TROTSKY'S LEGACY TO THE
NEO-CONSERVATIVES
IN THE USA
.Jeet
HeerNational Post
Saturday, June 07, 2003Joseph
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.
jeetheer@hotmail.com
© Copyright 2003 National Post
|