Revolutionary Organization Today: Part Two

An exchange between John Riddell and Paul Le Blanc

Comment by John Riddell

Dear Paul,

Thank you for sending me your article “Lenin and the Revolutionary Party Today.” Reading it was a liberating experience. It is so good to hear a statement of the case for building a revolutionary organization that is decidedly anti-sectarian.

I’d also like to raise a few points where your argument could, in my opinion, be taken further.

1. You talk of the lack of a broad labor-radical subculture. However, if I may take Toronto as an example, there is such a subculture. In terms of activism, it includes thousands of people. That’s not a mass base; it is a lot fewer now than during some periods in the last half-century, but in some ways this subculture is more advanced. It is now largely free of the influence of Stalinism, which was so dominant in the past, and Social Democracy is much less influential. It is not marked by the ultraleftism so prominent in the sixties; its political activities are broadly speaking on the mark. Also, this subculture has links to a broader constituency: for example, the 50-odd Islamic anti-Imperialists whom we meet fairly frequently can on occasion mobilize thousands, and so on in other sectors.

Moreover, this subculture is not limited geographically. It extends out internationally into several continents, and all that tumult of world class struggle gets drawn into our little city.

In my experience, today’s revolutionary socialist groups have a conflictual relationship with this subculture. Each revolutionary group identifies its own organization with the historic interest of the working class and prioritizes its organizational purposes over the needs of the broader movement. This is widely perceived by activists and strongly resented. In addition, most revolutionary groups prioritize an orientation to the “masses” as against collaboration with activists.

2. You say that attempts to build a “nucleus of the revolutionary party” turn in a sectarian direction because of the lack of a context of a radical subculture. Yes, but there is more to it than that. The revolutionary groups attempt to follow a fixed model of Bolshevik organization, regardless of their stage of development. This inflexibility in organizational conceptions is actually the opposite of the Bolshevik approach.

In addition, each revolutionary group today has a body of doctrine going back a century, which provides a predetermined answer to every major question, plus an apostolic succession of guiding theorists whose views cannot be challenged. The group’s politics are fixed and inflexible. The Bolsheviks, by contrast, had less fixed doctrine. In Lenin’s time, there were repeated sharp shifts in their politics in reaction to changed conditions and the lessons of experience.

3. The Bolshevik organizational model implemented by revolutionary groups today actually differs radically from the Bolsheviks in decisive ways, for example:

  • The Bolsheviks encompassed a broad spectrum of revolutionary fighters; today’s revolutionary group embraces only one ideological current.
  • The Bolsheviks were political heterogeneous; today’s revolutionary group can encompass only one font of political authority. An enduring difference between two central leaders usually leads to a split.
  • The Bolsheviks held their discussions in public, before the working class; today’s revolutionary group discusses in private.
  • The discipline of the Bolsheviks was directed primarily against the ruling class; the discipline of today’s revolutionary groups is directed primarily against each other.
  • And so on.

4. In the classic era of Trotskyism, the workers’ movement was cleanly subdivided into Stalinist, Social Democratic and Trotskyist currents, with some centrist sub-currents. As Trotsky said, the Fourth International was the only revolutionary current worthy of the name. Now, these divisions are much less clear. Movements like the Venezuelan Bolivarians cannot be neatly assigned to any category. The division of 1914-1920 into revolutionary and reformist currents has broken down and must be fought through again.

5. In this changed context, and with the collapse of organized Stalinism, it is not so clear what Trotskyism represents.

I judge Trotskyism on the basis of the broad range of groups acknowledging this theoretical heritage. What I say here should not be viewed as a criticism of any specific group.

Trotskyism is certainly not the only revolutionary current today. With regard to many Trotskyist currents, the revolutionary quality seems purely verbal: they do not relate to living revolutionary movements. Trotskyism today tends to underplay anti-imperialist struggles. Trotskyism tends to ignore the peasantry. Trotskyism is characterized by a sceptical attitude toward mass struggles in poor and dependent countries. None of this was true of the Trotskyism of my youth. Criticism has its uses, but the revolution will not be made by scepticism alone.

On the whole, Trotskyism seems to have lost much of its revolutionary edge in the last 30 years. It needs to be revitalized through cross-fertilization with other class-struggle currents.

6. Recently we have seen signs of a renewed vitality of Trotskyist currents in the United States. A conference is coming up next month in New York, which includes speakers from many Trotskyist currents. This could be a step along a road to revitalization. It is always positive when revolutionary socialists find a way to discuss together and collaborate together.

But my mind keeps returning to your comment about the revolutionary group’s relationship to the broad labor-radical subculture. To say that this subculture doesn’t exist seems like a cop-out. We have to relate to what is there. An insistence on the uniqueness of Trotskyism as a revolutionary current can become a barrier to this. And to relate to labour radicalism, we have to come to grips with a number of aspects in our heritage which – whatever their original justification – have now become signposts to sectarianism. Only in that way will be able, as you say, “to learn from people, to listen to people.”

Thanks again for your stimulating comments.

John Riddell

Response by Paul Le Blanc

Dear John,

I want to emphasize how pleased I am to receive your comments and critical thoughts. I will respond to those point by point. I may also send you some posts that have been made to our pre-conference discussion-list that address some of the themes that arise in you remarks.

1. One fact that may not have been expressed clearly in what I have been writing is that I know the United States, and function in the United States, and my points regarding the lack of the labor-radical sub-culture that stretched at least from the Civil War to World War II is focused on the United States. I don’t assume that what I describe in the U.S. is global. It seems to me that the opposite is true — though I suspect there may be some element of relevance in at least some other countries. I would love to come to Toronto (I was there only once, and fleetingly) and see more of Canada as well. I don’t doubt at all what you say about the existence of some such sub-culture existing there, and I imagine there would be much for me to learn.

For that matter, I do think that there are elements for the recomposition of such a sub-culture in my own country. I believe a recomposition process is already underway, although it seems to me it has a ways to go before it crystallizes on a sufficiently mass scale and with sufficient clarity of consciousness within certain segments of the working class here.

You write:

“Revolutionary socialist groups have a conflictual relationship with this subculture. Each revolutionary group identifies its own organization with the historic interest of the working class and prioritizes its organizational purposes over the needs of the broader movement. This is widely perceived and strongly resented. In addition, most revolutionary groups prioritize an orientation to the “masses” as against collaboration with activists.”

That seems to me extremely problematical. Unfortunately, within the U.S. there is all too much of that as well. It seems to me that we might have different takes on certain details and specifics — I don’t know — but what you describe in general terms seems consistent with my own point of view.

2. I think I agree with what you say when you write:

“The revolutionary groups attempt to follow a fixed model of Bolshevik organization, regardless of their stage of development. This inflexibility in organizational conceptions is actually the opposite of the Bolshevik approach.”

Of course, here we have to walk through specifics. It is certainly, unquestionably the case that the “Bolshevism” of the SWP was increasingly problematical, increasingly rigid and distorted, from 1972 through the 1980s. I can cite many specifics (and I have — particularly in my long essay of long ago entitled “Leninism in the United States and the Decline of the Socialist Workers Party,” which can be found in the Fourth Internationalist Tendency section of the Encyclopedia of Trotskyism On-Line).

I also agree that the misuse of revolutionary theory as Handy Dandy Manual for Know-It-Alls, all-too-prevalent among many would-be revolutionaries, must be rejected. What we need is a revolutionary Marxism that is a method for critical-minded analysis and guide to action (not abstention) that must be undergoing constant utilization, enrichment, refinement, modification, and development. It seems to me that the notion that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky were people who may have been wrong about one thing or another (and MUST have been wrong about at least SOME things) is an essential element to any socialism that claims to be “scientific.” It does seem to me that these amazing comrades (and I would add others to the pantheon — especially Rosa Luxemburg, also Gramsci, arguably some others) gave us much that is fundamentally correct, but the only way to determine what is correct and what is not is to use it and evaluate it, in the process adding to the valuable elements that are already there.

Depending on how you define your terms, I think it may be a bit of an overstatement to say that “the Bolsheviks did not have much fixed doctrine,” but it is precisely because some of their key leaders — Lenin most of all — used Marxism as a truly revolutionary approach (a la Marx) that, as you say, “there were repeated sharp shifts in their politics in reaction to changed conditions and the lessons of experience.”

3. You write: “The Bolshevik organizational model implemented by revolutionary groups today actually differs radically from the Bolsheviks in decisive ways.” There may be some revolutionary groups that are better than this, but much of what you say is all-too-true. I pretty much like the points you make. It would be worth discussing them in greater detail, with more reference to specifics, in order to get the clarity that I imagine we would both be satisfied with. But the thrust of what you say is absolutely correct.

4. I continue to self-identify as a Marxist, a Leninist, and a Trotskyist. But to my mind, this needs to be understood in a new way, because the realities you point to — the divisions are much less clear than in 1938, there are and have been new revolutionary currents that do not fit into the old categories, “the division of 1914-1920 into revolutionary and reformist currents has broken down and must be fought through again” — are, in fact, realities.

5. You write: “In this changed context, and with the collapse of organized Stalinism, it is not so clear what Trotskyism represents.”

The usual thing I was taught in our movement in response to this question (what is Trotskyism?) was that Trotskyism represents revolutionary Marxism, the standpoint of Bolshevik-Leninism, extended into the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s, and beyond. What I have said about Lenin’s orientation goes for that of Trotsky. In addition to what Lenin said and wrote, it especially involves an analysis of fascism, an analysis of Stalinism and of the USSR’s bureaucratic degeneration, and the theory of permanent revolution (understood intelligently, not stupidly — see my article on uneven and combined development in International Viewpoint or my writings in the 1980s on the Nicaraguan Revolution). For me, a Trotskyism that Trotsky would relate to today would be consistent with all that can be found above.

I do not know if your criticism of “Trotskyism today” is applicable to all of the groups that present themselves as Trotskyist, but I believe that it is applicable to some, and I know that such “Trotskyism” is not the same as Trotsky’s actual perspectives — and it is certainly alien to my own views. I do believe that “the mainstream Fourth International is different,” though the weakness of the FI makes it difficult sometimes to identify some of the views of its “mainstream” (looking through International Viewpoint may be helpful in that respect).

I would not disagree with the statement that “Trotskyism seems to have lost much of its revolutionary edge in the last 30 years. It needs to be revitalized through cross-fertilization with other class-struggle currents.” In my most recent book (Marx, Lenin, and the Revolutionary Experience) I reached for some of that, and the same is true in my interview in the MRzine a couple of years ago — http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/yates280806.html.

6. I believe the Trotsky Legacy Conference coming up at Fordham University in New York City, July 25-27, will be a place for important discussions having to do with the kinds of things we are discussing here. My hope is that it will be, as you say, “an initial step along the road to revitalization.”

This relates to the final point you make about the labor-radical sub-culture. You write: “To say that this subculture doesn’t exist seems like a cop-out.” It can be a cop-out if we use such a notion to do just that — cop out. We need to define what is in order to figure out what to do — or, as you put it, “We have to relate to what is there.” That is absolutely true. You say: “An insistence on the uniqueness of Trotskyism as a revolutionary current can become a barrier to this.” I agree with that. We can’t allow it to happen.

You assert that “to relate to labour radicalism, we have to come to grips with a number of aspects in our heritage which — whatever their original justification — have now become signposts to sectarianism.” I agree.

I believe there are essential elements from Marx, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky, and others from the revolutionary Marxist tradition that are crucial for a victory of the workers and the oppressed worldwide. To pretend to be the Keepers of Revolutionary Truth is inconsistent with passing on the truths that these comrades helped to discover.

Those of us who have a sense of those genuinely revolutionary insights and perspectives have a responsibility to share them in ways that make sense and are useful to those engaged in struggles of today and tomorrow.

To be able to do this requires a certain openness that is consistent with the method of Marx, Lenin, and the rest. We have to be able “to learn from people, to listen to people,” if we have any hope of being able — and the same time — to share the genuine revolutionary Marxism that will be needed for the triumph of socialism.

That’s what I think, anyway.

Warm regards,

Paul Le Blanc

17 thoughts on “Revolutionary Organization Today: Part Two

  1. Alan B

    An addendum to my previous comment: I think we have to be a bit careful when we are assessing the politics and practice of the Trotskyist movement in order not to get too narrow in how we approach things. In particular, when we are looking at organisational models, it’s not enough just to reject the way particular groups of Trotskyists have done thing. We also have to look at the alternatives, and how they have fared.

    First, of course, we have to remember that Cannonism isn’t the only model of organisation used by Trotskyists. There are others, and some of them may be worth considering. Also, there are many other ways of doing things that have been tested outside the Trotskyist tradition, and this can provide us with useful information about what works and what doesn’t. (Personally, I spent a couple of years in the Australian Greens, and came out of it feeling much better about how the far Left does things).

    We can, for example, look at the ways other, non-Trotskyist, tendencies have organised, especially in cases where groups have grown into mass tendencies from tiny beginnings.

    In other words, our focus shouldn’t be too narrow. There’s a big world out there we can learn from.

    But in the end, there is no substitute for actually trying to put our programs into practice. If they’re not tested, they’re wrong.

    Alan B

  2. Alan B

    First, responding to John: obviously, what I called the “sect form” is problematic. I could have played it safer and called it the “grouplet form”, but the fact is that a group built around a specific doctrine, and lacking mass roots, is in fact a sect, even if it isn’t a lunatic asylum like the Sparts.

    Any form of organisation we form and use will need to actively engage in struggle, and try and overcome the problems that John raises. This, however, is a political problem, and not primarily one of organisational form. In particular, it requires serious questioning of the theory and practice of groups derived from Trotskyism, and a conscious attempt to overcome any problems identified. That means asking difficult questions, and providing honest answers, even when it is tempting to come up with excuses. I’ve tried. It hurts.

    I’ve also spent some time considering alternative forms. I haven’t found one that doesn’t really replicate the vices of the grouplet form, or which is as effective in accumulating cadres. Some might be more effective at retaining existing cadres, but at the expense of recruitment and coordinated action.

    But this wasn’t really why I am posting.

    What I wanted to do was to point out that in several countries, currents derived from the Trotskyism tradition have actually eclipsed the old CPs. In almost all cases, these are situations where the far left is very weak, but still they present a situation where any future left revival will be influenced by these currents, rather than the old CPs and/or Maoism.

    Examples relevant to Canada include Britain, Australia, and to a considerable degree, New Zealand. (One of the two dominant currents in NZ arose from a fusion between “pro-Trotsky” and “pro-Mao” groups). The US is a somewhat different case, as far as I can tell. I could also point out France, where the main Trotskyist currents (LCR and LO) have considerable, if presently rather soft, support, and where the much larger PCF seems to be gradually waning. There are also a number of Third World examples, which are probably less relevant.

    This suggests that the Trotskyist project, as a whole, may not have been quite as much a failure as we might be tempted to conclude. Things certainly haven’t turned out the way they were originally envisaged, but, to a degree, the broad Trotskyist movement has, in fact, been one of the ways revolutionary Marxism has survived into the present, and will be transmitted into the future.

    The key, of course, is “one of the ways”. That’s something we need to firmly understand. And even within the broad Trotskyist tradition we need to realise that no single strand holds all the answers either. But that’s easier said than done.

    In fact, I think that we have most of the answers already, at least in a general sense. The problem is actually putting them into practice.

    Alan B

  3. John Riddell

    It is gratifying that Paul Le Blanc’s article, Lenin and the Revolutionary Party Today, found many readers and inspired a number of comments. Here is a quick personal response to a few points that were raised.

    I am glad that Phil C. has raised the relevance of Cuban communism to any project for building a revolutionary current, a concept that is central to Socialist Voice, where this note is appearing.

    Alan suggests that there “might actually be an argument for the sect” in their ability to recruit and educate cadres. He’s on to something here: the sect is under present circumstances the easiest way for socialists to organize and – also – the most durable. The problem is that the sect’s members are educated and trained mainly to close their minds to the ideas of non-members, the thinking of the working class ranks, and the lessons of reality. Sects obstruct the building of a revolutionary party and also cause considerable harm in conditions of mass upsurge.

    John L. stresses the need to act now to build a vanguard organization: “I think it *is* possible to build a Leninist organization in this period.” John thus agrees with the central point in Paul Le Blanc’s article – the need for revolutionary Marxists to collaborate in making their experiences and understanding available for new generations of activists. But that does not mean we should try to construct a miniature of what we think this party will look like some decades down the road. The problem is to determine what form of organization is appropriate to our present situation.

    The dilemma is captured by John L.’s metaphor: “You don’t wait for a flood to build a boat.” But what use is it to me to have a boat sitting on my lawn? And how likely is it that this boat-without-water is really seaworthy? Why not build a conveyance appropriate to today’s conditions? The best training for the big battles coming down the road is to do what corresponds to the challenge immediately before us.

    Sam W. asks what is the alternative to a sect, and suggests, “Perhaps a publishing venture.” Socialist Voice is purely a publishing venture – there is no associated organization. We have done this for four years, and it has worked well, particularly in removing any obstacle to close collaboration with and membership in other socialist currents.

    But we are not in any sense a model. Organizational forms flow from the circumstances in which we work. The difficult part to achieve collaboration among revolutionaries in political conditions that make this difficult, and to avoid sectarian pitfalls in the process. Paul Le Blanc’s article is a worthy contribution to that task.

    John Riddell

  4. Mike

    Paul observes that SWP members engaged in the “turn” talked socialism *at* their co-workers. This is true, that tendency existed and was often grotesquely manifested. I remember one manifestation of this in Militant quotas and gate sales. I “made” the turn in the early 80s, first by going into garment and then being abruptly asked to go into transit. In the NYCTA, I made a lot of friends among my coworkers, hung out with them, played paddleball, went hunting, went to bars, etc. Just being a social human being. And we had quite a few political discussions. I was involved in Nicaragua solidarity, so I brought that into the mix. There were transit and shop floor issues (which the SWP was reluctant to take up, again… Paul’s “gap”). I was elected safetyperson — and again, the SWP was reluctant for me to accept that nomination. So, the inability to engage was partly a result of individual socialization and partly a result of party policy. But, I think Paul also downplays a little, in that paragraph, the other side of the dialogue, an objective factor, which was the wall that had been built up around the workers themselves against radical ideas, and more important, modes of thinking.

  5. John L

    ‘The conscious socialists should act as a ‘leaven’ in the instinctive and spontaneous movement of the working class. … The leaven can help the dough to rise and eventually become a loaf of bread, but it can never be a loaf of bread itself. … Every tendency, direct or indirect, of a small revolutionary party to construct a world of its own, outside and apart from the real movement of the workers in the class struggle, is sectarian.’ James P. Cannon

    Paul LeBlanc has done all revolutionary socialists a major service with the publication of his book, Lenin and the Revolutionary Party. That said, Cde. LeBlanc, while laying out the contours of what a revolutionary vanguard would look like in the article, Revolutionary Socialist Organization Today, falls into the trap of saying that it’s not possible to build such a formation now — because of real world conditions and the real (low) levels of class consciousness amongst workers. A major task we face now is to rebuild the vanguard layer in the class and that has to be done consciously.

    For Paul, party building is left to some future time when the consciousness of the class is better and the objective conditions are changed. Trying to build a vanguard formation *now* necessarily leads to the construction of a vanguard sect. I could not disagree more. This is the classic ‘anti-sectarian, sectarianism’ typified by the US group Solidarity.

    I think it *is* possible to build a Leninist organization in this period. Of course, comrades have to be conscious of the need for democratic norms, to avoid inward-turning navel gazing and sectarian posturing. But the possibility AND the necessity of building a Leninist formation exist NOW — not in some distant future.

    As a friend and comrade once said to me — You don’t wait for the flood to build a boat.

    ‘ The vanguard party is the highest expression and irreplaceable instrument of that class consciousness at all stages of the world revolutionary process. In the prerevolutionary period the vanguard assembles and welds together the cadres who march ahead of the main army but seek at all points to maintain correct relations with it. The vanguard grows in numbers and influence and comes to the fore in the course of the mass struggle for supremacy which it aspires to bring to a successful conclusion. After the overthrow of the old ruling powers, the vanguard leads the people in the tasks of defending and constructing the new society. A political organization capable of handling such colossal tasks cannot arise spontaneously or haphazardly; it has to be continuously, consistently and consciously built.’ James P. Cannon, The Revolutionary Party and its role in the struggle for socialism.

  6. Alan B

    In my opinion, the “correct” form of organisation in the period before we get organised “properly” is the one that is best at recruiting and training cadres. (And, of course, not mistraining them too badly).

    That might actually be an argument for the sect form in the meantime, although there might be alternatives that achieve the same, or a better, result.

    Either way, we will need cadres. That is one of the few things I am sure about.

    Alan B

  7. Felipe Stuart Cournoyer

    The discussion initiated by Paul and John offers to provide an opportune path for a necessary rethinking by revolutionists from a Trotskyist heritage, a process of reassessing some of the basic postulates and assumptions of a wide range of Trotskyist currents and “internationals” today.

    I worked in the Canadian section of the Fourth international for over two decades beginning in 1960. The failure of any part of the F.I. to understand the dynamics of the Nicaraguan revolution made me question its role. I left the F.I. and linked up with the FSLN in the early 80s. I continue to be a militant of the FSLN and orient to forces seeking to apply Marxism and Leninism to our reality. I am also associated with Socialist Voice as a contributing editor.

    I believe that Trotskyism ceased to be the only alternative to Stalinism not with its ignominious collapse with the demise of the USSR, but with the victory of the Cuban socialist revolution and the consolidation in Cuba of a communist leadership. Since that time this current has been the one to best understand the openings in Africa and Latin America, and has played a key role in orienting revolutionists on both those continents. I don’t argue that this development and ongoing commitment of the Cuban communists unfolded without errors. But their basic outlook and course has been valid.

    Castro recently stated that the Cuban socialist revolution is not a model for other revolutions to follow, but that it is a model for countries dominated by imperialism to defend their right to sovereignty and national self-determination. The approach of the Cuban communists is to collaborate with and help revolutionaries in other countries, but not to instruct them or impose models on them. This quality of leadership and collaboration was not learned overnight, but developed over decades of initiatives to support national liberation struggles in other countries and continents – with some successes and also some notable defeats including in Bolivia where Ché was assassinated in October of 1967.

    The failure of most Trotstkyists currents to recognize this development and seriously orient to it, I believe, is the origin of their crises since the demise of Stalinism in its main bastions. Some Trotskyist groups are relating to the Venezuelan and Bolivian revolutionary processes with a sectarian and ultra left line that results from a “read our manual” approach to socialist internationalism. On the positive side, one can note that other Trotskyist groups are genuinely trying to learn from and become a part of these processes, or committed participants in the work of solidarity with them in the imperialist world and in other countries.

    However, unless these formations recognize the achievements of the Cuban communists as the leading and most successful practitioners of Leninism and Marxism in our time, I believe they will end up in a dead end. An inability to learn from the Cuban communists is a sure sign of being off track, at least when it comes to struggles in the semi-colonial world and in Cuba itself.

    John noted that

    “In my experience, today’s revolutionary socialist groups have a conflictual relationship with this subculture. Each revolutionary group identifies its own organization with the historic interest of the working class and prioritizes its organizational purposes over the needs of the broader movement. This is widely perceived by activists and strongly resented. In addition, most revolutionary groups prioritize an orientation to the “masses” as against collaboration with activists.”

    The mystery is why do they find they have to make a choice between a “mass orientation” and “collaboration with activists”? The issue is what is the orientation of the “activists”? From all the reports I have seen about work in Toronto and Vancouver (I am based in Managua), it seems to me that the activists relate to forces that can be mobilized around clear demands and slogans that can appeal to a mass audience. Why then do the “revolutionary groups” see a contradiction or pose the necessity to choose one course against another? Can it be that they are trying to apply manuals and text books in a lifeless, artificial manner?

    Paul touched on this problem when he wrote:

    “I also agree that the misuse of revolutionary theory as Handy Dandy Manual for Know-It-Alls, all-too-prevalent among many would-be revolutionaries, must be rejected. What we need is a revolutionary Marxism that is a method for critical-minded analysis and guide to action (not abstention) that must be undergoing constant utilization, enrichment, refinement, modification, and development. It seems to me that the notion that Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky were people who may have been wrong about one thing or another (and MUST have been wrong about at least SOME things) is an essential element to any socialism that claims to be “scientific.” It does seem to me that these amazing comrades (and I would add others to the pantheon — especially Rosa Luxemburg, also Gramsci, arguably some others) gave us much that is fundamentally correct, but the only way to determine what is correct and what is not is to use it and evaluate it, in the process adding to the valuable elements that are already there.”

    John also noted that

    “Trotskyism is certainly not the only revolutionary current today. With regard to many Trotskyist currents, the revolutionary quality seems purely verbal: they do not relate to living revolutionary movements. Trotskyism today tends to underplay anti-imperialist struggles. Trotskyism tends to ignore the peasantry. Trotskyism is characterized by a sceptical attitude toward mass struggles in poor and dependent countries. None of this was true of the Trotskyism of my youth. Criticism has its uses, but the revolution will not be made by scepticism alone.”

    I concur with this assessment, but would add, in harmony with my above comments about the Cuban communists, that Trotskyism has not been “the only revolutionary current” since at least 1953-54 when the July 26 movement emerged.

    As for the assertion that “None of this was true of the Trotskyism of my youth,” I would be less all embracing than that. The Trotskyism of my youth also included the Healyites, the Lambertistes, and the Latin American Posadistas. Of course, the Cuban revolution led these forces to split away from the F.I., but they still remained in the general Trotskyist camp. I leave out here any discussion of the attitude of two other significant Trotskyist currents, the International Socialists and the Woods-led In Defense of Marxism current.

    I raise these points to emphasize that the problems we are dealing with stretch back to at least the early fifties, and it is not an accident that in those years the mainstream Trotskyist Fourth International underwent a severe split mainly over the response to the Cuban revolution.

    None of the main currents in the Fourth International were able to understand the dynamics of the Nicaraguan Sandinista revolution. Both main factions in the 1970s were so bogged down in the fight over the orientation to “rural guerrilla warfare on a continental scale” that they failed to recognize that a process was well underway in Nicaragua that combined guerrilla warfare with urban insurrections led by the FSLN. This did not occur overnight, and differences around the course of the struggle against the dictatorship led to a three-way split in the FSLN that was only healed when all sides recognized the power and the potential of spontaneous urban insurrections. The Tercerista Tendency must be credited with having the most accurate read on these events and having prepared their militants to offer leadership to it. Once the reunification took place in March of 1979 the FSLN was in a good position not just to bring about the overthrow of Somoza but to take power. All this occurred with very little attention from the Fourth International or the US SWP, or any other Trotskyist organization. The Trotskyists in Nicaragua, aligned with the Moreno grouping in Argentina, were completely bi-passed and played zero role in the revolution. Some of them are still organized in a tiny group that has no relevance to current events and whose existence seems to be some kind of secret.

    Following the victory of the revolution in Nicaragua some Trotskyist groups played important roles in solidarity work, but none of them developed a concrete and credible analysis of the revolutionary process. So we ended up with most of them attaching principal blame for the electoral defeat in 1990 on the FSLN leadership and not the long US-financed Contra war. This is not the place to go into those shabby “analyses,” but I still rankle at the futility of much of the discourse of the time coming out of New York, Buenos Aires, Paris, and London.

    The discussion that Paul and John have initiated looks like a promising beginning to a much needed rethinking, from which all of us stand to learn as we try to strengthen and deepen our commitment to and understanding of genuine Marxism and Leninism.

    Sol

    Phil (Felipe) Stuart C.

    Managua

  8. Sam W.

    Of course, the next question is: what sort of organization *should* revolutionary socialists be trying to build in the current period?

    A shortcoming of “Left Refoundation”-oriented groups in North America (including Solidarity, the Pittsburgh branch of which I was a member along with Paul) has been a tendency to define themselves mostly *negatively*. They acknowledge (rightly) that they’re not the vanguard party or the embryo of the same; but give only a vague suggestion of what they *are*.

    So, what is the alternative to the sect? Freedom Road has tried to suggest something with Which Way Is Left?, saying that what we need to strive for is a party based on unity formed through common practice and dialogue. No argument here. But *until* that magic moment of unity is reached, what are socialists to do? Join a sect? Or, as Hal Draper suggested, start a publishing venture? What?

  9. Tom Barrett

    This exchange is what political discussion SHOULD look like.

    I will be attending the Legacy of Trotskyism conference at Fordham University in the Bronx, NY, 25-27 July, and I hope that many Socialist Voice readers will be there. If the Fordham conference takes the tone of this discussion, it will be great.

    What John says about Trotskyism as a political current distinct from Stalinism and Social Democracy is vital: that was the reality from the late 1920s until the early 1990s, that is, over the course of two generations. It was the reality in which most of us got our political education. It is no longer the reality today, and it changes EVERYTHING. We’re only beginning to draw the necessary conclusions, and in the course of doing that all kinds of organizational realignments must occur.

    Arguments about 1917, 1937, 1945, 1953, 1973, or 1979 are interesting, but what we really need to concentrate on is what we do now. We cannot simply read what past leaders have written and find the ideas we need for the future.

  10. Pance

    I was first introduced to the writings of Paul in the mid ’90s when I was wandering through the “Left” section of Toronto’s Worlds Biggest Bookstore. I read Paul’s book “From Marx to Gramsci” and my spirits were lifted. At last (after the downfall of existing Socialism), there was a book that said – at least the theory of worker emancipation is correct. Thank you for that book Paul. I wrote a review that was published in the short-lived magazine Ginger:

    http://www.pance.ca/ginger/n02_review01.html

    Personally I like going back to study the classics, but I agree with both your comments, that you’re probably not going to win any friends by arguing about 1917. Or as Boris Kagarlitsky said recently at a forum in Toronto – “the patient is dead” (see the video on YouTube).

    Onward to 21st century socialism.

    Pance.

Comments are closed.