[Marxism] Paul Le Blanc on Trotsky Legacy Conference

[Fred Feldman]

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.