Customer Reviews

Emile Durkheim: 2 (Modern masters)

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

As readers of this space may know I make no bones about being an admirer of the work of Leon Trotsky (see all my reviews). I also believe that the definitive biography of the man is Isaac Deutscher's 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 social democratic political journal Dissent, 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 in this country. That 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 breeched 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; and, the lonely exile rolling the rock up the mountain despite personal tragedy and political isolation. However, my friends, Howe's biographical sketch 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 are there 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 and civil society in general; the horrors of the Civil War which helped lead to the generation of the revolution; Trotsky's recognized tendency as a Soviet official to be attracted to administrative solutions; his adamant defense of the Bolshevik party against all comers until the end of his life; his weakness as a political organizer in the party and later in attempting to found a new international; and, the inevitable `crime of crimes' for the social democratic set his failure to bloc with the Bukharinite Right Opposition after its defeat by Stalin in the intra-party factional wars.

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 or Dissent? Obviously Mr. Howe did not pay 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. Still it is necessary to read this book to be armed politically for the future.

Howe is a former Trotskyite, now a member of mainstream academia. Perhaps not surprisingly, his biography sympathizes with Trotsky's Marxist career - the anti-Stalinism in particular - while critiquing the undemocratic tendencies within Trotsky's unyielding Leninism. Still, unlike many former Trotskyites, he remains a socialist. I don't know if there is anything special about this brief biography; I suspect that if there is, the distinction lies in pointing out specific opportunities for democratizing the Russian revolution's direction. According to Howe, there were several such important missed opportunities. On the other hand, Howe's democratic sensibilities appear to minimize the class forces arrayed against Bolshevism in power. Pressures from predatory Western capitalism are all but absent in Howe's discussions. If history is a "bitch", as Howe holds, we should be no less cynical about appeals to democracy. For if History is the opiate of Marxism, Democracy is no less the opiate of bourgeois liberalism.