Trotsky in the GDR

Jens Peter Steffen writes:
An interesting piece of information for Revolutionary History might be the an¬nouncement that the following titles (amongst others) are to be published in East Germany. Here's an extract from the Neues Deutschland (2 3 February 1990), formerly owned by the SED, the East Ger¬man Communist Party, and now just a Socialist daily.

`Stalin, Stalinism and the Totalitarian state

`The movements that are taking place in our country right now can barely be grasped, with the formation of new political powers and new parties and groups. A radical break with Stalinism is absolutely necessary. However, that demands some knowledge about Stalin himself, his dealings, and his impact, the forms Stalinism takes, and what is understood by "Stalinism". Dietz Verlag of Berlin will publish the following books on this subject in the first quarter of this year.

`Isaac Deutscher, Stalin: a Political Biography. The Polish journalist and social scientist Isaac Deutscher (1907 1967) wrote this book during his emigration in London, and published it in English in 1949. He was expelled from the Communist Party of Poland in 1932 because of his part in the so called anti¬-Stalinist opposition.

`The Crimes of Stalin was written by Leon Trotsky, and is mainly about the four biggest show trials of the 1930s and the political murders connected with them. Trotsky was killed on 20 August 1940.

`Non Persons: Who They Really Were is the title of a book which deals with Nikolai Bukharin, Leon Trotsky, Grigori Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev and Alexei Rykov.

`Khrushchev's Secret Speech from the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, 25 February 1956, will be available in its authentic version in the GDR for the first time. It is based on its first publication in the Soviet Union in March 1989.'

I would like to add some information on the history of German Trotskyism. I was finally able to obtain from Austria a copy of Hans Schafranek's book on Kurt Lan¬dau. He documents the political life of Landau in 600 pages. Supposedly out last autumn, but still not available, is a short book on Anton Grylewicz, published by ISP Verlag, the publishers of the United Secretariat section.
From a friend of
George Edwards

Dear Comrades,
I write in response to Al Richardson's so-¬called review of Ted Grant's The Un¬broken Thread. In the opening paragraph Richardson writes: `A book that sets out to present in handy form the contribu¬tions of one of the foremost thinkers of the Trotskyist movement in Britain can only be welcomed did it but restrict itself to that aim'. The remainder of the fully one page `review' is an attack on the ac¬curacy of the assertions and detail. It is in short an accusation of distortion and dishonesty. In the final paragraph we read `Ted Grant's theoretical record speaks up as well as anybody's during the period'. Nowhere in the `review' does Richardson discuss, appraise or criticise anything theoretical in the 585 pages of Grant's book.

This is indeed strange given that in Al Richardson's War and the International, a book co written with Sam Bornstein, many references are made to the theoretical contribution of Ted Grant in the WIL and RCP.

Indeed chapter 6 of War and the Inter¬national, dealing with the new situation in the post war world, has the complete op¬posite appraisal of Grant's role to that in Richardson's `review'. We read on pages 175 6, by way of quotation from Roy Tearse, and in the authors' own text, that the WIL and later the RCP `had been groping towards a new outlook' prior to the American SWP minority position developed by Felix Morrow and others. Quoted is Grant's dismissal of some aspects of the SWP majority's mistakes from 1942   Preparing for Power.

This is followed up by Grant's further development in the following year, with a quotation from The Italian Revolution and the Tasks of British Workers, quoted page 176 7. Then we are told that Grant `generalised this outlook to a European scale' in 1943, The World Revolution and the Tasks of the British Working Class, quoted pages 176 7. Then we are told that in 1945 Grant deepend [sic] the insight he had gained in The Character of the Euro¬pean Revolution, quoted on page 177.

The whole of this section of Richardson and Bornstein's book emphasises the correctness of the RCP's position in relation to the SWP majority position, and outlines clearly as shown above the leading role of Ted Grant in developing this position. This is of course not what Al Richardson's review article says, he flatly refutes everything he jointly wrote in War and the International only three short years ago. Has Al just discovered The Coming German Revolution mentioned in his review, and not in the relevant chapter in his book? Possible but very, very unlikely.

The next chapter in War and the Inter¬national deals with the discussions in the Trotskyist movement around the ques¬tions of Stalinism and the colonial revolu¬tion. These discussions occurred as the cadre force of world and British Trot¬skyism was in the process of disintegra¬tion, a disintegration based on disorienta¬tion in face of changed circumstances and a changing world. This led to many incor¬rect theoretical positions being thrown up.

On every question Ted Grant is shown to be the leading figure in replying to various interpretations. Whether it be on the nature of the Soviet Union, replying to Cliff's state capitalist view, which we are told was a development of Haston's etatism, or responding to the American SWP's mistaken position on China, where we read on page 222 `Grant however, was able to describe the exact processes even before it [sic] began', followed by an ap¬propriate quotation from The World Situation and the Crisis of Stalinism.

We also have Grant's Reply to David James, quoted to fully a half of page 224, which outlines a Marxist position on Tito, Gomulka, Mao, suggest [sic] by James to be unconscious Trotskyists carrying out the revolution. So we have in Richardson and Bornstein's book War and the International Ted Grant presented as the major figure in the vital debates. Yet in Richard¬son's 'review' of The Unbroken Thread, Grant is an 'also ran' with false claims and pretences. Which is what, Al?

In Revolutionary History (Volume 1, no 4) a review of War and the Interna¬tional and Against the Stream (by the same authors) appears from the Bulletin of Marxist Studies (Winter 1986 87). This includes the following lines: 'A mass of secondary details obscure the fundamen¬tal lines of thought. The result is a lightweight [sic] of dates, personalities, a superficial sketch.' Many people associated with Revolutionary History but not with the Bulletin of Marxist Studies have similar criticisms of the mentioned books.

Where War and the International in¬cludes one or two paragraph excerpts from the various documents, The Un¬broken Thread includes edited versions of whole articles and documents. Al Richardson in his 'review' advises 'it is in general unwise to produce documents in extracts, and far better to produce fewer key statements intact'.

I would tend to agree. War and the In¬ternational serves as a taster, The Un¬broken Thread as a meal. What we need is a feast of unedited originals intact and for appraisal, but remember, Al, people in glasshouses are not supposed to throw stones.

The neglect of the meat and concentra¬tion on the dressing, the chucking out off [sic] the baby and the saving of the bathwater, involved in Richardson's review of The Unbroken Thread and also of Taafe [sic] and Mulhearn's Liverpool: A City That Dared to Fight, show that Al is unable or unwilling to make a theoretical attack on the ideas of these Militant authors, so instead nits are pick¬ed and deciet [sic] alleged.

It is absolutely necessary to deal with facts openly and honestly, warts and all. Every Marxist worthy of the name would recognise that. But to dismiss a 497 page book detailing the influence and impact of Trotskyist ideas in one of Britain's major cities (Liverpool; A City That Dared to Fight) with the only interesting detail be¬ing that Charles Martinson, who later stood for the RCP as a council candidate, left the CP whilst in the International Brigade over the attacks on the POUM, as does Al Richardson, is absolutely ridiculous. To write a page long review of 595 pages of theory retreived [sic] from old documents and to fail to mention any of Grant's theoretical contributions, is obtuse if not absurd. Particularly when given the prominence with which Grant emerges out of the reviewer's earlier work.
Richard Whyte

Al Richardson replies:
First as to the facts. I had (and have) no in¬tention of denying or denigrating Ted Grant's role as a theoretician, both in the WIL after the return of Ralph Lee to South Africa, or subsequently in the RCP, as both the book written by Sam Bornstein and myself, and the review as quoted by you, indicate clearly. What I did say is that you cannot assess the development of his thought in this book, made up as it is of tendentious introductions, purposeful omissions, and doctored and misattributed documents. By ascribing all the theoretical achievements of the WIL and the RCP to Grant alone it denies the contribu¬tion of other talented thinkers in Haston's team, which functioned as such. By using the words 'groping towards' and 'generalised' in War and the International myself and Sam show that Grant's thought does develop, and does not, after the manner of Athena, spring fully armed from the head of Zeus. We also show that he is capable of mistakes. If what has been said already does not con¬vince you, how about this one?

'Despite the possibility of a temporary post war "boom", lasting for one or two years, and as a direct result of the change¬over from war to "peace" production, we are now standing on the threshold of the greatest crisis yet witnessed in the history of British capitalism.
'Those who imagine that they will return to pre 1939 standards live in a fool's paradise. Indeed, the period of the world economic crisis from 1929 onwards, with its unemployment queues of over 3 million, will appear a very rosy picture in comparison with what the working class faces in the next period.' (Revolutionary Communist Policy: RCP Conference Decisions, special issue of Workers International News, September 1945, p 28).

As for dismissing the book on Liverpool, I thought 1 had made it clear in my review (Revolutionary History, Volume 1, no 4, Winter 1988 89, p 44) that the history of 'the last half dozen years' lay 'outside the scope' of this magazine   we have a cut off point in the mid sixties   and that I was ex¬tracting the points that deal with Trotskyist history before that period. I also talk about 'several interesting details'   not 'the only interesting detail'.

Which of the books is a 'taster' and which is a 'meal' is best left to the discretion of the reader, but since one is a narrative history and the other a collection of documents (or rather, parts of documents) they are not strictly comparable. I, for one, do not have a great deal of regard for a gourmet who thinks that you can compare the soup with the cheese and biscuits.

Finally, a word on method. First, the Tendency to which you belong rubbishes War and the International in secret, accusing it of 'errors, misunderstandings and even falsehoods', hoping that the book's authors never see what you have written, and in any case denying them the opportunity to reply. Then, when this is reproduced in public (Revolutionary History Volume I , no 4, Winter 1988 89, p 45) and your tendency is challeng¬ed to substantiate it, you keep a cowardly silence. When two of your own books ap¬pear, and you are caught out tampering with facts and documents, you now appeal to the book (War and the International) which you had accused of dishonesty in the first place. Finally, you try to associate 'many' other, un¬named persons but 'associated' with our magazine, with your original slander. Whose integrity is in question here   ours or yours?

One thing I do agree on in this letter. Let everyone have the opportunity of examining the original documents, unedited, and reproduced in full. Will Fortress Books pro¬duce them and scrap this worthless publica¬tion?

On Method

Dear Comrades,
I agree with Ian Birchall's comment on the rô1e that Revolutionary History can play in educating a new generation of revolutionaries about the history of the Trotskyist movement (Autumn 1989). I do happen to believe that the organisation of which I am a member (the British SWP   not the RCP as some sections of the bourgeois press would have us believe!) does stand firmly in the Trotskyist tradi¬tion. But that belief is a matter not of faith or affirmation, but of discussion, debate and, no doubt, disagreement. Here again Revolutionary History has a rô1e to play.

The question that arose when reading Birchall's letter was whether or not Revolutionary History could be better fit¬ted than at present to fulfil that rô1e. There should, of course, be a duty to resist petty sectarianism, while at the same time maintaining a keen critical edge. The kind of bland praise which, for example, characterises the book reviews in Labour Research, can have no place in a Trot¬skyist journal.

What I think should have a place is twofold. Firstly, there should be histories of the figures who have played, and are still playing, significant rô1es in the world Trotskyist movement   not an account of the errors and omissions of a Pablo or a Mandel, but a review of their political tra¬jectory   books, papers, organisations and references on where to find more.

Secondly, and here I am perhaps on more controversial ground, there should be some consideration of the renegades from Trotskyism, contentious because it all too readily calls to mind Healyism, and it is sometimes questionable whether the phrase `renegade' should be applied anyway. But surely it is of interest to ex¬plore what factors caused people to leave the Trotskyist movement, and where they went afterwards. Perhaps a start could be made with some current Labour MPs. Both Rob Clay and Eric Heffer could pro¬vide good accounts of themselves, if will¬ing, which would also provide useful oral labour history.

Finally, there is the wider question which might usefully be explored, of what Trotskyist history is anyway. Is is just en¬suring that archives exist and feed into current debate? Or is there something specific about 'Trotskyist' history which sets it part from general labour and Marx¬ist histories? In the sense that it is almost always a history `against the stream' this does suggest some points worthy of ex¬ploration, I would suggest.
Yours sincerely
Keith Flett


Letters
Guy Aldred

Dear Comrades,
Thanks for sending a copy of Revolu¬tionary History containing a review of Come Dungeons Dark. You have given quite a space to the review of Dungeons, and, of course, I hope it causes a few of your readers to buy the book. It has been extensively and, in the main, favourably reviewed. I think the intended significance of the title has passed over most of the reviewers, though not of several of the readers who have written to me.

Come Dungeons Dark is a dedication and a commemoration, proclaimed for all those who have suffered for the cause of human enlightenment, from Socrates to Martin Luther King, and further in each direction. It comes from, of course, The Red Flag. We may now have a generation who think it's a song sung by the rosy cosy Labour Party after a civilised conference, or the erstwhile favourite of Joe Stalin and Willie Gallacher. If it became that, its inspiration was something more.

It was composed in the 1880s, when the Communards had hardly rotted, the Chicago martyrs were still swinging in the public mind, the Narodniki were on the trek to the Siberian mines, and the Special Branch was newly created to combat the Fenians. It was intended as the people's anthem, not a party tune. Its full reference was with me when I chose it for a biography which would include an ac¬count of the persecution of the war resisters of the 1914 War, and the six years' confinement of Guy Aldred.

I don't know if Sheila Lahr's summing¬-up that it is an `easy read' for young com¬rades, and an escape from the `holy writ' for the old, is damaging to that concept. I suppose some comrades will comprehend that dimension, and others just won't.

Sheila belongs to the `be beastly to Aldred' faction, now in its third genera¬tion. I don't know what they'd do without the Duke of Bedford. Guy did without him for 54 of his 60 years as a propagan¬dist, and didn't need him for the rest. I wonder if; Sheila knows that the illiterate metaphor `bedfellow' was first used by a Communist Party heckler at an Indepen¬dent Labour Party meeting at the Plaza Theatre in Burnbank in 1943, where Aldred and the Duke shared the same platform. They were both accused not on¬ly of being `bedfellows', but worse  `Trotskyites'. The CP issued a pamphlet called Clear Out Hitler's Agents. This 'ex¬posed' the 'Trotskyite alliance' with Hitler, and the ILP in general, and John McGovern, Aldred and the Duke in par¬ticular, as Nazi agents. Guy had been in¬troduced to the Duke in 1940 by McGovern of the ILP. In 1943 the Duke was still speaking for the ILP. After the War his sympathies turned to Russia, speaking for the CP, on one occasion with the `Red Dean' of Canterbury. He was not choosy when it came to `bedfellows'.

Sheila's objection that Aldred is por¬trayed only through his own eyes, is best answered by Nigel Sinnott, who wrote to me saying `you have avoided hagiography and preaching temptations which must have been hard to resist for someone in your position   and have let Aldred's own words explain his message'. As this was the first biography of Aldred, I felt that he should be portrayed impartially, for the public  to make their own judgements.

In any case it would be absurd for me who never wrote a political article, never delivered a political speech, never suffered a minute in prison, to trot at Guy's elbow, telling the reader what I thought Aldred should have done or said.

Sheila feels aggrieved that the women in Guy's life never came to life, being regard¬ed as mere appendages of Aldred, having served him politically for years. What a male chauvinist way to look at it! I would not have liked to have been around if she had made that charge in the presence of Rose, Jane or Ethel. What makes her think that a woman serves a man because she is associated with him? Rose was a public figure in her own right. She was politically in line with Aldred until it was her wish to separate.

Come Dungeons Dark is a biography of Guy Aldred, not a composite biography, a history or a novel. Aldred remains in the limelight, except during the period of war resistance, when he is but one of many. To put Jenny or Ethel centre stage along with him just because they were women, would be an insult to them and to all women. Women should be treated as per¬sons, not as sex symbols. Jenny and Ethel were not public figures. They worked in the press, they did not write, speak or show any initiative in directions apart from printing at the press, and attending United Socialist Movement meetings.

But it would be offensive to them to say that they `served him politically'. This smacks of male chauvinism. We did not serve Aldred. We served our political con¬victions. It was a case of `from each accor¬ding to his abilities...' Guy was the editor and speaker: nobody else could or wanted to do that job. Ethel worked the press and did the books. Nobody else... Jenny handset and imposed the pages, and did the catering. Nobody else... I printed, guillotined, stitched, humped around the bales of paper, carted to the Post Office. Nobody else...

Jenny and Guy lived at one address, and Ethel and I at another. I always rose first, went for the morning rolls, made breakfast, and gave Ethel a knock before I left for the press, lit the fires, swept the floor, got the machines ready... I was the young male. If I had left these tasks to Ethel or Jenny, or to the elderly Guy, I would indeed have been a cad as well as a male chauvinist pig.

Guy and I did not associate as two males, shoulder to shoulder, eye to eye, in conversation and attitude, apart from the women. The public image was Guy Aldred, Jenny Patrick and Ethel Mac¬Donald. I came behind with the case of `lit', inquiring where to display it. The quartet was in fact a trio. This was not a matter of sex, but of personality. I only came alive after the others had died, runn¬ing the place for another five years at a greatly reduced level.

I cannot finish this letter without thank¬ing you again for publishing the review. Revolutionary History is a journal for active minded readers. Dungeons could not have been reviewed in a more desirable paper. An abrasive review is not a bad thing if the reviewer nevertheless recommends reading the book. I think Sheila sensed that I had in mind a reader¬ship of young people, and she was right.

Guy Aldred's writings are all out of print. But they have been published on microfilm, and comprise 12 reels of 35mm silver positive roll microfilm. This in¬cludes his autobiography No Traitor's Gait and my three volume Guy Aldred Trilogy, from which Come Dungeons Dark has been abridged. The collection also includes all Aldred's journals, from the first issue of The Herald of Revolt in 1910 to the last copy of The Word in 1963. Each reel costs £45, and the complete col¬lection   held by several main libraries  costs £450. Enquiries should be made to World Microfilms, Microworld House, 2 6 Foscote Mews, London W9 2HH.
John T Caldwell