Date: Mon, 15 Aug 94 02:43:03 BST From: Chris Bailey <chrisbailey-AT-gn.apc.org> Subject: Trotsky's Marxism Concerning the "nature and historical function of Trotskyism" Phil O'Hara asks about, most of the people I work with politically are ex- Trotskyists (we toyed with the idea of calling ourselves "The Dead Trots' Society!), but from a variety of strands. We have, therefore, been quite heavily involved in examining this question between ourselves. Quite a bit of written material has been generated and we recently held a one day discussion meeting on the subject. Most of the written stuff is on disk somewhere and Phil (or anyone else) is welcome to a collection of it if he's interested. I would agree broadly with Alex Trotter's characterisation of Trotskyism as far as it goes, but agree with d jones concerning the 1844 manuscripts. I feel the whole attempt to set up the young Marx against his later work is false, and flows from an acceptance of the claims of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin et al that they were the only real continuation of Marxism in its mature form. Instead of conceding this I think we ought to be looking for the breaks between them and the humanist side of Marx. I can understand why going back to the early Marx has definite attractions within academic circles, avoiding as it does any need to follow Marx's example and participate in the class struggle on the side of the working class. Whole schools of Marxist thought have been developed in this way which do not have, nor see the need for, any influence within the working class at all. This is clearly in contradiction with the mature Marx and can only be justified by going back to an immature Marx who had not yet reached his most important conclusions. The worse aspect of this, it seems to me, is that it has created a special Marxism for the intelligentsia whilst leaving millions of people under the influence of extremely sterile and dangerous forms of Marxism which have produced disastrous and often extremely tragic results. I have no problem agreeing with Philip Goldstein that all these currents can claim in some way to be legitimately derived from Marx and that none of them can make exclusive claims to represent Marxism (although many of them do!), but this is hardly the point. Marxism did gain enormous influence within the working class throughout the world. It has also gained considerable influence within the intelligentsia, but in entirely different forms. It is all very well for the intelligentsia to congratulate itself on retaining the more "humane" aspects of Marxism as opposed to the forms that have dominated the working class, but surely, to paraphrase Marx, the point, however, is to change this situation. A clear example of this split between two separate strata of Marxism(s) was shown recently in this Marxism discussion. Louis Proyert in his contribution on 8 August said: > Steve Keen refers to 'marxists' who accept the idea that capitalism has a > built-in self-destruct mechanism. The only Marxists I know who have such > an apocalyptic understanding are the followers of Daniel DeLeon in the > Socialist Labor Party. Perhaps it can be found in 3rd period Stalinism as > well. > But most people today who identify with Marxist thought have a completely > sober and realistic understanding that there is no 'self-destruct' > mechanism at work. Nobody challenged this. It apparently appeared to be obviously true to the majority of contributors to this discussion. In fact, it is patently untrue. Certainly, the vast majority within the Marxisms of the intelligentsia would not subscribe to a view supporting a 'self- destruct' mechanism, but these are actually in a tiny minority when compared with the millions of people throughout the world who have been associated with Marxisms that have been waiting for the final crisis of capitalism to emerge. It has been a constant feature of Stalinism throughout its history, not just in the 3rd period. It was, for instance, a vital component of Khruschev's policy of "Peaceful Co- existence". It has also certainly been a feature of Maoism. Trotskyism has, of course, been much less influential within the working class internationally, but it is certainly thoroughly permeated with the concept of the ultimate crisis of capitalism. This is definitely one of the "ultra sectarian beliefs" I would identify in answer to Phil O'Hara's question. Trotsky was, himself, undoubtedly the originator of this. The founding program of his "Fourth International" based itself on the supposed fact that there could be no further development of the productive forces under capitalism - an ultimate crisis of total stagnation and collapse had been reached. I think the other key element of the Trotskyist sects comes not originally from Trotsky, but from Lenin. This is Lenin's concept, first advanced in "What is to be done?", concerning organisation. Here, Lenin glorified the tendency of capitalism to organise and discipline the working class. What Marx clearly saw as a de-humanising process was seen by Lenin as the basis for the formation and organisation of a revolutionary party within the working class. Party members were to be "cogs" in the party machine and workers were prepared for this by the discipline capitalism imposed on them. Plekhanov, Luxemburg and _Trotsky himself_ all pointed out Lenin's departure from Marx at length. They all, correctly, maintained that a Marxist organisation had to be based not on the discipline of capitalism, but the organisation developed by workers in rebelling against such discipline as, for instance, in a strike. After the _fait accompli_ of the Russian revolution Trotsky in effect dropped his opposition to these concepts. He always claimed that Lenin had changed his own views, but the fact remains that Trotsky on several occasions denounced his own writings against Lenin on this question and seemed to go out of his way to prove his total loyalty to the bolshevik conception of organisation. Certainly, most Trotskyist sects base themselves on this "Leninist" concept of organisation. This "top down" structure with the members as "cogs", combined with the coming "ultimate crisis of capitalism" would surely give David Koresh a run for his money. Healy added the final macabre touch by acquiring (at a cost of 30,000 pounds) Trotsky's death mask. This was brought out and paraded before the membership every year on the anniversary of Trotsky's death.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005