All the Chair's Comrades

The Life of Earl Browder in Context

Randall Webster

Thesis Paper

March 14th, 2017

 2

Early Browder would die twenty years after watching Max Schachtman point a finger at

him during a public debate and yell, There, but for an accident of geography, stands a corpse.

Nothing so dramatic would ever happen to him again. Stripped first of his purpose, then his

achievements, Browder was a living reminder of a time when the left found greatness at a heavy

price. Though history will not absolve him, it should at least resist caricatures. For a brief

moment in history, Earl Browder thrived within a system built on the unsteady ground of

historical accident; limitedbut not dictatedby a complex, dynamic, and fundamentally one-

sided relationship with the Soviet Regime.

Partly as a product of its origins, the historiography of American Communism is

politicized. The people who began writing about the communist movement were people who

cared: party members, fellow travelers, ex-communists, and so on. Likewise, they are subject to

quite a few biases. Works like Freedman and Cannons must be read in the context of the

political events that shaped them, and one could easily argue that their purpose was

fundamentally political. Cannon, for instance, argued that The chief victim of Stalinism in this

country was the magnificent left-wing movement,1 a narrative as comforting to him as it would

be to the countless historical writers who adopted and built off of it.

Of the authors in the historiography, few compare to Theodore Draper, who became the

de-facto founder of the Traditionalist School with his two works Roots of American Communism

and American Communism and Soviet Russia: The Formative Period. These works are notable

for a few reasons. First, for their incredible level of research. Its undoubtable that the continuing

impact of Drapers books, as well as the arguments carried on by his successors, is owed to the
1 Cannon, quoted by Bryan D. Palmer, "Rethinking the historiography of

United States communism." American Communist History 2, no. 2 (December

2003), 139-173.
 3

immense level of research founding his arguments. Second is the dedication to developing a

cohesive narrative to explain the nature of the CPUSA. Gazing down at a series of inputs and

outputs, he ultimately concludes that the partyonce an expression of genuine American

radicalismwas quickly turned into the arm of an alien ideological movement: Soviet

Communism.2

It is important to note that though Draper had an enormous influence over the

Traditionalist School, he is an easy target of critique for those opposed to it: In a show of crude

determinism, argues that Communism was, and always would be, an alien force. In an admitted

search for the essence of US communism, he engages in an affair with meaningless

reductionism. Most noticeably, he holds a barely restrained cynicism towards internationalism.

Despite this, he developed a factually sound thesis that is still carried on in the works of Klehr

and Haynes: that US Communism was dominated by the interests of the Soviet Union.

The first challenge to the ideas set forth by Draper is the Revisionist school, which

developed in the late 60s and began to compete with Traditionalism in the early 70s. Again,

shaped by those with an interest in an obscure moment in American political history, the

Revisionist School owes much to the new-left. Ironically, a political movement so opposed to the

CPUSAs structure as an organization ended up being the main force for its historical

rehabilitation.3 The Revisionists largely focused specific moments, experiences, and issues on the

2 Theodore Draper, The Roots of American Communism: New York: Viking Press, 1957,
pg 395.

3 Bryan D. Palmer, "Rethinking the historiography of United States communism."

American Communist History 2, no. 2 (December 2003), 139-173.
 4

ground level.4 They took the worm's-eye view of the party, and added immensely to our

understanding of the communist movement because of it, but they were not without criticism.

The traditionalist school criticized these methods for their lack of focus on the partys body,

ideology, and international affiliation. To them, it was a history of communism with the

communism left out.5

The historiography remained centered around such a dichotomy as information continued

to be declassified and released. The idea of Moscow Gold, at one time met with sneers,

became more and more conclusive as the Soviet Union fell, and the archives were slowly opened

for examination. Vindicated, Traditionalists followed the paper trail into the realm of spies,

undercover parties, and secret funding.6

Though the available information and points of contention have changed, there still exists

a very basic rift over whether US Communism represents a genuine form of American

radicalism. This is most present in the way each school chooses to look at the party. The

Traditionalists see the CPUSA as an organism, but not so much in the functionalist sense. They

use the rigidly bureaucratic, Stalinized, and autocratic nature of the party to portray it as a body

which can only be understood by looking at the brain. The actions at the lower levels must be

4 Harvey Klehr, and John Earl Haynes, "Revising Revisionism: A New Look at American
Communism." Academic Questions 22, no. 4 (Fall2009 2009): pg 452.

5 Geoff Eley, International Communism in The Heyday of Stalin, New Left Review,
157 (January February, 1986), pg 92.

6 Bryan D Palmer, 2007, "American Communism in the 1920s: Striving for a Panoramic
View." American Communist History 6, no. 2: 139. Advanced Placement Source, pg 141.
 5

contextualized within the choices of the chairs, and the choices of the chairs must in turn be

contextualized within their relationship with the Comintern (read USSR) specifically.

Like any body or state, the question of sovereignty naturally arises when looking at a set

of actions. This question is predominant in the minds and arguments of traditionalist scholars;

Since the CPUSAdue to the input of an alien actordoes not act in the sole interest of itself as

an organization, it cannot be considered sovereign; naturally, it cannot be considered a

manifestation of genuine American radicalism either. As Draper writes:

The periodic rediscovery of Americanization by the American Communists has only

superficially represented a more independent policy; it has been in reality merely another
type of American response to a Russian stimulus. A Russian initiative has always
effectively begun and ended it.7

What begins as a discussion about the nature of the Communism movement becomes a proxy for

a larger, more political argument: who is responsible for the American Communist movement.

Of the contributions that Draper made to the study of the CPUSA, his understanding of what it

meant to be an American communist. Communism is much less a distinct ideology within the left

than it is an adherence to a praxis set forth by Lenin, and legitimized by the success of his

movement in founding the worlds first socialist regime.8 The first American communists came

from various traditions on the left: most notably syndicalism, anarchism, and non-doctrinal

European socialism.

While impact of Lenins thought on the party was substantial, the impact of the legitimacy that

he carried would come to fundamentally shape the dynamics of the party. To this extent, I feel

7 Draper, The Roots of American Communism, pg 395.

8 Theodore Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period.
New York: Viking Press, 1960, pg 10.
 6

that Draper may have incidentally stressed the right factors for the wrong reasons when he

argued the bolshevization of the CPUSA as the only important moment in its history.9 What

many read as a naked display of Drapers liberal anti-communist leaning is actually a fairly

accurate analysis that is immediately cast aside in his clinical descriptions of factional struggle.

Though I support Palmers characterization of the relationship between the early Communist

movement and the Soviets, his description of Stalinism as a poison within an otherwise healthy

bodyalong with Hayes conceding description of it as a cancerignores that the party itself

was constructed in an image of Lenins life-work.10 11 The assumption that this body was healthy

could ironically be described as the tails-side of the same determinism that Palmer intended to

dispute.12

The Bolshevik model of party organization has its roots in the intellectual tradition that Lenin

formulated based on a deterministic interpretation of Marx.13 Lenins understanding of the

9 Draper, The Roots of American Communism, pg 395.

10 Bryan D. Palmer, 2009, "What Was Great About Theodore Draper and What Was
Not." American Communist History 8, no. 1: 15-21. Academic Search Complete,

11 John Earl Haynes, "Poison or cancer? Stalinism and American

communism." American Communist History 2, no. 2 (December 2003): 183. Advanced
Placement Source,

12 Bryan D Palmer,. 2007. "American Communism in the 1920s: Striving for a

Panoramic View." American Communist History 6, no. 2: 139. Advanced Placement Source, pg
144.

13 Carl A. Linden, Oppisition and Faction in Communist Party Leaderships in Faction

Politics: Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective, Santa Barbara, Calif:
ABC-Clio, c1978., 1978. Georgia College and State University, pg 364.
 7

political world was steeped in a class-based conflict theory where the only factional interests

were those of the different classes. The Bolshevik party was the only genuine representative of

the proletarian class, and since the interests of that faction were universal amongst the party

members, there was no reason for sustained factional differences to exist. Carl Linden went as far

to describe Lenin as the opposite of James Madison; where Madison sought to mitigate the

effects of a forces inherent to humans, Lenin sought to stamp out the causes of faction through

institutional means.14 The anti-pluralism of the Leninist tradition did not prevent the emergence

of factionalism, but it did shape the dynamics of factional conflict in important ways.

Another important factor is the Communist conception of legitimacy which ultimately stems

from the partys monopoly on the interest of the proletarians, and the millenarian belief in the

coming collapse of capitalism due to the necessitated progress of history. These two sources of

legitimacyone that could roughly be described as international, the other localare

intertwined but not always completely overlapping. In the case of the CPUSA, they represent a

struggle between the partys allegiance to an international movement dominated by the interests

of the Soviet Union, and the desire to build a mass-base.

The program of Leninism put numerous stresses on the Communist Parties, and the result

was a division seen in terms of orthodoxy and opportunism. This struggle, recognized early on in

the historiography, is attributed to the influence of the Soviet Union in a tone that could just as

14 Imdb, pg 336.
 8

easily be describing the shock-induced twitches of a dead frog.15 Such a complex and delicate

system is reduced to puppet strings.

[Browder Early History, Analysis]

As stated pages ago, the actor of focus for this paper is Earl Browder: leader of the party from

1934-45. A personification of the forces that would come to define the CPUSA, Browder was the

intellectual product of two traditions: midwestern agrarian populism and Marxism. His father

was steeped in the populist tradition before turning towards an unspecified variant of socialism.16

Benefactor of an unusually good political education from his parents, he entered into the

Socialist Party at 16around the time he began reading the classics of Marxism.17 Specifically,

he preferred Engels over Marx, and enjoyed Karl Kautskys Road To Power above all.18

From his exposure to the left before being introduced to Fosters syndicalism, we can gleam a

few things. First, both Engels and Kautsky are representative of a deterministic reading of Marx.

Ironically, Kautsky found himself apposing Lenin as much as Bernstein; the middle ground

between two violators of historical materialism. Kautsky argued that the role of a socialist in the

development was not to create wind, but to know which way it was blowing.19 Using
15 Draper, The Roots of American Communism, pg 395.

16 Harvey Klehr, 1984, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression

Decade. New York: Basic Books.pg 21.

17 James Gilbert Ryan, 1997. Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism. Tuscaloosa,
Ala.: University of Alabama Press, pg 10.

18 Ibid

19 Kautsky, Karl. 2013. The Road to Power

 9

revolution in the broad sense, he laminated on the fact that the socialist revolution would, in

fact, be quite boring relative to the bourgeois revolutions of the 1800s.20 Though I do not intend

to argue that the period of Browderism was, in any way, a conscious return to a purer roots,

these add to trends one can see in the development of Browders political identity.

Browders departure from home at 21 set the stage for the next chapter in his political

development. Joining the Kansas City branch of the Socialist Party, Browder began to work

alongside Foster after leaving the party due to the ousting of Haywood who had recently veered

to the left in support of syndicalist direct action. In fact, his departure was not due to any specific

sympathy for syndicalism; he was very much against the idea of direct action or violence at the

time.21 22 What relationship he had with Foster soon soured, however, when disagreements over

World War I divided them.

Browders success by the age of 26 were more than many achieve in a lifetime. He had pulled

himself out of rural poverty and could easily continue his trajectory towards a middle class.23

Despite this, he had yet to truly find a political home. It wasnt until his fullhearted adoption of

20 Ibid

21 Browder, Earl. Interview by Theodore Draper, October 22, 1954

22 Browder to Draper, Correspondence between Browder and Draper, 1956-1959,

Brower writes to correct Draper, insisting that he had little exposure to syndicalism until he met
Foster.

23 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 15.

 10

the anti-war activism, and the time in jail as a result, that he really began to see a path forwards

for himself. Seeing his actions within the context of historical progression, Browder accepted the

consequences of nonregistration without a hint of penance.

By chance, his time in prison coincided with the pivotal moment in socialist history: the

Bolshevik revolution. Radicals everywhere were caught of guard by the events, never truly

believing they would see the socialist dream realized.24 Admiration for the successful program

and its leader created leftwards-trending pro-Bolshevik factions within the worlds Socialist

Parties and, when nudged by the newly created Comintern in 1919, began to split away to form

independent Communist Parties.25 Such a radical decision was legitimized by the success of the

Bolsheviks in Russia. Restless and more left-inclined socialists finally had a program for

enacting change rather than waiting for class consciousness to develop. Such a program appealed

greatly Earl Browder: raised on populism and Marxism, at least warm to syndicalist direct action,

and now sitting in jail as one of the most monumental moments in socialist history took place.

Once released from prison, Browder rejoined the socialist party and worked alongside Cannon to

move the Kansas branch left. Jailed again for his involvement in the partys pro-Bolshevik

newspaper, Browder sat on the sidelines of socialist history once more.

Browders reincarceration had a profound effect on his mentality. Though the draw

Bolshevism had originally been intellectual and optimistic, he now held a fierce and burning

24 Harvey Klehr, 1984, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression

Decade. New York: Basic Books, pg 4.

25 Palmer, "Rethinking the historiography of United States communism, pg 164, careful

used of nudged, but I think authors have made a pretty good case for Draper mischaracterizing
the nature of early communist connections with Russia.
 11

resentment.26 Like Lenin during his time in exile, Browder insisted on rejoining the world a well-

read man. He poured over Marx and Engels, and read what translations of Lenin existed at the

time.27 Most agonizing were recounts of the October revolution and the stream of news reaching

him. The prison had a second, more permanent effect on his psyche: extinguishing what was left

of the youthfully restless Browder capable of floating between movements and ideologies. As

Ryan writes, Until his anger subsided, the revolution was his work, his hobby, his mistress.28

When finally released, Browder had no doubt about his perceived purpose in the world.

Rationalizing his decision to abandon the option of a bourgeois life, he asked his wife to move

with him to New York. At her insistence on staying in Kansas, Browder abandoned both her and

his son to peruse his perceived purpose.29

Its here that we reach the conclusion of what could be described as either a lacking character

analysis or obnoxiously labored background history. I feel such a focus is essential in the study

of Browder as a political actor. By large, the consensus of research into political socialization

that the foundations of ones worldview largely constructed during adolescence, and changes

very little from then on. The driving force behind Browders involvement with the far-left is not

a specific ideological devotion to Leninism. Like Syndicalism before, Leninism was nothing

more than a set of tools for achieving something that Browder long sought. Leninand

26 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 18.

27 Ibid

28 Ibid

29 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 19.

 12

eventually Stalinembodied the forward march of history towards a better world, and Browder

saw the chance to put his mark on history. Ryan would remark that Browder showed no instinct

for retrospection in his later life.30 This is largely to emphasize the single-mindedness of Browder

even in his final days, but it suggests that he could no more question the refraction of the

historical law through the accidental, than a sailor could question the wind on his face.31

Throughout his adult life, he would continue to show an extreme flexibility when it came

to the weeds of ideological disagreement. If one stripped away the needs of the national party,

the layers of line changes, and the demands of intra-party strategy, its unclear whether there

would be anything but the vaguest inclinations left. When Lenins Left Communism: an Infantile

Disorder was finally available in English, Browder read it and found it to his liking. In reality,

the work was an abrupt departure form Lenins earlier more left-wing stances. This could imply a

strain of pragmatism or just a more right-wing tendency. Whatever the case, it is clear from his

later conversations with Draper that much of the complexities in his thought during this period

had either been reduced to simplicity as they blurred into the past, or had never consciously been

realized in the first place.32

After leaving for New York, Browder spent the next few years under the tutelage of Foster; both

had been deemed instrumental for the party due to experience with American labor unions.
30 Ibid, pg 272.

31 Trotsky, Leon. 2014. My Life, Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide Library.
e-book, Ch 40.

32 Browder to Draper, Correspondence between Browder and Draper, 1956-1959,

Browder constantly sent letters correcting things he had said earlier as the memories came back
to him.
 13

Conveniently, the party-line had basically shifted towards Browders favor on arrival, giving him

room to grow whenever Foster gave him room to. By 1926, Browder began to show a tact that

had been missing only three years earlier when he stormed a stage to denounce the leader of the

New York faction of the Comintern. Asked by Foster to help argue his factions case in front of a

Comintern arbitration, Browder arrived at a session presided over by Stalin himself. By chance,

Stalin turned to ask Browders opinion on an issue of concern. In a display of political and

ideological independence, Browder said that he was not informed well enough to speak rather

than simply agreeing with Foster.33 The act enraged Foster, who left Browder in Moscow to

continue pressuring for the Chicago factions interest. He would take the time to become adept at

Soviet politics. Browder would apparently remark later that he heard about a change in line on

the horizon, and didnt want to go down with Foster.34 Stalin himself had not yet committed any

of the atrocities he is known for, and argued a line of thinking most similar to the image of Lenin

informed by the later stances that Browder would know him best by.35

[Case Studies]

[Fall of Lovenstone]

Ironically, it would be a leftward turn that would set the stage for Browders move into the top

ranks of the party at the behest of Lovenstone. Stalins fight with Trotsky ended with the latters

expulsion from the party and an abrupt left-ward swing in party-line from which clashed with
33 Klehr, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade, pg 23

34 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 27, Unsourced by

Ryan, and I cant find mention of it in Browders letters to Draper. Most likely in the Syracuse
University archives.

35 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 29.

 14

Stalins former ally Bukharin. These moves rippled through the international movement with

profound consequences. As the Foster-Cannon caucus continued to plot against Lovenstone,

Cannon managed to get a copy of Trotskys critique of Stalin, and soon built a small but critical

coalition in secret.36 In an attempt to defend their faction, Foster and Bittelman turned on Cannon

and his allies and accused them of factionalism. In a stereotypical irony, Lovenstone used the

accusation of his rivals factionalism to his own factions advantage, employing a series of trials

and investigations in a mirror of what was happening in Moscow.

Trotskyism, with its leftward slant and international focus, had the potential to catch on in

the American party as opposition to Lovenstone and the rightists grew, but Cannons predictions

of a rightward move from Stalin never game to fruition. Stalin, due to a host of domestic issues,

swerved left taking the same hardline stance that Lenin had once critiqued. In effect, this cut off

any potential sympathy for Trotskyism as even the most principled leftists saw no reason to jump

ship.37

Lovenstone came out on top, and the international stood by him despite his rightist

leanings. Despite this, he wasnt all safe. The line was moving left fast, and his associations with

Bukharin soon caught up with him. In an amazing show of political might, the Foster group

undercut Lovenstone at the expense of Foster himself. Browder and others penned an article

critical of Foster for not accepting the policy of dual-unionism. Browder saw his position

opening up from the beginning of the conflict; untouched by the previous factional battles due to

36 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period, pg 365, As
far as I can tell, this account is given by Browder during his second interview session. This
would normally indicate bias, but Cannon worked closely with Draper and must have approved
of the account.

37 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia : the Formative Period, pg 375.
 15

his time in Asia, he stanchly supported the third period line in an attempt to win favor with the

Comintern.38 Almost any book will point out that this is a total reversal for Browder; he may

have been acting opportunistically, but his position was reasoned in the ability to use dual unions

as bargaining leverage in gaining influence. This change in heart cannot easily be described as a

blind adherence to Stalins party line, either, as he developed this opinion through deliberation

with Cannon and other faction members.39

The move paid off. After an attempted deferral to the Comintern from the leftist faction

was shot down by the Lovenstone faction which, at this point, knew the Comintern would rule

against them, the directives came through from the Comintern explaining that Lovenstone no

longer had the confidence of the body. Even worse for Lovenstone were the directives which,

much harsher than the letter, betrayed the true intentions of the Comintern in advising the

removal of Lovenstone and installment of Foster.40 When Lovenstone, in an attempt to keep his

seat, wrote to Stalin pleading for him to reverse the Cominterns directive and allow open

elections, Stalin sent back a letter requesting Lovenstones return to Russia, a sure elimination

from the political scene, but permitted elections. Lovenstone then turned to the convention,

expecting his lineup of loyal delegates to be enough to keep his position. It quickly became a

spectacle, as Stalin personally commented on the obvious factionalism present in the party, and

Lovenstones opponents used it as an opportunity to point out his variations from the party line,

38 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 36-37.

39 Browder, Earl. Interview by Theodore Draper, May 4, 1954, In a correction of

Drapers early draft.

40 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia : the Formative Period, pg 401.
 16

labeling him an American Exceptionalist.41 To Stalin and the Comintern more broadly, this was a

breakdown in party order serious enough to threaten the American movement.

Such a view can be seen in the appointment of replacement leadership. Interestingly

enough, the Bolshevik structure of party organization does not have a very good method of

allocating power at the highest ranks.42 Lenin, for instance, left no chair to fill; the power that

Stalin accumulated was largely informal and based on charismatic authority. After struggling to

cement leadership by subverting anyone who could pose a threat, seeing the ability of a singular

American leadership under Lovenstone to challenge his domination over the international

movement in a show of ideological independence, a new approach was necessary. Unwilling to

simply weaken the party, the Comintern established a five-man secretariat. Browder,

spectacularly positioned for leadership, but turned down the option in hopes that the situation

would stabilize.43 His intuition paid off, as the Comintern soon became unhappy with acting

secretariat Bedachts performance, as were the lower levels of the party. Browder was quietly

placed in the leadership with few opponents, little grounds to attack him, and the opportunity to

create political networks through the appointment of offices that had been vacated during the

previous factional purges.44

[Rise to Power]

41 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia : the Formative Period, pg 377-441

42 Linden, Oppisition and Faction in Communist Party Leaderships, pg 350.

43 Browder, Interview by Theodore Draper, May 19, 1953

44 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 37-38.

 17

The early stages of Browders leadership is dominated by the struggle between he, Foster, and

Weinstone for control over the Comintern. Such a struggle was ultimately a result of personality.

Browder and Foster had, at this point, shared a long and labored history within the movement;

both held a good deal of spite for the other. Browder plainly resented his former mentors air of

superiority and inability to let grow of the events that took place during Lovenstones ousting. He

would later boil Foster down to an anarchist, no principles, urge to personal power, no real

education.45 It was true that Foster had let go of little, but he also felt humiliated by Browders

appointment as an equal.46

Despite Browders hardline defense of third-period policy during the ousting of

Lovenstone, the radicalism of the period did not suit his outlook or composure Still dressing like

a mid-western businessman, Browder espoused radicalism in a familiar voice but acted to

minimize the militancy that the third period demanded on paper.47 As Browder consolidated

power, he continued to push for more pragmatism within the context of third-period stringency

as the performance complaints from the Comintern increased.48 Incompliance with the party-line

didnt harm him, however. In fact, he soon surpassed his co-leaders in admiration showing

himself to be pragmatic and capable in leadership, good with finances, and adept at courting the

Comintern.

45 Browder, Earl, A Political Autobiography, unpublished drafts, pg 3

46 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 47.

47 Ibid, pg 47.

48 Klehr, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade, pg 86.

 18

The battle heated up first between Weinstone and Browder. The latter was chastised on

multiple occasions for the discord he was sewing within the party as well as a few actions they

found problematic. A much clearer party-line was handed down in response, and each of the

three leaders responsibilities were clarified to them. Weinstone, seeing his chance to pin

Browder against the new line, penned a report blaming him for the partys failures.

Within a couple of months, the feud became a major concern for the Comintern and their

quest for stability within the American movement. Attempts at arbitration and restructuring the

partys leadership were suggested, but before anything was decided upon, Foster succumbed to

lack of sleep and an intense workload. Its unclear whether it was a stroke, heart attack, or mental

breakdown, but regardless it effectively removed him from political life for the time being.

Realizing that now just one person stood between them and the unchallenged leader of

the party, Weinstone and Browder went at it. Weinstones strategy was to use Browders defacto

leadership to blame him for the problems that the party had been facing.49 Showing an inpressive

political tact, Browder described how Weinstones bickering had limited both of them, and

declared that the situation had to change, even if the change was his relocation. Deferring to the

Comintern was risky, but Browder had emphasized the personal nature of the conflict enough to

not raise fear of factionalism. The Comintern moved Weinstone out of the party and abolished

the secretariat, intending for Foster and Browder to share power under the assumption that the

former would make a quick recovery.50

49 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 53.

50 Ibid, pg 55.
 19

From Browders rise, we can surmise a few major trends. First, the difference in factional

struggle between Lovenstones fall and Browders rise. The first was largely a result of Soviet

influence. Browder and Foster both sought to take down Lovenstone, but they could hardly be

described as leading the charge. The second, however, typifies faction within Communist

organizations. Browders ability to achieve de-facto leadership of the party acted to destabilize

the party leadership from the beginning, and Fosters illness had let the floodgates loose. The

second trend is Browders growing knack for political maneuvering. Knowing that his personal

legitimacy was weak due to the partys failures, he instead tactfully differed the decision to the

Comintern. Why spend your own political capitol when you can spend someone elses?

[Democratic Front]

The time before the founding of the Democratic Front marked an important change in Browders

attitude: rather than seeing the revolution as something that he would personally bring about, he

once again believed that it was distant, and would be reached in its own time.51 As soon as he

gained power over the movement, he began putting a more American face on it, and this process

only accelerated when Stalin announced the Popular Front period opening up the opportunity to

collaborate with other leftist parties. No longer forced to sell revolution to Americans, Browder

accelerated his earlier attempts to Americanize the Communist movement. He strove to link the

history and thought of Marx and Engels to those of the founding fathers.

When it came time for 36 election, the logic of popular frontism was put to the test. Browder

caught on to the fact that the Comintern would request he endorse FDR. Showing common

sense, Browder insisted that supporting FDR would help his opponents red-baiting. The

Comintern sided with Browder, and asked that be the presidential candidate. The resulting

51 Ibid, pg 94.
 20

success of this move would go on to establish Browder as someone capable of influencing the

international movement.

Convinced that the New Deal coalition was unstable, Browder urged the International

that supporting the Democratic coalition from within as a way to build inroads with progressive

democrats was a much more beneficial use of time than investing in a third party. Miraculously,

the Comintern approved of his move. Browder was ecstatic; imagining himself as have made a

major impact on the International Movement.

[The Moltov-Ribbentrop Pact]

[The Ousting]

[Conclusion]

Allowing American Communism into the category of indigenous radicalism will leave

either whitewash or a stain on its history. It is as comforting to cast it out as the results of

corruptive ideologies or foreign influence as it is to minimize those factors. There is an

incredible opportunity to look at the nature of radical movements seeking popularity, the

dynamics of faction, or the ways in which ideology can shape a movementa person. When the

social history reached the study of American communism they were quickly branded revisionists

for ignoring the question of Soviet domination. In some cases, the assessment is fair, but such a

devoted focus to the question of genuine radicalism betrays an intent. If you move outside of the

context of a very specific political debate, the question becomes meaningless. With all of the

facts in front of us, a consensus would be no nearer.

 21

For a brief moment, Earl Browder rode two horses yoked together by historical

accident.52 In doing so, he displayed the flexibilities and limits of the system and ideology he had

long placed his faith in. No doubt he believed that he was doing good, that history would absolve

him for what little harm hed done; such thinking was as the foundation of everything he did. He

can represent Soviet domination, or Americanism, or both. I am convinced that the fall of the

soviet union did represent the end of history in this argument, and whats left is a game

definitions.

Bibliography

Primary

52 Ryan, Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism, pg 275, wording

is too good to pass up.

 22

Browder, Earl. Notes and excerpts from draft of projected work A Political Autobiography.
Typed, Emory University, no date.

Browder, Earl to Theadore Draper Correspondence between Browder and Draper. Typed,
Emory University, 1956-1959.

Draper, Theodore. Earl Browder. Transcripts of Draper interviews with Browder. Typed,
Emory University, June 2, 1953 October 22, 1954.

Draper, Theodore. Earl Browder. Transcripts of Draper interview with Browder. Typed, Emory
University, June 15, 1955.

Trotsky, Leon. 2014. My Life, Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide Library. e-book.

Kautsky, Karl. 2013. The Road to Power, Marxists.org, ebook.

Secondary

Carl A. Linden, Oppisition and Faction in Communist Party Leaderships in Faction Politics:
Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective, Santa Barbara, Calif:
ABC-Clio, c1978., 1978. Georgia College and State University, pg 364.

Draper, Theodore. The Roots of American Communism. New York,: Viking Press, 1957.

Draper, Theodore. American Communism and Soviet Russia, the formative period. New York:

Viking Press, 1960.

Eley, Geoff, International Communism in The Heyday of Stalin, New Left Review, 157,

January February, 1986,

 23

Haynes, John Earl. "Poison or cancer? Stalinism and American communism." American
Communist History 2, no. 2 (December 2003): 183. Advanced Placement Source,

Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York: Basic

Books, 1984.

Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. The Secret World of American

Communism. Annals of Communism. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Klehr, Harvey, and John Earl Haynes. "Revising Revisionism: A New Look at American

Communism." Academic Questions 22, no. 4 (Fall2009 2009): 452. Advanced Placement

Source, EBSCOhost

Palmer, Bryan D. "Rethinking the historiography of United States communism." American

Communist History 2, no. 2 (December 2003): 139-173.
Palmer, Bryan D. 2009. "What Was Great About Theodore Draper and What Was
Not." American Communist History 8, no. 1: 15-21. Academic Search Complete,

Ryan, James Gilbert. "The Making of a Native Marxist: The Early Career of Earl Browder." The

Review of Politics 39, no. 3 (1977): 332-62. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1405971.

 24

Ryan, James Gilbert. 1997. Earl Browder : The Failure of American Communism. Tuscaloosa,

Ala.: University of Alabama Press, pg 10.