Post 184: Re: The Crisis in the American Party by Max Schactman of Jan. 1, 1940 - 7.21.2025

This is an acknowledgement that last evening we completed the consecutive readings of the respective sections of Max Schactman’s letter to Leon Trotsky, published in March of 1940 in the New International  and entitled “The Crisis in the American Party.” I will not go into details about which we spoke on the evenings of concern (six in all) but will indicate a few points herein:

1. The difference between the “philosophical” and the “psychological” considerations of movement building and party organizations;

2. The importance of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht insofar as they

3. are invoked by Schactman to demonstrate the critical analysis provided through his technique in contradistinction to his analysis of Trotsky’s technique at that time;

4. The role of documentation when it comes to assertions about consistency insofar as one is to be held forth as

5. demonstrating a tendency – including one accused of being counter-revolutionary – and how that itself

6. attends to considerations of the “work” of members of a party or a tendency; and

7. How Schactman’s technique differs from one I posited in late 2022 regarding the appearance of a “deviation” and how that factors into what I have called “time-spatial discontignuity” relative to “revolutionary continuity.” 

I am satisfied that his technique did in fact resolve his approach and how the contemplation of the letter over several days provided a foundation for “understanding” the demonstration as a form of praxis. That which is named relative to that which is unnamed reconciles in this regard with the “appearance” upon naming and the “non-appearance” upon naming. 

The most challenging element of the technique, however, as far as I am concerned is the context within which one may not be readily able to access the information necessary to provide the “evidence” of a “demonstration” and how this factors into recruitment – or legacy – with regard to new or younger members in the organization, including with regard to development of leadership that can sustain not only the tendency but the critique. Without this, there are going to be more efforts to justify “liquidation events” than would otherwise be necessary. He also demonstrates regard to critique that may compel considerations of the maneuverability of an individual within an organization for what he began as describing as a “bloc” relative to as a “member of a political faction.” 

My major divergence from that which he demonstrated is in regard to what I would call “time space dislocation.” For instance, the context of his critique of the Zinovietists when it came to the “time space location” – ie., Moscow of 1923 as opposed to, say, Germany and then Moscow of 1921 – and how the later information provided by Schachtman for us NOW gives context to our considerations of the moment at which we are. If one follows the line of the “liquidationists” with regard to technique, including insofar as it would posit a “void” at a moment of deviation after which there is no longer access for the “deviant” to historical information about the subject of the deviation, then one is prevented from “historical reconciliation” so as to be able to provide the material resources for sustainment. I contend that is a major factor in the critique of the Stalinist bureaucracy relative to the emergence of “Stalinist imperialism” as opposed to a critique of the decisions made by the Supreme National Economic Council following Zinoviev’s attendance at the international convention in 1921. The same elements appear to be present, however, in the context of addressing the centralization of the party’s efforts into the Supreme National Economic Council as opposed to the decision of the “Stalinist imperialist bureaucracy” to make exception – including as it was presented to make such exception primary to policy decisions about how to proceed in the war – then we see the same critiques of the INTERNAL politic of the USSR in 1921 applied in the context of “expansion” through “annexation” with regard to Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania in 1940. 

Recall now that for our purposes the material we had in the form of official historical documentation – reviewed less than 45 days ago – has since been stolen both in its printed form as well as in the electronic “archived” form we would otherwise have for access to review following this “new” information that about which we had questions at the initial time of review. We must operate from “memory” – which does not only NOT directly “quote” (and as Schactman demonstrates, the capacity to provide a direct quote and appropriately contextualize not only within the article/essay but also “time spatially”) but we must also “paraphrase” so the “blade is not as sharp” as one might be able to say. Without the stone to sharpen it we may believe it necessary to “trade in” what we have for something else.

And yet, in this regard, we are 19 years time spatially distinct. Does our review of Schachtman “reconcile” us back to 1921? I contend, unfortunately, without the primary source material from 1921 it does not, and instead, in fact, takes us back to an earlier time and OTHERS who were not directly identified by Schactman in his technique. Is it “deviationist” for us to do so? I contend by the manner in which Schachtman demonstrates said technique that no it is not. It may, however, put us on course to be regarded more as a “faction” than as a “tendency” at this time and that provides us with a different utility. It puts us, however, at risk of undervaluing what Schachtman has in providing “continuity” and we must assure that it is not just impatience, impertinence or “ego” that would unnecessarily debate his merits, including in manners that would be counter to our mutual interests. 

12:43 pm CST

July 21, 2025

Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse aka Senator Charity Colleen Crouse (I-TX)

11:06 am CST on May 19, 2026.