Left Views on US Participation in WWII

[Smash Monogamy]

How did American revolutionary leftists view U.S. participation in World War 2?
Did they oppose it or support it and what were their reasons?
I know there was very vocal opposition to WW1, but can't seem to find much info on how they viewed WW2.

Also what is your opinion on the matter? (Sorry if I double posted this topic).

[Devrim]

Revolutionaries opposed it. The Communist Parties supported it. I don't think that this is a specific US questions as different political currents took the same positions across the globe.

Devrim

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Well, the entire thing was a load of shit. American corporations funded the Nazis and profited off of them. Their descendants are wealthy American capitalists in the modern day, never prosecuted for treason. Only when the Nazis became a nuisance and fucked with neocolonial objectives of these corporations, did America decide to take them out.

So, how do I feel about it? All I'll say is that thank god the Nazis lost.

EDIT: Sorry, I need to read OP's more carefully.

[DOOM]

Glad they fucked the Nazis up

[Smash Monogamy]

Revolutionaries opposed it. The Communist Parties supported it. I don't think that this is a specific US questions as different political currents took the same positions across the globe.


Do you know any specific groups/individuals and exact reasons why they opposed it?

[Alexios]

Glad they fucked the Nazis up

"Fucked them up" in the interests of American capital. The US didn't care about the Holocaust, nor did any of the other Allies. This "critical" support for the American involvement in WWII is anti-communist moralism.

[Geiseric]

Do you know any specific groups/individuals and exaact reasons why they opposed it?

The socialist workers party was the only significant opposition to WW2, the Labor movement completely sold out. Trotskyists were the only organized tendency against war mobilization.

[Brutus]

Supporting inter-imperialist wars isn't cool yo.

[Red Commissar]

Taking a really loose definition of revolutionary, the CPUSA at the time had flip-flopped depending on the position of the Comintern at the time. Towards the tail-end of the popular front advocacy they pushed an anti-fascist position and advocated for containment of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. This manifested strongly during the Spanish Civil War when the US had maintained a neutral position in that conflict while the CPUSA among other organizations had encouraged people to volunteer to fight. The main mass organization it acted through was the American League Against War and Fascism/ American League for Peace and Democracy.

Following the signing of the non-aggression pact between the Germany and the Soviet Union, the CPUSA did what other Comintern CP's did and shifted to an anti-war position. It launched the American Peace Mobilization, to continue off the American League for Peace and Democracy, which had collapsed after members were discouraged by the non-aggression pact. Other mass organizations, such as the League of American Writers, were directed towards anti-war and anti-imperialist positions and officially held that the war was an imperialist one that should not be supported. This extended to opposing measures like the lend-lease act to support the United Kingdom and other members of the allies.

The CPUSA led its organizations into supporting or joining the America First Committee that were not officially part of its own American Peace Mobilization. The AFC was at the time a right-wing isolationist organization opposing intervention into Europe- this included prominent conservatives at the time in addition to antisemites and religious activists. The entrance of the CPUSA's organizations diversified the organization into more of a big-tent one. The APM was notable at this time for having a nearly-nonstop picket in front of the White House opposing any involvement in Europe. There are interesting news articles from this time covering the picketing, usually by a small, committed core occasionally enlarged on certain days, and sometimes attacked by angry patriot types.


News article from that time
http://i.imgur.com/ZybiPPK.png

That changed once Nazi Germany invaded, with the CPUSA now pushing for action against Nazi Germany in a 180 of its prior position. The American Peace Mobilization became the American Peoples' Mobilization and pushed for intervention and ended its near-constant protest in front of the White House. It directed its other organizations to exit America First Committee and denounced its former allies who continued to oppose war as useful idiots for the Nazis. Once Pearl Harbor was bombed and the US entered into the war, they supported the government's efforts in the war and did not cause any labor disturbances or argue against the draft. The America First Committee, now once again filled with right-wingers, also dissolved itself after Pearl Harbor.

Major trade unions did not oppose the war. The AFL had already long been close to corporations and the US government and agreed to the no-strike pledge during war time as they had done in WWI. The CIO, which had more amicable relations with the CPUSA, mirrored its position and became in favor of the war following the invasion of the Soviet Union, agreeing to the no-strike pledge. Strikes did occur though they were more localized and not over a broader political issue like the war.

The reformist Socialist Party of America also opposed to intervention in the war. Despite hostilities with the CPUSA during the third period where the CP viewed them as social-fascists, the two collaborated on certain fronts including opposition to the war as part of the popular front position, though they hit a bump on this due to events in the Spanish Civil War and the Great Purge. They too joined ranks with the America First Committee, with Norman Thomas taking a prominent position in that organization. The CPUSA left this arrangement after the invasion of the Soviet Union in mid-1941, and the SPA itself has a feud over WW II once Pearl Harbor was bombed with Norman Thomas in favor of supporting the US government while other members maintained a pacifist position.

The Socialist Workers Party' members were involved in some strikes during war time, in contravention of the no-strike pledges the major unions had signed, including those that the CPUSA were involved in. This resulted in arrests of several members as a result. The CPUSA, with its obvious rivalry with the Trotskyist SWP, used its closer position with the government in war time to score some political points. The Smith Act which empowered the US government to prosecute those who opposed the war on the pretext of endangering the government was invoked. Overall they were acting in line with other Trotskyist parties (http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/fi/1938-1949/emergconf/fi-emerg02.htm) at the time.

I imagine Left Coms and Anarchists also opposed the war, though they were not numerous enough in the US to've created an impact. Any actions carried out were local and not a broader one.

[synthesis]

That changed once Nazi Germany invaded, with the CPUSA now pushing for action against Nazi Germany in a 180 of its prior position. The American Peace Mobilization became the American Peoples' Mobilization

Wow. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

[Devrim]

The socialist workers party was the only significant opposition to WW2, the Labor movement completely sold out. Trotskyists were the only organized tendency against war mobilization.

The Trotskyist attitude in the US was at best confused and at worse defencist.

Trotsky himself argued for defencism:


We cannot escape from the militarisation, but inside the machine we can observe the class line. The American workers do not want to be conquered by Hitler, and to those who say ‘Let us have a peace program,’ the worker will reply, ‘But Hitler does not want a peace program.’ Therefore we say: We will defend the United States with a workers’ army, with workers’ officers, with a workers’ government.

Of course it was wrapped up in ridiculous demands from the so-called Proletarian Military Policy, which is essentially the Transitional Programme as it applied to the situation in the US during the war.

Whatever nonsensical demands they wrapped it up in the US SWP essentially supported the war:


We fight against sending the worker-soldiers into battle without proper training and equipment. We oppose the military direction of worker-soldiers by bourgeois officers who have no regard for their treatment, their protection and their lives. We demand federal funds for the military training of workers and worker-officers under the control of the trade unions. Military appropriations? Yes—but only for the establishment and equipment of worker training camps! Compulsory military training of workers? Yes—but only under the control of the trade unions!

and


We are willing to fight Hitler. No worker wants to see that gang of fascist barbarians overrun this country or any country. But we want to fight fascism under a leadership we can trust.

Of course after Germany invaded the USSR, the Trotskyists also talk up the defence of the Soviet Union, just like their Stalinist brothers.

There were of course Trotskyists who took part in strikes against the war in the US and who were imprisoned. THis was despite rather than because of their overall policy though.

After the war many of those who disagreed with the policy of the US Trotskyists in the war, including even Trotsky's wife, split from the movement in disgust.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

The Trotskyist attitude in the US was at best confused and at worse defencist.

Trotsky himself argued for defencism:



Of course it was wrapped up in ridiculous demands from the so-called Proletarian Military Policy, which is essentially the Transitional Programme as it applied to the situation in the US during the war.

Whatever nonsensical demands they wrapped it up in the US SWP essentially supported the war:



and



Of course after Germany invaded the USSR, the Trotskyists also talk up the defence of the Soviet Union, just like their Stalinist brothers.

There were of course Trotskyists who took part in strikes against the war in the US and who were imprisoned. THis was despite rather than because of their overall policy though.

After the war many of those who disagreed with the policy of the US Trotskyists in the war, including even Trotsky's wife, split from the movement in disgust.

Devrim




You're full of it, as always. Do you even know what the smith act was? It was a bill, supported by Stalinists, that was directly used to imprison anybody against the war mobilization. The SWP leadership was imprisoned under it.

As always you ignore basic facts, confusing people don't know any better than you. Seriously you have some nerve, talking crap about people who've accomplished more than you, and suffered for it. Those quotes are from James Cannons trial you dolt, how about you actually read socIalism on trial instead of trying to troll me.

[Devrim]

You're full of it, as always.

What? Facts? Do you prefer you method of just making things up? Like this:


Those quotes are from James Cannons trial you dolt

Well no they aren't. Why do you just make things up when you have no idea what you are talking about. You don't even need to look things like this up in a book these days. You can just cut and paste them into the search engine, and find their source.

If you had done so, you would have found that they don't come from Cannon's trial, but the SWP'S Chicago Conference in September 1940. Cannon's trial began in October 1941.


As always you ignore basic facts,

I find it quite hard to believe that you of all people have the nerve to claim this.


how about you actually read socIalism on trial instead of trying to troll me.

I have read it. If you have, you would remember that at the end of part 4 there is a piece by the Spanish Trotskyist, Grandizo Munis, which also criticises the line taken up by Cannon, and the US SWP. It shows that there were some Trotskyists who rejected the line of Cannon and the US SWP. Perhas you should go back and read it.


Seriously you have some nerve, talking crap about people who've accomplished more than you, I am not sure what they accomplished in this sense, acting as recruiting sergeants in an imperialist war? In which case, yes you are right. I have never supported any imperialist wars in any way. It is unfortunate that the Trotskyists can't say the same.

Devrim

[RedTrackWorker]

The LRP notes in the Stalinism book that the US SWP "compromised" on its position against the war with slogans like "Turn the imperialist war into a war against fascism" and that the French section went beyond that to take an explicitly "social patriotic" position in 1940, which was later retracted but then after the war they called on workers to vote for the bourgeois constitution.

So I agree with Devrim that they were confused and that in the US some formulations could be interpreted as defencist. But I think he goes beyond the evidence presented in saying they really supported the war. Particularly when he says they took part in strikes and were imprisoned for opposing the war that "THis was despite rather than because of their overall policy though." Their overall policy was for the defeat of the U.S. and the Teamster union bureaucracy worked with the FBI to have them arrested because of that. I don't know how else you can interpret their trial under the Smith Act.

Further, while it is true that an organization can have one position on paper and have a contrary position in reality (based on its overall practice, etc.), demonstrating such requires careful argument, not just a few quotes that go against its overall policy and set of positions.

For instance I think it's a poor argument to say "US SWP essentially supported the war" based on the fact they said they would've voted for money for military training of workers under trade union control but voted against any overall budget or against the war. You can say that the tactic is wrong and even wrong in a way that gives some backhanded support to the imperialist war but to say that it means they "essentially supported the war" full stop requires more evidence and argument.

And then there's Devrim's quote from Trotsky. Later in the same piece http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/08/american.htm Trotsky clarifies what he means by the workers defending their country: "Only it must be our country, not that of the 60 families and their Wall Street." Now one could argue it's not the best way to put it, but saying that if the workers took power here, they would have wanted to defeat Hitler is not the same as supporting an imperialist war.

Further, on the proletarian military policy, to say it's acting as recruiters for the military is just a misrepresentation. They weren't for volunteering for the army or signing people up for it. If you want to argue against the strategy, do so based on what it actually says (see this article http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/conscription78.html which goes into the whole history of the Marxist position on the draft).

[Devrim]

The LRP notes in the Stalinism book that the US SWP "compromised" on its position against the war with slogans like "Turn the imperialist war into a war against fascism" and that the French section went beyond that to take an explicitly "social patriotic" position in 1940, which was later retracted but then after the war they called on workers to vote for the bourgeois constitution.

Trotskyism as a whole was compromised by taking sides in an imperialist war. The US section of the Fourth International was by no means the worst of them.


So I agree with Devrim that they were confused and that in the US some formulations could be interpreted as defencist. But I think he goes beyond the evidence presented in saying they really supported the war.

They undoubtedly supported the war. From June 1941 when Germany invaded the USSR all Trotskyists supported the defence of the USSR. Regardless of any discussion about the details of events in the US, this is clearly true.

Now this was a logical thing to do if you believed that the USSR was some sort of Workers' state, but even then it put you on the same side as the Western imperialists. You can't support one part of a war but not another. The SWP was quite proud of its members duty on the Murmansk lend-lease convoys. To me, this alone is enough to charecterise them as pro-war.

As I understand it, your group thinks that the USSR was capitalist, and not a workers' state, so of course you think, as you mentioned earlier, that the SWP's position was 'compromised'.

We could go into the details of the specifics of their support for the war, such as them being recruiting sergeants:


Further, on the proletarian military policy, to say it's acting as recruiters for the military is just a misrepresentation. They weren't for volunteering for the army or signing people up for it. If you want to argue against the strategy, do so based on what it actually says

We could argue about how they launched a campaign against pacifists, and encouraged people to sign up when drafted and not try to evade the draft. However, it is all such detail when they clearly supported the war.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

They undoubtedly supported the war. From June 1941 when Germany invaded the USSR all Trotskyists supported the defence of the USSR. Regardless of any discussion about the details of events in the US, this is clearly true.

Now this was a logical thing to do if you believed that the USSR was some sort of Workers' state, but even then it put you on the same side as the Western imperialists. You can't support one part of a war but not another.

I'm not sure this is the case - for all intents and purposes the war between the two imperialist camps and the defence of the Soviet Union were different conflicts until very late in the war (as evidenced by e.g. British policy regarding Finland etc).

I think most people realise that the "Proletarian" Military Policy was a disaster, but supporting the defence of the Soviet Union was not crossing the class line if the Soviet Union was a workers' state, as the SWP held then.


We could argue about how they launched a campaign against pacifists, and encouraged people to sign up when drafted and not try to evade the draft. However, it is all such detail when they clearly supported the war.

But the "campaign against pacifists" predated the war, and the SWP encouraged their members to not evade the draft so that they would not compromise themselves by seeking an exception from the fate that would befall numerous proletarians (this is the same reason the SL is currently against draft evasion), and to enable revolutionary propaganda in the ranks (in theory - in practice the SWP was fairly confused during the war).

[Geiseric]

This thread is bull. None of the people here actually understand the proletarian military policy, and if they do they're intentionally distorting its contents.

[Thirsty Crow]

This thread is bull. None of the people here actually understand the proletarian military policy, and if they do they're intentionally distorting its contents.
So are you gonna own up when called out on your inane bullshit for once, just once?

[Android]

Trotskyism as a whole was compromised by taking sides in an imperialist war.
A Trot friend of mine mentioned that the precursor to Lutte Ouvrière in France took a different position on this to the mainstream of Trotskyism at the time and it was a major line of criticism of theirs of the Fourth International after the war. Not sure what meant in practice though.

There is this book (http://www.merlinpress.co.uk/acatalog/SWIMMING-AGAINST-THE-TIDE.html) which chronicles the activity of French Trotskyists during the war. I am guessing the content of the book is at least a bit heterodox given the translator, founder of the now defunct Commune group in Britain.

[Geiseric]

So are you gonna own up when called out on your inane bullshit for once, just once?

Of course not, this thread is no more than verbal masturbation on the part of half the posters here. The same people who criticize defense of the soviet union are accusing Trotskyist of supporting the US, which as James cannon predicted became the chief imperialist power after the war. It's a favor that I'm even replying to you.

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course not, this thread is no more than verbal masturbation on the part of half the posters here.
I'd write something here but the sheer stupidity and adolescent arrogance really speak for themselves.

[synthesis]

The same people who criticize defense of the soviet union are accusing Trotskyist of supporting the US

...is this supposed to point out some kind of contradiction?

[Killer Enigma]

Genuine question for Marxist-Leninists, because this is a subject that's interested me too. What was a correct line on World War II during the period. There's no question that the US intervened for its own interests and to prevent a red wave sweeping through East and Western Europe. But the Soviets knew this too and welcomed US intervention (how consequential it was is open for debate). Revolutionary defeatism meant one thing in World War I before there were any socialist countries, but in the second world war, opposing fascism without supporting the Allies effort seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, in other words, utopian. Reminds me of the people who opposed Qaddafi and NATO and backed some imaginary workers rebellion in Libya three years back. Where can one find the debates on this question at the time?

[blake 3:17]

Revolutionary defeatism meant one thing in World War I before there were any socialist countries, but in the second world war, opposing fascism without supporting the Allies effort seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, in other words, utopian. Reminds me of the people who opposed Qaddafi and NATO and backed some imaginary workers rebellion in Libya three years back. Where can one find the debates on this question at the time?

There's way too much utopian talk here. The Second World War wasn't a war, it was a whole slew of wars happening at roughly the same time.

I think the correct position was to try to destroy the German, Italian and Japanese fascists as quickly as possible.

I'm extremely sympathetic to the Double V campaign in the US: https://hennessyhistory.wikispaces.com/Double+Victory+Campaign-1

From James Cannon:
In the midst of the war against Hitler, it is necessary to extend the hand of fraternity to the German people. This can be done honestly and convincingly only by a Workers’ and Farmers’ Government. We advocate the Workers’ and Farmers’ Government. Such a government, and only such a government, can conduct a war against Hitler, Mussolini and the Mikado in cooperation with the oppressed peoples of Germany, Italy and Japan. Our program against Hitlerism and for a Workers’ and Farmers’ Government is today the program of only a small minority. The great majority actively or passively supports the war program of the Roosevelt administration. As a minority we must submit to that majority in action. We do not sabotage the war or obstruct the military forces in any way. The Trotskyists go with their generation into the armed forces. We abide by the decisions of the majority. But we retain our opinions and insist on our right to express them.
Emphasis mine.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/dec/21.htm

Ernest Mandel:


Now if we look at the problem of World War II from that more dialectical, more correct Leninist point of view, we have to say that it was a very complicated business indeed. I would say, at the risk of putting it a bit too strongly, that the Second World War was in reality a combination of five different wars. That may seem an outrageous proposition at first sight, but I think closer examination will bear it out.

First, there was an inter-imperialist war, a war between the Nazi, Italian, and Japanese imperialists on the one hand, and the Anglo-American-French imperialists on the other hand. That was a reactionary war, a war between different groups of imperialist powers. We had nothing to do with that war, we were totally against it.

Second, there was a just war of self-defence by the people of China, an oppressed semi-colonial country, against Japanese imperialism. At no moment was Chiang Kai-shek’s alliance with American imperialism a justification for any revolutionary to change their judgement on the nature of the Chinese war. It was a war of national liberation against a robber gang, the Japanese imperialists, who wanted to enslave the Chinese people. Trotsky was absolutely clear and unambiguous on this. That war of independence started before the Second World War, in 1937; in a certain sense, it started in 1931 with the Japanese Manchurian adventure. It became intertwined with the Second World War, but it remained a separate and autonomous ingredient of it.

Third, there was a just war of national defence of the Soviet Union, a workers state, against an imperialist power. The fact that the Soviet leadership allied itself not only in a military way – which was absolutely justified – but also politically with the Western imperialists in no way changed the just nature of that war. The war of the Soviet workers and peasants, of the Soviet peoples and the Soviet state, to defend the Soviet Union against German imperialism was a just war from any Marxist-Leninist point of view. In that war we were 100 per cent for the victory of one camp, without any reservations or question marks. We were for absolute victory of the Soviet people against the murderous robbers of German imperialism.

Fourth, there was a just war of national liberation of the oppressed colonial peoples of Africa and Asia (in Latin America there was no such war), launched by the masses against British and French imperialism, sometimes against Japanese imperialism, and sometimes against both in succession, one after the other. Again, these were absolutely justified wars of national liberation, regardless of the particular character of the imperialist power. We were just as much for the victory of the Indian people’s uprising against British imperialism, and the small beginnings of the uprising in Ceylon, as we were in favour of the victory of the Burmese, Indochinese, and Indonesian guerrillas against Japanese, French, and Dutch imperialism successively. In the Philippines the situation was even more complex. I do not want to go into all the details, but the basic point is that all these wars of national liberation were just wars, regardless of the nature of their political leadership. You do not have to place any political confidence in or give any political support to the leaders of a particular struggle in order to recognise the justness of that struggle. When a strike is led by treacherous trade union bureaucrats you do not put any trust in them – but nor do you stop supporting the strike.

Now I come to the fifth war, which is the most complex. I would not say that it was going on in the whole of Europe occupied by Nazi imperialism, but more especially in two countries, Yugoslavia and Greece, to a great extent in Poland, and incipiently in France and Italy. That was a war of liberation by the oppressed workers, peasants, and urban petty bourgeoisie against the German Nazi imperialists and their stooges. To deny the autonomous nature of that war means saying in reality that the workers and peasants of Western Europe had no right to fight against those who were enslaving them at that moment unless their minds were set clearly against bringing in other enslavers in place of the existing ones. That is an unacceptable position.

It is true that if the leadership of that mass resistance remained in the hands of bourgeois nationalists, of Stalinists or social democrats, it could eventually be sold out to the Western imperialists. It was the duty of the revolutionaries to prevent this from happening by trying to oust these fakers from the leadership of the movement. But it was impossible to prevent such a betrayal by abstaining from participating in that movement.

What lay behind that fifth war? It was the inhuman conditions which existed in the occupied countries. How can anyone doubt that? How can anyone tell us that the real reason for the uprising was some ideological framework – such as the chauvinism of the French people or of the CP leadership? Such an explanation is nonsense. People did not fight because they were chauvinists. People were fighting because they were hungry, because they were over-exploited, because there were mass deportations of slave labour to Germany, because there was mass slaughter, because there were concentration camps, because there was no right to strike, because unions were banned, because communists, socialists and trade unionists were being put in prison.

That’s why people were rising, and not because they were chauvinists. They were often chauvinists too, but that was not the main reason. The main reason was their inhuman material living conditions, their social, political, and national oppression, which was so intolerable that it pushed millions onto the road of struggle. And you have to answer the question: was it a just struggle, or was it wrong to rise against this over-exploitation and oppression? Who can seriously argue that the working class of Western or Eastern Europe should have abstained or remained passive towards the horrors of Nazi oppression and Nazi occupation? That position is indefensible.

So the only correct position was to say that there was a fifth war which was also an autonomous aspect of what was going on between 1939 and 1945. The correct revolutionary Marxist position (I say this with a certain apologetic tendency, because it was the one defended from the beginning by the Belgian Trotskyists against what I would call both the right wing and the ultra-left wing of the European Trotskyist movement at that time) should have been as follows: to support fully all mass struggles and uprisings, whether armed or unarmed, against Nazi imperialism in occupied Europe, in order to fight to transform them into a victorious socialist revolution – that is, to fight to oust from the leadership of the struggles those who were linking them up with the Western imperialists, and who wanted in reality to maintain capitalism at the end of the war, as in fact happened.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1976/xx/trots-ww2.htm

There are many other perspectives worth exploring, but it's getting late.

[synthesis]

Revolutionary defeatism meant one thing in World War I before there were any socialist countries, but in the second world war, opposing fascism without supporting the Allies effort seems like wanting to have your cake and eat it too, in other words, utopian. Reminds me of the people who opposed Qaddafi and NATO and backed some imaginary workers rebellion in Libya three years back.

Pseudo-socialist immediatism. Why do we need to pick a side in conflicts between imperialist powers?

_____


blake 3:17, I see you're dedicated to providing ammunition for the argument that you don't read the threads you post in.

[blake 3:17]

blake 3:17, I see you're dedicated to providing ammunition for the argument that you don't read the threads you post in.

I'd read it a few times, just not very impressed by either the arguments or the factual errors. I can't treat the war as an abstraction -- it's been present through my whole life.

[RedTrackWorker]

We could argue about how they launched a campaign against pacifists, and encouraged people to sign up when drafted and not try to evade the draft. However, it is all such detail when they clearly supported the war.

They campaigned against pacifism as an ideology, which I think is pretty clearly a part of the Marxist tradition or should be (to argue against it that is) but they were for defending conscientious objectors from the state. So what's the problem?
And yes, they encouraged people not to evade the draft. I also would "encourage" people not to "evade" having to get a shit job by running away--does that make me a recruiter for capitalist exploitation?

And finally, how did they "clearly" support the war? Your only response to my points is on the USSR--yes I think they were wrong on that but that doesn't then prove they supported the war, full stop, no qualifications. Again, they were arrested for opposing it.

[synthesis]

I'd read it a few times, just not very impressed by either the arguments or the factual errors.

Why don't you elaborate on the arguments or the falsehoods that have failed to impress you in this thread? By all means prove me wrong, because from where I'm sitting it seems like you've found a way to prescreen posts for viewpoints incompatible with your own and then hide them before you click on the thread.


I can't treat the war as an abstraction -- it's been present through my whole life.

What? What does this even mean? Which war - World War II? How has it "been present through your whole life"? Are you secretly a nonagenarian?


And yes, they encouraged people not to evade the draft. I also would "encourage" people not to "evade" having to get a shit job by running away--does that make me a recruiter for capitalist exploitation?

Would you make the same argument about Vietnam?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Would you make the same argument about Vietnam?

The Vietnam War was different because there was an active and militant opposition to the draft etc. But even in such a situation, it would do good for communist militants to go into the army and agitate for the soldiers to turn their guns against their officers.

[Alexios]

The Vietnam War was different because there was an active and militant opposition to the draft etc. But even in such a situation, it would do good for communist militants to go into the army and agitate for the soldiers to turn their guns against their officers.

That's an idiotic strategy and would have just resulted in alienation of the 'revolutionaries' followed by massive cracking down on dissent. Americans would never have rallied behind a non-peaceful protest as the opposition to the draft was entirely liberal. Communism isn't a video game.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

That's an idiotic strategy and would have just resulted in alienation of the 'revolutionaries' followed by massive cracking down on dissent. Americans would never have rallied behind a non-peaceful protest as the opposition to the draft was entirely liberal. Communism isn't a video game.

Soldiers turning their guns against their officers has been the communist programme for soldiers since the time when the only video games would have been powered by the difference engine, and in any case the point is not some kind of populist "rallying behind" anything.

[Geiseric]

That's an idiotic strategy and would have just resulted in alienation of the 'revolutionaries' followed by massive cracking down on dissent. Americans would never have rallied behind a non-peaceful protest as the opposition to the draft was entirely liberal. Communism isn't a video game.

Opposition to the draft was a more radical position than the Stalinists held during WW2 and they had more revolutionaries than any other organization. They sold out the working class by supporting the no strike pledge.

[synthesis]

Soldiers turning their guns against their officers has been the communist programme for soldiers since the time when the only video games would have been powered by the difference engine, and in any case the point is not some kind of populist "rallying behind" anything.

There's a (massive) difference between communists advocating that soldiers turn their guns on their officers, and communists telling workers to join the army in order to try to convince the other soldiers to turn their guns on their officers. It's almost comical how you've conflated the two.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

There's a (massive) difference between communists advocating that soldiers turn their guns on their officers, and communists telling workers to join the army in order to try to convince the other soldiers to turn their guns on their officers. It's almost comical how you've conflated the two.

Except we're talking about the wartime policy of the SWP, who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't advocate that workers don't evade the draft, but their own members (I'm tired and my sentence structure has become worse than ever). In fact most Trotskyist organisations still follow that policy - they discourage their members from evading drafts etc.

[Geiseric]

Except we're talking about the wartime policy of the SWP, who, to the best of my knowledge, didn't advocate that workers don't evade the draft, but their own members (I'm tired and my sentence structure has become worse than ever). In fact most Trotskyist organisations still follow that policy - they discourage their members from evading drafts etc.

You're a lunatic. They tell them not to avoid the draft in order to avoid jail. Trotskyists aren't conspiracy theorists.

[blake 3:17]

The SWP had different policies and practices for the Second World War and the Vietnam War. The practice during the Second, was in theory anyways, fairly close to their industrial strategy -- join, do the best job as possible, and build a rank and file movement within the troops. I think the numbers that actually did this were very low.

During the Vietnam War, SWPers would show up for their draft appointments, but would be accompanied by other SWPers and anti-war activists. They would generally be declared unfit for duty. I'm not aware of any significant recruitment from within US armed forces, though comrades (along with others of the sensible sort) did play significant roles in the setting up of anti-war but pro-soldier coffee houses near US military bases.

[Devrim]

I'm not sure this is the case - for all intents and purposes the war between the two imperialist camps and the defence of the Soviet Union were different conflicts until very late in the war (as evidenced by e.g. British policy regarding Finland etc).

I don't think that you can really get out of it with the "they were two different wars" argument. Lend-lease to the USSR started in on 1st October 1941, but even before that they were shipping them materials. They were allies.

But then you know you are on dodgy ground:


I think most people realise that the "Proletarian" Military Policy was a disaster, ...in practice the SWP was fairly confused during the war


I think most people realise that the "Proletarian" Military Policy was a disaster, but supporting the defence of the Soviet Union was not crossing the class line if the Soviet Union was a workers' state,

As my father used to say "If wishes were horses, beggars would ride".

Class lines were crossed.


And finally, how did they "clearly" support the war? Your only response to my points is on the USSR--yes I think they were wrong on that but that doesn't then prove they supported the war, full stop, no qualifications. Again, they were arrested for opposing it.

Blake, who I believe is a Trotskyist who would have supported the war, provides an apt quote from Cannon on this one:


The great majority actively or passively supports the war program of the Roosevelt administration. As a minority we must submit to that majority in action. We do not sabotage the war or obstruct the military forces in any way. The Trotskyists go with their generation into the armed forces. We abide by the decisions of the majority. But we retain our opinions and insist on our right to express them.

I don't think they were arrested for opposing the war. They were arrested for opposing industrial peace during the war. Perhaps opposing the was effort, as it were, but not opposing the war.

Devrim

[Devrim]

This thread is bull. None of the people here actually understand the proletarian military policy, and if they do they're intentionally distorting its contents.

Please, explain it to us.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Opposition to the draft was a more radical position than the Stalinists held during WW2 and they had more revolutionaries than any other organization. They sold out the working class by supporting the no strike pledge.

First, there weren't any revolutionaries in the Stalinist parties by this time at all. Second the SWP did not oppose the draft.


You're a lunatic. They tell them not to avoid the draft in order to avoid jail. Trotskyists aren't conspiracy theorists.

Actively opposing the draft is not a communist principle. It is a tactic. Saying that you are telling people to not oppose it to avoid going to jail is a bit ridiculous. On the effect it may have on an individuals life which do you imagine is worse being sent to jail, or sent half way around the world and then shot dead?

Devrim

[RedTrackWorker]

Blake...provides an apt quote from Cannon on this one:
"As a minority we must submit to that majority in action. We do not sabotage the war or obstruct the military forces in any way. "

Yes. The analogy here is like saying Lenin arguing against Narodnik terrorism meant he "supported" the Tsar.


I don't think they were arrested for opposing the war. They were arrested for opposing industrial peace during the war.
When they were arrested labor peace wasn't being broken by them that I know about (they were for it but initially most workers went along except for in a few cases until later in the war)--though I do think an element of it was the understanding that they didn't want them there for when labor peace was broken (as it was during/after WW1 and they were thinking about that). In any case, you just saying "I don't think they were arrested for opposing the war" isn't evidence or argument of any kind.

[Geiseric]

Cannon openly advocated to be against the war being of an imperialist nature. He openly called for the overthrow of the US government during the war, and the invasion of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Spain by a workers army, meanwhile arming the workers all through the world to defeat fascism and imperialism alike. That was the SWP's line. If you want to argue this more I'll find my copy of socialism on trial.

[Devrim]

Yes. The analogy here is like saying Lenin arguing against Narodnik terrorism meant he "supported" the Tsar.

There are immense problems with this analogy. The first one is that it doesn't work in its own terms as an analogy. Cannon was saying 'turn the imperialist war into a war against fascism' not 'turn the imperialist war into a civil war', but the imperialist war was already a war against fascism i.e.the other imperialist camp. The second is that the PMP was essentially the transitional programme set to war time America. The demands for workers government, trade union control etc are transitional demands. Basically they supported these demands whilst believing that they were not achievable within capitalism. In the meantime, they continued to support the war. The second problem with the analogy is the tired old way those on the left make analogies with Lenin. It is boring at the best of times, and even worse when it doesn't apply. Finally, I don't look to Lenin as some sort of holy book in any case.


When they were arrested labor peace wasn't being broken by them that I know about (they were for it but initially most workers went along except for in a few cases until later in the war)--though I do think an element of it was the understanding that they didn't want them there for when labor peace was broken (as it was during/after WW1 and they were thinking about that). In any case, you just saying "I don't think they were arrested for opposing the war" isn't evidence or argument of any kind.

They were arrested under the Smith act, which while it was used to arrest those who opposed the war, was formally against those who 'advocated the overthrow of the US government'. The reason I say that I don't think they were arrested for opposing the war is because Cannon was very clear that they didn't oppose the war. As far as am aware, the Smith Act was also used against fascists, and CP members.

Devrim

[Devrim]

That was the SWP's line. If you want to argue this more I'll find my copy of socialism on trial.

Why change the habit of a life time. Why is it neccesary to go back to the source material to check out the facts when you can just follow your usual mode of operation, and make them up?


Cannon openly advocated to be against the war being of an imperialist nature. He openly called for the overthrow of the US government during the war, and the invasion of Nazi Germany, Italy, and Spain by a workers army, meanwhile arming the workers all through the world to defeat fascism and imperialism alike.

Yes, forget all of the added on nonsense about trade union control and a workers army. He called for supporting the war.

Devrim

[Geiseric]

Why change the habit of a life time. Why is it neRccesary to go back to the source material to check out the facts when you can just follow your usual mode of operation, and make them up?



Yes, forget all of the added on nonsense about trade union control and a workers army. He called for supporting the war.

Devrim

Eat shit, you seriously don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Seriously read the book.