Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Randall Webster
Thesis Paper
Early Browder would die twenty years after watching Max Schachtman point a finger at
him during a public debate and yell, There, but for an accident of geography, stands a corpse.
Nothing so dramatic would ever happen to him again. Stripped first of his purpose, then his
achievements, Browder was a living reminder of a time when the left found greatness at a heavy
price. Though history will not absolve him, it should at least resist caricatures. For a brief
moment in history, Earl Browder thrived within a system built on the unsteady ground of
historical accident; limitedbut not dictatedby a complex, dynamic, and fundamentally one-
politicized. The people who began writing about the communist movement were people who
cared: party members, fellow travelers, ex-communists, and so on. Likewise, they are subject to
quite a few biases. Works like Freedman and Cannons must be read in the context of the
political events that shaped them, and one could easily argue that their purpose was
fundamentally political. Cannon, for instance, argued that The chief victim of Stalinism in this
country was the magnificent left-wing movement,1 a narrative as comforting to him as it would
be to the countless historical writers who adopted and built off of it.
Of the authors in the historiography, few compare to Theodore Draper, who became the
de-facto founder of the Traditionalist School with his two works Roots of American Communism
and American Communism and Soviet Russia: The Formative Period. These works are notable
for a few reasons. First, for their incredible level of research. Its undoubtable that the continuing
impact of Drapers books, as well as the arguments carried on by his successors, is owed to the
1 Cannon, quoted by Bryan D. Palmer, "Rethinking the historiography of
2003), 139-173.
3
immense level of research founding his arguments. Second is the dedication to developing a
cohesive narrative to explain the nature of the CPUSA. Gazing down at a series of inputs and
radicalismwas quickly turned into the arm of an alien ideological movement: Soviet
Communism.2
It is important to note that though Draper had an enormous influence over the
Traditionalist School, he is an easy target of critique for those opposed to it: In a show of crude
determinism, argues that Communism was, and always would be, an alien force. In an admitted
Despite this, he developed a factually sound thesis that is still carried on in the works of Klehr
and Haynes: that US Communism was dominated by the interests of the Soviet Union.
The first challenge to the ideas set forth by Draper is the Revisionist school, which
developed in the late 60s and began to compete with Traditionalism in the early 80s. Works such
as Issermans Which Side Are You On?, Schreckerss No Ivory Tower, and Naisons Communists
in Harlem During the Depression. Again, shaped by those with an interest in an obscure moment
in American political history, the Revisionist School owes much to the new-left. Ironically, a
political movement so opposed to the CPUSAs structure as an organization ended up being the
main force for its historical rehabilitation.3 The Revisionists largely focused specific moments,
2 Theodore Draper, The Roots of American Communism: New York: Viking Press, 1957,
pg 395.
experiences, and issues on the ground level.4 They took the worm's-eye view of the party, and
added immensely to our understanding of the communist movement because of it, but they were
not without criticism. The traditionalist school criticized these methods for their lack of focus on
the partys body, ideology, and international affiliation. To them, it was a history of communism
to be declassified and released. The idea of Moscow Gold, at one time met with sneers,
became more and more conclusive as the Soviet Union fell, and the archives were slowly opened
for examination. Vindicated, Traditionalists followed the paper trail into the realm of spies,
Though the available information and points of contention have changed, there still exists
a very basic rift over whether US Communism represents a genuine form of American
radicalism. This is most present in the way each school chooses to look at the party. The
Traditionalists see the CPUSA as an organism, but not so much in the functionalist sense. They
use the rigidly bureaucratic, Stalinized, and autocratic nature of the party to portray it as a body
which can only be understood by looking at the brain. The actions at the lower levels must be
4 Harvey Klehr, and John Earl Haynes, "Revising Revisionism: A New Look at American
Communism." Academic Questions 22, no. 4 (Fall2009 2009): pg 452.
5 Geoff Eley, International Communism in The Heyday of Stalin, New Left Review,
157 (January February, 1986), pg 92.
6 Bryan D Palmer, 2007, "American Communism in the 1920s: Striving for a Panoramic
View." American Communist History 6, no. 2: 139. Advanced Placement Source, pg 141.
5
contextualized within the choices of the chairs, and the choices of the chairs must in turn be
contextualized within their relationship with the Comintern (read USSR) specifically.
Like any body or state, the question of sovereignty naturally arises when looking at a set
of actions. This question is predominant in the minds and arguments of traditionalist scholars;
Since the CPUSAdue to the input of an alien actordoes not act in the sole interest of itself as
What begins as a discussion about the nature of the Communism movement becomes a proxy for
a larger, more political argument: who is responsible for the American Communist movement.
Of the contributions that Draper made to the study of the CPUSA, his understanding of what it
meant to be an American communist. Communism is much less a distinct ideology within the left
than it is an adherence to a praxis set forth by Lenin, and legitimized by the success of his
movement in founding the worlds first socialist regime.8 The first American communists came
from various traditions on the left: most notably syndicalism, anarchism, and non-doctrinal
European socialism.
While impact of Lenins thought on the party was substantial, the impact of the legitimacy that
he carried would come to fundamentally shape the dynamics of the party. To this extent, I feel
8 Theodore Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period.
New York: Viking Press, 1960, pg 10.
6
that Draper may have incidentally stressed the right factors for the wrong reasons when he
argued the bolshevization of the CPUSA as the only important moment in its history.9 What
many read as a naked display of Drapers liberal anti-communist leaning is actually a fairly
accurate analysis that is immediately cast aside in his clinical descriptions of factional struggle.
Though I support Palmers characterization of the relationship between the early Communist
movement and the Soviets, his description of Stalinism as a poison within an otherwise healthy
bodyalong with Hayes conceding description of it as a cancerignores that the party itself
was constructed in an image of Lenins life-work.10 11 The assumption that this body was healthy
could ironically be described as the tails-side of the same determinism that Palmer intended to
dispute.12
The Bolshevik model of party organization has its roots in the intellectual tradition that Lenin
10 Bryan D. Palmer, 2009, "What Was Great About Theodore Draper and What Was
Not." American Communist History 8, no. 1: 15-21. Academic Search Complete,
political world was steeped in a class-based conflict theory where the only factional interests
were those of the different classes. The Bolshevik party was the only genuine representative of
the proletarian class, and since the interests of that faction were universal amongst the party
members, there was no reason for sustained factional differences to exist. Carl Linden went as far
to describe Lenin as the opposite of James Madison; where Madison sought to mitigate the
effects of a forces inherent to humans, Lenin sought to stamp out the causes of faction through
institutional means.14 The anti-pluralism of the Leninist tradition did not prevent the emergence
of factionalism, but it did shape the dynamics of factional conflict in important ways.
Another important factor is the Communist conception of legitimacy which ultimately stems
from the partys monopoly on the interest of the proletarians, and the millenarian belief in the
coming collapse of capitalism due to the necessitated progress of history. These two sources of
intertwined but not always completely overlapping. In the case of the CPUSA, they represent a
struggle between the partys allegiance to an international movement dominated by the interests
The program of Leninism put numerous stresses on the Communist Parties, and the result
was a division seen in terms of orthodoxy and opportunism. This struggle, recognized early on in
the historiography, is attributed to the influence of the Soviet Union in a tone that could just as
14 Imdb, pg 336.
8
easily be describing the shock-induced twitches of a dead frog.15 Such a complex and delicate
As stated pages ago, the actor of focus for this paper is Earl Browder: leader of the party from
1934-45. A personification of the forces that would come to define the CPUSA, Browder was the
intellectual product of two traditions: midwestern agrarian populism and Marxism. His father
was steeped in the populist tradition before turning towards an unspecified variant of socialism.16
Benefactor of an unusually good political education from his parents, he entered into the
Socialist Party at 16around the time he began reading the classics of Marxism.17 Specifically,
he preferred Engels over Marx, and enjoyed Karl Kautskys Road To Power above all.18
From his exposure to the left before being introduced to Fosters syndicalism, we can gleam a
few things. First, both Engels and Kautsky are representative of a deterministic reading of Marx.
Ironically, Kautsky found himself apposing Lenin as much as Bernstein; the middle ground
between two violators of historical materialism. Kautsky argued that the role of a socialist in the
development was not to create wind, but to know which way it was blowing.19 Using
15 Draper, The Roots of American Communism, pg 395.
17 James Gilbert Ryan, 1997. Earl Browder: The Failure of American Communism. Tuscaloosa,
Ala.: University of Alabama Press, pg 10.
18 Ibid
revolution in the broad sense, he laminated on the fact that the socialist revolution would, in
fact, be quite boring relative to the bourgeois revolutions of the 1800s.20 Though I do not intend
to argue that the period of Browderism was, in any way, a conscious return to a purer roots,
these add to trends one can see in the development of Browders political identity.
Browders departure from home at 21 set the stage for the next chapter in his political
development. Joining the Kansas City branch of the Socialist Party, Browder began to work
alongside Foster after leaving the party due to the ousting of Haywood who had recently veered
to the left in support of syndicalist direct action. In fact, his departure was not due to any specific
sympathy for syndicalism; he was very much against the idea of direct action or violence at the
time.21 22 What relationship he had with Foster soon soured, however, when disagreements over
Browders success by the age of 26 were more than many achieve in a lifetime. He had pulled
himself out of rural poverty and could easily continue his trajectory towards a middle class.23
Despite this, he had yet to truly find a political home. It wasnt until his fullhearted adoption of
20 Ibid
the anti-war activism, and the time in jail as a result, that he really began to see a path forwards
for himself. Seeing his actions within the context of historical progression, Browder accepted the
By chance, his time in prison coincided with the pivotal moment in socialist history: the
Bolshevik revolution. Radicals everywhere were caught of guard by the events, never truly
believing they would see the socialist dream realized.24 Admiration for the successful program
and its leader created leftwards-trending pro-Bolshevik factions within the worlds Socialist
Parties and, when nudged by the newly created Comintern in 1919, began to split away to form
independent Communist Parties.25 Such a radical decision was legitimized by the success of the
Bolsheviks in Russia. Restless and more left-inclined socialists finally had a program for
enacting change rather than waiting for class consciousness to develop. Such a program appealed
greatly Earl Browder: raised on populism and Marxism, at least warm to syndicalist direct action,
and now sitting in jail as one of the most monumental moments in socialist history took place.
Once released from prison, Browder rejoined the socialist party and worked alongside Cannon to
move the Kansas branch left. Jailed again for his involvement in the partys pro-Bolshevik
Browders reincarceration had a profound effect on his mentality. Though the draw
Bolshevism had originally been intellectual and optimistic, he now held a fierce and burning
resentment.26 Like Lenin during his time in exile, Browder insisted on rejoining the world a well-
read man. He poured over Marx and Engels, and read what translations of Lenin existed at the
time.27 Most agonizing were recounts of the October revolution and the stream of news reaching
him. The prison had a second, more permanent effect on his psyche: extinguishing what was left
of the youthfully restless Browder capable of floating between movements and ideologies. As
Ryan writes, Until his anger subsided, the revolution was his work, his hobby, his mistress.28
When finally released, Browder had no doubt about his perceived purpose in the world.
Rationalizing his decision to abandon the option of a bourgeois life, he asked his wife to move
with him to New York. At her insistence on staying in Kansas, Browder abandoned both her and
Its here that we reach the conclusion of what could be described as either a lacking character
analysis or obnoxiously labored background history. I feel such a focus is essential in the study
of Browder as a political actor. By large, the consensus of research into political socialization
that the foundations of ones worldview largely constructed during adolescence, and changes
very little from then on. The driving force behind Browders involvement with the far-left is not
a specific ideological devotion to Leninism. Like Syndicalism before, Leninism was nothing
more than a set of tools for achieving something that Browder long sought. Leninand
27 Ibid
28 Ibid
eventually Stalinembodied the forward march of history towards a better world, and Browder
saw the chance to put his mark on history. Ryan would remark that Browder showed no instinct
for retrospection in his later life.30 This is largely to emphasize the single-mindedness of Browder
even in his final days, but it suggests that he could no more question the refraction of the
historical law through the accidental, than a sailor could question the wind on his face.31
Throughout his adult life, he would continue to show an extreme flexibility when it came
to the weeds of ideological disagreement. If one stripped away the needs of the national party,
the layers of line changes, and the demands of intra-party strategy, its unclear whether there
would be anything but the vaguest inclinations left. When Lenins Left Communism: an Infantile
Disorder was finally available in English, Browder read it and found it to his liking. In reality,
the work was an abrupt departure form Lenins earlier more left-wing stances. This could imply a
strain of pragmatism or just a more right-wing tendency. Whatever the case, it is clear from his
later conversations with Draper that much of the complexities in his thought during this period
had either been reduced to simplicity as they blurred into the past, or had never consciously been
After leaving for New York, Browder spent the next few years under the tutelage of Foster; both
had been deemed instrumental for the party due to experience with American labor unions.
30 Ibid, pg 272.
31 Trotsky, Leon. 2014. My Life, Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide Library.
e-book, Ch 40.
Conveniently, the party-line had basically shifted towards Browders favor on arrival, giving him
room to grow whenever Foster gave him room to. By 1926, Browder began to show a tact that
had been missing only three years earlier when he stormed a stage to denounce the leader of the
New York faction of the Comintern. Asked by Foster to help argue his factions case in front of a
Comintern arbitration, Browder arrived at a session presided over by Stalin himself. By chance,
Stalin turned to ask Browders opinion on an issue of concern. In a display of political and
ideological independence, Browder said that he was not informed well enough to speak rather
than simply agreeing with Foster.33 The act enraged Foster, who left Browder in Moscow to
continue pressuring for the Chicago factions interest. He would take the time to become adept at
Soviet politics. Browder would apparently remark later that he heard about a change in line on
the horizon, and didnt want to go down with Foster.34 Stalin himself had not yet committed any
of the atrocities he is known for, and argued a line of thinking most similar to the image of Lenin
informed by the later stances that Browder would know him best by.35
[Case Studies]
[Fall of Lovenstone]
Ironically, it would be a leftward turn that would set the stage for Browders move into the top
ranks of the party at the behest of Lovenstone. Stalins fight with Trotsky ended with the latters
expulsion from the party and an abrupt left-ward swing in party-line from which clashed with
33 Klehr, The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade, pg 23
Stalins former ally Bukharin. These moves rippled through the international movement with
Cannon managed to get a copy of Trotskys critique of Stalin, and soon built a small but critical
coalition in secret.36 In an attempt to defend their faction, Foster and Bittelman turned on Cannon
and his allies and accused them of factionalism. In a stereotypical irony, Lovenstone used the
accusation of his rivals factionalism to his own factions advantage, employing a series of trials
Trotskyism, with its leftward slant and international focus, had the potential to catch on in
the American party as opposition to Lovenstone and the rightists grew, but Cannons predictions
of a rightward move from Stalin never game to fruition. Stalin, due to a host of domestic issues,
swerved left taking the same hardline stance that Lenin had once critiqued. In effect, this cut off
any potential sympathy for Trotskyism as even the most principled leftists saw no reason to jump
ship.37
Lovenstone came out on top, and the international stood by him despite his rightist
leanings. Despite this, he wasnt all safe. The line was moving left fast, and his associations with
Bukharin soon caught up with him. In an amazing show of political might, the Foster group
undercut Lovenstone at the expense of Foster himself. Browder and others penned an article
critical of Foster for not accepting the policy of dual-unionism. Browder saw his position
opening up from the beginning of the conflict; untouched by the previous factional battles due to
36 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period, pg 365, As
far as I can tell, this account is given by Browder during his second interview session. This
would normally indicate bias, but Cannon worked closely with Draper and must have approved
of the account.
37 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia : the Formative Period, pg 375.
15
his time in Asia, he stanchly supported the third period line in an attempt to win favor with the
Comintern.38 Almost any book will point out that this is a total reversal for Browder; he may
have been acting opportunistically, but his position was reasoned in the ability to use dual unions
as bargaining leverage in gaining influence. This change in heart cannot easily be described as a
blind adherence to Stalins party line, either, as he developed this opinion through deliberation
The move paid off. After an attempted deferral to the Comintern from the leftist faction
was shot down by the Lovenstone faction which, at this point, knew the Comintern would rule
against them, the directives came through from the Comintern explaining that Lovenstone no
longer had the confidence of the body. Even worse for Lovenstone were the directives which,
much harsher than the letter, betrayed the true intentions of the Comintern in advising the
removal of Lovenstone and installment of Foster.40 When Lovenstone, in an attempt to keep his
seat, wrote to Stalin pleading for him to reverse the Cominterns directive and allow open
elections, Stalin sent back a letter requesting Lovenstones return to Russia, a sure elimination
from the political scene, but permitted elections. Lovenstone then turned to the convention,
expecting his lineup of loyal delegates to be enough to keep his position. It quickly became a
spectacle, as Stalin personally commented on the obvious factionalism present in the party, and
Lovenstones opponents used it as an opportunity to point out his variations from the party line,
40 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period, pg 401.
16
labeling him an American Exceptionalist.41 To Stalin and the Comintern more broadly, this was a
enough, the Bolshevik structure of party organization does not have a very good method of
allocating power at the highest ranks.42 Lenin, for instance, left no chair to fill; the power that
Stalin accumulated was largely informal and based on charismatic authority. After struggling to
cement leadership by subverting anyone who could pose a threat, seeing the ability of a singular
American leadership under Lovenstone to challenge his domination over the international
simply weaken the party, the Comintern established a five-man secretariat. Browder,
spectacularly positioned for leadership, but turned down the option in hopes that the situation
would stabilize.43 His intuition paid off, as the Comintern soon became unhappy with acting
secretariat Bedachts performance, as were the lower levels of the party. Browder was quietly
placed in the leadership with few opponents, little grounds to attack him, and the opportunity to
create political networks through the appointment of offices that had been vacated during the
[Rise to Power]
41 Draper, American Communism and Soviet Russia: the Formative Period, pg 377-441
The early stages of Browders leadership is dominated by the struggle between he, Foster, and
Weinstone for control over the Comintern. Such a struggle was ultimately a result of personality.
Browder and Foster had, at this point, shared a long and labored history within the movement;
both held a good deal of spite for the other. Browder plainly resented his former mentors air of
superiority and inability to let grow of the events that took place during Lovenstones ousting. He
would later boil Foster down to an anarchist, no principles, urge to personal power, no real
education.45 It was true that Foster had let go of little, but he also felt humiliated by Browders
appointment as an equal.46
Lovenstone, the radicalism of the period did not suit his outlook or composure Still dressing like
minimize the militancy that the third period demanded on paper.47 As Browder consolidated
power, he continued to push for more pragmatism within the context of third-period stringency
as the performance complaints from the Comintern increased.48 Incompliance with the party-line
didnt harm him, however. In fact, he soon surpassed his co-leaders in admiration showing
himself to be pragmatic and capable in leadership, good with finances, and adept at courting the
Comintern.
47 Ibid, pg 47.
The battle heated up first between Weinstone and Browder. The latter was chastised on
multiple occasions for the discord he was sewing within the party as well as a few actions they
found problematic. A much clearer party-line was handed down in response, and each of the
three leaders responsibilities were clarified to them. Weinstone, seeing his chance to pin
Browder against the new line, penned a report blaming him for the partys failures.
Within a couple of months, the feud became a major concern for the Comintern and their
quest for stability within the American movement. Attempts at arbitration and restructuring the
partys leadership were suggested, but before anything was decided upon, Foster succumbed to
lack of sleep and an intense workload. Its unclear whether it was a stroke, heart attack, or mental
breakdown, but regardless it effectively removed him from political life for the time being.
Realizing that now just one person stood between them and the unchallenged leader of
the party, Weinstone and Browder went at it. Weinstones strategy was to use Browders de-facto
leadership to blame him for the problems that the party had been facing.49 Showing an
impressive political tact, Browder described how Weinstones bickering had limited both of
them, and declared that the situation had to change, even if the change was his relocation.
Deferring to the Comintern was risky, but Browder had emphasized the personal nature of the
conflict enough to not raise fear of factionalism. The Comintern moved Weinstone out of the
party and abolished the secretariat, intending for Foster and Browder to share power under the
50 Ibid, pg 55.
19
From Browders rise, we can surmise a few major trends. First, the difference in factional
struggle between Lovenstones fall and Browders rise. The first was largely a result of Soviet
influence. Browder and Foster both sought to take down Lovenstone, but they could hardly be
described as leading the charge. The second, however, typifies faction within Communist
organizations. Browders ability to achieve de-facto leadership of the party acted to destabilize
the party leadership from the beginning, and Fosters illness had let the floodgates loose. The
second trend is Browders growing knack for political maneuvering. Knowing that his personal
legitimacy was weak due to the partys failures, he instead tactfully differed the decision to the
Comintern. Why spend your own political capitol when you can spend someone elses?
[Democratic Front]
The time before the founding of the Democratic Front marked an important change in Browders
attitude: rather than seeing the revolution as something that he would personally bring about, he
once again believed that it was distant, and would be reached in its own time.51 As soon as he
gained power over the movement, he began putting a more American face on it, and this process
only accelerated when Stalin announced the Popular Front period opening up the opportunity to
collaborate with other leftist parties. No longer forced to sell revolution to Americans, Browder
accelerated his earlier attempts to Americanize the Communist movement by linking the history
reverberated throughout the movement in ways that far transcended their control.52 In many
51 Ibid, pg 94.
Front, pg 47
20
ways, control itself was relinquished with party-line as communications [between the CPUSA
and its local organizations] became irregular, meetings un-systematic, directives confined to
critical issues53
When it came time for 36 election, the logic of popular frontism was put to the test. Browder
caught on to the fact that the Comintern would request he endorse FDR. Showing common
sense, Browder insisted that supporting FDR would help his opponents red-baiting. The
Comintern sided with Browder, and asked that be the presidential candidate. The resulting
success of this move would go on to establish Browder as someone capable of influencing the
international movement.
Convinced that the New Deal coalition was unstable, Browder urged the International
that supporting the Democratic coalition from within as a way to build inroads with progressive
democrats was a much more beneficial use of time than investing in a third party. Miraculously,
the Comintern approved of his move. Browder was ecstatic; imagining himself as have made a
[The Ousting]
[Comparative Models]
53 New Studies, Remaking America: Communists and Liberals in the Popular Front, pg
68
21
o Historical Context
o Linking origin with maturity
o Analysis of cyclical changes in party prominence
Structural
Behavioral
Functionalism
Ideological
[Conclusion]
Allowing American Communism into the category of indigenous radicalism will leave
either whitewash or a stain on its history. It is as comforting to cast it out as the results of
incredible opportunity to look at the nature of radical movements seeking popularity, the
dynamics of faction, or the ways in which ideology can shape a movementa person. When the
social history reached the study of American communism they were quickly branded revisionists
for ignoring the question of Soviet domination. In some cases, the assessment is fair, but such a
devoted focus to the question of genuine radicalism betrays an intent. If you move outside of the
context of a very specific political debate, the question becomes meaningless. With all of the
For a brief moment, Earl Browder rode two horses yoked together by historical
accident.54 In doing so, he displayed the flexibilities and limits of the system and ideology he had
long placed his faith in. No doubt he believed that he was doing good, that history would absolve
him for what little harm hed done; such thinking was as the foundation of everything he did. He
can represent Soviet domination, or Americanism, or both. I am convinced that the fall of the
soviet union did represent the end of history in this argument, and whats left is a game
definitions.
Bibliography
Primary
Browder, Earl. Notes and excerpts from draft of projected work A Political Autobiography.
Typed, Emory University, no date.
Browder, Earl to Theadore Draper Correspondence between Browder and Draper. Typed,
Emory University, 1956-1959.
Draper, Theodore. Earl Browder. Transcripts of Draper interviews with Browder. Typed,
Emory University, June 2, 1953 October 22, 1954.
Draper, Theodore. Earl Browder. Transcripts of Draper interview with Browder. Typed, Emory
University, June 15, 1955.
Trotsky, Leon. 2014. My Life, Adelaide, Australia: The University of Adelaide Library. e-book.
23
Secondary
Carl A. Linden, Oppisition and Faction in Communist Party Leaderships in Faction Politics:
Political Parties and Factionalism in Comparative Perspective, Santa Barbara, Calif:
ABC-Clio, c1978., 1978. Georgia College and State University, pg 364.
Draper, Theodore. The Roots of American Communism. New York,: Viking Press, 1957.
Draper, Theodore. American Communism and Soviet Russia, the formative period. New York:
Eley, Geoff, International Communism in The Heyday of Stalin, New Left Review, 157,
Haynes, John Earl. "Poison or cancer? Stalinism and American communism." American
Communist History 2, no. 2 (December 2003): 183. Advanced Placement Source,
Klehr, Harvey. The Heyday of American Communism: The Depression Decade. New York: Basic
Books, 1984.
24
Klehr, Harvey, John Earl Haynes, and Fridrikh Igorevich Firsov. The Secret World of American
Klehr, Harvey, and John Earl Haynes. "Revising Revisionism: A New Look at American
Communism." Academic Questions 22, no. 4 (Fall2009 2009): 452. Advanced Placement
Source, EBSCOhost
Ryan, James Gilbert. "The Making of a Native Marxist: The Early Career of Earl Browder." The
Ryan, James Gilbert. 1997. Earl Browder : The Failure of American Communism. Tuscaloosa,