|
Jan
Willem Stutje, “Ernest Mandel: A Rebel’s
Dream Deferred,” translated by Christopher Beck and Peter Drucker. (Verso: London, 2009), 392 pp., $34.95.
|
This book, the first full biography of Marxist
leader, writer, and economist Ernest Mandel (1923-1995), is overall a
disappointment. The author’s stance is overly academic, as becomes
especially apparent in the conclusion, where Mandel is faulted
because he “had scarcely any following in scholarly circles.”
|
Yet,
despite almost a hundred pages of endnotes, in several key instances
the work itself is not sufficiently scholarly. Its many flaws on
matters large and small can be summed up in one sentence: The
biographer does not understand the breadth and depth of his subject.
Not only does the author have an uncertain grasp of Marxist theory, he
has little sense of Mandel’s work as a revolutionary political leader.
Ernest
Mandel was one of the principal theorists of the Fourth International,
which has member parties in countries throughout the world. For more
than 40 years, Mandel authored documents, resolutions, and reports that
provided ideas that framed the political theory and guided the
political work of the world organization.
In
addition, Mandel was a supremely gifted individual who led a
multi-faceted political life. He was a remarkably prodigious writer who
produced thousands of articles. He wrote more than 20 books, which were
translated into more than 30 languages. Although his written work
always had a political purpose, some of his books won scholarly
distinction. He was a professor in Europe and taught and lectured
throughout the world.
Mandel
achieved intellectual prominence through his first major work, “Marxist
Economic Theory,” published in 1962 in France and in 1968 in Britain and the United States. His purpose in this work
was not to present a cogent summary of Marx’s ideas (that useful task
would be undertaken a few years later with the publication of the
widely read pamphlet, “An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory”)
but, “to start from the empirical data of the science
of today in order to examine whether or not the essence of Marx’s
economic propositions remain valid” [emphasis in original].
Mandel’s
analysis in “Marxist Economic Theory” focused on 20th-century
capitalism (what he termed “neocapitalism”)
and the postcapitalist economies represented
by the Soviet Union. The many translations and numerous editions of the
book suggest that Mandel was indeed successful in his effort to
demonstrate the “great superiority of the Marxist method compared with
other schools of economic thought.”
In
addition to his economic writings, which led to works like “Late
Capitalism,“ and “Long Waves of Economic Development,” Mandel was at
the same time a political activist who spoke in party schools, public
debates, and at demonstrations whose audiences numbered in the tens of
thousands. Fluent in several languages, the impact of his influence was
felt throughout the world—an influence appreciated by the ruling
classes of several countries, including the United States, who at
various times declared him persona non grata.
Perhaps
most significantly, in the 1960s and 1970s especially, Mandel provided
the necessary link between a youthful generation in rebellion and the
classical heritage of revolutionary Marxism. An excellent overview of
Mandel’s life and political work, written by Frank Lovell, can be found
on the Mandel website, ernestmandel.org.
Some
of the limitations of this biography are most glaring when the author
discusses Mandel’s work as a leading member of the Fourth International
(FI). Although the book is not intended as a history of the FI, it is,
of course, impossible to write about Mandel’s life without explaining
and analyzing his decades-long leadership role in that organization.
One
significant flaw in the biography is that the biographer simply lacks
any real understanding of some of the crucial topics. For instance, the
major tendency and factional battles in the 1970s that lasted several
years and threatened to split the FI are barely mentioned. Yet, Mandel
was a central figure throughout this struggle and was the author of
some of the main polemics. The biographer’s failure here gives a
misleading account of the history, the issues, and of Mandel’s role in them.
Beginning
in 1969, a majority of the leaders of the Fourth International,
including Mandel, presented the strategy of guerrilla warfare as the
best road to socialist revolution in Latin America. This overly simplistic and
misguided approach was opposed by others in the FI, particularly the
Socialist Workers Party in the United States. The International was
soon divided into two large factions that remained locked in conflict
for years until the majority faction adopted a resolution that made a
self-criticism of their main errors.
Mandel’s
biographer offers an account of this serious dispute that can only be
regarded as bizarre: “It remains questionable whether Mandel, despite
his insistence, was a fully convinced supporter of the armed struggle
position. He must have recognized the error, as his was a classical way
of thinking. … Yet, had Mandel followed this line, he would have
alienated the young radicals, particularly the French. Their Communist
League (LC), the crown jewel of the International with its hundreds of
new members, would have slipped from his hands. He wanted to avoid
that, if necessary by defending a position that took no account of
reality. Was his decision to do so a failure of leadership?” (p.187).
The
author gives no evidence or source for his assertion that Mandel did
not really believe his publicly stated position. It is hardly a small
point. And is it true that Mandel “must have recognized the error”?
Those errors were the subject of long and detailed articles and
documents, particularly those written by Joe Hansen of the SWP, but
Mandel, who was certainly capable of reading well, not only
“recognized” the criticisms, he did his best to refute them.
In
fact, Mandel did not realize the extent of his error, which is one
reason a years-long dispute continued in the Fourth International. A
more likely scenario is that Mandel did believe what he wrote but that
he made and clung to a serious mistake in political judgment. He may
well have been influenced by the young leaders of the French Communist
League, whose members, by the way, were never in “his hands” in the
first place.
However,
for the biographer to write that Mandel’s position “took no account of
reality” is simply light-minded nonsense. Not even Mandel’s most severe
critics at the time ever thought to make such a preposterous claim. The
position of the majority of the FI was indeed based on reality; their
error was to propose and defend a mistaken theory to change it.
The
debate on guerrilla warfare in Latin America is not the only shortcoming
in this biography when issues of political disagreements are
considered. Political disputes in the 1980s between the FI and the
leadership of the American Socialist Workers Party—from which Socialist
Action ultimately emerged—disputes in which
Mandel took a notably positive role, are not mentioned at all.
The
significance of Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Union hardly figure in the book.
Instead, there is comparatively a great deal about the ultimately
frustrating efforts to build an FI section in Poland during the years
of political ferment there. All this reveals the biographer’s lack of
political understanding and proportion.
Further,
when this biographer does tackle a specific topic, he is simply out of
his depth. Here is one typical instance (many more could be cited) of
faulty analysis: “In 1979 he [Mandel] still considered all
possibilities open. … The resolution on Europe he presented at the
Eleventh World Congress of the Fourth International bore witness to
Mandel’s own irresolution. Anyone could find in it whatever he wanted:
upsurge or decline; it was neither fish nor fowl. Mandel recoiled from
taking a definite stand, fearing demoralization. … Mandel feared a
weakening of the sections and urged caution” (p. 204).
The
resolution on Europe was a comprehensive, 40-page document
printed in small type. Naturally enough, the examination of each
country and significant political trends in the ruling classes and in
the workers’ movements were not uniform. Still, the document presented
a resolute thesis. Mandel wrote: “Socialist revolution is once again on
the agenda in capitalist Europe, not only in the historic but in the
immediate sense.” The validity of this thesis could be debated, but
they are not the words of someone who is recoiling from taking a
definite stand.
To
make matters even more clear, one need only read the opening sentence
of the “Report on the World Political Situation” given by Ernest
Mandel. It reads, “The central idea in our analysis of the world
situation is that there has been a change in the overall class
relationship of forces after 1975 to the detriment of imperialism.”
What’s
more, these documents were not merely an expression of Mandel’s
personal feelings. They were put to a vote and won the support of a large
majority of the delegates at the World Congress. Given the biographer’s
abysmal lack of comprehension, it’s fair to ask if he even read this
material. It is certainly clear that he did not understand it.
The
overall structure of the book is also unsatisfactory. The biography is
organized first by topic (analysis of capitalism; the so-called
socialist countries; the revolutionary party) and then, within each
topic, by chronology. Since, in Mandel’s life, the topics are not so
cleanly divided, this structure produces unnecessary overlap and
confusion. For instance, Mandel’s first wife, Gisela Scholtz, dies by page 199, but, then, 30 pages
later, “Gisela’s health had worsened dramatically.…” When the subject
matter is more complex, the reader’s confusion increases.
Finally,
the writing style here is merely competent at best: the author’s prose
is clunky and mechanical. Not a sentence in this book can be read with
pleasure. While occasionally there are some questionable choices in the
translation, the unvarying dullness of the writer cannot be blamed on
the translators.
So,
while the author strives for an “admiring but critical” stance, his
criticism is all too often based on incomprehension. The biographer
does not understand the political context that shaped Mandel’s life.
Despite
the value of the factual material gathered here, the critical analysis
presented in this work is misguided or erroneous. Overall, the
biography is not a success.
|