Scan barcode
lenin_lover_69's review against another edition
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
slow-paced
5.0
Content Warnings
Moderate: Sexism, Death, and Racism
jules1398's review against another edition
Tried reading for book club. Didn't enjoy. Still went to discussion. Not inspired to finish.
hopebrasfield's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
slow-paced
4.0
Notes on notes, and the purpose of this review:
I took a lot of notes while reading this. I won't be attempting to fit all of that into this review, but hopefully the review itself will be helpful if a friend is thinking of reading it or if I'm coming back to remind myself what I did or didn't like or did or didn't learn.
How to read The Romance of American Communism:
There are different ways to approach a book like this: are you reading for the primary source material, the author's analysis, or some combination of the two?
Take, as examples, Sarah Schulman's Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT UP New York, 1987-1993 and Jacqueline Jones' Goddess of Anarchy: The Life and Times of Lucy Parsons, American Radical. Schulman's book I generally enjoyed; her reporting was good, but she could have used better editing, and if you're familiar with her work in general I'm sure you'd agree she isn't exactly the best source for analysis. I also generally enjoyed Jones' book, though my enjoyment was absolutely in spite of Jones' garbage analysis.
Similarly, although I very much appreciated the primary source material in Romance, I was perplexed by Gornick's choices, analysis, and conclusions. At the same time, understanding her analysis and conclusions are important for contextualizing the choices she makes in terms of who she interviews (and how!).
> Schulman: read the analysis with a grain of salt, but do not skip the book itself
> Jones: skip the analysis, steal the book itself if you can, and only read the primary sources
> Gornick: unfortunately, you need to read her analysis because it colors the primary source material in really important ways
A few good lines (though I've saved so many quotes from the primary sources I don't know where to start, this is really just a FEW good lines from the book--there are a lot of things to talk about in this book I can't possibly cover in a review!):
I took a lot of notes while reading this. I won't be attempting to fit all of that into this review, but hopefully the review itself will be helpful if a friend is thinking of reading it or if I'm coming back to remind myself what I did or didn't like or did or didn't learn.
How to read The Romance of American Communism:
There are different ways to approach a book like this: are you reading for the primary source material, the author's analysis, or some combination of the two?
Take, as examples, Sarah Schulman's Let the Record Show: A Political History of ACT UP New York, 1987-1993 and Jacqueline Jones' Goddess of Anarchy: The Life and Times of Lucy Parsons, American Radical. Schulman's book I generally enjoyed; her reporting was good, but she could have used better editing, and if you're familiar with her work in general I'm sure you'd agree she isn't exactly the best source for analysis. I also generally enjoyed Jones' book, though my enjoyment was absolutely in spite of Jones' garbage analysis.
Similarly, although I very much appreciated the primary source material in Romance, I was perplexed by Gornick's choices, analysis, and conclusions. At the same time, understanding her analysis and conclusions are important for contextualizing the choices she makes in terms of who she interviews (and how!).
> Schulman: read the analysis with a grain of salt, but do not skip the book itself
> Jones: skip the analysis, steal the book itself if you can, and only read the primary sources
> Gornick: unfortunately, you need to read her analysis because it colors the primary source material in really important ways
A few good lines (though I've saved so many quotes from the primary sources I don't know where to start, this is really just a FEW good lines from the book--there are a lot of things to talk about in this book I can't possibly cover in a review!):
"But I did not feel that urgency, that sense of outraged innocence without which political partisanship is a sham. I felt rather the weary remove of the disengaged liberal. ('What does it all matter? It's hopeless. Nothing will ever change. We are beating with rubber hammers to break down a wall of stone.') I was profoundly depoliticized, unable to see my own image reflected in the history of my times."
^ Gornick, toward the end of the book, reflecting on her own life post-CPUSA in the 1970s. What's fascinating to me about this quote is that she is able to reflect on her own liberalization; I'm curious if she saw it as it was happening, or only all these years later. What's also fascinating is that she's saying there was nothing to get excited about for her during a time where we're actually seeing a whole lot taking place! The 1970s, Ms. Gornick, and nothing excited you until you stumbled upon the second wave feminists? Ma'am, they broke into the FBI's office and discovered the COINTELPRO documents around that time, there was plenty going on. At the same time, she's literally using this passage to reflect on how far she fell post-CPUSA, to the point of becoming a "disengaged liberal," which I think speaks to just how empty a person can feel once they've lost their "spot" in the movement.
"I hear the laughter and grit and self-mockery of countless people who spent a lifetime on the high-tension wire between being a communist with a small c and a Communist: some of whom fell and were horribly broken, some of whom fell, picked themselves up, and went further, some of whom walked the wire successfully and remained whole and strong."
^ This is near the start of the book and I noted it down because I've also heard Graeber refer to "little a anarchism," and I swear I've been referring to "little o organizing" for a while without having heard those terms--I'm glad to know that makes total, natural sense!
“You know why most communists aren’t politically active today? Because they can’t stand the thought of ever going to another meeting!”
^ Quoting Selma Gardinsky here. Hilarious.
"Being and becoming. At the heart of the Communist experience always the question of being and becoming."
^ This is just before she dives into an interview with Diana Michaels, and just after one with Marian Moran, both of whom talk at length about how the party became this identifying force that helped them to feel like they were more moral than the people around them who weren't in the party. At one point, Diana wants to leave the party because she's upset the CPUSA doesn't play nicely with psychoanalysis. However, she stays because of McCarthyism! As the entire country turns against them, she feels the need to become more defensive and steadfast in her support. This is so fascinating, and who hasn't experienced this in a not-so-great movement or group? It really speaks to the "cultification" of certain political groups.
"[...] on the other hand, we saw equally clearly--and this was the heart of the matter--that we had, all of us, internalized the psychology of oppression, and that the psychology and the institutions formed a dynamic as old as history itself. Break the psychology, we posited, and the institutions would crumble. In short: In America in the second half of the twentieth century the power of feminism turned on the realization that social change had more to do with altered consciousness than with legislated law."
^ If you're anything like me, you're going to need to take a few deep breaths after reading that passage. I've included it here not because it's a "good line" in terms of being a good analysis of how the world works, but because it's a good analysis of what was going through her head during her re-politicization. And it brings me to something this book taught me: the psychoanalysts did not get along with the communists, and the communists did not care for the psychoanalysts. I appreciate her having spelled it out for me, even if I disagree with her conclusions.
Wait, what about psychoanalysts?
I didn't know about the psych/commie split until reading this book and so it's perfectly possible this was something that only stood out for Gornick.
At the same time, it makes total sense that a group focused on revolution above all else (often to the detriment of your personal life) would not get along with a group focused on internal worlds (often to the detriment of your fulfillment of social responsibilities).
Although several of Gornick's interviewees left the CPUSA post-McCarthy but remained communists and organizers in other settings, many of her interviewees (including, arguably, Gornick herself) rejected that path; instead, they focused their attention and work internally via, for example, psychoanalysis.
I think this is important to know and understand because it's something we're dealing with in our organizing efforts to this day! How many people have been totally burned out from organizing after being overworked and (somehow, simultaneously) underutilized for years and years? How many of those people have turned completely inward versus being embraced by a movement that would allow them to work toward real change? Conversely, how many people have been so suckered into individual "wellness" trends and neoliberal "go to therapy" bullshit that they're unable to see the world for what it is, let alone for what it could be?
In a roundabout way this book helped me to better understand gaps in my own life. As a student therapist I wasn't trained in how to help people as they existed in society (beyond, perhaps, their intimate relationships and families). In organizing work I'm often confused by just how little comrades know re: human emotion, behavior, and behavioral change. I'm not saying I know how to circle those squares just yet or anything--I'm only just now learning we were working with circles and squares to begin with! What I am saying is that my confusion makes much more sense now than it did, say, a year ago.
Further reading (recommended plus "check back in with me later" picks)
Seeing Red: Stories of American Communists is a 1983 documentary available (for now) on YouTube. I really enjoyed this! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlQnJwUn7h4&list=PLej1ai3tUrzvCWyjfsRfx8G4qS43Clnzy&index=1&t=5s
I'm currently reading Robin D.G. Kelley's Hammer and Hoe: Alabama Communists during the Great Depression. Gornick mentions the South exactly once, in passing; I think that's pretty telling of her politics (derogatory). https://uncpress.org/book/9781469625485/hammer-and-hoe/
Obviously, Vincent Bevin's The Jakarta Method: Washington's Anticommunist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World is a must-read for anybody interested in the history of communist movements here or abroad. https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/vincent-bevins/the-jakarta-method/9781541724013/?lens=publicaffairs
I'm also reading Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, which is filling in a few holes for me re psych, anti-colonialism, and organizing work in general, too. https://www.akpress.org/wretchedoftheearth.html
Warnings and caveats
Gornick's book has a lot of issues I won't get into, but I think it's worth mentioning a few specific warnings: there are several mentions of assault that are told in a sort of passing, "isn't this hilarious" type of way. There's also mention of Zionism in a very uncritical way, as though a Zionist could ever be a comrade. I don't recall any of the interviewees being described as Zionists, but she does mention them as having been a part of that group at least a handful of times throughout the book. And finally, this book is totally white. In fact, this is primarily a book about white people in the northeast and how they dealt with the party, primarily in a psychological sense minus any true insight, both during and after its demise.
Do I recommend this book? Not really. Would I talk at you about it for an hour anyway? Probably. Do I regret reading it? Not so much, but I'm a fast reader. I learned a lot, but also realized I knew more going in than I had realized. If you do read it, come talk to me--my voice notes are open!
dragonbonechair's review
4.0
“The Romance of American Communism” by Vivian Gornick is an oral history of people who joined the communist party in the first half of the 20th century. Gornick for this book interviewed dozens of people who joined the communist party in the early half of the 20th century.
These interviews reveal not a monolith, but complexity of experiences of how people came to the Communist Party and how their lives were shaped by their membership, for better or worse. The pull to join could be seen from anywhere: elite university circles, American frontier, the factory floors, and community centers . The stories reflect the diversity of American experiences while at the same time revealing moments of commonality that bind people together.
Through her interviews we see why many people ended up joining the Communist Party in the first half of the 20th century. Whether to give their lives purpose, meaning, or spiritual fulfillment, we see that the party filled a void missing in many American lives at the time. For others, joining was a way to put words and understanding to the causes of despair and exploitation they saw around them.
Her interviews revealed how the Communist party was paramount to all else in many American lives, to the detriment of familial obligations. We see relationships built on ideology not love and the troubles of building connections beyond politics, many lamenting that the party superseded personal bonds of community.
This book is an engaging oral history book for people interested in gaining insight into the ordinary lives of American Communists in the 20th century.
These interviews reveal not a monolith, but complexity of experiences of how people came to the Communist Party and how their lives were shaped by their membership, for better or worse. The pull to join could be seen from anywhere: elite university circles, American frontier, the factory floors, and community centers . The stories reflect the diversity of American experiences while at the same time revealing moments of commonality that bind people together.
Through her interviews we see why many people ended up joining the Communist Party in the first half of the 20th century. Whether to give their lives purpose, meaning, or spiritual fulfillment, we see that the party filled a void missing in many American lives at the time. For others, joining was a way to put words and understanding to the causes of despair and exploitation they saw around them.
Her interviews revealed how the Communist party was paramount to all else in many American lives, to the detriment of familial obligations. We see relationships built on ideology not love and the troubles of building connections beyond politics, many lamenting that the party superseded personal bonds of community.
This book is an engaging oral history book for people interested in gaining insight into the ordinary lives of American Communists in the 20th century.
josienaron's review
4.0
gorgeous, compelling, and only occasionally marred by the author’s total disdain for dogma
sedwards's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
emloueez's review against another edition
4.0
V important oral history from a time that is undervalued in American politics. Some of the stories can get a little repetitive, so this occasionally moved slowly for me, but I feel like I learned a lot!