Conference
on American Trotskyism
The September/October
2000 Conference on American Trotskyism was the brainchild of Paul LeBlanc, who
is an important figure in the academic and activist left. Paul was expelled
from the Socialist Workers Party in the early 1980s along with over a hundred
members, including such prominent old-timers as Frank Lovell and George
Breitman. The expellees objected to the turn away from Trotskyism and also to
the first manifestations of sectarianism connected with the "turn toward
industry". Breaking with Trotskyism was supposedly meant to help the SWP
unite with more popular revolutionary movements like the New Jewel Movement in
Grenada. However, the openness that characterized figures like the martyred
Maurice Bishop could not be found in the SWP's bureaucratic regime, which had
begun conducting itself more and more like Bernard Coard's.
Some of the
expellees formed a new group called Socialist Action that attempted to
re-create the SWP as if following a recipe: "One, start a newspaper. Two,
start a youth group. Three, begin 'intervening' in the mass movement,
etc." A minority that included Paul, Breitman and Lovell launched a
journal called Bulletin in Defense of Marxism that sought mainly to clarify the
issues facing the Trotskyist left. This journal has evolved into something
called "Labor Standard".
(http://www.igc.org/laborstandard/index.html)
Some of the other
expellees decided that it was an exercise in futility to reconstruct American
Trotskyism and concentrated on building Solidarity, Committees of
Correspondence or mass movement organizations. Alan Wald, who serves on the
editorial board of Solidarity's magazine Against the Current, is in this camp.
I should mention that the Labor Standard comrades generally belong to
Solidarity as well.
Since Trotsky had
considered the SWP to be a model group, its demise was a blow to the prestige
of the movement he founded. For somebody like George Breitman, who had spent a
half-century building the SWP, this disaster had to be explained in political
terms. As part of this investigation, Breitman urged Paul to write a book about
Lenin in order to have a basis of comparison between the SWP and the original
Bolshevik Party. I have used Paul's "Lenin and the Revolutionary
Party" in my own research to great advantage, although I part company with
him on his assessment that James P. Cannon represented some kind of continuity
with Lenin. My own research has convinced me that Cannon was consistent with
Zinoviev, a lesser figure whose party-building notions had a built-in sectarian
logic.
Despite Paul's
commitment to the Cannonite tradition, he has edited collections of articles by
a wide variety of socialist thinkers, including those who obviously have little
connection to the kind of super-orthodoxy the SWP represented in its pre-1980 "Castroite"
turn. This includes his "CLR James and Revolutionary Marxism: Selected
Writings" and "From Marx to Gramsci: a Reader in Revolutionary
Marxist politics." (When I was in the SWP, the name Gramsci hardly ever
came up and when it did, it always had negative connotations.)
Paul also has an
analysis of how a new Trotskyist group, minus the SWP's warts, might come into
existence. He predicates this on the emergence of a new working class
subculture, which disappeared in the 1950s. The problems of the SWP are somehow
equated with the middle-class arrogance of the current team around Carleton
College graduate Jack Barnes. In discussions I've had with Paul, I have always
had the impression that the thinking of Marxist social historians like George
Lipsitz (author of "Rainbow at Midnight", a book with a chapter
"Ain't Nobody Here but Us Chickens: The Class Origins of Rock and
Roll") loomed large. I can go along with that, as should be obvious. Where
I part company is over the whole James P. Cannon thing.
Not surprisingly,
the conference reflected Paul's divergent interests. It was simultaneously an
attempt to breathe life into the Trotskyist project and one that looked at the
movement in more detached, scholarly terms. The latter approach was in line
with recent scholarly attempts to do for American Trotskyism what people like
Mark Naison did for the CPUSA or Maurice Isserman has done for the Social
Democrats. Speaking as somebody who has broken with Trotskyism altogether, I
believe that this is an urgent task since some of the scholars associated with
rehabilitating the CPUSA have lent themselves to what can only be described as
calumny against the Trotskyist movement.
I refer comrades
to Alan Wald's excellent review of one such book--Ellen Schrecker's "Many
are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America"--that he is a bit too kind to, in
my opinion. Since Alan has to peacefully co-exist with these people in academic
left circles, he refrained from describing this kind of Trot-baiting as exactly
what it is: utter bullshit. Schrecker writes, for example, that the Trotskyists
taught the "American liberals how to think about Communism" as if
characters like Max Shachtman were to blame for the witch-hunt. In one of the
more disgusting aspects of a disgusting book, Schrecker urges the American left
to reconstruct something like the old trade union-Communist-Democratic Party
alliance. If I had to choose one or the other, I'd prefer to rebuild the old
SWP rather than that unholy mess.
The conference
was extremely interesting and I offer here some very subjective impressions of
the proceedings. I've offered to create a website for the conference papers and
would also invite Paul to look into the possibility of starting a scholarly
Trotskyism mailing list on Egroups in line with this venture.
So here goes:
FRIDAY 7-9:30pm:
"US TROTSKYISM AND INTERNATIONALISM"
Two of the
speakers were well-known figures in the Trotsky hagiography business. One was
Esteban Volkov, Trotsky's grandson; the other was Pierre Broue, who publishes a
Trotsky studies type journal in France. Volkov runs the Trotsky library at the
Coyoacan residence, a must-see apparently for leftwing tourists. His talk was
heavy on the martyrdom of Leon Trotsky with melodramatic references to machine
gun bullets flying through his bedroom window, etc. What his talk lacked
completely was any kind of engagement with the current class struggle. Instead
it seemed to evoke the kind of psychology that produced the Lenin mausoleum. If
Trotsky is to have any kind of relevance to the radicalizing youth of today,
this kind of shrine-building has to be dispensed with immediately.
Broue was much
worse. This Grenoble professor, who was connected to Pierre Lambert's sect for
many years, used his 20 minutes to present a sensationalistic but diffuse
series of characterizations of well-known Trotskyist figures. Apparently this
included a charge that Pablo was some kind of secret agent, according to one of
my companions who remained alert during the whole time. Since his presentation
was so incoherent, this escaped my attention. As I do have the tape, I will pay
closer attention when I review his talk. If he did make this charge, I would
strongly urge Paul LeBlanc never to invite this bum to anything again.
Meanwhile Volkov and Broue sat in the audience chatting in a loud voice during
presentations by young Trotskyists on the final day of the conference until
someone shushed them. That should show you where their heads are at.
SATURDAY
9:30-10:40am:
"NEW PERSPECTIVES ON CANNON AND SHACHTMAN"
Canadian professor
Brian Palmer is working on a biography of James P. Cannon. Good luck to him. He
made a point that Cannon's father spent a year as a police magistrate, as if
that has anything to with anything. Apparently Palmer was around the Spartacist
League at one point--maybe that explains his interest in that factoid. Drucker
is the author of a biography of Shachtman that my old friend Nelson Blackstock
from SWP days recommends highly. I might get around to it one of these days. In
any case, I am leery of putting any figure on a pedestal nowadays unless it is
a jazz musician and a damned good one at that.
10:45-12:15am:
"TROTSKYISM AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS"
This was the
first opportunity I had to hear about the research being done by Christopher
Phelps, who had been the head of Monthly Review books before going back into
academia. Phelps is writing a history about Blacks and the Trotskyist movement.
While there is a rich literature about Blacks in the CPUSA, nothing has been
written about the Trotskyist movement except studies on CLR James which are
mostly about his personal achievements rather than his role in the movement.
One important element in this research is the breakthroughs that took place in
the Detroit branch during WWII, which at one point included 100 Black
members--mostly auto workers. The SWP'ers responsible for transforming the
party were all Cochranites, I might add. When I interviewed Erwin Baur out in
the Bay Area this year, I discovered how important it was for the party to make
Black workers feel at home. This included making socials and dances a key part
of branch life, as well as fighting for Black representation in the auto
industry and unions. If Phelps can make this history available to the general
left public, he will be performing an important service.
1:20-3:05pm:
"TROTSKYISM, WORKERS AND UNIONS"
Not to sound like
a broken record, but this panel also revolved around the work of the comrades
who would leave with the Cochran-Braverman group. As I mentioned yesterday, Kim
Moody's well-received presentation focused mainly on Sol Dollinger's "Not
Automatic". Joining him on the panel was young scholar Victor Devinatz who
is working on a book on Trotskyists and the UAW. One of the unfortunate
side-effects of the SWP's demonization of the Cochranites has been a diminished
account of their importance in the UAW. For example, Kim Moody mentioned that
Art Preis's "Labor's Giant Step", an 'official' SWP labor history,
does not provide much detail about the work of the SWP in the auto union. This is
because the people who led this work, like Bert Cochran and the late Genora
Dollinger, became 'unpersons'. Hopefully, Devinatz will fill in this gap. Along
with Sol's "Not Automatic", such works will be of great use to young
labor activists trying to build a class struggle left wing in the trade unions
today.
3:10-4:55pm
"TROTSKYISM AND INTELLECTUALS"
Presentations by
Suzi Weissman of Solidarity on Victor Serge and Alan Johnson of Great Britain's
Workers Liberty on Hal Draper sounded the anti-Stalin alarum. When I hear this
kind of stuff, it makes me want to go listen to Paul Robeson.
5:00-6:15pm
"REFLECTIONS OF TROTSKYIST VETERANS"
Three *very*
interesting presentations.
First was Edmond
Kovacs, known in the party as Theodore Edwards, who spoke on Murray and Myra
Tanner Weiss, two well-known leaders from the 1940s and 50s who ran afoul of
Farrell Dobbs. Kovacs was one of the more brilliant thinkers in the SWP, who
had his own style. I recall his wry and very cerebral remarks at conventions in
the 1970s vividly. He was a ski-trooper during WWII who ran a jewelry store in
Los Angeles after his return from intense fighting, sometimes hand-to-hand. As
an expert marksman, he successfully defended himself during a robbery in the
late 1970s. Told by the SWP leaders that his self-defense compromised the
party's image in the black community, he was asked to resign. His real offense,
of course, was independent thinking--much in evidence during his presentation
on the Weisses.
As it turns out,
the Weisses were highly charismatic and capable figures in the LA area who had
made the branch one of the strongest in the country. After Cannon had retired
to the LA area in the early 1960s, he became increasingly alarmed--according to
Kovacs--over the routinist character of party work under Farrell Dobbs, the new
chairman. Apparently, little interested Dobbs other than selling newspapers,
organizing Friday night forums and running propagandistic election campaigns.
Cannon persuaded the Weisses to move to NYC, where they would shake up the
Dobbs machine. As it turned out, they were the ones who got shaken up.
Still determined
to re-orient the party, Cannon called upon Carl Feingold to try to do the same
job. Kovacs describes Feingold as being as talented as the Weisses, but
completely lacking in scruples. After he got to NYC, Dobbs made short work of
him as well. From NYC, Feingold moved to Minneapolis where he recruited the
future leaders of the SWP at Carleton College. According to Kovacs, Feingold
must have recruited the kind of people that shared his foibles. As he said in
his talk, laughing mordantly to himself, "That's how we ended up with Jack
Barnes."
Bernard Goodman
spoke about his experiences on merchant ships in the 1930s. Apparently one of
the maritime unions was led by a William Lundberg, who as something of an
unreconstructed anarcho-syndicalist hated the CP. Thus he kept an open door
policy for anti-Stalinists like Bernie Goodman who shipped out in 1934 without
ever having been on a boat before in his life. He discovered that his
ship-mates were not only happy to show him how to do his job, but preferred to
hang out and talk about radical politics more than anything.
I remember
Goodman vividly from my days in the NYC branch back in 1967 to 1969. He was a
house-painter back then and seemed like he had stepped out of a Clifford Odets
play. He was never comfortable with all the students and kept trying to find
ways to return the party back to its 1930s roots. One time, before a big
demonstration, he got up out of chair all red-faced and demanded that we go
leaflet "the Negro churches".
He ended his talk
with a brief excerpt from a tape of a James P. Cannon speech that had been
aired on NYC's WBAI radio station during the 1950s. It was very impressive,
like nothing I'd ever heard before. Cannon used the stentorian, almost
incantatory speaking style of the Debs era, including a verse from a Shelly
poem. When I heard this stirring few minutes of Cannon's oratory, I could well
understand why so many Trotskyists felt such a strong personal loyalty.
Nat Weinstein, a
leader of the ultra-orthodox Socialist Action group, rounded out the panel. He
really embarrassed himself and his sect. Invited to speak about Tom and Carolyn
Kerry, a couple of crusty old-timers--now deceased--who had broken with Barnes,
Weinstein announced to the gathering that he would instead talk about the need
for socialist revolution and revolutionary parties. His twenty minute
peroration was filled with observations that society is divided into two major
opposing classes, etc. Very arrogant and very sad, all in all.
7:30-9:30pm:
"NEW DIRECTIONS"
Alan Wald gave a
talk that used Walter Benjamin to illuminate a YSA 1962 pro-Cuba demonstration
in Bloomington, Indiana that was in its way as "reckless" as the
recent Seattle protests were. Alan's talk was too complex to go into any
further here, but it reminded me how fortunate American Marxism is to have
somebody with his impressive intellect at its disposal. Alan is the modern day
equivalent of Kenneth Burke or the young James T. Farrell. I want to urge all
you young scholars on the Marxism mailing list to study Alan's various writings
and to take careful notes.
SUNDAY
9:30-10:30am:
"PRESERVING THE PAST"
More remembrances
of the Trotsky martyrdom from his grandson. Plus an idiotic rant from the
Spartacist League/Prometheus Library's Emily Turnbull. They are archiving all
of Cannon's Zinovievist party-building letters and articles, to use as a cudgel
against all their "middle class" opponents on the left. With friends
like the Spartacist League, poor James P. Cannon must be rolling over in his
grave.
10:35-12:00am:
"TROTSKYISM AND OTHERS ON THE LEFT"
A real
eye-opener. First to speak was Dan Georgakas, who is co-author with Paul and
Mari-Jo Buhle of the Encyclopedia of the American Left that is indispensable to
scholars of our movement. Georgakas was a student at Wayne State in Detroit
during the 1950s at the height of the witch-hunt. He had wry recollections of
interacting with the News and Letters group (a cult around Raya Dunaskeyava),
the CLR James group, and the SWP. Like Goldilocks, he found the three groups
lacking to one extent or another. For all of their lip-service to free Marxist
thinking, the News and Letters people weren't tolerant of any of Dan's opinions
that didn't jibe with their own. The James group was filled with all sorts of
ambitious plans for studying Capital, etc. but had no ideas about what to do.
The SWP came in first by default, especially its Friday night forums that attracted
every leftist in Detroit who was not part of the CP milieu. Out of these
meetings, many people gained a feeling of connectedness and solidarity that
they wouldn't otherwise. Not surprisingly, Georgakas found all the groups
lacking because they all seemed to rely on gurus handing down precepts from on
high, like the Ten Commandments.
Annette
Rubinstein spoke next about her involvement as an ex-CP'er working with SWP'ers
on the Independent Socialist Campaign of Corliss Lamont in the late 1950s. In a
bravura performance, like Bach improvising on a keyboard, this 90 year old
legend spoke within her allotted time, not even relying on notes. Not only did
she have immediate recall of fascinating events of that era, she spiced that up
with literary allusions. She did take exception to much of the Stalinophobia
that dominated the speeches at the conference, bless her heart.
My friend David
McReynolds spoke next. He was a central figure in the Vietnam antiwar movement
and has never forgiven the SWP for what he views as splitting the antiwar
movement. Back then, the pacifists and the CP tended to favor a multi-issue
approach rather than the single issue approach focused on the war favored by
the SWP. Although I tend to support the single issue approach to this day, I
feel that the heavy-handed "democratic centralist" style favored by
the SWP was as much responsible for the split as anything else.
1:00-2:25pm:
"TROTSKYISM AND SEXUAL POLITICS"
Another
eye-opener. Diane Feely, who is an editor of Against the Current, spoke about
the SWP's "intervention" in the woman's liberation movement that left
non-SWP women as alienated as David McReynolds and for the same reason. She
said that although the SWP had a good analysis of the woman's movement, they
operated in an arrogant, "militaristic" fashion that went against the
grain of the movement. For example, women were "assigned" to work in
NOW without having any background in the movement. They embarrassed the party
by referring to NOW at meetings as the National Organization *of* Women when it
was really called the National Organization *for* Women. This would be like
sending in somebody to "intervene" in the Black Radical Congress and
calling it the Black Radical Coalition, etc. I of course have my own analysis of
this kind of arrogant behavior, which I feel is rooted in the whole
"democratic centralist" methodology. Someday I hope that the movement
can transcend this unfortunate tradition.
Gary Kinsman
spoke about the SWP's "probe" into the gay liberation movement in
1973, which ended with a directive that it not be followed up with a full-scale
"intervention". (BTW, all you "orthodox" Trotskyists should
look up this word before you use it so casually to describe your relationship
to the mass movement. "Intervention" means "interference".
It is right there in the dictionary.) The SWP backed away because it viewed gay
issues as "life style" in nature. It also thought that gays lacked
"social weight" like women or blacks. In the discussion, Peter
Drucker honed in on what the real problem was. The SWP leaders came to
political maturity in the 1930s, during a time of total reaction on sex and
gender issues. Panelist Nancy Holstrom pointed out that Trotsky himself was not
above backward notions. For example, in "Revolution Betrayed", he
describes child-rearing as being necessarily a woman's role because it is
biologically determined. So when the gay movement erupted in the 1970s,
residual backwardness among old-timers like Farrell Dobbs prevented the party
from welcoming the new movement.
2:30-3:45pm:
"LEGACY OF THE JOHNSON-FORREST AND COCHRAN TENDENCIES"
You of course
have already seen my paper. I would add that my co-panelist, who works with
Paul LeBlanc on Labor Standard, spoke on the importance of Harry Braverman,
whom he regards as one of the foremost Marxist thinkers of the age.
Furthermore, he includes the American Socialist as a prime repository of
Braverman's analysis, and even quoted from the same article that I quoted from
in my talk. The biggest surprise of all is that Livingston learned about the
American Socialist from his comrade Frank Lovell who told him that it was one
of the finest Marxist magazines ever published--the same words I used in my
talk.