The mass resistance to the Trump administration’s attempt to terrorize immigrants and other working people in Minnesota highlighted issues of strategy and tactics in the struggle to defend democratic rights and put the brakes on Trump’s march toward one-man rule.

In the spirit of drawing on the lessons from working-class history to facilitate making disciplined and thoughtful decisions in today’s struggles, World-Outlook published the three-part series Strategy & Tactics in Fighting Racist, Fascist Attacks.

As a follow-up, we publish the materials below from the Education for Socialists publication The Fight Against Fascism in the USA. These documents are from the third section of this bulletin, titled “Protests Against the American Nazi Party.” They include a brief introduction, a 1960 letter from James P. Cannon to Tom Kerry^[1] — both leaders of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), two related items from the Militant newspaper, and a 1961 letter from Joseph Hansen — editor of the Militant at the time — to Larry Trainor.

We publish these materials for the information of our readers. The headlines and text that follow are from the original. Photos and notes are by World-Outlook.

— World-Outlook editors

*

Protests Against the American Nazi Party

With the decline of McCarthyism,^[2] fascist and incipient fascist groups were consigned for the time being to the lunatic fringe of American politics, although they occasionally made headlines by participating in struggles against school integration in the South.

One of the most exotic fascist groups in this period was the American Nazi Party, founded in 1956 by George Lincoln Rockwell, an ex-army officer. Openly identifying with Hitler and the German fascist movement, Rockwell was cut off from support from even the most reactionary sectors of the American masses. Rockwell attempted to gain some publicity by several public appearances in 1960 and 1961. The result was a series of protests that the SWP [Socialist Workers Party] supported and helped to build.

The experience of McCarthyism and the widespread revulsion against the antidemocratic policies of Stalinism^[3] led the SWP to place greater stress on its opposition to official restrictions on the legal rights of Nazis. Such restrictions could only add to the government’s armory of repressive weapons against antifascist and working-class dissenters. United-front, mass-action tactics continued to be the keynote in organizing antifascist action.

The following materials deal with two incidents. The letter from James P. Cannon and the two items from the Militant which follow deal with Rockwell’s attempt to schedule a rally in New York City’s Union Square on July 4, 1960, and court actions arising from it.

The letter from Joseph Hansen to Larry Trainor deals with an antifascist demonstration in Boston on December 16, 1960. Trainor was a leader and activist in the SWP for 40 years until his death in 1975.

Rockwell was murdered in 1967 by the leader of a splitoff from his Nazi group.

*

Letter from James P. Cannon to Tom Kerry, June 23, 1960

Dear Tom,

I learned by way of radio and TV last night that Mayor [Robert] Wagner denied the preposterous American “Nazi” outfit a permit to hold a meeting in Union Square; and that he said the people “would stone them out of town.” Then the TV report showed the scene of the attempt to mob the American Nazi leader outside the courtroom. I am disturbed by this little off-beat episode and wondering rather anxiously to what extent, if any, we were mixed up in it and how the paper [the Militant] is going to handle the occurrences in its report.

No doubt it was “a famous victory.” But a victory for what and for whom? Certainly not a victory for the right of free speech and assembly as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to which we are firmly, and I hope sincerely, devoted. For us, I take it, under any reasonably normal conditions, free speech is a principle — not only before the revolution but also after it, when the workers’ government becomes stabilized. But free speech is also a practical necessity for us, of particular burning importance when we are fighting as a small minority for the right to be heard.

We certainly didn’t win anything to sustain this right by Mayor Wagner’s decision. It sets a dangerous precedent. The reasons he gave for denying the constitutional rights of the American “Nazi” screwballs, and his incitement to violence against them, can be applied just as well and just as logically to us or any other minority. We will be greatly handicapped in fighting against such discriminations if we give direct or even indirect sanction to this treatment of others. People who demand free speech and constitutional rights for themselves but want to deny it for others do not get much public sympathy when their own rights are denied.

This was demonstrated quite convincingly by the public and labor indifference to the persecution of the Stalinists in the period since the cold war began. The Stalinist record of claiming rights for themselves and denying them, or trying to deny them, to their opponents boomeranged against them. It gave other people a reason, or an excuse, to stand aside or even to join the hue and cry against the persecuted Stalinists on the ground that “free speech is all right, but not for communists.”

I don’t think the “Nazi” crackpots lost anything by this New York decision. They got a lot of nationwide free advertising, and a chance to appear as a persecuted minority, and the ground to appeal for funds and recruits. If they had a cause with any semblance of appeal to popular sympathy they would profit by this flagrant denial of their rights under the Bill of Rights.

The whole episode is quite obviously a tempest in a teapot. It has very little relation to social and political realities in present day America. But there is a symptomatic significance and we should ponder it. The problem, in one form or another, will come up again and again; and we must not stumble into an improvised policy each time. We have to have a line. As I see it, our line is free speech. We have to fight for it and convince other people that we mean it. With truth on our side, we have the most to gain by freedom of discussion and the most to lose by its suppression.

It is true that, as the class struggle develops, we will have to fight the fascists, and not only with words. But this will not be a fight to deprive the fascists of the right to speak and to meet, but a defensive fight to prevent them from interfering with the rights of the workers.

Fraternally,

s/James P. Cannon

*

Wagner Hands Rockwell an Issue

(editorial reprinted from the July 4, 1960, issue of the Militant)

George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi who advocates Hitler’s gas-chamber way of ending “the menace” of “Jews and Negroes,” announced June 27 [1960] that he is calling off his plans to stage a rally in New York’s Union Square on July 4. At the same time, he is pressing the New York Civil Liberties Union to protect his right to speak.

“The New York Civil Liberties Union hates my guts,” he is quoted as saying, “but they have a terrific stake in protecting my right to speak. They can’t afford to protect the rights of Communists and Jews and look the other way while my rights are being denied.”

Mayor Wagner is to be blamed for handing this grievance to Hitler’s American admirer. At a court hearing June 22 over an injunction to bar city officials from issuing a permit for Rockwell’s rally, a crowd expressed its opposition to Rockwell’s provocative statements in such vigorous fashion that the police intervened and rushed the Nazi out of town. Utilizing this incident as a pretext, Wagner denied the permit for the rally.

The groups that first took notice of Rockwell’s plan to stage a Nazi rally in Union Square did not question his right to free speech. The Committee to Protest Racist Defamation, for instance, did not seek to stop Rockwell from speaking. The New York Local of the Socialist Workers Party likewise did not question his right to address a crowd in Union Square. What the antifascist forces proposed was that everyone interested in the issue should come down to Union Square on July 4 and exercise their right of free speech, too, by expressing their opinions of Rockwell’s racist views.

Conrad J. Lynn, representing the Committee to Protest Racial Defamation, put it like this in a letter to the Department of Parks in which he pressed for a permit for a public meeting in Union Square on July 4 to answer the Nazis: “We believe that evil thought must be allowed to express itself as long as truth is free to combat it.”

The New York Post, after first publicizing the Nazi rally, closed its columns to further news until the court incident occurred. Then, in an editorial, it advocated a policy of silence toward Nazis like Rockwell. The logic of this view is that opponents of would-be American Hitlers should not exercise their own right of free speech in the form of rallies — or even discussion in the press!

The latest moves are to illegalize the American Nazis and put them on the so-called “subversive” list. New York State Supreme Court Justice Louis L. Friedman signed a temporary injunction June 28 “restraining” the party and its commander “from engaging in any subversive activities in New York State,” according to the press. The judge also accepted a disorderly conduct complaint made by the Jewish War Veterans and signed a warrant of arrest for Rockwell if and when he comes back to the state.

In our opinion, such moves are wrong on two counts. First of all, they are infringements of the right of free speech and the right to engage in politics. Such infringements of anyone’s rights, no matter who it may be, inevitably put in question everyone’s democratic rights. Didn’t America learn that to its cost in the witch-hunting days of President Truman and Senator McCarthy?

Secondly, such moves are ineffective in counteracting the poisonous racist views of the Rockwells. In fact, by victimizing them, it helps them win sympathy.

We think the most effective way of handling these vermin is to keep them out in the open, to meet them in the public forum and through the exercise of democratic rights, including free speech and free political activity, to defeat them before they can get started as a serious menace.

To follow any other course is to betray lack of confidence in democratic rights and democratic institutions.

*

No Victory for Nazis

(reprinted from the March 6, 1961, issue of the Militant)

By Joseph Hansen

On February 14 [1961] the Appellate Division in a 4-to-1 decision handed down a verdict in New York that was interpreted by the capitalist press as a victory for George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the swastika-wearing “American Nazis” party. Actually, the grounds of the decision favored Rockwell’s opponents, the defenders of civil liberties and democratic rights in America.

Last summer Rockwell applied for a permit to hold a rally in New York’s Union Square on July 4. It was denied by Commissioner Newbold Morris on the ground that a riot would result.

The American Civil Liberties Union took up the case and carried it to State Supreme Court Justice Henry Epstein. He upheld the commissioner.

Justice Charles D. Breitel voiced the majority opinion of the Appellate Division in upsetting Epstein’s ruling. Breitel held that it was unconstitutional to deny any minority the right to voice its opinion.

“The unpopularity of views,” said Justice Breitel, “their shocking quality, their obnoxiousness, and even their alarming impact are not enough. Otherwise, the preacher of any strange doctrine could be stopped; the antiracist himself could be suppressed, if he undertakes to speak in ‘restricted’ areas; and one who asks that public schools be opened indiscriminately could be lawfully suppressed, if only he chose to speak where persuasion is needed most.”

Fear of a “riot” was the Wagner administration’s excuse for denying Rockwell his democratic rights. They pointed to the fact that many New York workers were preparing to appear at Union Square to protest Rockwell’s views.

But the organization that initiated the protest movement did not deny Rockwell’s democratic right to hold the obnoxious rally. On the contrary, they recognized the right.

This was the stand taken by the Committee to Protest Racist Defamation, headed by the well-known civil-rights attorney Conrad J. Lynn, which sought a permit from the city authorities to hold a protest meeting in Union Square on July 4 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., preceding the 3 p.m. Nazi rally. 

The city’s denial of a permit to Rockwell set a dangerous precedent which, unless it is upset by the courts, will most certainly be used at a future time against organizations holding views diametrically opposed to those of the Nazis.

When Rockwell learned of the ruling by the Appellate Division, he immediately wired Commissioner Morris a request to hold a rally in Union Square at 10 a.m. May 1. He told the press that he had 50 or 60 “troopers” in training at Arlington, Va. for the rally “and we should have them in top condition.”

When asked what he intended to speak about, he answered, “The race issue and anti-Communism … the overwhelming Jewish participation in Communism.” He added that he was scheduling the rally for 10 a.m. “so that all these little Jews who try to meet ahead of us will have to get up early.”

It is doubtful that Rockwell will get a permit for a rally in Union Square by May 1, since the city is now appealing to the State Court of Appeals. However, the ACLU is prepared to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If the ACLU succeeds in finally winning and Rockwell ultimately gets a permit to appear in Union Square, there is no doubt many thousands of New Yorkers will be down real early to exercise their own democratic right to protest Rockwell’s provocative efforts to convert Hitler into an example for America to follow.

*

Letter from Joseph Hansen to Larry Trainor, February 6, 1961

Boston

Dear Larry:

Yes, we received the article about the demonstration against the Nazis together with the clippings and copies of the leaflet that was distributed.

I thought the article was well written and gave a very dramatic and vivid picture of what happened.

Aside from its shortness the main difference between the printed article and the one submitted is the line.

In the Militant we felt it absolutely necessary to indicate what the party position is in relation to Rockwell’s outfit. For example, the article sent us did not indicate that we do not oppose the democratic right of the Nazis to demonstrate. The Harvard Crimson, however, did report that “most of the students said they felt that the Nazis had a right to picket the theater, but upheld their own picketing as ‘the only way we can protest against what they stand for.’”

We considered this very important evidence that this was the attitude taken by the Boston branch of the SWP. The fact that it was reported by the Harvard Crimson made it all the more impressive.

I should like to call your attention to some differences in the way the New York local handled the Nazi demonstrators and the way the Boston branch went about it.

In New York, the SWP at no time assumed leadership of the counter demonstration or even sought leadership. No leaflets were put out in the name of the SWP. The reason for this was that in view of the relative size of the party it would be an illusion to think that we can directly take leadership of the struggle against fascism. Our role is to urge the mass organizations to engage in this struggle.

To attempt to bypass the mass organizations can only sow illusions in our own ranks about our real strength and our real role; and insofar as it is noted by the members of other organizations it can create the illusion that the SWP will handle the job; they don’t need to worry about it.

We did help to create a committee that called for a counter demonstration and this committee succeeded in getting some big organizations to take action.

Another point of difference concerns the estimate of the Rockwell outfit. Does this represent incipient American fascism? I do not think so. The real American fascists look more like Mayor Hague, Senator McCarthy, possibly Senator Goldwater.^[4] It can be put down with absolute assurance that in no case will they wear Nazi uniforms, swastikas, and praise Hitler. To picture Rockwell’s outfit as representing American fascism thus helps create the illusion that the real fascists, when they show up, will be identifiable with similar ease and will similarly openly stir-up the most violent antipathies (including those of the most patriotic Americans).

Finally, in everything the New York local did, it stressed the fact that Rockwell’s democratic rights were not being challenged. On the contrary. The counter demonstrators were similarly exercising their democratic rights.

Aside from the question of principle involved in this, it would be a great political mistake to permit our worst foes to maneuver us into the position of seeming to deny democratic rights to others, no matter who, and to claim them only for ourselves. The consequence of this mistake is that we put ourselves into position to become the very next victims….

With best regards,

Joseph Hansen

NOTES

[1] James P. Cannon (1890 – 1974) was the son of Irish immigrants to the United States with strong socialist convictions. He joined the Socialist Party in 1908 and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), nicknamed Wobblies, in 1911. He was an IWW organizer throughout the Midwest from 1912 to 1914. Like many socialists at that time, he was inspired by the Russian revolution of 1917 and became a founding leader of the U.S. Communist Party and a member of the Executive Committee of the Communist International in 1922. Following his expulsion in 1928 from the Communist Party USA, which had become pro-Stalinist, he co-founded and helped lead the Communist League of America, a predecessor of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). In 1938 he was elected national secretary of the newly founded SWP and served in that capacity until 1953 and as the party’s national chairman until his death.

Tom Kerry (1901-1983) was an SWP leader and the party’s organizational secretary in the 1960s.

[2] What Is American Fascism? Writings on Father Coughlin, Mayor Frank Hague, and Senator Joseph McCarthy by socialist leaders James P. Cannon and Joseph Hansen offers a succinct description of McCarthyism.

“McCarthyism was the most virulent expression of the Cold War witch-hunt period. Joseph R. McCarthy was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1946 with the support of the Communist Party and liberal organizations. In 1950, he suddenly emerged as the extreme exponent of the anticommunist witch-hunt, going far beyond the administration witch-hunt then being carried out by the Truman administration.

“He whipped up widespread middle-class and even working-class support which charged that the State Department was Communist-infiltrated, that ‘Communists’ in high office had deliberately ‘lost’ China, and that the American political ‘elite’ was betraying the country to the ‘Communists.’ Coming into conflict with the top leaders of both capitalist parties and even with the U.S. Army, while spreading terror among socialists, labor militants, and liberals, McCarthy’s movement clearly evinced fascist characteristics.

“McCarthyism reached its peak during and immediately after the Korean war, when World War III was widely expected at any moment. With the turn away from head-on confrontation with the Soviet Union and the extension of prosperity into peacetime, McCarthy rapidly lost support and was deserted by his allies in the Republican Party. He was censured by the Senate in 1954 and died in 1957.

“Today, the term ‘McCarthyism’ is commonly used to describe all forms of the anticommunist witch-hunt of the post-World-War-Two period, as well as the incipient fascist development spearheaded by the Wisconsin senator.”

[3] Stalinism originated as the political and ideological justification for the policies of the privileged social caste that developed in the Soviet Union in the 1920s.  In 1917, the working class and peasantry of Russia carried out one of the most deep-going revolutions in world history. In a matter of months, the revolution led to an unprecedented leap in the country from a semi-feudal monarchy to a republic run by working people of city and countryside, opening the possibility of the socialist transformation of society in the former Tsarist empire and around the world. But the new workers and peasants’ republic remained isolated internationally when opportunities to extend the revolution in Germany and other advanced capitalist countries in Europe were lost. Under the pressure of unrelenting hostility from the capitalist powers, reaction set in within 10 years. A privileged bureaucratic caste led by Joseph Stalin violently crushed the opposition to its policies in the Bolshevik Party, which had led the revolution, and drove workers and peasants from political power. 

In his book, The Revolution Betrayed, Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky, who was exiled by Stalin’s regime and eventually assassinated by its agents, gives the clearest and most detailed explanation of how and why this bureaucratic social layer was able to take and hold political power in the USSR.

[4] For more information on Father Coughlin, Frank Hague, and Barry Goldwater, see What Is American Fascism? Writings on Father Coughlin, Mayor Frank Hague, and Senator Joseph McCarthy.

If you appreciate this article, subscribe to World-Outlook (for free) by clicking on the link below.

Type your email in the box below and click on “SUBSCRIBE.” You will receive a notification in your in-box on which you will have to click to confirm your subscription.