Results 1 to 20 of 38
Ernst Mandel
I'm a bit underread on the differences between Trotskyist tendencies, and Mandel's is one that I know nothing about honestly.
Are any groups of the 'Mandelite' Fourth International still around? What distinguishes Mandelites from other branches of Trotskyism (Cliff, Grant, etc.)?
Mandel was Orthodox Trotskyism which involves Soviet defencism. Cliff was unorthodox Trotskyism which doesn't necessarily involve Soviet defencism. Grant, I can't remember.
I pretty sure this is the remaining "mandelist" fourth international:
http://internationalviewpoint.org/
someone more knowlegdeable please correct me if wrong.
From what I´ve heard they no longer adhere to a demoratic- centralist vanguard party, have a tendency to dissolve themselves into broader openly reformist formations and are often criticised by other trots for opportunism.
The Revolutionary Communist league in France was their biggest section before the dissolved themselves to form the Anti- Capitalist party.
"Give me a place to stand, and I will sit on your face."
- Trotsky in the opening speech to the third congress of the Fourth International.
Oh wow I didn't realize the LCR was Mandelite.
Some of his economic theory is interesting in that it is close to certain varieties of communist theories about changes inthe state and global economy after WWII and again after 1968-1975, just confused and using made-up terminology (like using the term 'neo-capitalism' to designate completely separate phenomenon- like the penetration of the commodity form into everyday life to a larger degree, as well as greater state intervention in NATO bloc countries, etc.). Some early situationist texts use Mandel's terminology, which was quite odd (though probably not surprising given his prestige as a Trotskyist leader and theorist in the 60's in France).
Grant was for "deep entrism", Cliff for his incredibly weak version of state capitalism theory, so that means when people talk about 'Mandelites' its basically orthodox Trotskyism of the post-1940 variety? Maybe I'm confusing Mandel with Pablo (who I also know nothing about other than the factionalism in the Fourth International).
Yeah, as a marxist economist he is probably most famous for his work on "late- capitalism". I´m vaguely familiar with what he meant but I haven´t read his works on it so I can´t really comment.
I´m not sure trots would agree with Mandel being labelled an orthodox one. From what I´ve gather his politics were kind of a luxemburgian- trotskyist hybrid. But then again, what is orthodox trotskyism?
The post- war boom in western europe and the establishment of the "peoples democracies" in eastern europe created a lot of theoretical confusion and disagreements among trots after the second world war and I think there lies the genesis of it´s fragmentation into different trends and tendencies.
"Give me a place to stand, and I will sit on your face."
- Trotsky in the opening speech to the third congress of the Fourth International.
He was very soft on Stalinism, as was most of the post-war Fourth International if not all. He was a "Pabloite" in that he bought into the deformed workers' state business, called for Soviet defencism in times of war, and referenced the Soviet Union as a transitional society between capitalism and socialism.
I still like some of his writings, though, I'll have to admit. Many of his little pamphlets and such are good introductory texts to Marxism, such as Introduction to Marxist Economics and The Place of Marxism In History. He wrote a lot, actually, and I don't think he's entirely worthless. All in all I think he was a decent Marxist with horrible politics.
Years ago, I read that the USec "Fourth International" in which Ernest Mandel was a leading comrade (there are other "FI"s, for sure), sought to found an "International" in which anarchists also participated. Maybe that was a polemical excess or an outright mistake by a critic of Mandel.
What distinguished Grant from Trotskyism was Grant's unshakeable love for the pro-war, imperialist British Labour Party. Grant insisted that it was a "law" of history that the masses *always* move left through their "traditional" organizations, which is simply not true; to take a random example, some years ago, seven million German voters cast ballots for a relatively new formation, the "Linke," rather than voting for the "traditional" SPD.
In contrast to Grant, Mandel and his international built (small) new organizations in Britain and elsewhere.
Mandel and the USec were deeply involved in the 1968 Mai-Juin upsurge of the French working class. When I was an undergraduate, we were privileged to host Mandel's comrade, Gisela, who gave a speech about the prolonged mass strike of the French workers. If memory serves, the meeting for comrade Gisela was the one of the biggest things the left at my alma mater did, while I was at college. Another biggie was the (spontaneous) national student strike, that we also participated in, in the wake of the shootings of students in Ohio and Mississippi (at Kent State and Jackson State), in 1970.
Last edited by sixdollarchampagne; 20th February 2013 at 17:40.
If we really want to transform life, we must learn to look at it through the eyes of women. – Trotsky, 1923
The ballot box is the coffin of class consciousness. – Alan Dawley
Proud member of the 47% since 2010 – Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!
So that means that Pablo was an earlier 'leader' of the FI (or, one of them)? Is that where the Def.WS theory came from?
I'm not sure how Mandel could be characterized as a Luxemburgist- haven't noticed any traces in the economic articles I've read so far.
Pablo and Cannon
Pablo was a post-World War 2 leader of official Trotskyism, who believed in entrism and is considered by some Trotskyists to be responsible for the disappearance of several sections of the Fourth International during the period after the war. If memory serves, Cannon, of the (US) SWP, organized against Pablo's leadership of the International, precisely because Pablo's leadership was so disastrous for the movement.
To be honest, I don't know where the theory of deformed workers' states comes from, though now that I think about it, that theory probably has its roots in Trotsky's excellent study of the USSR, The Revolution Betrayed. The Sparts, in a publication of theirs on Cuba, did a very good job describing a deformed workers' state, IMHO. The Spart document, "Genesis of Pabloism," gives an account of post-war Trotskyism; it is well worth reading.
Last edited by sixdollarchampagne; 20th February 2013 at 20:28.
If we really want to transform life, we must learn to look at it through the eyes of women. – Trotsky, 1923
The ballot box is the coffin of class consciousness. – Alan Dawley
Proud member of the 47% since 2010 – Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!
I'm probably the only "Mandelite" on the board active on the board at present.
To be fair to Pablo, and to all of Trotskyist leaders, they thought the Second War was going to lead very quickly to lead to world revolution with a Trotskyist leadership. In retrospect that seems totally absurd and a fundamentalist reading of the Transitional Programme.
The immediate post-war period was a revolutionary period -- the Yugoslavian and Chinese revolutions, the anti-colonial movements, strike waves across Europe and the US. Most Trotskyists had completely overestimated their own abilities and underestimated the strength and legitimacy of social democratic, Stalinist and other reformist and centrist currents.
When I joined the USFI I was recruited to the majority current which stood for pluralism, regroupment, and trying to break with the sect model, which is easier said than done. In some countries there are two USFI groups, one majority, one minority. The majority tends to be less organized but better liked.
There's a good documentary on Mandel. You can find it in parts on YouTube. It starts here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QoBfIYWdo8
The biography of him published by Verso a couple of years ago is excellent. It reads like a thriller! For a workaholic economist he had a pretty exciting life. And the bio makes a lot of very good criticisms. I think the one that many of us would make was that he was often naively optimistic.
Glad you'd brought up Mandel; I knew next to nothing of his politics, so this thread is a big help.
He wrote a lengthy preface to one of the English translations of Capital, which I found comprehensive and remarkably cogent. I spotted his name on the spine of a bulky used paperback just last week, and picked it up. The book's titled simply: Marxist Economic Theory. Anyone familiar with it? It runs a little over 800 pages (!!), which strikes me as intriguing but a little prohibitive. I'd love to know a little in advance (if it's a dud, or dated, or just plain wrong), though I think I'll read the book, regardless.
I've read that Marxist Economic Theory and Late Capitalism are his two best known works. Some of the articles on the MIA (about 'neo-capitalism') hint at what his books would be like. Like you I'm interested in learning more; but I've got plenty of criticism so far for his concepts. Some of his conclusions and analysis seem superficial, and I'm starting to think the one big accomplishment credited to him (predicting the end of the post-war boom accurately) was based on a pretty general and unsubstantiated guess in a short article, rather than a more worked-out methodology and principled prediction.
I worked my way through part of Mandel's Marxist Economic Theory. The thing I remember is that the author took pains to situate his examples in a Third-World setting. My impression is that was a conscious decision on his part; it probably makes his volumes on economic theory unique.
As I remember, his essay at the beginning of the first volume of Capital was extremely well-written. I thought that was a very readable translation, though I only got about half-way through the volume.
If we really want to transform life, we must learn to look at it through the eyes of women. – Trotsky, 1923
The ballot box is the coffin of class consciousness. – Alan Dawley
Proud member of the 47% since 2010 – Proletarier aller Länder, vereinigt euch!
not his economics but his views on organisation are characterised as semi- luxembourgist by some.
"Give me a place to stand, and I will sit on your face."
- Trotsky in the opening speech to the third congress of the Fourth International.
I think its already been alluded to but correct me if I'm wrong;
Mandel's departure from Trotsky was on the conception of the Soviet Union.
Pablo was one of the leaders that remained after the carnage of WWII. He not only defended the USSR (as any orthodox Trotskyist should), he called for deep entry into Stalinist parties in Eastern Europe. His idea "centuries of deformed (i.e. Stalinist) workers states" basically was a liquidation of Trotskyism. If you are really interested, the Spartacists published an article around 1972 called The Genesis of Pabloism that is quite good. It really explains the origins. It is available on the International Bolshevik Tendency's web site (Marxist Archive/Spartacist Issue 21). I'm not a big fan of this now moribund split from the Sparts, but they have a lot of excellent documents on line, and their formal political program is peachy. Pablo wound up serving in the government of Ben Bella in Algeria -- an ignominious but fitting end for someone that helped destroy the Fourth International.
Mandel was at times an "orthodox" cover for Pabloism. He was erudite, could write pretty well and was an okay speaker. Pretty weak of political will, theoretically going wherever the popular winds blew. The US SWP split with Mandel and Pablo's group as did a number of other FI sections and formed the International Committee, I think in 1954. The SWP drifted righward for the next decade. When they decided that Castro was the second coming of Trotsky and Lenin, they split with the IC, and joined with Mandel's USEC.
The LCR was a pretty large "far left" group in France when I was becoming active in the late 70s. But they tailed whatever was in vogue -- Third World Guerilla movements, Student Vanguard, and after 68 for a while they discovered workers again.
I reject the idea that Cliff was any kind of Trotskyist. His characterization of the USSR and failure to defend it are simply not Trotskyist. Mandel was a centrist that, along with Pablo, led the FI to its political destruction. So while some of his writings are okay, his history is one of political cowardice and betrayal.
Comrade, Mandel was superficial -- you are quite correct -- if you were to read his writing from different periods they would reflect what was hot in rad/lib circles, they would not be good sources of Marxist analyses. I heard him speak once. He was bragging about how the USEC had deputies in the Brazilian Parliament (because they had entered Lula's Workers Party). It sounded impressive, until I realized that these "deputies" were loyal to Lula and not the USEC. He said nothing about actually fighting for socialism in Brazil. And nothing about raising any opposition to the WPs anti-working class policies. This was typical for his him.
Trotsky was close to abandoning the theory of DWS by the end of his life, to claim that simply because one doesn't uphold the theory makes them incapable of being a Trotskyist seems absurd and dogmatic to me.
What makes you say that Trotsky was close to abandoning Soviet Defensism? One of his last big political fights was in close collaboration with Cannon against Burnham, Abern and Shachtman -- because they were abandoning defense of the USSR. The volume of Trotsky's letters and documents regarding this fight are compiled in the book, In Defense of Marxism. Hard to see that he was just about to change that. Are there some important writings about which I am unaware?
I'm referring to 'The USSR in War,' which comes from In Defense of Marxism.
