The Long Strange Posthumous Life of Leon Trotsky

EdgeLeft : The Long Strange Posthumous Life of Leon Trotsky

…an occasional column by David McReynolds, it can be circulated without further permission…

Historically the Socialist Party USA had two major splits. The first was after the Russian Revolution, when there was an international split in all socialist parties between those who accepted the leadership of Lenin’s Third International and those who didn’t. In the US, [Eugene] Debs [1855–1926], who had proclaimed himself “a Bolshevik from the tip of my head to the tips of my toes” — reflecting the overwhelming international support for the Russian Revolution — then led the Socialist Party in rejecting Lenin’s “21 demands” [V. I. Lenin, ‘Theses on Fundamental Tasks of The Second Congress Of The Communist International’, 1920].

There followed the split which led to the formation of the Communist Party. The second major split — (actually two in almost one year) — was the right wing split in 1936 by the Social Democratic Federation which wanted to support Roosevelt, breaking with Norman Thomas [1884–1968], and the split by the Socialist Workers Party which, under James Cannon [1890–1974], had entered the Socialist Party and then in 1937 split, taking much of the youth of the Socialist Party with it.

By the 1960s (in fact even by 1951, when I joined the Socialist Party) both the Socialist and Communist Parties were shadows of the past, battered by various currents. The Communist Party was never able to build a mass base here after the Cold War began — Communism was seen not simply as “radical” but as “treasonous”. The Socialist Party, in no small part because, fearful it might be accused of being communist, spent too little time on what it favored, and too much time making sure its skirts were clean. (There is nothing simple about this — the Communist Party always had internal dissent, and there was a serious left wing in the Socialist Party, which I joined when I came into the SP.)

Thus when we leap forward to the “final split” in the SP in 1972 we are talking about midgets. Max Shachtman [1904–1971] took out his people to form the Social Democrats USA (actually, he had the majority at the 1972 convention, so for a brief moment he was the SP — it is ironic that it is Shachtman’s group which has since totally [?] vanished). Michael Harrington [1928–1989] finally broke with Shachtman and split to form the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee which morphed into today’s Democratic Socialists of America. The remnants of the old Socialist Party, some on the left, some on the right, regrouped under Frank Zeidler [1912–2006] in 1973 to form what is today the Socialist Party USA, and which is, pretty much, the legitimate heir to the party of Debs and Thomas. (It is under the banner of this group that I ran for President in 1980 and 2000).

In the real world nothing is static. The Socialist Party, which has about 1,000 members, has attracted newer members who are not aware of the history, and whose radicalism includes an admiration [for] Lenin and Trotsky. The SP is not anywhere near another split — only genuine Trotskyist groups can split when they have less than … 1,000 members. But I’ve been fascinated by this odd posthumous life of Trotsky, and want to reflect on it here.

There really aren’t any Leninists running around — there are lots of people who belong to “Marxist/Leninist” groups, such as the Communist Party, but there are simply not a dozen different Marxist/Leninist groups in this country. There are large numbers of socialists who are not even aware that there was a Marxist tradition before Lenin, and independent of Lenin. There must be a few Stalinist groups, I am sure I could find them on Google, but not even the Communist Party today counts as Stalinist. Stalin has almost no heirs. [Almost. See : Protestant Stalinist Party. Also : arch-rivals Catholic Trotskyist Party of America. Discussion here and below.] In fact, the interesting thing about Stalin is that almost no one wanted to duplicate his politics. The Japanese and Italian Communist Parties broke with Moscow very early, not long after Tito had taken Yugoslavia out of the “Communist Bloc”. Mao (a man Stalin once thought might best be “eliminated”) defied Stalin almost from the beginning. The Vietnamese were careful, in taking aid from both China and the Soviet Union, not to duplicate the Soviets in their own political patterns (there were never any purge trials in Vietnam to equal those in the Soviet Union). And Cuba stands almost in its own tradition, bending to Russia when it depended of Moscow’s aid, but building on Cuba’s own traditions.

It was as if everyone looked at Stalin and thought “there is a lot there we don’t want to repeat”. Even the Soviets, to the astonishment of the West, broke with their own “tradition” when Stalin died, and, after the murder of Beria, allowed a peaceful transfer of power to Khrushchev.

But Trotsky while dead, is still very much alive. Sometimes as a ghost on the far right — Max Shachtman became the first true neo-conservative, embracing the system. His followers took key positions in the Reagan Administration and in the right wing of the Democratic Party. Younger readers may find it hard to believe (I admit that even I do) that Shachtman, who went into the Communist Party in its early years, traveled to the Soviet Union, was a significant leader of the American Communist Party, ended his life supporting the US invasion of Cuba (the Bay of Pigs), the US invasion of Indochina, shifted from a position critical of Israel to one of fervent support of Israel. I knew Shachtman well, and while I didn’t like the man, or trust him, I would never have thought he would have ended in the camp of the enemy.

The original Trotskyist movement in this country formed in the late 1920s, headed by James Cannon and Max Shachtman. It was authentically revolutionary, had an honorable tradition of work in the trade union movement. It reflected the international split, following Lenin’s death, between Stalin, the General Secretary of the Soviet Party, and Trotsky, the brilliant, courageous military leader of the Red Armies. Stalin insisted that a world revolution was not in the cards history had dealt, that the only hope was to build “socialism in one country”. Trotsky, by far the more revolutionary, and internationalist, argued that “socialism in one country” would become bureaucratic, militarized, and fatally “deformed”. Both men were right. There was to be no world revolution. Germany, which had a powerful socialist movement, did not have a revolution and could not rescue the young Soviet Union. Trotsky was right, the Soviet Union became a police state. There was one crucial shift, however, which caused Trotsky to the end of his life to argue that the Soviet Union had to be defended in any conflict with the West — private property had been collectivized, and the old class had been destroyed. Shachtman split over the matter of the Soviet invasion of Finland, setting up what would beome the Independent Socialist League, which lasted until it merged into the Socialist Party in 1958.

Some contemporary Trotskyist groups, such as the ISO (International Socialist Organization) represent what might be called Shachtman’s radical positions of the 1950s. The official Trotskyist group, the Socialist Workers Party, long since became a cult, focused on support of Cuba largely ignoring its own Trotskyist past. There are other groups which owe a debt to Trotsky — Solidarity, while hardly an orthodox Trotskyist group, comes out of that background. New Politics, founded by Julius [1922–2003] and Phyllis Jacobson (and a journal on which I was once a member of the editorial board) had its origins in a kind of “left Shachtmanite” position. I felt I served as the “shabbas goy” on the editorial board, since I was primarily a pacifist, and had never been a Trotskyist. At one point — and perhaps the last intellectually significant split in the Trotskyist movement — Bert Cochran [1913–1984] formed a new publication, the American Socialist, which had a brief useful life but could not be sustained. These groups have made real contributions to the American Left.

They made, for the most part, a very serious effort to uphold the best of the Russian Revolution, while being frank about the disaster of Stalin. Some of the Trotskyists did finally face the problems inherent in Leninism, the vanguard theory of change, the concept of democratic centralism, and the fact Trotsky himself was not really any nicer than Lenin. There are always apologies made for the violent suppression of the workers uprising at Kronstadt — and I wish the Trotskyists, and Leninists, some of whom are now in the Socialist Party, would realize that if one can justify mass murder because the situation demanded it, they should be much more hesitant in writing off the Socialist Parties in the West because they, too, made compromises. I guess my question to the Leninists is why are crimes and mistakes acceptable if committed by the followers of Lenin, but not if committed by the non-Communist left. (Thus far the best answer I’ve heard is that in the name of the revolution, murder, while regrettable, is defensible).

The Workers World Party, formed in 1956, when the Socialist Workers Party had a split over the Hungarian Revolution, (WWP supported the Soviet invasion of Hungary) became a thorn in the side of many of us, with its range of front groups — the International Action Center, ANSWER, etc. In due time WWP had a split of its own, the Party [for] Socialism and Liberation, which took ANSWER with it. WWP still exists.

If one had time and the inclination, the list of those who were in the Trotskyist movement, or touched by it, is truly remarkable. Dwight Macdonald‘s [1906–1982] Politics, Dissent Magazine, and literally dozens of small Trotskyist groups. My own primary mentor, A. J. Muste, was briefly — very briefly — in the Trotskyist movement. The Trotskyist movement has had one great advantage over the Communists — with very few exceptions they never actually had power. And thus they could be pure. All those who hold state power will find that it forces compromises.

So much for this very too brief run down. I have read Trotsky, and Lenin, and Stalin, and a number of others from that period. I liked Lenin and still do — I just don’t agree with him. My own path led me to Gandhi. I liked Trotsky a bit less, though I concede he was brilliant. Isaac Deutscher [1907–1967], in one of his three volumes on Trotsky, cites the case where, in one of the inner-party fights, Trotsky felt he had to make a temporary peace with Stalin. The price which Stalin exacted was that Trotsky withdraw his support from two of his own key allies. Which Trotsky did. Not surprisingly, his allies, once abandoned, sided with Stalin in the next round of in-fighting and helped seal Trotsky’s fate.

All of which brings me to a deeply flawed film I rented from Netflix — Exile in Buyukada. Deeply flawed because while showing Trotsky’s arrival in Turkey, where he spent the first period of his exile, the sound track, featuring a narration by the wonderful actor, Vanessa Redgrave, is “buried” under the music. There are occasional sub-titles, but essentially the film is only worth watching for the sense of that period. And it is to that sense that I now want to turn my attention, (while, by pure chance, listening to a new recording of a Shostakovitch work, featuring the Internationale).

Let’s leave aside the manipulations of Shachtman, the betrayals of the Neocons, the chaos created by Workers World… and turn back to the events in the Soviet Union. That Trotsky would be expelled from the Communist Party and sent into exile was unthinkable. He had been essential to the revolution. He did not leave the young Soviet Union as a dissident — he left it as a believer in the revolution. He and his wife knew they faced death wherever they went, from Stalin’s agents (who did finally murder him when he was in Mexico).

Trotsky had no allies within the socialist movement. He despised the socialist parties of the West. The problem was that he had no allies at all except for the opposition to Stalin which, in the Soviet Union, could not be expressed without risking certain death. In the West the Trotskyist movement was a small splinter in the side of the Communist movement, under steady ideological attack as “agents of the State”. To support Trotsky was genuinely heroic — no one was going to pay you! You had no chance at career advancement. You had no allies in power anywhere in the world. The Communists would check out books by Trotsky from public libraries in order to destroy them (and I knew one Shachtmanite who checked out those same books from public libraries in order to save them from destruction – theft in the name of love).

The Communists held power in the Soviet Union. Their parties in Western Europe were strong. And strong even as far away as Indochina, and China, and Japan.

So those of us who have basic disagreements with Trotsky — essentially the same disagreements we have with Lenin — should pay the history of Trotsky some respect. He was not a democrat. It has been said, by one of those in post-Soviet Russia, that if Trotsky had won the fight against Stalin the outcome would have been just as many executions — but with a far more literary flavor. The sadness of Trotsky’s life is that once the internal fight in the Soviet Union had been decided, Trotsky was an heroic but lost figure. His followers in the US ended on the subversive list, were hounded from their jobs by the FBI.

But always and always, those who took Trotsky’s side cannot help but look back and think what the Soviet Union might have been if only Stalin had lost that fight. I’m very much among those who feel that American socialists need to look to American history — not Russian or Chinese or Cuban history — to chart our course. But no one who has looked back at the early part of the 20th century can fail to be thrilled by that moment when it seemed as if the workers were actually in control of history. It was this painful memory Trotsky carried with him as he began the first of his exiles in Turkey.

May I suggest — though my Trotskyist and Leninist friends will not hear me — that the greatest honor one could pay to Leon Trotsky would be to let him rest with the honor he earned. And, as he broke with Stalin, so let us break with all undemocratic efforts at revolution, which would make human beings merely “means to the end”. Humanity — each life — is an end in itself. As A.J. Muste said, “there is no way to peace — peace is the way”. So too, revolution begins now, as we empower ourselves to think for our own time.

David McReynolds worked for the War Resisters League for 39 years, retired in 1999, and lives with his two cats on the Lower East Side. He is a former Chair of the War Resisters International. He can be contacted at: dmcreynolds[at]nyc[dot]rr[dot]com.


1. Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) [See : On crackpots engaged in pigwork, January 10, 2009]
2. Prairie Fire Organizing Committee
3. US Marxist-Leninist Organization (Hoxhaist) [See : Comrade Loulou and the Fun Factory, November 9, 2008]
4. Communist Voice Organization (Anti-Revisionist/Marxist-Leninist)
5. Workers Party USA (Hoxhaist)
6. Freedom Road Socialist Organization (post-Maoist/Marxist-Leninist) [See : We Are Family]
7. Revolutionary Communist Party USA (Maoist/Avakian)
8. Ray O. Light Group (Maoist) [Revolutionary Organization of Labor, USA]
9. Progressive Labour Party (ex-Maoist/Stalinist) [This is an official web blog featuring some of the articles from Progressive Labor Party’s CHALLENGE NEWSPAPER.]
10. Marxist-Leninist Organizer
11. League of Revolutionaries for a New America (post-Maoist)
12. Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism (ex-Gorbachevist/Democratic Socialist)

Added Bonus!

Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House
Jeet Heer
National Post
June 7, 2003

Influence on Bush aides: Bolshevik’s writings supported the idea of pre-emptive war

Joseph Stalin, the Soviet dictator, was paranoid. Perhaps his deepest fears centred around his great rival for the leadership of the Bolshevik movement, Leon Trotsky. Stalin went to extraordinary lengths to obliterate not only Trotsky but also the ragtag international fellowship known as the Left Opposition, which supported Trotsky’s political program. In the late 1920s, Stalin expelled Trotsky from the Communist Party and deported him from the Soviet Union. Almost instantly, other Communist parties moved to excommunicate Trotsky’s followers, notably the Americans James P. Cannon and Max Shachtman.

In 1933, while in exile in Turkey, Trotsky regrouped his supporters as the Fourth International. Never amounting to more than a few thousand individuals scattered across the globe, the Fourth International was constantly harassed by Stalin’s secret police, as well as by capitalist governments. The terrible purge trials that Stalin ordered in the late 1930s were designed in part to eliminate any remaining Trotskyists in the Soviet Union. Fleeing from country to country, Trotsky ended up in Mexico, where he was murdered by an ice-pick-wielding Stalinist assassin in 1940. Like Macbeth after the murder of Banquo, Stalin became even more obsessed with his great foe after killing him. Fearing a revival of Trotskyism, Stalin’s secret police continued to monitor the activities of Trotsky’s widow in Mexico, as well as the far-flung activities of the Fourth International.

More than a decade after the demise of the Soviet Union, Stalin’s war against Trotsky may seem like quaint ancient history. Yet Stalin was right to fear Trotsky’s influence. Unlike Stalin, Trotsky was a man of genuine intellectual achievement, a brilliant literary critic and historian as well as a military strategist of genius. Trotsky’s movement, although never numerous, attracted many sharp minds. At one time or another, the Fourth International included among its followers the painter Frida Kahlo (who had an affair with Trotsky), the novelist Saul Bellow, the poet André Breton and the Trinidadian polymath C.L.R. James.

As evidence of the continuing intellectual influence of Trotsky, consider the curious fact that some of the books about the Middle East crisis that are causing the greatest stir were written by thinkers deeply shaped by the tradition of the Fourth International.

In seeking advice about Iraqi society, members of the Bush administration (notably Paul D. Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, and Dick Cheney, the Vice-President) frequently consulted Kanan Makiya, an Iraqi-American intellectual whose book The Republic of Fear is considered to be the definitive analysis of Saddam Hussein’s tyrannical rule.

As the journalist Christopher Hitchens notes, Makiya is “known to veterans of the Trotskyist movement as a one-time leading Arab member of the Fourth International.” When speaking about Trotskyism, Hitchens has a voice of authority. Like Makiya, Hitchens is a former Trotskyist who is influential in Washington circles as an advocate for a militantly interventionist policy in the Middle East. Despite his leftism, Hitchens has been invited into the White House as an ad hoc consultant.

Other supporters of the Iraq war also have a Trotsky-tinged past. On the left, the historian Paul Berman, author of a new book called Terror and Liberalism, has been a resonant voice among those who want a more muscular struggle against Islamic fundamentalism. Berman counts the Trotskyist C.L.R. James as a major influence. Among neo-conservatives, Berman’s counterpart is Stephen Schwartz, a historian whose new book, The Two Faces of Islam, is a key text among those who want the United States to sever its ties with Saudi Arabia. Schwartz spent his formative years in a Spanish Trotskyist group.

To this day, Schwartz speaks of Trotsky affectionately as “the old man” and “L.D.” (initials from Trotsky’s birth name, Lev Davidovich Bronstein). “To a great extent, I still consider myself to be [one of the] disciples of L.D,” he admits, and he observes that in certain Washington circles, the ghost of Trotsky still hovers around. At a party in February celebrating a new book about Iraq, Schwartz exchanged banter with Wolfowitz about Trotsky, the Moscow Trials and Max Shachtman.

“I’ve talked to Wolfowitz about all of this,” Schwartz notes. “We had this discussion about Shachtman. He knows all that stuff, but was never part of it. He’s definitely aware.” The yoking together of Paul Wolfowitz and Leon Trotsky sounds odd, but a long and tortuous history explains the link between the Bolshevik left and the Republican right.

To understand how some Trotskyists ended up as advocates of U.S. expansionism, it is important to know something about Max Shachtman, Trotsky’s controversial American disciple. Shachtman’s career provides the definitive template of the trajectory that carries people from the Left Opposition to support for the Pentagon.

Throughout the 1930s, Shachtman loyally hewed to the Trotsky line that the Soviet Union as a state deserved to be defended even though Stalin’s leadership had to be overthrown. However, when the Soviet Union forged an alliance with Hitler and invaded Finland, Shachtman moved to a politics of total opposition, eventually known as the “third camp” position. Shachtman argued in the 1940s and 1950s that socialists should oppose both capitalism and Soviet communism, both Washington and Moscow.

Yet as the Cold War wore on, Shachtman became increasingly convinced Soviet Communism was “the greater and more dangerous” enemy. “There was a way on the third camp left that anti-Stalinism was so deeply ingrained that it obscured everything else,” says Christopher Phelps, whose introduction to the new book Race and Revolution details the Trotskyist debate on racial politics. Phelps is an eloquent advocate for the position that the best portion of Shachtman’s legacy still belongs to the left.

By the early 1970s, Shachtman was a supporter of the Vietnam War and the strongly anti-Communist Democrats such as Senator Henry Jackson. Shachtman had a legion of young followers (known as Shachtmanites) active in labour unions and had an umbrella group known as the Social Democrats. When the Shachtmanites started working for Senator Jackson, they forged close ties with hard-nosed Cold War liberals who also advised Jackson, including Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz; these two had another tie to the Trotskyism; their mentor was Albert Wohlstetter, a defence intellectual who had been a Schachtmanite in the late 1940s.

Shachtman died in 1972, but his followers rose in the ranks of the labour movement and government bureaucracy. Because of their long battles against Stalinism, Shachtmanites were perfect recruits for the renewed struggle against Soviet communism that started up again after the Vietnam War. Throughout the 1970s, intellectuals forged by the Shachtman tradition filled the pages of neo-conservative publications. Then in the 1980s, many Social Democrats found themselves working in the Reagan administration, notably Jeanne Kirkpatrick (who was ambassador to the United Nations) and Elliott Abrams (whose tenure as assistant secretary of state was marred by his involvement with the Iran-Contra scandal).

The distance between the Russia of 1917 and the Washington of 2003 is so great that many question whether Trotsky and Shachtman have really left a legacy for the Bush administration. For Christopher Phelps, the circuitous route from Trotsky to Bush is “more a matter of rupture and abandonment of the left than continuity.”

Stephen Schwartz disagrees. “I see a psychological, ideological and intellectual continuity,” says Schwartz, who defines Trotsky’s legacy to neo-conservatism in terms of a set of valuable lessons. By his opposition to both Hitler and Stalin, Trotsky taught the Left Opposition the need to have a politics that was proactive and willing to take unpopular positions. “Those are the two things that the neo-cons and the Trotskyists always had in common: the ability to anticipate rather than react and the moral courage to stand apart from liberal left opinion when liberal left opinion acts like a mob.”

Trotsky was also a great military leader, and Schwartz finds support for the idea of pre-emptive war in the old Bolshevik’s writings. “Nobody who is a Trotskyist can really be a pacifist,” Schwartz notes. “Trotskyism is a militaristic disposition. When you are Trotskyist, we don’t refer to him as a great literary critic, we refer to him as the founder of the Red Army.”

Paul Berman agrees with Schwartz that Trotskyists are by definition internationalists who are willing to go to war when necessary. “The Left Opposition and the non-Communist left comes out of classic socialism, so it’s not a pacifist tradition,” Berman observes. “It’s an internationalist tradition. It has a natural ability to sympathize or feel solidarity for people in places that might strike other Americans or Canadians as extremely remote.”

Christopher Phelps, however, doubts these claims of a Trotskyist tradition that would support the war in Iraq. For the Left Opposition, internationalism was not simply about fighting all over the world. “Internationalism meant solidarity with other peoples and not imperialist imposition upon them,” Phelps notes.

Though Trotsky was a military leader, Phelps also notes “the Left Opposition had a long history of opposition to imperialist war. They weren’t pacifists, but they were against capitalist wars fought by capitalist states. It’s true that there is no squeamishness about the application of force when necessary. The question is, is force used on behalf of a class that is trying to create a world with much less violence or is it force used on behalf of a state that is itself the largest purveyor of organized violence in the world? There is a big difference.” Seeing the Iraq war as an imperialist adventure, Phelps is confident “Trotsky and Shachtman in the ’30s and ’40s wouldn’t have supported this war.”

This dispute over the true legacy of Trotsky and Shachtman illustrates how the Left Opposition still stirs passion. The strength of a living tradition is in its ability to inspire rival interpretations. Despite Stalin’s best efforts, Trotskyism is a living force that people fight over.

See also : Trotskycons? Pasts and present., Stephen Schwartz, National Review, June 11, 2003 | Neoconservatives and Trotskyism, Bill King, Enter Stage Right, March 22, 2004 | The Soviet Union Versus Socialism, Noam Chomsky, Our Generation, Spring/Summer, 1986: “The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders — exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to “vigilant control from above,” so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.”

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2024 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in History, Trot Guide and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to The Long Strange Posthumous Life of Leon Trotsky

  1. Pingback: Poumnik « Poumista

  2. Pingback: Where Have You Gone, Leon Trotsky?

  3. Pingback: David McReynolds: The Long Strange Posthumous Life of Leon Trotsky | Independent Political Report

  4. Pingback: SP v SB | slackbastard

  5. LeftInternationalist says:

    Great articles. Fascinating stuff. Though I would disagree with Reynolds about revolutionary socialists, Trotskyists, socialists influenced by Luxemburg (which includes Trotskyists), as wanting to force a undemocratic revolution and use undemocratic means. For all the contradictions of Trotsky itself, Trotskyism is very much based on a critique of undemocratic and unaccountable authority! I think the Trotskyist movement has grown up a lot. Just look at the Fourth International today- it has a strong engagement with feminism and officially declared itself ‘ecosocialist’! Its more libertarian and democratic than ever before, and building on a worthwhile tradition of revolutionary internationalism and international solidarity.

  6. LeftInternationalist says:

    Also, Stieg Larsson was a great anti-fascist Trot, regularly receiving death threats from fascists for uncovering their activities and combating their racism. And an excellent crime writer to boot. I don’t think anyone could accuse him of harbouring undemocratic fantasies, lusting for dictatorship, no- he was an ardent defender of democracy of the most fullest degree, and of freedom as an extensive and universal principle which all had a right to enjoy. There is much worthwhile to have come out of this political tradition, and like all political traditions, if it does not adapt to new circumstances, and evolve its ideas, it would disappear. So why is the ISO in the US the largest on the rev left? Why is the SWP in the UK the largest on the rev left? Why is Socialist Alternative the largest on the rev left in Australia? They must be doing something right if they are able to attract considerable numbers to their banner. Because somehow, they’ve convinced trade union militants, feminists, environmentalists, workers and students to join their organisations and they feel they have the power to bring about real democratic and liberatory progressive change in the world. Of course, there are ideological problems and wrong-headed conceptions, some historical issues and a few shibboleths that need to be thrown into the dustbin of history, but overall they seem to be heading on the right track- a track of pluralistic political and economic democracy, internationalism and international solidarity, fighting for reforms in a non reformist way and for a systemic and transformatory solution, anti-orthodoxy and narrow minded interpretations and reception of ideas, with an aim towards the free association and free development of humanity. Anarchism can chart a path there as well, and should be embraced by leftist activists, for its analysis, critique, and guide to action, for there is much to learn there. Especially the anarcho-communists, who take the best ideas of anarchism and democratic socialism and meld them together into a mix which lays the basis for a successful mass organisation/s which can advance the simple ideas of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ and ‘liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.’

  7. @ndy says:

    G’day LeftInternationalist,

    “Just look at the Fourth International today- it has a strong engagement with feminism and officially declared itself ‘ecosocialist’!”

    Which one?

    Re Stieg Larsson. Yeah, I’m familiar w Larsson. He was a Trot for a while in his 20s.

    “So why is the ISO in the US the largest on the rev left? Why is the SWP in the UK the largest on the rev left? Why is Socialist Alternative the largest on the rev left in Australia?”

    1. Size isn’t everything.
    2. I dunno about the sizes of these groups. That is, the size of their memberships or their size inre other “rev left” groups. The ISO would presumably be rivalled if not exceeded in size by the CPUSA, in the UK SPEW is roughly the size of the SWP while in Australia, SA would be roughly equivalent in size to SAlt. It’s difficult to say as none of the groups, to my knowledge, publishes such figures, and membership size tends to fluctuate from one year to the next.
    3. The ISO split/were expelled from the iSt in 2001.
    4. SAlt split from the IS (iSt) in 1995.
    5. A distinction may be made between membership, active membership, and influence.
    6. Assuming these groups are the largest groups on the “rev left”, there are obv many reasons this might be so, not all of which concern their superior fu.
    7. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that SAlt is the largest “rev left” group Down Under. Let’s further suppose that this means it has app 1,000 members (perhaps twice the (registered) size of SA). Australia has a pop of app 22,725,000. Or, one in every 22,725 Australians (0.0044%) is a member of the largest “rev left” group in the country. A more pressing concern might be, why is such a tiny percentage of the Australian pop interested in joining such an org?
    8. Another issue concerns the composition of such parties. Who is joining/leaving them, and why?

  8. LeftInternationalist says:

    K, by the Fourth International I mean the largest one, which publishes the journal International Viewpoint. They’re the only one really worth speaking of at all, they aren’t big, though they remain influential in some areas. Their engagement with ecosocialism is very interesting to me, since many probably wouldn’t expect that, given it’s quite a new tendency on the political Left, and is probably strongest in Latin America (of whom probably the most famous ecosocialist on the planet is Hugo Blanco, former Trot and more ecosocialist/Zapatista influenced today).

    Of course, the Fourth International today is hardly the ‘banner of your approaching victory’ for the workers of all countries as Trotsky put it in The Transitional Program [1938]. The other ‘Fourth Internationals’ are completely insignificant.

    I’m aware of the US ISO expulsion and SAlt split, but their politics are not radically different from the IST, so I tend to think of these organisations as pretty similar. I don’t know if SA could be considered part of the rev left- it’s certainly far to the left of the Greens, and I’ve seen them calling for some pretty radical things, but they generally seem to stop short of calling for a socialist revolution or something like that. Especially since the people who became the Revolutionary Socialist Party split, and you’ll see them call for socialist revolution, denounce bureaucratisation a lot, but they also think central planning is a good idea. Oh my Lord.

    If anyone wants a vision of a democratically planned, emancipatory, libertarian anti-statist and anti-capitalist economy based on the idea of worker self-management and social ownership, among other things, I recommended they check out Democracy and Economic Planning, by Pat Devine.

    Oh, I agree these groups are all tiny- the point was, is that they are generally the most prominent, so I was making the point if their politics were unintelligible and irrelevant to contemporary struggles, or seemingly unable to offer a tangible alternative, they would have disappeared a long time ago. But like I was saying on the forum Anarchist Black Cat the SWP and similar groups are very good at getting their stuff out there to a mass audience and to reach the mainstream with radical politics, being heavily involved and even in leadership positions within organisations like Unite Against Fascism, which is endorsed right across the political spectrum, and has involved tens of thousands.

    Anarchists have succeeded in doing that as well, but it sometimes seems like the influence is more cultural than political, and they don’t seem to get as much of a chance to really play a strong role in determining the politics/perspective of campaigning and political groupings, say like the SWP did building up groups like the Anti-Nazi League which reached a mass audience. Could you perhaps name me an equivalent political organisation in recent times which was either set up by/was strongly influenced by anarchist perspectives? And which had mass appeal/a mass audience? A big national/international conference by anarchist groups open to the public can do a lot to attract attention, and then putting all the talks up for free on the Internet, like the SWP does with their Marxism conferences. What they have succeeded at doing is getting the most legitimate, kind-hearted, well-meaning, respected and intelligent figures from the mainstream they can to speak at their conferences- say like Tony Benn, a long-time man of the Labour Left, and lots of people come along to see him- and then people see, well, maybe these people aren’t wild eyed radicals after all, and offer a political alternative.

    Giving people a sense that what you are doing is legitimate, worthwhile, and working in their own personal/collective interest gives you a real foothold to build upon, and doesn’t scare people away. I think, apart from countries with a long anarchist history and stronghold like Spain, which still has the CNT after all, it seems to have been harder for anarchists to reach a really big mass audience, or to play a major role in mass organisations. Maybe I’m generalising too much, but it seems like that to me.

  9. @ndy says:

    Re FI. OK. The history of the FI is complicated, and there are many diff international assocs claiming descent. Wikipedia, eg, lists 20, of which four–CWI, ICFI, ICL and IST–have a noticeable presence Down Under. (*Fourth International Posadist is best Fourth International.) Their size ranges from the tiny (eg. IBT) to the very, very small: the USFI or USec has no visible presence in Australia. (This list also does not include all the ‘rev left’ internationals, obv, of which there are many moar.)

    As for impact, the ICFI currently has sections in just six countries (Australia, Canada, Germany, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States), but its website is relatively popular. The Situationist International (1957–1972) had no more than a few score (70?) members during its 15-year history, but exercised an enormous influence on revolutionary thought, mostly on account of the incisiveness of its critique.

    Afaik, the two Internationals–CWI/IST–you’ve nominated as being the largest groupings are not, outside of the English-speaking world, the largest or most influential, their chief virtue, in this instance, being a larger presence, relatively-speaking, in Australia/UK/USA. The other thing to keep in mind is the strong regional variation the var FIs have. Further, in Asia, Europe and South America esp, Trotskyist orgs compete w a wide assortment of Communist/Maoist/Stalinist and other ‘rev left’ groupings; in India, eg, there’s a dizzying array of Maoist or Maoist-derived parties, many w strong local or regional links, and a relative absence of Troskyist parties.

    Like, whatever.

    Re SA. Yeah, maybe: it proclaims itself to be an anti-capitalist political party, and to be for socialism, but almost all of its refs to (and support for) ‘revolution’ concern things in places far, far away. Further, the RSP splinter prolly stuck ‘Revolutionary’ in its title for a reason. Nonetheless, in its earlier incarnations (DSP/SWP) SA has strong ties to the ‘rev left’: it might now be considered a leftist vers of the Greens.

    Re UAF. It’s a SWP front, established to replace a previous org, the ANL. Its contribution to the fight against fascism is another story.

    Moar later.

  10. @ndy says:

    Moar and later.

    A few things.

    Leaving the ANL/SWP/UAF to one side, the most popular anarchist event (not organisation) that I’m aware of in England is the London Anarchist Bookfair, for which the SWP can–along with their annual Marxism conferences–take the blame:

    The first London Bookfair was held at the ill-fated autonomy centre in Wapping. In what turned out to be the coldest day of the year, half a dozen anarchist publishers spread out their wares, and when hardly anyone turned up they played a pool tournament. It was a nice time and everyone said: “let’s do it again next year”. So we did.

    The idea for the Anarchist Bookfair actually came from the SWP (or International Socialists as they were then). They used to hold a Socialist Bookfair at the Camden Centre. Lots of anarchists turned up, but it was a really boring event, expensive and loads of mainstream publishers. Anarchists there decided to hold our own version.

    The idea was that it would be a smaller, but more fun, version of theirs, but ironically, the Socialist Bookfair died years ago and we used the Camden Centre a few years ago but out grew it. We needed somewhere bigger!

    The first Bookfair was in 1983 and this is our 28th Bookfair. The maths doesn’t work out because for a couple of years we had two a year. Each year we’ve grown with more stallholders, more meetings and more people turning up on the day. Increasing number of people is why we have gradually changed venues, each time to a bigger place.

    Re ‘fighting fascism’, anarchists played a role in est AFA which, tho’ less popular than the ANL, arguably proved to be rather more effective in tidying up the streets.

  11. LeftInternationalist says:

    Hey andy, posted a reply here, doesn’t seem to be showing up. Any idea what’s happened?

  12. @ndy says:

    I think it’s lost to the void. There’s been a bit of bumpy traffic ’round these parts lately.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “Re SA. Yeah, maybe: it proclaims itself to be an anti-capitalist political party, and to be for socialism, but almost all of its refs to (and support for) ‘revolution’ concern things in places far, far away. Further, the RSP splinter prolly stuck ‘Revolutionary’ in its title for a reason. Nonetheless, in its earlier incarnations (DSP/SWP) SA has strong ties to the ‘rev left’: it might now be considered a leftist vers of the Greens.”

    The vast majority of people in SA are still closer to Leninist than anything else (the real problem IMO). Not publicly calling for a revolution is tactical, not because they don’t believe in it. The RSP reacted to this turn by becoming completely over the top about calling for revolutions, declaring themselves Leninist etc.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I guess my point is that what most in DSP abandoned wasn’t so much the belief in revolution as the idea that you can build one by having a Leninist Vanguard Party with a perfect revolutionary program. I guess the idea was to build an organisation similar to what was described here. Prob is having inherited a very hierarchical structure, and the majority of members having worked in a Leninist framework for so long there was a lot of resistance to trying new ways of organising. And keeping Leninist ways of organising in a non-Leninist party doesn’t work. I mean who’s going to go to boring branch meetings, sell newspapers for hours or let some leader boss them around when there is no requirement of it to be a member and no ideology to convince them to do it?

  15. LeftInternationalist says:

    Maybe I have a far too romantic conception, but the idea of selling a paper, talking with people about ideas, talking to comrades and locals who buy the paper, seems like a good thing to do. It also makes you seem more legitimate and not some foreign outsider or elitist type in a community by actually talking to real people and offering them literature, rather than banging out manifestos online that will only be read and understood by the initiated. There’s nothing Leninist in the very act of selling a paper or it being something to orient/organise round, though of course Lenin did recommend that. And after all, one of the most famous regular anarchist publications of all time is Freedom, the UK paper partly set up by Kropotkin. I’m sure you could find anarchists on street corners in the UK and elsewhere hawking newspapers- and frankly, I’d be concerned if they weren’t publicly distributing their paper, and it was just being circulated among anarchists themselves- you’re not going to attract a majority to your ideas if you act like that. If you want to understand DSP ideology, and the origins of Resistance, I suggest you read A History of the Democratic Socialist Party and Resistance Volume 1: 1965-72 by John Percy (who’s now in the RSP). It’s actually pretty interesting, such as his look at early Australian radical history with the IWW, early CPA, and Australian Trotskyist groups. Though there are some problems- I think he refers to Eastern Europe as a series of ‘degenerated workers’ states’ though he never has any illusions about the complete lack of liberty in these societies. And sometimes the accounts of their hijinks is pretty amusing, such as the embryonic version of Resistance being called SCREW (Society For the Cultivation of Rebellion Every Where) the absolute ultra-sectarianism of the Maoists, the wild and lurid denunciations of their activities in the media, etc. And going through his ASIO file. For all his problems, his total and complete resistance in putting himself on the line against Australian involvement in the Vietnam War, and against political and cultural censorship, is pretty impressive.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Ok ok some people love selling papers and that’s cool. Personally I hate trying to sell things to anyone, but the going out there and talking to people, leafleting etc can be fun. Being expected to do it x hours every week and selling x number is more what I’m talking about. Also there was a time when even the mainstream papers were sold like that on the streets… These days it looks a bit more out of the ordinary, at worst a bit religious. Plus most people read stuff online. Even the mainstream papers are having to change formats. But that is all really beside the point, which was just that trying to use Leninist organising methods with a non-Leninist group doesn’t work.

    As for the history of the DSP, I was in the group a long time and have read that book (albeit a long time ago).

  17. LeftInternationalist says:

    The majority of the world’s population still has no easy access to computers, and unless capitalists start distributing their products on the basis of empowering people and fulfilling human needs (unlikely to happen any time soon, I imagine) the print media is still going to be vastly important for a long time yet, even in the advanced capitalist countries, where computers and internet access is more readily available. And papers are extremely important as an easy access source for local news in a town/city, though of course many of these are online component. Actually, papers generally have been quite profitable, even over the period that is talked about as their decline- however the newspapers today aren’t actually owned by the petty bourgeoisie, or lots of small capitalists as they once were, but by huge corporations, so when a paper is making profits, but not super profits, they cut funding for staff/journalists etc, shut down, and invest money somewhere else. And there is the aesthetic experience of reading a paper as well- y’know, sitting in the sunshine, laying back on a deckchair, sitting in a cafe, etc, which is much more comfortable and less hard on the eyes than a computer screen, which I think people are reacting against somewhat because their jobs force them to stare into these things for tens of hours, and then you end up getting addicted to the internet for info highs, debating on forums, watching videos, and following the news, like I have. Me and my family often sit together for an hour/s on Saturday/Sunday and read the parts of the paper/s we are interested in. I was of the idea that this is still quite common, is it not? How long were you in the DSP by the way, and what would you say were your positive and negative experiences within that organisation?

  18. Pingback: David North ~versus~ David Green | slackbastard

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.