Socialist Outlook : SO/14 - Spring 2008

History

The FBI against the US SWP

Dan Jakopovich

Dan Jakopovich investigates the FBI’s counterintelligence activities against the US SWP.

‘As long as [anti-communism] remains national policy, an…important requirement is an aggressive covert psychological, political and paramilitary organization more effective, more unique, and if necessary, more ruthless than that employed by the enemy.’ The Doolittle Committee Report, 1954. [1]

The early days of repression

From the early 1940s the US Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) was subjected to FBI counterintelligence disruption activities. It was the first organisation to fall prey to the Smith Act prosecutions in 1941 (due to information provided to the government by the FBI), which criminalised revolutionary socialist beliefs. The Smith Act Trial prosecuted prominent SWP leaders James P. Cannon and Farrell Dobbs along with 17 other leading members of the Party, as well as union activists of the Teamsters union in Minneapolis where the SWP had managed to retain a degree of influence since the strike of 1934. The SWP was the only US socialist organisation to advocate strikes and a militant labour policy during the Second World War. By contrast the Communist Party of America, after the failure of the Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact and the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, began to advocate industrial and social peace with US capitalism. It even supported the prosecution of the SWP under the Smith Act but also became its victim a few years later. Twelve defendants received 16 month terms and the remaining eleven were given 12 month terms. [2] The destruction of the SWP’s base in the Teamsters union helped pave the way for the mafia leader Jimmy Hoffa as the future leader of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The establishment preferred the mafia to socialists as labour leaders.

The COINTELPRO programme against the SWP

In his ‘Introduction’ to the book on the FBI’s activities Noam Chomsky explains,

In late October [1971], lists of supporters, contributors, and subscribers to the party newspaper were stolen from the campaign headquarters of the Michigan Socialist Workers Party. A few months later, the home of a Socialist Workers Party organizer was robbed. Valuables were ignored, but membership lists and internal party bulletins were stolen.(...) persons whose names appeared on the stolen lists were then contacted and harassed by FBI agents, and a personal letter of resignation from the party, apparently stolen from headquarters, was transmitted by the FBI to the Civil Service Commission. [3]

The FBI’s disruption programme against the SWP was to be initiated, ‘on a very selective basis’ in 1961, during (and seemingly with the tacit support of) Kennedy’s liberal democratic administration. [4] Yet the government’s own record of FBI activity against the SWP ‘enumerates 20,000 wiretaps and 12,000 days of listening ‘bugs’ between 1943 and 1963. It documents 208 FBI burglaries of offices and homes of the SWP and its members, resulting in the theft or photographing of 9,864 private documents’. [5] Tactics included sending forged letters to activists and their supporters, families, employers, landlords, college administrators etc., creating leaflets published in the name of radical groups and individuals in order to ridicule and antagonise, planting undercover ‘agents provocateurs’ to spy and encourage violence, disunity or totalitarian tendencies (for instance) within that group in order to discredit the organisation in the eyes of the public, create articles which the ‘cooperative media’ ran as their own etc.

Disrupting SWP electoral campaigns

FBI activities against the SWP largely focused on disrupting the party’s electoral campaigns. In 1961, the FBI attempted to cause propaganda damage to them over their nomination of a black man, John Clarence Franklin, as candidate for Manhattan Borough President.

Careful consideration has been given to the fact that the SWP in New York City is now getting some propaganda attention through the press, television and radio because it has succeeded in placing on the ballot four candidates for office in the New York City fall elections. With this background in mind, a review has been made of the candidates chosen by the SWP to represent it on the ballot and it has been found that one of them, JOHN CLARENCE FRANKLIN, appears to be particularly vulnerable in causing embarrassment to the SWP. [6]

Franklin’s criminal past, including petty and grand larceny, burglary, drunkenness and even murder, was probably unknown to the Party leadership. Exposing this record could severely damage the Party’s public reputation, cause demoralisation within party ranks and led to Franklin’s depoliticisation (indeed, soon after his past was exposed, Franklin retired from politics), as well as providing ammunition for rival groups such as the Communist Party.

The FBI also tried to undermine the campaign of Sam Jordan, the independent black candidate for San Francisco mayor, as well as the SWP’s involvement in his campaign. The FBI sent an anonymous red-baiting letter to Jordan from a supposed ‘true supporter’ disappointed by the SWP’s alleged dominance over his campaign. [7]

There was also the sustained campaign against Clifton DeBerry, the SWP’s 1964 presidential candidate. Derogatory information was sent to the media referring to DeBerry’s past arrests on charges of non-support of his wife and children and also referring to his living with the daughter of the National Secretary of the SWP. DeBerry seems to have been the one the FBI was most concerned with, no doubt partly because of his close relationship with Malcolm X. However, the FBI seems to have been unable to push these personal ‘scandals’ on the media agenda. [8]

Judy White was the SWP candidate for Governor of the State of New York in 1964 during increased growth of the movement against the war in Vietnam. She was yet another victim of the FBI apparatus. Her campaign was sabotaged through the publishing of an article stating she was less than 30 years old, making her ineligible to run by law. [9]

Another notable instance is the FBI’s attack on the presidential campaign of SWP leader Fred Halstead in 1968. The FBI was particularly keen on diminishing the effectiveness of Halstead’s visit to the military personnel in Vietnam. Planting red-baiting information in the press was again the favoured tactic. ‘The alleged purpose of this trip is to reach GIs on foreign bases in order to propagandize on behalf of this Communist splinter organization in the US. ... It should be an interesting experience for Mr. HALSTEAD when he encounters the men who have served both their own country and others in the interest of freedom.’ [10] In fact, the SWP presidential candidate seems to have found no hostility towards him among troops, but there was apparently an unsuccessful attempt made to involve him and his party comrade in a bar fight between black and white soldiers, which would have attracted some negative publicity. [11]

Provoking splits with civil rights and black groups

Special attention was given to discrediting the SWP’s role in the Committee to Aid the Monroe Defendants (CAMD), set up after a series of attacks on the Monroe black community, including an attack on two boys aged eight and ten years charged by the racist local authorities with ‘assault upon a white female’ for being kissed by a white playmate; the other boy was charged as an ‘accomplice’. They were tried and committed to a correctional institution, ‘possibly until they are twenty-one.’ [12] After civil rights activists were attacked by a mob in 1961, the police arrested the civil rights activists. A phony kidnapping charge was made against several local black protesters and freedom-riders. This led to the creation of the Committee to Aid the Monroe Defendants, and the SWP was among the first to come to their defence. The FBI tried to discredit the committee and openly stated that it wanted to ‘cause the SWP and CAMD to cease their efforts on behalf of the defendants.’ [13] When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) endorsed CAMD, an anonymous phone call was made and an anonymous letter was sent to the NAACP warning of the SWP’s domination within CAMD: ‘... It won’t do the work of the NAACP in the South a bit of good if it’s known its funds and good name are backing a group in the pocket of the SWP. A true friend and supporter of Negro rights.’ [14] An attempt to generate mutual suspicions within the movement was taken to a new level when George Weissman, an SWP activist involved in CAMD, was accused in an anonymous letter, a newspaper clipping and even a poem, of stealing defence committee funds because he was in the house when the robbery occurred.

After he announced his break from the Nation of Islam, Malcolm X began to cooperate more and more closely with the SWP as a staunch defender of the rights of blacks. Focused disruption work with regards to this emerging coalition seems to have started after Malcolm X’s mysterious death on February 21, 1965. ‘It would appear that the apparent attempt by the SWP to exploit the followers of the late Malcolm X for its own benefit offers some potential for the institution of disruptive tactics.’ [15] It continues, ‘SWP influence on the followers of MALCOLM X would be disrupted by emphasizing the atheism of the SWP as opposed to the basic religious orientation of the MMI [Muslim Mosque Inc.]’. [16] In August 1965 the New York office wrote to FBI Director Hoover that the campaign was successful and the SWP suffered a marked and continued loss of influence among these decreasingly militant black organisations. [17]

Creation of Disunity Within the Anti-War Movement

Sowing the seeds of suspicion and distrust was a central COINTELPRO tactic and probably still is. As the Revolutionary Youth Movement (a split-off from Students for a Democratic Society) and the SWP’s youth section YSA began to come closer together, the FBI sent an anonymous letter to a RYM leader claiming they are being manipulated by the ‘Trots’ for ulterior purposes. It was stated that, ‘(i)t would appear that it would be greatly to the Bureau’s advantage not to let these two major factions in the Atlanta antiwar movement become overly friendly and cooperative.’ [18] The FBI’s analysis of the anti-war and New Left politics and rhetoric made its counterintelligence activities quite powerful. When a leaflet was manufactured by the FBI criticising the SWP for failing to take on the ‘pigs’, it unfortunately corresponded to a definite current of thought within the movement. A sometimes ingenious use of cartoon leaflets by the FBI also caused considerable damage to the SWP. [19]

Firing socialist teachers

‘Protecting young minds’ from anti-capitalist dissent was the FBI’s special duty. ‘(T)eachers prove an obvious target with their strategic “access” to “fertile young minds”, as one memo put it.’ [20] The FBI informed the Austin school authorities of the ‘subversive’ nature of Evelyn Rose Sell, an SWP member, and in 1970 the school district refused to renew her job contract. [21] The case of Arizona State University Philosophy Professor and SWP member Morris Starsky is also prominent. A letter written by the FBI [22] to the university authorities (allegedly by an anonymous ‘concerned mother’ afraid of dangerous subversives teaching her kids), as well as a fabricated and unsubstantiated claim that Starsky physically attacked a suicidal colleague, [23] cost Starsky his job.

Conclusion

Most of the known documents concerning the FBI’s actions against SWP were revealed to the public in 1974 and 1975 through the SWP lawsuit against the FBI. The SWP was compensated with $264,000 by the government on the order of the judge, and a permanent injunction was issued ‘against any use of information obtained by the FBI in violation of the rights of the SWP and YSA’. [24] The discovery of FBI disruption was relatively well publicised even in the mass media. The important lesson is that the establishment concedes nothing without a fight.

The morally criminal, illegal and unconstitutional nature of the FBI’s attempts to destroy the prospects for any kind of socialist alternative in America becomes even more significant when we remember the millions killed by the unchecked force of US imperialism, or the tens of millions still dying today in this savage system which the FBI so faithfully protects.

The FBI’s activities point to the need for marxists to treat individuals and groups with respect wherever possible, with an open mind and the benefit of the doubt. A positive example is the sound reaction of the black SWP activist Boutelle who received an anonymous FBI letter allegedly written by a racist SWP member, [25] only to be reassured that this wasn’t really written by an SWP member and was probably an FBI stunt. It is indispensable to oppose unsubstantiated prejudices, doubt unchecked claims, avoid surrendering to paranoid impulses, maintain good comradely relations with other groups and individuals, preserve an orderly, functional, cohesive organisational structure resistant to attacks, and remain sensitive to the requirements of building a sustainable ideological counter-hegemony or broad legitimacy. The FBI’s disruption activities also reinforce the case for anti-dogmatism and anti-sectarianism in the socialist movement.

Dan Jakopovich

NOTES

[1] Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall (ed.), The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States, South End Press, Cambridge MA, 2002, p49

[2] See Socialism on Trial, The Courtroom Testimony of James P. Cannon, Resistance Books, 1999 - www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1941/socialism

[3] Noam Chomsky, ‘Introduction’ in Nelson Blackstock, COINTELPRO: The FBI’s Secret War on Political Freedom, Pathfinder, 1988, p.11.

[4] Hearings on Intelligence Activities, Vol.6, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, 94th Congress, 1st Session, US Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1975, p.377 in Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall (ed.), op.cit., p.50.

[5] Margaret Jayko (ed.), FBI on Trial: The Victory in the Socialist Workers Party Suit Against Government Spying, Pathfinder Press, New York, 1988, p.6.

[6] Special Agent in Charge (SAC), New York to Director, Oct. 20, 1961 in Nelson Blackstock, op.cit., p.93.

[7] SAC, San Francisco, to FBI Director, October 4, 1963 in Nelson Blackstock, op.cit., p159.

[8] Nelson Blackstock, ibid., pp73-90.

[9] SAC New York to FBI Director, 24.10.1966 in Nelson Blackstock, ibid., pp52-53.

[10] SAC, New York to Director, July 23, 1968 in Nelson Blackstock, ibid., pp64-65.

[11] Nelson Blackstock, ibid., pp70-71.

[12] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p101

[13] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p.103.

[14] SAC, New York to Director, May 25, 1962 - http://www.icdc.com/ paulwolf/cointelpro/swp.htm.

[15] FBI Director to New York office, May 25, 1965 in Nelson Blackstock, op.cit., p.112.

[16] SAC, New York to Director, June 15, 1965 in Nelson Blackstock, op.cit., p.113.

[17] SAC, New York to FBI Driector, August 25, 1965 in Nelson Blackstock, ibid., p.115.

[18] SAC Atlanta to FBI Director, January 21 1970 in Nelson Blackstock, ibid., p. 138.

[19] See for instance Nelson Blackstock, ibid., p. 151.

[20] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p. 171.

[21] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p. 172.

[22] SAC Phoenix, to FBI Director, October 10, 1963 in Nelson Blackstock, ibid., pp.184-185.

[23] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p.186.

[24] Nelson Blackstock, ibid, p.8.

[25] Director to SAC, New York, Oct. 8, 1969 - http://www.icdc.com/ paulwolf/cointelpro/swp.htm.

back to top