Date: Thu, 27 Oct 1994 23:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> Subject: Trotskyism Tom Smith suggests we talk about Trotskyism publically. I think we shouldn't. I'll briefly say why and then follow my advice and not talk about it. There are basically two reasons: 1. Trotskyism has developed an arcane esoteric language intelligible only to insiders--I mean Trotskyists, not even Marxists as a whole, much less socialists. This reflects a particular history of--I won't say sectarian, but shall we say small-group conflict over positions and actions of no interest to anyone anymore. (Pabloism!) Technical vocabulary is a necessary evil when you have something that can't be precisely expressed in plain language, but it has to be worth expressing, and I think the language of Trotskyism is not worth learning for this purpose. I do not mean that Trotsky and various Trotskyists have nothing of interest to say, just that it's best said in plain English or Marxese, without the specialized apparatus. E.g. the discussion about Haiti Tom started sounds interesting if implausible, but it didn't sound like we needed Trotskyism to engage in it. What we need is knowledge of the Caribbean and some grasp of imperialism. (There, some Marxese.) 2. More deeply, I think that Trotskyism is a ladder we can kick away having climbed it. (We don't have to have been Trotskyists to have done this.) In a funny way Trotskyism has been made outmoded by its own success. I speak in riddles, so let me be more plain. The defining issue of Trotskyism was always anti-Stalinist Marxism. T-ism was the bad conscience of the Stalinist and fellow-travelling left, reminding us that there was a place for the ideals of classical Marxism against the barbarism of Stalinist regimes. It defined a space where even people who were not T-ists could be for revolutionary socialism without being for the Gulag. Ok, it won: Stalinism is over. T-ism didn't win the way it wanted; not with "political revolutions" (T-ist jargon) of workers against bureaucrats in the name of October. But nonetheless the main raison d'etre for T-ism--Stalinism--is now past or passing, and even its few pro-forma defenders don't believe in it any more. What is left, as it were, is not T-ism, but perhaps what T-ism was for: revolutionary independent socialism inspired at least in part by classical Marxism. Now at this point we do not know what "revolutionary" means beyond saying we are intransigently opposed to capitalism and want to end class rule. We are little enough clear on what socialism means, given the debates about planning and markets, etc. And to what extent Marxism has a political role to play in organizing the struggles of the oppressed is not clear. Its intellectual role remains clear: it is the theory of working class self-emancipation and the best guide we have to capitalism. But even there the working class is not all that needs emancipation and we do not have a general account, theoretical or practical, of how to tie together the various struggles. That is, I guess, part of what people mean by saying that postmodernism is a fact, whatever theories post modernists hold. I think that we do know what independent means: in the US context, it means, don't do Democrats; organize yourselves. But in any event those are the issues--and not the ones framed by Trotsky or Trotskyism in the struggle, often heroic, against Stalinism. So there's a legacy from Trotskyism to which the democratic left is indebted. There is a body of analysis and theory which people can use, and should do, just as we use Gramsci, Luxemburg, the Frankfurt School, and work to the right and left, above and below that literature. But there's no point in being a Trotskyist anymore; it's like being a Newtonian to emphasize your opposition to Cartesian physics (sorry, my old training in history and philosophy of science is showing). Sure we're Newtonians--but even there we use Leibniz's analytic notation and formalization, not Newton's geometric one. And besides, Newton has been subsumed by Einstein--not refuted, just exhibited as a special case. So with regard to (1), we don't need to talk that talk and walk that walk to get what's good in Trotskyism; we need the current analytic and not the geometric method. With regard to (2), the antagonist is defeated: Descartes is a piece of history of science, not a founder of modern physics; Stalinism is defeated and discredited. (I don't mean to imply that Descartes was a mass murderer or Stalin a genius.) Trotskyists should pride themselves on this victory and start thinking about what they should do now, since the old formulas are from yesterday's battles. I'm done. That's why I am not a Trot and why I don't think we should talk in those terms. And I'm not saying a word more about it. --Justin Schwartz ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005