Though Cowards Flinch

Socialism 2009 was the Socialist Party organised conference to bring together people from the party and the Left to discuss ideological issues, to educate and debate. It lasted all last weekend, and I’ve already outlined the Saturday events. This is part one of Sunday’s events.

There were three slots for meetings on the Sunday, the first two you could choose what you wished and the third was a closing rally. For the first session, I went to see Peter Taaffe outline his defence of Leon Trotsky, in particular against Robert Service’s new biography – though Service himself refused to turn up for a debate, despite having been asked.

On Service’s biography, Taaffe’s criticism was scathing and can be read here. If a tenth of the things said about the book are true, it would be a waste of money to buy it. Debates between Robert Service and Chris Hitchens were referred to by Taaffe also and they can be watched on YouTube.

Knowing a bit about Trotsky, from his own writings and Deutscher’s masterful three volume biography, I wanted to go along to see what Taaffe would say about those things for which Trotsky is habitually criticised, which I assumed would be the focus for a session entitled “In defence of Leon Trotsky”. Actually they weren’t – in fact very few critical sentiments were voiced about Trotsky at all.

This was disappointing, because understanding some of the criticisms raised against Lenin and Trotsky are key to understanding the Russian revolution, post-October 1917. Glazed over in one comment by Taaffe was a discussion about democracy in the Soviets. There was no discussion about the ban on factions within the Bolshevik Party, or about measures such as the militarization of labour which Trotsky proposed.

It is not the case that socialists have no answers to these questions – but in a session designed to educate people about Trotsky, warts and all, the absence of discussion was mystifying. Did economic liberalization demand the suppression of the other parties, to prevent the NEPmen and kulaks from building a political base? Did Lenin and Trotsky think banning factions inside the Bolshevik Party was necessary?

These are questions which need to be asked if they are to be answered – but they were not asked, even rhetorically. The focus was on Robert Service, at best a second rate historian.

Despite this, some very good points were raised from the floor, when debate was opened. One comrade from Birmingham SP, who had studied revolutionary social history, made an excellent example of her own time at university, showing how university teachers can be motivated by their own prejudices. This raised some debate about how socialists should look on mainstream academia. A different comrade pointed to a favourable review of Service’s biography being published as part of right-wing PCS union material, for example.

An important point is contained here. Universities tend to favour the fashionable, and following the defeats of the 1980s, the successes of the Right have bred changes in the composition of faculties across the UK. This has in turn allowed the dissemination of a great amount of (some really hysterical, occasionally easily disproven) anti-communist tracts that have the official seal of university publishing groups like the OUP.

Unfortunately no recommendations on this subject were to be had, in terms how to remedy the situation. No links were drawn from revolutionary education to wider education and improvement of the working class, from the victory of the Right to the decline of social spaces to read or the de-funding of the Workers’ Educational Association and other bodies with the general betterment of our class in mind, including teaching workers how to get involved in researching and writing their own history.

An SP member from Newcastle brought up how we can put Trotsky’s ideas to practical use. Occasions in recent memory were illuminated to good effect using the example of Trotsky – such as the Lindsey Oil Refinery dispute. Discussion was had over the attitude of Trotsky to the masses of dirty, ill-clothed, rough-spoken workers whom he addressed either at the Soviet or as soldiers in the Red Army or in the halls he filled for many nights in Petrograd during the revolution.

The point was won that even where workers have some backward ideas, e.g. nationalism, that once it’s time for struggle, we should support their legitimate demands even while confronting their backwards ideas. This has always seemed self-evident to me, as we can’t be expecting workers to arrive at our headquarters fully versed in socialist theory, history and practice, else the revolution would have been won decades ago.

Similarly, it was discussed that actually directly reading Trotsky’s writings can be a palate-cleansing experience when it comes to looking at the politicial positions of some groups from British political history, such as the Socialist Labour League / Workers’ Revolutionary Party. Far from reducing ourselves to a form of biblical exegesis, we should read enough to know when ‘socialists’ are trying to BS through use of many a fine revolutionary phrase and appending Trotsky’s name.

Following this substantive debate, Peter then summed up from the front and I took some great encouragment from his words. He said, “We want to create an educated cadre who can act independently of a national leadership” and he figured on Trotsky as an example likely to inspire such independence of spirit. About that I can only agree.

(See also: And Now For Something Completely Sectarian, Nation of Duncan and David Bishop)