The concept of ‘social fascism’ determined the orientation of the Communist Party during the so-called ‘Third Period’ (roughly 1928-1933) and understanding it is essential to understanding the Party’s activities in those years. Here, Si Gerson, the Party’s long-time leader of electoralist work, looks at the development of a new ‘left’ in the Socialist Party under the impact of the Great Depression, and the emergence of A.J. Muste’s group, soon to be the American Workers Party, as examples of ‘social fascist’ phenomenon.

‘The New ‘Left’ Social-Fascism’ by Si Gerson from The Communist. Vol. 9 No. 7. July, 1930.

THE Communist International in its historic Address to the Communist Party of the United States pointed out that

“…the United States with unprecedented speed is showing the inexorable laws of capitalist development.”

The economic crisis, the mass unemployment, wage cuts and frenzy of rationalization bore out this statement to the hilt. The consequent radicalization and resistance of the workers to the pressure of these “inexorable laws” was further indicated by the Comintern. Finally, it was pointed out, certain developments would take place in American reformism—the A.F. of L. and the Socialist Party. These developments would be in the direction of fascism. This estimate has been proven by countless facts in the past year. The A.F. of L. leadership in practice and in theory has become quite thoroughly labor fascist. It has worked—and is working—with the object in view of tying the trade unions firmly to the chariot of imperialism, taking away any class functions that inherently belong to the trade union, and integrating the unions into the official apparatus of the government, operating only through official sanction and compulsion. The perspective of the A.F. of L. top leadership is quite openly that of fascist trade unionism—they are the rationalization agents of the bosses, strikes will be a matter of the past, “arbitration” will be compulsory, the class struggle unions will be outlawed and viciously persecuted and the A.F. of L. leadership will officially take part in government alongside of the bosses, herding the workers into the rationalization pens and the shambles of the next imperialist war.

At the same time, under pressure of the crisis and the developing radicalization of the workers, there would arise—the C.I. pointed out—“left” social-reformism. Such did arise, led by the “socialist” Reverend Muste. This opposition, which we call social-fascist (radical or socialist in words; fascist in fact) aped to a fine degree the program of the Trade Union Unity League (then the TUEL), the center of revolutionary trade unionism in the United States.

This opposition was correctly compared to the fake “left” opposition of Cook in England — also a militant in words but a shameful betrayer in deeds. The fight against the Muste wing was — and is correctly placed in the foreground, since it is the most deceptive and treacherous of the enemies of the workers, invariably using militant phrases and the best-veiled betrayals.

Further confirmation of the correctness of the estimate of the Comintern has come with express-train speed and an almost premeditated clarity. This phenomenon is nothing less than the appearance of an organized “left wing” in the Socialist Party, obviously one that is in an advanced stage in the process of crystalization, with a program and theoreticians of its own.

Its strength is shown by the fact that its statement is printed in the New Leader, official organ of the S.P., of April 19th. Significantly enough, this statement comes after the events of March 6th and before the Seventh National Convention of our Party which will be the first really politically unified convention of our Party, one that will undoubtedly register great advances and ruthlessly examine the shortcomings of our Party in order to progress further along the highway of leadership of the majority of the working class. This statement, further, comes at a time when the capitalist class, fully alarmed to the menace that the Communist Party is to its huge profits, is taking steps of a desperate kind against the Communist Party and the militant workers.

It is the political entrance bow of a crafty social-fascism, one that comes with struggle phrases to the workers. Although this is not a complete program and cannot be criticized as such, it nevertheless gives the line of a program. This statement must be carefully studied and analyzed, if we are to conduct a genuine struggle against this fake “left” which issued it and whose line it is. It is not sufficient to dismiss it merely with the phrase “left” social fascism—a part of which it undoubtedly is. We must seek its roots, its similarities to international “left” social-fascism and its peculiarly American characteristics.

The fact that this statement is not official, and comes from a minority grouping in the S.P. is obvious from the statement in the introduction:

“…a number of active members of the Socialist Party have met informally to discuss the party situation.” (our emphasis—S.G.)

This little sentence proves what the statement of principles itself indicates, namely:

1. That the development of the class struggle in America has had its effect on social-reformism (social-fascism) in America, creating in its ranks a division of opinion as to the best methods of betrayal of the interests of the workers; and that

2. There are in the S.P. a few tendencies, the largest unofficial one being the so-called “left” and that

3. The coming convention of the S.P. will undoubtedly see some fake struggle between the Cahan “right” and the Stanley-Muste “left.”

THE STATEMENT

The most startling thing and the fundamental characteristic of the statement is the attempt at a new orientation of the Socialist Party. In direct contradiction to the decision of the last convention of the S.P. which struck out the words “class struggle” from its application as a final symbol of its orientation on the petty-bourgeoisie, its total surrender to capitalism, this “left” wants the S.P. to go back (in words, of course, it must always be remembered) to the class struggle. After some vague and abstract criticism of the “liberal” line of the S.P.—made in typical social democratic fashion, glossing things over, mentioning no names, etc., the statement says:

“the Socialist Party has come to minimize the importance of the class struggle and the abolition of capitalism as a central issue in the fight for Socialism.”

The age of miracles indeed! Truly Moses has come to lead the chosen tribes out of the land of the cruel Pharaohs! Logically following from the premise that the S.P. must fight for “the abolition of capitalism” is that the S.P. must fight for the workers. For, the statement says:

“…the working-class to whom our fundamental appeal should be made has been woefully neglected.”

This is not only a criticism of the S.P. leadership for its too frank orientation on the petty-bourgeoisie but by implication admits that the Communist Party is the leader of the struggling masses —a condition which must never, never be permitted if capitalism is to exist!

The S.P. then must orientate itself on the workers. Such unusual phrases for the S.P. as “Face Towards the Workers” (which, incidentally, like most of the wording of the document is thinly veiled plagiarism of Communist literature) are the slogans. The statement says categorically, as if warning the S.P., that the Communists will capture the leadership of the majority of the working class “if ye don’t watch out,” that:

“…the Socialist Party must keep its face turned towards the working class. As the Party of the working class the Socialist party should assert its moral leadership of the workers and be active in every phase of the workers’ struggles, in an aggressive and militant manner.”

This left wing of social fascism makes no bones about it. If the workers are to be kept from following the Communist Party, the S.P. must put up a working class front.

“…Party members must be encouraged to help organize the unorganized.”

And to further emphasize the point that vote-catching is not enough and not basic, the statement declares further:

“…the attempt to confine Socialist activities to the political field alone must be combatted. The field of Socialism is much broader and includes the political, the economic, and cultural activities of the workers.”

Our heroes of the “left” go on to elaborate their line with a dangerous demagogy. The policy in the trade unions must be examined and given a new coat of “left” social-fascist, 1930 varnish. The S.P. must by all means pretend to be in opposition to the openly fascist A.F. of L. leadership. Such open cooperation as the Socialist leaders of the United Hebrew Trades and the I.L.G.W.U. have given the A.F. of L. leadership and Tammany Hall is bad tactics. The workers will see the real face of social fascism too easily. This is to be “deplored.” The “Forwards,” socialist organ of the strike-breaking yellow bureaucracy of the fascisized ILGWU and the IFWU and weapon of the Jewish manufacturers is mildly criticized.

“We urge that the Forwards adopt a definite and progressive labor attitude which will include criticism of present reactionary A.F. of L. policies, not only as to political action but on such matters as Lewisism, the National Civic Federation tendency and no strike policy in the South, and that editorially it call for more aggressive policies on the part of organized labor.”

(So! And we always naively thought the “Forward” was “progressive” —nay, even radical! Is it not controlled by the Socialist Party?)

Political campaigns—municipal campaigns—must be run, not in order to secure some reforms, say these knights of the “left.” No!

“…a municipal campaign must be conducted so as to emphasize the class character of municipal politics. Reform measures must be placed against the background of the class struggle.”

Neither does the “left” fail to pay its respect to the youth.

“…the Socialist party must give unstinted support to the Young People’s Socialist League. Serious educational work must be carried on. Steps should be taken towards establishing a separate youth publication.” (This last comes significantly enough at a time when our Young Communist League has established a Weekly Young Worker.)

And, of course, for the 13,000,000 doubly oppressed Negroes in the United States it has a word. Finally, it winds up with some suggestions on work in the cooperatives, building the Socialist Party press, etc., etc.

CRITICISM OF THE PROGRAM

Space does not permit a detailed analysis of the statement in all its points. We must content ourselves here with an analysis of the social-political roots of this “left” tendency in the S.P. Why did a “left wing” arise in the S.P. at the present historical moment? Why does it imitate so sedulously the methodology and line of the Communist movement, if even in a distorted fashion? Why does it make such heavy literary loans from Communist literature and phraseology?

Precisely because at this historical moment the moribund capitalist world finds itself in an economic crisis; because American capitalism, far from being exempt from the “inexorable laws” of capitalism, is also a victim of this crisis; because this crisis, the mass unemployment which is its inevitable consequence, the bitter rationalization by which capitalists tried to solve this crisis — and which further accelerates it — the deep agrarian crisis — all are drawing the masses further leftward, causing a deep radicalization and bringing about sharp class struggles—and bringing thousands upon thousands of workers under the leadership of the Communist Party and into active struggle against the capitalists and the capitalist State, despite the efforts of the fascist A.F. of L. leadership and the social-fascist S.P.

Precisely because of these facts, capitalism needs new methods of braking the activity of the workers. The Social Fascism of Oneal and Abe Cahan is too degenerate, too easily seen through. Social Fascism must be given a “left” mask, just as the A. F. of L. must have Muste as its left disguise. That is why this “left” has developed. It is by no means an accident that it arises at this moment. Even the statement admits this. During the period of relative prosperity in the U. S. this “left” showed itself nowheres but joined in singing the praises of the “New Capitalism.” (It is no wonder then that Lovestone, always a keen admirer of this self-same “New Capitalism,” could address united front letters to the S.P.!) The statement says:

“The philosophy of the “New Capitalism” emphasizing certain self-adjusting features of our present day industrial order, such as are involved in the theory of high wages as a cure for the evils of the wage system, muddled our thinking.” (emphasis mine—S.G.)

Oh yes, gentlemen! Yesterday, when capitalism was apparently a buxom maiden, you wooed her! Today you have already discovered her wrinkles! Yesterday you could not see the class struggle. Today, under the pressure of the economic crisis and the radicalization of the masses you “see” the struggle. Your thinking is no longer “muddled.” Today you have become clear thinking indeed—and better servants of the capitalist class, of course!

More convincing evidence than their own above-quoted statement that the birth of this “left wing” of social-fascism is no accident, but a result of the present economic and political situation in the United States cannot be cited. Clearer proof of the fact that the United States is subject to the economic—and hence, political —laws of capitalism could not be advanced and clearer confirmation of the correctness of the line of the Comintern is likewise hard to find.

THE CONTENT OF THE STATEMENT

It is necessary to touch briefly on some of its content.

What strikes one firstly is the total lack of even an effort to analyze the international economic and political situation. Absolutely no analysis is made of the present economic situation inside the country, monopoly capital and imperialism. This in itself should put the document into the theoretical rubbish pile .It shows how much below the theoretical level of European social-fascism, the American variety is. This absence of even a fraudulent note of internationalism is obviously studied. It opens the door wide for all sorts of chauvinism. These “left” social-fascists want to be “practical,” want an American “left” socialism, much in the same manner as Lovestone, Gitlow, Thalheimer and Company do not want *o be “dominated by the Russian Party.”

No mention, of course, is made of American imperialism. The colonial peoples, this “left,” with typical imperialist contempt, ignores Haiti, and Nicaragua—pooh! The S.P. must talk of “the abolition of capitalism!”

The war danger finds the “left” equally silent. Not a word on the accumulating contradictions, the danger of an attack on the Soviet Union or war between England and the U.S. A discreet servant, this “left!”

On the Soviet Union—a significant silence. Not even the customary word on recognition.

The trade union program is obviously the same as Muste’s—of whom this “left” is only the “political” side. Loyal opposition to the A.F. of L.—not the building of revolutionary unions, to fight capitalist rationalization and to mobilize the masses for struggle against capitalism. On class collaboration—diplomatic evasion. Ditto on the sell-outs in Elizabethton and Marion and other places where the Musteites have had leadership.

Their program on the youth shows the typical crass social democratic attitude. This “left” does not talk of the working youth as a doubly exploited section of the working class, suffering fearfully from capitalist rationalization. It talks of “educational work among the youth’”—not of organization of the young workers for struggle, not of the special problems of the youth. This left wants its “young people” in quiet educational circles, where any militancy can be stifled. Of the youth and capitalist militarism and the historic struggles of the youth international before the war against capitalist militarism—only the silence of the tomb.

For the Negroes “a sympathetic (?!) committee to work out a thorough plan of action.” Not a syllable on the Negroes as a doubly oppressed section of the toiling masses. Nothing here concerning the damnable Jim-Crow system, lynch law, segregation, etc.

Finally, last, but not least, not a word is said about the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. Not a word about Marx’s teaching on the nature of the State. We can only conclude that the “left” will overthrow capitalism via the ballot box.

Point after point can be enumerated. But further proof is unnecessary. It can easily be seen, upon any kind of close analysis, that this “left” is blood and bone of the social-fascists, that they are fundamentally the same as their brethren of the right—Cahan, Oneal, etc. The only difference is that this group prefers to wear a “left” mask—and is hence more dangerous—and the other does not. Basically these gentlemen are the same as the Maxtons in England and the “Leipsiger Volkszeitung” group in Germany. All are results of basically the same fundamental social processes. What is peculiarly American here is their relatively low theoretical level and their lateness in arriving into the political arena (approximately coinciding with the lateness of the arrival of the American economic crisis.)

OUR PARTY AND THE “LEFT” SOCIAL FASCISTS.

For our Party this “left” variety of social-fascism is by no means unexpected. It could easily be foreseen, not only on the basis of logical inferences from the operations of the general laws of capitalism in this period, but also from the concrete signs in the American labor movement. The activities of the Musteites in the trade unions, the open appearance of socialists like Germer (Illinois) in the so-called progressive movement, the clamorings for a real Labor Party—all these were straws showing which way the political winds were blowing.

Our Party faces a great enemy in this “left” variety of social fascism, an enemy which, altho not very powerful today, is potentially a danger by virtue of the fact that it in many ways copies the Communist Party, uses militant phrases, and avowedly concentrates on the workers. Furthermore, its organic connection with the Musteites, of whom it is the political arm, makes it still more dangerous. Let us not fool ourselves. Take for example some mining towns in Southern Illinois where the Musteites have some foothold. This “left” could certainly grow politically for a period—unless we were on the job, to expose systematically their sham phrases on the political field as well as their betrayal policy in economic struggles— and lead the workers ourselves into battle.

A prerequisite for a real struggle against the “left” is a ruthless struggle against the Right opportunists, the conciliators, the left . phrase mongers in our own ranks. Especially must the Party guard against and ruthlessly combat opportunist errors in practice—notably in the trade union field. It can easily be seen that where Communists make opportunist errors (Southern Illinois, Needle Trades), there a fertile field is left for the “left” social-fascists, for in those circumstances the masses will see little difference between our militant phrases and opportunist practices and the militant phrases and opportunist practices of the “left” gentlemen of the S.P. who know quite well how to distort and utilize demagogically our errors. A second pre-requisite in the struggle against this newly-born “left” is a genuine understanding of its true character on the part of the Party membership.

The line of the struggle against this “left” cannot be merely that of agitation. While a systematic and accurate exposure of the true nature of this “left” brand of social-fascism must be a constant feature in all our various organs, leaflets, speeches, etc., nevertheless we will not defeat them in this way alone. It must be emphasized again and again—only the persistent application of a revolutionary line in all phases of our work will defeat the “left.” It is precisely where our Parties have deviated mostly to the right (Gt. Britain, etc.) that left social-fascism flourishes most luxuriously and always at the expense of our Party and the working-class.

A word of warning must be uttered here. There may be some comrades who reckon that simply because the correlation of forces in the S.P. at present is possibly such that the “left” cannot hope to gain control, that therefore the danger from them does not exist.¹ This is a fatal attitude and will result in throwing our Party off its guard. Whether or not the Oneal-Forward clique has organizational control over the S.P. or the Stanley-Muste forces win out is not the point. The main point is that these “lefts” will come to the masses with their phrases, irrespective of whether or not they have control of the S.P. (tho that would facilitate their work greatly) and do their level best to divert the radicalization of the masses into reformist social-fascist channels. And especially so as the struggle sharpens.

One further point in connection with the new American “left” social-fascism. As is well known, every new political phenomenon of any importance is an acid by which political attitudes and tendencies may be determined. It will be interesting to note the attitude the Lovestonites and the American Trotskyites will take towards these gentlemen of the S.P. “left.” By what political slight-of-hand will Lovestone and Cannon explain their refusal (if they do refuse!) to have anything to do on the political field with people with whom they cooperate on the economic field (cooperate to fight the militant workers). How will Ben Gitlow explain any reluctance to cooperate politically with these gentlemen of the “left”? How—except by desire to hold the few remaining followers? ‘The powerful logic of politics will not be avoided for very long. It will drive him to these people, precisely as some of his brothers of the Right in Germany have already gone over to the German social democracy.

Finally, to draw a general conclusion in summary. The appearance of the “left” variety of social-fascism on the political scene is only further proof of the operation of the inexorable economic and political taws of capitalist development, to which the U.S., like all other capitalist countries, is subject. Only the most determined struggle of the Communist Party on a correct line in all phases of work can defeat these most dangerous social-fascists and lead the workers to victory over capitalism.

1. Since this was written the N.Y. Times carried the story that seven New York locals of the S.P. have endorsed this “left” program, which only proves our contention that this “left” movement is in quite an advanced stage of organization. Also it is worthy of note that the N.Y. Times gives this fact prominence. Capitalism is ever on the alert for promising young movements to enter its service. At their recent New York City convention of the S. P. this “left” crystalized around the basis of the program discussed above and was defeated by only a narrow majority.

There are a number of journals with this name in the history of the movement. This ‘Communist’ was the main theoretical journal of the Communist Party from 1927 until 1944. Its origins lie with the folding of The Liberator, Soviet Russia Pictorial, and Labor Herald together into Workers Monthly as the new unified Communist Party’s official cultural and discussion magazine in November, 1924. Workers Monthly became The Communist in March, 1927 and was also published monthly. The Communist contains the most thorough archive of the Communist Party’s positions and thinking during its run. The New Masses became the main cultural vehicle for the CP and the Communist, though it began with with more vibrancy and discussion, became increasingly an organ of Comintern and CP program. Over its run the tagline went from “A Theoretical Magazine for the Discussion of Revolutionary Problems” to “A Magazine of the Theory and Practice of Marxism-Leninism” to “A Marxist Magazine Devoted to Advancement of Democratic Thought and Action.” The aesthetic of the journal also changed dramatically over its years. Editors included Earl Browder, Alex Bittelman, Max Bedacht, and Bertram D. Wolfe.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/communist/v09n07-jul-1930-communist.pdf