there a revolution during the Great Depression (USA)

[Leftsolidarity]

It seems to me, with what limited knowledge I have of the Great Depression, that it was a ripe time for a communist revolution.

Why did this not happen?

Was it actually not a ripe time for revolution?

I was discussing this with another comrade who says that it was that the ruling class gave just enough (social security, relief money, labor rights, etc.) to subdue a revolution. I don't sum up his point that well but that was the jist of it.

This leads to the thought also that social democracy would be a tool of the ruling class to appease and subdue the working class. Would you agree with this analysis? Why or why not?

[Tim Cornelis]

Whose a revolution?

Interesting question though, will be looking forward to someone with more insight.

[Leftsolidarity]

Whose a revolution?

Interesting question though, will be looking forward to someone with more insight.

ahhhh fuckk. im on a school computer during my study hall trying to get all my stuff done in time so im typing fast. could a mod or something change that?

I want this to be a good thread. I think this good be a good discussion.

[The Douche]

ahhhh fuckk. im on a school computer during my study hall trying to get all my stuff done in time so im typing fast. could a mod or something change that?

I want this to be a good thread. I think this good be a good discussion.

Already changed it for you.


You are pretty much correct in the OP, social democracy is one of two tools that the bourgeoisie can use to head off revolution (the other tool being fascism). But social democracy isn't always feasible, as eventually the crises of capitalism will put to much strain on social democracies and cause them to be scaled back, like we see in many parts of Europe right now.

[Tim Cornelis]

It'd be interesting to know though what the strength, popularity, and influence of communist, socialist, and anarchist movements was during the Great Depression to get a better perspective than just "it must've been welfare".

[The Douche]

It'd be interesting to know though what the strength, popularity, and influence of communist, socialist, and anarchist movements was during the Great Depression to get a better perspective than just "it must've been welfare".

Well the communist and anarchist movements in the US had been hit hard by the red scare of the early 20th century. Lots of people had been imprisoned, killed, or deported, and revolutionaries were somewhat on the defensive.

The other thing is that the CPUSA in this era adopted its position of support for the democrats. They supported the New Deal and the CIO, this helped to ensure there would be no revolution.

[dodger]

Great question!.....I'll answer it and you can close the thread!

The American Working Class simply did not want Revolution.(Not for them)

Next Question???.....Actually that brings up 1000's of Questions. More knowledgeable people than me, must step in.

Good Question indeed Leftsolidarity!

[Book O'Dead]

It seems to me, with what limited knowledge I have of the Great Depression, that it was a ripe time for a communist revolution.

Why did this not happen?

Was it actually not a ripe time for revolution?

I was discussing this with another comrade who says that it was that the ruling class gave just enough (social security, relief money, labor rights, etc.) to subdue a revolution. I don't sum up his point that well but that was the jist of it.

This leads to the thought also that social democracy would be a tool of the ruling class to appease and subdue the working class. Would you agree with this analysis? Why or why not?

I think that revolution in the U.S. was postponed mainly for the reasons you stated above.

Roosevelt saved capitalism by implementing the New Deal, the destruction of the Spanish Republic put the final kibosh on working class revolution in Europe and the outbreak of world war and the invasion of the USSR made its postponement almost permanent.

[l'Enfermé]

Who would have lead one? It was a failure of leadership.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Who would have lead one? It was a failure of leadership.

care to add some details to this?

[bcbm]

even though it was a massive systemic collapse american individualist attitudes of 'well it must be my fault' continued, with many continuing to blame themselves for their unemployment and poverty, despite what was clearly a societal problem.

[bcbm]

The other thing is that the CPUSA in this era adopted its position of support for the democrats. They supported the New Deal and the CIO, this helped to ensure there would be no revolution.

not until 1935

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Well the communist and anarchist movements in the US had been hit hard by the red scare of the early 20th century. Lots of people had been imprisoned, killed, or deported, and revolutionaries were somewhat on the defensive.

The other thing is that the CPUSA in this era adopted its position of support for the democrats. They supported the New Deal and the CIO, this helped to ensure there would be no revolution.

Now hold on there. Please don't lump the New Deal and the CIO together. The CIO was a progressive development -- it was a mass, integrated, industrial union. And the CPUSA's role in the unions in the 30s was mixed -- but there were some real positives including, the River Rouge strikes in Detroit and the Strikes in Flint Michigan. The CPUSA had, in fact, from about 1929 until 1933 an ultraleft posture (following orders from Stalin and the CI). It was after the debacle in Germany that they did a 180 degree turn to the policy of entering into popular front governments with bourgeois parties. The form this took in the US was backhanded support to Roosevelt and the the New Deal.

As happens when things are at their worst economically, at the depths of the depression there was particularly little in the way of strikes or workers' opposition to the status quo. As expectations rose and were not met, in 1934 there was an upsurge of labor activity, including the Autolite Strike and the Minneapolis General Strike (led by Trotskyists of the SWP).

[Dunk]

Unemployment and underemployment rates seem that they should be a concrete wall of REAL that ideology slams into headlong, stopping it in it's tracks. Ideology just seems to hop right over it.

In discussions I've had with liberals, I've had some acknowledge that yes, unemployment is a problem and explains why there are so many people without jobs. That seems redundant to us here, but liberals, when not confronted with these things, will ascribe to some kind of Social Darwinist, capitalist Divine Right of Kings - that the poor are lazy, that they are to blame for being poor, that the rich are hard working and smart, that employment or income is simply a matter of will. Invariably in these discussions, there will always be a "but," in the sense that they usually will continue with "...but these people just don't look hard enough/complain about welfare recipients/blame the state for unemployment."

Whatever allows a person to avoid the distress of confronting class struggle is usually the track they choose.

[The Douche]

not until 1935

Yeah, I know that was '35, and not technically in the period that is considered the "great depression", but the US economy (and the world's to some extent) was still fucked. Support of the new deal and endorsing/participating in the democrats was definitely a betrayal of communist revolution.


Now hold on there. Please don't lump the New Deal and the CIO together. The CIO was a progressive development -- it was a mass, integrated, industrial union. And the CPUSA's role in the unions in the 30s was mixed -- but there were some real positives including, the River Rouge strikes in Detroit and the Strikes in Flint Michigan. The CPUSA had, in fact, from about 1929 until 1933 an ultraleft posture (following orders from Stalin and the CI). It was after the debacle in Germany that they did a 180 degree turn to the policy of entering into popular front governments with bourgeois parties. The form this took in the US was backhanded support to Roosevelt and the the New Deal.

I think the CIO was better than the AFL, but I still think that the CP had the right idea earlier on, with the formation of independent radical unions, as opposed to participation in either the AFL or CIO.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

There was some big protests during this period (such as the Bonus Army) but they never really became a revolutionary movement. It seems that most of the protests and movements during this time were more reformist than revolutionary.

Also, we cannot forget that FDR did help out many poor people with his work programs and government programs. This probably deterred people from becoming revolutionary. If another rightist president like Herbert Hoover who basically let the poor starve for most of his presidency came to power after Hoover and not FDR, I would bet money a revolution would happen.

[Geiseric]

well after WW1, the U.S. inherited many of ruined europe's ex markets, which secured about a year and a half in the U.S. from 1919-1921 as a period of growth, so much growth that wages, still below what we'd consider living wage, were raising up. The "pogressive capitalists" like Ford were able to give their workers more pay if they'd avoid unionizing and adhere to populist bullshit.

On top of that, the purge that happened in the U.S.S.R. happened in the U.S. and most other parties who were part of Comintern. The CP-USA was rising and growing pretty fast by the late 1920s, however the Stalinists already purged James P. Cannon and the people who supported the Left Opposition in the fSU from the CP. The CP supported the Democrats, and it makes sense on a world scale as well because in order to build the U.S.S.R's industry that won it WW2, a shitload of machinery was imported from the U.S.

A person i'd recommend reading about for the condition of CP-USA after the purges would of been Earl Browder, he was the Party Secretary of the CP after the SWP split off.

[Arlekino]

Why America can't do now revolution society is struggling over many years. As far I know they got even guns it would be easy to do it.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Yeah, I know that was '35, and not technically in the period that is considered the "great depression", but the US economy (and the world's to some extent) was still fucked. Support of the new deal and endorsing/participating in the democrats was definitely a betrayal of communist revolution.



I think the CIO was better than the AFL, but I still think that the CP had the right idea earlier on, with the formation of independent radical unions, as opposed to participation in either the AFL or CIO.

Agreed that the Pop frontist policies of the CI and the various parties were egregious. But you should read about the fight in the CPUSA regarding forming independent unions. Ultimately, it was adopted during Stalin's ultra-left "third period." It was a dismal failure. The CIO was a breakthrough for US Labor. If revolutionary leadership had been able to rise to the head of it, it would have been a leading component of the American Revolution. Anyway, Draper's book "American Communism and Soviet Russia," is a pretty decent history of the party from 1923 until 1929.

[Rafiq]

Well the communist and anarchist movements in the US had been hit hard by the red scare of the early 20th century. Lots of people had been imprisoned, killed, or deported, and revolutionaries were somewhat on the defensive.

The other thing is that the CPUSA in this era adopted its position of support for the democrats. They supported the New Deal and the CIO, this helped to ensure there would be no revolution.

Not to mention they were basically a representation of the SU's interests in the U.S. ... So much for world revolution.

Didn't the French Communist party also side with De Gaulle during 68' ? And the greek KKE blocked raid on pariliment? Why do Eurocommunist parties tend to end up siding with the ruling classes in times of revolution.?

[Astarte]

even though it was a massive systemic collapse american individualist attitudes of 'well it must be my fault' continued, with many continuing to blame themselves for their unemployment and poverty, despite what was clearly a societal problem.

The attitude bcbm mentions also was greatly reinforced by "The First Redscare" of the late 1910's and 1920's, so while Communists did make some organization and membership gains in the 1930's, the movement was stifled by Red Scare propaganda and New Deal policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare#First_Red_Scare_.281919.E2.80.931921.29

[TrotskistMarx]

mdSKM5IBZW8

My personal theory and personal opinion about why there was no socialist revolution in USA in the great depression is the press and the media. Most humans have been mind-manipulated and mind-controlled by the communication departments of the oligarchic ruling classes for the last 3000 years of humans being ruled by oligarchic elite rulers just like today. In ancient empires people were mind-controlled thru the politically correct ideas, the moral, politically correct information of their ruling classes. So I think that was one of the main causes of why people in the great depresion didn't vote for socialist political parties, but instead for capitalist parties.

.



It seems to me, with what limited knowledge I have of the Great Depression, that it was a ripe time for a communist revolution.

Why did this not happen?

Was it actually not a ripe time for revolution?

I was discussing this with another comrade who says that it was that the ruling class gave just enough (social security, relief money, labor rights, etc.) to subdue a revolution. I don't sum up his point that well but that was the jist of it.

This leads to the thought also that social democracy would be a tool of the ruling class to appease and subdue the working class. Would you agree with this analysis? Why or why not?

[TrotskistMarx]

Hello, I think that you have to add to your comments this: The American Working Class simply did not want a revolution. And the American Working Class *does not want a revolution today*. For some reason it seems to me, that the US oligarchic rulers can still find a way to give the masses of USA "Pan et Circem" (Bread and circuses, Bread and entertainments), according to the basic power theories of the book The Prince of Machiavelli.

Some leftist thinkers claim that the working classes of the oppressed countries are more revolutionary because of the lower incomes, than the working classes of the developed rich countries. And other leftist thinkers claim that the working classes of the rich countries are more revolutionary, because the citizens of rich countries are not physically and mentally prepared to live without electricity, without water, without food, like the populations of the oppressed poor countries.

The behaviour of humans is complicated. Some times the richer people are the more revolutionary they are. And the poorer people are, the more conformists and happier and content they seem to be.

I guess that the psychologic-emotional basic requirement for a revolution is NOT BEING CONFORMIST, not being conformed and happy with the wages, living standard and lifestyle that a bunch of people in a society at the same time have. For a society to explode toward a rebellion, it requires most members of its society to feel real real bad with their current lifestyles that they have. Not just a few like right now in USA, where only a few are into alternative progressive news sites, conspiracy theory websites, Occupy Protests and progressive movements. While the majority are VERY VERY FAR AWAY FROM POLITICS.

There is a big problem in USA and that problem is not really that americans are capitalists and right-wingers and vote for right-wing capitalist parties. But its worse than that. The problem is that a large sector of the US population is very a-political, and hate politics altogether.


.


.


.




Great question!.....I'll answer it and you can close the thread!

The American Working Class simply did not want Revolution.(Not for them)

Next Question???.....Actually that brings up 1000's of Questions. More knowledgeable people than me, must step in.

Good Question indeed Leftsolidarity!

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It'd be interesting to know though what the strength, popularity, and influence of communist, socialist, and anarchist movements was during the Great Depression to get a better perspective than just "it must've been welfare".

I am only aware of so far, that the US Communist and Socialist parties were quite strong at the time and made huge pressure on the President Roosevelt (him I think..) to improve the living standards by giving them social benefits. These programs made the economy a bit better although it eventually took (and this proves that the "underconsumptionist theory" is not sufficient to explain capitalist crisis, but that the "Theory of the Falling Rate of Profit" how Rosa Luxemburg corrected Marx's basic theory...) the Second World War to have a sufficient "Destruction of Capital" to get the capitalist class to invest into the real economy again. Basically, the Communist party and Socialist party (from what i think) were trying to improve the people's lives and did not have the train of thought that most of us have today of wanting to absolutely liquidate the bourgeoisie. So i guess the lesson learned is to 1. Constantly Have coordinated expropriation in mind and 2. that improving the working class' conditions for this short period of time should not be put in front of the historical mission of having workers rule. 3. stop making pressures on politicians, they're assholes. "The liberation of the working class must be the task of the working class itself" and that's how he meant it.

[Le Socialiste]

In times of general upheaval it is not uncommon for the working-class to look to the benefiters and representatives of private capital for guidance; similarly, it is not to be understated that many will justly and accurately trace the line of crisis and degradation to those very guarantors of privilege. The latter, in turn, stand to be radicalized - provided an alternative is standing in the wings. Radicalization without realization of consciousness is a questionable state of transition, and it can lead some down a path of renewed reaction. The lack of serious, genuine engagement by the Communist and Socialist parties at the height of the struggle signaled a decline in their ability and willingness to organize for anything beyond New Deal-reformism, and ultimately a subsequent decline in workers' militancy. In this manner these organizations proved not only their true nature as counterrevolutionary organs for the struggling capitalist economies, but also that of the USSR, which had at this point underwent a complete reversal in pursuing worldwide revolution (all the while turning back the clock on its own).

While such activities (or lack thereof) on the part of the Soviets and their American counterparts played a role in the failure of potentially revolutionary activity by the working-class, they're part is minimal - albeit significant. No analysis is complete without looking at the standing and nature of not only the burgeoning role of the American worker, but also that of the class which led it. Nor should one overlook a variety of important factors: industry had been revolutionized, the war in Europe had wound to an end, with repercussions felt across the continent and the world, forcing the United States to counter these effects on a global and domestic scale. In the years preceding the Depression, states throughout the world were thrown on the defensive - resulting in a period of institutional and social reaction. The crash of the markets only amplified the crisis in which capitalism had found itself. Crises don't necessarily lead to revolutions however, and discontent doesn't always find its way to physically and intellectually challenging the system.

The American working-class experienced during this period some of its most important lessons, many of which prevail to this day and are all worth remembering in light of capitalism's current state. One is the role and function of the Democratic Party, along with those organizations that tout its line and advocate for its policies. These groups effectively contained the development of the struggle, capturing the message and demands of the workers in order to better channel them into reforms permissible to the ruling-class. This, along with multiple factors (all containing within them varying levels of importance), contributed to the lack of proper organization of the working-class into a force capable and willing to mobilize against the direct power and interests of capital and the state.

[OnlyCommunistYouKnow]

I think a big reason is that most people believed communism was bad and lead to a dictatorship/big government. I remember being told by teachers that communism means the government owned everything and killed off it's own population for no reason.

[Tim Cornelis]

Not to mention they were basically a representation of the SU's interests in the U.S. ... So much for world revolution.

Didn't the French Communist party also side with De Gaulle during 68' ? And the greek KKE blocked raid on pariliment? Why do Eurocommunist parties tend to end up siding with the ruling classes in times of revolution.?

And the South African Communist Party sided with the bourgeois government of the ANC against a grassroots anti-capitalist movement; and the Italian Communist Party cracked down on anti-capitalists in Italy in the 1970s.

The dynamics of political parties is so that they need to climb up the arse of the establishment so deep to show that they are capable of governing or to exert some influence and thereby compromise their principles.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Not to mention they were basically a representation of the SU's interests in the U.S. ... So much for world revolution.

Didn't the French Communist party also side with De Gaulle during 68' ? And the greek KKE blocked raid on pariliment? Why do Eurocommunist parties tend to end up siding with the ruling classes in times of revolution.?
Because they are reformist parties that stand in the way of revolution. It goes back much farther than that, btw.

[Zukunftsmusik]

And the South African Communist Party sided with the bourgeois government of the ANC against a grassroots anti-capitalist movement; and the Italian Communist Party cracked down on anti-capitalists in Italy in the 1970s.

isn't even the south african "communist" party in government with ANC today?

[u.s.red]

After the great depression the american ruling class gave the working class a lot of money: social security, unemployment compensation, union representation; then wwII came along and everybody went back to work.

the working class agreed not to revolt as long as the ruling class kept up its side of the bargain.

[Geiseric]

There were gigantic strikes in the 30's however the Communist Party and the Trade Unions agreed to a no strike pledge, WW2 is the reason why unions these days are so corrupted. The Red Scare happened, but it does in every country at some point. The American working class was indeed becoming revolutionary, as were the workers of many other countries in Europe and the far east which were sacrificed for the U.S.S.R's well being.

[Highfructosecornsyrup]

I don't think socialist revolution was on the immediate agenda in the US even in the Depression era for several reasons. First while the economic crisis was as severe as continental Europe, the political one was not.


The political vacuum created by collapsed aristocracies on the continent created a situation where a weak liberal middle was in competition with nationalist demobilized war veterans and a militant labour movement with a strong sense of independent identity. Moreover the crisis in Europe was exacerbated by factors such as defeat in a major war and exposure to a collapsing colonial system.


So while the question of power was not directly posed in a sharply polarized state in the same way it was in say Italy, Germany, or Spain, in the US there was a cycle of class struggles which created space for independent working class politics.


Within this space militant and democratic industrial unions became a real possibility. Such unions combined bread and butter issues with political ones, often promoted the organization of the unorganized across industry lines, cooperated with unemployed organizations, and took up antiracist practices.


So while the US Depression did not immediately present the American working class with the opportunity for insurrection, it did contain the possibility for building a mass revolutionary current and reinforcing independent working class political organization.


The strategic orientation of the CP, especially after 1936, was a strong disabling factor for annuling this potentiality. It's conciliatory approach towards the CIO bureaucracy and uncritical patriotism during the Second World War disarmed the working class and paved the way for the postwar Red Scare and anti-union legislation like the Taft-Hartley Acts.


So while not immediately confronted with the problem of insurrection, there were crucial battles fought in the prewar period which shaped the terrain on which the next generation of struggles were fought. The audience for revolutionary ideas grew tremendously while the organizational reach of the working class expanded to its highest point.

I am not certain that the period can be accurately simplified in the way the OP has offered – as a revolution deferred by the shrewd calculations of social democrats. But I do think this generalisation captures a certain element of the truth about the way independent class politics were subordinated to the Democratic party. I think the main danger in that vein of analysis is presenting hard fought concessions – social security, the right to organize, unemployment etc, as simply and automatically bourgeois tricks.

[TrotskistMarx]

Wow cool comment and cool links. I will read and study your links about workers-councils, marxism and anarchist-communism later on. Thanks

.



In times of general upheaval it is not uncommon for the working-class to look to the benefiters and representatives of private capital for guidance; similarly, it is not to be understated that many will justly and accurately trace the line of crisis and degradation to those very guarantors of privilege. The latter, in turn, stand to be radicalized - provided an alternative is standing in the wings. Radicalization without realization of consciousness is a questionable state of transition, and it can lead some down a path of renewed reaction. The lack of serious, genuine engagement by the Communist and Socialist parties at the height of the struggle signaled a decline in their ability and willingness to organize for anything beyond New Deal-reformism, and ultimately a subsequent decline in workers' militancy. In this manner these organizations proved not only their true nature as counterrevolutionary organs for the struggling capitalist economies, but also that of the USSR, which had at this point underwent a complete reversal in pursuing worldwide revolution (all the while turning back the clock on its own).

While such activities (or lack thereof) on the part of the Soviets and their American counterparts played a role in the failure of potentially revolutionary activity by the working-class, they're part is minimal - albeit significant. No analysis is complete without looking at the standing and nature of not only the burgeoning role of the American worker, but also that of the class which led it. Nor should one overlook a variety of important factors: industry had been revolutionized, the war in Europe had wound to an end, with repercussions felt across the continent and the world, forcing the United States to counter these effects on a global and domestic scale. In the years preceding the Depression, states throughout the world were thrown on the defensive - resulting in a period of institutional and social reaction. The crash of the markets only amplified the crisis in which capitalism had found itself. Crises don't necessarily lead to revolutions however, and discontent doesn't always find its way to physically and intellectually challenging the system.

The American working-class experienced during this period some of its most important lessons, many of which prevail to this day and are all worth remembering in light of capitalism's current state. One is the role and function of the Democratic Party, along with those organizations that tout its line and advocate for its policies. These groups effectively contained the development of the struggle, capturing the message and demands of the workers in order to better channel them into reforms permissible to the ruling-class. This, along with multiple factors (all containing within them varying levels of importance), contributed to the lack of proper organization of the working-class into a force capable and willing to mobilize against the direct power and interests of capital and the state.

[x359594]

...I was discussing this with another comrade who says that it was that the ruling class gave just enough (social security, relief money, labor rights, etc.) to subdue a revolution...

If the Great Depression commenced in late autumn 1929 and the New Deal program of ameliorating its effects didn't go into practice until the summer of 1932 that leaves a nearly three year gap in which there was no social security, relief money, or labor rights to subdue revolutionary aspirations. I think we have to look elsewhere for the reasons why revolution did not take place.

The critical point is that the state was still financially viable even if the private sector was suffering. For example, there were few lay offs in the civil service, the military was well housed and well fed, there were no defections on the part of state managers for starters.

[Positivist]

I know the techoncracy movement hit it's peak during the depression but the communist and anarchist movements had been suppressed earlier in the century so they weren't as much of a factor. That people blamed themselves for the depression was also likely a strong factor. There was also little support for the cultural initiatives off communism such as racial and sexual equality. American Civil society (the capitalist societal superstructure) was and continues to be more firmly established in the popular Psyche than in most European nations.

[Ocean Seal]

And the South African Communist Party sided with the bourgeois government of the ANC against a grassroots anti-capitalist movement; and the Italian Communist Party cracked down on anti-capitalists in Italy in the 1970s.

The dynamics of political parties is so that they need to climb up the arse of the establishment so deep to show that they are capable of governing or to exert some influence and thereby compromise their principles.
a

[Positivist]

If the Great Depression commenced in late autumn 1929 and the New Deal program of ameliorating its effects didn't go into practice until the summer of 1932 that leaves a nearly three year gap in which there was no social security, relief money, or labor rights to subdue revolutionary aspirations. I think we have to look elsewhere for the reasons why revolution did not take place.

The critical point is that the state was still financially viable even if the private sector was suffering. For example, there were few lay offs in the civil service, the military was well housed and well fed, there were no defections on the part of state managers for starters.

That's why we should look to explanations that focus on the ideological manipulation of the American social body. Clearly people didn't agree with communist ideas or were not sufficiently aware of them.

[x359594]

That's why we should look to explanations that focus on the ideological manipulation of the American social body. Clearly people didn't agree with communist ideas or were not sufficiently aware of them.

The correlation between revolution and ideological awareness has yet to be established for every case.

The successful revolutions of the 20th century were anti-colonial revolutions carried out by peasant masses (including Russian Revolution) but the revolutions waged by the industrial proletariat (Germany, Hungary and Spain) were failures. And these were countries with a high degree of class consciousness.

I don't see any easy answer to the question of why there was no revolution in the US during the Great Depression. Unemployment in the US at its peak in 1933 reached 25% but the government was strong and the leadership acted decisively. Surely these are important variables, more important than ideological manipulation in my view.

[Geiseric]

There was no revolutionary leadership of the proletariat, and the CP which was most theoretically capible degenerated with the purges. Comintern put Earl Browder in charge, and he was as reformist as it gets.

[x359594]

There was no revolutionary leadership of the proletariat, and the CP which was most theoretically capible degenerated with the purges...

The Great Depression started in the autumn of 1929, the purges didn't start until late 1935. The years 1929 to 1935 coincide with the "Third Period," the policy of revolutionary agitation rather than reform. Membership of the CPUSA declined from around 29,000 in 1929 to 6,000 by 1932.

Again, it's not a lack of revolutionary leadership that failed to ignite revolution in the US during the Great Depression. In fact, it's safe to discard monocasual theories and more productive look to see if all the variables that result in revolution were in place in the USA during the Great Depression. Obviously they weren't. So the next task that faces a serious inquiry would be to identify what those variables are and then account for their absence.

[Geiseric]

The repression of Left Oppositionists and the international "old guard," who formed the 3rd international though reached America, when James P. Cannon and others were forced out of the CP USA.

[Desperado]

Striking was far lower in the late 1930s than at the start of the Depression, as workers became formally unionised into the reformist AFL and CIO.

[Firebrand]

Possibly the reason was that things were too bad for people to fight back. The people that didn't have jobs were too busy trying to survive to revolt, and the people that did have jobs were too scared of losing them. People were angry i'm sure but most of them simply weren't in a position to fight back.

[Zealot]

"A revolution may be ripe, and yet the forces of its creators may prove insufficient to carry it out, in which case society decays, and this process of decay sometimes drags on for very many years. There is no doubt that Russia is ripe for a democratic revolution, but it still remains to be seen whether the revolutionary classes have sufficient strength at present to carry it out." - V. I. Lenin (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/oct/17b.htm)