On the 100th Anniversary Of The Russian Revolution-A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC VIEW OF LEON TROTSKY
BOOK REVIEW
LEON TROTSKY, IRVING HOWE, HOLT,RHINEHART, New York, 1978
As readers of this space may know I make no bones about being an admirer of the work of Leon Trotsky (see archives). I also believe that the definitive biography of the man is Isaac Deutchers’ s three-volume set. Nevertheless, others have written biographies on Trotsky that are either less balanced than Deutscher’s or come at it from a different angle with a different ax to grind. Irving Howe’s, self-defined quasi-biography is a standard social-democratic take on Trotsky’s life and work.
The late Mr. Howe, long time editor of the political journal "Dissent" and a political 'godfather' of today's neo-conservatives, takes on the huge task of attempting to whittle down one of the big figures of 20th century history against the backdrop of that mushy social-democratic ‘State Department’ socialism that the left New York intelligentsia gravitated to in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. That standard response invokes admiration for the personality and intellectual achievements of Trotsky the man while abhorring his politics, especially those pursued as a high Soviet official when he was in political power. In the process Mr. Howe demonstrates as much about his weak ‘socialist libertarian’ politics grounded in a theory of Soviet ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ than a serious examination into Trotsky’s politics. There are some chasms that cannot be breached and this is one of them.
In classic fashion Howe sets up Trotsky’s virtues early. Thus he recognizes and appreciates the early romantic revolutionary and free-lance journalist in the true Russian tradition who faced jail and exile without flinching; the brilliant, if flawed, Marxist theoretician who defied all-comers at debate and whose theory of permanent revolution set the standard for defining the strategic pace of the Russian revolution; the great organizer of the revolutionary fight for power in 1917 and later organizer of the Red Army victory in the Civil War; the premier Communist literary critic of his age; the ‘premature’ anti-Stalinist who fought against the degeneration of the revolution; the lonely exile rolling the rock up the mountain despite personal tragedy and political isolation. However, my friends, Howe’s biographical sketches are about an intensely political man by one who was a political opponent of everything that Trotsky stood for. Thus, all the patently obvious and necessary recognition of Trotsky as one of the great figures of the first half of the 20th century is a screen for taking Trotsky off of Olympus.
And here again Howe uses all the points there are in the social democratic standard catechism. The flawed nature of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution as applied to Russia in 1917 and also to later semi-colonial and colonial countries; the undemocratic nature of the Bolshevik seizure of power in regard to other socialist parties; the horrors of the Civil War which helped lead to the degeneration of the revolution; Trotsky’s recognized tendency as a Soviet official to be attracted to administrative solutions; his adamant defense of the heroic days of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union, even in its degenerated state, against all comers until the end of his life; his weakness as a party political organizer in the fierce intra-party factional struggles and later, in attempting to found new communist parties and a new international; and, the inevitable ‘crime of crimes’ for the social democratic set- his failure to politically bloc with the Bukharinite Right Opposition after its defeat by Stalin.
Of course the kindest interpretation one can make for Howe’s polemic is that he believes like many another erstwhile biographer that Trotsky should have given up the political struggle and become- what? Another bourgeois academic or better yet an editor of Partisan Review, Dissent or Commentary? Obviously Mr. Howe did not pay sufficient attention to the parts that he considered Trotsky’s virtues. The parts about the intrepid revolutionary with a great sense of history and his role in it. And the wherewithal to find a place in it. Does that seem like the Trotsky that Howe wrote about? No. A fairer way to put it is this. Trotsky probably represented the highest expression of what it was like to be a communist man, warts and all, in the sea of a non-Communist world. And that is high historical praise indeed.
BOOK REVIEW
LEON TROTSKY, IRVING HOWE, HOLT,RHINEHART, New York, 1978
As readers of this space may know I make no bones about being an admirer of the work of Leon Trotsky (see archives). I also believe that the definitive biography of the man is Isaac Deutchers’ s three-volume set. Nevertheless, others have written biographies on Trotsky that are either less balanced than Deutscher’s or come at it from a different angle with a different ax to grind. Irving Howe’s, self-defined quasi-biography is a standard social-democratic take on Trotsky’s life and work.
The late Mr. Howe, long time editor of the political journal "Dissent" and a political 'godfather' of today's neo-conservatives, takes on the huge task of attempting to whittle down one of the big figures of 20th century history against the backdrop of that mushy social-democratic ‘State Department’ socialism that the left New York intelligentsia gravitated to in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. That standard response invokes admiration for the personality and intellectual achievements of Trotsky the man while abhorring his politics, especially those pursued as a high Soviet official when he was in political power. In the process Mr. Howe demonstrates as much about his weak ‘socialist libertarian’ politics grounded in a theory of Soviet ‘bureaucratic collectivism’ than a serious examination into Trotsky’s politics. There are some chasms that cannot be breached and this is one of them.
In classic fashion Howe sets up Trotsky’s virtues early. Thus he recognizes and appreciates the early romantic revolutionary and free-lance journalist in the true Russian tradition who faced jail and exile without flinching; the brilliant, if flawed, Marxist theoretician who defied all-comers at debate and whose theory of permanent revolution set the standard for defining the strategic pace of the Russian revolution; the great organizer of the revolutionary fight for power in 1917 and later organizer of the Red Army victory in the Civil War; the premier Communist literary critic of his age; the ‘premature’ anti-Stalinist who fought against the degeneration of the revolution; the lonely exile rolling the rock up the mountain despite personal tragedy and political isolation. However, my friends, Howe’s biographical sketches are about an intensely political man by one who was a political opponent of everything that Trotsky stood for. Thus, all the patently obvious and necessary recognition of Trotsky as one of the great figures of the first half of the 20th century is a screen for taking Trotsky off of Olympus.
And here again Howe uses all the points there are in the social democratic standard catechism. The flawed nature of Trotsky’s theory of permanent revolution as applied to Russia in 1917 and also to later semi-colonial and colonial countries; the undemocratic nature of the Bolshevik seizure of power in regard to other socialist parties; the horrors of the Civil War which helped lead to the degeneration of the revolution; Trotsky’s recognized tendency as a Soviet official to be attracted to administrative solutions; his adamant defense of the heroic days of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union, even in its degenerated state, against all comers until the end of his life; his weakness as a party political organizer in the fierce intra-party factional struggles and later, in attempting to found new communist parties and a new international; and, the inevitable ‘crime of crimes’ for the social democratic set- his failure to politically bloc with the Bukharinite Right Opposition after its defeat by Stalin.
Of course the kindest interpretation one can make for Howe’s polemic is that he believes like many another erstwhile biographer that Trotsky should have given up the political struggle and become- what? Another bourgeois academic or better yet an editor of Partisan Review, Dissent or Commentary? Obviously Mr. Howe did not pay sufficient attention to the parts that he considered Trotsky’s virtues. The parts about the intrepid revolutionary with a great sense of history and his role in it. And the wherewithal to find a place in it. Does that seem like the Trotsky that Howe wrote about? No. A fairer way to put it is this. Trotsky probably represented the highest expression of what it was like to be a communist man, warts and all, in the sea of a non-Communist world. And that is high historical praise indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment