Re: [Marxism] Pablo, Mandel and Duncan Hallas!

["Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

<Scotlive@xxxxxxx> wrote:

"An interesting analysis of Trotskyism. Many who adhere to this doctrine would 
argue that the problem, as you assert, is not in the oppositionism of 
Trotskyism, but rather in the Stalinist form of top down state socialism which 
has been tried and, they would argue, has thus far failed. Which defeats of the 
revolutionary working class movement do you mean, by the way?"

Reply:

I did not make an analysis, but a judgement. I refer to the defeat of mass 
uprisings in Germany and other European countries, the political 
counter-revolution in the USSR, the victory of the Nazis in Germany and the 
fascists in Italy and Spain, and so on. 
In seizing power, the bolsheviks had anticipated that they would trigger 
revolution in Germany, such that the German workingclass would be able to aid 
the development of socialism in Russia. But their assessment of European 
politics was faulty, and the revolutionary propensities of West European 
workers were much less than they anticipated.

For two decades from 1923, the level of workingclass militancy in Europe, which 
had surged after the end of the first world war, went into decline, as measured 
by the frequency and scope of mass demonstrations and strikes, the membership 
of political organisations and trade unions in many instances, the level of 
unemployment and fear of unemployment, and the evolution of popular ideology. 
Popular struggles either ended in defeat, or else in political stalemate. 

Trotskyism originally emerged as an oppositional movement to the Stalin faction 
in the CPSU, which reflected a political defeat of the workers and peasants in 
the Soviet republics by the Communist party-state, which after victory in the 
civil war, systematically eliminated or silenced all political opposition to 
its rule, and vested its absolute monopoly of political and legal power. 

Thus, Trotskyism grew as a defiant oppositionist ideology out of defeats and 
failures of the labor movement, in opposition to the CPSU-dominated communist 
movement internationally. Trotskyism aimed to preserve programmatically the 
revolutionary Marxism such as it was expressed prior to Lenin's death in 1924, 
and transmit that heritage to a new generation of workers. 

Trotskyists aimed to do this, under conditions where historical facts were 
systematically falsified, political opponents and dissidents were persecuted up 
to death, and political positions were misrepresented by the official communist 
movement, in order to justify and defend the domestic and foreign policies of 
the Soviet party-state, regarded as the "socialist fatherland". In other words, 
Trotskyists battled with a political culture which had become seriously 
dishonest.

In summary, Trotskyism specifically grew out of an historical experience of 
political failure and political tragedy, not out of an experience of political 
success (although it took its inspiration from 1917). 

As Trotsky put it, whatever partial social progress was made in the USSR, the 
new leaders of the CPSU had substantively "betrayed" the real political 
aspirations, intentions and goals of the Russian revolution of 1917, which had 
included a revolt against Czarist despotism and for popular democracy, more 
civil freedoms and rights (which were initially gained in 1917, but then taken 
away again), and effective assistance to socialists elsewhere in the world (the 
CPSU began to aid conservative forces, or at any rate hinder the progress of 
the socialist Left).

The basic problem of Trotskyism was that Trotsky and his leading supporters 
were themselves implicated in bad practices which they later criticised when 
the CPSU under Stalin's leadership universalised those bad practices. Trotsky 
himself had proposed the "militarisation of labor" during the civil war, he had 
endorsed the ban on political factions and political super-centralisation, and 
he had agreed with the political disenfranchisement of opposition parties. He 
was therefore not in a strong position to lead any mass opposition to the apex 
of the party-state.

On the one side, Trotsky, who was after his expulsion hounded by the entire 
communist movement, was forced into the position of defending every aspect of 
his political record, against people who wilfully misrepresented and falsified 
it. On the other side, the Trotskyists argued that justabout everything Trotsky 
had said and done had been correct (although e.g. Ernest Mandel later admitted 
that there had been "dark years" in the political career of Lenin and Trotsky, 
referring to the liquidation of political opponents). 

This dual trend was conducive to dogmatisation, and not to new political 
learning from new political experiences. Thus, Trotskyism which claimed to have 
the unique franchise on "real or true Marxism" became effectively a closed 
system of thought, permitting only of a limited range of permutations within 
the limits of what was considered "orthodoxy". 

Trotskyists were very concerned with the theoretical coherence and ideological 
consistency of Marxism as a theoretical system of thought, but in striving to 
be orthodox, they were often blind to new experiences which required innovative 
thought that reframed traditional ways of thinking. Fights continually broke 
out about how "orthodox" the orthodoxy really was, and splits occurred which 
had nothing to do with real political dividing lines in a country, but with 
doctrinal subtleties.

Thus, by its great insistence on "the Marxist tradition" and on theory, 
Trotskyism often became conservative, because it rarely contained a genuine 
dialectic of tradition and innovation rooted in workingclass practice. The 
richness of Trotsky's political thought provided categorisations for every 
conceivable political and economic event or situation, but being able to give a 
label to every aspect of politics, did not necessarily mean that an analysis 
was made which could lead to political success, or that questions were framed 
in a way that they could be successfully answered. It might only mean that new 
ideas were regarded as "dangerous deviations". 

Ultimately only those Trotskyist organisations have been successful, which 
found a real resonance with workingclass life, but there are rather few 
reaching that political maturation. Because as soon as new ideas arose, the 
instinctive response was to query whether they were compatible with Marxism, or 
how they could be assimilated to the existing system of thought. 

So there remains an irreducible element of dogmatisation and deification in 
Trotskyism, and the only way out of that, is to inquire into the whole process 
by which a Marxism is formed; because ultimately Marxism fails, through an 
unhealthy and wrong relationship between theory and practice. 

I think personally that to understand Trotskyism, it is useful to put side by 
side Lenin's "The three component parts of Marxism" and Ernest Mandel's "The 
place of Marxism in history". 

Lenin brazenly declares in his text that "Marxism is omnipotent because it is 
true", and he seeks to codify it as a clearly defined doctrine that could be 
propagated to the masses. In (slightly pretentiously) defining "the place of 
Marxism in history", Mandel does exactly the same, but basically imitates 
Lenin's original text, elaborating it here and there, and then concluding that 
really in the 1920s and 1930s, there were still few Marxists who had a really 
good knowledge of what Marx actually wrote. 

In that case, the unifying factor of the Marxists is a common doctrine, a 
doctrinalisation of Marx. But this isn't far removed from a religious catechism.

In reality, the unifying factor for the working class is not Marxism, but 
socialism as a movement and a goal - or, at any rate, a vision and practice 
aiming for a new social order, which emancipates people and provides greater 
justice, equality and liberty for all. 

But this interpretation inverts the whole Trotskyist procedure - rather than 
unifying the working class around a pre-existing Marxist programme, the 
political programme itself has to emerge out of the actual practices and 
experiences of the workers and peasants, in which Marxists can participate and 
make interventions, without however claiming to possess "the whole truth" 
already. 

Because if the latter happens, we enter the spheres of religion, which, however 
satisfying it may be, doesn't itself solve the practical problems that need to 
be solved :-)

Jurriaan




_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism