Anger and Revolutionary Writing in the Radical Literature Collection
by Sarah Nove
Broken down to their simplest parts, the stories that dominate many of the works in the Radical Literature Collection are pretty black and white. They boil down to classic Good Guy/Bad Guy tales — Proletariat versus Bourgeoisie, McCarthy’s America versus Soviet "Commies," Socialism versus Capitalism, etc. What makes these narratives so compelling is the way writers, politicians, and activists brought them to life. They are stories animated by anger, passion, fear, and intellect.
Two items in the Radical Literature Collection — Vladimir Lenin’s "A Letter to American Workingmen" and William Z. Foster’s "N.Y. Herald Tribune’s 23 Questions about the Communist Party" — illustrate the ways in which authors can frame the same story to persuade their audiences with varying degrees of success.
It is worth noting that the audiences of these two pieces are not clear-cut. Based on its title, it seems that Lenin hoped his letter would reach a wide audience of "American Workingmen." And, it is certainly possible that copies of Lenin’s "Letter" did land in the hands of some non-communists, but it is most likely that the majority of its readership was communist-leaning. After all, it was originally published in The Class Struggle, a marixst magazine, and was later reprinted by the Socialist Publication Society in Brooklyn ("The Class Struggle — Contents by Issue"). Foster’s essay, on the other hand, reached a much broader audience, as it was published in a Republican newspaper, The New York Herald Tribune, once a competitor to The New York Times (Roberts). Foster’s readers, at least for the initial printing, were probably not as radical as he — an important factor to note while reading this essay.
Cover of Vladamir Lenin's "A Letter to American Workingmen" (1918)
In Lenin’s narrative, the Communist Party seeks to save the working class, to whom he writes, from the bourgeoisie’s oppression. He begins to establish himself as an ally to the working class by refuting anti-communist rhetoric:
We are accused of having brought devastation upon Russia. Who is it that makes these accusations? The train-bearers of the bourgeoisie, of that same bourgeoisie that almost completely destroyed the culture of Europe, that has dragged the whole continent back to barbarism, that has brought hunger and destruction to the world. (Lenin 10)
The framing of this quote establishes the bourgeoisie as a "them," an other — he directs his anger away from the reader and focuses his attention on a common enemy. However, there is still an acknowledgement that he and his readers are not the same. Lenin addresses his readers, "the revolutionary proletariat of America" (1), almost as students of Soviet communists like himself. His readers are both his "comrades" and his disciples. He explains, "we know that it may take a long time before help can come from you, comrades, American Workingmen, for the development of the revolution" (Lenin 14). Lenin acts as a guide, rather than a politician; his words suggest humility and patience. Through this tone, he builds trust with his audience, as he sheds the negative connotations that come with the ‘politician’ label.
Although the narrative is the same (‘the Proletariat must rise up against bourgeois oppression’), Foster positions himself very differently. He addresses the reader with an unusual tone: he speaks with frustration, anger, and sometimes even annoyance. Where Lenin shields readers by othering the enemy, Foster sprays his vitriol in all directions. He refers to opponents of socialism as "hordes of stupid, blind, and reactionary Red-baiters and warmongers" (Foster 6) — in fact, name-calling is a common occurance in "23 Questions." Foster’s language paints a very black-and-white image of American politics, in which socialists are the "true patriots" (26) and everyone else is villainous. Foster even states,
Instead of accepting capitalism, with its war policies, as a loyal duty, as the capitalists demand, we consider it to be our highest patriotic duty to fight against that barbaric system and all its reactionary works and to strive for a social system worthy of a civilized nation, namely, Socialism. (5)
Cover of "The N.Y. Herald Tribune's 23 Questions about the Communist Party" by William Z. Foster (1948)
This excerpt exhibits a few key elements of Foster’s attitude in "23 Questions," namely the establishment of stark opposition between socialists and non-socialists, as well as the harsh criticism of non-socialists. This concept of the socialist as the ‘true American patriot’ (a thread that can be traced through many socialist works in the Radical Literature Collection) suggests that real patriots support socialism — and, by extension, non-socialists are not "true patriots" (Foster 26). Additionally, his characterization of capitalism as "barbaric" implies that its supporters must, too, be uncivilized and cruel.
Both Foster and Lenin use words such as "barbaric," "destruction," and other dramatic, negative terms to describe their opponents. The difference between them, once again, is framing. Lenin’s criticism targets "the bourgeoisie," whereas Foster criticizes a broad spectrum of people, which includes his own readers. There is no nuance to Foster’s argument — he lumps all non-socialists together as greedy, rotten capitalists. Foster’s tone is abrasive and unpleasant to read; he is spiteful and aggressive with his audience. Rather than positioning himself as a protector of the innocent public, as Lenin does, he positions himself as a critic of anyone and everyone who disagrees with him.
When Lenin uses harsh diction, he does so in a defensive manner. Only in response to his opponents’ attacks does Lenin react with anger. For example, when discussing American anti-communist sentiment, he writes "to accuse [communists] of ‘destruction’ of industries and ‘terror’ is hypocrisy or clumsy pedantry, shows an incapability of understanding the most elemental fundamentals of the raging, climatic force of the class struggle, called Revolution" (Lenin 8). By first highlighting a claim and then tearing it down, Lenin portrays his anger as a product of self-defense, rather than aggression. As a result, Lenin’s anger seems justified, which almost invites his readers to be angry alongside him.
Although the narratives Lenin and Foster portray are, in essence, the same, the difference in tone between the two works changes their appeal entirely. Lenin’s "Letter" is versatile — it has the potential to reaffirm the conviction of existing communists and persuade non-socialist Americans to join the party. Foster’s "23 Questions" may reinforce existing anger in its readers, but it does so at the cost of alienating its less-ideological and anti-communist readers. Foster’s goal for "23 Questions" was to highlight the "vilification and Red-baiting attacks that are now being directed against the Communist Party" (2), but "23 Questions" only regurgitates the vilification Foster so passionately loathes.
Anger is a common feature of revolutionary rhetoric, but it is a difficult tool to wield. In examining the ways in which Lenin and Foster directed their anger, radical writers of the future can learn how to spin their anger into something productive and, potentially, beautiful.
