A Noble Cause Betrayed ... but Hope Lives On
Pages from a Political Life, by John Boyd
Chapter 1l
Early shifts in allegiance
Q. Joe Knight, who helped to get your
father off on a suspended sentence and "exiled" to B.C. I heard that
at one time he was a speaker and an organizer for the One Big Union in
Northern Ontario. He went to Cobalt, I understand, and helped to
convince people they should join the OBU rather than remain in the
Western Federation of Miners. Apparently there was a lot of crossover
between the various radical organizations in that era. A person would
be, say, a member of the Socialist Party of Canada and then leave and
become a sort of organizer for the One Big Union. It seems, in
retrospect, almost like flirtation, waiting for the good idea to come
along. Or was it more consistency and just that the next vehicle was a
better expression of the people's aspirations? What caused these shifts
in allegiance? Can I get you to comment on that?
Really, I only know a bit from what I read or
heard from different people. I know that before the Party was formed in
1921 and especially before 1928, there was more of this crossover. My
father, for example, was a member of the Social Democratic Party but
also carried a card from the IWW (the International Workers of the
World). I think there was more of an acceptance of people crossing over
or working together. But when the Communist Party came into being, and
especially after the Comintern took more of a hand in directing things,
it put an end to all that. Any flirtation with any other group or union
was frowned upon and actually forbidden.
A one-sided view
Q. I'd like to come back to something we
discussed earlier. Even though you were young, you were politically
cognizant, active, and read a lot. What do you recall about the
Stalin-Trotsky debates in the international context as far as getting
news of those? And in the Canadian context, were both positions
thoroughly discussed, or did one hear only a one-sided interpretation of
what was going on?
Oh, it was definitely one-sided. As I said, I
read Inprecor, the Communist International periodical, regularly
through the late 1920s and into the late 1930s. And I accepted
everything in it as gospel. When the series of Moscow trials were
reported verbatim, even though it was startling to learn that leaders
like Bukharin or Zinoviev had "confessed" to these horrible crimes, I
accepted it. It was not until after the exposure of Stalin that I
realized there was something fundamentally wrong, and later, after I
lived for two years in Czechoslovakia, I found out what it was. But
until then, yes, I just accepted what the leaders told us, especially
after a lifetime of following them and looking to them for guidance, as
if they were oracles. I didn't begin to question things until much
later.
It was a gradual erosion, a gradual process of
disillusionment, not only because of what was happening in the Soviet
Union, but also because of the methods that were used by the Party
leaders. I told you earlier about how, on the Party's orders, I wasn't
sent to Ukraine. The important thing is that, regardless of whether I
should or shouldn't have gone, it was done without my even knowing about
it, without my being consulted. Or the fact that the Party leaders
decided arbitrarily and suddenly that I should no longer be National
Secretary of the Youth Section of the ULFTA. Again, without discussing
it with me beforehand, without taking into account that I had spent two
years getting to know that organization, but, most important, ignoring
the fact that this was a cultural organization with its own constitution
and the right to make its own decisions. And there were many other
incidents like that.
That is the way the Party leaders dealt with
people, and even more ruthlessly if they questioned or opposed Party
policy. It was largely this lack of democracy, this lack of a humane
approach to people working for the same cause that began to erode my
dedication to the Party, my faith in the Party. I began to realize that
there was something wrong.
Blind acceptance
Q. You say that reading Bukharin had been
an early influence on you, and yet you accepted his confession as an act
of faith. How did you reconcile what you had read of his ideas with the
trial? Did you have any internal anguish over that?
Yes. Not anguish so much, perhaps, as shock and
bewilderment about how he and the others could have "gone off the
rails," so to speak. That is the way it was presented to us, of course.
It was presented as a betrayal, as part of the "onslaught of
imperialism," and they "confessed" to being agents of imperialism. It
was a blind and unthinking acceptance of what Stalin and his prosecutor
Vyshinsky said about them. That was our weakness, of course, in not
questioning enough what was said and done. It was difficult to
comprehend, so you went on "faith": you either accepted that and stayed
with the Party or you didn't and left the Party, as some did. I stayed
in retrospect, to my regret.
Q. With the denunciation of Trotsky, some
people did leave the Party. Because Bukharin did have some intellectual
and ideological stature, even though perhaps not as much as Trotsky,
were there people in the Party who became disillusioned after his trial
and left?
There might have been members who would have
split hairs that way who said, "Well, I go along with the criticism of
Trotsky, but Bukharin, that's the last straw" but I wasn't aware of
them. They were all lumped in our minds actually by Stalin and
Vyshinsky as enemies of the Party, enemies of Communism. Trotsky,
Zinoviev, Bukharin, and all the others were put into one bag, even
though there were distinctions in the trials: they weren't all tried en
masse, but rather in groups, gradually. No, I think most people just
lumped them all together as enemies of the Party.
Both sides used propaganda
Q. This is more an observation than a
question. In his book, Krawchuk writes: "It's well-known that after 1922
the Soviet Union had a network of propagandists and agitators like no
other state in the history of civilization." I guess we can accept that.
But I was surprised that it was used as it was, that because it had this
network, they succeeded in brainwashing the people who were adherents of
the ideology. I think that is how he meant it. But to compare it to the
process of societal control under advanced capitalism, I think there is
no comparison, because under advanced capitalism the control is far, far
more sophisticated.
I think he overstated it for effect. He shouldn't
have said "like no other state." Perhaps equal to, or almost equal to,
the United States would have been better. But there's no question that
Moscow did have a network bigger than that of any country outside the
United States.
I don't know if you've ever read The Red
Orchestra. It's a marvelous book. Stanley Ryerson recommended it to
me years ago. It tells the story of Leopold Trepper, a dedicated
Communist Jew in Poland, who during the war organized a radio network in
Western Europe, mainly France and Belgium, to supply information for
Moscow. His staff was made up of dedicated Communists, sympathizers and
a few paid agents. He was very successful.
The book tells the gripping story of how he
operated, how he had to evade the German army, which constantly sought
to zero in on his portable broadcasting stations. All his messages to
Moscow had to be sent every day by secret code to Moscow. It gives an
example of how his superiors in Moscow, who had never been outside the
Soviet Union, didn't understand the West and how that affected his
efforts.
One of the rules Moscow imposed on the operation
was that you had to report every single move you made that day, down to
the tiniest detail. In one of these reports he told Moscow how he went
to Hamburg, illegally of course, and came back. Following which he got a
blast: "How come you didn't include an account of how you got a passport
to go to Hamburg?" When he replied that one didn't need a passport
within the country, they didn't believe him. You needed an internal
passport to travel from city to city in the Soviet Union, so they
assumed he was hiding something and threatened him.
He was also forbidden to make contact with the
underground French Communist Party, which was a major player in the
Resistance movement. When at one point, in a life-or-death emergency he
just had to, and did, he got hell for it. They simply would not accept
his explanations. Three times he was caught, jailed and nearly executed,
but managed to escape.
After the war, Trepper went to Moscow, expecting
to be recognized for his heroic efforts. Instead, he was put in jail by
Stalin, where he spent the next 18 years. You see, he was Polish, and a
Jew, and had been in contact with foreigners. After serving his 18-year
term, Trepper returned to Poland only to find that anti-Semitism was so
rampant that his sons had left and gone to London. Trepper joined them
and died there. The Toronto Globe and Mail carried an item about his
death at the time.
Tragedy of disunity
Q. With the CCF being formed in 1933 and
the Party leadership imprisoned in Kingston, how well was the Party able
to function? Did throwing the Communist leaders in jail help to
kickstart the CCF? Did it retard the Party's work with the unemployed at
all?
Actually, the jailing of the Communist leaders
only spurred many people to greater activity in the Party. Within a
short time a secondary layer of leaders developed, and they provided the
leadership that was required. As for the CCF, its creation was part of
the leftward swing of the people against the system. Unfortunately, it
was also the time when the Communist Party began labeling the Social
Democrats, the CCF leaders, as "social reformists" and even "social
fascists," as being no better than the capitalists, that they were
really helping capitalism to survive, etc.
This battle was a two-way street, of course. The
CCF leaders were in turn attacking and denigrating the Communists. It
was part of the world-wide struggle between the Social Democrats in the
Second International and the Communist Parties in the Third
International. Many workers at the time were very enthusiastic about the
newly created CCF and could not understand this division in the Left. It
wasn't at all helpful in the battle against capitalism.
I believe that one of the greatest tragedies of
this century is the fact that those on the left wing the people who
wanted socialism, who wanted to replace capitalism were disunited,
could not unite, from as far back as 1903 or from the founding of the
Third International in 1919. As was proven later, that same split
prevented them from stopping fascism early enough. And it continued to
this day. This disunity also enabled capitalism to continue to carry out
its agendaand to win all kinds of battles to date, even though
eventually they are not likely to win the war.
Attempt to rehabilitate Stalin
Q. A couple more things. I was told by one
of the leading Ukrainians I interviewed that at one point there was an
attempt in the Canadian Party to restore Stalin, to say, okay, he did
some horrible things, but he also did some good things. The Ukrainians
would have none of it, and that was the end of it. Do you have any
knowledge of when that happened and how it was dealt with?
Yes, it was when I was in the National Executive,
while Kashtan was the leader of the Party and Brezhnev was in power in
Moscow. It came in the form of a message from the CPSU, gently
suggesting that there should be more of a balance in evaluating Stalin's
role in history, etc. The executive was divided on the matter, but the
proposal died after the leaders of all the various ethnic groups in the
Party adamantly opposed the idea.
There probably would have been more support for
the idea among some of the rank-and-file members. Many people I think
my father would have been among them found it very difficult to write
off Stalin or condemn him. Indeed, there is a publication called
Northern Compass, that Mike Lucas puts out, which blatantly still
reveres and praises Stalin and doesn't even want to consider any
negative aspects of his regime. I saw an issue of this publication
earlier this year and I understand it's still being published. So they
must have some followers. They're very much like the Soviet Communists
led by Ziuganov, who are totally uncritical of Stalin.
A noble cause betrayed
As I said earlier, the Soviet Union did many
great things, but these were done in spite of Stalin. Most of the people
in the Soviet Union, including most of the rank-and-file Party members,
were sincere, genuinely dedicated to a better system of society. In
criticizing the Party, I don't reject the great things that were done,
and the ideals to which the entire membership and the entire Party
aspired. In spite of the sectarian methods and dogmatic approaches that
persisted within the Party and still persist among the few who are
still in the Party even though I am no longer a member, I still
believe in genuine socialism.
The goal of socialism was a noble cause, but it
was betrayed by people who were primarily interested in power, people
who distorted and besmirched that cause and used it to achieve their
ends. I am confident that future generations will find ways to challenge
the rule of global corporate capitalism. But it won't be done by the
dogmatic and sectarian theories and methods of the past. That's why I
talk about the need for a totally new approach by the Left today. How to
challenge the capitalist system in the present new era is a big
challenge that requires new theoretical study and new approaches.
Party's first secretary
Q. I was unaware, for example, that Tom
Burpee was the first national secretary and that he was replaced by
William Moriarty and then by Jack Macdonald. I always thought Macdonald
was secretary from day one. What do you remember about Burpee and
Moriarty?
Not much, really. After all, I was only about
eight years old then. I did meet Tom Burpee a few times and I knew his
wife, Helen, who lived to a ripe old age. She was Helen Sutcliffe
originally.
Q. Krawchuk says that they were replaced or
suggests they didn't have a stable leadership that was well versed in
the Marxist theory of scientific socialism. But I don't know that we can
say there ever was a leader who was well versed in the Marxist theory.
I agree, but I think it's relative. Macdonald and
Buck probably had more knowledge of it than Burpee. And I was told that
Moriarty was very bright.
Q. Of all of the leaders, would you say
that Buck had the most knowledge of Marxist theory?
That is very doubtful. I was told that Maurice
Spector had more theoretical background. And more education. That is why
he was an effective editor. Buck was essentially self-taught. What he
did have was a phenomenal memory. Whenever he prepared a speech, he
would write it out by hand, and in the course of doing so would memorize
it, retain all the facts. So when he delivered his speech he rarely had
to refer to his notes, because he could remember them. I think he
acquired his knowledge of Marxist theory from books that way before he
became Party secretary. Macdonald also was a self-taught worker.
[ Continued ... ]
[ Top ] [ Table of
Contents ]
Copyright South Branch Publishing. All
Rights Reserved.
www.socialisthistory.ca ▪
|
