What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che
Revolution in the Air is the definitive study of how radicals from the sixties movements embraced twentieth-century Marxism, and what movements of dissent today can learn from the legacies of Lenin, Mao and Che.
380 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2002
45 people are currently reading
1193 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
November 27, 2023
All throughout this book, in an indirect round-about way that requires getting your pencil out to figure out what is really being said, is this wrong message: Forget Marxism-Leninism. Don't build a vanguard party. Don't talk about revolution. Communism was bad. Don't use that word. Put all that aside and just work on day-to-day issues. Stay in the realm of the possible. Start from where the people are, they can't handle the whole truth.
These positions are not argued for up front and directly. The opportunistic method of this book I can not respect.
Further remarks on revisiting this book in December 2018:
The title "Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che" was inspiring to me, but on reading the book I found author Max Elbaum's real message was more like "Don't Make the Same Mistake as these Radicals". This bad message boxes us within the framework of the world as it exists now. We need to urgently lift our heads and look beyond that.
Elbaum uses terms like idealism, dogmatism, voluntarism, sectarianism, ultra leftism, etc. These "isms" are useful when correctly applied, but he doesn't often do that. He flips the meaning of terms dogmatism, sectarianism, and ultra-leftism, misusing them to describe people who persist in saying stuff that's true. And the term voluntarism is misused to describe people not being opportunistic.
Opportunism is an -ism useful to me in discussing this book:
The way the author has framed the history presented here bothered me in a way that was hard to pin down. I have often found that when a "radical" author's writing gets so round-about that I have to get out my pencil to map out exactly what they are saying, it often turns out they are promoting opportunism. I think that is because the crookedness of opportunism makes it hard to promote in plain language.
Opportunism is the practice of focusing primarily on getting short term political gains from situations in order to obtain immediate approval and influence. This is as opposed to approaching situations with the purpose of winning people over to a principled position and increasing their political understanding, including the bigger picture of cause and effect, and the true "what is to be done." The opportunist focus requires opportunists to not say things they think people are not able to understand, or that may offend people, and instead say what they think people will find most acceptable. This results in an avoidance of the whole truth, and an inherent dishonesty. This dishonesty is a vulnerability, and creates a defensiveness against those who do speak the whole truth.
Elbaum does know the principled position and political understanding that people need. On page 10 he says "Revolution in the Air ends on a forward-looking note, mainly because I still believe in the validity of the anti-capitalist, revolutionary project." Page 12: "In the spring of 1968...I decided to make revolutionary activism my life's central thread. Though my opinions about how to implement this decision have changed and evolved - not least while writing this book - I have never regretted nor retracted the decision itself." Here are some of the other -isms by which Elbaum leads people to abandon these principled positions and political understanding:
Anti-communism
One trait of an opportunist is "they hate communism much more than they do capitalism."* Communism needs an actual revolution, where one class seizes power from another, in the superstructure, to embark on changing the base, the actual mode of production, from capitalism to socialism, as a transition to communism.
On page 336 Elbaum says, about a vanguard revolutionary party, and about revolution: "In the relatively few [cases] where one has not only attained mass influence but actually seized power, the price paid after the revolution has been prohibitively high." On page 89: "It should also be noted that much hard information about the leadership abuse and arbitrary violence that infused China's Cultural Revolution was not readily accessible in the late 1960s. Only after 1976 did evidence become widely available that the mass struggle campaigns that supposedly were empowering ordinary people and staving off the rise of a new ruling elite had done nothing of the sort. Rather, because of a voluntarist approach that did not link mass action to economic, technological or intellectual development or to constructing institutions for working-class democracy - as well as omnipresent manipulation by CPC leaders, military figures and demagogues - they set back China's development and silenced and alienated a whole generation from Marxism and from politics in general."
Horseshit. Elbaum is saying communist revolution was a nightmare, using the weak "everybody knows" approach. This is refuted by scholars both capitalist and communist, including Bob Avakian, Amartya Sen, Paul Clark, Ann Tompkins, Lee Feigon, Mobo Gao, Cormac Ó Gráda, Donping Han, Bill Hinton, Minqi Li, Raymond Lotta, Di Bai, Wang Zheng. In these works, for example, it will be found that in Mao's time industry grew by more than 10 percent a year during the Cultural Revolution, by the 1970's China had solved its historic food problem, life expectancy more than doubled, and China achieved what the capitalist U.S. never will: a universal, just, and fair health care system. This revolution saved untold lives. Beyond these material gains, and connected to them, were the masses being unleashed and mobilized to transform ideas and society itself. Inside of all this, there were also serious errors to be learned from. Against the backdrop of the capitalist horrors of the 20th century, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, before they were defeated (the USSR in the 1950's and China in the late 1970's), were the greatest advances towards emancipation yet taken by humanity. We need to do it again, better, and take it much further.
On page 148 onwards Elbaum summarizes what Lenin said but then frames it in a that-was-then-this-is-now context and trying to convert it into social democracy. On page 195 he also says people advocating for Marxist-Leninism in the US were using "miniaturized Leninism" instead of real Leninism, because in the 1970's US there was not a large following such as Lenin had. But it was just Mao and 9 others who started the Communist party in China after studying Marx and Lenin. And they went on to make the huge advance of revolution and socialism in all of China! The truth is Elbaum basically just does not not like Marx, or Lenin, he actually prefers social democracy.
Tail-ism (tailism)
This is related to opportunism. Lenin used the term tail-ism ("What Is To Be Done" page 65, Peking 1978 edition) for those who said a communist party should not take the lead in any situation, but instead should let whatever economic crises, massacres, wars, etc. happen, and then jump in on the tail of these events as people react, and follow them. Lenin showed how this was harmful, that the party should serve as the people's vanguard, and must be always educating and agitating, bringing political understanding, while also anticipating events, looking ahead, and being a guide on the way forward.
On page xii (paperback edition): Elbaum says "There is a big reality check here: a reminder that what masses of people are doing - or not doing - must be the central reference point for effective strategy and tactics."
No. What actually needs to be done in the world should be the central reference point from which line, strategy and tactics proceeds. What people are doing/not doing needs to be one part of assessing what needs to be done.
Reformism (versus revolution)
Reform is the practice of putting bandages on the capitalist system, in effect helping the ruling class keep that puss filled monster staggering along until it finally destroys the world.
Economism
Also related to opportunism, and was also addressed by Lenin in "What Is To Be Done?" Economism is the practice of focusing primarily on immediate struggles (often but not always economic), treating this as a special stage which enables getting a mass following, and with the intent that, only after this stage is complete, can bigger issues be addressed. History shows this has been tried repeatedly, and always leads back into serving the ruling class, helping them to preserve their own system. And it finally leads to actively turning against revolution, and communism.
On page 320, Elbaum says: "Indeed, it would have required a different formulation of the left's basic 1970's task. Aspiring revolutionaries would have had to reject the idea that the immediate priority was to consolidate a vanguard organization in preparation for not-too-distant revolutionary upheavals. Instead, they would have had to grasp in timely fashion the fact that large-scale social forces were driving US politics to the right, and that for a lengthy period galvanizing resistance to the conservative onslaught would be the main political task. Toward that end they would have had to prioritize uniting diverse tendencies into a mass based radical current that was rooted in anti-racism and anti-imperialism and able to establish some kind of institutional foothold in mainstream politics. They would have had to develop the tactical finesse to take part in extremely broad political coalitions while retaining the capacity to present anti-capitalist perspectives and engage in consistent popular mobilization. Within such a project there would be space to try to carve out a more closely knit revolutionary tendency - and indeed such a tendency might be crucial to functioning effectively in a broader alignment (or or even in such an alignment taking viable shape). But unless the more broad-based project was kept in the forefront, the actual balance of forces virtually guaranteed failure on every level."
No. It is what Elbaum proposes here that history has shown guarantees failure. He wants us to take a concrete line for revolution and communism and submerge it beneath particular struggles, where past and present experience shows it will be first liquidated, then atomized, then vaporized, and finally blown away on the wind. Mao once said a single spark can start a prairie fire. The line Elbaum advocates here is very prominent today, and results in many in "the movement" basically standing around with a bucket, ready to splash out any such spark.
Conclusion: This book tells people confronting the world today that we must put revolution and communism aside, and confine ourselves only to networking within various kinds of immediate activism and the existing political establishment. The ruling class likes that idea. To change this world, we must reject that idea. I recommend reading https://revcom.us/a/694/a-declaration...
*THE PROBLEM THEN...THE PROBLEM NOW—AN ESSENTIAL TRUTH ABOUT OPPORTUNISM https://revcom.us/a/279/an-essential-...
These positions are not argued for up front and directly. The opportunistic method of this book I can not respect.
Further remarks on revisiting this book in December 2018:
The title "Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals turn to Lenin, Mao, and Che" was inspiring to me, but on reading the book I found author Max Elbaum's real message was more like "Don't Make the Same Mistake as these Radicals". This bad message boxes us within the framework of the world as it exists now. We need to urgently lift our heads and look beyond that.
Elbaum uses terms like idealism, dogmatism, voluntarism, sectarianism, ultra leftism, etc. These "isms" are useful when correctly applied, but he doesn't often do that. He flips the meaning of terms dogmatism, sectarianism, and ultra-leftism, misusing them to describe people who persist in saying stuff that's true. And the term voluntarism is misused to describe people not being opportunistic.
Opportunism is an -ism useful to me in discussing this book:
The way the author has framed the history presented here bothered me in a way that was hard to pin down. I have often found that when a "radical" author's writing gets so round-about that I have to get out my pencil to map out exactly what they are saying, it often turns out they are promoting opportunism. I think that is because the crookedness of opportunism makes it hard to promote in plain language.
Opportunism is the practice of focusing primarily on getting short term political gains from situations in order to obtain immediate approval and influence. This is as opposed to approaching situations with the purpose of winning people over to a principled position and increasing their political understanding, including the bigger picture of cause and effect, and the true "what is to be done." The opportunist focus requires opportunists to not say things they think people are not able to understand, or that may offend people, and instead say what they think people will find most acceptable. This results in an avoidance of the whole truth, and an inherent dishonesty. This dishonesty is a vulnerability, and creates a defensiveness against those who do speak the whole truth.
Elbaum does know the principled position and political understanding that people need. On page 10 he says "Revolution in the Air ends on a forward-looking note, mainly because I still believe in the validity of the anti-capitalist, revolutionary project." Page 12: "In the spring of 1968...I decided to make revolutionary activism my life's central thread. Though my opinions about how to implement this decision have changed and evolved - not least while writing this book - I have never regretted nor retracted the decision itself." Here are some of the other -isms by which Elbaum leads people to abandon these principled positions and political understanding:
Anti-communism
One trait of an opportunist is "they hate communism much more than they do capitalism."* Communism needs an actual revolution, where one class seizes power from another, in the superstructure, to embark on changing the base, the actual mode of production, from capitalism to socialism, as a transition to communism.
On page 336 Elbaum says, about a vanguard revolutionary party, and about revolution: "In the relatively few [cases] where one has not only attained mass influence but actually seized power, the price paid after the revolution has been prohibitively high." On page 89: "It should also be noted that much hard information about the leadership abuse and arbitrary violence that infused China's Cultural Revolution was not readily accessible in the late 1960s. Only after 1976 did evidence become widely available that the mass struggle campaigns that supposedly were empowering ordinary people and staving off the rise of a new ruling elite had done nothing of the sort. Rather, because of a voluntarist approach that did not link mass action to economic, technological or intellectual development or to constructing institutions for working-class democracy - as well as omnipresent manipulation by CPC leaders, military figures and demagogues - they set back China's development and silenced and alienated a whole generation from Marxism and from politics in general."
Horseshit. Elbaum is saying communist revolution was a nightmare, using the weak "everybody knows" approach. This is refuted by scholars both capitalist and communist, including Bob Avakian, Amartya Sen, Paul Clark, Ann Tompkins, Lee Feigon, Mobo Gao, Cormac Ó Gráda, Donping Han, Bill Hinton, Minqi Li, Raymond Lotta, Di Bai, Wang Zheng. In these works, for example, it will be found that in Mao's time industry grew by more than 10 percent a year during the Cultural Revolution, by the 1970's China had solved its historic food problem, life expectancy more than doubled, and China achieved what the capitalist U.S. never will: a universal, just, and fair health care system. This revolution saved untold lives. Beyond these material gains, and connected to them, were the masses being unleashed and mobilized to transform ideas and society itself. Inside of all this, there were also serious errors to be learned from. Against the backdrop of the capitalist horrors of the 20th century, the Russian and Chinese revolutions, before they were defeated (the USSR in the 1950's and China in the late 1970's), were the greatest advances towards emancipation yet taken by humanity. We need to do it again, better, and take it much further.
On page 148 onwards Elbaum summarizes what Lenin said but then frames it in a that-was-then-this-is-now context and trying to convert it into social democracy. On page 195 he also says people advocating for Marxist-Leninism in the US were using "miniaturized Leninism" instead of real Leninism, because in the 1970's US there was not a large following such as Lenin had. But it was just Mao and 9 others who started the Communist party in China after studying Marx and Lenin. And they went on to make the huge advance of revolution and socialism in all of China! The truth is Elbaum basically just does not not like Marx, or Lenin, he actually prefers social democracy.
Tail-ism (tailism)
This is related to opportunism. Lenin used the term tail-ism ("What Is To Be Done" page 65, Peking 1978 edition) for those who said a communist party should not take the lead in any situation, but instead should let whatever economic crises, massacres, wars, etc. happen, and then jump in on the tail of these events as people react, and follow them. Lenin showed how this was harmful, that the party should serve as the people's vanguard, and must be always educating and agitating, bringing political understanding, while also anticipating events, looking ahead, and being a guide on the way forward.
On page xii (paperback edition): Elbaum says "There is a big reality check here: a reminder that what masses of people are doing - or not doing - must be the central reference point for effective strategy and tactics."
No. What actually needs to be done in the world should be the central reference point from which line, strategy and tactics proceeds. What people are doing/not doing needs to be one part of assessing what needs to be done.
Reformism (versus revolution)
Reform is the practice of putting bandages on the capitalist system, in effect helping the ruling class keep that puss filled monster staggering along until it finally destroys the world.
Economism
Also related to opportunism, and was also addressed by Lenin in "What Is To Be Done?" Economism is the practice of focusing primarily on immediate struggles (often but not always economic), treating this as a special stage which enables getting a mass following, and with the intent that, only after this stage is complete, can bigger issues be addressed. History shows this has been tried repeatedly, and always leads back into serving the ruling class, helping them to preserve their own system. And it finally leads to actively turning against revolution, and communism.
On page 320, Elbaum says: "Indeed, it would have required a different formulation of the left's basic 1970's task. Aspiring revolutionaries would have had to reject the idea that the immediate priority was to consolidate a vanguard organization in preparation for not-too-distant revolutionary upheavals. Instead, they would have had to grasp in timely fashion the fact that large-scale social forces were driving US politics to the right, and that for a lengthy period galvanizing resistance to the conservative onslaught would be the main political task. Toward that end they would have had to prioritize uniting diverse tendencies into a mass based radical current that was rooted in anti-racism and anti-imperialism and able to establish some kind of institutional foothold in mainstream politics. They would have had to develop the tactical finesse to take part in extremely broad political coalitions while retaining the capacity to present anti-capitalist perspectives and engage in consistent popular mobilization. Within such a project there would be space to try to carve out a more closely knit revolutionary tendency - and indeed such a tendency might be crucial to functioning effectively in a broader alignment (or or even in such an alignment taking viable shape). But unless the more broad-based project was kept in the forefront, the actual balance of forces virtually guaranteed failure on every level."
No. It is what Elbaum proposes here that history has shown guarantees failure. He wants us to take a concrete line for revolution and communism and submerge it beneath particular struggles, where past and present experience shows it will be first liquidated, then atomized, then vaporized, and finally blown away on the wind. Mao once said a single spark can start a prairie fire. The line Elbaum advocates here is very prominent today, and results in many in "the movement" basically standing around with a bucket, ready to splash out any such spark.
Conclusion: This book tells people confronting the world today that we must put revolution and communism aside, and confine ourselves only to networking within various kinds of immediate activism and the existing political establishment. The ruling class likes that idea. To change this world, we must reject that idea. I recommend reading https://revcom.us/a/694/a-declaration...
*THE PROBLEM THEN...THE PROBLEM NOW—AN ESSENTIAL TRUTH ABOUT OPPORTUNISM https://revcom.us/a/279/an-essential-...
February 9, 2019
This was another one of those books I had on my To-Read list for some time. I finally picked it up when it was re-issued in this new edition with a forward by Alicia Garza, co-founder of Black Lives Matter. This excellent book is a very detailed account of the New Communist Movement of the 1960s-80s written by a central participant in it. These young radicals were inspired be the wave of revolutions in the Third World at that time. Critical of the major old-line Marxist parties of the time, the Soviet-aligned CPUSA and the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, these activists looked to Maoism for ideological guidance in their Marxist-Leninist party-building efforts. This proved to be the major source of their downfall after the Sino-Soviet split and China actually aligned itself with US imperialism. Many groups didn’t deal with the situation in a forthright fashion and fell into decline. Others attempted a critical evaluation of their previous ideological line and were able persist in the struggle through the 80s, making valuable contributions to the Rainbow Left inspired by the Jesse Jackson campaigns in 1984 and 1988. Finally, the fall of the Soviet Union and implosion of the Eastern Block and the general downfall and discrediting of Communism around the globe sounded the death knell for the New Communist Movement.
Max Elbaum provides an excellent analysis of the legacy of New Communist Movement, the good and the bad, the successes and failures, in the hope of imparting to a new generation of young revolutionaries some potential lessons. As a member of the one of the organizations that was still making some headway in the 80s, the Line of March, I will attest to the accuracy of his account in this time period in particular. (Disclosure: we were both members of that organization and I have even met Max on a couple of occasions.) He depicts honestly the dogmatism, sectarianism, and vanguardism that plagued the New Communist Movement while highlighting the positive contributions, mainly an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist politics entwined with a rigorous focus on the anti-racist struggle in the US, built upon an appreciation of the cutting-edge role the black liberation movement has played in every period of progressive advance in US history. In addition, these organizations produced a highly trained cadre of talented and dedicated organizers and many individual members of this cohort continue doing good work in various movement organizations to this day.
I will provide links to two excellent detailed reviews, the first by Ethan Young in Jacobin and the second by Dereck Wall with Marx & Philosophy Review of Books.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/ne...
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/revi...
I can’t recommend this book highly enough to anyone involved with progressive movement organizing today.
Max Elbaum provides an excellent analysis of the legacy of New Communist Movement, the good and the bad, the successes and failures, in the hope of imparting to a new generation of young revolutionaries some potential lessons. As a member of the one of the organizations that was still making some headway in the 80s, the Line of March, I will attest to the accuracy of his account in this time period in particular. (Disclosure: we were both members of that organization and I have even met Max on a couple of occasions.) He depicts honestly the dogmatism, sectarianism, and vanguardism that plagued the New Communist Movement while highlighting the positive contributions, mainly an anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist politics entwined with a rigorous focus on the anti-racist struggle in the US, built upon an appreciation of the cutting-edge role the black liberation movement has played in every period of progressive advance in US history. In addition, these organizations produced a highly trained cadre of talented and dedicated organizers and many individual members of this cohort continue doing good work in various movement organizations to this day.
I will provide links to two excellent detailed reviews, the first by Ethan Young in Jacobin and the second by Dereck Wall with Marx & Philosophy Review of Books.
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/07/ne...
https://marxandphilosophy.org.uk/revi...
I can’t recommend this book highly enough to anyone involved with progressive movement organizing today.
July 8, 2022
A substantial account of Maoist and Mao-influenced activism in the United States beginning in the 60s, developing in the 70s, and moving through party building, halting attempts at unity, engagement in social movements from anti-war to the shop floor;
to the first campaign for President by Jesse Jackson in the early 1980s, running on the Democratic ticket - an anticipation of the later Bernie Sanders phenomenon from 2016 onwards.
If one were to be unkind, it could be described as the move from revolutionary sectarianism to left opportunist reformism inside one of the two most significant bourgeois parties in world history.
Although arguably that first attempted run for President by Jackson in the early 1980s and his failed attempt to secure the Democratic Party nomination represented more of a break from politics as usual than what Sanders had come to represent politically by 2016, despite Jackson not identifying as a socialist.
In that Jackson was a black man in Reagan's America, an associate of MLK, and running on a left-leaning policy platform with a foreign policy agenda well to the left of what Sanders was prepared to promote by the time of his first Presidential campaign; to be fair it did represent a major shift from his own earlier politics.
Such as Bernie's support for the Sandinistas after being elected as a socialist-leaning Independent and Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s - representing an open and clean break with the two-party duopoly.
The best Marxist analysis as to why the Jesse Jackson - and by implication, Sanders - approach to running on the Democratic ticket is a dead end despite its obvious attractions is ‘We’ve been down this road before: Jesse Jackson, the Democrats and the left’ by Nick Everett in the Marxist Left Review.
As Bernie Sanders himself once put it in 1985: ‘What would be a tragedy… is for people with a radical vision to fall into the pathetic camp of the intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party.’
It almost sounds like he had been reading something just like the Marxist Left Review…
to the first campaign for President by Jesse Jackson in the early 1980s, running on the Democratic ticket - an anticipation of the later Bernie Sanders phenomenon from 2016 onwards.
If one were to be unkind, it could be described as the move from revolutionary sectarianism to left opportunist reformism inside one of the two most significant bourgeois parties in world history.
Although arguably that first attempted run for President by Jackson in the early 1980s and his failed attempt to secure the Democratic Party nomination represented more of a break from politics as usual than what Sanders had come to represent politically by 2016, despite Jackson not identifying as a socialist.
In that Jackson was a black man in Reagan's America, an associate of MLK, and running on a left-leaning policy platform with a foreign policy agenda well to the left of what Sanders was prepared to promote by the time of his first Presidential campaign; to be fair it did represent a major shift from his own earlier politics.
Such as Bernie's support for the Sandinistas after being elected as a socialist-leaning Independent and Mayor of Burlington, Vermont in the 1980s - representing an open and clean break with the two-party duopoly.
The best Marxist analysis as to why the Jesse Jackson - and by implication, Sanders - approach to running on the Democratic ticket is a dead end despite its obvious attractions is ‘We’ve been down this road before: Jesse Jackson, the Democrats and the left’ by Nick Everett in the Marxist Left Review.
As Bernie Sanders himself once put it in 1985: ‘What would be a tragedy… is for people with a radical vision to fall into the pathetic camp of the intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party.’
It almost sounds like he had been reading something just like the Marxist Left Review…
January 10, 2008
An anarchist friend of mine said that this book made him understand, and no longer hate, socialists and that is no small feat. Personally, I learned a lot from it, very important history of the trajectory of the New Communist Movement in the United States. This generation's activists will need to grapple with the exact same issues: empire, white supremacy etc.etc. etc. Thanks to Max Elbaum no one has to start from scratch.
All throughout, there were small details and large concepts I didn't know. I didn't realize that China had actually recognized Pinochet after his bloodbath in Chile.
So after reading this book, I totally understand how New Left activists turned to rather dogmatic versions of socialism. What the book didn't make clear was how folks could uphold authoritarian versions of socialism even as their international "examples" turned right-ward and authoritarian.
All throughout, there were small details and large concepts I didn't know. I didn't realize that China had actually recognized Pinochet after his bloodbath in Chile.
So after reading this book, I totally understand how New Left activists turned to rather dogmatic versions of socialism. What the book didn't make clear was how folks could uphold authoritarian versions of socialism even as their international "examples" turned right-ward and authoritarian.
September 21, 2025
Clarifying, necessary and important for those who want to build something out of the wreckage of the 20th Century left.
September 6, 2022
This is perhaps the only history I've read of left-wing sects (here, the Maoists of the American 'New Communist Movement', from the mid-60s to the late '80s) that is not either a) written as an apologia for a particular sect or b) implacably hostile to left sects in general. It's so good it suggests there should be many more of them (books like this, that is, not more sects).
November 24, 2007
Max Elbaum provides one of the first histories of its kind of what is called the New Communist Movement that emerged from the late-1960s and materialized in the 1970s in the US. It serves as a very good outline of general trends, though it lacks an in-depth view into different organizations. Similarly, it lacks a lot of depth into specific campaigns or watershed events when discussing major points in the movement.
Also, I do not agree with his poorly constructed analysis at the end of the book. He attempts, rather clumsily, to show that everything went wrong because of anti-revisionist Maoism itself. While he sums up some major mistakes, such as the sectarian nature of organizations in the '70s, as 'ultraleftist', Elbaum's theory has hardly any concrete or specific evidence behind it. It is obvious that this claim stems from his now purely social-democratic leaning.
It's a valuable resource, though, for its pioneering of this important section of US Leftist history.
Also, I do not agree with his poorly constructed analysis at the end of the book. He attempts, rather clumsily, to show that everything went wrong because of anti-revisionist Maoism itself. While he sums up some major mistakes, such as the sectarian nature of organizations in the '70s, as 'ultraleftist', Elbaum's theory has hardly any concrete or specific evidence behind it. It is obvious that this claim stems from his now purely social-democratic leaning.
It's a valuable resource, though, for its pioneering of this important section of US Leftist history.
January 15, 2019
What the New Communist Movement did wrong could fill a book-- mostly, this one. What they did right, in Elbaum's telling, is threefold:
1) They centered anti-imperialist, international concerns. (Makes sense, as most of them were radicalized during the Vietnam War and admired the Vietnamese and Cuban Communists.)
2) They centered anti-racist struggles within the US. (Makes sense, as most of them were radicalized during the Black freedom movement, and several of the early movement orgs were POC-led themselves.)
3) They developed skilled, committed leaders who achieved outsize results from tiny organizations.
It's a history rather than a how-to, but the "how" on 1) and 2) seems to have been the usual best practices. Show up, do the work, accept accountability. (The last part is where the movement failed. Ultimately its members believed in their *very specific* ideolog[y/ies] more than in their neighbors, and cut off relationship with anyone who didn't.)
As often with left-wing history, a background in Protestant theology helped me keep track of the endlessly multiplying sects and their doctrines. Even for readers without that advantage, Elbaum is a good teacher and decent storyteller who keeps the relationships between the parts clear throughout.
1) They centered anti-imperialist, international concerns. (Makes sense, as most of them were radicalized during the Vietnam War and admired the Vietnamese and Cuban Communists.)
2) They centered anti-racist struggles within the US. (Makes sense, as most of them were radicalized during the Black freedom movement, and several of the early movement orgs were POC-led themselves.)
3) They developed skilled, committed leaders who achieved outsize results from tiny organizations.
It's a history rather than a how-to, but the "how" on 1) and 2) seems to have been the usual best practices. Show up, do the work, accept accountability. (The last part is where the movement failed. Ultimately its members believed in their *very specific* ideolog[y/ies] more than in their neighbors, and cut off relationship with anyone who didn't.)
As often with left-wing history, a background in Protestant theology helped me keep track of the endlessly multiplying sects and their doctrines. Even for readers without that advantage, Elbaum is a good teacher and decent storyteller who keeps the relationships between the parts clear throughout.
February 19, 2012
i really liked this book thought i am not sure how to process it all. and more importantly what it means for organizing a socialist left in the here and now. if you are interested in radical history or the real project of organizing for a socialist future then you should absolutely read this book. there are lessons here - plenty of them too - but they are for you to mull over and for you to apply.
March 11, 2008
a thorough and interesting look at the New Communist Movement of the post-New Left 1970s. at first it was hard to relate to the protagonists of this book because of their Leninist/Maoist ideas and vanguardist tactics, but the author does a great job explaining why such philosophies and organizational structures fit the context of the time period, and does a fair job criticizing their sectarian and dogmatic natures. anyway, the benefit of this book for me was that it gave me a better understanding of the social movements of the 1970s and 80s, which are rarely discussed and way overshadowed by the 60s. not a must-read, but worthwhile.
p.s. it was way cool to learn how the Communist Party and SDS basically were the 2 birthing points for almost every revolutionary left organization of the past half-century
p.s. it was way cool to learn how the Communist Party and SDS basically were the 2 birthing points for almost every revolutionary left organization of the past half-century
January 26, 2020
A damn mess.
Points for being the only book to attempt to cover this historical period, but that's about it. Outside of a few notable exceptions, what Elbaum's 60's radicals turned to, was social democracy, and this is a long winded way of trying to justify that turn, from supporting third world liberation and trying to build a revolution movement, straight into the democractic party and the ngo apparatus. I wish their was a better, and less self-serving history of this period then this.
Points for being the only book to attempt to cover this historical period, but that's about it. Outside of a few notable exceptions, what Elbaum's 60's radicals turned to, was social democracy, and this is a long winded way of trying to justify that turn, from supporting third world liberation and trying to build a revolution movement, straight into the democractic party and the ngo apparatus. I wish their was a better, and less self-serving history of this period then this.
March 3, 2008
Elbaum is a sharp one. But I wouldn't recommend this book for people who aren't interested in the minutia of left political parties. The party names, splinters, mergers etc. get a little confusing. But it is interesting to understand differences in theory and strategy among left parties.
July 17, 2019
I've held off from writing a review because I wanted to read the excellent back-and-forth between Saba and Elbaum over the reissue of this book (I've read an earlier edition, sadly, without the new introduction). It's obvious that this is an important book, providing an excellent chronology of the New Communist Movement at times (initially in 2001, and then again now) when its lessons could hardly be more urgent - combining a stress on anti-imperialism and anti-racism with a recognition of the importance of organisation. I agree with Saba that Elbaum underestimates the significance of Maoism as opposed to 'Third World Marxism', and leans too far in defending the Soviet side in the split, but equally Elbaum is right to stress the broader milieu that explicitly Maoist groups were part of. Like Saba, I think I would've appreciated more attention to some of the smaller groups, especially where their theoretical insights (e.g. privilege theory) remain significant today. I'd also have liked to see more discussion and evaluation of the specific differences in line, as opposed to writing them off as sectarianism - but equally it seems that Saba and Elbaum are agreed that overall the theory behind these differences was for the most part weak.
I just wanted to throw out a few quick points on the book's relevance to the anti-revisionist/Maoist movement in Britain, the study of which I have my eye on as a longer-term project. I thought that the book's breakdown of the three movements within the NCM (and the CCP) was useful: the more orthodox Stalinists; the Third Worldists; and the Cultural Revolutionaries. I think in Britain, the anti-revisionists were overwhelmingly in the first camp, the larger groups which broke from the CPGB (the CPB-ML in 1968, the NCP in 1977) being centred around prominent trade union leaders and having a much greater spoonful of economism as a result than seems to have been the case in the United States. Smaller groups, especially those which drew more heavily on the student movement (and which were closer to Trotskyists - especially the IMG - than to the CPGB) and the Indian Workers' Association leaned more towards Third Worldism and/or the Cultural Revolution; I'm not sure quite how widely those ideas circulated within the larger groups, except as part of a general reverence for actually-existing socialism, reflected in their general preference for Hoxhaism or indeed Brezhnevism. There's clearly an important difference between the two contexts in the significance of anti-racism and communities of colour - it wasn't until the later 1970s that radical Black politics really gained momentum in the UK. It's probably also worth thinking about a comparison between the CPUSA and the relatively more dynamic CPGB - it's certainly interesting that the Theoretical Review (linked to Saba) in the US, an ostensibly anti-revisionist journal, drew so heavily on British Gramscians like Stuart Hall who, in the UK context, were associated very closely with 'revisionists' within the CPGB and hardly (as far as I'm aware) looked to by British anti-revisionists at all (except, I suppose B&ICO - whose general attitudes towards imperialism would hardly have been looked upon favourably, I assume, by anti-revisionists in the US). Anyway, just a few quick thoughts there - I need to investigate more, obviously, before I have the right to speak further.
I just wanted to throw out a few quick points on the book's relevance to the anti-revisionist/Maoist movement in Britain, the study of which I have my eye on as a longer-term project. I thought that the book's breakdown of the three movements within the NCM (and the CCP) was useful: the more orthodox Stalinists; the Third Worldists; and the Cultural Revolutionaries. I think in Britain, the anti-revisionists were overwhelmingly in the first camp, the larger groups which broke from the CPGB (the CPB-ML in 1968, the NCP in 1977) being centred around prominent trade union leaders and having a much greater spoonful of economism as a result than seems to have been the case in the United States. Smaller groups, especially those which drew more heavily on the student movement (and which were closer to Trotskyists - especially the IMG - than to the CPGB) and the Indian Workers' Association leaned more towards Third Worldism and/or the Cultural Revolution; I'm not sure quite how widely those ideas circulated within the larger groups, except as part of a general reverence for actually-existing socialism, reflected in their general preference for Hoxhaism or indeed Brezhnevism. There's clearly an important difference between the two contexts in the significance of anti-racism and communities of colour - it wasn't until the later 1970s that radical Black politics really gained momentum in the UK. It's probably also worth thinking about a comparison between the CPUSA and the relatively more dynamic CPGB - it's certainly interesting that the Theoretical Review (linked to Saba) in the US, an ostensibly anti-revisionist journal, drew so heavily on British Gramscians like Stuart Hall who, in the UK context, were associated very closely with 'revisionists' within the CPGB and hardly (as far as I'm aware) looked to by British anti-revisionists at all (except, I suppose B&ICO - whose general attitudes towards imperialism would hardly have been looked upon favourably, I assume, by anti-revisionists in the US). Anyway, just a few quick thoughts there - I need to investigate more, obviously, before I have the right to speak further.
March 7, 2019
Pretty good survey of the rise and fall of the Marxist-Leninist movement in the US during the 1970s and 1980s. A lot of the larger context is described well, like the nature of the 1960s New Left and the various lineages and experiences that drove people toward orthodox socialist ideologies, as well as the global geopolitical situation and its impact on local US politics. The book also does a good job of explaining the ideas that the various groups had, where and why they disagreed, how ideas developed, etc.
I would have liked to see more descriptions and analysis about what groups were doing on a day-to-day basis, in terms of their activism and organizing, as well as more specific strategic issues. What kinds of areas were they targeting, specifically? What was the regional distribution of the various groups and how'd this change over time? What kind of factories were targeted for organizing? The book does a fine job of explaining the ideas that the ML movement had, but not so much in terms of what they actually did. Although this might be intentional, since it seems like much of what the movement actually did was, in fact, argue about theoretical trivialities regarding Leninist doctrine.
All in all, a very worthwhile book if you are interested in the history of socialism in the modern US.
I would have liked to see more descriptions and analysis about what groups were doing on a day-to-day basis, in terms of their activism and organizing, as well as more specific strategic issues. What kinds of areas were they targeting, specifically? What was the regional distribution of the various groups and how'd this change over time? What kind of factories were targeted for organizing? The book does a fine job of explaining the ideas that the ML movement had, but not so much in terms of what they actually did. Although this might be intentional, since it seems like much of what the movement actually did was, in fact, argue about theoretical trivialities regarding Leninist doctrine.
All in all, a very worthwhile book if you are interested in the history of socialism in the modern US.
May 2, 2020
Although at times it was a bit dry and in the weeds, this in-depth history of the New Communist Movement and leftist organizing in the 70’s and 80’s is an enlightening read well worth taking in and reflecting on.
“It is crucial to distinguish between trying to establish a mechanical hierarchy of oppressions (which is fatal) and making grounded judgements about which sectors or movements are likely to exercise the greatest social leverage at specific times (which is essential).”
“It is crucial to distinguish between trying to establish a mechanical hierarchy of oppressions (which is fatal) and making grounded judgements about which sectors or movements are likely to exercise the greatest social leverage at specific times (which is essential).”
May 23, 2024
Fascinating read. I have obvious political disagreements w Elbaum but I learned so much
June 17, 2018
Although the competition is rather sparse, this is easily the best resource on the New Communist Movement in existence. Much of the information in here is very difficult to find, and Elbaum has done a tremendous service in preserving the memory of a milieu that has left very little permanent institutional trace.
I first became interested in the NCM after reading Paul Saba's interview in Viewpoints from 2015 (https://www.viewpointmag.com/2015/08/...). While I can't say I find much of the NCM's actual political practice very appealing - and its underlying theoretical claims more or less completely untethered from reality - the NCM is interesting as a by-product of the 1960s. Although Elbaum defends the underlying logic by which the NCM emerged and justified its existence, it is clear that the NCM ultimately was an expression of the failure of the Left to truly capture the popular imagination during the 1960s. There are lessons here about radicalizing spirals that lead to complete isolation from the concerns of, well, normal people.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the NCM is the extent to which its own participants seemed uncomprehending of just why 60s radicalism was "successful" - or, at least, the extent to which some of its positions became widely accepted, if not hegemonic. The main NCM organizations all seemed to think that the temporary lull of the early 70s would end imminently, and the course of 60s radicalism would be resumed at any moment. In the absence of this mass radicalization, the NCM organizations took on increasingly absurd positions, often tied to the vagaries of realpolitik as practiced by nominally socialist states - for instance, the October League advocated strengthening NATO on the basis that the USSR was a counterrevolutionary regime. This is, of course, absolutely batshit stupid and can perhaps provide a lesson to the current crop of "Marxist"-Leninists convinced that socialist political practice consists primarily of half-baked apologia for the whims of dictators and the state apparatuses that they helm.
The NCM aside, this book also doubles as a terrific resource on the emergence of most contemporary currents in American socialism - the DSA and its precursors (NAM and DSOC), the IS (precursor of ISO and Solidarity), the WWP (precursor of PSL, although it also still exists on its own), FRSO, are all covered. One odd idiosyncrasy of Elbaum's account, however, is that although he dismisses Trotskyism and treats social democracy rather harshly, there is no discussion of anarchism whatsoever. Elbaum seems to read Marxism-Leninism's main competitor to be social democracy through the 80s and 90s. It seems to me that the re-emergence of anarchism in this period - all but dead by 1960 in the US - is a much more interesting phenomenon.
However, the book remains profoundly timely in many respects. Along these lines, it is worth noting that the book's treatment of the Jesse Jackson campaign is from a perspective you are unlikely to find anywhere else, and on its own this is worth the price of admission for the lessons it can provide to any committed Marxist looking to orient themselves historically in the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. Although the NCM is unlikely to experience a revival at any point in the future - its politics are so thoroughly routed in the whims of Cold War geopolitics that a rebirth is more or less inconceivable - many of the strategic questions it faced remain with us (chiefly, how to relate to the Democratic Party and how to relate to organized labor), as do many of the recurrent negative tendencies of far Left organizing (sectarianism, the temptation to fetishize the identity of "The Worker", a fixation on adhering to grand abstractions, and relentless moralizing, to name a few). There is much to learn from this book, for folks interested in theory and the drudgery of day-to-day organizing alike.
I first became interested in the NCM after reading Paul Saba's interview in Viewpoints from 2015 (https://www.viewpointmag.com/2015/08/...). While I can't say I find much of the NCM's actual political practice very appealing - and its underlying theoretical claims more or less completely untethered from reality - the NCM is interesting as a by-product of the 1960s. Although Elbaum defends the underlying logic by which the NCM emerged and justified its existence, it is clear that the NCM ultimately was an expression of the failure of the Left to truly capture the popular imagination during the 1960s. There are lessons here about radicalizing spirals that lead to complete isolation from the concerns of, well, normal people.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the NCM is the extent to which its own participants seemed uncomprehending of just why 60s radicalism was "successful" - or, at least, the extent to which some of its positions became widely accepted, if not hegemonic. The main NCM organizations all seemed to think that the temporary lull of the early 70s would end imminently, and the course of 60s radicalism would be resumed at any moment. In the absence of this mass radicalization, the NCM organizations took on increasingly absurd positions, often tied to the vagaries of realpolitik as practiced by nominally socialist states - for instance, the October League advocated strengthening NATO on the basis that the USSR was a counterrevolutionary regime. This is, of course, absolutely batshit stupid and can perhaps provide a lesson to the current crop of "Marxist"-Leninists convinced that socialist political practice consists primarily of half-baked apologia for the whims of dictators and the state apparatuses that they helm.
The NCM aside, this book also doubles as a terrific resource on the emergence of most contemporary currents in American socialism - the DSA and its precursors (NAM and DSOC), the IS (precursor of ISO and Solidarity), the WWP (precursor of PSL, although it also still exists on its own), FRSO, are all covered. One odd idiosyncrasy of Elbaum's account, however, is that although he dismisses Trotskyism and treats social democracy rather harshly, there is no discussion of anarchism whatsoever. Elbaum seems to read Marxism-Leninism's main competitor to be social democracy through the 80s and 90s. It seems to me that the re-emergence of anarchism in this period - all but dead by 1960 in the US - is a much more interesting phenomenon.
However, the book remains profoundly timely in many respects. Along these lines, it is worth noting that the book's treatment of the Jesse Jackson campaign is from a perspective you are unlikely to find anywhere else, and on its own this is worth the price of admission for the lessons it can provide to any committed Marxist looking to orient themselves historically in the Bernie Sanders phenomenon. Although the NCM is unlikely to experience a revival at any point in the future - its politics are so thoroughly routed in the whims of Cold War geopolitics that a rebirth is more or less inconceivable - many of the strategic questions it faced remain with us (chiefly, how to relate to the Democratic Party and how to relate to organized labor), as do many of the recurrent negative tendencies of far Left organizing (sectarianism, the temptation to fetishize the identity of "The Worker", a fixation on adhering to grand abstractions, and relentless moralizing, to name a few). There is much to learn from this book, for folks interested in theory and the drudgery of day-to-day organizing alike.
September 11, 2021
Packed with information and therefore of utility as a fairly comprehensive assembling of left minutia if you are interested in sectarian history (I am). On the other hand, that's the extent to which it can be relied on — the political 'conclusions' are dry and for all the self-criticism, there isn't really an ample or broad investigation of the cause of left decline outside the 'obvious,' which is to say more-or-less received wisdom. For that reason, I'm not sure this is a great book to give to people unfamiliar with the left during the period under review. On the other hand, when it's 'just the facts, ma'am,' it's fine. Also possible I am being too uncharitable.
March 20, 2013
This is a good history of Communist parties in the late 1960s and 1970s and how they related to the activism and/or revolutionary politics of the 1960s. For the most part, it does what it sets out to do--tells a history of a bunch of obscure little parties that largely failed to have much of an impact. It does that well.
However, there are a few errors in the book--for example characterizing the Weather Underground as anarchist--and relatively little engagement with criticisms of the party-building strategy.
However, there are a few errors in the book--for example characterizing the Weather Underground as anarchist--and relatively little engagement with criticisms of the party-building strategy.
March 24, 2008
i just saw max elbaum at the brecht forum last weekend so it reminded me of this book, which is a great personal history of the U.S. new communist left of the late 60s and 70s -- a really honest and critical assessment of the revolution(s) that was brewing forty years ago. a whole lot to learn from the past. and if you want to know more about the sectarian U.S. left, this book is a great place to start.
May 3, 2021
A fantastic examination of the New Communist Movement and the gravely underreported period between 1968 and the death of the US Left in the 90s. While I think the author is a bit overly harsh on some aspects of the "traditional communist canon" in his assessments, overall I think there's some pretty solid and sobering lessons that revolutionaries should heed and consider when planning their organizing efforts.
May 13, 2024
A fascinating dive into the 60s and 70s radical cauldron that birthed the briefly ardent New Communist Movement in America. Spanning a history that begins to unfold properly in 1968 and continuing until just after the fall of the Soviet Union, Elbaum covers a lot of ground. But does it work well in laying out not just the theory, but the practice, of why the New Communist Movement sputtered out so abruptly and what lessons to be learned from it?
Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom!
The main axis that the book turns upon is the building of the Marxist-Leninist-MZT parties that proliferated in the late 60s into the 1970s, and what that meant for the development of left-wing politics as a whole. That tens of thousands of young cadres, dissatisfied with both traditional American politics as well as the politics of the Soviet Union, is given great depth, as well as their seeking of answers primarily in Lenin and Mao (and to a lesser, more metaphorical sense, Che). It is not only inspiring, but deeply moving to read the myriad of reasons why these activists felt that the answer to The System was its complete overthrow, and how they earnestly launched themselves not only into popular front efforts, but party-building efforts. Activists bound together not just by their youth, with some as young as teenagers, but their determined attitude that anything was possible, seemed primed to set the world ablaze. For a brief moment, they did.
Burnout
Of course, the perils of sectarianism and purity-testing rears its ugly head before too long. Elbaum deftly weaves a storied history of the formations, splits, mergers, further splits, and infighting that these groups suffered from during the brief, ephemeral history. Groups which formed from a similar political and locational milieu dividing so sharply over (to modern understandings) minor differences can be quite a frustrating read. At several points, as the long, slow march to dissolution and coda starts to come into view, it can be a hard and frustrating read. You want to literally shake the people who are spending their time debating maximalist positions of theory and getting into physical fights with each other out of their slump, but the writing was on the wall long before you were born.
And Mao Makes... None?
For a deep dive into the history of the New Communist Movement, that small niche which existed against the backdrop of the mainstream politics that have attempted to cover them up, Revolution in the Air succeeds. For a segment of history I have little-to-no familiarity with, Elbaum in my view gives fair play to all parties involved, refraining from diving into the personal lives of activists or members of the Movement or personal grievance-hanging. And it is hard not to sympathize with his viewpoint that the attempted vanguard parties (for that is what they were) failed to succeed in spite of themselves more-so than the political culture at large. Until the mid-70s, they still had the potential of maturation into what they envisaged for themselves and their fellow cadres.
Elbaum's two ending chapters in the post-Soviet wake is an obituary for a movement that failed to find that maturation. In it, his dissection takes many dimensions, chief among them his view that the people involved in these organizations failed largely as they drifted away from the concerns of the workers and of anti-racist activists, and became obsessed with discovering "the correct line" to hew towards. And, most pertinently, Elbaum's denunciation of Maoism as having done "the most damage" to the New Communist Movement at a pivotal point in time is perhaps his most striking one. The prescription? A new form of politics for the left that eschews the rigidity and quest for orthodoxy that so-defined the New Communist Movement, defined itself by the Maoist track that it had placed itself upon.
To most ardent Marxist-Leninists (additional -isms are, of course, optional), this may be anathema. Check your Mao at the door? Impossible. You might as well repudiate Lenin as well at that point, and throw out your Engels while you're at it. And I must stress that, having lived through the sectarian struggles of left politics at a time when they were at their height in the US, Elbaum certainly has the chops to critique what he saw/sees as a dead-end, and isn't lecturing without that notch on his belt.
Ultimately, I am struck by the dichotomy between the writing of this book from 2002, and Vincent Bevins' , which I read earlier this year. Between the prescriptions that the two books offer, I would hew more towards that of Bevins' analysis of the "missed revolution" of the 2010s and of 2020, but I don't want to be unfair to Elbaum. I would like to see an update to this work, perhaps a sequel, of his analysis of the 2010s. Would he still hold the same antipathy towards the rigidness of centralized politics after the failure of these pivotal, global moments? It's hard to say.
Parting Comments
In spite of my disagreements, the book holds up well, and gripped me thoroughly. It can be hard to trace the lineage or the ways in which these organizations blossomed out and then disappeared, as well as dragging a little bit in the middle, but I would ultimately recommend reading it, if only to examine a fascinating window into a political countercurrent that so briefly existed.
Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom!
The main axis that the book turns upon is the building of the Marxist-Leninist-MZT parties that proliferated in the late 60s into the 1970s, and what that meant for the development of left-wing politics as a whole. That tens of thousands of young cadres, dissatisfied with both traditional American politics as well as the politics of the Soviet Union, is given great depth, as well as their seeking of answers primarily in Lenin and Mao (and to a lesser, more metaphorical sense, Che). It is not only inspiring, but deeply moving to read the myriad of reasons why these activists felt that the answer to The System was its complete overthrow, and how they earnestly launched themselves not only into popular front efforts, but party-building efforts. Activists bound together not just by their youth, with some as young as teenagers, but their determined attitude that anything was possible, seemed primed to set the world ablaze. For a brief moment, they did.
Burnout
Of course, the perils of sectarianism and purity-testing rears its ugly head before too long. Elbaum deftly weaves a storied history of the formations, splits, mergers, further splits, and infighting that these groups suffered from during the brief, ephemeral history. Groups which formed from a similar political and locational milieu dividing so sharply over (to modern understandings) minor differences can be quite a frustrating read. At several points, as the long, slow march to dissolution and coda starts to come into view, it can be a hard and frustrating read. You want to literally shake the people who are spending their time debating maximalist positions of theory and getting into physical fights with each other out of their slump, but the writing was on the wall long before you were born.
And Mao Makes... None?
For a deep dive into the history of the New Communist Movement, that small niche which existed against the backdrop of the mainstream politics that have attempted to cover them up, Revolution in the Air succeeds. For a segment of history I have little-to-no familiarity with, Elbaum in my view gives fair play to all parties involved, refraining from diving into the personal lives of activists or members of the Movement or personal grievance-hanging. And it is hard not to sympathize with his viewpoint that the attempted vanguard parties (for that is what they were) failed to succeed in spite of themselves more-so than the political culture at large. Until the mid-70s, they still had the potential of maturation into what they envisaged for themselves and their fellow cadres.
Elbaum's two ending chapters in the post-Soviet wake is an obituary for a movement that failed to find that maturation. In it, his dissection takes many dimensions, chief among them his view that the people involved in these organizations failed largely as they drifted away from the concerns of the workers and of anti-racist activists, and became obsessed with discovering "the correct line" to hew towards. And, most pertinently, Elbaum's denunciation of Maoism as having done "the most damage" to the New Communist Movement at a pivotal point in time is perhaps his most striking one. The prescription? A new form of politics for the left that eschews the rigidity and quest for orthodoxy that so-defined the New Communist Movement, defined itself by the Maoist track that it had placed itself upon.
To most ardent Marxist-Leninists (additional -isms are, of course, optional), this may be anathema. Check your Mao at the door? Impossible. You might as well repudiate Lenin as well at that point, and throw out your Engels while you're at it. And I must stress that, having lived through the sectarian struggles of left politics at a time when they were at their height in the US, Elbaum certainly has the chops to critique what he saw/sees as a dead-end, and isn't lecturing without that notch on his belt.
Ultimately, I am struck by the dichotomy between the writing of this book from 2002, and Vincent Bevins' , which I read earlier this year. Between the prescriptions that the two books offer, I would hew more towards that of Bevins' analysis of the "missed revolution" of the 2010s and of 2020, but I don't want to be unfair to Elbaum. I would like to see an update to this work, perhaps a sequel, of his analysis of the 2010s. Would he still hold the same antipathy towards the rigidness of centralized politics after the failure of these pivotal, global moments? It's hard to say.
Parting Comments
In spite of my disagreements, the book holds up well, and gripped me thoroughly. It can be hard to trace the lineage or the ways in which these organizations blossomed out and then disappeared, as well as dragging a little bit in the middle, but I would ultimately recommend reading it, if only to examine a fascinating window into a political countercurrent that so briefly existed.
Read
July 24, 2018good book! a little inside baseball-y in the middle, but hey! every baseball needs an inside as well as an outside; and sometimes, if you care a lot about baseball -- as everyone concerned with the health of the US left should -- inside is the place to be. what i'm saying is, this book was very useful for helping me contextualize various left ideologies and institutions
October 12, 2021
essential reading for any communist, especially organized communists. from the civil rights movement, to the new left, to the new communist movement, to the collapse of the USSR, this book gets at it all. i read black bolshevik by harry haywood and then jumped into this, and i think if you can, thats a great way to understand the flaws and actions of the american communist movement
September 14, 2022
This is a history of the Maoist groups that emerged in the United States in the 1970s, written by a former participant. Max Elbaum was a leader of the underground "Rectification" network, which later emerged as the "Line of March" group. This book, first published right after September 11, offers a relatively neutral overview of the entire movement, only somewhat exaggerating the role of Elbaum's group. This did not just include Maoism proper: the New Communist Movement, also referred to here as Third World Marxism, took its inspiration from Maoist China, but also from Cuba and Vietnam.
Elbaum describes how the most bizarre and reactionary elements of Maoist politics destroyed a promising movement that had been built up by thousands of dedicated young revolutionaries. By the mid-1970s, the People's Republic of China had become so virulently anti-Soviet that they would support just about anyone opposed to the Soviet Union. This meant working alongside the CIA to build up contras in Angola. This also meant giving diplomatic recognition to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (even before Washington did!). This obviously put U.S. Maoists in an untenable position. They could either align themselves with the State Department and the CIA — or they could distance themself from the Chinese leadership, which would put their entire political project into question.
Elbaum's theory is that the New Communist Movement was a promising starting point to build a mass party for socialist revolution. They failed not only because of the rightward lurch in China's foreign policy. The young activists fell victim to sectarianism because they failed to understand the changing situation in the United States as the Right went on the offensive in the late 1970s. Elbaum's conclusion: more class collaboration would have been necessary. Tellingly, his highest praise is reserved for Jesse Jackson's primary campaigns inside the Democratic Party: the Rainbow Coalition of 1984 and 1988. If only the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists had been more consistent in supporting this kind of Popular Front initiative, Elbaum argues, they could have formed a viable U.S. Left.
Since he has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about the balance sheet of the 1970s, it is disappointing that Elbaum hasn't looked into pre-Stalinist Marxism very much. He does briefly draw attention to a huge contradiction between Lenin and Mao. While Lenin sought to build an international revolutionary organization, Mao believed that each nation had its own path to socialism and socialists parties in different countries should remain autonomous. This was hugely consequential for the U.S. Left. The Communist International, founded in 1919, was key to creating a strong communist party in the U.S. (see Jacob Zumoff's great book on this). The Maoist Left of the 1970s, in contrast, got no support or guidance from Peking. It's ironic that Elbaum says that one of the strongest elements of the New Communist Movement was its internationalism — even though they, in contrast to Marx, Lenin, etc., steadfastly rejected any kind of international organization. This is just one example of how Maoism had differed from Marxism, long before the People's Republic of China declared "Soviet social imperialism" to be the main enemy. Unfortunately, he rejects Trotskyism in a few short paragraphs, relying almost entirely by quotes from Tariq Ali about the SWP(US) while ignoring what could be called the "New Trotskyist movement."
Maoism, even in its most left-wing phases, always aimed for class collaboration. This is reflected in Elbaum's enthusiasm for supporting the U.S. Democratic Party. The latest edition of this book also includes an introduction by Alicia Garza strongly implying that the Left should have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I learned a lot from this book (I finally understand where the League of Revolutionaries for a New America comes from!) but the analysis ultimately falls flat,. A real balance sheet of the New Communist Movement would require looking at the Stalinist distortions of Marxism that held them back.
p.s. it's a shame that the author deliberately omitted the names of numerous leaders because he didn't want to endanger any post-revolutionary careers. As a result, the book has kind of an abstract feel, without enough of the vivid details that make history come alive.
Elbaum describes how the most bizarre and reactionary elements of Maoist politics destroyed a promising movement that had been built up by thousands of dedicated young revolutionaries. By the mid-1970s, the People's Republic of China had become so virulently anti-Soviet that they would support just about anyone opposed to the Soviet Union. This meant working alongside the CIA to build up contras in Angola. This also meant giving diplomatic recognition to the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (even before Washington did!). This obviously put U.S. Maoists in an untenable position. They could either align themselves with the State Department and the CIA — or they could distance themself from the Chinese leadership, which would put their entire political project into question.
Elbaum's theory is that the New Communist Movement was a promising starting point to build a mass party for socialist revolution. They failed not only because of the rightward lurch in China's foreign policy. The young activists fell victim to sectarianism because they failed to understand the changing situation in the United States as the Right went on the offensive in the late 1970s. Elbaum's conclusion: more class collaboration would have been necessary. Tellingly, his highest praise is reserved for Jesse Jackson's primary campaigns inside the Democratic Party: the Rainbow Coalition of 1984 and 1988. If only the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninists had been more consistent in supporting this kind of Popular Front initiative, Elbaum argues, they could have formed a viable U.S. Left.
Since he has clearly spent a lot of time thinking about the balance sheet of the 1970s, it is disappointing that Elbaum hasn't looked into pre-Stalinist Marxism very much. He does briefly draw attention to a huge contradiction between Lenin and Mao. While Lenin sought to build an international revolutionary organization, Mao believed that each nation had its own path to socialism and socialists parties in different countries should remain autonomous. This was hugely consequential for the U.S. Left. The Communist International, founded in 1919, was key to creating a strong communist party in the U.S. (see Jacob Zumoff's great book on this). The Maoist Left of the 1970s, in contrast, got no support or guidance from Peking. It's ironic that Elbaum says that one of the strongest elements of the New Communist Movement was its internationalism — even though they, in contrast to Marx, Lenin, etc., steadfastly rejected any kind of international organization. This is just one example of how Maoism had differed from Marxism, long before the People's Republic of China declared "Soviet social imperialism" to be the main enemy. Unfortunately, he rejects Trotskyism in a few short paragraphs, relying almost entirely by quotes from Tariq Ali about the SWP(US) while ignoring what could be called the "New Trotskyist movement."
Maoism, even in its most left-wing phases, always aimed for class collaboration. This is reflected in Elbaum's enthusiasm for supporting the U.S. Democratic Party. The latest edition of this book also includes an introduction by Alicia Garza strongly implying that the Left should have voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016. I learned a lot from this book (I finally understand where the League of Revolutionaries for a New America comes from!) but the analysis ultimately falls flat,. A real balance sheet of the New Communist Movement would require looking at the Stalinist distortions of Marxism that held them back.
p.s. it's a shame that the author deliberately omitted the names of numerous leaders because he didn't want to endanger any post-revolutionary careers. As a result, the book has kind of an abstract feel, without enough of the vivid details that make history come alive.
December 4, 2021
With 'Revolution in the Air', Elbaum, a veteran himself of the New Communist Movement, presents a detailed, insightful and critical history of the NCM, from its beginnings in the 60s New Left, til its deterioration and eventual collapse in the 1980s/90s.
However, what NCM has in terms of a good, chronoligical history of the movement, it seems to lack in theoretical and reflective detail. Elbaum's (often quite agreeable) criticisms of various parts and events in the NCM lead him to, what I would argue as, mistaken conclusions; a necessity to engage in progressive electoral/reformist efforts, and a need for ideological compromise. Elbaum backs up these conclusions mostly with critiques of the 'ultraleftism' of the NCM - however, at no point does he explain in any detail what is meant by this term, which would have been useful given its different usage and/or weaponisation by different parts of the 'left'.
Furthermore, it was sad to see Elbaum focus on the more 'typical' parts of the movement, and give but a few sentences to the more heterodox and blurred groups of the NCM - such as the Sojourner Truth Organisation.
However, despite my criticisms, Elbaum still manages to document what is an incredibly important history into this fascinating book, and for that he deserves massive credit.
However, what NCM has in terms of a good, chronoligical history of the movement, it seems to lack in theoretical and reflective detail. Elbaum's (often quite agreeable) criticisms of various parts and events in the NCM lead him to, what I would argue as, mistaken conclusions; a necessity to engage in progressive electoral/reformist efforts, and a need for ideological compromise. Elbaum backs up these conclusions mostly with critiques of the 'ultraleftism' of the NCM - however, at no point does he explain in any detail what is meant by this term, which would have been useful given its different usage and/or weaponisation by different parts of the 'left'.
Furthermore, it was sad to see Elbaum focus on the more 'typical' parts of the movement, and give but a few sentences to the more heterodox and blurred groups of the NCM - such as the Sojourner Truth Organisation.
However, despite my criticisms, Elbaum still manages to document what is an incredibly important history into this fascinating book, and for that he deserves massive credit.
June 14, 2019
Max Elbaum's "Revolution in the Air: Sixties Radicals Turn to Lenin, Mao and Che" is a landmark study of what is called 'the New Communist Movement' (covering the time period between 1968-1992). The book is very broad in what it covers, but also gets into the minutia of untold number of organizations throughout that period. The book is an extensive survey that does a good job of explaining each organizations. However, it also fails at this task at various points when Elbaum reverts to referring to organizations via initials or acronyms, but its hard to know if it is the original organization, the organization that split or the entirely different organization that has appropriated an old organizations name. So, the text does a good job of not assuming the reader knows much about the subject, but if you do not know much about the subject it will be easy to get lost at times.
March 7, 2021
I was interested in learning more about socialist movements in America after watching The Trial of the Chicago 7 - I actually hadn't been aware of the scale of anti-Vietnam War sentiment and the number of people involved in anti-imperialist groups, so reading this felt like a good way to get introduced to that, and by extension the different communist parties and their activities in the 60s and 70s.
As a history book, there probably isn't another text quite as detailed in its description of the ideology, inner turmoil, and inter-relations of the organisations covered, and it provides a great look at the antiracist motivations for many who supported communism during the time.
One may have their own opinion on the 'lessons' and analysis throughout, but I definitely can't fault the primary function and would recommend anyone interested in learning about this period to read it.
As a history book, there probably isn't another text quite as detailed in its description of the ideology, inner turmoil, and inter-relations of the organisations covered, and it provides a great look at the antiracist motivations for many who supported communism during the time.
One may have their own opinion on the 'lessons' and analysis throughout, but I definitely can't fault the primary function and would recommend anyone interested in learning about this period to read it.
July 22, 2019
An in-depth history book about the New Communist Movement in the United States (the various anti-revisionist Marxist-Leninist cadre groups that emerged out of the late 60s/early 70s) that has some clear-headed analysis on why those movements failed and why Marxism-Leninism fell out of vogue in leftist organizing circles at the turn of the century. The majority of the text is a detailed history of the organizations and their relationship to each other, which isn't super relevant to organizing today, but Elbaum's lessons he takes away from the movements are important enough that I would argue this should be essential reading to all Marxists/leftists/organizers.
September 30, 2019
Pretty interesting but by no means essential. I appreciated the very succinct explanation of leninsim, and the "what to do" was interesting--Elbaum definitely seems to be a believer in a tightly knit cadre-oriented organization with a mass base to make political change. However, these only work if the internal democracy is truly democratic. Definitely something to think about given my anarchist-ish tendencies
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews