The American Communist Party (CPUSA) is back in the headlines. On March 27, party offices throughout the Union, as well as the printing plant and editorial offices of its organ, the *Daily Worker*, were occupied and shut down by the police. The government—and the Department of the Treasury on its behalf—justified the draconian measures by citing the extreme state of arrears in which the affected parties allegedly found themselves. According to federal authorities, the party allegedly failed to pay taxes totaling $389,265, while the *Daily Worker* reportedly failed to remit a total of $40,000 between 1951 and 1953.

Commenting on the incident, *l’Unità* accused the American government of resorting to obvious pretexts. For us, the question of whether or not the taxation of a political party is contemplated by the American Constitution is of little interest. It remains proven, however, that the American government acted in accordance with bourgeois principles, under which parliamentary democracy—as Lenin wrote—boils down, in essence, to democracy for the rich. But are the leaders of the American Communist Party consistent with the theoretical and programmatic principles of Marxism, by which they claim to be guided?

We have before us the press report of the speeches delivered on January 20, 1956, at a rally in New York’s Carnegie Hall by Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the American Communist Party, and John Gates, a member of the Party’s National Committee and editor-in-chief of the *Daily Worker*. The rally, held to mark the 32nd anniversary of the *Daily Worker*, took on particular significance, not least because it was the first time the two leaders had appeared in public following a four-year stint in the country’s prisons. Before an audience of 3,500 citizens (in the USA, Moscow-aligned communists are «few but good»), they made statements of principle to which *L’Unità* (February 2, 1956) attributed programmatic significance, given that it headlined its report: «The program of American communists outlined by Dennis at Carnegie Hall.» It was not, therefore, a matter of hasty statements, but rather an orderly exposition of the principles guiding the actions of the American Communist Party. While there is a great deal of clamor regarding the «new paths to socialism» that the 20th Congress of the CPSU pointed out from Moscow to foreign parties, it will be interesting to see what the «American path» outlined in the Dennis and Gates party program looks like.

The least that can be said of these people’s statements is that even the lowliest reformist socialist would have felt dishonored to endorse them forty years ago; one can only observe that the four years spent in prison failed to cure the American «Communist» leaders of the lethal maladies of patriotism and constitutionalism. The «different path» is the same everywhere, as can be seen.

Dennis’s speech—at least in *L’Unità*’s summary account—struck us as far less interesting from a critical standpoint than Gates’s speech. However, we found enough in it to demonstrate that the American Communist Party is utterly devoid of Marxism and revolutionary class consciousness. But in seeking to prove to the «McCarthyite censors» the falsity of the accusations of «un-American activities» leveled against U.S. Communists, they go decidedly too far. Faced with the need to shake off accusations of serving a foreign power, they cast aside any stance rooted in proletarian internationalism. We read in Dennis’s speech: “When and how this change (the transition to socialism) will come about depends on the majority of the American people. We communists believe that, ultimately, some form of workers’ and peasants’ government—one that answers to the popular will—will be able to effect the transition from capitalism to socialism. By the same token, we are certain that this will be a truly American government; it will be led by an American president and will operate through an American Congress that will be—for the first time in our country’s history—truly formed by the people, with the people, and for the people. And, as Americans and as Communists, we advocate and desire that this democracy be achieved through constitutional and democratic means.”

Talk about pithy expressions! In about twenty lines, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States demolished the principal theoretical and programmatic positions of Marxist communism.

1) he discarded revolutionary internationalism. The government of American «workers and peasants,» he said, will be a national American government. Here we are, brought back to the utter nonsense of «national communism»—which, in this specific case, bears the «Made in the USA» label. 2) It reduced the dictatorship of the proletariat to mush by asserting that the «American workers’ and farmers’ government» will act through an American Congress—that is, it will not rule dictatorially. 3) It has shelved the idea of ​​revolution and the violent seizure of power. Indeed, it has declared that American communists intend to come to power using «constitutional and democratic means.»

Another passage from Dennis’s speech—one that proved very useful to us for polemical purposes—is the part where the author speaks, with a distinctly American mindset, of the “marketplace of ideas.” We did not know that a stock exchange of ideas existed, but we must take the word of the General Secretary of the American Communist Party: «We American Communists welcome every opportunity to submit our views and our policies to public debate and to the test of the marketplace of ideas.» Praise be to the Almighty Dollar! Now we understand why the leaders of the American Communist Party refuse to pay taxes. They sold the entire Marxist doctrine and program on the marketplace of ideas, asking in return for tax exemption—that is, the privilege of existing as a party. And so it is true that the Eisenhower administration is not abiding by… constitutional agreements. Dennis, formerly a woodworker and carpenter (see the cited *l’Unità*), also spoke about other topics, such as peaceful coexistence, the need for trade union unity, and so on. We refrain from commenting, to avoid causing any woodworker or carpenter among our four readers to blush with shame at the irredeemable reactionary regression of a former fellow tradesman—who now heads the Communist Party in the USA. Once the annoying obstacles hindering American «communists» in their work had been cleared away—specifically the accusations leveled by «McCarthyites» that they were proponents of proletarian internationalism, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and revolution (a task admirably performed by Dennis)—it fell to the eloquent John Gates, editor-in-chief of the *Daily Worker*, to present a detailed exposition of the American Communist Party’s program. It must be acknowledged that John Gates is an unrivaled businessman—perhaps the most gifted of all his colleagues operating in the «marketplace of ideas.» He devoted the greater part of his speech—reports *L’Unità*—»to the question of the relationship between the struggle for democracy and the struggle for progress in the Southern states,» and it cannot be said that he lacked… mercantile skill.

Northerners running late

We believe—perhaps because we do not frequent the «marketplace of ideas» and thus remain wedded to a fossilized Marxism that finds no buyers—that the only barrier preventing the dawn of a new historical era in the United States (which can be nothing other than socialism) is the dictatorship of the capitalist class. No social or political force other than the urban and rural proletariat organized into a revolutionary political party can prevail against it. Only the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat can make the United States «progress.» The leaders of the American Communist Party, on the other hand, speak of «progress,» yet they are far from meaning—by this pseudo-democratic term—the transfer of power into the hands of the proletariat. They are men well-versed in the affairs of high-level politics. They are not so stupid as to commit the bestial foolishness of «isolating themselves» and losing contact with the large electorate, the one that will have to elect an «American workers and peasants government», based on an «American Congress», founded on the «American Constitution». Class-based politics is now the very «path» that must be taken by those who do not need the votes so greedily coveted by the American Communist Party. And how can one hope to garner support across all social classes, if not by presenting an electoral program acceptable to all of them?

It is precisely such considerations, which those who are not electoral strategists find abhorrent, that compel the leaders of the American Communist Party to fall back on issues that command the assent of the compliant flock comprising the intelligentsia, the petty bourgeoisie, and—why not?—on the part of the political establishment privileged enough to sit in Congress: the struggle for the «implementation of democracy in the South,» the abolition of school segregation, the restoration of voting rights to Black people deprived of them by racists, and, above all, the defense of the Constitution threatened by the «Dixiecrat conspiracy.» And here we are! What, then, is this «Dixiecrat conspiracy» (so named after the Mason-Dixon line, which marks the northern boundary of the Southern United States)—a threat whose machinations the American Communist Party is calling upon all American social classes to confront? Here is what John Gates—the party’s number two and the head of the *Daily Worker*—had to say on the matter:

“We American Communists declare ourselves ready to defend the government of the United States—whether formed by the Eisenhower administration or any other administration—in every way necessary to protect the country and strengthen the Constitution against the Dixiecrat conspiracy. “ and if words have any meaning, the call issued by the American Communist Party—which claims to represent the interests of the American proletariat—to the U.S. government, which undoubtedly represents the interests of the capitalist bourgeoisie and social conservatism, to create a “great common struggle ” and a sort of “sacred union” of the classes against the “Dixiecrat conspiracy,” demonstrates that the American Communist Party believes this political power is founded on social positions even more reactionary than those held by the bourgeoisie. This means that, in the thinking of leaders like Dennis and Gates, «Dixiecracy» rests socially upon a mode of production that is inferior and backward compared to capitalism itself. This means that, in the thinking of leaders like Dennis and Gates, «Dixiecracy» rests socially upon a mode of production that is inferior and backward compared to capitalism itself. Indeed, why would one ask the Eisenhower administration—and thus American capital—to intervene against this American version of Togliatti’s «lurking reaction,» if one did not believe in a class conflict between it and the capitalist bourgeoisie? The leaders of the American Communist Party therefore believe that a class contradiction may exist between the capitalist magnates and the «Dixiecrats.» But who are these «Dixiecrats»? Are they, perhaps, the representatives of an American «Tsarism»—of a surviving feudal society thriving in a reactionary manner within the «dollar zone»? Or are they actually representatives of pre-Columbian civilizations—»nostalgics» for Sitting Bull who dream of a Native American uprising against the hated «Pale Faces»? Disabuse yourselves of that notion.

Dixiecrats are nothing more than agrarian Southern Democrats—that is, Democratic Party representatives elected with the votes of racists from the «Solid South”.

John Gates spoke plainly to his 3,500 rally attendees (not even one-hundredth of the number of people at certain rallies held by his colleague, the honorable Ingrao, editor of *L’Unità*). He highlighted the fact that Congress is dominated by a coalition of Southern Democrats—the Dixiecrats—and reactionary Republicans. This obstacle blocks the path to any «progressive innovation,» such that—regardless of which party wins the presidential election—it will be unable to prevent this reactionary alliance from blocking any progressive legislation. According to John Gates—speaking on behalf of the American Communist Party—the American nation cannot «move forward» as long as the «Dixiecrat conspiracy» remains in the South, blocking the path of democracy advancing from the North. He stated at Carnegie Hall: «Just as our country discovered a hundred years ago that it could make no further progress until it abolished slavery, today the nation cannot move forward—cannot establish a solid foundation for the expansion of democracy and the elimination of poverty—until democracy is realized in the South.»

Who would dare call John Gates, editor-in-chief of the *Daily Worker*, a Marxist? Only idiots like Senator McCarthy could fail to see what these American «communists» really are.

The membership of the American Communist Party—at least as far as the leadership is concerned—consists of petty-bourgeois intellectuals who do not look to the revolutionary traditions of the American proletariat, and would be horrified to do so. They are the anachronistic and ridiculous perpetuators of the liberal ideologies linked to the struggle between the industrial states of the North and the agrarian, slave-holding states of the South—a conflict that reached its bloody conclusion a century ago in the Civil War. They are sailing in the purest (and today reactionary) Lincolnism when they vociferously preach the holy crusade for the «expansion of democracy» in the South.

For John Gates—a «Northerner» partisan out of step by a century—the supreme task of the American proletariat (or rather, of the cross-class alliance between the proletariat and the «democratic» bourgeoisie) is not the proletarian revolution against the Washington state and the capitalist, imperialist class it represents, but the «democratization» of the South. Are you capable of swallowing another passage of his speech? Here it is: «The urgent need of our time is the creation of a strong anti-Dixiecrat movement—a popular anti-monopoly alliance whose primary task is the destruction of Dixiecrat power in the South through the establishment of political democracy, voting rights, and the freedom to organize.This will undermine the very foundations of monopoly power throughout the country and, with the force of a waterfall, pave the way for economic, political, and social progress.» 

The sentence is constructed in such a way as to prompt the listeners to applaud. We are certain that Gates did not lack applause. It was fortunate for him that no Marxist workers were within earshot; otherwise, a whole wagonload of corncobs and rotten tomatoes—the only small change Marxists use when visiting the «marketplace of ideas»—would not have sufficed to bury him under a barrage of scorn. They call on the federal government to strangle the hated «Southerners,» and in exchange they sacrifice… the proletarian revolution. You have just read it: following such a momentous upheaval, «economic, political, and social progress» would erupt of its own accord—spontaneously and without further shocks—»with the force of a waterfall.»

But would the «economic progress,» etc, etc, that would follow the overthrow of «Dixiecrat power» in the South be compatible with the domination of the capitalist class? Given that the American Communist Party—through Dennis—speaks of a «transition to socialism,» it would seem not. In fact, John Gates categorically asserts that political democracy—or the special version of it that will take over («with the force of a tidal wave,» do not forget!) upon the fall of the Dixiecrat Bastille—will have the certain effect of «undermining the power of monopoly throughout the entire country.» In other words, the victory over «Dixiecracy» will mark the end—or rather the beginning of the end, speaking in gradualist terms—of capitalism. Nevertheless, the leaders of the U.S. Communist Party—as we have seen—appeal to the federal government, promising it unconditional support should it take the lead in the crusade against the backward South. Yet, if it were true that ousting the anti-democratic «reactionaries» from the Southern states would usher in the historical phase of the «transition to socialism,» would it not be—to say the least—naive to expect the Washington government to agree to undertake such an enterprise? Eugene Dennis and John Gates want something simple and clear: for the American government itself to set in motion the mechanism of the «transition to socialism» by taking on the «Dixiecracy.» We would really like to live long enough to see a bourgeoisie acting as the «starter» for the race towards socialism!

The struggle against «Dixiecracy» is not viewed by the leaders of the U.S. Communist Party as the exclusive task of proletarian power, but rather as a constitutional measure to be undertaken by the federal government, regardless of the administration’s political complexion. It is worth the effort to restate what John Gates said: «We American Communists declare ourselves ready to defend the United States government—whether formed by the Eisenhower administration or any other administration—in whatever way proves necessary to protect the country and strengthen the Constitution against the Dixiecrat conspiracy.»

As can be seen, in the doctrinal conception of the «communists» à la Gates, the error lies not in the logical consequences, but in the premise from which they are drawn. The united front between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—represented by the Washington government—becomes perfectly logical if one accepts the absurd, defeatist, and fanciful ideological postulate that the US ruling class (which holds sway over both the North and the South of the Union) can split into two hostile camps: «Dixiecracy» and «anti-Dixiecracy.» Yet for those of us—subjects of the Italian Republic—accustomed to hearing talk of an «opening to the Left,» the counter-revolutionary lies and inanities of the «American communists» come as neither an exception nor a rarity. The farcical «opening of the Left,» advocated by Nenni and Togliatti, rests precisely on the utterly false premise that the struggle to overthrow bourgeois power is contingent upon destroying that sort of Italian «Dixiecratic conspiracy» which *L’Unità* and *Avanti!* denounce on a daily basis. Our own homegrown John Gateses also preach that any attempt at «progress» is doomed to failure so long as democracy remains paralyzed—or so they claim—by the «feudal reaction» entrenched in the South and the islands. Armed with such powerful doctrinal frameworks, they sell well-known agrarian reform programs in the «marketplace of ideas»—programs whose implementation is expected to lead to the comprehensive «democratization» of the nation, serving as the starting point for any further progress. And like the John Gateses across the Atlantic, our own «communists» assume that this task must be carried out by a bourgeois-proletarian coalition—that is, by a parliamentary and ministerial alliance between Catholics and «Marxists.» Why, then, should we be surprised by the positions of the Communist Party of the United States?

The «Dixiecracy» against which American «communists» rail is, for counter-revolutionary purposes, equivalent to the alleged feudalism that our own homegrown social-communists discover in Italy’s «depressed areas.» Just as leaders like Dennis and Gates trumpet a second Civil War—one that would once again see the «reactionary South» submit to the advanced industrial North—so too do the leaders of the PCI and PSI prattle ignominiously about a «second Risorgimento,» dreaming of bringing the «feudal-like» Mezzogiorno up to the industrial level of the North—a goal so dear to Gramsci. Clearly, any «Dixiecracy»—with or without racism—is indispensable to the political existence of the Moscow-aligned parties. Where it does not exist, they invent it for their own use and benefit. And if not, how would they ply their trade as filthy counter-revolutionaries? What other false target could they fabricate to divert the revolutionary fervor of the masses and justify their dealings with bourgeois parties and governments? *L’Unità* reports that on April 4, the US government lifted the seizure of the assets and premises of the CPUSA and the *Daily Worker*. The revocation took place following the posting of security deposits by the CPUSA and the *Daily Worker*. Thus, by paying a substantial sum of dollars, American «communists» were readmitted to the «marketplace of ideas.» We would have been truly surprised if things had turned out differently. Indeed, what does the American bourgeoisie have to fear from a party led by the Dennises and the Gateses? Only a McCarthy could fail to see that they are the sorry epigones of Lincoln.