American Lenin

This is an extremely entertaining pamphlet about Samuel (Sam) Adams, a leader of the American Revolution best known as one of the organizers of the “Boston Tea Party”. Today, Sam Adams have been overshadowed by Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and maybe even his cousin John Adams, but he was famous and notorious back in the days.

“Sam Adams and the American Revolution” by Harry Frankel (a pseudonym for Harry Braverman) is written from a Marxist and Trotskyist perspective. It was published by the Socialist Workers Party in 1971. The articles contained in the pamphlet had previously been published in SWP's newspaper The Militant in 1951-52. Braverman left the SWP already in 1953 and helped form the Socialist Union of America, a competing group. Why the SWP decided to republish articles written by a defector from their party is unclear. Perhaps Braverman's piece on Adams was too good to be wasted. I admit I had great fun reading it. It's a real nugget!

Braverman does his best to paint Sam Adams as an American version of Russian revolutionary leader V I Lenin. Adams was a professional revolutionary, formed the first revolutionary party in North America, represented the interests of the radical workers and farmers, was no Kerensky, made the revolution under defensive slogans like the Bolsheviks, etc. At one point, Braverman explicitly compares Sam Adams to Lenin and Robespierre, which to him is a great commendation. At another point, the author mentions that Adams was known as The Old Man. So was Trotsky!

The pamphlet contains hidden references to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, Stalin's People's Fronts (which Braverman rejects), the Transitional Program, dual power through soviets and militias, and perhaps even the history of the SWP. Here is Braverman's description of fellow Patriot John Hancock: “Hancock was an asset to the radicals, being wealthy and, at the same time, quite popular. But he was a constant source of anxiety to Sam Adams. He was inordinately vain, a limelight seeker, the very opposite of Adams. He was uncertain in his politics, a strutting popinjay who deserted in the hard days, a self-seeker who placed personal whims over the needs of the movement. Adams had to deal with Hancock with the greatest of tact in order to get some good out of him. (…) In the hard days of 1770-72, Hancock deserted and split the radical camp, taking with him a `moderate' wing, which he led in a number of battles against Adams.” OK, let me guess. “Adams” is Trotskyist leader Jim Cannon, while “Hancock” is arch-traitor James Burnham? Makes sense…

Apart from the entertainment factor, Braverman-Frankel also makes a number of points even your favorite Amazon reviewer found interesting. Thus, Braverman believes that the “War of Independence” was simultaneously a civil war and a class war, not simply a conflict between a new nation and its old imperial masters. At least in the northern states, the aristocratic section of the old ruling class was virtually expropriated, many of its members fleeing to Canada while their vast estates were confiscated by the revolutionary governments without compensation. Slavery was soon abolished in the northern states, and the power of the merchant class was also curtailed. Of course, the new class which rose to prominence was the industrial bourgeoisie, but as a Marxist, Braverman considers this historically progressive. Socialism is a later stage, made possible only by industrial capitalism. Braverman largely skips over the situation in the slave-holding South (apparently a hot potato), claims that many Blacks fought for the Patriots (actually, most Blacks who had a choice supported the British) and says very little about Sam Adams' post-revolutionary stances, which were less radical.

That being said, I nevertheless consider “Sam Adams and the American Revolution” to be something of a forgotten classic. Five stars!