Sections from Cannon's Political Principles and Propaganda Methods

[ulyanovist]

The trial was by far our greatest propaganda success. Moreover, even those workers who disagree with our program, have approved and applauded our conduct in court as worthy of people who take their principles seriously. Such is the testimony of all comrades who have reported on the reaction of the workers to the trial. On a recent tour across the

Comments

First response to current post

[ulyanovist]

The first response in this post was deleted by the author. I have restored it below to make the context of the discussion clearer.
--Ulyanovist

Responder:
what did you think of this piece?
i found it extremely lacking. cannon substitutes assertitions for argument.
at the end he says that only manoeuvers should be used that don't contradict principles--but says that it must be properly understood.
does he quote Munis to prove he improperly understood that? No, he just says "we had a right and duty to do [so]."

cannon says that munis doesn't take into account the concrete situation--in the main, the "immaturity" of the proletariat. but how does munis fail to take that into account, what evidence does cannon bring forward?

so cannon has told us that we must take account of the objective situation, we must adopt our manoeuvers but not principles, etc.--but where does he show us that these assertions prove him correct and prove munis's criticisms incorrect?

muni's criticism:
"It was there, replying to the political accusations-struggle against the war, advocacy of violence, overthrow of the government by force-where it was necessary to have raised the tone and turn the tables, accuse the government and the bourgeoisie of a reactionary conspiracy; of permanent violence against the majority of the population, physical, economic, moral, educative violence; of launching the population into a slaughter also by means of violence in order to defend the Sixty Families. On the contrary, it is on arriving at this part that the trial visibly weakens, our comrades shrink themselves, minimise the revolutionary significance of their ideas, try to make an honourable impression on the jury without taking into consideration that they should talk for the masses. For moments they border on a renunciation of principles."

i skimmed through some of the testimony and then read munis's criticism (the above paragraph being a great summary)--and i think that munis is dead on. cannon is right that we must address ourself to the proletariat as they are--but that does not mean we must tail them as they are (as Bernstein the Economist had it). cannon failed to expose the dictatorship of the bourgeiousie (as experienced in the everyday violence of wage exploitation, and the violent suppression of strikes and struggles)--thereby confusing those who aren't clear of it and repelling those who are aware of it; and likewise failed to present the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat--making it sound like the party will just "talk" until they win a majority or something.

can that be excused by any of the high sounding claims that cannon makes in this defense against munis's criticism? i don't see how.
it's telling that he defends himself from a criticism without ever stating any of its criticisms.