Negro Question’ from the Fourth to the Sixth Congress
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter 15 The ‘Negro Question’ from the Fourth to the Sixth Congress Following the Fourth Congress, the party made slow headway recruiting blacks. In March 1923, Israel Amter, American representative to the ECCI, complained of the lack of progress, noting that this was in part because the ‘small number of Negro comrades in the Party makes this work difficult’. The party leadership also had differences with the Comintern’s emphasis. Amter’s next report stated that the ‘Workers Party has started work among the Irish and Negroes’, but added that ‘the Party does not agree with the thesis adopted by the Fourth Congress on the Negro Problem’. Three leading Communists, including C.E. Ruthenberg and John Pepper, wrote to the ECCI, arguing that the ‘resolution of the Fourth Congress does not give a satisfactory solution of this problem, especially from the trade union standpoint’. Nonetheless, a month later, in April, they claimed that the party had established a school ‘for Negro propagandist[s]’ and that a ‘program of work among the Negroes has been prepared and this work will be pushed aggressively’.1 Tensions within the party continued. On one level, given the internecine factionalism, it was unlikely that ‘Negro work’ would escape. There is also evi- dence that leading members of the party, including Ruthenberg and Pepper, resented the ABB. In March 1923, the Organization Committee put Huiswoud in charge of a six-week course to train black propagandists, but refused to allocate a part-time stenographer. In July, Ruthenberg accused the ABB of sup- porting emigration from the South, touting blacks’ scabbing against white strikers, and advocating ‘race hatred of whites’. A month later, Briggs wrote to the leadership, complaining of rumours of his being a spy. The Political and Organization Committee refused to take action, claiming that it did not have enough information. In December, at Benjamin Gitlow’s instigation, the executive council passed a motion that ‘we will not in the future carry on any work among the Negroes thru Briggs and Huiswoud’. Huiswoud was evidently 1 Report by I. Amter to Comintern, 7 March 1923; I. Amter, ‘Report on the United States to 20 March 1923’, both in Comintern archives, 515:1:174; Pogány [Pepper], Ruthenberg, and Jakira to ECCI, 9 March 1923; Pogány, Ruthenberg and Jakira, ‘Report on the American Party Situation to the Enlarged Executive Committee of the Communist International’, 11 April 1923, both in Comintern archives, 515:1:201. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���4 | doi ��.��63/9789004�68890_��7 the ‘negro question’ from the fourth to the sixth congress 313 disturbed enough to write a document called ‘The Negro Problem Is Important’. This tension would come to a head in May 1924. At a Farmer-Labor confer- ence in Minnesota, Huiswoud denounced a Texas delegate’s opposition to black equality. Since unity with the farmer-labour movement was more impor- tant than taking a forthright stand for black rights, the leadership suspended Huiswoud for a year.2 The differing conceptions of the Negro question can be seen from two documents written in 1923 by Amter and Katayama. Amter’s document, ‘The Negro and the World Revolution’, called ‘the Negro problem one of the burn- ing issues of the day’. The nine-page document sketched out the state of black America; however, it repeated the Debsian argument: ‘Although the Negro problem is a race problem, in the final analysis it is a class problem and can only be solved when the working class as a whole unites in the struggle for emancipation’. The document also connected the fight for black liberation in the US to a broader fight for African liberation. No doubt unconsciously, Amter echoed Garvey: ‘The American Negro, by reason of his higher education and culture, his greater aptitude for leadership and because of the urgency of the issues in America, will furnish the leadership of the Negro race’. The document ended by stressing the importance of a ‘Negro World Congress’ to ‘crystallize the Negro sentiment and create an organization that will be representative of the whole Negro race’.3 Katayama’s document, on the other hand, asserted that ‘The Negro problems differ from each other’ in ‘different countries’, including the US, South Africa and the French African colonies. Katayama pointed out that ‘The American representatives were generally against taking the Negro problem up by the Comintern’ and ‘wanted to minimize the problem as much as possible, put- ting obstructions at every step in the discussions on the Negro Commission’. ‘If the American Communist Party had followe[d] faithfully the decisions of the II Congress and live[d] up to speech made so eloquently by its representative John Reed, instead of putting every obstruction on the work of the Comintern on the Negro problems, there might have been a strong Negro revolutionary movement in America today!’ 2 Minutes of Organization Committee, 29 March 1923, in Comintern archives, 515:1:204; Minutes of Political and Organization Committee, 24 July 1923; Minutes of Political Organization Committee, 23 August 1923, both in Comintern archives, 515:1:197; Minutes of Executive Council, 14 December 1923, in Comintern archives, 515:1:190; Otto E. Huiswoud, ‘The Negro Problem Is Important’, Workers’ Party press release, 30 April 1923, in Comintern archives, 515:1:211; Enckevort 2001, p. 35. 3 I. Amter, ‘The Negro and the World Revolution’, in Comintern archives, 495:155:17..