BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 152 9 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism   Alasdair MacIntyre began his literary career in 1953 with Marxism: An Interpretation.According to his own account, in that book he attempted to be faithful to both his Christian and his Marxist beliefs (MacIntyre 1995d). Over the course of the 1960s he abandoned both (MacIntyre 2008k, 180). In 1971 he introduced a collection of his essays by rejecting these and, indeed, all other attempts to illuminate the human condition (MacIntyre 1971b, viii). Since then, MacIntyre has of course re-embraced Christianity, although that of the Catholic Church rather than the An- glicanism to which he originally adhered. It seems unlikely, at this stage, that he will undertake a similar reconciliation with Marxism. Nevertheless, as MacIntyre has frequently reminded his readers, most recently in the prologue to the third edition of After Virtue(2007), his rejection of Marxism as a whole does not entail a rejection of every insight that it has to offer. MacIntyre’s current audience tends to be un- interested in his Marxism and consequently remains in ignorance not only of his early Marxist work but also of the context in which it was written. MacIntyre not only wrote from a Marxist perspective but also belonged to a number of Marxist organisations, which, to differing de- grees, made political demands on their members from which intellectu- 152 BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 153 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism 153 als were not excluded. Even the most insightful of MacIntyre’s admirers tend to treat the subject of these political affiliations as an occasion for mild amusement (Knight 1998, 2). By contrast with this dismissive per- spective, during the period from 1953 to 1968 he seems to have treated membership of some party or group as a necessary expression of his po - litical beliefs, no matter how inadequate the organisations in question may ultimately have been. An introductory note to an early piece in In- ternational Socialism,evidently written by MacIntyre himself, cheerfully recounts his ‘experience of the Communist Party, the Socialist La bour League, the New Left and the Labour Party’ and reports his (unfortunately over-optimistic) belief ‘that if none of these can disillusion one with socialism, then nothing can’ (Blackledge and Davidson 2008, xxxv). In other words, his was not the type of academic Marxism that became de- pressingly familiar after 1968, in which theoretical postures were adopted, according to the dictates of intellectual fashion, by scholars without the means or often even the desire to intervene in the world. On the contrary, at some level MacIntyre embraced what a classic Marxist cliché calls ‘the unity of theory and practice’, particularly in the Socialist LabourLeague (SLL) and International Socialism (IS). These were Trotskyist organisations; and readers of After Virtuewill recall that Trotsky first features there as one of MacIntyre’s ‘exemplars of the virtues’, along with fellow-Marxists Frederick Engels and Eleanor Marx, but also with St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Teresa (Mac- Intyre 1985a, 199). When MacIntyre reintroduces him in the final chap- ter, it is to use Trotsky’s intellectual integrity to illustrate the inability of Marxism to help achieve human liberation. MacIntyre clearly still admires Trotsky as an individual for his moral qualities and literary abilities, but to what extent was he ever a ‘Trotskyist’? During the 1930s, afterall, an entire generation of leading intellectuals and artists in the United States strongly identified with Trotsky without, in most cases, ever fully under- standing his politics (Wald 1987, 91– 97; N. Davidson 2004, 110– 11). One possible interpretation of this phase in MacIntyre’s career, there- fore, is that it was a late recurrence, under British conditions, of this type of attitude. This was certainly the conclusion drawn by some of his erst - while comrades in the SLL (Baker 1962, 68). I will argue, however, that it would be wrong to see MacIntyre simply as the British equivalent of BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 154 154 NEIL DAVIDSON James Burnham (who incidentally began his literary career as a neo- Thomist), albeit one with a rather more intellectually reputable post- Marxist output. I want to suggest instead that MacIntyre’s attempt to critically engage with Trotsky and Trotskyism, if ultimately a failure, was nevertheless a productive failure from which there is still much to be learned by those who continue to stand in that tradition. MacIntyre’s Early Marxism One characteristic of Marxism: An Interpretationis the way it accepts the dominant view of the Marxist tradition, in which there is an unbro- ken succession from Marx and Engels to Lenin and from Lenin to Stalin. This was almost universally accepted, not only by both sides of the Cold War (although liberals and Stalinists ascribed different and opposing values to the lineage), but also by any surviving anarchists who took nei- ther side. Only Trotskyists continued to insist on the existence of what Trotsky himself had called ‘a whole river of blood’ separating Lenin and the Bolsheviks from Stalinism (Trotsky 1978, 423). Insofar as there was a commonly held alternative to the continuity thesis on the political left, it placed a break after Marx, so that Lenin and the Bolsheviks bore sole responsibility for initiating the descent into totalitarianism. Ironically, Trotsky’s earlier writings, together with those of Rosa Luxemburg, were frequently quoted, in a necessarily decontextualised manner, as pro phetic warnings about the likely outcome of Lenin’s organisational innova- tions (Trotsky n.d., 77; Luxemburg 1970, 114– 22). According to this tra- dition, the former succumbed to the Leninist virus and the latter he - roically, if tragically, maintained her faith in the democratic role of the working class until the end (see, e.g., Borkenau 1962, 12– 13, 39– 56, 87– 89). And, sure enough, the sole reference to Trotsky in Marxism: An Interpretationinvokes the passage from Our Political Tasksin which he allegedly foresees the emergent dictatorship of the party over the class (MacIntyre 1953, 103). Nonetheless, in most other respects MacIntyre’s work is not a con- ventional account. Where he differed from most contemporaries on ei- ther side of the Cold War was his view that both the positive and the negative aspects of Marxism arose from within Marx’s own work. In BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 155 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism 155 particular, as befits his own Christian orientation at this time, he saw the problem as arising in the Marx’s shift from prophecy to theory, or more precisely, from prophesy to theoretical prediction. In this respect MacIntyre takes up entirely the opposite position to that later developed by Louis Althusser, in whose work an ‘epistemological break’ around 1845 marks the passage from mere ideology to science (Althusser 2005, 31– 38). For MacIntyre the problem is precisely that Marx after 1845 is attempting to fuse science with a fundamentally religious attribute, with the result that both are diminished: ‘Thus in Marx’s later thinking, and in Marxism, economic theory is treated prophetically; and that theory can- not be treated prophetically without becoming bad theory is something that Marxism can teach us at the point where it passes from prophecy to science’ (MacIntyre 1953, 91). MacIntyre was prepared to praise Marx as an individual thinker (MacIntyre 1956, 266). But as late as 1956 he was still dismissing all con- temporary Marxist theory as largely ‘fossilised’ (MacIntyre 2008a, 25). What did MacIntyre consider ‘Marxism’ to be at this point? Although he was clearly aware of several key debates within the Marxist tradition— the debates between Eduard Bernstein and Karl Kautsky on socialist mo- rality and those between Georgi Plekhanov and Lenin on the nature of the revolutionary party are both mentioned—he did not distinguish between any tendencies or traditions, still less claim that one of these might be more authentically Marxist than another. There was nothing unusual in his lack of engagement with Trotsky. The fact that Trotskyism later became the dominant tendency on the British far left has tended to obscure the fact that, before 1956, most people in the labour move- ment had never read anything by Trotsky or personally encountered any of his followers (N. Davidson 2004, 109– 10). Indeed, even today it is not unknown for prominent left-wing intellectuals to admit to igno- rance of his work (Hardt 2003, 135). Only a few years later, MacIntyre himself acidly suggested in an open letter to a Gaitskellite that ‘you are perhaps slightly disappointed to find that those who denounced Trot- skyism among your friends had never actually read Trotsky’ (MacIntyre 2008m, 215). The events of 1956 meant that the encounter with Trotsky’s thought could no longer be averted. MacIntyre did not respond immediately to Khrushchev’s revelations, the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution, BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 156 156 NEIL DAVIDSON or the thwarted reforms in Poland, but as someone involved in the emer- gent New Left he would have quickly have become aware that Trotsky- ists offered an explanation for the realities of Stalinism which did not simply rely on abstract moral categories. MacIntyre made his first refer- ence to Trotsky or Trotskyism in 1958, in one of his first articles for the socialist press, but it was not complementary. In a review of Raya Duna - yevskaya’s Marxism and Freedomfor the journal Universities and Left Review,he wrote of the author, ‘She has been repelled by the arid, semi- nary text-book Marxism of the Stalinists and the Trotskyists (who share all the dogmatism of the Stalinists without any of their achievements)’ (MacIntyre 2008b, 43). Yet, less than a year later, MacIntyre had joined one group ofTrotskyist ‘dogmatists’, the newly formed SLL. And, as one member recalls, ‘He was at first full of enthusiasm; he spoke at meetings, sold papers, wrote articles and pamphlets’ (Baker 1962, 65, 68). Why had he taken this apparently unexpected step? MacIntyre as an Orthodox Trotskyist MacIntyre began his career as a Trotskyist by adhering to the most ‘or- thodox’ position then available. His initial move was assisted by his po- sition on the nature of the USSR and the other Stalinist regimes, namely, that they represented more advanced forms of society than those of the capitalist West—not yet socialist, of course, but at least in the process of transition to socialism. He had criticised Dunayevskaya’s belief that society had entered ‘the age of state capitalism, a form of economy com- mon to both U.S.A. and U.S.S.R’, because it involved ‘a fantastic under- valuation of socialist achievement in the Soviet Union’ (MacIntyre 2008b, 43). In a sense, then, his initial organisational affiliation to the SLL was unsurprising, since this was precisely the position they also held, albeit in the special terminology of the Trotskyist movement (the USSR was a ‘degenerated worker’s state’, the later Stalinist countries were ‘deformed worker’s states’). His first published work after joining the organisation was a review of Herbert Marcuse, in which he praised the author for re- jecting alternative interpretations, such as state capitalism (MacIntyre 2008c, 78). BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 157 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism 157 However, there were other reasons why the SLL might have seemed attractive to a young militant seeking an organisational framework. Given the sectarian dementia for which the SLL (and its later incarnation as the Worker’s Revolutionary Party) became infamous on the British left, it is important to understand that it initially presented itself as an open organisation, keen to encourage debate and facilitate the exchange of views in SLL publications such as theweeklyNewsletterand the monthly Labour Review,both of which were launched in 1957 (Hallas 1969, 30; Ratner 1994, 207). This stance obviously held attractions for those who had found the regime in the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) intolerable. Furthermore, the SLL was able to provide an explanation for the degeneration of the CPGB, which—unlike the explanations on offer from the New Left—did not see the problem as lying with the Original Sin of democratic centralism. Much of what MacIntyre wrote for the SLL was focused on the question of revolutionary organisation. In a talk delivered—incredible as it now seems—on the BBC Third Programme and later reproduced in The Listener,he identified the key factors behind the decline of the CPGB as the ‘rise of Stalinism in the Soviet Union’ and ‘the defeat of the British working-class in the General Strike’ (MacIntyre 2008f, 116– 17). This is possibly the most ‘orthodox’ statement of his career, although there is little in it with which members of any other Trotskyist grouping would disagree. But, moving from historical analysis to the contempo- rary scene, it is clear that MacIntyre was conscious of the need to balance the ability to reach out to the existing audience for socialist politics— whether or not they possessed the correct proletarian credentials—with the need for a revolutionary organisation. In his discussion of the New Left, for example, he objected to the dismissive tone adopted by SLL the- oretician CliffSlaughter, but MacIntyre saw his more positive approach as a way of winning activists in the New Left to a more fully revolution- ary politics and party commitment, not perpetuating its amorphous approach to organisation (MacIntyre 2008e). The internal SLL debate over the nature of revolutionary organisa- tion reached its highest level in an essay by MacIntyre, ‘Freedom and Revolution’, published the following year. In part, this seems to have been an attempt to defend the theory of the revolutionary party embodied in BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 158 158 NEIL DAVIDSON the SLL against those who—in response to its increasingly undemoc- ratic practice—had either left or been expelled from it. But it was also an attempt to think through his own perspective, which was beginning to diverge markedly from that of his comrades. MacIntyre argues from first principles, starting with the position of people in capitalist society, not with quotations from Lenin and Trotsky (although the discussion of ideology in ‘What Is to Be Done?’ forms a ghostly backdrop throughout). Indeed, the only thinkers he mentions are Hegel and Marx. He begins his case for a revolutionary party with the apparently paradoxical notion that such a party is essential for the realisation of human freedom—not the usual starting point in Leninist or Trotskyist discussions: ‘To assert oneself at the expense of the organisation in order to be free is to miss the fact that only within some organisational form can human freedom be embodied’ (2008g, 129). But the role of the vanguard party is not it- self to achieve freedom, ‘but to moving the working class to build it’. In order to ‘withstand all the pressures of other classes and to act effectively against the ruling class’, it has to have two characteristics (2008g, 132). The first, the need for constant self-education, is relatively unconten- tious. But the second, which returns to the paradox of vanguard ism and freedom, is more interesting. MacIntyre begins conventionally enough, noting that ‘one can only preserve oneself from alien class pressures in a vanguard party by maintaining discipline. Those who do not act closely together, who have no overall strategy for changing society, will have nei- ther need for nor understanding of discipline’ (2008g, 133). Appeals for ‘discipline’ by themselves were unlikely to win over members of the New Left, who were only too conscious of how this strategy had been used by Stalinist parties to suppress discussion, but their alternative tended to emphasise personal choice. MacIntyre was able to show that there was an organisational alternative to both bureaucratic centralism and liberal individualism: Party discipline is essentially not something negative, but some- thing positive. It frees party members for activity by ensuring that they have specific tasks, duties and rights. This is why all the consti- tutional apparatus is necessary. Nonetheless there are many socialists who feel that any form of party discipline is an alien and constraining BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 159 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism 159 force which they ought to resist in the name of freedom. The error here arises from the illusion that one can as an isolated individual escape from the moulding and the subtle enslavements of the status quo. Behind this there lies the illusion that one can be an isolatedin- dividual. Whether we like it or not every one of us inescapably plays a social role, and a social role which is determined for us by the work- ings of bourgeois society. Or rather this is inescapable so long as we remain unaware of what is happening to us. As our awareness and understanding increase we become able to change the part we play. (MacIntyre 2008g, 132– 33) The knowledge required to identify our social role is not, however, a personal but a collective possession. ‘So the individual who tries most to live as an individual, to have a mind entirely of his own, will in fact make himself more and more likely to become in his thinking a passive reflec- tion of the socially dominant ideas; while the individual who recognises his dependence on others has taken a path which can lead to an authen- tic independence of mind’ (MacIntyre 2008g, 133). Whether the SLL was the type of party that MacIntyre advocated was less clear. The leadership responded obliquely with an article by Cliff Slaughter, ‘What Is Revolutionary Leadership?’, not criticising MacIntyre by name, but identifying what Slaughter evidently saw as an inadequate conception of the revolutionary party (Slaughter 1960, 103). Slaughter’s response was itself a serious contribution, which brought into the debate arguments not only from Lenin but from the early Georg Lukács and An- tonio Gramsci, both of whom were virtually unknown in the English- speaking world at this time. Lukács in particular was to be important in MacIntyre’s development, although there is no evidence that he had read Lukács before this point. Nevertheless, Slaughter’s essay also contained warning signs of the SLL’s future development, notably in his insistence on the need to raise ‘discipline and centralised authority . . . to an un- precedented degree’ (Slaughter 1960, 107, 111). In the course of an earlier debate in The Listener, MacIntyre had written that ‘whether the SLL is or is not democratic or Marxist will be very clearly manifested as time goes on. I myself have faced no limitation on intellectual activity of any kind in the SLL’ (MacIntyre 1960, 500). BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 160 160 NEIL DAVIDSON Ironically, within months of writing these lines, MacIntyre was ex- pelled from the SLL, along with a number of other prominent activists who refused to act as mere puppets of the leadership. In a letter to SLL leader Gerry Healy, MacIntyre observed that it was clearly impossible for a minority to exist within the organisation because of his personal domi nance and the fact that he effectively owned it as private property, since the assets were in his name. His conclusion, however, was not that these problems stemmed solely from Healy’s personal malevolence—real though that undoubtedly was—but because of the small size of the Trot- skyist organisations, which allowed individuals to play this role (Cal la - ghan 1984, 78). Nevertheless, he quickly joined another even smaller or- ganisation, albeit one with—as Knight would have it—a ‘less dogmatic’ attitude to Trotskyism. Of his attitude towards Trotsky himself, however, there was no ambiguity. In the conclusion to ‘Breaking the Chains of Rea- son’, an essay written while he was still in the SLL but published only after his departure, MacIntyre concluded with an incandescent passage estab- lishing his admiration for Trotsky as a model for radical intellectuals: Two images have been with me throughout the writing of this essay. Between them they seem to show the alternative paths for the intel- lectual. The one is of J.M. Keynes, the other of Leon Trotsky. Both were obviously men of attractive personality and great natural gifts. The one the intellectual guardian of the established order, providing new policies and theories of manipulation to keep society in what he took to be economic trim, and making a personal fortune in the process. The other, outcast as a revolutionary from Russia both under the Tsar and under Stalin, providing throughout his life a defence of human activity, of the powers of conscious and rational human effort. I think of them at the end, Keynes with his peerage, Trotsky with an icepick in his skull. These are the twin lives between which intellectual choice in our society lies. (MacIntyre 2008h, 166) Having rejected Trotskyist orthodoxy, MacIntyre had two organisa- tional choices if he wanted to remain an active revolutionary. One was International Socialism (formerly the Socialist Review Group) which had been formed out of a much earlier split—in fact, a series of expulsions— BlackledgeKnight-09_Layout 1 12/29/10 8:07 AM Page 161 Alasdair MacIntyre and Trotskyism 161 from the last unified British Trotskyist organisation, the Revolutionary Communist Party, back in 1950. The central position of the IS, elabo- rated by the group’s founder Tony Cliffin 1948 on the basis of his read- ing of the Marxist classics, was the very view of Stalinist states that Mac- Intyre had earlier rejected, namely, that they represented forms of state capitalism. The other was the post-Leninist, post-Trotskyist, and ulti- mately post-Marxist organisation established by other former SLL mem- bers, initially called Socialism Reaffirmed, then (from 1961) Solidarity. This group also rejected the view that the Stalinist regimes were in any sense socialist, but were far less specific than the IS in giving them a pos- itive characterisation, referring to them instead as examples of‘bureau- cratic society’. Another difference was important for MacIntyre’s later theoretical and political development. Whereas for the IS, the postwar boom was underpinned by the arms economy, to Cliffand the other major IS theoretician, Mike Kidron, this boom did not lead to perma- nent stabilisation but rather would ultimately produce its own contra- dictions. Solidarity, on the other hand, drawing on the work of the one- time Greek Trotskyist known at the time as Paul Cardan (i.e., Cornelius Castoriadis), argued that capitalism had definitively overcome its ten- dency to economic crisis (compare Kidron 1970, ch. 3, with Castoriadis 1988, 233– 57). In terms of how these organisations understood their re- lationship to the working class, however, there appeared to be far fewer differences, as can be seen by comparing the statements of their respec- tive leading thinkers (Brinton 2004, 19; Cliff2001b, 129). Cliffcontinued to talk about leadership, a notion which Maurice Brinton consciously avoids, but both groups had clearly distanced themselves from the kind of bureaucratic machine-Leninism practiced by orthodox Trotskyist or - ga nisations such as the SLL. Solidarity and IS coexisted in a relatively fra- ternal manner, and the early issues of International Socialismcontained material by prominent Solidarity members, including Brinton (under the name of Martin Grainger) and Bob Pennington. It also published mate- rial by both Cardan and other members of his group, Socialisme au Bar - barie, including the later prophet of postmodernism, Jean-François Lyo - tard (Cardan 1961; Lyotard 1963). What was the relationship of IS to Trotskyism at this time? In 1965 the American author George Thayer reported an interview with Kidron: