Can we talk of “Trotskyism” as a distinct entity, as opposed to simply a list of Trotsky’s theories? Does Trotskyism exist independently of Trotsky, or is it just the name we give to his writings? If we consider Trotskyism to have life beyond Trotsky’s words then do we define Trotskyists as those who agree with Trotsky’s theories? This would ignore the changing nature of the material world and our ideas concerning it. There is no coherent set of ideas, existing outside of time, espoused by Trotsky that one can adhere to in order to be a Trotskyist. Many historians of American Trotskyism seem to assume that this is not the case.
Most of the historians of the American Trotskyist movement do not define the boundaries of Trotskyism, they assume them. For example, some clearly consider the Workers Party (WP) to no longer be Trotskyists after 1940 for the simple reason that the WP rejected some of Trotsky’s ideas. But this implicitly holds that in order to be a Trotskyist one would have to agree with everything Trotsky said. Considering that Trotsky developed his ideas over time and, much like any other person, changed his mind, contradicted himself, and came to conclusions at odds with his premises, this would make being a Trotskyist very hard indeed. Indeed, if these conditions hold then Trotsky himself does not even fit the criteria of Trotskyism.
To be a true Trotskyist would you have to agree with the Trotsky of before or after he changed his mind? Where Trotsky contradicts himself would you have to also hold a contradictory opinion, or does the true path lie in attempting to make sense of Trotsky? Alternatively Trotskyists may hold both of the contradictory positions and simply choose which to foreground at any moment based on expedience. It has long been a strategy of “orthodox” Trotskyism to define Trotskyism with reference to limited aspects of Trotsky’s work; a process of being “scrupulously orthodox”, in Draper’s words(1). If Trotskyism is defined in such a static fashion then it becomes possible to be more Trotskyist than Trotsky.
Belden Fields provides an example of this as he defines a Trotskyist as someone who agrees with Trotsky. He rejects the idea of the theory of state capitalism as Trotskyist, as Trotsky repudiated it(2). However, does this mean more than that the theory is an unorthodox one? If Trotsky posthumously has the last word on the boundary of Trotskyism then we are faced with all the problems I’ve stated above. Belden Fields does not discuss the Shachtmanite tradition of thought at all, implicitly excluding it from Trotskyism altogether. However he later refers to the left-Shachtmanite tradition of the International Socialists as “no longer” Trotskyist, implying he believes they were within the fold at some stage(3). If Belden Fields considers a particular current of unorthodox Trotskyism to have some claim to have once been Trotskyist then presumably he is operating on a slightly more relaxed definition than the one he states. What exactly this is, though, is never revealed.
Other authors seem to work with Belden Fields stated definition, i.e. that a Trotskyist is someone who agrees with Trotsky, without explicitly stating so. For example Paul Le Blanc’s history of American Trotskyism makes no mention of the Shachtmanites beyond the 1940 split – seemingly they are not part of the history of Trotskyism as far as he’s concerned(4). This once again involves quite a strict definition of Trotskyism, with all the attendant problems. However Le Blanc does not offer this as a definition of Trotskyism, it is simply implied, and therefore undefended. Other definitions than the ideal type are possible, however. Defining Trotskyism with regards to its status as a political movement leads to far less historical error.
Sam Bornstein and Al Richardson offer a thought provoking answer to this problem, arguing that Trotskyism is the form taken by Marxism in the inter-war defeats of the working class under the heel of Stalinism(5). This implies, as they suggest, that Trotskyism needs to be surpassed. Bornstein and Richardson are right to relate the question of the identity of Trotskyism to more concrete political concerns. From a dialectical point of view it is hopeless to attempt to define an ideological tradition by delineation of certain policies or values. Those policies and values change, or at least should change in order to avoid the body of theory in question becoming irrelevant to a changing world. If Trotskyism is defined by reference to Trotsky’s ideas then we not only use an unworkable definition but the consequences for an understanding of historical events can obviously be severe. There are numerous histories of American Trotskyism, but there are very few histories that deal with the Shachtmanite tradition in any depth. It is simply not seen as relevant to Trotskyism, as, of course, Trotsky disagreed with it. The rich development of their ideas, and their impact and influence on other traditions of socialist thought, are forgotten.
However, are Bornstein and Richardson right on the particulars of their definition? There are compelling reasons to think so. It may well be accurate to say that Trotskyism is not crucially different from Marxism, and that any seemingly unique positions Trotskyists took were the reassertion of Marxism over its Stalinist enemies. This definition would not mean the Trotskyist movement was without innovation, as Marxism should continuously innovate itself. Nevertheless the definition would leave Trotskyism irrelevant in any period of working class upsurge. I do not think this can be the case as the ideas and theories developed by Trotskyists can still be an important influence in such periods. The movement the term is attached to may no longer fit the definition Bornstein and Richardson give, but the definition should not be privileged over the reality. “Trotskyism” still refers to a group of political actors. The term continues to communicate, in a literal sense, meaning.
This is not to say that words mean what they are generally taken to mean. We can challenge generally accepted meaning up to a point. Also to assume words mean what they are taken to mean would still not settle the question of what can or cannot be appropriately be described as Trotskyism, as it remains a word with a highly contested, and contestable, meaning. Words are sites of social struggle and the actions of many Trotskyists, including those in the Workers Party tradition, are often aimed at changing the meaning of terms such as “Trotskyism” through political action. Our definition of the term cannot be so narrow as to restrict it to agreement with Trotsky, as to do so would ignore its changing meaning and content over time, and would ignore the intentions of those attempting to change it. Like all words the term “Trotskyist” changes over time, and the Trotskyist movement must struggle to ensure the term is still useful in describing a political movement, and that it does not become so narrow as to ignore useful historical information.
References
(1) Draper, H.(1948) (Philip Coben) “Trotskyist Primer” in The New International 14:7 pg. 221-2
(2) Belden Fields, A. (1983) Trotskyism and Maoism: Theory and Practice in France and the United States (New York: Praeger)
(3) Ibid, 141
(4) Le Blanc, P. (1996) “Trotskyism in the United States: The first 50 years” in Trotskyism in the United States: Historical essays and reconsiderations Breitman, Le Blanc and Wald (New Jersey: Humanities Press)
(5) Bornstein, S. and Richardson, A. (1986) War and the International (London: Socialist Platform), xiii/xiv