You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Red Star, the Democratic Socialists of America’s revolutionary Marxist caucus, recently published a manifesto entitled “We Do Not Condemn Hamas, and Neither Should You.” The pronouncement argues that any criticism of Hamas or its tactics only serves to undercut the Palestinian liberation movement and gives tacit support to Israel and its right to defend itself.
The document cites with approval a sign that appeared at the Columbia University encampment—“Whoever is in solidarity with our corpses but not our rockets is a hypocrite and not one of us.” The Red Star manifesto builds on that claim:
“All forces fighting alongside Palestine and against Israel and its allies are at least temporarily, and at least in this context, our allies. That includes the Palestinian resistance, the larger Axis of Resistance in the region, and all popular movements rising up to support Palestine. On the other hand, all forces fighting alongside Israel are our enemies. Most importantly, that includes its main supporter: the U.S. empire.”
With its strident, deliberately inflammatory language, uncompromising tone, its defense of violent resistance, and its defiant anti-Americanism, the manifesto resembles many that have been released by Leninist, Maoist and Trotskyist groups over the past few decades.
From my vantage point, it’s hard to see how such language does much to support the Palestinian cause. Hamas’s tactics have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians. Gaza’s infrastructure has been effectively destroyed, settler violence has been unleashed in the West Bank, and the government reaction in Egypt, the Gulf states and Jordan has been fairly muted. At this moment, prospects for the establishment of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state or the return of refugees seem as distant as ever.
This raises a question. Not Werner Sombart’s “Why is there no socialism in the United States?” which is typically attributed to this society’s individualist ideologies, ethnic and racial divisions, the success of capitalist prosperity, and the left’s internal fragmentation—but another question. Why, even during the Great Depression or the 1960s, did the American Communist party, the nation’s dominant left-wing party, fail to gain much traction? Was failure a product of American culture or were the wounds self-inflicted?
Outside of the Democratic party, the left today has little electoral presence. In the 2020 presidential election, the Libertarian candidate, Jo Jorgensen, received nearly twice as many votes (1.8 million) as all other minor parties, including the Green party, combined. The Party for Socialism and Liberation received 84,905 votes; the Socialist Workers Party, 6,791; Bread and Roses, 5,949; and the Socialist Equality Party, 317.
This record of irrelevance requires an explanation, and Maurice Isserman, the leading authority on the history of the 20th-century American left, provides an absolutely compelling answer in Reds, his newly published, epic account of the history of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA) from its formation in 1919 to its present-day irrelevance.
Professor Isserman quite rightly describes the history of the American Communist Party as a tragedy—a tragedy that was in large measure self-inflicted. He highlights a series of contradictions that explain the party’s failure.
- The CPUSA attracted idealists, but bred authoritarian zealots.
- The party successfully championed reforms that benefited millions of American workers, but stood up for a totalitarian state that imprisoned and killed millions of its citizens.
- Even as the CP helped organize powerful industrial unions, the party failed to attract more than a handful of rank-and-file union members and called for a radical restructuring of American society that most workers vehemently opposed.
- Most American communists wanted the United States to live up to its highest ideals, but the few hundred party members who engaged in espionage with party leadership approval made it easy for conservatives and centrist liberals to prosecute, imprison and blacklist fellow party supporters.
- While the party’s critique of capitalist society laid bare U.S. society’s structural inequities and systemic injustices, the party itself brooked no internal dissent.
Professor Isserman’s history indeed carries the weight of tragedy, where noble ideals collide with destructive political alliances and a host of misbegotten actions. As he shows, party members were among this society’s most effective social critics and agents of change. Many of this nation’s foremost intellectuals, authors, artists, scientists, and creators of culture were, for a time, communists or fellow travelers—not naïve dupes or useful idiots but genuine advocates for the communist vision.
But alongside such high points as the party’s role in the defense of the Scottsboro Boys, the formation of the CIO, and the mobilization of public support for Depression-era public works programs, unemployment insurance, and Social Security, there was another, sordid side, filled with lessons for today’s left.
Awful, authoritarian leadership was part of the problem. Decisions that, in retrospect, made no sense, occurred with striking regularity. In contrast to the Socialist Party, the CP decided to go underground in 1920, in the midst of the First Red Scare, and refused to support candidates for public office. Despite repeated denials, the party took secret financial subsidies (the so-called “Moscow Gold,”) from the Communist International.
But there was a more positive side that Professor Isserman describes. The creation of adult education schools in the 1920s, ’30s, and ’40s. The formation of the International Workers Order, a federation of mutual aid societies that offered affordable health and life insurance policies and cultural, educational and recreational activities, which, at its peak, enrolled nearly 200,000 people.
Then, there was the Popular Front, a broad coalition of leftist groups and individuals led primarily by the CPUSA during the late 1930s, and part of a larger international strategy orchestrated by the Communist International to unite progressive forces against the rising threat of fascism and to advance social justice, labor rights and civil liberties, while countering the influence of fascist and right-wing movements.
Under the banner of “Communism is Twentieth Century Americanism,” the Popular Front advocated for workers’ rights, better wages, and improved working conditions, and promoted social welfare programs, unemployment insurance, and other measures to support the working class and poor. The movement played a significant role in the growth of industrial unions, particularly the CIO. It was also notable for its early and strong stance against racial discrimination.
The Popular Front actively campaigned for civil rights for African Americans, opposing segregation and promoting racial equality. Meanwhile, its youth affiliates led the largest student protests before the 1960s. Its impact extended beyond politics into culture and the arts, promoting progressive and anti-fascist themes in literature, theater, film and music.
Professor Isserman’s narrative describes idealists drawn to communism for its promises of social justice, racial equality and workers’ rights, only to find themselves aligned with a movement that was compromised by its adherence to Soviet directives and by party leadership that refused to countenance dissent and disagreement or truly embrace this country’s home-grown radical traditions.
Most of those who joined the CPUSA were motivated by a genuine desire to improve the lives of the working class. They sought to address issues like labor exploitation, poor working conditions and economic inequality. The party was notable for its early and vocal stance against racial discrimination. It attracted many African American activists and played a significant role in civil rights struggles during the early and mid-20th century.
Party members sought to create a more equitable society, free from the economic and social injustices found under capitalism. This vision resonated with many who were disillusioned by the failures of the existing political and economic systems, particularly during the Great Depression.
However, the CPUSA was closely aligned with the Communist International (Comintern) and, by extension, the Soviet Union. This relationship meant that American communists often had to align their policies and actions with those dictated by Moscow. The CPUSA frequently defended or justified the actions of the Soviet Union, including Stalin’s purges, the suppression of dissent and the annexation of the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and invasion of neighboring countries like Hungary. This blind loyalty eroded the moral high ground that many idealistic communists hoped to maintain.
The Soviet Union’s record of human rights abuses, including forced labor camps (Gulags), political repression, show trials and mass executions, stood in stark contrast to the CPUSA’s professed commitment to human dignity and justice. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, a nonaggression treaty between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, offered a particularly egregious example. The CPUSA initially opposed fascism vehemently but was compelled to support the pact, causing confusion and disillusionment among its members and sympathizers.
A few American communists became involved in espionage for the Soviet Union. High-profile cases, such as those of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for passing atomic secrets to the Soviets, tarnished the image of American communism and painted it as a threat to national security.
The CPUSA also engaged in internal surveillance and purges, mirroring Soviet practices. Members suspected of disloyalty or deviation from the party line were often ostracized or expelled, creating an atmosphere of fear and mistrust.
The central tragedy of American communism lies in the betrayal of its foundational ideals. Many members joined the movement with sincere hopes of creating a better world but found themselves supporting a regime that perpetuated oppression and injustice.
As the true nature of Soviet communism became more apparent, many idealistic communists experienced profound disillusionment. The revelations of Stalin’s crimes and the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956, for example, led to mass defections from the CPUSA.
The association with Soviet communism led to severe repression of American communists during the Red Scare periods. Anti-communist sentiment, fueled by the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), the Truman administration’s loyalty investigations and McCarthyism, resulted in blacklisting, loss of employment and imprisonment for many communists and their sympathizers.
The movement’s association with espionage and subversive activities confirmed the fears of many Americans and served as a justification for government crackdowns. The results were to ultimately weaken the broader leftist movement in the United States.
The movement attracted individuals who genuinely sought to advance social justice, tackle racism and improve the lives of workers. However, their alignment with the Soviet Union led to a betrayal of those very ideals. The term “tragedy” is appropriate because it conveys the sense of potential and promise unfulfilled, marred by moral compromises and ultimately resulting in significant personal and societal costs. This tragic narrative serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of ideological rigidity and the importance of maintaining ethical integrity in the pursuit of social change.
The history of the American Communist Party offers several valuable lessons for contemporary left-wing movements. Only by avoiding ideological rigidity, embracing internal democracy, maintaining political independence, upholding liberal democratic values, building broad coalitions, engaging effectively with the public and learning from past mistakes can modern activists create more inclusive, dynamic and effective movements. These lessons are crucial for advancing social justice and achieving lasting, meaningful change in today’s complex political environment.
Ideological rigidity can lead to isolation and irrelevance. The CPUSA’s strict adherence to Soviet directives and Marxist orthodoxy often prevented it from adapting to the unique social and political context of the United States. It’s essential for contemporary left-wing movements to remain flexible and adaptable, willing to modify strategies and policies in response to changing circumstances and new information. They must be willing to embrace a diversity of perspectives within a broad ideological framework if they are to remain resilient and relevant.
The CPUSA’s intolerance for internal dissent stifled debate and innovation and resulted in a stagnant and authoritarian organizational culture. This alienated potential allies and suppressed healthy internal critique. Respecting differing opinions and engaging in open debate and constructive dialogue is essential if a movement is to prevent ossification of thought and strategy.
The CPUSA’s close alignment with the Soviet Union led to perceptions of disloyalty and foreign subservience, undermining its credibility and alienating the broader public. Today’s left-wing movements need to prioritize independence and sovereignty in their political activities. While international solidarity is important, it must be balanced with a clear focus on national and local issues, avoiding any appearance of external manipulation or control.
The CPUSA’s rejection of liberal democratic values, such as free speech, pluralism and democratic governance, contributed to its marginalization. Its authoritarian tendencies and support for Soviet repression alienated many potential supporters who valued democratic freedoms. Contemporary left-wing movements should embrace and uphold liberal democratic values, advocating for social and economic justice within a framework of political freedoms and human rights. This approach can build broader coalitions and resonate more deeply with the public’s commitment to democratic principles.
The CPUSA struggled to build broad, inclusive coalitions due to its sectarianism and ideological purism. This limited its ability to effect significant change and broaden its support base. Modern left-wing movements should focus on building broad, inclusive coalitions that bring together diverse groups with shared interests. This requires a willingness to work with a range of organizations and individuals, finding common ground while respecting differences.
The CPUSA’s insular nature and often confrontational approach hindered its ability to effectively communicate its message and engage with the broader public. Contemporary left-wing movements should prioritize effective communication and outreach, using accessible language and engaging in active dialogue with the public. Building trust and understanding with the broader community is essential for gaining support and advancing progressive causes.
Failing to critically assess and learn from past mistakes leads to repeated errors and missed opportunities for growth and improvement. Professor Isserman’s Reds should be required reading for today’s leftwing activists, who need to engage in historical reflection, critically analyzing past experiences to avoid repeating mistakes. This includes studying both the successes and failures of previous movements to inform current strategies and actions.
To paraphrase George Santayana: To disregard the past is to walk blindly into the traps it has laid.
History is the only roadmap we have to the perils that lie ahead. Neglect it, and you’ll find yourself lost. Refusing to heed history’s teachings blinds us to the dangers that await.
