What do Marxists need to say in a capitalist court?
DJ: "i hadn't read this section obviously! while there is a lot of talk about workers' defense squads--i still stand by my point, because Cannon fails to explain the reality of capitalist violence and the need for working class self defense on every level except of fascism."
Did Cannon need to explain things on every level? Why?
DJ: "in all of that testimony, only twice does cannon advocate forming defense guards explicity:"
How many times should Cannon have explicitly advocated forming defense guards?
Cannon: "It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late."
"When we see fascist bands organising with the aim of breaking up the labor movement, we are going to advise the workers, before it is too late, to organise workers’ defence guards and not permit the fascist hoodlums to break up workers’ organisations and meetings."
DJ: Is fascism the only reason to organize defense guards?
No. You missed:
Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence. The workers should not permit their meetings to be broken up or their halls to be wrecked, or their work to be interfered with, by Ku Klux Klanners or Silver Shirts or fascists of any type, or hoodlums, or reactionary thugs, but should organise a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary.
Note "wherever their organizations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence". Fascists are mentioned as an example, but he does not restrict himself to fascists. What does hoodlum violence mean? To borrow an expression from Trotsky, "hoodlum" and "thug" are algebraic term. They don't have one specific meaning, such as "fascist", but apply to all groups that might employ violence against the workers movement. They could mean fascists, they could mean police, they could mean Stalinists, etc. The point is, the workers "should organize a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary. "a gang of Stalinist hoodlums" "fascist movements, which began with gangs of hoodlums"
DJ: "What of the police? In response to questions about the Battle of Deputy Run, he doesn't advocate that the workers should form defense squads to defend themselves from the police."
No, Cannon doesn't explicitly mention police. He uses the algebraic terms hoodlums and thugs. Should he have mentioned police explicity? Why? At this point, I think it is appropriate to recall what Cannon had to say about this.
Q: Well, what kind of violence do you mean?
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
A: With this testimony we said all that needs to be said on the question of violence in the daily class struggle, as in the previously quoted testimony we said enough about violence and the transition to socialism. If this method of presentation did not help the prosecutor, we can say again: That was not our duty. If it is objected that even in this example of the Minneapolis strike, dealing with an indubitable case of working-class violence, we insisted on its defensive nature, we can only reply: In real life the difference between careful defensive formulation and light-minded “calls for action” is usually, in the end result, the difference between real action and mere talk about it.
Was it necessary to speak about workers defending themselves against the police in court? Cannon again:
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
DJ: further evidence:
"Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence DJ: [not anywhere else?!]."
If the workers are not facing any real threat, then they will be unlikely to form defense guards. What would be the point of raising such a call in a vacuum?
"Q: So that it is a good idea for your ultimate purposes to have union defence guards right now?
A: It is a good idea, if you can organise them. But you cannot organise workers’ defence guards merely because you want them-only when there is a pressing need for them that is obvious to the workers, regardless of their agreement with our ideas."
DJ: [This is true to some extent, but isn't this objectivism--worsphipping spontaniety? Isn't it the case that it is in the workers' objective interests to form defense guards now but they're not conscious of it and it is the task of communists to fight that backward consciousness, not cover for it by saying maybe there isn't a "pressing need" in all cases?]
I don't think is worshipping sponteneity. It's in the workers objective interest to form Soviets now, but they're not conscious of it. But raising the slogan of Soviets as an *immediate* slogan today, would just be sloganeering -- raising slogans without any regard for the real political situation. Do you disagree?
DJ: cannon in his defense says: "The court record bulges with proof that we had indeed advocated the organisation of workers defense guards."
It does bulge with him being asked questions about workers defense guards, but how does he advocate them? He advocates them as a response to fascism.
Cannon mentions fascism frequently, but he doesn't restrict the need for defense guards only as a response to fascism.
DJ: He's asked if he wants to build a workes' army (from the defense guards), and he says: "You can’t by mere program build up a workers’ army to confront such a thing [what's the point of saying this?]. The force of the workers will grow up out of their unions, out of their workers’ defence guards, out of the rank and file of the soldiers and the farmers who are in the armed forces, who will not support the slaveholders’ rebellion. We will not be without resources if we have a majority of the people." this answer seems evasive and defensive.
Revolutionaries are not trying to hoodwink the workers. The bosses want the backward workers to believe that Communists have an agenda which does *not* flow from the interests of the workers. It is important to counteract this red-baiting. Cannon here is saying that, the revolutionaries are not pushing their subjective wishes on the working class, but rather calling for actions which are appropriate for the situation.
DJ: to summarize:
munis aruged that Cannon presents the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the majority accept socialism,
Munis is wrong on this score. Cannon does not present the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the
majority accept socialism.
DJ: and that this theory lulls the workers to sleep, and that in fact, the bourgeoisie already employs daily violence against the workers and defense guards are needed now and an army is needed now. The masses should respond to the organized violence of the capitalists with their own organized violence.
munis was slightly incorrect in that Cannon notes that the capitalists will employ the forces of fascism before a majority accepts socialism, but Cannon does imply that the workers will only form defense squads in response to fascism or the reactionary minority against the majority [at least black self defense squads against police violence, not fascism, have proven him wrong].
Cannon never said that workers defense squads will *only* be developed in response to fascism. Once again:
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
Yes, he didn't specifically refer to "workers defense squads". But he's talking about workers defending themselves. Black self defense squads against police violence don't prove Cannon wrong, they confirm Cannon.
DJ: By only explicitly advocating defense squads in response to fascists and Stalinists but not police and the capitalist system as it is now, Cannon is abdictating the struggle for class consciousness and organization.
Once again,
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
Do you really disagree?
Did Cannon need to explain things on every level? Why?
DJ: "in all of that testimony, only twice does cannon advocate forming defense guards explicity:"
How many times should Cannon have explicitly advocated forming defense guards?
Cannon: "It is a life and death question for the workers that they organise themselves to prevent fascism, the fascist gangs, from breaking up the workers’ organisations, and not to wait until it is too late."
"When we see fascist bands organising with the aim of breaking up the labor movement, we are going to advise the workers, before it is too late, to organise workers’ defence guards and not permit the fascist hoodlums to break up workers’ organisations and meetings."
DJ: Is fascism the only reason to organize defense guards?
No. You missed:
Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence. The workers should not permit their meetings to be broken up or their halls to be wrecked, or their work to be interfered with, by Ku Klux Klanners or Silver Shirts or fascists of any type, or hoodlums, or reactionary thugs, but should organise a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary.
Note "wherever their organizations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence". Fascists are mentioned as an example, but he does not restrict himself to fascists. What does hoodlum violence mean? To borrow an expression from Trotsky, "hoodlum" and "thug" are algebraic term. They don't have one specific meaning, such as "fascist", but apply to all groups that might employ violence against the workers movement. They could mean fascists, they could mean police, they could mean Stalinists, etc. The point is, the workers "should organize a guard and protect themselves where it is necessary. "a gang of Stalinist hoodlums" "fascist movements, which began with gangs of hoodlums"
DJ: "What of the police? In response to questions about the Battle of Deputy Run, he doesn't advocate that the workers should form defense squads to defend themselves from the police."
No, Cannon doesn't explicitly mention police. He uses the algebraic terms hoodlums and thugs. Should he have mentioned police explicity? Why? At this point, I think it is appropriate to recall what Cannon had to say about this.
Q: Well, what kind of violence do you mean?
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
A: With this testimony we said all that needs to be said on the question of violence in the daily class struggle, as in the previously quoted testimony we said enough about violence and the transition to socialism. If this method of presentation did not help the prosecutor, we can say again: That was not our duty. If it is objected that even in this example of the Minneapolis strike, dealing with an indubitable case of working-class violence, we insisted on its defensive nature, we can only reply: In real life the difference between careful defensive formulation and light-minded “calls for action” is usually, in the end result, the difference between real action and mere talk about it.
Was it necessary to speak about workers defending themselves against the police in court? Cannon again:
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
DJ: further evidence:
"Q: Will you tell the court and jury the position of the Socialist Workers Party on workers’ defence guards?
A: Well the party is in favor of the workers organising defence guards wherever their organisations or their meetings are threatened by hoodlum violence DJ: [not anywhere else?!]."
If the workers are not facing any real threat, then they will be unlikely to form defense guards. What would be the point of raising such a call in a vacuum?
"Q: So that it is a good idea for your ultimate purposes to have union defence guards right now?
A: It is a good idea, if you can organise them. But you cannot organise workers’ defence guards merely because you want them-only when there is a pressing need for them that is obvious to the workers, regardless of their agreement with our ideas."
DJ: [This is true to some extent, but isn't this objectivism--worsphipping spontaniety? Isn't it the case that it is in the workers' objective interests to form defense guards now but they're not conscious of it and it is the task of communists to fight that backward consciousness, not cover for it by saying maybe there isn't a "pressing need" in all cases?]
I don't think is worshipping sponteneity. It's in the workers objective interest to form Soviets now, but they're not conscious of it. But raising the slogan of Soviets as an *immediate* slogan today, would just be sloganeering -- raising slogans without any regard for the real political situation. Do you disagree?
DJ: cannon in his defense says: "The court record bulges with proof that we had indeed advocated the organisation of workers defense guards."
It does bulge with him being asked questions about workers defense guards, but how does he advocate them? He advocates them as a response to fascism.
Cannon mentions fascism frequently, but he doesn't restrict the need for defense guards only as a response to fascism.
DJ: He's asked if he wants to build a workes' army (from the defense guards), and he says: "You can’t by mere program build up a workers’ army to confront such a thing [what's the point of saying this?]. The force of the workers will grow up out of their unions, out of their workers’ defence guards, out of the rank and file of the soldiers and the farmers who are in the armed forces, who will not support the slaveholders’ rebellion. We will not be without resources if we have a majority of the people." this answer seems evasive and defensive.
Revolutionaries are not trying to hoodwink the workers. The bosses want the backward workers to believe that Communists have an agenda which does *not* flow from the interests of the workers. It is important to counteract this red-baiting. Cannon here is saying that, the revolutionaries are not pushing their subjective wishes on the working class, but rather calling for actions which are appropriate for the situation.
DJ: to summarize:
munis aruged that Cannon presents the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the majority accept socialism,
Munis is wrong on this score. Cannon does not present the idea that the bourgeoisie will only employ violence after the
majority accept socialism.
DJ: and that this theory lulls the workers to sleep, and that in fact, the bourgeoisie already employs daily violence against the workers and defense guards are needed now and an army is needed now. The masses should respond to the organized violence of the capitalists with their own organized violence.
munis was slightly incorrect in that Cannon notes that the capitalists will employ the forces of fascism before a majority accepts socialism, but Cannon does imply that the workers will only form defense squads in response to fascism or the reactionary minority against the majority [at least black self defense squads against police violence, not fascism, have proven him wrong].
Cannon never said that workers defense squads will *only* be developed in response to fascism. Once again:
A: This was what the deputies were organised for, to drive the workers off the street. They got a dose of their own medicine. I think the workers have a right to defend themselves. If that is treason, you can make the most of it.[19]
Yes, he didn't specifically refer to "workers defense squads". But he's talking about workers defending themselves. Black self defense squads against police violence don't prove Cannon wrong, they confirm Cannon.
DJ: By only explicitly advocating defense squads in response to fascists and Stalinists but not police and the capitalist system as it is now, Cannon is abdictating the struggle for class consciousness and organization.
Once again,
Cannon: That is all any Marxist really needs to say on the question of violence in a capitalist court or at a propaganda meeting for workers at the present time in the United States. It tells the truth, conforms to principle, and protects the legal position of the party. The workers will understand it too. To quote Shakespeare’s Mercutio: “’Tis not so deep as a well nor so wide as a church-door; but ’tis enough, ’twill serve”.
Do you really disagree?