Within weeks of the release of Reds - The Tragedy of American Communism by Publius Virgilius Rogers Professor of American History Maurice Isserman, enthusiastic reviews of the book appeared along with two essays by the author in major national and international publications. In “What the Failure of American Communism Should Teach the Left,” published by The Atlantic on June 17, Isserman detailed how the American left had been pulled in two directions throughout its history. Writing his new book “as a cautionary tale about the DSA,” he pointed to its “rigid, doctrinaire response to the Hamas attack on Israel in October.” He summarized the party’s evolution: “The American Communist cause attracted egalitarian idealists and bred authoritarian zealots.”
In another essay published by The Guardian titled “I spent years studying American communism. Here’s what I learned,” he wrote, “I was struck by the mystery of why so many intelligent and admirable people remained so loyal for so long to a fundamentally flawed movement.” He concluded his remarks with this summary: “American communists in the 20th century included in their ranks people of talent, vision, and genuine idealism. Their tragedy lay in their willingness to subvert their own best instincts in their devotion to a flawed and irrelevant historical model, the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet state.”
Reviews of the book have been stellar. In “‘Reds’ Review: Communism in the U.S.A.,” The Wall St. Journal described Isserman as engaging in “neither demonology nor the superiority of hindsight, but [he] recounts, in an impressively evenhanded manner, the history of communism in America as part of 20th-century American history.” The review concluded with “All this history is splendidly covered in Reds: a history, let us hope, that will never be repeated.”
“The Tragic History of American Communism” in Inside Higher Ed proclaimed that, “Professor Isserman’s Reds should be required reading for today’s leftwing activists, who need to engage in historical reflection, critically analyzing past experiences to avoid repeating mistakes.” Foreign Policy’s review “The Contradictions of America’s Communist Party” described Reds as “a trenchant, decades-overdue book on the history of the U.S. Communist Party” and Isserman as restoring “the U.S. Communist Party to its proper place in the broader sweep of 20th-century American politics. And he does so by locating those paradoxes at the heart of the party’s project—paradoxes that have clouded the party’s impact and legacy ever since.”
Airmail’s review of Reds declared that Reds belongs on any reading list on the history of Communism and its standard-bearers in America. Isserman was also interviewed about the book by The Labor and Working-Class History Association about his "engaging and well-written history of American Communism."
Shifting gears to current affairs, Isserman co-wrote a third essay in the Los Angeles Times titled “Opinion: Planning to protest at the DNC in August? Here's why you shouldn't” on July 28. The authors wrote, “‘March on the DNC’ may be as much about chaos as cease-fire. That will only help former President Trump, not the cause of peace in Gaza.” They pointed to the protests at the 1968 convention. “That opposition was justified. Targeting that convention that year, and their wild rumpus approach, was not. … Polling revealed that most television viewers — 56%, according to a Gallup poll — blamed the protesters, not the “police riot,” for the disturbances.”
The writers suggested that this year, instead of protesting, individuals and groups should consider campaigning for Democratic candidates. “If this year’s Chicago protests produce scenes of chaos in the streets and Democratic-leaning voters decide to abstain or choose a doomed third-party candidate — who will benefit? In a remarkable bit of political jujitsu, the Republicans, instigators of the Jan. 6 insurrection, are campaigning as the party of law and order. Protests may achieve changes we want to see. But this time, it’s too risky.”
