This is a study of political practice and its relationship to both theory and national contextual factors with which those who attempt to implement theory must contend. All political movements claim some relationship to political theories, or at the very least to some maxims derived from theories. The tightness of the relationship between practice and theory by groups active in the political arena manifests itself in a continuum which runs from those groups which view virtually every decision or action as having crucial theoretical implications to those which merely use theory as a legitimizing cover for the pursuit for narrowly conceived self-interest. In the latter case, theory loses all coherence and one is left with moral rationalization.
In focusing on Trotskyist and Maoist groups in this study, we are operating at the tight end of the continuum. At least in their mature years, both Trotsky and Mao subscribed to Marxism-Leninism. Marxism, as understood and elaborated upon by Lenin, conceives of theory and practice as one combined "science," Here the role of theory is neither merely diagnostic, nor simply suggestive, nor primarily prescriptive. Theory is a "scientific" weapon, based on a correct analysis of history and social relations, which gives superior advantage in practice to those who wield it. Conversely, the effect of ignoring theory or of making errors in theory is to doom political practice just as surely as mistakes in deciphering the laws of physics would doom engineering attempts. Marxist-Leninists, in contradistinction to a number of other interpreters and followers of Marxism, accept Engels' modeling of Marxist social theory after theories in the physical and biological sciences. Some, like Mao, have also accepted Engels' extension of the Marxist dialectical method to an understanding of the physical universe--"the dialectics of nature."
When we take a cursory overview of the intended and actual practice or praxis since the activity is intended as a response to Marx's call to transform the social universe in an emancipatory direction of Marxist-Leninists who operate as opposition currents within capitalist industrialized societies, we can distinguish three levels.
First, there is practice in the form of overthrowing capitalism and instituting socialism. This, of course, has traditionally been the ultimate emancipatory goal of Marxism-Leninism but it has not been accomplished within any capitalist industrialized context. All indigenous revolutionary efforts which have resulted in the acquisition of state power by Marxist-Leninists have occurred within contexts of relatively low industrial development and internal surplus and a low ratio of the proletariat to other more traditional segments of the population.
A second level of practice is the gaining of a mass base of support. The complex structures of industrialized societies are not as congenial to the seizing of power by small vanguard groups as was pre-1917 Russia. Within these contexts, the gaining of mass support is a necessary precondition of goal number one, the institution of socialism. While that latter goal has not been accomplished by Marxist-Leninists in any capitalist industrialized society, both the French and Italian Communist Parties have indeed been able to attract large memberships and significant electoral support. However, in order to maintain their mass support, both the French and Italian parties have had to modify considerably their approach to goal number one. Enter the phenomenon of Eurocommunism, the repudiation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the emphasis upon pragmatics at the expense of the science of Marxism-Leninism generally.
A third level of practice is one of surviving over time with sufficient members and resources to both offer a corrective model to Marxism gone astray and to attempt intermittent influence on the larger political universe. Although certainly not by choice, this is the level at which Trotskyist and Maoist formation have been operating. This study examines just how they have gone about attempting to offer an uncorrupted scientific conception of politics within the context of those industrialized societies that Marx and Engels saw as the most fertile terrains for revolutionary change. The specific national contexts in question are France and the United States.
The comparative dimension is extremely important in this endeavor. First, it permits an examination of the impact of different national political characteristics upon movements which subscribe to the same highly specific body of theory. It is interesting to see to what extent such movements "look alike" or "look different" as one moves across national boundaries and political cultures. But, secondly, comparative investigation can also warn against exclusive reliance upon contextual factors. For example, in a discussion of what she regards as the failure of American Trotskyism, Constance Ashton Myers has written that: "An 'all-inclusive' radical party, the kind envisioned by Norman Thomas for the American Socialist Party, was clearly better adapted to American attitudes and traditions."[1] Leaving aside the fact that from 1941 to the present the American Socialist Party has suffered a fate more dismal than that of the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, the limited appeal and fragmentation of Trotskyists and Maoists (not only in the United States, but also France, where there exists a strong Marxist tradition and a large and relatively cohesive Communist Party) directs one back to the guiding theories themselves for a full explanation of the characteristics of these movements.
The major proposition of this work is thus that limited appeal, debilitating fragmentation, and the precise lines of cleavage which divide both Trotskyist and Maoist movements in France and the United States are attributable to a convergence of (1) the peculiarities of the political culture in which the attempt to apply the theories is made with (2) contradictions which inhere in the guiding theories themselves. Methodologically, this means that the analysis must incorporate both empirical-positivistic explanations based upon external causal factors and a consideration of the internal dialectics of Trotskyism, and Maoism as theoretical structures.
Aside from what it reveals about relationships between political practice, contextual factors, and theory and what it tells us about the problems faced by Marxist-Leninists who attempt a rigorous implementation of their science in capitalist societies, there are additional reasons why a study of this nature is important.
First, as we shall see, these movements played important roles in one of the most significant political phenomena of the 1960s and 1970s in France and the United States. This was the radicalization of young people.
While much of the activity which went on during the late sixties and the early and mid-seventies was spontaneous, Trotskyist and Maoist groups contributed disciplined work of a theoretical, organizational, and propagandistic nature. This work was important in sustaining levels of interest between events and in providing channels for political engagement with greater permanence and direction than demonstrations or street barricades could afford. Trotskyists and Maoists, on their own or in cooperation with others, created wide ranges of sympathizing structures and ad hoc support groups devoted to specific struggles. They were thus able to have an impact upon a wider range of the population than their own immediate memberships. Yet this experience goes unrecorded.
Secondly, while in both France and the United States the membership of Trotskyist and Maoist groups has remained well below that of Marxist-Leninist parties with greater sympathy for the Soviet Union, it must be kept in mind that Maoist movements independent of the larger Communist parties are a new historical phenomenon which date from the Sino-Soviet split, while Trotskyist movements in France and the United States (as well as on a world-wide level) reached their historical membership peaks in the 1970's. The latter was a rather remarkable achievement on part of Trotskyists. They have survived for over half a century after Trotsky's exile from the USSR without the existence of any regime which could serve as a functioning model or source of support. Yet if this unique variant of Marxism-Leninism does not show any immediate sign of the capability of stimulating or executing a revolution in any capitalist country in the world, neither does it show any sign of disappearing from the scene.
Moreover, the internal discipline and ability to find ways of influencing people outside of their own ranks exhibited by these newly created and juvenated groups, has permitted them to accomplish certain goals. With the near exception of the 1968 French revolt in which some Trotskyists and Maoists participated, these accomplishments have fallen short of overthrowing regimes. But they are of intrinsic importance and have affected peoples' lives regardless of whether or not they should prove in the future to have been part of a larger historical revolutionary process.
Despite these considerations, there has been almost no scholarly literature devoted to the dynamics of these groups or the specific content of Trotskyist and Maoist politics. This writer can point to only one article, Jim O'Brien's "American Leninism in the 1970's," which deals with Trotskyist and Maoist movements in the United States.[2] Of the two books produced by American scholars in recent years which deal with Trotskyist movements, one deals with them in the Latin American context while the other deals with the Socialist Workers Party in the United States but only up to the year 1941.[3] There is somewhat more literature in France but most of it is polemical and little has been translated for the benefit of the English language readership.[4]
The absence of published research on this subject matter is an impediment to scholarly understanding. For a concrete example of that, one can consult the review article written by Mario D. Fenyo for the special spring and summer 1977 issue of Studies in Comparative Communism. In this special issue devoted to Trotskyism by a major scholarly journal, there is almost no information on contemporary movements. Fenyo, who was charged with the task of reporting on such research, tried. But he came to the conclusion that in the United States there exists a "conspiracy of silence" directed against Trotskyism even by other groups on the Left. His discussion of Trotskyism in Western Europe is very brief because he could not find "any description of the evolution of Trotskyism in the countries of Western Europe, systematic or unsystematic...."[5] This author's experience with both American and Eastern European colleagues, even those who work with socialist systems, has revealed that they know very little about Trotskyism and Maoism as active opposition forces.[6]
But aside from being an impediment to scholarly understanding, the lack of available material of a scholarly or precise nature has been an advantage to governments intent upon repressing these movements. In the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, including Yugoslavia where accused Trotskyists were put on trial in the early 1970s, the single parties control everything written or said in the media about Trotskyism or Maoism.[7] Either designation is equivalent to "counter-revolutionary." If there are Trotskyists or Maoists in these countries, they can ill afford to make he fact public. In China, Trotskyism is also used as a political charge synonymous with counterrevolutionary.[8] Indeed, it is one of the charges levied against the "Gang of Four."
But repression against Trotskyists and Maoists is not restricted to Marxist regimes. Both French and American governments have also used repressive techniques against Trotskyists and Maoists. However, because of the greater public awareness of their existence in France as well as the greater sympathy for Marxist groups in general, governmental repression usually encounters a public outcry of protest and support for the repressed from other groups and prominent individuals. In the United States, which has developed into a science techniques for obliterating the memory of its own radicals from its school curricula and media, the major problem is certainly not the "conspiracy of silence" perpetrated by other groups on the Left referred to by Fenyo. It is rather the absence of accurate information accessible to the public that has facilitated governmental repression against both Trotskyists and Maoists.
The Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party was the first group to have its leadership tried and convicted under the Smith Act and it was, in the 1960s and 1970s, a major target of the completely illegal COINTELPRO disruption program conducted by the FBI. Aside from the violent aspects of that program itself, much of the effort was devoted to the creation of an image of the SWP as a violent group through the FBI's journalistic contacts and through anonymous letter-writing techniques. The lack of any scholarly or objective media treatment of the SWP meant that there was no possibility of a reality check against the FBI's definition of the party. Once a government is so able to define a group for the few among the general public who are even aware of its existence, the government has a very free hand. More recently, the American government has turned its attention to the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. As a result of a January 1979 demonstration against the visit of Premier Teng Hsiao-ping to the United States, the top leaders of that Maoist (and anti present-Chinese leadership) party were indicted on multiple felony charges.
But few people know about either that party or the specific situation and there was hardly a public outcry with which the government had to contend.
The absence of knowledge about these groups has yet another consequence which is also more aggravated in the United States than in France. It encourages chance or uninformed political engagement. Most Americans who initially affiliate with groups outside of the political mainstream do so because of chance encounters with individuals already in the groups. At least at the time of initial engagement, the recruit often has little knowledge of the range of possibilities available. For those who might be inclined toward engagement in Trotskyist or Maoist groups, this book will provide both an overview of the nature of Trotskyism and Maoism and a detailed discussion of the variety of interpretations and kinds of practice which are in existence. If knowledge is better than ignorance for the scholar, it is certainly no less important for the activist the potential activist.
The precise research techniques employed in this study were the collection and examination of documents and textual material, interviews, and participant observation. The research was begun during a sabbatical semester in France in 1972. Additional research trips to France were made in 1975 and again in 1978 after the legislative elections of that year which had such a remarkable impact upon the Left as a whole. An attempt has been made to incorporate all of the national and even some of the regional Trotskyist and Maoist groups operating in both France and the United States. Particularly in the case of Maoism, some tiny and/or purely local groups have been omitted. That was due to the lack of availability of data and access rather than a deliberate attempt to slight any particular groups. While the study focuses on contemporary movements, the importance of the accumulation of past experience for a present identity is recognized. Thus, each of the chapters on the movements begins with an historical treatment going back to their origins.
The work is organized as follows. Chapter 1 first offers a brief and noncritical comparison of Trotsky's basic concepts with those of Mao. In particular, it focuses on two of Trotsky's most important contributions to revolutionary theory, permanent revolution and the Transitional Program, and compares them with Mao's concept of uninterrupted revolution. Even to many scholars who work in related areas, the distinctions between the basic concepts of Trotsky and those of Mao are not clear. Without getting into the more complex problem of theoretical contradiction at this stage, this portion of the chapter is intended to provide such clarification and to provide the reader with some basis for understanding the theoretical inspiration of the movements which are discussed in the main body of the work. The second part of this chapter discusses the similarities and differences between the contexts in which French and American Trotskyists and Maoists attempt to apply their theories in practice.
The body of the work is composed of four chapters dealing with the Trotskyist and Maoist movements in each of the countries through the decade of the 1970s. These chapters discuss the history, patterns of organization, programs, and the strategies and tactics pursued by the variety of groups operating under those banners. Because of the number of groups involved, the frequent splintering and name changes, and the probable lack of prior exposure to this material on the part of most readers, chronological charts of the groups discussed are included at the end of the book, along with the notes and bibliography. The reader might wish to consult these charts to gain an overview before reading each of these chapters.
The sixth chapter attempts a synthetic demonstration of the proposition that the dynamics of Trotskyist and Maoist practice and the configurations which these movements assume within any given national context is determined by the interplay between peculiarities within the specific political culture and contradictions within the guiding theories themselves. The analysis is based upon the data contained in the previous four chapters and a more critical-analytical consideration of the theories than is presented in Chapter 1. The chapter terminates with what, in this author's view, is the major problem facing Marxist-Leninists who attempt to apply uncorrupted, scientistic interpretations of Marxism-Leninism to contemporary industrialized capitalist societies.
As indicated above, during the 1980s there have been some new directions
taken by Trotskyists and Maoists in the two countries. An Epilogue has been
separately provided to take into account those more recent developments for
most of the 1980s, to best accommodate readers whose primary interests are
more contemporary.
NOTES
1. Constance Ashton Myers, The Prophet's Army: Trotskyists in America, 1928-1941 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1977), p. xi.
2. Jim O'Brien, "American Leninism in the 1970s," Radical America, special double issue, 11, no. 6 and 12, no. 1 (Winter 1977-78), pp. 27-62.
3. Robert J. Alexander, Trotskyism in Latin America (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1973) and Myers, Prophet's Army.
4. Particularly noteworthy are the books by Yvan Craipeau: Le Mouvement Trotskyste en France (Paris: Syros, 1971), Contre Vents et marées: les révolutionnaires pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale (Paris: Savelli, 1977), and La Libération confisquée (Paris: Savelli/Syros, 1978). The French Lambertist Trotskyists have established a documentation center, Le Centre d 'Etudes et de Recherche sur les Mouvements Trotskystes et Revolutionnaires Internationaux, to aid in the study of the history of international Trotskyism.
5. Mario D. Fenyo, "Trotsky and His Heirs: The American Perspective," Studies in Comparative Communism 10, nos. 1 and 2 (Spring/Summer 1977), p. 210.
6. That impression preceded but was fortified by this author's experience in presenting a paper on Trotskyism and Maoism at the University of Moscow as part of the proceedings of the Eleventh World Congress of the International Political Science Association held in August 1979.
7. While the author was in Moscow as a participant in the Congress of the International Political Science Association, he was asked for an interview by a correspondent for Radio Moscow. The correspondent was particularly interested in the phenomenon of Maoism. After the responses to some very directive questions about Maoists were not suitably derogatory, he very politely thanked the author, told him that he personally had learned a great deal from it, but said that he doubted very much that his superiors would put it on the air.
8. For a scholarly treatment of Chinese Trotskyism, see Joseph T. Miller, "The Politics of Chinese Trotskyism: The Role of a Permanent Opposition in Chinese Communism" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 1979).