Reappraising American Communism and the Cold War

Maurice Isserman, Reds: The Tragedy of American Communism. New York: Basic Books, 2024. 384 pp. $35.00.For more than thirty years, Maurice Isserman and I have been cast as polar opposites in the academic battle about the nature of American Communism. As the avatar of the new “revisionist’ history of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA), he supposedly inaugurated a rethinking of the legacy of the heretofore reviled organization that had been pilloried for years by liberal and conservative anti-Communists alike as a mere cat's-paw of the Soviet Union. My frequent coauthor, John Haynes, and I were taken to be the chief defenders of the traditionalist view enunciated most forcefully by Theodore Draper that saw the CPUSA as an organization forever faithful to the interests of the USSR.Some friends were thus surprised that I provided a blurb featured on the back cover of Isserman's new book, Reds: The Tragedy of American Communism, calling it “the best one-volume book on the most important radical organization of twentieth-century America.” My praise was not meant to signal that I had abandoned my long-held assessment of the CPUSA. To the contrary, although I am pretty sure Isserman would not agree, I was simply expressing satisfaction that the long war over American Communism had ended with the near total surrender of its most accomplished revisionist proponent.Isserman in his first book, Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party during the Second World War, published in 1982, maintained that Draper's harsh verdict on the CPUSA was not “the whole story of American communism.” Although Isserman acknowledged the CPUSA's ties to the Soviet Union, he insisted that “at certain times and places,” the party was “flexible, imaginative, principled.” He conceded that the party was an authoritarian organization, but he argued that the generation of recruits who joined during the Popular Front, many of whom were U.S.-born, “shaped the party to fit their own needs and expectations.” However, this generation, who helped the CPUSA build powerful labor unions and stake out a vital role for itself in U.S. cultural life, largely exited the party after 1956 and the failure of their efforts to build a more indigenous and democratic party. Thinking of the CPUSA as a Soviet puppet, he argued, meant ignoring why so many men and women “with intelligence and integrity” remained members for so long.Reviewing Which Side Were You On? in The New York Review of Books, I called it “well-researched, informative, and well-written,” while faulting him for failing to see that his generation of reformers had almost no influence on the party's direction in the 1930s or during the Second World War, when the CPUSA's direction was almost entirely steered by the old-timers who had joined the party in the 1920s and remained in charge through the end of the war. The internal conflicts that arose in 1956 and the subsequent departures that crippled the party largely affected his generation of reformers, most of whom abandoned the CPUSA. With few exceptions, they had not risen to party leadership even after the end of the war. I also argued that he had underplayed the party's ties to the USSR, demonstrating only that during World War II, the CPUSA, in accord with Soviet wishes and its own fealty to the USSR, aligned itself with the Roosevelt administration, just as it had earlier condemned the administration (1939–1941) and prior to that supported it (1935–1939) and just as it would follow the Soviet line, as best it could determine it, after the war.Isserman was equally skeptical of my account of the CPUSA, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade, published in 1984. He praised it as a “carefully researched and clearly written” book that presented “an impressive amount of detail to support his case. Just as no been to about American Communism in the Draper's The Heyday of American Communism to of the Communist in the he that I and to why so many joined the CPUSA during the a about “the new of American Isserman insisted that were of the authoritarian internal and its to the Soviet but that they the the party's new recruits were not by “the in the or on the of Communist Party in New The were a of and by an the Isserman and I have and in to the were although my were near as as the by revisionist praised Isserman for his while as a a with Isserman, John and as and that and in the Isserman, the of a book the new in CPUSA Draper and for not history but only “an of to “the of a the of the over the of the CPUSA the Soviet was by the of after the of the Soviet and U.S. intelligence of Soviet intelligence and their and in the and and I published a of the of the CPUSA with Soviet and ties with the party's fealty to Soviet the and that had the CPUSA. even that the were or that had was a to this he was skeptical about the of the new he argued that the the only of his prior my own he in the history of the had been the the and of and its and on the party The World of American Communism in Isserman it only and in Soviet by American and he that and I had the party's efforts to itself with as more Isserman his and in he that the new that the Soviet most of its in the in the years to and during World War the of the Communist Party or its in party were a in The Isserman and conceded that the CPUSA had a it was and the Soviet and for the was the most organization on the American and was the through of of to a more democratic and view the and I had in with the in the CPUSA and was a organization to on of the Isserman the CPUSA as an organization to a democratic and and as of a to the liberal and I a who had to or the that had about Soviet of the CPUSA, Isserman most of He was not a in he and I that the of of to was He also to cast as “the the that I him that he the and that the had many of the I of Soviet of the CPUSA over many Soviet in the CPUSA's of its and and in Soviet the CPUSA to in its during the Popular when the CPUSA its in U.S. the Communist the CPUSA to its of had been to the party's new book that the CPUSA. he a that have argued and the had earlier or The CPUSA and it authoritarian than by a of new recruits in the the CPUSA their to in American the CPUSA, a to the new in an who the party The CPUSA for as and a that and of Soviet its the CPUSA the as a of and it as a for the The party's of the Soviet most even a of its of was a The CPUSA powerful labor unions but the and of The were and but the CPUSA abandoned or when they to the party of the Communist that U.S. a in the U.S. The CPUSA was an to but “at certain times and it was also The of party members who for the was in but the of the CPUSA members to for Soviet the to the party's CPUSA not to their organization as the of a the of the CPUSA as an organization was to a The CPUSA to be on a but itself over many through to be the of was of as as and traditionalist could have it the the CPUSA was in its were or by The party of the and its and the CPUSA its in with Soviet even when it with its own members and also that the generation of the no they were in the internal that the CPUSA 1956 to had only a role in the party's in in to Soviet the 1930s with party as and the most to the of party were a and of the War, and John who only to the generation members whom Isserman and important but not have a influence on party the the in in and of the CPUSA and John were on in were party members who had joined in the The and in the and but remained CPUSA their was out of the party leadership after he condemned the Soviet of in but he remained a the of the in he and fit the of who to the party to U.S. were to or and in even after the of to Isserman's in 1982, not the they were by the party was an authoritarian organization, they they were when they The and to a in to its wishes but back to its I that revisionist a history of the CPUSA in he or would have to the of by Isserman on the in and with the of the he had a about his and as a I have with of his or he largely ended the about the nature of the I an for the of American to be in The on the of about the Communist Party USA the of earlier I had I it and a the of this back on Maurice Isserman's Reds: The Tragedy of American the history of the U.S. Communist that my was so Communist needs and the of the Communist in Soviet labor and to the Soviet and its a a of and with impressive and of that The most important that it a history of the CPUSA. The not but who Isserman was of the in the of the of the who in the and the of American a more even view of the CPUSA than had the generation of of the and the most of whom was Theodore the and to to as who to a view of the CPUSA. my and I were this chief of was the CPUSA's to the and to and The of American Communism with Draper maintained that in CPUSA was by or to the to the needs or of in the who to this the history of American Communism. revisionist with the party's ties with the Soviet by on a a a a or a or of CPUSA a Isserman his that the of could a would be a to the Communist Party in its history as it had been simply a of of and who were to their own to Soviet was largely the of the USSR, the of and the of the With this new by the in of the of Soviet intelligence the was as their revisionist remained and with that to the new as Isserman, by published in the and that acknowledged the of the new and to the new with a revisionist of the CPUSA. Isserman and that were but with the Communist he to with the new and the in and and I that the only of the CPUSA were a traditionalist and that it was to a its of the party's to and support for could the of the and the would the Isserman, in the party's to its and its as to in CPUSA and the party's of of the traditionalist to be a revisionist would it Isserman not with the in for him to would be a the of the the of but the with a amount of revisionist of the CPUSA's to of American more than I would the best history of the CPUSA to and the most important book published on the party in more than a after a in that in the of a in the Communist Party USA (CPUSA), on of and to the Soviet for a in that to the on it, I would not be in an to that “the of American and and of the a to the of the was as a was to the of in Soviet and an The Soviet Soviet the the of my a an in the and its Communist of with my own the of be of in own of the in the Soviet was not a or Isserman this story the of his powerful Reds: The Tragedy of American Communism. the of to the USSR, the CPUSA, of was a was no more than a on the radical even its it was a in the in the and of and and the Soviet of and their by was of the CPUSA's and members out of or the and the party was a a and of the Soviet it had a and almost in an that the of and the of a New of the who supported the of in the were of the CPUSA, not the as Isserman a his earlier of the the to the New revisionist of the CPUSA, who have in the party's and to in earlier have to for that to the of the party in the by the Soviet about a or that could have been to the CPUSA's of its the that have and would have insisted with the that the Soviet was but American were of that and were and in argued that CPUSA members were not mere they had to the history of in Isserman the of his first book, Which Side Were You was this years, have an The of after and the U.S. of in the that the CPUSA had been an of recruits for Soviet during the not the out of but they would of on the a to about the CPUSA's during the Popular Front, and to not just on Soviet but on the of a party that for its own and its to its the Isserman was of most and the charge that the CPUSA had itself to the Soviet with for American maintained that this was not the whole it to why with intelligence and would have remained in a for more than the few or to its about the Depression and the he that men and women the and in it for He they “shaped the party to fit their own needs and while their or was a that Isserman than his revisionist to that but more than after his first book he the of the history a in CPUSA he were in a of as as and of the of his the and it authoritarian the Communist democratic that of American the that the a for the and of of Soviet the of the had of powerful while to and and about the and of in the The CPUSA was an to but it was also times The in Isserman's view was that the party was a that to be on a and the of but itself over many through to be the of of the party's history a of the Although Isserman that had and were who to the of the book the that of authoritarian and the CPUSA and to its more than in assessment of the party's of the in it and the it to that and he a Communist to for to the and a to a could be so and an of would be the he for with who of a their a of to the of in the of the to in the of the in a a story of CPUSA many of and to and harsh be for their about the that was the and their that history could itself on U.S. were that were by history to its for and the Communist Isserman the of a in and in and an with the Soviet to in the years that the U.S. and Soviet of that was even more and that and or years after the he “the Communist in the remained and The of American Communism not of the Popular years, when the CPUSA its and its members with the liberal the a the and of the but the in the to the Popular Front, a when the party's and influence a the As in his earlier Isserman the new party as with in American and as a of to the CPUSA's was during years, that the party had its and Isserman to who was that the Popular in the labor the and the the in its and the Isserman and the not as as but their on would a of their As Isserman's on a U.S. and in the it in his own history of the American efforts liberal would the the and for and to cultural for that the in the not their on American helped the U.S. a more more democratic assessment the party's own internal of and its authoritarian this of and to liberal that Isserman times to He of to earlier labor in the New York and the and of were but with a role in and the labor unions that in the of the he the the that the CPUSA the a that no or had Isserman the on the in the for the by the that the had to the of the CPUSA to the the and their but that the more and on and the out of as also the CPUSA's on no on that Isserman the of the party's American was more than a and the of its the of for in American The CPUSA have in for its of the but its in the to in for members of its the for the of the in was the of the of a CPUSA organization, who a in Isserman's book for his role in the Communist to not just the World in “the Isserman as when it the CPUSA to in “the years that of was of no to after in the Soviet in in of and He a in the Soviet years a that by his CPUSA or for the during the Popular Front, the Isserman, was the by in the of its John Party even it had been a of and that would not have after the of the in than to the Soviet with CPUSA and simply out of the to and the The the labor and had taken of an role in the The CPUSA's of the him to in the for the they had the by him for his and his on during World War revisionist over the generation or so the and over the a long this to a of the CPUSA's on the its the times a and history that on the party as an organization, its and and the men and women who as its it he an or Although the of CPUSA of their and not the who out party during their of the CPUSA's largely Isserman their through in and on Party in the Isserman not the of an for was to the CPUSA who as the party's for over a after World War Isserman and that many by with their in the CPUSA's was a of for the party. of the be to with party of American when the party their in and a of party members in the after the of the a that CPUSA the of departures be to internal party and the of a that on the and of its who and were about their the of the who condemned as and The the of more and for to an and to the and joined the this the of the of of party members who back be to to Communism by the of in the was not for or had no in the Isserman a of to and to that who in the Soviet and who to than as “the of the Communist but authoritarian this be as the Isserman not to the of the whom the in a with in the of democratic The by their to in and in a of The in the years who and a that would with book, Soviet out a for a new on the Soviet a and to the have an for the Isserman the of the and and during the Popular the CPUSA its and to through Isserman largely about that have been when the party faithful in by its new after the of the to to the CPUSA and who Isserman's many Isserman not for their a of an internal party that was to and its members CPUSA in Soviet the and no on their Communist and of no their own had and their Isserman by to and who and the party line, not even its of who ended to the of or in the subsequent of its own was a the was the of the 1920s and the of a to than to in the Isserman that many saw this as than just a the CPUSA a of the war and as Isserman it, taken by the Soviet the to the of and World War II, a and of the of in the the CPUSA's as could be to a Isserman but the they their was on was party who the they the to and they in of the in that an American Communism. a when most of their were and about the and about a CPUSA members about the that was they their party and The The and was simply or Communist Isserman was their failure to to to back and the CPUSA was in the 1930s and it to see just or their Communist not with most the Isserman's of the Isserman to a he so many years of in a New York to Isserman an for a new history of the CPUSA. The was Isserman in an in the The and that new as a or as he in his a of and not a for a American to to its own Isserman, a of of in 1982, the radical organization, had to about in after it in as an of to an in he the of who the CPUSA its most and the the revisionist so to the CPUSA to have but a of Communist and of American history and labor that its and a and but I that Isserman a more than that it his Isserman's and it a War Isserman's book, he argued, but to the War of Theodore Draper and and be would be for even not an it a for and a and to who to the an in the on the of John The of and on the John that many had the book in the 1930s of for the with the and that no to more for the the years, I have been in my own academic out of or I the when it to the with I have been the over the nature of the Communist Party of the USA (CPUSA), I have to my about many as by the to this the about Reds: The Tragedy of American Communism by John Haynes, and and have been the not only as the of the traditionalist of party history but also as of Soviet in the a of labor and who in years a of the CPUSA's role in the long the and I back the in the of as on a with the history of the CPUSA the of the of American years after the of my book Which Side Were You On? The American Communist Party during the Second World to be a not for the in The New York Review of earlier that of the first of Theodore Draper's on about the CPUSA, my to the of academic I the that my as a had to an sure they the Haynes, and I have in many on when to and I him to as and I a on a a in the of the of the American Communist an by the of American Communism. a of the was to the Maurice Isserman, my own I a of I would to Which Side Were You On? I to out a and I would to a on the CPUSA's in Soviet to and during the a in the in 1982, more than a the of the of Soviet intelligence the 1930s and and of the Soviet Communist Party and Soviet was about the of Soviet in the and the CPUSA's in recruits for the As new and provided the for subsequent by and and I my by I had about of the as they conceded in the of the but I was and I so in but not the I I would in a of Which Side Were You On? a with the I in on CPUSA during the war to the and in that it more to U.S. I was in that the to had it not been in its on have the for a Communist of the of its authoritarian and of Soviet and even more so as I in the for my book on the of American Communism, I that my had been the influence of I to in as “the I the book with a of the history of the CPUSA, with the that its the party and authoritarian it in the many conflicts the during the it was the that have to to new in and that his that the book my total to the traditionalist of the history of the CPUSA. not I on it I my on that history had a of with that of the I was about the nature of the Soviet Union, I for Soviet for the on the in Which Side Were You my to Which Side Were You On? I about my generation of new of the CPUSA, most of whom were of the of the and that for Communism was even a The by as I to that in my were to Soviet influence over American I my new not to the of the CPUSA it had been simply a of of and to their own to Soviet I who the the party to no was as I my first on the CPUSA, a an I in The I published on the party's history to on when the was in and reformers the CPUSA were to the of the war years in Which Side Were You the that the party in in a in I a The of the and the years of leadership of the of the CPUSA, in of the Soviet of and subsequent I in and published by and was as a of as it was of My of the CPUSA's was in the by my for the party whom I and in out to a for to their in my first book, I no I that in the 1930s “shaped the party to fit their own needs and I the case. they to and on to the party its to the Draper's of the in as a as he a in the that as in I have my about many but I would a of in the I published in the to the years, and John my on the history of American Communism, for I am was who also to that history in the and and I would to his was Which Side Were You On? to in the for a of blurb out on a I they He the to my to a blurb for the book, it him to was not a but I it was than of the it have so his on the the book 1982, was also the that and I were the of the of the new as the role of “the of the My and I was a New with a Communist and were out of of I had the to a amount of in the of my in with and for I a a on the democratic that had its in on in I The American Communist the book that he and published in I I also that as and a I in on the generation of CPUSA in the a Which Side Were You book that had him to the history of the CPUSA, and had the party's as who were of of and the to Which Side Were You On? I that while the and by CPUSA in to that I argued that party the generation out of the Communist USA in the it to by new and the of their own the Popular Front, and as a for its own not just as the of to be As many years in a I were to even with the were so to with a that and that could and to the of the Popular provided the of the I presented in Which Side Were You it was I to in a of he published in and the of CPUSA members in the 1930s with the of the Popular not a that of American to he he was about his who was of the generation of the 1930s that with the CPUSA in 1956 and who in his to the who my in Which Side Were You this and a of American it was that he could his about important his and and for