[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on the Trotsky Legacy conference

[Louis Proyect]

REFLECTIONS ON THE TROTSKY LEGACY CONFERENCE
Paul Le Blanc (8/1/08)

The Conference on the Legacy of Leon Trotsky and U.S. Trotskyism took 
place on July 25-27 at the Bronx campus of New York City’s Fordham 
University.  As one of the people who helped plan and organize the 
conference, I would like to offer a few reflections.  In what follows I 
will avoid critical discussion of political perspectives – there were a 
variety of these presented at the conference – but not because I 
consider these unimportant.  I have dealt with, and will deal with, such 
matters elsewhere (including my own presentation and remarks at the 
conference).  But I want this to be a relative brief account that gives 
at least a general sense of what happened during these three days, 
offering basic information and bits of evaluation.

The conference was a success in more than one way.

•	We were hoping for at least 100 participants.  There were 110 formal 
registrants from 13 states in the U.S., plus others from Canada, Mexico, 
Venezuela, and Britain.

•	We were hoping for a number of former members of the Socialist Workers 
Party (SWP) and Young Socialist Alliance (YSA).  While I would have 
preferred at least 10 or 20 more than there were, around 40 or so former 
members of the SWP and YSA were in attendance, whose membership occurred 
at various times between 1960 and 1998, and whose perspectives on the 
experience varied.

•	We were hoping that a number of participants would be thoughtful 
younger activists with some interest in the legacy of Leon Trotsky and 
U.S. Trotskyism.  This turned out to be the case.  These were primarily 
members of the International Socialist Organization (ISO), the Workers 
International League (WIL), Socialist Alternative, and Solidarity – all 
of whom engaged in the discussions in an open manner, with plenty of 
questions and ideas of their own, but without the 
“more-revolutionary-than-thou” attitude that afflicts some groups which 
happened to be in attendance.

•	A self-description of the conference contained in the packets handed 
out to participants accurately describes what, in fact happened at the 
conference. “The conference’s purpose is to focus on the meaning and 
relevance of an important political experience, the development of the 
revolutionary socialist movement in the United States that was inspired 
by the ideas of Leon Trotsky.  The conference will bring together 
veterans of that movement, along with critical-minded scholars, as well 
as students and other young people who have an interest (in many cases 
an activist engagement) in social movements.  It will involve a serious 
exploration of the experience, the history, and the ideas of U.S. 
Trotskyism – including discussions of the relationship of all this to 
current world realities.”

•	One of the hopes of the conference planning committee was stated in 
this way: “We look forward to a lively exchange of varying points of 
view at this conference – best accomplished, we feel, by proceeding in a 
way that is respectful of each other.”  For the most part, this hope was 
realized.

•	There was some concern that the conference – although organized on a 
shoestring – would wrack up some debts, but in fact all bills were paid 
and there was a comfortable surplus.

Conference Sessions

The quality of the presentations and discussion varied.  We were 
especially fortunate to have a fine presentation on James P. Cannon by 
the outstanding Canadian labor historian Bryan Palmer, author of an 
excellent and important biography of Cannon, plus moving and partly 
autobiographical presentation on the legacy of Leon Trotsky by Esteban 
Volkov, Trotsky’s grandson.

An outstanding set of presentations, I thought, was provided by Kipp 
Dawson, Robin David, and Gus Horowitz, who focused on strengths of the 
SWP in the 1960s and 1970s.  Another panel focused on an exploration of 
the weaknesses and decline of the SWP, with interesting presentations by 
myself, David Walters, and Linda Thompson – although the only one I was 
fully satisfied with was my own (no surprise there!).  In both panels I 
would have liked to see a more thorough and searching discussion of the 
relevant issues.  This was precluded by lack of time – which was one of 
the most serious problems of the conference, which I will come back to 
shortly.

Among the best sessions, I thought, were those on party-building and on 
the anti-war movement.  The former was graced by three clear and 
thoughtful presentations by Tom Trottier of the WIL, Steve Bloom 
(speaking only for himself) of Solidarity, and Sharon Smith of the ISO. 
  The presenters avoided the dismissiveness of party-building that 
afflicts some sectors of the Left, as well as the “we’re-the-greatest” 
sectarianism all too prevalent among others.  While there was some 
relating of the presentations to previous sessions examining the history 
of the SWP (Steve, as a former SWP member, naturally did this more than 
the others), all were primarily, and thoughtfully, very much engaged 
with current realities and future possibilities.  On the anti-war panel, 
Gus Horowitz offered a succinct and inspiring overview of the role the 
SWP was able to play in the U.S. movement to end the war in Vietnam. 
This was followed by three truly excellent, richly informative 
presentations from on-the-ground activists who have been in the thick of 
the current struggle against the U.S. war in Iraq – Chris Gauvreau (who 
has been prominent in the National Assembly to End the Iraq War and 
Occupation), Tom Bias (who has been immersed in the vital work of a 
local anti-war coalition in New Jersey), and Leia Petty (who is an 
outstanding leader in the Campus Anti-War Network – CAN).

Revolutionary struggles in Latin America was the focus of one of the 
most ambitious panels.  It began with the showing of a DVD excerpt from 
a rousing and optimistic presentation by Cuban Trotskyist Celia Hart, a 
more measured, somber assessment by the always-informative Gerry Foley, 
a detailed and valuable survey of current Cuban realities by Eloise 
Linger, and a very upbeat and fascinating intervention by a young 
revolutionary associated with the Venezuelan consulate, Martín Sanchez.

Two other ambitious panels were less successful in living up to their 
titles.  One was “Permanent Revolution and the Evolution of World 
Realities Since the 1960s.”  ISO leader Ahmed Shawki offered a serious 
and energetically-presented set of reflections on the present 
conjuncture, conference coordinator Linda Thompson presented a 
wide-ranging discussion of feminism, and Victor Serge biographer Suzi 
Weissman gave us a sense of Serge’s contributions to the revolutionary 
movement and aspects his perspective that have relevance for our own 
time.  All of this was interesting (and the discussion was even more 
so), but there was hardly the serious evaluation of Trotsky’s theory in 
the light of a deep analysis of the past five decades which the title 
seemed to promise.  Similarly, the session on “Social Movements and 
Class Struggle in the U.S.” was the other session of which this was the 
case.  It was graced by the absorbing autobiographical reflections of 
Kwame Somburu, as well as an extremely critical interpretation of U.S. 
Trotskyists’ understanding (or lack of understanding) of Trotsky’s 
Transitional Program by Marilyn Vogt-Downey; only trade unionist Dan 
Kaplan offered perspectives that was fully as contemporary as the 
session’s title seemed to promise.

Other Aspects of the Conference

I must confess that I attended only one of the workshops – the one on 
the anti-war movement today, which provided a framework for an excellent 
discussion.  I was unable to attend others (some of which sounded very 
interesting to me) only partly because I had to attend to conference 
logistical issues.  There was also the fact that I really needed a bit 
of a break from listening to speakers, and really wanted to have the 
opportunity to talk one-on-one with people, which is always important to 
me at events like this.  I am told that some of the workshops were quite 
good, although at least two failed due to lack of attendance, and one 
(on electoral action) was overwhelmed by sectarian speechifying.

It seems to me that it might have been better to have fewer workshops. 
Perhaps only two timeslots for workshops, instead of three, would have 
been a wiser decision.  Perhaps one less plenary session would also have 
made sense.  Such changes would have allowed more time for discussion in 
the plenary sessions, and more time for informal one-on-one and 
small-group discussions.  There is always the temptation – in organizing 
such conferences as these – to pack more in than will comfortably fit. 
Sometimes “less is more.”

Overall, my feeling (and I believe the feeling of most others in 
attendance) was quite positive about what happened.  I was especially 
pleased with some of what might be called “cultural” features of the 
conference.  I think the conference poster (there were plenty of copies 
for sale) was beautiful, offering a rare, later destroyed, revolutionary 
mural (with Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Liebknecht, Rakovsky, plus a 
cluster of U.S. Trotskyists) that Diego Rivera made in 1933.  There was 
a magnificent banner of Trotsky made by contemporary muralist Mike 
Alewitz especially for this conference.  There was a wealth of 
literature, especially thanks to a table set up by Haymarket Books, 
which had not only Haymarket titles, but also other Marxist classics and 
contemporary works from other publishers, and a good sampling of authors 
from the old SWP and the Fourth International.  This was supplemented 
with literature tables from the magazine Revolutionary History, 
Socialist Action, the Workers International League, Socialist 
Alternative, the Freedom Socialist Party, the News and Letters 
Committee, the Bolshevik Tendency, the League for a Revolutionary Party, 
the Spartacist League, and the Internationalist Committee.

Another fine cultural component involved the first U.S. showing of the 
fine 90-minute documentary “Trotsky y Mexico” recently made for Mexican 
television, and now available with English subtitles.  (Copies were on 
sale at the conference for $20.)

For that matter, there was actual film-making in progress as the 
conference was taking place.  Lindy Laub – who has both Hollywood and 
academic credentials – was on hand to show a somewhat fragmented but 
fascinating “trailer” made by the late David Weiss, longtime U.S. 
Trotskyist and film-maker.  She appealed for support in finishing 
David’s massive project of creating a full-length documentary biography 
of Trotsky.  While David had already accumulated an immense quantity of 
filmed interviews (including with such people as George Novack, James P. 
Cannon, James T. Farrell, C. L. R. James, and many, many more), Lindy 
was busy shooting more up-to-date footage was well.

In addition, all of the plenary sessions were filmed by a generous 
film-maker named Joe Friendly – all of which has been turned into over 
30 DVDs.  These will be deposited with Tamiment Library (and probably 
other archives specializing in the U.S. labor and radical movements) for 
the use of future scholars.  There are plans to produce a DVD with 
conference highlights.

Also under the heading of “culture” was a Saturday evening party, 
enhanced by the DJ skills of Asi Somburu and a guest jazz saxophone 
performance by Asi’s father (and conference speaker) Kwame Somburu.

Other cultural elements that found their way into the conference were 
the recently-published novel The Sweetest Dream by veteran Trotskyist 
and conference participant Lillian Pollack, and a new book of poetry by 
conference planning committee member and speaker Steve Bloom.

The Meaning of the Conference

One of the most important features of the conference, in my opinion, was 
the interplay between older veterans and younger activists that we 
envisioned as a central aspect of the conference.  The substantial and 
exemplary participation of the ISO helped to ensure the realization of 
this goal, as did the involvement of young activists from other groups, 
which we sought by building into the program speakers from the WIL and 
Socialist Alternative.  It should be noted that in addition to the ISO, 
formal endorsements were extended to the conference from Socialist 
Action (which had a number of key speakers at the conference) and the 
Freedom Socialist Party.

While the conference was not a “regroupment” effort or an effort meant 
to help establish a new political group, there were pulls and tugs and 
tensions within the planning committee on this matter.  Some of the 
comrades may want to explore possibilities in that direction, and others 
most definitely do not.  I think all want to see ongoing interactions 
and discussions of one kind or another, and common projects involving at 
least some of those who engaged in the conference.  I think there is 
general agreement, for example, that it would be good to give whatever 
support we can to the Trotsky documentary that film-maker Lindy Laub is 
working on.

A new committee flowing out of the conference is in formation, an entity 
that will not include some of us (including myself) who have seen the 
conference, basically, as a “one-shot deal.”  I imagine the committee 
will do such things as setting up a web site, continuing a discussion 
list, and perhaps more.

Speaking for myself, I intend to work closely with comrades in several 
of the groups that were involved in the conference.  I hope to join one 
of them in the foreseeable future – but after that I still intend to 
keep working with good comrades of various groups (as well as with some 
who are not in a group).  I believe the conference has helped to 
preserve and pass on some of the memories and lessons and ideas 
associated with U.S. Trotskyism, and that this can be usefully absorbed 
into the ongoing efforts to develop revolutionary socialist cadres who 
will be engaged in the struggles of today and tomorrow.

There is no revolutionary party worthy of the name that exists in the 
United States.  But there is a need for one – to help the working-class 
majority move forward to create the socialist democracy and cooperative 
commonwealth in which many of us believe.  I think there is the 
possibility for such a party coming into being.  It may be that this 
conference stands as a modest contribution to the process that could 
generate such an outcome.