Ernest Mandel: A Rebel’s Dream Deferred 9781844673162

Citation preview

Ernest Mandel A R E B E L ’S D R E A M D E F E R R E D Jan Willem Stutje

Biography / Politics $34.95 / £19.99 / J43.50CAN ERNEST MANDEL (1923-1995) was one of the most prominent anri-Stalinist Marxist intellectuals of his time. A political theorist and economist, his worldview was shaped by experiences in the Second World War as an underground political activist in Occupied Belgium and during his subsequent internment in a Nazi prison camp. Mandels faith in human nature and in the working classes survived Nazi oppression and the murder of much of his family in the concentration camps. He retained his connection to his Jewish roots throughout his life, but believed that security and liberation for the Jewish people was best achieved through world revolution and universal emancipation rather than nationalism. A brilliant orator in several languages, Mandel was an indefatigable revolutionary militant and a key leader in the Fourth International. He had an enormous impact on the thought and practice of the 1968 generation. His writings range from innovative economic and political theory to a study of the Second World War and have been published in over forty languages. His last major work, Late Capitalism, had an influence that reached from the social sciences into the humanities. Biographer Jan Willem Stutje, the first writer with access to Mandel s archives, has interviewed many of the leading figures in the story and unearthed a wealth of new material, detailing Mandels arrest by the Nazis and his role in Latin American guerrilla warfare. He recounts Mandels interactions with both scholars—Sartre, Ernst Bloch, Perry Anderson—and comrades-in-arms such as Che Guevara, Rudi Dutschke and Tariq Ali. The book also yields fascinating details of the mans sometimes tragic private life.

JAN WILLEM STUTJE is a historian affiliated with the Institute of Biography at the University of Groningen. He has published a life of Dutch Communist Party leader Paul de Groot and studies of the Dutch and international labour movement in scholarly publications in the Netherlands and abroad.

y

VERSO

UIC: 6 Heard Street, London W1F OEG USA: 20 Jay Street, Brooklyn, NY, 11201

www.veraobooks.com Jacket design:

b r i l l

Jacket photograph © Rob Brouwer

E m est M andel A R e b e l’s D ream D eferred •

• ; --------- " ---------------- ^

---------------------------

Translated by

C H R IS T O P H E R BECK and P E T E R D R U C K E R

V

VERSO London • New York

This edition first published by Verso 2009 © Jan W illem Stutje 2007 Translation Christopher Beck and P eter D rucker 2009 First published as Ernest Mandel: Rebel tussen drooiti en daad, 1923—1995 Hontckiet/AmsabISG , A ntw erpen/G ent, 2007 T he translation o f this w ork was m ade possible by support from the N etherlands Organization for Scientific R esearch (N W O ) All rights reserved T he moral rights o f the author have been asserted 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 V e rso UK: 6 M eard Street, L ondon W 1F 0EG US: 20 Jay Street, Suite 1010, B rooklyn, N Y 11201 ww w .versobooks.com Verso is the im print o f N e w Left Books ISBN-13: 978-1-84467-316-2 B ritis h L ib ra ry C a ta lo g u in g in P u b lic a tio n D a ta A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library L ib ra ry o f C o n g re ss C a ta lo g in g -in -P u b lic a tio n D a ta A catalog record for this book is available from the Library o f Congress Typeset by H ew er T ejJt.U K Ltd, Edinburgh Printed in the US by M aple Vail

C ontents

List o f Illustrations Foreword by T ariq Ali Preface Translators’ Note List o f Abbreviations 1. Y outh: ‘M y politics w ere determ ined th en for the rest o f m y life’ 2. A Y o u n g M an in the W a r 3. T h e P o w e r o f the Will?4. La Gauche and the Social D em ocrats 5. Marxist. Economic Theory: A B o o k ab o u t the W orld 6. In the F o u rth International 7. T h e W orlds o f Politics and Scholarship: A n Odyssey 8. Love and R ev o lu tio n 9. H o p e and D espair 10. R ev o lu tio n D eferred 11. Socialism or D eath 12. C onclusion Notes Bibliography Index

vii ix xv xix xxi

1 16 42 60 87 98 124 147 175 201 231 252 261 355 381

List o f Illustrations

T h e author and publisher w o u ld like to thank all those w ho have kindly supplied perm ission for the follow ing illustrations to be reproduced in this w ork. — H enry and R osa M andel and their sons, A ntw erp, Septem ber 1937. (Source: M ichel M andel.) — O n the eve the Second W o rld C ongress o f the F ourth Interna­ tional, theatre o n R u e de 1’A rbre Sec, the French Trotskyist H Q , Paris, A pril 1948: (Source: R u d o lp h e Prager A rchive, IISH, A m sterdam .) ^ — L etter from Ernest M andel after his release, ‘som ew here in G erm any’, April 1945. (Source: H en ri M andel A rchive, IISH Amsterdam.) — Ernest M andel and Pierre Le Greve selling La Gauche, early 1960s. (Source: A nne M andel-Sprim ont.) — Sherry M angan, ca. 1950. (Source: R u d o lp h e Prager Archive, IISH, Amsterdam.) — Ernest M andel and Pierre Le G reve (with pipe) at the founding conference o f the U n io n de la G auche Socialiste, 1964. (Source: A nne M andel-Sprim ont.) — Ernest M andel at w ork o n Late Capitalism, 1970. (Source: A nne M andelSprim ont.) — Ernest M andel the professor. (Photo by H erm an Selleslags.) — R u d i D utschke. (Source: IISH , Amsterdam.) — C landestine press conference w ith Tariq Ali, Alain Krivine and Ernest M andel. (Source: private collec-tion.) — E m est Bloch, m id 1970s. (Source: IISH , Amsterdam.) — Gisela Scholtz, late 1970s. (Source: IISH , Amsterdam.) — Verso d inner celebrating the publication o fM a n d e l’s The Meaning o f the Second World War, 1986. (Source: A nne M andel-Sprim ont.)

V III

L IST OF IL LU ST R A T IO N S

— Ernest M andel and A nne Sprim ont in B io de Janeiro. (Source: A nne M andel-Sprim ont.) — Jan M alewski, M ichael Low y and Z bigniew K owalewski at the Fif­ teenth W o rld Congress o f the F ourth International, Belgian coast, February 2003. (Source: Jan Malewski.)

F orew ord

E rnest M andel was o n e o f the m ost creative and in d ep en d en t-m in d ed revolutionary thinkers o f the postw ar w orld. His w ritings on political theory, w o rld history and M arxist econom ics have b een translated into m ore than forty languages. In a series o f specialist w orks —Late Capitalism (1975), The Second Slump (1978), The Long Waves o f Capitalist Development (revised and re-issued in 1995) —he analyzed h o w capitalism functioned in the W est, and far from bein g surprised by th e W all Street crash o f 2008, he w o u ld have b een able to situate his analysis o f it w ith in M arxist theory. From the late 1950s onw ards, h e was a p ro m in e n t leader and theoretician o f the F o u rth International, th e Brussels-based Trotskyist m ovem ent, w hile w o rk in g o n his tw o -v o lu m e classic, Marxist Economic Theory. A skilful o rato r w h o could speak several languages, he becam e a m uch adm ired figure duriftg the 1960s, especially after 1968. E ven those on the left n o t sym pathetic to his politics acknow ledged his influence and d em onstrated a respect for his razor-sharp intelligence. H e was one o f the theoreticians m ost respected b y the W est G erm an SDS, in particular the late R u d i Dutschlce. N o serious biography or intellectual history o f M andel has appeared to date —Jan W illem Stutje’s thoroughly researched account is a good start, an attem pt to explain n o t only M andel’s ideas b u t also their developm ent w ithin the context o f his personal history, and the details he gives o f his subject’s private life m ight surprise som e o f those w ho k new Ernest M andel only as a revolutionary leader. Stutje n o t only took full advantage o f being the first to gain com plete access to M an d el’s archives, he also conducted a broad range o f interview s w ith thos'e w h o k n ew the m an and those w ho knew the thinker and activist, and has m anaged to situate M andel w ithin the intellectual and political upheavals o f his tim e, tracing his evolution as both scholar and revolutionary from childhood, through the Second W orld W ar and the events o f ’68, right up to his death in 1995.

X

FOREW ORD

Ernest M andel was b o m in B elgium and educated at the R o y a A thaenaeum in A ntw erp and later at the U niversity o f Brussels. His father, H enri M andel, a P olish-bom left-w ing socialist, had opposed the First W orld W ar and fled from B elgium to H olland to avoid conscription into the Austrian army, subsequently m oving to G erm any w ith the com m unist W ilhelm Pieck after the Kaiser’s fall. W o rk in g in Berlin as a journalist w ith the new ly organized Soviet Press Agency, H en ri befriended Karl R adek, the Bolshevilc emissary dispatched by Lenin to p ro m o te the G erm an revolution, b u t the repression that follow ed the execution o f R osa L uxem burg and Karl L iebknecht dem oralized him , and he rem ained a m em ber o f the G erm an C om m unist Party for only a few years longer. H e dropped o u t o f active politics and m oved to A ntw erp, w here his first son, Ezra, or Ernest, was bom . Ernest was ten w h en H id er rose to absolute pow er, in 1933. Years later, w e w o u ld speak o f those events and he w o uld describe his m em ories o f that era. ‘M y father m ade some very sharp com m ents at the tim e 011 the incapacity o f the Social D em ocrats and the C om m unists to resist fascism,’ he told m e. ‘I rem em ber him saying “This w ill end very badly. It could be the end for o u r p eople.” In 1939, M andel jo in e d a small Trotskyist group in A ntw erp and becam e active in resisting the O ccupation. T h e leader o f the Belgian Socialist Party, w h o was also the deputy prim e m inister at the tim e, publicly appealed for collaboration w ith the Nazis and was supported by an im portant section o f the trade u n io n apparatus — a m ove that left M andel feeling outraged and disgusted. M eanw hile, the official C om m unists basked in the deadly rays o f the Stalin-H itler pact. M andel was first arrested for distributing seditious leaflets to the occupy­ ing G erm an soldiers. A revolutionary and a Jew , he subsequently w en t into hiding, y et he continued to observe the u niform ed Germans, noting ho w they w ere affected by the anti-fascist propaganda. W h en he was finally caught, he was sent to a transit camp for prisoners —norm ally a stop en route to Auschw itz —w here he began talking to the warders, veteran employees o f the G erm an state w h o w ere considered subhum an by the other Belgian and French prisoners. M andel saw them otherw ise, and he sought to, convince them o f the merits o f socialism, in the process discovering that some o f them had b een m em bers o f the n o w -b an n ed Social D em ocratic and C om m unist parties in G erm any. T h e adm iration o f these m en for the precocity o f the sixteen-year-old M andel inspired them to help in his escape. These events, as Stutje describes them , m arked a critical turning p o int in M andel’s evolution as a revolutionary and axi intellectual. A lthough he was re-arrested soon after, it was through this experience that he becam e a true inter­

FOREW ORD

xi

nationalist. H e realized that w hole nations and peoples could n o t be condem ned for the crimes o f their leaders. H e rarely spoke o f the H olocaust; one o f the few occasions that I heard him refer to it was in the telling o f a sem i-com ic anecdote. T w o N igerian Trotskyists had arrived in Brussels to attend a m eeting, getting into the airport late at night. T h e y had gone straight to M andel’s house (the only address they had), b u t he was at a m eeting, as was his wife, Gisela. His aged m o th e r heard lo u d knocks o n the front d o o r and opened it, then, w h en she saw the African comrades, slam m ed it shut. T h e y w ere incredibly amused and understanding, b u t w h en M andel heard ab'out the episode he lost his tem per, shouting at his m o th er and rem inding h e r that similar views had led to m ost o f their ow n relations b ein g killed in th e camps. A n u m b er o f us told him that this analogy had been cruel and far-fetched. H e w o u ld n ’t listen. ‘U nacceptable behaviour. U nacceptable.’ M oreover, like A bram Leon, Ygael G luckstein [Tony Cliff] and m any o th e r Bolsheviks o f Jew ish origin, M andel was utterly hostile to Zionism and the idea o f an Israeli state. H e was, like the Israeli Socialist O rganisation founded by Akiva O rr, M oshe M achover and H aim H anegbi, com m itted to a single state w ith equal rights for all. O n this he was implacable. Follow ing the Second W o rld W ar, M andel devoted m uch energy to building th e Fourth International as a w orld party for the socialist revolution, a party w hose distance frorn the crimes o f Stalinism and the capitulations o f social dem ocracy w o u ld restilt in success. It is easier n o w than it was at the tim e to see that this was a utopian project. R alp h M iliband, sym pathetic on m any levels, was always convinced that the F ourth International was a road to n o w h ere and cut o ff som e fine comrades from the broader m ovem ent. D uring the 1960s and 1970s M andel, fluent in the m ajor E uropean languages, was m uch in dem and as a speaker all over the w orld. His polem ical and oratorical skills led to h im being barred from entering the U n ited States, France, W est G erm any, Switzerland and Australia. Paranoid governm ents deem ed h im a threat to national security —a phrase that echoes loudly in o u r political climate today. These restrictions on his m ovem ents sent him back to the typewriter. M andel produced pamphlets and books at an amazing speed, w ithout loss o f quality or relevance — his Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory sold half a m illion copies. Y et his preoccupation w ith producing these w ritten w orks never interfered w ith his observation o f the plethora o f Trotskyist m ovem ents that w ere organizing around die world. W h en I w ould ring him during the ’70s, asking a polite ‘H o w are you?’ the reply was never the same: ‘I’m just finishing offa draft reply to the sectarians in C eylon on the Tam il question’ or ‘Fine. H ave you read m y reply to the IS G roup 011 state capitalism?’ o r ‘Those sectarian idiots in Argentina have caved in to Peronisni.*Crazy people. D o n ’t

X ll

FOREW O RD

they understand?’ T hey never did, b u t M andel never stopped trying to convince ‘crazy people’ to tread the true revolutionary road. H e was thinking o f new projects right up until the end. ‘I can’t decide w hat book to w rite,’ he told m e shortly before his death. ‘A history o f the E uropean w orkers’ m ovem ent or the pem ianent and eternal links betw een capitalism and crime?’ In the end, he w asn’t able to w rite either. His m o tto was O ptim ism o f the W ill, O ptim ism o f the Intellect, and in his last years he refused to accept the scale o f the defeat that socialism had suffered in 1989. T o his great irritation, I som etim es rem inded him that T rotsky’s prescience in The Revolution Betrayed was m uch closer to the m ark than his o w n rejection o f reality. T h e exiled Bolshevik had w ritten in 1936 that the Soviet regim e was transitory; that it w o u ld either be pushed forw ard by a political revolution from below , triggered by new revolutions else­ w here in the w orld, o r it w o u ld atrophy and regress, paving the w ay for a capitalist restoration in w h ich m any o f the leading socialist bureaucrats w o u ld becom e capitalist millionaires. T h e w o rld o f the Left that was d om inated by 1917 has com e to an end. N in eteen eighty-nine, the year that w itnessed the collapse o f the Soviet U n io n and the extraordinary Chinese spurt towards capitalism that struc­ turally altered the w orld m arket, m arked the end o f traditional social dem ocracy. T h e W ashington consensus im ploded in 2008, b u t those w ho challenged it during its prim e w ere n o t traditional w orkers’ organiza­ tions, b u t the social m ovem ents in S outh America: in Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, A rgentina, P eru and Paraguay. These m ovem ents produced political parties and leaders o f a n ew type w h o trium phed electorally and b eg an .to im plem ent social program m es that defied the norm s o f the new w orld order. M andel w o u ld have had a great deal to w rite about all this w ere he alive, b u t even he w o u ld have found it difficult to link all this to the certainties o f the previous epoch, characterized as one o f ‘wars and revolu­ tions’. Soon after the Partido dos Trabalialdores (PT) was form ed in Brazil, he was asked to w rite its program m e. ‘N o t easy,’ he told m e. ‘Difficult to find the key transitional dem ands.’ I d o n ’t k n o w w h eth er he produced a draft b u t it Was certainly the first tim e I heard him speaking about difficulties. H ow ever, he often held back from w riting material that m ight ‘demoralize the m o v em en t’. This was a great pity, because critical analysis was despe­ rately needed and m ight have helped the m o vem ent survive. It w o u ld have been w o rth a try. Jan W illem Stutje does n o t offer us a hagiography: he writes o f M andel’s frequent ‘unwillingness — if not incapacity — to defend the integrity o f his convictions, his tendency to com prom ise at crucial m om ents.’ In m y

FOREW ORD

x iii

opinion this was m o re the case w h en M andel was participating in the interm inable polem ics that m arked the Trotskyist m ovem ent. O n one occasion he told m e, ‘I wish I had the tim e to w rite a history o f the Jesuits. V ery similar to o u r m o v em en t in m any ways.’ H e knew . Y et so strong were his convictions that in their service he persisted in a daily routine that was often arid and unrew arding. ‘Y o u r generation doesn’t have the stamina o f our generation,’ he said w h e n I told him in 1980 that it had becom e impossible for m e to rem ain a m em b er o f his organization in Britain. ‘W e survived fascism and Stalinism and it was w o rth the wait. Y o u ’ve ju st been p u t o ff by som e sectarian idiots.’ This was n o t exactly so, b u t he th ought that anyone w h o left m ust begin a m ove rightwards. (I am glad to say he was w ro n g in m ore than a few cases, including mine.) D espite o u r disagreements, w e rem ained friends and he always m ain­ tained a strong collaboration w ith the New Left Review, even though ‘you people are centrists [i.e., vacillating b etw een reform and revolution] b u t I’m pleased that the quality o f the magazine remains high. T h a t’s im portant. It rem inds m e o f Die Neue Zeit u n d er K autsky’s editorship.’ I laughed — the Berlin W all had com e d o w n a few w eeks previously — and told him that given w hat was happening in the w orld, very few o f m y N L R colleagues w ould regard this com parison as an insult. Ironically, the few w h o did soon m oved o n to o th e r pastures. Ernest M andel was a Trot§kyist, b u t one able to think independently and to engage w ith m any w hose views w ere far rem oved from his ow n. Som e o f his finest essays w ere w ritten for audiences that needed convincing. I miss him gready. H e h ad a p rofound influence o n m e that will never com pletely disappear. Yeats w ro te that ‘T h e intellect o f m an is forced to choose / Perfection o f the life, or o f the w o rk .’ For M andel it was always the latter. Tariq AH December 2008

Preface

This b o o k is an exercise in critical adm iration: an attem pt to explore frankly and freely the life and w o rk o f Ernest M andel, a Flemish revolutionary M arxist w ith w hose ideas I feel a close affinity. M y approach is b o th open and critical; M andel deserves n o less. Ernest M andel was an undogm atic radical theoretician, w h o exerted considerable influence internationally on the ‘generation o f ’68’. H e is also the. m ost translated Belgian author after Georges Sim enon. A round the globe, his writings have appeared in hundreds o f thousands o f editions in m ore than forty languages. In 2006 the international jo u rn al Post-Autistic Economics Review nam ed h iip one o f the thirty greatest econom ists o f the tw entieth century.1 M andel’s conn ectio n w ith B elgium was strong. A m ong the varied evidence o f that b o n d are his editorships (1954—85) o f the Liege periodical La Wallonie and Le Peuple, the Brussels daily o f the Belgian Socialist Party; his activity in the A B W (General Belgian T rade U n io n Federation); and his participation in the great strike in the w inter o f 1960-61. M andel played a key role in establishing tw o weeklies — La Gauche and Links, its Flemish counterpart —w hich attracted the attention o f a broad trade un io n and left intellectual public in the second h alf o f the 1950s. In addition he was a highly valued and frequently invited debating partner in liberal, Catholic and social dem ocratic circles. M andel was a gifted speaker and polyglot, w ho opened n ew perspectives for m any audiences in h alf a dozen languages. H e was also a prom inent ■scholar, w h o delivered the prestigious Alfred Marshall lectures at Cam bridge U niversity in 1978. H e w ro te b o th Delightful Murder, a history o f the crime novel, and the scholarly introductions to P en guin’s English edition o f the three volum es o f M arx’s Capital. A t his death the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung w rote, ‘M o re than anyone, this Belgian political scientist endured the anathemas o f b o th the right and the orthodox left . . . b u t for the

PREFACE

xvi

generation o f 1968 M andel’s nam e was an inspiration and an exam ple.’2 A long w ith ren o w n ed progressive intellectuals such as H erbert M arcuse, E rnst Bloch, andJean -P au l Sartre, M andel celebrated the Prague Spring, ju st as he em braced the rebellions in W estern E urope and A m erica that p ro m o ted an anti-authoritarian and utopian revolutionary spirit against the bourgeois conform ism o f m o d e m consum er society. M andel was a breed o f socialist rare in the second half o f the tw entieth century: a theoretician w h o situated his scholarly w o rk in the broader endeavour o f his revolutionary aspirations. From his early y outh, the focus and o u d e t for his activism was the F o u rth International, founded and inspired by L eon Trotsky. T h e reader o f this biography w ill en co u n ter M andel and his comrades in their o w n w ords, as w ell as the biographer’s. W h ere the M arxist idiom does n o t predom inate, their language adds colour and expresses the authentic voice o f their period and m ilieux. C oundess m eetings and happenings w in d through this story. His life was form ed o f a com plex fabric, incorporating the threads o f various disciplines — econom ics, philosophy, sociology, psychology and history —b u t interw eaving these academ ic interests w ith literature and love. It was n o t always easy to select the m ost representative continuities; this w o rk is n o t in ten d ed to be a study o f the F ourth International. M oreover, I had to choose carefully the historical contexts that w o u ld best represent M andel’s life and w o rk w ith o u t restricting his ideas to confines too narrow to hold them . His th o u g h t — at once social and conceptual — is explored u n der three headings: 1) the history o f international capital; 2) the nature o f the so-called socialist countries; and 3) the role o f the subjective: self-activity, the revolu­ tionary party and the dem ocracy ofw o rk ers’ councils. This biography offers an o pportunity to m eet M andel in guises o th er than those o f intellectual, ideologue or party m em ber. H e was also an active participant in the Resistance, as w ell as a scholar and teacher. M andel came to m aturity years before feminism broke d o w n the barrier b etw een the personal and the political. Like m any socialists o f the tim e, he sequestered his private life and p rotected it from intrusion. F or him , the personal was irrelevant to the struggle for em ancipation. T oday w e are m ore likely to believe that the som etim es com plex, intim ate details o f private lives are often essential to understanding a p erson’s history and need n o t rem ain hidden. In each case I have tried to determ ine w h e th er the personal and em otional experiences o f m y subject’s life are historically relevant or, to p u t it another way, if know ledge o f M an d el’s intim ate w orld enhances the understanding o f his public actions. _ ~k

-k '

-k

PREFACE

x v ii

After the relatively w ide recognition o f M andel’s thought in the 1970s and ’80s, above all in France and G erm any b u t also in the U nited States and Latin America, there was a shift in the reception o f his ideas in the 1990s. This was linked to the decline o f the E u ro p ean w orkers’ m o vem ent and the collapse o f the Soviet U n io n , w hich ended any h ope that its authoritarian bureau­ cratic regim e w ould give w ay to a dem ocratic and hum anistic socialism. M andel’s books ceased to sell as they once had, and his w o rk was no longer translated and reprinted. T h a t fate befell o th e r socialist political writers, such as Paul B aran and Paul Sweezy in the U n ite d States, H erbert M arcuse and Ernst B loch in G erm any, and Louis Althusser and H enri Lefebvre in France. N ew liberal and p ostm odern theories trium phed, filling the void left by the sudden eclipse o f M arxism . This break stim ulated m e to re-evaluate M andel’s w ork, to discover w h at is w o rth retaining and w h at has been superseded and should be discarded. W h e n the generation o f ’68 began to study capitalism, they rediscovered the creative M arxist tradition o f the 1920s and such authors as Gramsci, Lukacs, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxem burg. N ovice Marxists w ere struck by their contem poraneity. T he nex t genera­ tion o f capitalism’s critics should en co u n ter the thinkers w ho enriched and broadened the horizons o f m aterialist th o u g h t in the 1970s and 1980s. M andel’s positive and utopian spirit will be rem em bered, and his m asterw ork, Late Capitalism, and his theory o f the long waves o f capitalism will once again be studied. U rjtil n o w there has been no com prehensive biography that reconstructs the landscape o f M andel’s life and thought and gives access to his w ork. This study aims to fill that gap. I am gready indebted to the Vlaams Fonds v o o r W etenschappelijk O n derzoek (FW O , Flemish F und for Scholarly Research), w hich gave gener­ ous support, u n d er the sponsorship o f Professor Els W itte o f the Free University o f Brussels, allow ing m e to w o rk uninterruptedly on this biography for four years. Plans for the biography arose in conversations w ith D r Joost Kircz and w ith Professor M arcel van der Linden. I appreciate their confidence enorm ously. I have Els W itte to thank for convincing the Flemish academic w orld o f the im portance o f m y research. It was an h o n o u r to w o rk w ith her. R eaal Insurance subsidized m y initial w ork, enabling m e to start o n the bo o k . T h e International Institute o f Social H istory in A m sterdam gave m e a m ost hospitable base over four years, as w ell as providing a stim ulating and learned environm ent. In M arcel van der Linden I had an erudite and reliable interlocutor. I am gready indebted to him , as well as to A nne M an del-S prim ont and the Ernest M andel Foundation, w hich gave m e permission to consult their M andel collection. A lthough the book is not a collective pro d u ct —historical judgem ents are too fluid for that

X V 111

PREFACE

—m any others contributed their encouragem ent, ideas and criticism. I thank Hans B lom , H ans B oot, W illem Bos, W ilfried D ubois, B runo Coppieters, P eter D rucker, Lex H eerm a van Voss, K arin H ofm eester, Joost Kircz, M arcel van der Linden, M ichel M andel, T o m van der M eer, Klaas Stutje, Fritjof T ichelm an, Francois V ercam m en and Els W itte for their valuable com m ents. W ith o u t W ilfried D ubois’s assistance the bibliography and footnotes w ould surely have been inadequate. Finally I ow e the m ost thanks to those w h o w ere willing to share their recollections o f M andel w ith m e, w hether orally or in writing, and the depth o f their feelings. This b o o k is dedicated to them : Gilbert Achcar, Elmar Altvater, D aniel Bensaid, Bruno Coppieters, H elm ut D ahm er, G uy Desolre, Jan D ebrouw ere, Georges Dobbeleer, Ernst Fedem , H ilde Fedem , Maurice Ferares, M aurice Fischer, Adolfo Gilly, Janette H abel, W illy van der Heist, Joost Kircz, V ictor Klapholz, G retchen K lotz-D utschke, Leszek Kolakowski, Zbigniew Kowalewski, H u b ert Krivine, Jean V an Lierde, Livio M aitan, Jan M alewski, A nne M andel-Sprim ont, M ichel M andel, Karl M anfred,3 Klaus Meschlcat, W ilbert van M iert, Jakob M oneta, Sigi M oneta, B odo M orawe, H em ian Pieterson, M ax Plekker, Catherine Samary, R u d i Segall, Fritjof Tichelm an, Charles-Andre U dry, Francois V ercam m en and R o b e rt W ent. Jan Willem Stutje

Translators’ N o te

O n e com plication in translating the biography o f a Belgian is the fact that towns, organizations and even streets sometimes have b o th D u tch (Flemish) and French names. W e have used the French names for places and organizations in W allonia and Brussels, and otherw ise used the D utch (Ernest M andel was after all Flemish). W e have follow ed this rule even w hen English readers m ight be m o re familiar w ith the French nam e. For example, w e use L euven instead o f Louvain. H ow ever, w e use distinctive English nam es (Brussels, G hent) w h ere they exist. In the List o f Abbrevia­ tions, French acronym s are indicated in parentheses after the D utch acronyms and English tran sitio n s. W e w o u ld like to thank Charlie Post for his help in locating Englishlanguage sources. Christopher Beck and Peter Drucker

List o f A bbreviations

ABW AJB AM SAB BAVI BSP BW P CCL CDU CGT C R IS P DGB EEC ERP FD P FI FLN FO FRG FSSB FW O GDR G IM

G eneral Belgian T rade U n io n Federation (post-W orld W ar II) (French: FGTB) Belgian Jew ish Society (W orld W ar II) Institute for Social H istory (Ghent) Archives o f the Belgian section o f the Fourth International, Institute for Social H istory (Ghent) Belgian Socialist Party (post-W orld W ar II) (French: PSB) Belgian W orkers Party (social-democratic, p re-W orld W ar II) C onfederation o f C om m ittees in Struggle (Belgium) (W orld W a r IJ) Christian D em ocratic U n io n (post-W orld W ar II) (Germany) G eneral C onfederation o f L abour (French trade union federation, C P -led from 1940s to 1980s) C entre for Socio-Political R esearch and Inform ation (Brussels) G erm an T rade U n io n Federation (post-W orld W ar II) E uropean E conom ic C o m m unity R evolutionary P eo p le’s A rm y (1970s) (Argentina) Free D em ocratic Party (post-W orld W ar II) (Germany) F ourth International (since 1938) N ational Liberation Front (since 1950s) (Algeria) W orkers’ Force (French trade u n ion federation, since 1947) Federal R epublic o f G erm any (until 1990, W est Germany) Socialist Students Federation o f Belgium Fund for Scholarly R esearch (Flanders) G erm an D em ocratic R ep u b lic (until 1990, East Germany) International'M arxist G roup (G erm an section o f the Fourth International, 1970s)

x x ii

G PU IC IIBJ2 IKD IM G IS JC R KOR KPB LC LCR LCRETAVI M IR M PW M SU OCI OKDE OLAS O SP PCF PCI POI PO R P O R -S POUM PRT PSIU P

LIST OF A B BR E V IA T IO N S

Soviet secret service (1930s) International C om m ittee (Fourth International) International Institute for R esearch and Education (Amsterdam) International C om m unists o f G erm any (Trotskyists) (1930s and ’40s) International M arxist G roup (British section o f the Fourth International, 1970s) International Secretariat o f the F ourth International R evolutionary C om m unist Y o u th (since 1960s) (France) W orkers D efence C om m ittee (1970s and ’80s) (Poland) C om m unist Party o f Belgium (French: PCB) C om m unist League (French section o f the Fourth International, 1969—73) R evolutionary C om m unist League (French section o f the F ourth International since 1973) R evolutionary C om m unist League-Euskadi and Freedom VI (Spanish section o f the F ourth International, 1970s) R evolutionary Left M o v em en t (1960s and ’70s) (Chile) W alloon Popular M o v em en t (1960s) U n ite d U n io n M o v em en t (Belgium) International C om m unist O rganization (1950s and ’60s) (France, ‘Lam bertiste’) O rganization o f Internationalist Com m unists o f G reece (section o f the F ourth International) Latin A m erican Solidarity O rganization (1960s) In dependent Socialist Party (early 1930s) (Netherlands) French C om m unist Party Internationalist C om m unist Party (French section o f the Fourth International, 1940s—60s) Internationalist W orkers Party (French section o f the F ourth International, late 1930s) R evolutionary W orkers Party (Bolivian section o f the F ourth International, since 1950s) C oordinating C om m ittee o f the W orkers’ O pposition (1980s) (Poland) W orkers Party o f M arxist U nification (1930s) (Spain) R evolutionary W orkers Party (Argentinian section o f the F ourth International, 1970s; M exican section, since 1970s) Socialist Party o f Proletarian U nity (1960s—80s) (Italy)

L IS T OF A B B R E V IA T IO N S

PSU PT PW T RAL RCP RJDR R SA P RSP SAP SBV SD SDS SEC Ta SED SFIO Sipo SJV SJW SO M A SPD SW P TKK UAW UGS VNV VONS

x x iii

U n ited Socialist Party (1960s and ’70s) (France) W orkers Party (since 1980s) (Brazil) W alloon W orkers Party R evolutionary W orkers League (Belgian section o f the F ourth International, 1970s) (French: L R T ) R evolutionary C om m unist Party (Belgian section o f Fourth International, 1940s) (French: P C R ) R evolutionary D em ocratic Alliance (1940s) (France) R evolutionary Socialist W orkers Party (1930s) (Netherlands) R evolutionary Socialist Party (Belgian section o f the Fourth International, 1930s) (French: PSR) Socialist W orkers Party (G ennany, 1930s; Belgian section o f the F ourth International since 1980s) (French: POS) Socialist M o v em en t o f Flanders (1960s) (German) security service (1930s and ’40s) G erm an Socialist S tudent U n io n (1960s) Service, Technical and M anagers U n io n (Belgium) Socialist U n ity Party o f G erm any (East G erm an ruling party) Socialist Party (until 1971) (France) (German) security police (1930s and ’40s) Y o u n g Socialist League (Germ any, p re-W orld W ar II) Socialist Y o u n g G uard (Belgian Socialist and later Trotskyist youth) (French: JGS) C entre for H istorical R esearch and D ocum entation on W ar and C ontem porary Society (Brussels) Social D em ocratic Party o f G erm any Socialist W orkers Party (since 1938) (US) Provisional C oordinating C o m m ittee (of Polish Solidarity, 1980s) U n ited A uto W orkers (US) U n io n o f the Socialist Left (Brussels left-w ing socialists, 1960s) Flemish N ational League (extrem e right, 1930s and ’40s) C om m ittee to Protect the U njustly Persecuted (1970s and ’80s) (Czechoslovakia).

I

Y o u th : ‘M y politics w ere determ ined th en for the rest o f m y life’ Ernest M andel w o u ld rarely place m u ch emphasis o n his Jew ish background. N eith er did his parents. N o Y iddish was spoken in the family hom e; he did n o t read H ebrew ; h e received no religious instruction. In later life, he w ould later devote only a few articles to the question o f Jew ish identity. Like Leon Trotsky, the U krainian Je w w h o becam e a R ussian revolutionary, M andel’s loyalties w ere above all to th e w orking class, and he saw the question o f Jew ish oppression and liberation in the context o f a w orld revolution.1 H e did n o t abandon his roots, b u t considered h im self‘a Flemish internationalist ofjew ish origin’. H e was the non-Jew ish Jew , a freethinker w hose thoughts crossed the borders o f different cultures and national identities, w hose th ought ranged b ey o n d the limits o f the society in w hich he was bom , yet rem ained connected to it.2 H e preserved, h ow ever partially, ethnic and cultural ties that Trotsky cut.3 H e was able to jo in seamlessly his identities as internationalist, Je w and Flemish rebel. Fro m K rakow to Antwerp Ernest M andel o w ed his broad o u d o o k and culture to his father, w h o raised him in an assimilated, cosm opolitan milieu. H enri (H enoch) M andel was b o m on 12 M ay 1896, in W ieliczka, a Polish village in a rolling landscape kno w n for its 700-year-old salt mines. T h e village lay ju st 15 kilom etres south-east o f K rakow , in the part o f Poland then u n d er Austrian rule. W h en H enri was ten, his parents b o u g h t a house in K rakow so that their children H enri, his older b rother, Sim on, and his three youn g er sisters, M anya, Gina, and B ertha — could receive a better education. K rakow ’s large Jew ish com m unity was still m ostly crow ded into the Kazimierz ghetto, w here for several hun d red years Jew s had been confined by law. In the early nineteenth century, the ban was lifted, and the m ore affluent and assimilated families m oved into neighbouring districts, leaving b ehind O rth o d o x

ERNEST MANDEL

believers and the poor, w h o clung to the g h etto’s narrow streets, baroque synagogues and Jew ish cem etery, w hose oldest headstones dated from the sixteenth century.4 T h e M andel family was well off.5 H en ri’s father o w n ed a textile store, run m ostly by his wife, w ith the help o f M anya, her oldest daughter. As was custom ary am ong O rth o d o x Jews, the m en o f the family w orked only at their studies. H enri, too, was set to studying the Bible, and acquired the necessary com m and o f H e b re w and a thorough know ledge o f T orah and T alm ud, b u t had n o interest in pursuing a religious education. Like his y ounger sister Gina, he felt draw n to the socialist—Z ionist organization Poale Z io n (W orkers o f Z ion), and he refused to live by the strict rules o f the O rth o d o x com m unity. In July 1913, after com pleting secondary school, he left K rakow for A ntw erp, hoping to continue his studies in the m ore secular atm osphere o f the city o n the Schelde, w here he also had family connec­ tions.6 H e m aintained little contact afterwards w ith his family in Poland. O n ly o n the death o f his father, in O cto b er 1932, w ould he visit his hom eland again. In A ntw erp, he quickly learned French and D utch, B elgium ’s tw o languages, b u t his plans for further study w ere interrupted by the outbreak o f the First W o rld W ar, in A ugust 1914. T h at sum m er, as A ntw erp prepared for a siege, om inous rum ours m ade the rounds: the forts o f Liege had fallen; Leuven had b een b u rn ed to the ground — according to enem y high com m and, it was destroyed in reprisal after its citizens attacked G erm an troops. W ith o u t w arning, zeppelins had appeared above the city and dropped their bom bs. W hile buildings w e n t up in flames, the Belgian army w ithdrew w estw ard tow ards the coast and Belgian civilians headed n o rth in an endless procession, hoping to find refuge in the N etherlands. H en ri M andel'w as one o f these refugees. Because he held, an Austrian passport, he was in danger o f being conscripted into the Austrian army, and he w anted to avoid that at all costs.7 H e settled w ith an uncle and aunt in Scheveningen, then a seaside village near T h e H ague k n o w n as Little W arsaw because o f the m any affluent Jews o f East European, G erm an or Austrian origin w h o sought refuge there.8 In Scheveningen, he found a jo b in a pharm acy and passed his free tim e in solitary study, concentrating on chem istry b u t also pursuing an int«rcsc in politics that he had begun to develop w hile still in Poland. In T h e H ague he came into contact w ith young C om m unists and through them w ith fugitives from Germany. T h e party published a paper, Der Kam pf (The Struggle); one o f the contributors was W ilhelm Pieck (1876—1960), w ho succeeded Ernst T halm ann as leader o f the G erm an C om m unist Party in 1935 and after the w ar became the first president o f the G erm an Dem ocratic

YOUTH

3

Republic. H e had fled to the Netherlands to avoid conscription into the Germ an im perial army, and for a w hile earned a living as a furniture m aker in Amsterdam.9 Later, w h en the revolutionary w ind that was sweeping Europe blew full-strength into Germ any, M andel and Pieck hurried to Berlin to offer their services.10 In Berlin, M andel helped establish the Russian telegraph agency R o sta and the first Soviet Russian press bureau, the direct predecessor to Tass.11 H e m oved in left-w ing intellectual and journalistic circles and got to know revolutionaries such as Karl R adek, another Polish Jew w ith cultural roots in G erm any, w ho had been sent as an envoy by Lenin and Trotsky to aid the G erm an revolutionaries, In January 1919, R osa L uxem burg and Karl Liebknecht, leaders o f the Spartacus League, w ere arrested and then m urdered. D eeply shocked, M andel retu rn ed at once to A n tw erp,12 and for the tim e being his direct participation in politics came to an end, though his interest in it did not. In 1920 H e n ri established him self as a diam ond m erchant on Lange Kievitstraat, in the heart o f A ntw erp’s Jew ish n eig h b ourhood.13 Shortly afterwards h e fell in love w ith R osa Mateles, a distant connection o f his m o th er’s, w h o was living in A ntw erp w ith h er father, also a diam ond m erchant, and h e r b ro th e r M otek, or M arkus. Like H enri, she was from K rakow , w h ere h e r parents had ra n an art and antiques firm. In 1905 her father had b eg u n travelling Regularly to A ntw erp, w here he developed a relatively successful diam ond business. T he w hole family m oved there, from K rakow , in 1911 after the death o f R o sa’s m other. Father and son w ere observant Jew s an d highly respected in the O rth o d o x com m unity —so m uch so that rabbis regularly came to the father for advice.14 As citizens o f the Austrian Em pire, Rosa, h er bro th er and their parents w ere deported to G ennany at the beginning o f the First W o rld W ar. T hey spent the w a r years in Frankfurt o n M ain, and by 1921, R osa had returned to A ntw erp ,15 w h ere she m e t H enri M andel. T h ey w ere very close in age —she was ju st six m onths older than he — and had m uch in com m on. H enri M andel was highly intelligent, expressing him self as easily in Polish, H ebrew , Y iddish and G erm an as in French and D utch. R osa, too, had broad interests and from childhood spoke fluent G erm an and Polish; in A ntw erp, she had also learned D utch and French, though she attended a private school that used G erm an as its language o f instruction. U nlike her brother and father, she was a freethinker, w hich suited H enri, w h o was opposed to any form o f organized religion. She was also a beautiful w om an, w ith a gentle y et dignified appearance, w h o seldom raised her voice. H er com posed tem peram ent contrasted w ith that o f her husband, w h o was a dynam o, perpetually absorbed in some endeav o ur.16 R osa adored him .

4

ERNEST M A N D EL

T h ey w ere m arried o n 17 M ay -1921 and received the perm its required for p erm anent residency, though this did n o t m ake th em Belgian nationals. A year later, R osa becam e pregnant. It proved to be a difficult pregnancy, and o n h er doctors’ advice she checked in to a clinic in Frankfurt,17 w here Ezra (Ernest) M andel was b o m o n 5 April 1923.18 A fter ten days in the hospital, she and the baby returned w ith H enri to A ntw erp. A cosmopolitan childhood H en ri M andel had a dom inant personality, was tall o f stature, and appeared to em anate a natural authority.19 H e p roved a successful diam ond m erchant, trading in Belgium and abroad, and was able to buy a luxurious house on W aterloostraat,20 in Z urenborg, a fashionable neighbourhood o f palatial villas and mansions w ith big gardens and im posing facades in a bizarre m ix o f styles —neo-classical, n eo -G o th ic and, here and there, art nouveau. Before 1914 the district had been h o m e to a stylish up p er m iddle class, prom inent bankers, m erchants and industrialists w h o had m ade their fortunes during a p eriod o f spectacular grow th that began in 1863 w ith the lifting o f A ntw erp h arb o u r’s protectionist Schelde tolls, w h ich had b een levied on incom ing ships since 1574." B etw een the wars, a Jew ish colony settled there. T h e new tenants o f Z u ren b o rg ’s apartm ents and room s en suite w ere m osdy diam ond m erchants and traders. Ernest and his y o u n g er b rother, M ichel, b o m in 1926, spent their y o u th in this neigh b o u rh o o d .21 T h e y horsed around in the streets and becam e familiar w ith th e m ostly French-speaking local bourgeoisie, w hose doings they observed daily. A t hom e, they played to their hearts’ content w ith friends and cousins. Ernest and M ichel M andel w ere raised and educated by b o th parents, and from th em gained an early love o f literature, music and painting. T hey attended perform ances and exhibitions, and their h o m e had one o f the first electric phonographs and a large collection o f recordings. T h ey also enjoyed the use o f a valuable library. Die Neue Z eit (M odem Times), the G ennan social dem ocratic w eekly, and the w orks o f M arx, Lenin, G orter and T rotsky in D u tc h and G en n an w ere ready to hand, as well as literary classics in Russian, G ennan, and French. A t tw elve or thirteen E m est read Charles D e C oster’s Tliyl Ulenspiegel, D e Leeuw van Vlaanderen by H endrik Conscience and V ictor H u g o ’s Les Miserables. H e later recalled that it was the ethical ideals em bodied by the characters o f H u g o ’s m asterw ork and the au th o r’s depiction o f the Paris insurrection o f Ju n e 1832 that m ade him a socialist: ‘M y politics w ere determ ined then, for good, for the rest o f m y life.’22 H e also read Dickens and Jack L ondon, H etgezin van Paemel by Cyriel

YOUTH

5

Buysse, Op hoop van Zegen by H erm an H eyerm ans, and, som ew hat later, Een mens van goede wil by G erard W alschap. His taste in reading reflected his character. E m est was a high-spirited child yet also serious and caring. T h o u g h he could laugh heartily, he was anything bu t light-hearted. In appearance he was m ost like his m o th er —he had her face, her soft, regular features and h er smile —b u t in energy and tenacity he resem bled his father. H e had a pow erful im agination, learned fast and excelled in all subjects at school. His b ro th e r to o k things m ore easily. For M ichel, i t was eno u g h to-reach the finish line w ith ease; he didn’t n eed to reach it first. B u t E m est w an ted to w in. Because o f these differences they occasionally clashed. T h e n E rnest’s m o th e r w o u ld urge her older son to be sensible and behave,23 b u t his father w o u ld sometimes explode, taking M ichel’s part, especially i f the youn g er b oy was being shut o u t o f a game or only allow ed to w atch. T his happened at rimes w ith ‘G eheim Spelen’ (the Secret Game), the favourite recreation o f E m est and M aurice Fischer, an older cousin and E rnest’s best friend in those days. T h e youngsters had all sorts o f adventures in an imaginary country, using various props to uncover a secret k n o w n only to one o f them . Fischer recalled later that as the years passed, these fantasies becam e steadily m ore com plex —farther journeys, a shipw reck a la R o b in so n C rusoe —and m o re realistic. W h en such topics as Nazi propaganda, anti-Sem itism o r the b o y co tt o f G erm an products becam e subjects o f their fantasy, theis gam e evolved from exciting adventures to stirring debates. Ernest then proved particularly resourceful, discovering and indulging his love o f oratory.24 T h e brothers attended M unicipal E ducational Institution for Boys N o . 3, housed in the form er residence o f B aron D hanis, colonizer o f the C ongo. T he building lay o n th e Belgelei, one o f the boulevards that adorned A ntw erp from the m id -n in eteen th century, after the city broke through its constricting ring o f Spanish fortifications. T h e school had a good reputation. R epo rts o n pupils w ere given every fortnight. In addition to instruction in their native D utch, the pupils received extensive lessons in French.25 Judging by his instructors’ com m ents — ‘a first-rate student’, ‘excellent’, ‘very g o o d ’ —E m est had little difficulty w ith this curriculum .26 It was his habit w hile studying to skip through the ro o m playing w ith a tennis ball; that was his m anner o f concentrating w hile learning a text by rote.27 T he m eth o d was successful: he was adm itted to the R oyal A thenaeum in 1936. T hat same year, he saw him self in print for the first time, w h en the D utch w eekly Haagschc Post ran a letter in w hich he com plained about the indifference the D u tch show ed to their o w n language.28 It was also during this period that an incident at school m ade him fully aware o f the existence o f social inequalities and his ow n developing resistance to injustice. An

6

ERNEST M ANDEL

instructor hum iliated tw o o f his classmates, w orking-class youngsters from the R u p e l area, because o f their head lice. ‘It m ade m y blood boil,’ he recalled.29 T h e R oyal A thenaeum had been built in 1818, w h en H olland and B elgium w ere still united, and stood proudly classical on V ictoiieplein (now Franklin R ooseveltplein), popularly k n o w n as the Geusenhofkes, a stone’s throw from Central Station and the A ntw erp Z o o .30 T h e school was crow ded, w ith 1,100 students, and, ju st as at E rnest’s low er school, am ong th em w ere a fair n u m b er o f Jew ish boys. T h ere w ere even boys from O rth o d o x families, dressed n o t in their distinctive clothing b u t in the garb o f students, trading their yarm ulkes for the dark blue school cap, w ith its visor, red and w hite piping, and stars that indicated.seniority, n o t race. In fact, the boys experienced litde direct anti-Sem itism: g o o d -natured teasing, yes, b u t also solidarity. M ichel, tw o classes beh in d Ernest, had classmates w h o at the start o f the w ar suddenly appeared in the uniform o f the Flemish N ational League (VNV), but this did n o t im m ediately lead to problem s. W hen w earing the Star o f D avid becam e m andatory, one o f the o th er boys offered to accom pany him in public.31 , T h e A thenaeum was k n o w n as freethinking w ith Flemish leanings, but, as befitted an elite institution, it never lapsed into extrem ism . T h e library had thousands o f titles, amply representing n o t only Flemish b u t also other literatures. T h e students w ere introduced to the great Flemish epic, C o n ­ science’s De Leeuw van Vlaanderen (The Lion o f Flanders), and also to contem porary linguistic and cultural conflicts and the socioeconom ic situation. Few o f them could help noticing the social implications o f the Flem ish-language m ovem ent. T h e French-speaking A ntw erp bourgeois spoke Flemish only to w orkers and servants. C ham pionship o f the Flemish tongue fitted w ell w ith the kind o f local patriotism that H enri M andel som etim es expressed;32 he was n o t the only Je w w ith Flemish sympathies. Em est pursued the old-fashioned humanities, the G reek and Latin classics, w ith verve. H e studied hard and was pleased w h en he was first in his year, som ething that did n o t always happen. D uring one term , a chronic middle ear infection caused him to fall behind; he was furious and only his m other was able to console him. H e took his final exam ination in the sum m er o f 1941, heading the entire school w ith 90 p er cent o f the available points, and received the coveted governm ent medal inscribed ‘summa cum laude’.33 His history .teacher, Leo Michielsen, w ho w atched him develop into a Trotskyist, rem em bered his student as ‘extraordinarily intelligent’.34 ‘G ood in every­ thing’, acknow ledged his classmate Jan Craeybeckx, w ho becam e a professor o f history. ‘E ven in scoring handball goals! H e was one o f few w ho dared oppose the arbitrariness o f some teacfiers.’33

YOUTH

7

T h o u g h he had also excelled in physics and chemistry Em est was n o t inclined towards the exact sciences. U nlike his brother, w ho did pursue chemistry, he disliked anything m echanical. H e was too rom antic; technical subjects w ere n o t for him ; m usic and literature w ere everything. Since his boyh o o d M ozart and B ach had b een his favourite composers and the hom e library his goldm ine. H e devoured the novels o f M am ix Gijsen. H e loved his m o th e r tongue, read p oetry and tried to w rite it. W h en he was well past the age o f fifty, he w ro te to a publisher fiiend, ‘I’ll tell yo u a secret: in m y y o u th I was “ guilty” o f som e Flemish poetry, w hich I have carefully hidden b u t could never b rin g m yself to destroy.’36 Since his return to A ntw erp in 1919 H en ri M andel had been a successful independent businessman. B u t diamonds are a luxury business, traditional and small-scale, sensitive to econom ic ups and downs, and the trade was badly hit by the w orldw ide econom ic crisis that began in 1929. M andel suffered heavy losses, exacerbated by the dishonesty o f an associate w ho, unable to distinguish betw een ‘m ine’ and ‘thine’, absconded w ith a supply o f stones. T hough the family was n o t im poverished —part o f H enri’s capital rem ained —their w ellto-do life came to an end.37 T here w ere n o m ore vacations at the coast, and the family had to look for m ore m odest living quarters. H enri M andel left the diam ond business and accepted a jo b as director o f Lem onim e, a cooperative producer o f spring w ater apd soft drinks, w hile he cautiously explored opportunities as an insurance and m ortgage agent.3S Lem onim e was based in B orgerhout; the factory was o n Lanteemhofstraat, across from the Antw erp airport, and had a residence attached. T h e firm em ployed few workers, and H enri n o t only m anaged th em b u t also laboured beside them in the factory.39 Wages w ere n o t high, and after a few years’ struggle he decided to devote him self entirely to insurance and bookkeeping. T h e family found a new fiveroom apartm ent in D eu m e, o n the Cruyslei, a pleasant street that connected T e Boelaer and B oekenberg parks, formerly private grounds. T he boys walked in b o th parks and swam regularly in Boekenberg, w hich had an Olympic-size sw im m ing pool, unusual in those times. H itle r a n d S ta lin T he w orld was changing, and soon the muses and his studies w ere no longer the only pursuits Em est M andel found w orthy o f his devotion. After H itler seized po w er in Germ any, political refugees flooded the neighbouring countries. In A ntw erp, the M andel house played a notable role in their reception. H enri M andel recognized w hat H ider’s accession m eant for the world. Em est recalled that w hen he was nine, at the time o f the so-called

8

ERNEST M ANDEL

Papen Putsch40 in 1932, he heard his father speak prophetic, even apocalyptic words: ‘This is going to turn o u t badly . . . This is the beginning o f the end.’41 E rnest’s social and political interests grew w ith the arrival o f the refugees. T h ey w ere so p o o r that often they ate only one meal a day, a soup m ade from half-spoiled leftovers that the greengrocers let them take as their shops closed. H e listened eagerly to the conversations, began to read deeply and soon jo ined in the debates that to o k place in his family’s hom e evening after evening. His sympathies —n o t surprisingly, considering the mostly Trotskyist background o f th e refugees —w ere w ith Trotsky and his followers, w h o w ere repressed by b o th Stalin and H itler.42 Surrounded by this living drama, Ernest, though still in his teens, felt m ore excitem ent than fear thanks to the intense political activity in w hich the family had always engaged.43 N e w experiences w ith anti-Sem itism also developed his political consciousness. O n e day, as he was returning from school, a snarling figure shoved him against som e barbed wire, ripping a large hole in his only w inter coat. Ernest hit him back. ‘From m y earliest youth, m y father always impressed u pon m e that I should boldly and confidently defend myself^ and never yield to anger o r villains.’44 In helping to hide refugees, H en ri M andel did n o t act alone. A sizeable organization was involved and Jew ish refugees especially w ere aided by generous donations from rich diam ond m erchants. T hese w ere stirring times and the rescuers did their w o rk w ith spirit. T h e A ustrian Trotskyist G eorg Scheuer recalled, ‘C om rade H enri M andel sheltered us for several days. H e was hospitable, w itty and sparkling w ith h u m o u r and G erm an-Y iddish pu n s.’45 Scheuer, nicknam ed R o te r H anzl (R ed Hans) because o f his red hair and the political beliefs that had repeatedly seen h im jailed, was a fo under o f the R evolutionary C om m unists o f Austria and had been on the ru n since 1938.46 T h e refugees attem pted to soothe their sufferings w ith hu m o u r. Scheuer told a typical story: ‘C om rade N issenbaum [N u t Tree] lived by chance on N o otenboom straat [N u t T ree Street], His dog was highly trained. O n hearing the nam e “ Schtallin” (Stalin), the poodle began to w hine; for “T rotsky” he w agged his tail w ith jo y .’47 B u t evil struck ever m ore frighteningly, as it did in Laren, an idyllic artists’ colony 20 kilom etres south-east o f A m sterdam , w here in 1934 the D utch In dependent Socialist Party (OSP) held an international y o u th conference o n the m o v em en t for a F ourth International. Trotsky, w ho had left his Turkish exile and was staying in Barbizon, in France, attached great im portance to this conference.48 So did Stalin. T h e D u tc h C om m unist Party received a telegram from M oscow , sent via the C om intern transmis­ sion service headed by D aan G oulooze, ordering them to attack the participants. ‘In no circumstances can the Trotskyists be allow ed to execute their criminal plans unm olested.’4J

YOUTH

9

T he conference organizers had failed to arrange adequate security.50 T he police w ere w atching as the thirty to forty persons attending, m any o f them illegal aliens, assembled in the R o o d e L eeuw H o tel in A m sterdam to w ait for the bus to Laren. A t the conference, discussions had ju st begun w h en the police broke in and arrested the foreign delegates, am ong them H erbert Frahm , alias W illy B randt, then n o t a p ro m in en t social dem ocrat b u t a m em b er o f the left-w ing Socialist W orkers Party, o r SAP. Also arrested w ere the Frenchm an Y van Craipeau, the A m erican A lbert Glotzer, and the G erm ans Fritz Besser and W alter H eld. A fter tw o days in jail, they w ere deported to B elgium .51 T h e delegates w ere n o t cow ed, how ever; one day later the conference was resum ed, in Cafe M aison d ’Artiste in Brussels, directly opposite police headquarters.52 These events w ere extensively discussed at the M andels’. H enri warmly w elcom ed the deported Fritz Besser, w ho arrived w ith identity papers in the nam e o f Sim on Schagen.53 After H itler’s accession he had fled to the N etherlands, w here his host was Henlc Sneevliet, a revolutionary Marxist and cofounder o f the D utch, Indonesian and Chinese C om m unist parties.54 W ith his childhood and school friend H einz E pe,55 publicly k now n as W alter H eld, Besser was responsible for sending illegal publications, including Unser Wort (O u r W ord), to G erm any via inland shipping from R otterdam .56 T h e m odest and unassum ing Besser got o n w ell w ith Ernest and M ichel. H e played the piano exceptionally w ell and gave b o th o f them lessons.57 Em est quickly tired o f scales and exercises.5S H e preferred listening to Besser’s captivating speeches. L ooking back, he w o u ld rem em ber Besser as ‘m y best friend’, and ‘a teacher . . . hum ane, hum orous and passionately socialist’.59 ‘M ore even than m y father he m oulded m e into a M arxist, a m ilitant in the Trotskyist organization. A nd he gave m e the gift o f love for classical music. Since then these have been the tw o bases o f m y existence.’60 H enri M andel provided Besser, w h o was p o o r as a church m ouse, w ith a grow ing n u m b er o f piano students and rented office space for him on Pelikaanstraat, w here Besser could devote him self undisturbed to his political w o rk in the shelter o f the U trech t Life Insurance C om pany.61 Besser was always grateful to him . Long after the w ar he w rote to Em est, You cannot imagine how lively he [Henri Mandel] still seems in my mem ory and how often I recall conversations with him . . . H ow often he kept me enthralled until the last tram had gone, leisurely telling m e in his unique way some Jewish story or another, probably to the dismay ofyour mother, w ho then felt compelled yet again to make up a bed in the living room! . . . O f all the political animals I m et in my life, he was one o f the few hum an beings.62

10

ERNEST M A N D EL

T h o u g h H enri M andel had given up practising Judaism in 1913, he never tried to hide his origins. H e spoke frequently o f the history o f the Jew ish people.63 H e to o k pride in his Zionist background and gladly talked about leaders o f the labour m o vem ent in Palestine, like D avid B en G urion, w h o in 1948 w o u ld becom e Israel’s first president, and Itzhak B en Zvi, w h o later held the same office and w h o m M andel had received in his h o m e .64 A nd in the 1920s M andel him self was still devoting his energies to the League for W o rk in g Palestine, w hich provided m oral and material assistance to the Jew ish colonists o f Eretz Israel. In A ntw erp, the M andels had rem ained connected to the Jew ish com ­ m unity through ‘the trade’ —as an insurance agent, H enri still did business w ith the diam ond industry. — and through the circle o f G erm an-Jew ish political refugees. In this m ilieu Ernest learned early about ‘the Jew ish question’ b u t still m o re about the w ider w orld o f revolutionary politics. H e m et R e d M ax, o r M ax Laufer, originally from M agdeburg, w h o escaped to A ntw erp in 1936 w ith the help o f refugees w h o had gone before him .65 In 1937 Laufer ascended to the leadership o f the G erm an Trotskyist IK D .66 E rnest also m et H erm an n Bortfeldt, an o ther M agdeburg native, w h o after the w ar held an im portant position in the g overnm ent o f East G ennany until discovery o f his Trotskyist past forced h im to flee to W est G erm any, w here Jhe becam e a high functionary in the Social D em ocratic Party.67 Bortfeldt arrived destitute in A ntw erp and was ‘substantially helped th ro u g h o u t’ by the M andel family.68 Beresch N issenbaum from Odessa stopped in A ntw erp o n his w estw ard jo u rn e y and ended up staying as well. T h e soulful N issenbaum w o rk ed as a diam ond polisher, and w h en there was no w ork, he helped his wife m ake ‘knepplechlachs’ — buttonholes. H e survived Auschwitz; his w ife did n o t.69 For a w hile Else B om iann, another G erm an refugee, helped the M andel family w ith household tasks. She was a friend o f Franz M eyer, a talented artist from G elsenkirchen, in the central R u h r region, w h o had im m igrated to the N etherlands in 1934. U n d e r the nam e Franz Holss, o r the initials H , FH , SZ o r B N , his w oodcuts and linoleum prints appeared in the left-w ing press o f the day, even in the D u tch social dem ocratic paper De Notenkmker (The N utcracker).70 From late 1936 Franz M eyer and Fritz Besser oversaw publication o f Unser Wort, the paper o f the G erm an Trotskyists w h o had organized themselves into the IKD. M eyer did the layout and illustrations;71 the printing was done by Leon de Lee in his A ntw erp printing studio and bookshop in B orgerhout, on Onderwijsstraat. A designer in R otterd am provided the fonts.72 Joseph W e b e r was in charge o f the g ro u p ’s political w o rk .73 W eber, alias Jo h ie, was .die son o f a tile setter and, like M eyer, had been raised in

YOUTH

Gelsenkirchen. A fter studying philosophy for several years, he had switched to music, taking his exam inations in conducting and com position.74 Trotsky regarded him as one o f the m ost im portant Marxist theoreticians o f the younger generation.75 H e praised Jo h re ’s idiosyncratic view o f resistance w ork. Johre believed opposing the Nazification o f the church (K irchenkampf) was o f central im portance, ‘the first attem pt to form a channel into w hich the broad dem ocratic p eo p le’s m ovem ent can flow ’.76 T h e w orking class had to ‘unconditionally support every m ovem ent that w ould lead to a confrontation w ith the fascist state’.77 T hese G erm an revolutionaries stood apart from A ntw erp ’s branch o f the R evolutionary Socialist Party (RSP), a group o f six o r seven Trotskyist labourers led by Lode Polk, w h o had helped found the Belgian C om m unist Party in 1920. T h e group o f G erm an exiles was n o t m uch bigger, b u t unlike the Flemish R SP , consisted primarily o f intellectuals. T he year 1936 was a turning p o in t for H enri M andel and the thirteenyear-old Em est. T w o events m ade a deep impression on them : the Spanish civil w ar and the M oscow trials.78 T h e civil w ar evoked a flood o f em otions. Perhaps ten y o u n g Belgian Trotskyists succeeded in reaching Spain.79 W h eth e r or n o t it was right to support the ‘centrist’ P O U M (W orkers Party o f M arxist U nification) and w h eth er there was o r was n o t a Spanish section o f’the F ourth International w ere heavily debated questions.80 Besser com plained to H eld about opportunism in the Belgian party and held the Brussels m em ber G eorges V ereeken, w ith-his adulation o f the P O U M , primarily responsible.81 O n M ay D ay 1937 around 100,000 dem onstrators m arched through the streets in solidarity w ith the defenders o f the Spanish R epublic. Long after the w ar E m est rem ained impressed. ‘T hey w ere greeted w ith ovations — unforgettable!’82 T h e M andels w ere deeply involved w ith the R epublican cause.83 W h e n thousands o f anarchists and m em bers o f P O U M w ere faced w ith Stalinist terror in 1937, the M andels supported them through fun­ draising and o th er campaigns.84 People in M an d el’s circle had no illusions about M oscow or Com m unists linked to the U S S R . T h e case o f j e f Last, a D u tch w riter w ho questioned Soviet C om m unism , was striking. In 1936 he travelled through Russia w ith his friend A ndre G ide, the future N o b el Prize w inner. G ide’s subsequent account, Return From the U S S R was n o t flattering.85 Last attem pted to ease his o w n dissatisfaction by travelling to Spain to serve the R epublican cause.86 W h e n Gide was overw helm ed w ith abuse from the Com m unists, Last defended him . Already suspect because o f this, Last faced even worse after it was reported that a J. Last was appearing as a defence witness for Trotsky at the com mission o f inquiry in M exico led by the Am erican philosopher Jo h n

12

ERNEST M ANDEL

D ew ey. T h e account appeared in the Bulletin o f the Committee for Justice and Truth, a Belgian Trotskyist paper established by H enri M andel w ith help from Fritz Besser and L eond de Lee, w ith the express purpose o f spreading the truth ab o u t th e trials o f Trotskyists then u n d er w ay in M oscow .87 T h e D u tch C om m unist Party w o u ld n o t w an t a treacherous Trotskyist in its m idst w hile th e M oscow trials w ere in full swing. Last feared that he m ight share the fate o f Ignaz Reiss, the head o f the R e d A rm y intelligence service, w h o had b ro k en w ith Stalin and b een assassinated by the G P U , the Soviet secret service, as he was preparing to jo in the F ourth International. H e exerted him self to prove that he was n o t th e j. Last in question. H e contacted the A ntw erp g ro u p 88 through the w riter H arry Schulze W ilde,89 and was soon able to inform his party bosses that there had been an error.90 T h e troublesom e w itness was a Frenchm an nam ed Laste; the D u tch Last was assured that the final e had been dropped accidentally, though he was n o t allow ed to see th e original text; for security reasons, the F renchm an’s identity could n o t be revealed.91 Besser rem em bered that Last was definitely suspicious: H e had just returned from Spain . . . In an interview that appeared in Antwerp he praised the solidarity and exemplary fighting spirit in the Republican camp. W hen I questioned this, he repeated the same nonsense until Harry [Schulze-Wilde] assured him that I was trustworthy. T hen came a gruesome account o f oppression and Stalinist death squads aimed at comrades, w hich even I . . . found almost unbelievable.92 Last’s willingness to cover up Stalinist outrages was, sadly, typical o f m any left-w ing intellectuals’, and indicative o f their lack o f character. R o m a in R ollan d , Ernst B loch and Lion Feuchtw anger all defended the January 1937 trials o f the so-called opposition.93 Feuchtw anger, a witness against Karl Radelc although he spoke n o t a w ord o f Russian, was the nadir for H enri M andel.94 M andel had k n o w n the accused quite well and was so indignant that he form ed a solidarity com m ittee on the spot, and rebuked the cow ardice o f the w idely h o n o u red novelist in the publication ‘D er Schutzgeist d er Stalinschen Justiz’ (The T utelary Genius o f Stalinist Jus­ tice).95 Because he was n o t a Belgian citizen, to be on the safe side M andel used the pseudonym H en ri A lm ond (English for M andel). His criticism was sharp: In w hat constitutional state anywhere, Mr. Feuchtwanger, would it go w ithout saying that a prosecutor can, in the name o f the law (!), demand the death penalty w ithout offering the slightest proof o f any crime? O r

YOUTH

13

were we perhaps all notorious idiots w hen we screamed blue m urder in chorus at the judicial m urder o f . . . Van der Lubbe? Y ou were one o f us then, M r. Feuchtwanger.96 M andel had a strong sense o f justice. H e no longer had a good w o rd to say about the m iserable scribbler Feuchtw anger. If Feuchtw anger h o p ed to ‘dispose o f Trotskyism w ith in and w ith o u t the Soviet U n io n ’, then h e had miscalculated: ‘Precisely th ro u g h the M oscow show trials the Stalinist cliques added m any w o rth y supporters and fellow com batants to. the Trotskyist m o v em en t.’97 .. The Fourth International H enri M andel was also thinking o f himself. H e had becom e closely involved in the w o rk o f the F o u rth International. T h e com m ittee m e t at his house, and he participated in the p ro d u ctio n o f its pam phlets and the publication o f its docum ents. His thirteen-year-old son becam e the g ro u p ’s m ost fiery supporter, p u ttin g in an appearance at all m eetings. H en ri’s polem ic against Feuchtw anger was b ro u g ht to T rotsky’s attention by Fritz Besser, w h o p o in ted o u t that although the author was n o t a m em ber o f the organization, ‘he has the greatest sym pathy for us, as can be seen from his w ork; he is prepared to help us in every possible way, including financially, and above all to build o u r small publishing house into a big and financially healthy com m ercial undertaking.’98 In the spring o f 1937 this n ew publishing house was established, w ith the goal o f publishing in G erm an the w orks o f T rotsky and others sym pathetic to the F ourth International. T h e initiative came from Besser and H enri M andel, w h o this tim e chose the pseudonym H . Schaked (H ebrew for alm ond).99 First, they to o k over the assets and liabilities o f the publisher Editions D e Lee. Shortly afterwards, they m erged w ith D ynam o-V erlag, a Trotskyist publisher based in Z urich. D ynam o-V erlag becam e the official im print o f the n ew entity.100 Its first publication was a 2,500-copy edition o f T rotsky’s Verratene Revolution (The R ev o lu tio n Betrayed), at a tim e w h en no other publisher was prepared to produce a G erm an edition o f T rotsky’s m ost im portant b o o k .101 T h e n o n 1 D ecem ber 1937, in collaboration w ith the International Secretariat in Paris, they began publication o f Der Einzige Weg (The O n ly W ay), the periodical o f the F ourth International.102 W ith the crucial help o f M andel, M eyer and Besser, and w atched by the eager-to-leam Ernest, the periodicals, printed on the cheapest paper avail­ able, rolled from the press o f D e Proletarier (The Proletarian), a small print shop on Onderwijsstraat, in the working-class neighbourhood o f D e

14

ERNEST M ANDEL

Seefhoek. T h e press was run by Leon de Lee, a short, black-haired, fortyyear-old diam ond w orker. D e Lee was no leader, orator or theoretician, but, according to Besser, he had an infallible class instinct, and he was quick to abandon his polishing stone on Somerstraat w henever a com rade asked for his h elp .103 H en ri M andel w rote to T rotsky’s son L eon Sedov about his new involvem ent in the w o rk o f the organization, and proposed that the publishing effort be expanded into a profitable enterprise for the m ove­ m e n t.104 Its im portance was grow ing as the w ar approached. T h ere was a plan to transfer the G erm an organization — o r at least a n u m b er o f its im portant m em bers —to America. T h e connection w ith E urope w o u ld need to be m aintained through regular G erm an publications. This was som ething that D ynam o-V erlag, headquartered in Z urich and w ith branches in A ntw erp and Prague, could d o .105 B y the end o f the 1930s, prem onitions o f apocalyptic violence, o f approaching w orldw ide cataclysm, w ere grow ing, and H enri M andel felt b o u n d to do w hatever he could to halt the evil that n o t only H id er b u t also Stalin em bodied. Dismayed by the events in M oscow , he came to sym­ pathize strongly w ith Trotsky. It was a defensive choice, b o m o f his contem pt for Stalinism; he did n o t share T rotsky’s revolutionary expecta­ tions and was n o t prepared to justify the tragedy o f K ronstadt.106 H e was not indifferent to the prom ise o f com m unism , b u t he found the road to it too narrow to dedicate his life to its service. W h e n darkness covered Europe, M andel said farewell to revolutionary politics and sought o ther ways to defeat the forces o f fascism and totalitarianism. As his father to o k his leave o f the m ovem ent, the y o u n g E m est —o r rather Ezra, as he was still called at the tim e —becam e actively involved in it. H e was fifteen w h e n he was adm itted to the R S P , at the end o f 1938. T he founding conference o f the Fourth International had ju st taken place, in Septem ber, in Perigny, a suburb o f Paris. T h e story o f the Trotskyists’ struggle to p u t their ideas into practice is punctuated by assassinations and disappearances, and the period im m ediately before the w ar, w h e n Ernest jo in e d the m ovem ent, was especially deadly. It was a hecatom b: in 1937 Ignaz Reiss and T rotsky’s secretary E rw in W o lf w ere killed by the G PU ; in February 1938 Leon Sedov died in suspicious circumstances in a Paris clinic; and in July the m utilated body o f thirty-yearold R u d o lf K lem ent, organizer o f the im m inent founding conference o f the F ourth International, was recovered from the Seine. E m est had know n K lem ent, w h o came from H am burg: ‘H e was an honest b u t totally over­ w orked m an, o f w hose qualities everyone was in a w e.’107 Ernest got the news o f K lem ent’s'' death and o f the conference from

YOUTH

15

N athan (Nathie) G ould, one o f three representatives from the U S Socialist W orkers Party (SWP) w ho toured E urope after the conference.108 G ould spoke in A ntw erp, at the M andels’ house o n the Cruyslei. ‘I think that it was after that m eeting that I was formally adm itted as a candidate m em ber’, recalled M andel sixty years later in an interview w ith the British—Pakistani w riter T ariq A li.109 T h e A ntw erp group was a small one; besides G ennan comrades such as Fritz Besser, M ax Laufer and the artist Franz M eyer, there w ere L eo n de Lee, Lode Polk, Cam ille Loots, w h o had been in Barcelona in 1937, the popular Pier D orem ans and J e f van d er Elst, a ship repairman, small in stature b u t a ‘reniarkable w orkers’ leader . . . w h o had a mass audience’ and w h o m ade an unforgettable impression on M an d el.110 T he Flemish Trotskyists w ere then w orking w ith the A nti-O orlogsliga (AntiW ar League), the socialist organization that had declared w ar on the war. B ut th eir pam phlets, w ritten w ith o u t passion as abstract propaganda, m et w ith a tepid reception. In 1937 the entire Belgian Trotskyist party, French and Flemish, had just 750 total m em bers. It was strongest in French-speaking W allonia, particularly am ong the m iners in the Borinage, w ho, like their leader W alter Dauge, came originally from the social dem ocratic Belgian W orkers Party (BW P).111 T h e ‘old’ spokesm en o f the Left O pposition, Georges V ereeken from Brussels and L eon Lesoil, influential in the C harleroi basin, also played a significant role. B u t the group was far from stable, being given to vicious infighting. In 1938 Georges V ereeken w ith a few others established a new group, C o n tre le C o u ran t (Against the Cuixent). H e took this step out o f pessimism ab o u t the future o f the w orld Trotskyist m ovem ent, w hich he felt rem ained too isolated. In his eyes, it was nonsense to proclaim the Fourth International on the eve o f its disappearance. Events that follow ed seem ed to confirm V ereek en’s views. W h e n the w ar broke out, in Septem ber 1939, the R S P w e n t into precipitous decline. T he Borinage federation fell apart; its m em bers, almost entirely from the w orking class, had b een adm itted w ith o u t regard to their political com m itm ent 01experience —o r lack o f them . A fter the optim istic years o f the struggle, they w ere the first to fall victim to dou b t and dem oralization.112 T h e m em bers in C harleroi w ere m ore seasoned. Like the Brussels and A ntw erp groups, they included a high percentage o f politically educated w orkers and could hang on to them . Nevertheless, on the eve. o f the G en n an O ccupation the party was a shambles. O f the 750 original m em bers, only 80 rem ained. Few er than half w o u ld prove suitable for rebuilding the party underground.

A Y o u n g M an in the W a r

T here’s nothing sacred now — the ties Are burst o f life’s sublimest awe; Before the vicious, virtue flies And universal crime is law! M an fears the lion’s kingly tread; And views the tiger’s fangs w ith terror And still the dreadliest o f the dread, Is man himself in error! — Friedrich von Schiller1 O n the m orn in g o f 10 M ay 1940, the forty-one-year-old A ntw erp ship repairm an J e f van d er Elst was surprised by new s o f the G erm an advance. H e was astonished w h en the Belgian state security service entered his w orking m an’s h o m e o n Pionierstraat and asked h im to accom pany them . For Van d er Elst, an ex-C om m unist w h o had converted to Trotskyism in 1925, the day ended in the Begijnenstraat prison." M any shared his fate on that day or in th e days that follow ed.3 Besides such kindred spirits as the G erm an artist Franz M eyer, w h o had been intern ed in C am p Merksplas, near T u m h o u t, since A ugust 1939, m any m em bers o f the Belgian C om m unist Party and the fascist-leaning groups V N V (Flemish N ational League) and R e x were arrested, along w ith form er activists from the First W o rld W a r and countless G erm an and Austrian refugees.4 T h e ‘ghost trains’ left from A ntw erp, M echelen, Bruges, Brussels and B ergen, filled w ith prisoners, left-w ing and right-w ing m ixed together, headed towards France. T h e train cars w ere labelled w ith chalked slogans — ‘fifth colum n’, ‘spies’, ‘parachutists’ — calculated to incite the curious w ho crow ded the stations to harass the prisoners. It was a .hellish jo u rn e y that for m en ended in the camps at Le V em et and St-C yprien, at the foot o f the Pyrenees, and for w om en at Gurs.5 '

A Y O U N G M A N IN TH E W AR

17

V an der Elst was spared die worst. His convoy was overtaken by the advancing G ennan army, and its Belgian escort, 110 longer seeing the p o int o f w hat they w ere doing, released the prisoners. Van der Elst returned to A ntw erp o n foot from n orthern France, a trek that lasted almost three weeks.6 T h e M andels w ere in no danger from retaliation for suspected sabotage. T hey w ere Polish nationals, and unlike V an der Elst, w h o was k now n as an agitator in the A ntw erp harbour, w ere n o t the subject o f political rum ours. E ven so, in case the family should have to flee, H enri deposited a suitcase w eighing 50 kilos at D end erleeu w Station, packed w ith linens, lace, silverware, m iniatures and,other personal belongings. It was never recovered after the w ar.7 T h e w ar had been u n d er discussion for m onths. U nlike the Com m unists, H enri M andel denounced the M o lo to v -R ib b en tro p agreem ent, the m utual non-aggression pact b etw een G em iany and the Soviet U nion. H e re­ proached the C om m unists for refraining from criticizing G erm any w hile no t softening their criticism o f England. In N o v em ber 1939 the Belgian governm ent signalled their o w n disapproval, banning publication o f the C om m unist daily La Voix du Peuple (People’s Voice). B u t they also banned the Trotskyist press, the papers La Lutte Ouvriere (W orkers’ Struggle) and Contre le Courant and also its pam phlets and brochures.8 I11 those m onths revolutionary politics existed in a semi-illegal state.9 Party activity gradually decreased because, as R e n e (jgroslambert from Brussels p u t it, ‘W e knew that w ar was com ing [but] did n o t k n o w w h at to d o .’10 M eanw hile ordinary Belgians w ere quiet as mice, look in g for guidance to a governm ent that clung to neutrality and national unity as the only option. G overnm ent repression and the p eo p le’s tepid reaction w ere only partly responsible for the stagnation o f the Trotskyist m o vem ent.11 Squabbles w ithin the Trotskyist family contributed as well. T h e behaviour o f W alter D auge, leader o f the Borinage group, was astonishing. U n d er police questioning in Septem ber 1939 he betrayed Georges V ereeken by divulging his pseudonym , Give, w hich V ereeken had used to sign a manifesto against the threatening war. This paper had attracted the attention o f the author­ ities.1- T h ey arrested V ereeken b u t could n o t prove that he was Give until D auge helped th em o u t.1"’ Several m em bers w anted to expel D auge from the party, b u t Leon Lesoil, n ext in im portance to D auge in the R S P (R evolutionary Socialist Party), spoke against this, insisting that a m o tio n o f censure was sufficient.14 A ccording to the A m erican Trotskyist Sherry M angan, in a letter to the International Secretariat and the leadership o f the SW P, D auge him self argued that ‘V ’s [V ereeken’s] action was a sheer provocation, that by doing as he [Dauge] did he protected the rest o f the party’.13

18

ERNEST M A NDEL

W alter D auge (1907—44) was n o t a leader the party w ould have lightly dismissed. H e was from Flenu, in the centre o f the Borinage coal region, w hich in the 1920s and 1930s had b een the very symbol o f protests against exploitation.16 H e came from a family o f working-class socialists; his father was a m ine w orker, his m o th er a seamstress. D auge entered the revolu­ tionary m ovem ent after the strikes in the sum m er o f 1932. T h e struggle m eant everything to him , especially the general strike. H e was a gifted speaker, appearing for a tim e o n the French-language radio broadcasting system. T h e m iners idolized him . B eginning in the sum m er o f 1935 he edited L ’Action socialiste revolutionnaire (R evolutionary Socialist Action), a paper to w hich P aul-H enri Spaak also co ntributed until, in that same year, he jo in e d the V an Z eeland cabinet, a governm ent o f national u n ity .17 D u rin g his tenure the Belgian Socialist Party (BWP) anticipated a break­ through at the national level;, w h en it failed to materialize, D auge’s position in the party becam e untenable. In 1 9 3 6 'he and his cohorts left the socialist m ainstream and jo in e d the Trotskyists. N e x t to Georges V ereeken, another working-class com rade — a Brussels taxi driver — and Leon Lesoil from C harleroi, W alter D auge becam e the m o v em en t’s best-know n leader. H e exchanged letters w ith T rotsky during T rotsky’s tim e in N orw ay. In the Flenu local council election o f 1938, he received an absolute majority. T he . king prevented his being nam ed m ayor because D auge had-refused to swear - allegiance to the crow n. D auge personified the always visible divisions w ithin the Trotskyist m ovem ent. T h e core o f the party — ideologically trained, w ell educated and com ing from the C om m unist Party — coexisted uneasily w ith the hundreds o f uneducated, often illiterate m ine w orkers from the Borinage, w h o came from the B W P and w ere u n d er the influence o f Dauge, a brilliant leader b u t n o t a M arxist and certainly n o t a Leninist.18 As soon as the w ar broke out, the m iners’ combativeness gave w ay to anxiety and confusion. A party m em b er from Brussels w h o visited Flenu as the O ccupation was beginning later recalled, ‘T hey w ere seized by panic and dared n o t m ove. T hey even refused to distribute leaflets for fear that their leader w ould be arrested.’19 D auge him self w anted to rem ain law -abiding, as the V ereeken affair show ed. A report to the secretariat o f the F ourth International noted, ‘Since the outbreak o f the war, D auge is flouting the will o f the party. H e is n o t resisting the dictatorship . . . H e will have n o th in g m ore to do w ith illegal activities . . . This has com pletely dem oralized his federation.’20 M oreover, D auge seemed ill and subject to the darkest thoughts. B u t even before the R S P w ent u n d erg round it had- fallen apart. O f the 700 m em bers in the Borinage, only a handful rem ained active after 10 May.

A Y O U N G M A N IN T H E W AR

19

Dauge w en t his o w n way. H e broke w ith politics, got involved in smuggling and entered into dubious contacts w ith Rexists. In 1944, he was m u r­ dered.21 T h e C om m unist Dmpeaii Rouge (R ed Flag) exulted at this ‘w elldeserved p unishm ent’ for ‘that vile Trotskyist collaborator’.22 Describing that p eriod in later years, Ernest M andel emphasized that the R S P was unprepared m orally and politically to go underground. H e attributed this to the party’s hybrid character. In Brussels, A ntw erp and Liege it was a tight group o f experienced activists b u t in the Borinage and Charleroi it was an ‘organization w ith a popular following, based . . . on the m ine w orkers w h o unavoidably adopted the ideas and concerns o f their surroundings . . . T h e ranks o f the R S P w ere thus infected w ith the hesitations and disappointm ents evoked by the w ar.’23 This malaise lasted almost a year, w hile the leadership, throw n ofFbalance, focused o n safeguarding and strengthening its cadres while w aiting for a m ore favourable climate for mass agitation.24 B ut even that intention came to noth in g w h en W alter D auge and Leon Lesoil, the strongest opponents o f illegal action, w ere arrested o n 10 M ay 1940, along w ith Van der Elst, M eyer and m any o th er com rades.25 T h e rem ainder sank into passivity. E ven Lesoil ceased all political activity after his release. So did Lode Polk, like Lesoil, a veteran o f the anti-Stalinist opposition. T he organization shrank to a couple o f dozen m em bers w h o barely stayed in contact w ith one another. W h en the Trotskyists oncg, again began to organize, in August 1940, younger militants, som e o f w h o m had jo in e d after the strike actions o f 1932 and som e after 1938, to o k the lead. T he call to resist T he fighting came to an end in Belgium o n 28 M ay 1940. T he governm ent and th e leaders o f the Socialist Party and trade unions fled the country and H endrik de M an, the form er m inister and party chairman, called for collaboration w ith the G en n an occupying forces. Trade union leaders w ho rem ained decided to suspend all actions for the duration o f the O ccupation. H am pered by the Soviet-G erm an non-aggression pact, the Com m unists also struggled w ith their position. In A ntw erp, they continued to publish a legal paper, Ulcnspiegcl, w hich focused its criticisms on the French and English.26 T h e A ntw erp paper proclaim ed ‘the purest and m ost com plete neutrality . . . W e call u p o n all those desiring peace firstly to behave correctly towards the occupier.’27 T h e people in the streets w ere filled w ith anger at the old guard for being the first to run away and tense uncertainty about w hat the O ccupation w o u ld bring. These developm ents shocked Ernest M andel.2” M ost in the A thenaeum

20

ERNEST M ANDEL

w ere convinced that the G erm ans w o u ld w in the w ar w ith ease.29 M any o f his political friends had disappeared. Fritz Besser was in L ondon.30 So was M ax Laufer, repatriated in the nick o f tim e. Franz M eyer and Else B orm ann w ere in French prisons. T o avoid being arrested again after his return from France, J e f van d er Elst had signed up w ith the pro-G erm an U n io n o f B lueand W h ite-C o llar W orkers for voluntary labour in G erm any.31 This was a tou g h decision for an activist k n o w n in the A ntw erp shipyards as ‘th e little C o m m u n ist’, because o f his small stature. T h e n T rotsky was assassinated. Belgian papers reported his death on 21 A ugust 1940. T h e new s fell like a bom b. M any o f his followers sought com fort in the house o n the Crayslei. Lode Polk show ed up distraught. H e had k n o w n T rotsky personally, corresponded w ith him and received h im in his hom e w h en the R ussian revolutionary passed through A ntw erp on his w ay to N o rw ay .32 S oon oth er com rades arrived. T h e group o f seven or eight m en decided that it was lo n g past tim e to resist. In the days that follow ed their plan expanded to include about eleven people, all o f w h o m had k n o w n one an o th er for years. A t the beginning o f Septem ber 1940 they founded the ‘independent, patriotic’ resistance group V rank en Vrij (O pen and Free). T h o u g h the original goal was only to distribute leaflets, the propaganda m achine o f th e collaborationist rig h t-w in g Flemish N ational League (VNV) persuaded th em that their o w n plan was too m odest, and they decided to publish a m onthly paper. T h e first issue o f H et Vrije Woord (The Free W ord) appeared in an edition o f 3,000 at the end o f Septem ber, ru n o ff on an autom atic G estettner copying m achine that H enri M andel had acquired before the war. T h ey had been unable to find a w illing publisher.33 So the first u n d erg ro u n d Flem ish-language paper was produced in the M andels’ o w n hom e, and the entire family participated.34 Eventually the publishing group expanded to about a hun dred m em bers, divided into six branches for greater security. Cam ille Loots, a tw enty-nine-year-old T ro t­ skyist and veteran o f the Spanish civil war, was responsible for distribution in Brussels. Jean B riquem ont, ten years older, was responsible for the m em bers’ safety. H e arranged false identity papers and led a resistance group in the trade school he directed in the tow n o f St Pieters W oluw e. O th e r key m em bers w ere personal connections o f the M andels’ w h o had helped found the group. M arcel D evlieghere, as chief inspector o f the Belgian General Insurance C om pany, was a colleague o f H en ri M andel’s. Cecile Piller was a single w om an w h o acted as a courier until Septem ber 1943, w h en she was betrayed to the Gestapo in Forest, a Brussels borough. M aurice Spiegel had a ■ son at the A thenaeum , w ho helped M ichel and Em est distribute the paper at the school. W h en the deportation o f jew s from M echelen began in July

A Y O U N G M A N IN T H E W AR

21

1942, this b o y escaped to France and jo in e d the Resistance. His parents tried to flee, too, b u t w ere captured and died in Auschwitz. H et Vrije Woord was initially distributed in A ntw erp and environs, usually in hom es and stores during the evening, b u t also in post offices and railway stations, and o n trams and trains. Its four (sometimes six) pages w ere read as far away as M echelen and T u m h o u t. T h e average print ru n was a bare 5,000. A fter the W eh rm ach t invaded the Soviet U nion, in Ju n e 1941, an issue was published in G erm an especially for the soldiers. T h e paper surely o w ed som e o f its success to its inclusiveness; N o overt ideological vision was articulated in Het Vrije Woord; it was an independent, anti-N azi paper that found its w ay from h and to hand in a m ixed political m ilieu.35 T his was rem arkable, considering that a substantial part o f the active group, around 15 p e r cent, w ere Trotskyists. Ernest and his father w rote th e lio n ’s share o f the articles.36 H en ri could n o t have w ished for a b etter platform for unity propaganda. T h e paper’s central them e was the defence o f freedom against the occupiers and their lackeys in R e x and the V N V . E ngland’s resistance gave the writers JU S T IF IE D H O P E that N O T H IT L E R , B U T T H E F R E E PEO PLES, N O T T H E T H IR D R E IC H , B U T England, France, the U n ited States and probably T H E S O V IE T U N I O N as well, will have the final say in this w orld w ar.’37 W h en M ussolini attacked Greece, seventeen-year-old Ernest expressed his firm conviction that ‘G reat Britain w ill stand beside the courageous G reek people . . . It is n o t only a question o f British h o n o u r and tradition to stand by h e r friends and allies,, b u t in this w ar against the Axis pow ers also a means o f self-defence.’38 (Ernest had long abandoned this perspective by the tim e the British sm othered th e G reek revolution w ith b lood five years later.) T h e paper took a clear position w h en the first anti-Jewish regulations were announced in the Verordnungsblatt (Official Gazette) on 6 N ovem ber 1940.39 It was the first o f the A ntw erp Resistance papers to report the story, and it w arned readers that the regulations w ere ‘only the B E G IN N IN G ’, that ‘Nazi barbarism [knew] no bounds’, and that against ‘the brow n and black Nazi plague true Belgians [could] give only one answer: SA BO TA G E!’40 B ut n o t all Belgians w ere ‘tru e’ in that sense. A nti-Sem itic riots broke out in April 1941 around Pelilcaanstraat and Lange Kievitstraat after a screening o f Der Ewige Jude (The Eternal Jew ) in C inem a R e x on the Keyzerlei. H undreds o f m em bers o f P eo p le’s D efence, the Black Brigade and the Flemish SS arm ed themselves w ith sticks and m etal bars and attacked every Jew they encountered, shouting ‘D am ned Jew s!’ ‘D eath to the Jews!’ and ‘D o w n w ith the bastards!’41 Synagogues and Jew ish-ow ned stores w ere also targets. H et Vrije Woord insisted once again that ‘J E W IS H P E R S E C U ­ T IO N S by the Nazis are n o t fables b u t b itter R E A L IT Y !’ T h e paper also

22

ERNEST M ANDEL

declared that the riots had filled the A ntw erp population w ith ‘h o rro r and disgust’, b u t the editors m ust have k n o w n that this was n o t the w hole truth.42 A p o g ro m had taken place unchecked and had gone unpunished, and there continued to be regular anti-Jewish disturbances in the once tolerant city o n the Scheldt. E m est M andel left school that summ er; he had planned to study history at the Free U niversity o f Brussels, b u t the professors decided almost unani­ m ously in N o v em b er to suspend classes, in protest against the appointm ent o f three teachers sym pathetic to the N azis.43 His family had been officially registered as Jew s since D ecem ber 1940, and had to be careful at all times n o t to offend the authorities. In Ju n e 1942 they w ere ordered to begin w earing the yellow star. T he stars w ere distributed at the building on the Belgielei w here the boys had attended prim ary school; a strip o f three cost a franc. In their identity cards the letter J was stam ped in black ink. Eleven days later, o n W ednesday 22 July, cam e the first ro u n d ­ ups. All those w h o w ere taken by the Germans that day w ere sent to their deaths in Auschwitz. H en ri M andel k n ew well enough that the star on his coat was the last step before deportation.44 H e had already reached the conclusion that the goal o f the ‘N azi barbarians’ was to destroy ‘all the Jew s w ithin their p o w er’, n o t „only to ‘persecute, th em in the m ost barbaric ways’ b u t also ‘exterm inate th em systematically’.43 H e w arned E m est and M ichel to be ready to go into hiding.46 H e sold such cosdy possessions as the old family jew els and three oriental carpets and stored part o f his library, som e paintings and o ther valuables w ith friends.47 H e also acquired false identity papers, issued to ‘Nicolas Jules R o b e rt’. W o rried that fourteen-year-old M ichel looked too Jew ish, he ordered the boy to stay inside during the day. E m est and M ichel also sought a h o m e for Bibi and T iti, tw o parakeets that flew freely around the Cruyslei house. M any o th er m em bers o f V rank en Vrij, and m ost w orkers in the diam ond trade, w ere o fje w ish background;48 H en ri M andel encouraged all o f them to go into hiding and n o t to report to the Dossin Barracks in M echelen, the term inal for the trains to the East. R o sa’s elderly father and her brother M o tek shaved their beards and left for Switzerland. M aurice Spiegel and his family m ade their ill-fated attem pt to reach America via Portugal. ‘D o n ’t report, d o n ’t report!’J e f van der Elst felt like scream ing it out. T h e • centre on Pelikaanstraat w here Jew s w ere ordered ‘to report for-w ork’ was the departure p o in t for transport to M echelen. Like the M andels, Van der Elst tried to convince people n o t to obey. His campaign w en t well until the security service (SD) descended. -Van der Elst escaped, barely in tim e.4y O th e r friends w ere less fortunate. Ni'ssenbaum disappeared. As for Lode

A Y O U N G M A N IN T H E W AR

23

Polk, one day he show ed up at hom e and was ordered to accom pany a G erm an soldier, supposedly to th e dentist. Before departing w ith his captive, the soldier, o u t o f w h o know s w h at nostalgic impulse, set his gun against the m antelpiece and asked if he m ig h t pinch the suckers on the tom ato plants in the garden. ‘W h y d o n ’t you grab his w eapon and shoot him dead?’ P o lk ’s son asked despairingly. P olk answ ered the boy, ‘T h e m an has kids; you d o n ’t do that.’50 N o one ever saw P o lk again. In m id-A ugust Cecile Piller w arned the M andels that the Gestapo was on their track.51 O vern ig h t the family finally decided to flee. E m est was away; up to his ears in w ork. H e.stayed mostly w ith comrades, usually in or near Brussels, Liege o r Charleroi. H enri, R osa and M ichel ripped the yellow stars from their clothes, grabbed their suitcases and got on the train to Brussels. T here they fo u n d shelter in a furnished villa in T ervuren that the Trotskyist party had rented in order to offer comrades tem porary refuge. T h e house was m anaged by tw enty-five-year-old, red-haired Christiane V anacker.52 Frederic, h er boyfriend, y o u n g er than she, Jew ish, and a party m em ber, was in hiding elsewhere. C hristiane looked after the M andels and did their shopping; R osa and M ichel, w h o did n o t yet have false identity papers, could n o t go outside.53 W h e n their papers w ere ready, they left for a new hiding place in the A rdennes. H en ri stayed behind in Brussels, w here he prepared to resum e publication o f H et Vrije Woord. A contact inform ed him that the Gestapo had raided the Cmyslei apartm ent som etim e around 20 D ecem ber.54 H ad they b een looking for the publisher o f H et Vrije Woord? O r simply carrying o u t operation M obelaktion, the plundering o f Jew ish possessions?55 W h atev er their m otive, the G erm ans had seized the part o f the library that had n o t been m oved to safety —around 1,400 volum es —and to m the rest o f the apartm ent apart. Four entries in the SD tracking registry read: ‘Disappeared; o n 2 4 /2 /4 3 deleted from A n tw erp .’56 East European migrants and international links By n o w the T rotskyist m o v em en t had recovered from its apparent disintegration at the start o f th e O ccupation. A fter T ro tsk y ’s assassination a handful o f A ntw erp com rades had u n ited to breathe n ew life into the organization, seeking contact w ith lik e-m in d ed friends in Brussels.57 This re-fo rm ed group had largely escaped the arrests o f M ay 1940; only R e n e G roslam bert an32 yours. T h e y did n o t stop to w ritin g to each other. A fter som e tim e she explained again that she only m ean t to do w h a t was best for th e m both: I am unfaithful, selfish, capricious. Even w ith great love you couldn’t stand all this together . . . I am n o t w hat you need, n o t even w hat you w ant — I should distort you in your w ork and d o n ’t think you w ould change me. D o n ’t worry; you can’t imagine w hat a terrible life you 33 ’ escape . . . T his letter in English was sent from Sw itzerland, w h ere M icky was taking an English course in Arosa. ■ . H e r le tte r w o u n d e d E rnest and he tried to tu rn aw ay fro m her. H e sought com fo rt for his soul from th e French p o e t Louis A ragon. ' O moil amour o mon amour toi seule cxiste A cette heure pour moi du crepuscule triste Oi) je perds a la fois le Jil de mon poeme E t cehii de ma vie et la joie et la voix Parce que j'a i voulu te redire Je t’aiine Et que ce mot fait mal quand il est dit sans toi. Mon bel amour mon be! amour ma dechirure Je te portc dans moi comrne tin oiseau blesse E t ceux-la sans savoir tous regardent passer Repetant apres moi les mots que j'a i tresses Et qui pour tes grands yeux tout aussi tot moururent II n ’y a pas d ’amour heureux.34

LA G AUCHE A N D TH E SO C IA L D E M O C R A TS

65

‘T h e re is n o happy lo v e.’ M icky was his first passion, and he did n o t understand w h y his longings rem ained u n req u ited . H e seldom spoke about it, b u t he trusted E rnst F ed em en o u g h to w rite, ‘It is so hard . . . to say anything ab o u t it o r to w rite .’35 H e only later adm itted that the pain was som etim es unbearable; th e situation had ‘m essed up his life’; he had suffered deeply from grief.36 W h e n M icky insisted th a t th eir relationship be only a friendship, M andel tried to avoid all contact.37 W as this self-protection? T h e separation, h ow ever, was n ev er com plete. E v en in th e 1970s w h e n h e was getting to k n o w th e G erm an stu d en t Gisela Scholtz, his m eetings w ith M icky did n o t end. T h e difficulty M an d el experienced in trying to find em otional balance in his life was m anifested y e t again w h e n his father died. H e n ri M andel suffered a heart attack in the fall o f 1952, y et recovered so quickly that by the spring o f n ex t y ear th e doctors p ro n o u n c e d h im com pletely recovered. T h e follow ing w in ter, o n th e evening o f 15 D ecem b er, he was back at w o rk w h e n he suffered a second attack. H e died the same n ight o f an em bolism , aged fifty-seven.38 N o burial instructions w ere fo u n d in his will. A t the insistence o f his sister B ertha and his d ev o u t b ro th e r-in -la w Marlcus, he was bu ried in the Jew ish cem etery in K raainem , n ear Brussels. T h e re was 110 religious service.39 O n his gravestone are the follovjing w ords: T o the m em ory o f H enri M andel 12 M ay 1896 — 16 D ecem ber 1953 A brave spirit and profound m ind ■ A generous heart All w ho came near became his friends.

■•• ■

T h e n ig h t h e died m ark ed th e en d o f E rn est’s y o u th . ‘I w ill never again feel the ease and happiness o f life that I enjo y ed u n d e r m y father’s p rotection, that I unconsciously experienced everyw here, even in the cam p, and to w hich I o w e m y carefree y o u th ’, he w ro te to Fedem . H e expressed som ething o f his despair w h e n he n o ted , ‘R e a so n allows us to co m prehend that everyone dies. B u t w h e n it happens to som eone so close, it is incom prehensible and unbelievable . . . F o r M ichel and m e it’s a terrible experience.’40 T h e n h e tu rn e d to his-old help, reason, and continued, ‘Som e day I’ll witness h u m an ity spending as m u ch energy and m o n ey developing m edicine as w eaponry. T h e n there w ill be hardly any illness th at can’t be , fought w ith success.’41 F or a lo n g tim e afterw ards he clung for com fort to this rather naive and sorrow ful illusion.42

66

ERNEST M ANDEL

E rnst Fedem , w h o had lost his o w n parents a few years earlier, was concerned about w h at h e called M an d el’s self-pity. Y o u ’re no longer a child left helpless by his father. D eath is historically inevitable; you’ve pointed this out often. N o w that death has touched you nearly, you must not cry . . . T h e death o f your father is very, very tragic, b u t cry for him, n o t for yourself. M a n d e l’s despairing protest against the backw ardness o f m edical science fo u n d F ed em unresponsive: ‘Y o u k n o w full w ell that there is b u t one answ er to death, the th o u g h t o f eternal life in the hereafter. F o r us, w h o find th at naive, th e only consolation is in u n e n d in g intellectual life, n o t in science o r m ed icin e.’43 F ed em was right: M an d el had cast h im self as the m ain victim in his father’s death, ju st as he h ad in the break w ith M icky. H e had b een abandoned; that was the d o m in an t feeling th at he attem pted to escape b y lo o k in g for explanations for his loss. H e h ad responded in the same w ay to the suicide o f O p ta t H enry, his com rade in th e R esistance. Just as he always fo u n d it difficult to o p en him self to so m eo n e else, h e also found it difficult to im agine h im self in som eone else’s place. His relationships w ere always som ew hat one-sided, w h e th e r in sunny tim es o r sad. T h o u g h F e d e m ’s w ords did n o t hide his irritation, they w ere nevertheless an expression o f sym pathy. F ed em had personally w itnessed E rnest’s struggle fo r in d ependence and had also felt a deep affection for H en ri M andel. Hisclosing lines m ust have h earten ed Ernest: Y ou seem to reproach yourself for the many things you said and did to your father. Y ou know this is foolish. A son must rebel against his father; only thus can hum anity progress. A father in his turn must recognize that his son is m aking the same mistakes that he himself made in order to progress a bit. Above all keep hold o f the thought that you are closely following your father’s ideals and talents and n o t that he w o n ied about you so m uch.44 Inside social dem ocracy M andel had never experienced financial distress. H e had lived w ith his parents and effortlessly earned w h a t he n eeded for his personal expenses from a lively career in journalism . F rom 1946 to 1947 he had b een Brussels co rrespondent for the A m sterdam daily H et Patvol and from 1947 to 1949 w o rk ed in th e Paris office o f the A rherican m agazine Fortune. A fter 1950 he

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D EM O C R A T S

67

w rote for the C o lo g n e daily RJieinische Zeitung. U sing the pseudonym Pierre Gousset, he co n trib u ted articles o n W estern E urope and particularly G erm any. In the fall o f 1953, he had travelled for three m onths in East Asia, including India, M alaysia and Indonesia, for the in d ependent n e w Paris w eekly L'Obseivateur, w h ic h paid all his expenses. T hanks to these resources, he had had the lux u ry o f b ein g indifferent to m oney, b u t that changed w ith his father’s death: n o w he had his m o th e r to support. In 1948 he h ad applied for naturalization.45 T h e security police had a file that identified h im as a C om m unist, and ruled o u t the possibility o f his getting citizenship.46 M eanw hile, his passport declared him ‘a U N refugee o f Polish orig in ’. H o w e v e r aw kw ard this designation, it allow ed h im to claim com pensation fro m G erm any for the p erio d he spent un d erg ro u n d and in the cam ps.47 In February 1954, he applied to be editor o f the socialist daily Le Peuple and was h ired .48 In the same m o n th , he published som e articles in th e Frankfurter Rundschau. H e was such a success at Le Peuple that he was m ade p erm an en t after six m o n th s’ p robation instead o f the custom ary tw o years.49 In 1957, how ever, th e paper decided that their editor’s invo lv em en t w ith the w eekly paper La Gauche was incom patible w ith his w o rk for Le Peuple, and forced him to resign.50 H e began to w ork for the Liege daily La W alhnie. U n d e r the leadership o f the charismatic Andre R e n a rd fro m 1951 onw ards, La Walhnie had becom e the voice o f the left w in g o f th e u n io n jpiovem ent. M andel also w ro te regularly for Metall, the p ap er o f th e G erm an IG M etall, using the pseudonym P eter Kipp. His g o o d friend Jak o b M o n e ta was the ed ito r-in -ch ief o f Metall from O c to b e r 1962 u n til his retirem en t in M arch 1978. Finally, M andel m ade a co n n ectio n w ith the Essen-based Westdeutscher Pressedienst (W est G erm an Press Service), w h ich gave h im an additional source o f incbm e and an association th at lasted the rest o f his life. U n til the 1980s he contributed articles an d com m entary on curren t events. T h ro u g h his editorship at Le Peuple M andel got to k n o w the social dem ocrats, and, m o re im portantly, they becam e acquainted w ith him . Shortly before the T h ird W o rld C ongress o f the F ourth International, in A ugust 1951 in Paris, he becam e a m em b er o f the Belgian Socialist Party (BSP) in S t-Jo o se -te n -N o d e , a b o ro u g h o f Brussels.51 Since their h o p e d -fo r b reak th ro u g h had n o t occurred, the Trotskyists had decided to jo in the m ost broadly based w orkers’ party in each E uropean country. In France an d Italy this m ean t jo in in g the C om m unist Party; in Britain, G erm any, B elgium and the N etherlands, the Social D em ocrats.52 A new w o rld w ar was anticipated, and the Trotskyists expected the co n ­ frontation b etw een East and W est to radicalize these parties first.53 T he Trotskyists h ad to take ro o t in th em n o w and begin to stim ulate critical

68

ERNEST M ANDEL

tendencies in th em , aw akening an d developing n ew revolutionary w orkers’ parties from w ith in . F or som e years M andel had to y ed w ith the idea o f entering the Social D em ocratic party. T h e Trotskyists w ere a dull b u n c h w ith a few notable exceptions, like the teacher Pierre Le G reve and the d evoted th o u g h tem p eram en tal R e n e G roslam bert.54 In N o v e m b e r 1948 M andel w ro te to Fedem , It w ould take a year o f hard w ork and assembling a core o f resolute militants to be ready to jo in the BSP, w ithin w hich a left w ing is developing. T here will be a good opportunity w hen the BSP is forced into opposition, w hich will m ost likely occur in the com ing year.55 T h e Social D em ocrats did in d eed leave the g o v ern m en t in 1949, in the final act o f the struggle o v er th e ‘royal question’ th a t had convulsed B elgium for w ell over five years. L eopold III was the very sym bol o f collaboration. F o r revolutionaries, his abdication was n o t en ough — they w an ted an en d to the system th at had p ro d u ced him : ‘D o w n w ith the m o n arch y / L ong live the republic!’56 B u t the C atholic P eo p le’s Party (C V P), w h ic h set the to n e in parliam ent, favoured the king, and L eo p o ld ’s re tu rn seem ed only a m atter o f tim e57 — good reason for the BSP to go in to opposition. A w ave o f strikes th at began o n 6 July 1950 w ashed th ro u g h the industrial h eart o f W allonia and crippled transport.58 T h e re w ere prospects o f "a-general strike in th e steel industry and a m arch on Brussels before th e b eg in n in g o f A ugust. Liege th reaten ed to declare a W a llo o n republic.59 T h e dram a reached its clim ax w h e n fo u r people w ere killed in G race-B erleur n o t far from Liege.60 A ndre R e n a rd , n o w national secretary o f the A B W , declared, ‘This strike is and will be general. It is unlim ited . . . T his strike is total . . . F ro m today the w ords “ re v o lu tio n ” and “ insurrection” w ill have a political m eaning for us.’61 T hese w ere exciting events that recalled straggles at the cen tu ry ’s turn, w h e n R osa L ux em b u rg h ad urg ed th e E u ropean proletariat to ‘speak B elgian’.62 B u t n o rev o lu tio n ensued. A t the first signs o f insurrection, L eopold decided to abdicate in favour o f his son B audouin. T h e masses w e n t h o m e , and th e w orkers w e n t back to w ork. T h e bourgeois state, the m onarchy, even the S ax e-C o b u rg dynasty had b een saved. E rnest M andel h a d w elco m ed the strike w ith jubilation: ‘M en, w o m e n and children are co m p etin g in revolutionary enthusiasm . . . T h e hours o f bourgeois p o w e r in B elgium seem to b e lim ited .’ B u t spontaneous activity b y itself proved insufficient. A copiprom ise had been' reached even before the regim e was genuinely endangered. M andel concluded that w h a t was-

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D E M O C R A T S

69

lacking was ‘a revolutionary leadership capable o f leading the masses into a battle for th e conquest o f p o w e r’. N evertheless, he anticipated a com ing divergence o f o p in io n in the Socialist Party and called on revolutionaries to side w ith ‘socialist w orkers w h o have sh o w n in action an im m ense revolutionary capacity’.63 In o th e r w ords, jo in in g the BSP was his response to a n e w objective situation.64 T h e fact that th e Trotskyist organization was in a terrible state m ade n o difference to M an d el’s argum ent. It did, h o w ever, m ean that they could e n te r th e Socialist Party as, at best, a m inim al force.65 Besides M andel, Jules H e n in and E m ile van C eulen w ere the' m ain advocates fo r this strategy. V an C eulen, a Brussels resident and leather w o rk er in a small A nderlecht shop, had b een a Trotskyist since the 1930s and a m em b er o f the political b u reau since 1947. H en in , a form er m in e w o rk e r and also a m e m b e r o f th e political bureau, h ad b een part o f th e first generation o f C om m unists in 1919. B etter than m ost, they und ersto o d that w orkers lo n g n o t only for bread alone b u t also for roses. Such realism allow ed th e m to fight fo r dem ocratic dem ands during the O ccu p atio n , even in. m ovem ents that, according to critics, w ere n o t politically pure. T h e y appreciated th e im p o rtan ce o f defending dem ocratic rights d u ring the debate o n th e fate o f th e m onarchy, and unlike m any Trotskyists they had n o qualm s ab o u t w o rk in g w ith Social D em ocrats. I11 the 1950s and 1960s M an d el w o u ld distinguish him self in the m o v em en t fo r social dem ocracy, streng th en in g his;tprestige.66 Structural reform and L a G a u ch e A ndre R e n a rd h ad played a p ro m in e n t role in the opposition to L eopold III. H e told the w orkers o f Liege, ‘T h e fate o f dem ocracy is at stake, as is th e fate o f o u r organizations an d o f th e social rights w e have w o n .’67 R e n a rd , originally from V alenciennes in n o rth e rn France, stood for direct action and w orkers’ unity, the inheritance o f an anarcho-syndicalist past.68 H e was n o t happy ab o u t the resolution o f th e royal question; he felt the Socialist Party had n o t th ro w n its w h o le w e ig h t in to the b attle.69 As a lab o u r leader, R e n a rd was co n cerned w ith m ore than local, breadan d -b u tter issues. H e supported econom ic dem ocracy and structural reform s like nationalization o f the banks and the energy sector. Inspired by prom in en t p re -w a r Socialists like H en d rik de M an and Louis de B rouckere, he also supported w o rk er-co n tro lled in d u stry .70 H e was deeply concerned about the W allo o n econom y, particLilarly the decline o f m ining and the Liege steel industry, sectors in w h ich his cu rren t had great influence. A t the end o f 1951 the A B V V form ed a study com m ission o f trusted associates to lay o u t in detail these necessary reform s, nam ing Jacques Y erna,

70

ERNEST M ANDEL

a Liege native, as its secretary. T h ree years later they presented w h a t Y em a called a m ostly w e ll-th o u g h t-o u t program m e, ‘w ith o u t M arxist character or doctrinaire form ulations, avoiding any problem s that m ig h t divide the w o rk ers’.71 B u t th e Socialists w ere n o t interested. T h e y w ere afraid o f a negative reaction fro m th eir Liberal coalition partners in the anticlerical cabinet o f A chille van A cker (1954—8). T h e m oderate w in g o f the A B W , u n d e r th e aegis o f general secretary Louis M ajor and influential in Flanders, was equally unenthusiastic. L oo k in g for supporters to help elaborate the plan, Y e m a m ade contact w ith M an d el in th e spring o f 1954. M andel was th e n attracting attention w ith his co lu m n ‘T h e E conom ic W e e k in B elgium ’, w h ic h appeared in Le Peuple. M an d el an d Y em a g o t along well. Y em a recalled, ‘H e quickly came to play a very im p o rta n t part in m y o w n political ed u catio n .’72 M an d el also played a key role in the d ev elopm ent o f ‘Cartels and E co n o m ic D em o cracy ’, th e revised plan for econom ic structural reform , w h ic h was accepted in O c to b e r 1956. T h e n ew plan included an analysis o f the m ajo r financial groups in Belgium . It provided for control o f the cartels and nationalization o f the energy sector.73 T h e cartels w ere held responsible for th e decline o f industry and its inability to adapt to rapid technological developm ents.74 T h e plan was enthusiastically received particularly in W allonia, w h e re industries w ere antiquated. It inspired the strike against th e closing o f the coalm ines in 1959 and the fam ous strike in the w in te r o f 1960—61 against the austerity measures o f the Liberal—C hristian D em ocratic Eyskens cabinet.' T h e idea o f w o rk ers’ control was n o t new . T o g e th e r w ith u n ity and com bative u n io n ism it form ed the core o f A ndre R e n a rd ’s politics. W h a t was n e w was c o n n ectin g th e idea w ith a strategy, tacitly directed tow ard the transition to socialism.75 A t times R e n a rd was n o t afraid to m ake the tacit explicit. In La Gauche he w rote, This is no longer about partial reforms . . . By tackling the cartels the ABVV is m ounting a struggle against Belgian capital in its entirety . . . Disbanding the ‘financial groups’ . . . aims at dismantling capitalism itself. In this sense the struggle against the cartels is nothing other than the Form the struggle for socialism is talcing today.76 H e also m ade his dedication to socialism unm istakable in the pam phlet ‘Vers le socialisme p ar Faction’77 (Socialism th ro u g h A ction) and em phatically dismissed any in terp retatio n o fit that reduced w ork ers’ control to simple co­ m anagem ent.71’ T h e sixty-page pam phlet had b een ghostw ritten by M andel, b u t R e n a rd was w illing to p u t h is'n am e to it.

LA GAUCHE A N D TH E SO C IA L D EM O C R A TS

71

M an d el’s h an d was clearly visible in th e com m ission’s new report.79 Its analysis o f th e B elgian cartels was largely based o n his study o f m onopoly capitalism.80 T h o u g h it was n o t generally k n o w n , he was also the a u th o r o f Q ui controle la Societe Generate? (W ho C ontrols the Societe Generale?), published at a b o u t the same tim e.81 His expose o f the ‘grand old lady’, the biggest o f B elg iu m ’s m any financial groups, dem onstrated clearly that the c o u n try ’s eco n o m ic decline was caused by the conservative investm ent policy o f th e cartels. W h e n Y e m a asked h im to jo in the study com m ission, M andel was ready to do m u c h m ore: People are sick o f bureaucracy in the Socialist Party. W ouldn’t it be possible to organize a tendency? A nd there should be a paper, La Gauche (The Left), w ith Andre R enard as patron for the French speakers. If that happens, I’ll try to get Camille Huysmans . . . for the Flemings.82 Since N o v e m b e r 1955 party m em bers had b e e n discussing pro d u cin g a w eekly. Interest was especially high in the city hall o f S t-Jo o se-ten -N o d e, w here th e m ay o r w as G uy C udell, a friend o fM a n d e l’s and a supporter o f his initiative.83 Y em a jo in e d the group in the spring o f 1956.84 M andel had convinced h im th at a left-w ing publication w o u ld be viable i f party discipline w e re respected. T h e p ap er w o u ld w o rk tow ards an absolute parliam entary m ajority, realization o f the A B W structural reform plan and a foreign policy th at was n eith er nationalist n o r aligned w ith eith er o f the C old W a r blocs. T h e first issue o f La Gauche, subtided Organe de Combat Socialiste (Journal o f Socialist Struggle), appeared in D ec e m b e r 1956. T h e advisory board, w hich consisted o f Senator H en ri R o lin , A ndre R e n a rd and the eighty-fiveyear-old C am ille H uysm ans, probably did n o t agree w ith all o f its editors’ ideas, b u t th ey d efended its right to exist. R e n a rd had arranged for the paper’s eight pages to be p rin ted o n the presses o f La Wallonie. Also thanks to him , th e n e w w eekly could co u n t o n aro u n d 1,500 subscriptions.85 T hree m o n th s later it had 1,800 subscriptions; these com bined w ith single issues sold acco u n ted for 2,000 to 2,500 copies each w ee k .86 T h e editorial co m m ittee consisted o f ten o r so journalists, w h o also w rote for such papers as Le Peuple, Journal de"Charleroi and Volksgazet..37 In addition La Gauche em p lo y ed various specialists and correspondents.88 It was a heterogeneous group that included u n io n m e n like Jacques Y em a and R o b e rt L am bion; Trotskyists like Em ile van C e u le n and G eorges D obbeleer o f the Socialist Y o u n g G uard (SJW); in d e p e n d e n t intellectuals like Gabriel

72

ERNEST M ANDEL

T h o v e ro n and M arcel Liebm an and scholars like R e n e E valenko, Jacques D efay and A ndre C ools, w h o w ere co n n ected to th e left w in g o f the Socialist Party o r the A B W .89 A few w ere genuine radicals —som e o u t o f concern for th e party and som e influenced by anti-colonialism o r pacifism, like E rnest G linne and Jean van Lierde. T hanks to th e ir h etero g en eity they w ere able to publish a paper w ith an in d e p e n d e n t identity, secured b y M a n d e l’s authority. H e guarded the p ap er’s pluralism and ensured that th ere w ere no personal attacks or p rovocations w ith in the ranks.90 H e reb u k ed th e im patience o f one o f the com rades: ‘Y o u have to understand that La Gauche is n o t a Trotskyist m o u th p iece b u t a p ap er that w e p ro d u ce to g eth er w ith centrists, u n io n leaders from th e R e n a rd tendency and even w ith left-w in g reformists like H uysm ans. W e can n o t dictate its lin e .’91 M an d el was th e driving force b eh in d th e paper in th e areas o f politics, jo u rn alism and organization. H e also recruited the international correspon­ dents, left-w in g socialists like W olfgang A b e n d ro th in G erm any, O reste R osen feld an d Pierre N aville in France, M ichael F o o t and R a lp h M iliband in E ngland an d G iorgio Galli and Lelio Basso in Italy.92 H e asked the surrealist and ex-T rotskyist M aurice N ad eau and the w riter Ignazio Silone to p ro d u ce cultural and literary colum ns. In conflict with party and union T h e paper caused m u ch controversy. T h e dailies criticized it in .lengthy o p in io n pieces. T h e C o m m u n ist Dmpeau Rouge even d evoted tw o edi­ torials to it. T h e rig h t-w in g Libre Belgique and the C atholic daily De Standaard h am m ered aw ay at th e differences b e tw e e n La Gauche and the Socialist Party. N onetheless, the party generally to o k a friendly view o f it until A pril 1957, w h e n La Gauche was accused o f taking a m alicious tone tow ards the Socialist m inisters.93 M andel and three o th e r editors w ere charged w ith disloyalty.94 M andel p rom ised n o t to m ake denigrating rem arks a b o u t individuals in th e future b u t dem anded the right to criticize go v ern m en t functionaries o r m inisters as lo n g as no party principles w ere involved.95 H e asked h o w he could shut his eyes to the g u lf b etw een the g o v e rn m e n t’s p ro -m a rk e t econom ic policies and the A B W ’s proposals for structural reform . H o w m u c h longer, h e asked, w o u ld the party and union w ait before resisting? H e asked that the a n n o u n ced sanctions be reconsidered. I f not, ‘th en I w ill feel obliged to resign as ed ito r o f Le Peuple . . . because the alternative is to be fired for political reasons, w h ich risks a public scandal dam aging to the party ’.96

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E S O C IA L D E M O C R A T S

73

A nd M an d el w an ted to rem ain a party m em ber. By giving up his position at Le Peuple in favour o f La Gauche h e h ad avoided expulsion, w hile m aking it clear that he w o u ld n o t subm it to political censorship.97 Fellow party m em bers offered help, b u t h e w a n te d n o overt action. H e was n o t surprised by the attacks and saw n o reason to panic, ‘o r to have a “pessimistic” opinion o f o u r chances o f success’.9b Financially h e was secure enough: he was w ritin g a daily co lu m n for La Wallonie, called ‘T arg et’, and R e n a rd had asked h im to begin w riting a socioeconom ic chronicle as w ell.99 M an d el felt that th e q uestioning o f his loyalty was hypocritical.100 Lei Gauche had b e e n created to push fo r th e structural reform program m e, and that was som ething m any in V an A ck er’s Socialist-Liberal governm ent disliked intensely. M andel w a rn e d th a t n o o n e should be u n d e r the illusion that La Gauche w o u ld stop publication; that w ould n o t happen. H e co n tin u ed w h oleheartedly to su p p o rt R e n a rd ’s strategy o f structural reform and direct action, to th e annoyance o f the editorial board o f Le Peuple, w h o finally p ushed h im o u t in th e su m m er o f 1957.101 T h e w eekly Links T h e influence o f La Gauche spread steadily, and dem and grew for a Flemish equivalent. M andel le t M arcel D en eck ere, a thirty-five-year-old teacher and scholar o f R o m a n c e languages in Aalst, k n o w that he very m u ch w a n te d to help establish o n e .102 D en eck ere was head o f the Aalst Socialist cultural com m ittee, and h e in v ited M andel to com e and speak about La Gauche in the native city o f th e radical priest A d o lf Daens. D eneck ere assured h im that ‘the ideas y o u support are beginning to ferm en t am o n g such varied groups as trade unionists, y o u n g socialists, intellectuals, etc.’103 M an d el also e n c o u n tered this enthusiasm (or, as he p u t it, ‘unusually positive atm o sp h ere’) 104 in A ntw erp. T h ere he was in contact w ith the w riter and film m aker Frans B uyens and w ith W illy ‘T h e B eard’ Caluw aerts. Since 1956 these tw o, previously active in the C o m ­ m unist Party, h ad been p ro d u cin g the satirical left-w ing periodical Dc Satan (Satan). T h e title had b een suggested by Cam ille H uysm ans.105 M andel saw this paper as the fo reru n n er o f a Flem ish version o f La Gauche and considered that in Buyens, a b o m rebel, he had fo u n d the ideal editorin -ch ie f.106 M an d el confided in him , ‘If w e can set about it well, w e can crystallize spm ething lasting, in Flanders as w ell as in W allonia, and then there w ill be a solid core for a n e w vang u ard .’107 M an d el conclu d ed that a ferm en tatio n process was taking place in Flanders, com parable to w hat h ad already been u n d er w ay for som e years in W allonia, and he w an ted to strike w hile th e iron was hot. Caluw aerts and

74

ERNEST M A N D EL

B uyens w ere also ready to take the c h a n c e.108 T h e y sought support from p ro m in e n t figures to strengthen them selves against in tim idation.109 W hile this was happening, a C o m m u n ist leader to ld D eneckere over a drink that he was g oing to accuse M andel o f T rotskyism in order to get him expelled from the Socialist P arty.110 M andel assured D en eckere that this was n o th in g to be nervous about: ‘In Liege I accidentally h eard that th eir party leadership . . . said that La Gauche is costing the C om m unists votes because it got leftists to vote for th e Socialist Party. In any case, thanks for y o u r w arn in g .’111 T h e n e w Flemish w eekly first appeared in N o v em b e r 1958, u n d er the title Links (Left) and the subtide ‘F o r a F ighting Socialism’; sadly, B uyens and C aluw aerts w ere n o lo n g er a p art o f it. A t th e last m in u te they had got cold feet.112 T h e y had w ritten..to h im describing their doubts and M andel w ro te back that for six m o n th s he h ad b e e n ‘taken for an id io t’.113 H e had no m ore tim e to waste. W ith an eig h t-m e m b e r editorial board u n d er the leadership o f Lievin de P au w and the circum spect D eneckere, and w ith tw enty-six signatures to the p ap er’s statem ent o f principles, h e felt there was sufficient su p p o rt to b eg in .114 T h e editorial b o ard was com posed prim arily o f intellectuals, w ith m o re co n n ectio n to th e party than to the unions. It was thus understandable that Linles cen tred its atten tio n on the party, unlike La Gauche, w h ich was o rien ted tow ards the W allo o n A B W .115 T h e p ap er’s highest priority was to g et the Socialist Party to accept the structural reform proposals. Links aim ed at a socialist breakthrough in Flanders. T h e B elgian eco n o m y was h ead ed in to a recession, and the paper em phasized Flem ish suffering, u n e m p lo y m en t, m igrant labour and lo w wages. B o th M andel and D en eck ere insisted that the paper take a p ro Flem ish position. M an d el also push ed fo r Flem ish dem ands in La Gauche.116 W alloons and Flem ings w ere called u p o n to fight to g eth er for anti-capitalist structural reform s. O n ly that could ensure cultural advancem ent and a solution to the language question that perennially p itted French and Flemish speakers against each o th e r.117 W alloons and Flemings n eeded each other! M andel co n tin u ed to sound this th em e even w h e n the lo w participation o f Flem ish w orkers in the general strike o f w in te r 1960—61 led a disenchanted R e n a rd to propose a federal solution. H e urged R en ard , [D on’t] p u t the cart before the horse . . . T he campaign for federalism is no substitute for a socialist solution to econom ic suffering. As long as the . cartels and ‘high finance’ remain u ntouched federalism is deceptive m akebelieve . . . T o realize a federal reform o f the state requires first that the pow er o f the cartels be broken. N eith er the W alloon nor the Flemish workers can complete this difficult task as long as they act separately. U nity in action is essential.118

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D E M O C R A T S

75

Friction with Andre Renard By the tim e M andel issued this w arning, his relations w ith R e n ard had already cooled. A year earlier he had praised R e n a rd as a people’s tribune, ‘cast in a very exceptional m o u ld . . . w ith o u t any parliam entary cretinism, w h o thinks as w e do about the bourgeois state and dem ocracy’. E ven if R en ard som e­ times show ed signs o f opportunism , M andel was convinced that he responded in a revolutionary m anner to revolutionary situations.119 Y et a m o n th later the tw o quarrelled. T h e occasion was the February 1959 coalminers’ strike in the Borinage. M andel called for a national strike.120 R en a rd w en t along w ith this idea in L ’Action, b u t then, ju st before La Gauche w e n t to press, he changed his position and follow ed the A B W into negotiations, thanks pardy to a telephone call from Prim e M inister G aston Eyskens, w h o prom ised to introduce laws o n social control and co-m anagem ent similar to diose in G erm any.121 R e n a rd gave orders to stop the distribution o f La Gauche. ‘I f the paper gets out, the general strike will be a fact!’ he told an astonished M andel.122 M andel decided that ‘he is and remains at base a left-centrist’.123 For Jacques Y em a, form erly R e n a rd ’s secretary, this incident m eant a parting o f the ways. H e cam e from an unyielding trade u nion family, and could n o t forgive R e n a rd ’s dem oralizing surrender to the A B W . T he geiieral strike o f 19 6 0 -6 1 In the B orinage, Socialist arid C hristian w orkers w ere nlarching u n d e r banners calling for nationalization o f the m ines and the energy sector, an indication that th e program m e o f structural reform was popular. A fter losing the election o f Ju n e 1958 the Socialist P arty finally endorsed the idea.124 T h at was ‘a great and beautiful congress’, 125 b u t M andel realized full w ell that the party leadership hardly cared ab o u t the reforms: W hat they really w ant is a new coalition governm ent in tw o years. A little verbal radicalism to put pressure on the bourgeois parties will n o t come amiss; but a too radical program m e that would make a coalition im ­ possible w ithout cynical betrayal o f the newly adopted platform . . . must be avoided at all cost.1-’ A long w ith Y em a and R e n a rd , M andel had addressed the congress. H e w arned against an im p lem en tatio n o f structural reforms that w ould include a few nationalizations b u t leave p ro p erty relationships essentially unchanged. A ndre G en o t, R e n a rd ’s rig h t-h an d m an in the A B W , sm elled ‘a shrim p salad’ w ith a great deal o f m ayonnaise and n o t m any shrim p. T h e hall

76

ERNEST M ANDEL

ch eered this sally and sang th e Internationale as h e left the platform and re tu rn e d to his seat.127 D u rin g the a n th em the party leaders got to th eir feet w ith very obvious reluctance; fo rm er Prim e M inister Achille van A cker did n o t rise at all, w h ic h earned h im a chorus o f catcalls. W h e n M andel shouted so m eth in g in his direction, Louis M a jo r snapped at him , ‘S hut up, M andel, y o u ’re ju st an anti-party elem ent!’128 In fact, M an d el advocated a lab o u r g o v ern m en t that w o u ld enact socialist policies and be based o n the trade unions, Socialist and C hristian.129 ‘T h a t’s w h y all participation in g o v ern m en t m ust be ru led o u t unless the . . . structural reform s are part o f the g o v ern m en t pro g ram m e.’130 C oalitions w ith bourgeois parties w ere o u t o f the question. ‘G et to W o rk !’ rang the headline in La Gauche above M a n d e l’s editorial the day after the congress.131 T h e party need ed a batde plan; that becam e clear in the w in ter o f 1960-61 w h e n the C hristian-L iberal Eyskens g o v ern m en t intro d u ced a so-called U n ity Law th at w o u ld raise taxes arid cut social spending.132 T h e protests this law p ro v o k ed grew in to o n e o f the sharpest conflicts in B elgian social history. T h e p h ilo so p h er C ornelius Castoriadis spoke o f a strike w ave ‘that, after the events in P oland and H u n g ary in 1956, is the m ost im p o rtan t event in the w o rk ers’ m o v em en t since th e w a r’.133 ‘T h e strike o f the cen tu ry ’, as it rem ains engraved in m any m em ories, earned its m o n ik e r in full. In the freezing cold o f w in te r 700,000 w orkers struck fo r five weeks. It was actually tw o strikes in one: a strike against the U n ity Law, called by the public sector unions that w ere m ost direcdy affected by the spending cuts, and a strike against conditions caused by the crisis in the W allo o n coal and steel industries. H u n d red s o f thousands o f supporters jo in e d in sponta­ neously.134 ‘N o o n e had pred icted anything quite like this’, M andel n o te d in the Paris w eekly France Obseivateur.135 La Gauche and Links called for actions o n the street, the correct place to jo in batde. T h e conflict was fierce and the ou tco m e uncertain. ‘B u t the w orkers are fighting in a truly rem arkable w ay . . . setting an exam ple for all E u ro p e .’ M andel w ro te to an A m erican sym pathizer, Despite their lim ited strength otir friends are playing a huge role . . . they’re pointing the way, fostering unity and in various places standing at the head o f the struggle. O u r papers are a resounding success. O u r Flemish paper that first called for a general strike sold 18,000 copies. So far w e ’ve published • three special editions o f the French paper, o f 18,500, 22,500 and 27,500 copies respectively . . . A success that we could only dream o f before.!3fi Playing the part o f guide and .stim ulus, M andel did n o t conceal his excitem ent. T h e proposed m arch o n Brussels, designed to stop regionaliza-

LA G AUCHE A N D TH E SO C IA L D EM O C R A TS

77

tion o f the strike, was gathering im p etu s.137 M andel told the readers o f France Observateur th at it was the equal o f th e great F rench strike w ave o f Ju n e 1936.138 Y e t h e h a d to adm it th at La Gauche and Links and the fifty to sixty Trotskyists w ere having n o decisive influence on the m ovem ent. H e had litde contact w ith R e n a rd .139 T h e u n io n leader was enthusias­ tically received everyw here, n o t only in Liege and W allonia b u t also in Brussels and Flanders. R e n a rd was opposed to a m arch o n Brussels. H e feared it w o u ld em p ty the W a llo o n strongholds o f their forces, and th at it was futile to exp ect any com parable tu rn o u t from Flanders o r Brussels. M andel th o u g h t this an underestim ation. H e d etected b e h in d R e n a rd ’s opposition a decision to use th e strike to push fo r a federalist solution that w o u ld give priority to th e socioeconom ic w ell-being o f W allonia.140 M andel was confirm ed in his o p in io n w h e n in January R e n a rd launched Combat, a n e w w eekly m o u th p iece for a projected W allo o n social m o v e­ m ent, and asked La Gauche to lo o k for an o th er p rin te r.141 M andel to ld his sym pathizers, ‘W e have succeeded in developing a trem endous pressure in favour o f a M arch o n Brussels, b u t it m ay com e too late.’142 H e ridiculed R e n a rd ’s ‘stupid W alloonism ’ and rep o rted that chanting in favour o f the m arch o n Brussels had p revented R e n a rd from speaking for m inutes at a stretch, even in Liege. M andel feared th at R e n a rd ’s tactics increased th e danger th at th e strike w o u ld simply crum ble, a danger* already great because o f the m od erate position o f the A B W in Flanders and repression by th e arm y and police. C ho o sin g this m o m e n t to fight for W alloon rights was n o w ay o f getting discouraged Flem ings to jo in the battle. In w ritin g o ff th e m arch o n Brussels and o p ting for a purely W alloon program m e, R e n a rd was squandering the w o rk ers’ best chance o f a real confrontation w ith th e state.143 H e was right: T h e m o v e m e n t was caught in an impasse. D eprived o f clear goals, im p atien t protesters resorted to violence and sabotage.144 T h e in­ itiative gradually shifted fro m th e w orkers to parliam ent, w h ere th e conflict was finally ‘solved’ b y n e w elections. A n e w g o v ern m en t o f Cadiolics and Socialists passed the U n ity Law piecem eal, and at a high price to the m ovem ent: an additional law o n public o rd er that was in ten d ed to prevent further revolutionary turbulence. T h e strike had b e e n an angry o utburst against the U n ity Law and the em ployers and also against the conservative wings o f the A B W and the Christian unions. It rarely h ap p en ed -th at the leadership so com pletely lost control, and M andel blam ed R e n a rd for n o t having seized such an opportunity. By en tren ch in g him self in W allonia he h a d let slide any chance o f gaining a m ajority in the A B W .

78

ERNEST M ANDEL

By 1960 the ‘golden years o f capitalism’ had arrived in Belgium . ‘T h e E uro p ean econom ies seem ed to have learned the secret o f eternal g row th and prosperity’, n o te d the A m erican D avid S. Landes.145 T h e w o rk in g class was supposedly o n the verge o f disappearing, and optim ism about a society free from crises was om nipresent. A ny o ne w h o d o u b ted this was either a stiff-necked intellectual or a u to p ian —in any case a conservative h o ld in g fast to a n in e te e n th -c en tu ry ideology. T w o m o n th s after the strike there appeared an issue o f Les Temps Modernes, the jo u rn a l fo u n d ed in 1945 and edited by Jean -P au l Sartre, w ith M andel’s analysis o f the events. A ccording to the established political and academ ic elite, the short-lived revolt should n o t have o ccurred at all.146 W as it ju st a historical accident? O r the sw an song o f class struggle? O r h a d -th e strike h eld the prom ise o f a revival o f the E uro p ean proletariat? M andel w an te d to avoid any m isunderstanding. H e rejected the idea that there was a direct co n n ectio n b e tw e e n the degree o f prosperity and the degree o f political consciousness, o r as he p u t it, ‘b etw e e n level o f living and level o f com bativeness’. T h e standard o f living in B elgium was one o f the highest in E u ro p e, and its best-paid w orkers w ere the m ost com bative.

-

N either the social n o r the econom ic consequences o f stagnation can explain the strike. W hat does explain it is the conviction w hich had penetrated the masses that capitalism could not solve the burning ques­ tions, the insight that the econom ic regime required fundamental change.147 " ■ ...

T h e B elgian proletariat had a rich tradition o f struggle, M andel said, from strikes for universal suffrage to h u n g e r riots. T his tradition had b een given n e w life: the recen t strike was th e first general strike in the history o f the E u ro p ean w o rk ers’ m o v e m e n t ‘whose fundamental objective ivas neither material gains nor democratic political demands, but rather the reorganization o f the economy on a socialist basis’.148 This was w h a t the structural reform s m ean t to those hundreds o f thousands o f strikers. It was for this that they had struck for th irty -tw o days, and had called o n o th e r w orkers aro u n d the w orld to take their fate in to their o w n hands. T his call fo r freedom could n o t be silenced, particularly n o t in B elgium , ‘the land o f g o o d living and o f funfairs, o f the insolent rich and the aixogant elite’.149 T h e strike had n o t b een the swan song o f n in e te e n th -c en tu ry tradition; it had b een anything b u t a rearguard action. O n the contrary, it was the impressive herald o f a w orking-class radicalization that w o u ld shake W estern E urope to its foundations. It heralded the radicalization o f an o th e r class, too. In photos from those days small contingents o f dem onstrators can be seen carrying simple banners

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D E M O C R A T S

79

declaring th em to be students in solidarity w ith the w orkers. T his was the beginning o f a stu d en t m o v e m e n t converging w ith the labour m ovem ent. M an d el’s prognosis was daring at a tim e w h e n everyone else was convinced th at u n in terru p ted econom ic g ro w th alone w o u ld p u t an end to poverty, u n em p lo y m en t and inequality.150 In 1961, w h o e v er kept a critical distance instead o f believing unquestioningly in abundance faced at best pity. T e n years later, the edifice o f a socially conscious and w rinklefree capitalism w o u ld b e pulverized. T h e strike o f the century had b een an initial sign. T h e death o f Andre Renard T he Socialist Party leadership did n o t appreciate an y o n e’s questioning its agreem ent w ith the C hristian D em ocrats. W h e n La Gauche ran the headline ‘N O ’ above th e p rogram m e for participating in th e governm ent, there was great in d ig n atio n .151 Party chair C ollard said he did n o t w an t to interfere w ith M a n d e l’s rig h t to be critical b u t that criticisms m ust be ‘justified, n o t offensive; objective, fraternal and disciplined’.152 T h e party leadership was extrem ely irritated. It already felt threatened by R e n a rd and G enot, w h o had resigned as secretaries o f the A B W and launched the W allo o n P opular M ov em en t (M PW ). La Gatlche too was seen as a threat. M andel had expected even stronger opposition after the election, b u t w ro te to a D u tc h friend, ‘w e d o n o t believe that u n d e r the curren t balance o f p o w e r . . . serious measures can be taken- against 'u s’.1;53 T h a t tu rn ed o u t to be a miscalculation. M an d el’s position received little support. T h re e cofounders o f La Gauche, am ong th e m G u y C udell, advocated participation in the go v ern m en t and broke w ith the paper. T ensions m o u n te d at Links as w ell.154 People com plained ab o u t the anti-Flem ish te n o r o f the W allo o n P opular M o v e­ m ent. M andel, ho w ev er, view ed the M P W as ‘a space for political encounters and discussion’. H e believed the left had to w o rk w ith it and encouraged W alloons in his party to jo in it: ‘T h e M P W includes m ost o f W allonia’s m o st m ilitant unionists and w o rk in g masses.’153 T h e readers o f La Gauche w ere also u rged to jo in .156 Shortly before, R e n a rd had told M andel that his services w ere no longer w anted at La Wallonie —he had w andered too far from its course.157 M andel was caught b y surprise and was also* surprised at receiving a m ere tw enty days’ notice. B u t ju st as he had w ith Le Peuple, he left w ith o u t a m u rm u r.158 According to R e n a rd there w ere n o hard feelings, b u t ‘yo u also k n o w that w e have ju st form ed the W allo o n P opular M o v em en t . . . Y o u ’re n o t for federalism, so y o u can’t support this initiative.’ B ut, he said, M andel should

8o

ERNEST M ANDEL

n o t b e disappointed. ‘I fully recognize th e value o f the support y o u ’ve always given us, and I regret having to do w ith o u t y o u r su p port.’ H e invited M an d el to rem ain at La Wallonie as lo n g as h e h ad no o th e r w o rk and ended tellingly, ‘I f I am m istaken a b o u t y o u r basic position, th e n the problem w o u ld take o n a different aspect.’159 B y re tu rn mail, M andel w ro te that he was n o o p p o n e n t o f federalism, ‘b u t it w o u ld b e difficult for m e as a Flem ing to jo in the W a llo o n P opular M o v e m e n t’.160 H e w an ted to discuss these issues w ith R e n a rd . Gladly, replied R e n a rd , b u t M andel was unable to persuade the F renchm an to keep h im o n .161 T his was the second tim e in fo u r years th at M an d el had had to give u p an editorial position because o f La Gauche.162 Y e t h e was careful n o t to b u m his bridges w ith R en a rd . W h e n he was invited to jo in a n e w A B W study -.commission, h e asked R e n a rd ’s advice: ‘I do n o t w a n t to u ndertake anything that can b e seen . . . as o u t o f solidarity w ith y o u r m o v em en t, w h ich I consider the m ost left-w in g in o u r t .163 u n io n m o v em en t. M an d el c o n tin u e d to do all h e could to strengthen that left w in g .164 O n 13 M ay 1961 h e w ro te in La Gauche: ‘D o n o t be discouraged! . . . S tren g th en th e BSP left w ing, w h ich is dem anding a ren ew ed struggle for socialist structural reform s.’ T h e call could n o t have b een clearer, and it was com ing n o t in th e nam e o f Spaak o r C ollard b u t from La Gauche and Links. Party leaders w ere alarm ed: the W alld'on P opular M o v e m e n t was b eco m in g a com petitor, w ith aro u n d 180,000 m em bers. Som e w an ted to o u d a w the M P W b y declaring m em bership in it incom patible w ith m em bership iri th e rSotialist Party. La Gauche responded w ith an u n eq u i­ vocal defence o f the right to form tendencies w ith in the party, the lifeblood o f ‘o u r m o v e m e n t’.165 In 1962—3 the party ’s leadership and its left w in g headed gradually tow ards direct confrontation, over th e n e w law o n public order, w h ich La Gauche consistently called th e anti-strike law . Sadly, the left had ju st lost o n e soldier w h o should have b e e n a captain in the charge: A ndre R e n a rd had suffered a cerebral haem orrhage. T w o w eeks later, o n 23 Ju ly 1962, La Wallonie ran his picture o n its front page, fram ed in black, and the headline ‘A N D R E R E N A R D IS N O M O R E . A n unyielding fighter is g o n e .’ R a d io L uxem burg had already prem aturely rep o rted his death at the tim e o f th e stroke, understandably, as his co n d itio n was hopeless.166 La Gauche also published a p h o to g rap h , sho w ing a strong yet tranquil face w ith soft, dark eyes, and thick silver hair sw ept back, accom panied by the headline, ‘A Class M o u rn s’.167 In his m em orial article M an d el com pared R e n a rd w ith H en d rik de M an; b o th had b een searching for new.jdirections, b o th had b een in thrall to the p re-w ar ideology o f planning and b o th h ad b een averse to the parliam entary

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E S O C IA L D E M O C R A T S

8I

circus. B u t the likeness en d ed there: ‘D e M an . . . lost his trust in the w ork in g class and was overcom e w ith anxiety and confusion w h en the B orinage greeted h im in 1935 w ith the battle cry o f “ G eneral strike!” ’ By contrast, R e n a rd h ad felt him self at o n e w ith the w o rk in g class and was the em bo d im en t o f its hopes and boldest dreams: ‘T h a t’s w h y his b elief in planning push ed h im to the left.’ M an d el affirm ed that R e n a rd w o u ld be rem em b ered as the trib u n e o f the great strikes o f 1947 and 1950, o f 1957 and 1960. ‘O n these occasions all the reactionary and conservative pow ers ranged them selves in struggle against this so-called anarchist, this Trotskyist, this “ revolutionary and organizer o f insurrection.” ’ B ut, M andel concluded, the m o re h atred was p o u red o n his head, th e m o re profoundly this restless fighter had felt b o u n d to the countless w orkers w h o ow ed h im their faith in a socialist fu tu re .168 T housands cam e to pay their last respects to their leader at his burial in Seraing. His o p ponents w ere present to o —Socialist Party chair Leo C ollard, m inister E d m o n d L eb u rto n and A B W general secretary Louis M ajor. La Gauche asked bitterly i f they had com e to b ury ‘the iron brigade’ o f Belgian socialism along w ith R e n a rd .169 A few days later La Wallonie was headlined ‘A N D R E RJSNARJD’S W A T C H W O R D : co n tinue to m o rro w w h at was in terru p ted yesterday . . .’170 T o w ard s a split A gitation against th e anti-strike law was h ig h o n the left w in g ’s agenda. T h e right w in g o f the Socialist Party w an ted to avoid any repetition o f w h at had happened in the w in te r o f 1960—61, and party officials airily described the law as m erely an u p d ated version o f w h a t already existed —n o th in g m ore! B ut the W allo o n P o p u lar M o v em en t, th e C om m unists and the left-w ing Socialists associated w ith La Gauche and Links w ere sounding the alarm. W h e n Jacques Y em a was chosen as secretary o f the Liege trade unions, M andel th o u g h t that La Gauche could truly take the lead. H e told A m erican friends, ‘W e have m anaged to bring o ff a very broad m obilization o f w orkers and unions that m ay provoke the fall o f the g overnm ent.’171 La Gauche published an edition against the anti-strike law w ith a print ru n o f 130,000 copies. T h e reaction was predictable; Y em a was accused o f being a Trotskyist. N o t an easy charge to ignore, the m ore so as it came from the Service, Technical and M anagers U n io n (SETCa). U n til n o w M andel had always kept quiet about his m em bership in the F ourth International. N o w it was tim e to break the silence. H e w e n t to Y em a’s office and confessed to his bew ildered friend, ‘I need to tell y ou the truth. I am a m em ber o f the Fourth International.’172 Y em a was disappointed that his com rade had n o t trusted

§2

ERNEST M ANDEL

h im sooner; it w o u ld n ’t have changed their relationship, he said. This sounded like a reproach and was m eant as one. ‘Perhaps I m ight have jo in e d y o u ’, Y em a added. ‘In any case I w o u ld n ’t have turned m y back on everything that w e had done together.’173 H e backed up this statem ent b y indignantly rejecting the party’s dem and that h e resign as m anaging editor o f La Gauche}74 T h e attack had b een repulsed. T h e re w ere various calls for a n ew party. M andel saw little value in them , particularly in light o f th e u n e v e n developm ents in W allonia, Brussels and Flanders, b u t h e w o u ld n ’t rule anything out. T h e left w in g m ust lim it the concessions it w o u ld m ake; otherw ise, the W allo o n vanguard, w hich M an d el said ‘best u n d ersto o d the treacherous nature o f the leadership’, w o u ld b eco m e discouraged. T h e best policy was ‘n o t to provoke a split b u t n o t to shrink from it if “ the rightists” decide o n o n e ’.175 A t a special Socialist Party congress h eld 2—3 M arch 1963, M andel bore th e b ru n t o f th e m em bers’ attacks w h e n he called fo r opposing the antistrike law regardless o f the positions o f th e Socialist ministers and m em bers o f parliam ent. H e was accused o f p u ttin g him self above the party and refusing to accept party discipline.176 Leo C ollard and P a u l-H e n ri Spaalc threatened to. expel him , b u t Y em a hastened to his defence. I f party m em bers w ere to b e forbidden to agitate against the go v ern m ent, Y em a p o in ted out, C ollard could reck o n on opposition from ‘h u n dreds o f trade u n io n activists, u n d o u b ted ly including the m ajority o f the W allo o n m ilitants in the A B W ’.177 T h e day after the congress M andel received encouragem ent fro m th irty o r so rail w orkers: ‘I f those bureaucratic curs yelp at y o u r heels, pay the dirty dogs n o m in d .’178 A m o n th later the laws w ere passed, albeit w ith substantial am endm ents. T h e W allo o n Socialist M Ps v o ted against, them , th e Flem ish and Brussels*Socialist M Ps fo r them . T h e m em bers o f parliam ent from Liege abstained. Y em a called this an ‘erro r o f exceptional gravity’ and prom ised to do all he could to get the decision reversed.179 C ollard responded in Le Peuple: ‘I consider the existence o f tw o kinds o f rules o r tw o disciplines w ith in o n e party an impossibility . . . T h e n congresses w o u ld n o longer be possible o r necessary for the simple reason that there w o u ld be n o party left.’180 T h e tim e for sanctions h ad arrived. E rnest G linne (pseudonym Ernestth e -R e b e l)181 and the teacher Pierre Le G reve, w h o had once received a m ail b o m b because o f his su p p o rt fo r the A lgerian in dependence struggle, faced the threat o f disciplinary m easures.182 T h e party began an investigation o f E m est M andel, and the dissident m em bers o f parliam ent w ere suspended fo r tw o m o n th s.183 This was child’s play com pared w ith the party’s assault o n th e W a llo o n P opular M o v em en t. Calls for a n e w party resounded m ore strongly than ever.

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D E M O C R A T S

S

3

M andel still w anted to avoid a split. A W alloon party w o u ld be a p o o r alternative, because the Flemish and Brussels w orkers, including the vanguard influenced b y La Gauche and Links, w o u ld rem ain in the BSP. H e faced a dilemma. Leaving a n ew form ation in the hands o f W alloon regionalists was n o t an attractive prospect, b u t quarrelling w ith the W alloon and Liege vanguard was even less so. T h e only w ay o u t w o u ld be to threaten a w alkout by a m ajority, or at least a strong m inority, and this was no longer possible. It m ight have b een in the first h alf o f 1961, b u t R enard, the only one w ith the authority to bring it off, w o u ld n o t hear o f it. By entrenching him self in the M P W , he had let slide his o p portunity to take over the A B W and unify the Belgian w orkers’ m ovem ent, w h ich had such divergent social, political and cultural dynamics. N o w R e n a rd ’s prem ature death had com plicated the debate and given the right w in g the chance to discipline the opposition. C ollard was ready for a split; the only question was w hen. In the fall o f 1964 the party p ap er La Voix Socialiste (T he Socialist Voice) accused the opposition o f existing only for the co ntem ptible purpose o f ‘Trotskyist infiltration’.184 N o r was this all. A t the dem onstration in h o n o u r o f the h u n d red th anniversary o f the First International, the BSP marshals o f the dem onstration w an ted to rem ove the Socialist Y o u n g G uard (SJW ).185 W h e n the police h elp ed th e m confiscate a n ti-N A T O banners, fierce fighting bro k e o u t.186 La Gauche called th e in cid ent ‘sham eful fo r the w hole socialist m o v e m e n t’.187 Nejct, party leaders called for the expulsion o f Jacques Y em a, w h o h ad rather foolishly supported a friend, a w o rk e r at CockeriH and a m em b er o f the M P W , in th e m unicipal council elections on a list in opposition to th e Socialist Party list. Y em a survived by one vote. T hese skirmishes m erely foreshadow ed the decisive battle, w h ich becam e unavoidable w h en th e party leadership asked participants at a congress h eld 12—13 D ecem b er 1964 to declare b o th M W P m em bership and association w ith La Gauche o r Links incom patible w ith m em bership in the Socialist Party. F o rty -fo u r years after th e ir break w ith the C om m unists, in D ecem b er 1920, the socialist m o v e m e n t faced a n o th e r split. M andel was surprised by the sudden acceleration o f the conflict. H e abruptly cancelled a scheduled to u r o f G erm any, along w ith the talks planned for a n u m b e r o f cities th ere.188 H e was uneasy about h o w tilings w ould turn out: ‘W e ’ve w o n m ore delegates than last tim e . . . b u t w h eth er this will be sufficient . . .’189 F or the first tim e the congress had gathered n o t in the legendary nineteen th -cen tu ry M aison d u Peuple b u t in the Palais des Congres, a m astodon o f a building that had b een opened during the 1958 Expo. T h e usual red flags and banners w ere missing from the big hall; only the faded red carpet was rem iniscent o f the old days. Almost a thousand delegates listened to C hairm an Collard indict the opposition for ‘rebellion’, ‘treason’

84

ERNEST M A NDEL

and ‘subversion’: ‘I f the party accepts this, it accepts the disappearance o f the party . . . It w o u ld m ean anarchy.’190 In his response M andel cogently sum m ed up C ollard’s aims: ‘H e is striking o u t at the left in order to turn to the right.’191 T h ere w ere calls for reconciliation, including from m em bers o f Links. C ollard’s rig h t-h an d m an, Jos van E ynde, ridiculed them : spoken mea culpa’s w ere n o t enough. H e dem anded M andel’s signed surrender b u t cou ld n ’t get it. H e challenged h im scornfully: ‘W h e re are the m en o f La Gauche now ? C o m e to the podium !’192 T h a t Saturday E rn est M an d el was th e last to speak. C o n trary to his usual h ab it h e read som e o f his rem arks fro m notes, partly to b e careful b u t also fearing for his perform ance u n d e r such pressure. H e defended the right to fo rm tendencies and a m in o rity ’s rig h t to d efen d its ideas in a p ub licatio n o f its o w n . T h a t was th e only w ay it h ad a chance o f convincing th e m ajority. B anning ten d ency publications w o u ld only b e defensible, M an d el said, if party leaders w ere perfect, ‘i f o u r com rades C ollard, V an Eynde. and Spaalc w ere as infallible as P o p e Pius X II or Josep h Stalin’.193 A t these w ords, the hall erupted, w ith curses flying back and fo rth .194 M an d el was rudely in te rru p ted several tim es, som etim es spontaneously b u t m o re often by design. Louis M ajo r and A ntoine S pinoy w ere audibly hissing from the fro n t row : ‘T raito r!’ ‘T rotskyist!’ ‘Idiot!’195 It was far fro m elevating. Y et M an d el’s defence was to the p o in t. Structural reform s w ere being sacrificed o n . the altar o f participation in governm ent. T h e fact that La Gauche p ro u d ly ch am p io n ed the reform s had n o th in g to do w ith ’ ‘archeoM aixism ’, as was sneeringly asserted. W o rk ers’ control and w orkers’ m an ­ agem ent w ere in k eep in g ‘w ith the reality o f o u r age’. M andel called o n the w orkers to u n ite in a single party w ith o u t regard for ethnicity o r philoso­ phical o r religious belief. Such a party w o u ld only have the right to exist if it guaranteed freedom o f opin io n and tendency form ation. H e em phatically rejected C ollard’s proposal to vote o n ‘in com patibility’ first and attem pt reconciliation afterwards: ‘F or us the situation is clear. W e w ill neith er ben d n o r keep silent. W e w ill n o t p u t d o w n o u r pens. La Gauche will continue to appear. >196 W h e n th e m o tio n declaring incom patibility b e tw e e n the Socialist Party and th e opposition passed that evening, M andel’s activity in social dem oc­ racy cam e to an end. A w eek later a n ew party began to take shape and in February 1965 was b o m in Brussels and christened the U n io n o f the Socialist Left (UGS). T h e Socialist M o v em en t o f Flanders (SBV) and the W alloon W orkers Party (PW T ) w ere fo u n d ed shortly afterwards as its Flemish andW allo o n counterparts, b u t struggled from the beginning and ended up as m ere refuges for the homeless left-w ingers. It w asn’t until 1971 that the

LA G A U C H E A N D T H E SO C IA L D E M O C R A T S

85

Trotskyists o f th e'S JW m anaged to form their o w n in d e p en d e n t organiza­ tion, the R e v o lu tio n a ry W o rk ers League (RAL), w h ich becam e the Belgian section o f the F o u rth International. For M andel, the o u tc o m e o f the conflict had b een unavoidable. E v en if he had given u p La Gauche, he told a B ritish com rade, ‘w h ich w o u ld confuse and dem oralize a large p art o f o u r w o rk in g class follow ers . . . they w o u ld have fo u n d a n o th e r p re te x t for pushing us o u t im m ediately after the elections.’197 A left w in g h ad b e e n built in th e Socialist Party fro m 1951 on, accom panied b y an au to n o m o u s, clandestine T rotskyist core group. In 1953 it had w o n a m ajority in th e SJW and the Socialist Students Federation (FSSB). La Gauche and to a lesser ex ten t Links had had a trem endous influence. T o g e th e r w ith R e n a rd ’s current, they had struck fear in to the Socialist Party leadership. T h e question o f w h en , w h ere and h o w to leave the SP was clearly o n the agenda from the early 1960s. M andel had only w anted to m ake sure they left w ith a substantial group — and by th a t he m eant thousands. H is goal was optim istic, b u t he h ad co u n te d 0 11 leaving w ith R e n a rd . W h e n R e n a rd retreated to his W allo o n fortress in 1961 and died soon afterwards, and the rapid resurgence o f class struggle th at M andel had expected failed to occur, he was left em pty -h anded. T h e fear o f discouraging his allies in h ib ited h im from ad m itting that th e left w ing was in bad shape and that a split was a question o f n o w o r never. T h e longer he hesitated, the m ore inevitable expulsion becam e. H e show ed the same hesitation in 1964—5 in th e P W T , w h ich h a d -700 W alloon w orkers in its ranks w h e n it was fo u n d ed b u t saw its influence evaporate rapidly as W allonia’s industry was dism anded. Leaving a party was clearly harder for h im th an jo in in g it. M o re th an tw e n ty years later M an d el ad m itted that his assessment o f the social and political c o n ju n ctio n in 1961 had b e e n too positive, th o u g h he justifiably added that ‘the situation was n o t im m ediately clear in 1962—3 ’. B ut he defended himself, asking w h e th e r a different analysis w o u ld have led to a b etter o u tco m e. H e p o in ted o u t that party fo rm ation and class struggle are n o t com pletely parallel processes: ‘T h e strength o f the party is n o t an expression o f w h a t it does (achieves o r fails to achieve) in a particular phase o f the class struggle; essentially it is a fu n ctio n o f w h a t it has achieved in the previous p e rio d .’ H e called this idea ‘the law o f en try and e x it’, or, sardonically, ‘the M andel coefficient’. H e realized that his and his allies’ m ost im p o rtan t m istake had b e e n to set too am bitious a goal in leaving the Socialist Party: they had h o p e d ‘to break o ff entire layers from ~social dem ocracy’. 198 Precisely because a group o f ten o r a h u n d red cannot recruit thousands o f w orkers, they should have decided in the early 1950s that their

86

ERNEST M ANDEL

m ain goal was to create an organization o f five hu n d red . T his w o u ld have allow ed th em to m ake m o re realistic preparations for leaving the party. Expressed m o re crudely, the am o u n t o f fish you can catch depends o n the size o f y o u r net. Follow ing this debacle M andel tu rn ed his atten tio n to international w ork. A n ew generation jo in e d him . Y oungsters like Eric C orijn, G uido T o tte, F reddy de P auw , Jan C alew aert, Frank M aerten, Paul V erbraeken and Francois V ercam m en to o k up the fight. T h e y represented w h at w o u ld com e to be k n o w n as the g eneration o f the 1960s. O f th e m all, V ercam m en stood closest to M andel. W ith him , M an d el discussed the trajectory o f the SJW and its d ev elo p m en t in to the n atio n w id e organization th at becam e the core o f the n e w B elgian section o f the F o u rth ' International in 1971. A t the tim e h e jo in e d the group V ercam m en was tw e n ty -tw o , w ith an athletic figure and a th ick thatch o f hair. B o m in A ntw erp, h e grew up in the L uchtbal n e ig h b o u rh o o d o n the city’s edge, a n e ig h b o u rh o o d b u ilt ju st before th e w ar b y O n ze W o n in g (O u r H ouse), the social dem ocratic housin g authority. His father was a d ockw orker, and before the birth o f h e r children, his m o th e r had w o rk ed in a sw eet factory. T h o u g h n o t militants, they w ere anticlerical and trusted in rational th o u g h t. Before b eg in n in g to study m oral philosophy in G hent, V ercam m en had trained to be a teacher, the career that epitom ized u p w ard m obility in a w orking-class com m unity. H e lo v ed jazz, an d learned ab out intolerance from the furious conservative reactions to the rebellious sounds o f Elvis Presley and later the Beatles. H e saw the social face o f this conservatism in the repression o f the strikers’ dem onstrations o f 1960—61, w h ich b ro u g h t h im in to contact w ith Links. F ro m th e n o n politics w o u ld n ev er let h im go. H e first read E m est M an d el’s Marxist Economic Theory in 1962. H e had his copy specially b o u n d — this treasure o f a b o o k , as h e called it, a revelation, ju st like D eu tsch er’s biography o f T ro tsk y .199 In 1964 he jo in e d the International.

5

M arxist Economic Theory: A B o o k ab o u t the W o rld M andel h ad b e e n overloaded w ith w o rk for years. O bligations ranging from La Gauche to th e F o u rth International and responses to the crises in Eastern E urope, th e Belgian C o n g o and Algeria d em an d ed all his tim e. H e w rote Fedem , ‘I ro am aro u n d in w o rld history continuously. Som etim es I feel m yself the last E u ro p e a n .’1 H is correspondence fell w eeks behind. W h e n M arcel D en eck ere com plained ab o u t his o w n w orkload, M andel responded that he fared n o b e tte r an d cited a sample w eek w ith a dizzying schedule o f m eetings, lectures and editorial w o rk , plus a w e e k e n d course h e taught to y o u n g m etal w orkers in W est G erm any. ‘A n d so it goes, w eek after w e e k ’, he concluded. O n top o f th a t he had his professional w ork, and h e was m ore than a m o n th late in correcting the proofs o f his b o ok." T his b o o k was the long-aw aited Traite d ’economic marxiste, w h ich w o u ld finally appear in 1962. .Its English translation, Marxist Economic Theory, published in 1967, m ade M andel an internationally recognized econom ist.3 Marxist Economic Theory was a daring exp erim en t in updating M arx w hile adhering to M arx ’s m eth o d , w h ich M andel considered the only acceptable orthodoxy: ‘M arxist econom ic th eo ry o u g h t n o t to be regarded as a com pleted o u tco m e o f past investigation b u t rather as a sum m ation o f a m eth o d , o f the results obtained by using this m eth o d , and o f results w hich are continually subject to re-ex am in atio n .’4 F or this reason, he noted, ‘T h e scientifically correct position is obviously that w h ich endeavours to start, from the empirical data o f the science o f today in order to examine whether or not the essence of M arx's economic propositions remains valid'5 M andel argued for a ‘genetico -ev o lu tio n ary ’ m eth o d o f exposition, a dialectic th at placed all social p h en o m en a in a historical context. Marxist Economic Theoty was an attem pt, rare in its tim e, to integrate th at theory w ith history. M an d el m ade use o f the insights o f m o d e m anthropology, history, sociology and psychology and avoided a one-dim ensional econom ic ac­ count o f capitalism. H e deliberately refrained from citing the usual sources.

88

ERNEST M ANDEL

H e tried to base his criticisms o f capitalism o n the w o rk o f capitalist writers and its criticisms o f the Soviet eco n o m y on Soviet ones. H is bibliography ran to som e fifty pages. T h e first fo u r chapters o f th e b o o k w ere d ev o ted to the history o f p re­ capitalist econom ies. R eaders w h o h ad q uestioned the official Stalinistinspired texts experienced th e novel sensation o f reading a history that m o v e d fro m N eo lith ic to m o d e m times and was n o t lim ited to W estern countries b u t to o k th e w h o le w o rld as its subject. M andel exerted him self to offer a co u n terw eig h t to the view th a t every society m ust follow the same d ev elo p m en t in th e sam e order. H e in ten d ed to satisfy the grow ing interest in M arxism in th e n o n -W e ste m w orld. H e sought to answ er the q uestion o f w h y capitalism had developed in E u ro p e an d n o t in C hina, India o r th e A rabic countries, societies that had b een superior fo r centuries.6 A ccording to Jairus Banaji, an expert in early m o d e m history, he succeeded in w ritin g ‘one o f th e best short histories o f early capitalism’.7 H e also dealt com prehensively w ith the contradictions o f late m o d em capitalism. In lively descriptions o f historical events and trends h e analysed the d ev elo p m en t o f p ro d u c tio n and distribution, the m echanism o f ex­ ploitation, th e periodic crises o f ov erp ro d u ction, the role o f m oney, credit and land ow nership, and the functions o f th e state, guarantor o f the profits o f th e m onopolies. In the concluding section h e tu rn e d to an analysis o f the econom y o f the transitional p erio d and a critique o f th e Soviet econom y. H e described the consequences o f ‘the contradiction between the non-capitalist mode o f production and the bourgeois norms ofdistribution’, in his ju d g e m e n t ‘the basic contradiction of every society transitional between capitalism and socialism’,s B ureaucratic control o f th e state and th e eco n o m y w o u ld ensure th at the contradiction w o u ld n o t lessen b u t rath er grow . M andel m o v ed in to a field in w h ich there was as yet 110 viable th eo ry in th e M arxist trad itio n .9 T his m ade Marxist Economic Theory challenging as w ell as w idely discussed. T rotskyism was fo u n d ed in p art as a critique o f Stalinism, dedicated to defending the tru e M arx, th e true L enin an d the true T rotsky from Stalinist falsifications. W ith Marxist Economic Theory M andel attem pted to m ove b e y o n d m erely defensive critiques. T h o u g h experts questioned som e o f his form ulations, his b o ld a ttem p t to analyse society as a w h o le in M arxist terms co n trib u ted to the b o o k ’s success. M o reo v er M andel appealed to a critical w ay o f th in k in g that gained g ro u n d am ong the y o u n g er generation, slowly at first and then w ith gathering speed. M andel articulated the idea that reality could be changed and that huma-iiity was n o t co n d em n e d forever to be enslaved by m o n ey and th e m arket econom y, inequality and tyranny. His

M ARXIST ECONOMIC THEORY

89

b o o k m ark ed the start o f th e M arxist renaissance o f the second h alf o f the tw en tieth cen tu ry .10 T h e history o f M an d el’s b o o k h ad its o w n dialectic. Its ideas had com e in to existence in dialogue w ith o th er, som etim es contradictory visions that its au th o r h a d en co u n tered in th e political and intellectual m ilieu o f the 1940s and ’50s. ..........................................Mentors and friends......................................... M andel h a d w o rk ed o n Marxist Economic Theory for ten years. Shortly before com pleting it, he asked a friend, ‘I f y o u see G[eorge] Nofvaclc] . . . rem ind h im that this w o rk is th e result o f a suggestion he once m ade. A suggestion that fo u n d its eventual form in aro u n d 900 pages.’11 O riginally from B oston, G eorge Novaclc (1905—92), b o m Y asef M endel N ovograbelski, b elonged to the p re -w a r group k n o w n as the ‘N e w Y ork intellectuals’. This was a m ostly Jew ish g ro u p o f literati w h o expressed th eir anti-Stalinist views in periodicals such as Partisan Reuieu\ Politics and Dis­ sent}2 In January 1937 N ovaclc was the first to w elcom e T rotsky o n his anival in M ex ico .13 In 1953 N o v a k was living in Paris and g o t to k n o w Ernest M andel, w ith w h o m h e shared a passion for politics and learning.14 N o v ack inspired M andel to seek an explanation for the period o f expansion that seem ed to have arrived in the 1950s an d that had apparently disproved the traditional M arxist view o f eco n o m ic stagnation. N ov ack also urged M andel 'to ' use T ro tsk y ’s law o f u n ev en and com bined developm ent as a guideline in his analysis o f th e capitalist w o rld and the so-called transitional societies.15 T h o u g h M andel m ade n o explicit m e n tio n o f T rotsky’s law in his b o o k , h e used it in his analyses, as m any passages in Marxist Economic Theory attest.16 N o v ack was n o t th e only o n e to w h o m M andel was indebted. In 1948, through E rnst Fedem , he g o t to k n o w and began corresponding w ith R o m a n R osdolsky, and learned m u ch from him . E ven before the w ar R osdolsky, the son o f a n o te d U krainian ethnologist, had m ade his nam e as a sociologist and h istorian.17 B o m in Lviv in 1898, he had studied in Prague and V ienna, w here he earned his doctorate in 19 2 9 .18 H e becam e a correspondent for the M oscow -based M arx-E ngels Institute w ith the assignm ent o f collecting all m aterials available in V ienna about M arx, Engels and the early socialist m o v em en t. A fter the defeat o f the Socialist uprising against the clerical dictatorship in February 1934, R osdolsky retu rn ed to Lviv, w h ere until the b eg in n in g o f the w a r he w o rk ed at the university. T here he m e t Isaac D eutscher, the later biograp h er o f Stalin and T ro tsk y .19 Arrested b y the G estapo in K rakow in 1942, R osdolsky was sent to-

90

ERNEST M A NDEL

A uschw itz, then R avensbriick, and finally to O ranienburg, from w h ich he was liberated in 1945. W h ile m any political refugees prepared to leave the U n ite d States and retu rn to G erm any and Austria, R osdolsky and his A ustrian wife, Em ily, head ed in the opposite direction. As a Trotskyist, his life was in danger in S oviet-occupied V ienna. In D e tro it R osdolsky w o rk ed as an in d ep e n d en t scholar, w ith o u t an official academ ic position. H is ‘university’ was a circle o f friends, including th e philosopher Karl K orsch, the East Prussian C o uncil C om m unist Paul M attick, the Swiss M arxist O tto M orf, E rnst F edem , R o sa L u xem burg’s biograp h er Paul Frolich, Isaac D eu tsch er and, from 1948, E m est M andel. T h e Rosdolskys survived o n E m ily’s salary as an econom ic researcher for the U n ite d A uto W orkers (U A W ). T h e c o n n ectio n w ith M andel developed in to a friendship that lasted until R o sd o lsk y ’s death in S eptem ber 1967.20 F e d e m ’s address becam e their m ailbox, as the M cC arthy w itc h -h u n t had m ade R osdolsky cautious.21 H e signed letters w ith the pseudonym S (em per) T(iro), a tribute to the ep onym ous collection o f poem s by the rebellious U krainian p o e t Ivan Franko. T h e leitm o tif o f Marxist Economic Theory, M andel confided to R osdolsky, was ‘to present the core o f M arx’s eco n o m ic th o u g h t n o t as incontestable b u t as a synthesis, as the sum m ation o f all the em pirical data from official science’.23 It was n o t a m atter o f deciding w h at M arx had o r had n o t w ritten b u t o f exam ining to w h a t degree M arxist econom ics could be confirm ed by historical' and em pirical research. C onsidering R osdolsky the m ost k n o w l­ edgeable M arxist o f the tim e, M andel did n o t hesitate to consult h im about various com plex theoretical problem s, such as M arx ’s theory o f wages, the so-called H ilferding revision o f M a rx ’s theory o f m oney, O tto B auer’s th eo ry o f crisis and the m eaning o f th e co n cep t o f productive w o rk in a transitional society. R osdolsky p ro v id ed h im w ith com m entary o n the conceptual sections and praised his frien d’s accom plishm ent: ‘O n e rarely encounters such g o o d w o rk .’24 M an d el had w ritten his first draft in th e 1950s o u t o f dissatisfaction w ith th e untenable position th e n cu rren t a m o n g M arxists that capitalism was d o o m ed to p erm an en t stagnation. A t that p o in t titled The History and Concepts o f Political Economy, the b o o k had b een scheduled for publication by a L o n d o n firm in the au tu m n o f 19 52.25 V arious postponements," ho w ev er, led to its cancellation. A t the tim e, M andel was afflicted w ith depression and insom nia, the psychological and physical after-effects o f the O ccu p atio n years. T his slow ed h im d o w n considerably, as did tim econsum ing problem s w ith the b o o k ’s co ntent. T hese particularly con­ cerned the m eth o d and conceptual structure o f M a rx ’s thought. In

M ARXIST ECONOMIC THEORY

91

D ecem ber 1954 he w ro te to Fedem , ‘T h e m anuscript is half typed; I’m revising the second h alf for th e u m p te e n th tim e.’26 T w o years later M andel had m ade litd e progress. La Gauche and Links had b een devouring him . F edem w ro te to hearten him , ‘G o o d things take tim e. W e have no use for m ediocrity, at any rate y o u and I d o n ’t.’27 Shortly after arriving in N e w Y ork, in 1947, R osdolsky had m anaged to acquire one o f the three o r fo u r copies o f M arx ’s Gnuidrisse that w ere available in the W est.28 R osdolsky considered it his task to analyse this w ork, the foundatio n for Capital b u t still u n k n o w n even to specialists, and m ake it available to a w id e r public.29 T his project resulted in his m agnum opus, The Making of M arx’s 'Capital’, a detailed acco u n t o f th e d evelopm ent o f M arx ’s th o u g h t in th e 1850s.30 In 1955 he sent M an d el one o f the first copies and M andel w ro te to h im that h e h o p e d ‘to leam m u c h from it’.31 B efore that rime little atten tio n h ad b een paid to the origins o f M arx’s econom ic theories, let alone th eir m ethodological aspects. R osdolsky’s b o o k con­ vinced M andel o f th e con-ectness o f M arx ’s historical m eth o d . H e realized that any w o rk th at was n o t fo u n d ed on a ‘genetic evolutionary’ basis was do o m ed to recapitulate received w isdom . T h e b o o k also convinced him that R osdolsky’s approach to the debate over M arx ’s rep ro duction schemes was correct. In accord w ith R osdolsky, M andel concluded that M arx had m eant these schem es to sh o w the possibility o f a tem porary econom ic equilibrium despite the anarchy o f p ro d u ctio n . Crises could n o t be explained by these schemes, and this h ad caused m isunderstandings in one form o r an o th er in earlier M arxist w ritings, like those o f R o sa L uxem burg, R u d o lf H ilferding and N ikolai B ukharin. M andel repeatedly asked R o sd o lsk y ’s advice and requested h im to read each draft chapter attentively and critically. F o r exam ple, he consulted R osdolsky ab o u t a section in w h ich he sought to answ er the question o f w hy the simple p ro d u c tio n o f goods, usury capital and m erchant capital had only led to m o d e m capitalism in W estern and C entral E urope and n o t elsew here.32 R osdolsky fo u n d this an interesting question, handled in a challenging m anner. M andel urged him to m ake his som etim es rather laconic com m en tary m o re specific, ‘In general n o th in g really good can com e from a single solitary head; m o re thick skulls have to crash together, then the sparks can fly.’33 D espite their intellectual kinship, differences o f opinion arose betw een them . O n the occasion o f the Polish'and H u ngarian insurrections o f 1956—7 Rosdolsky was infuriated at the ‘childish’ optim ism o f M andel’s com rades.34 I hope you d o n ’t take this frank criticism amiss. I know that you have the best intentions. B ut that does not give you free rein to get earned away by

92

ERNEST M ANDEL

leftist ‘infantile disorders’ out o f revolutionary impatience . . . B ut now ‘an end to it’; I prom ise n o t to speak o f it any m ore. I am old and lonely enough; w hy should I gamble w ith our friendship?35 T w o years later R osdolsky was less resigned. A fter a critique w ith th e to n e o f an in d ictm en t an d the advice to stop ‘playing at an International’, h e ended w ith: Y ou will surely be very angry, b u t I have ‘spoken and saved m y soul’. Because ju st as the Trotskyist m ovem ent in the ‘historical sense’ is so im portant to me, I have to distance myself emphatically from w hat you are getting up to in the name o f Trotskyism. In a certain sense you can take this as a farewell letter.36 R osdolsky left M an d el’s extensive reply unansw ered.37 Som e m o n th s later, in Ju ly 1960, their correspondence w as resum ed, and w o u ld rem ain u n in te rru p te d for a lo n g er tim e. R osdolsky was close to Isaac D eutscher, w hose dismissal o f T ro tsk y ’s plea for a F o u rth International rem ained a th o rn in M an d el’s side. M andel confided to a m utual friend, Rosdolsky is a good friend, b u t for several years the friendship has been cooler (I think for political reasons). I value him highly and regard him as one o f the best living Marxist economists. O n political issues . . . he inclines tow ard D eutscher’s views, w hich naturally often p u t us at odds.38 Just like D eutscher, R osdolsky saw the Stalinist dev elo p m en t o f th e Soviet U n io n as historically inevitable.39 F or h im too the term s ‘w o rk ers’ state’ and ‘degenerated w o rkers’ state’ w ere em pty form ulae as lo n g as the w orking class exercised no political pow er. C r itic s T h e publication o f M a n d e l’s b o o k was fraught w ith difficulties. In 1959, in search o f a n e w publisher, M andel had approached the sociologist Edgar M o rin , e x -C o m m u n ist and cofo u n d er o f the periodical Arguments. T he m anuscript, over 1,000 pages long, was offered to the Presses U niversitaires de France and to ex-T rotskyist Pierre N aville, w h o edited a series for the Paris publishing house M arcel R iv ie re .40 M andel guaranteed N aville sales o f 1,000 copies in B elgium , the Belgian C o n g o and N o rth Africa. T h e

M A R X IST ECONOMIC THEORY

93

publisher, h o w ev er, dared n o t accept the b o o k , an indication o f the m arginal positio n o f in d ep en d en t M arxist th o u g h t at th e tim e.41 O n ly in 1961 was M an d el’s b o o k definitely accepted, by the large Paris firm R e n e Julliard, publisher o f such books as N atalie Sagan’s best-selling Bonjour tristesse.42 E ncouraged b y C laude B o u rd et, e d ito r-in -c h ie f o f France Observateur (‘T his is an absolutely rem arkable y o u n g m an ’),43 Julliard was prepared to publish an edition o f 3,500 copies, subject to an assurance o f advance sales b y subscription o f 1,000 copies in o rd er to m ake the financial risk acceptable. M andel g o t La Gauche to deposit 20,000 F rench francs as a guarantee.44 W ith subscription sales o f 760 in B elgium and 613 in France, the goal was reached w ith o u t difficulty.45 T h e b o o k actually appeared in April 1962. Elated, M andel w ro te to Fedem , ‘T h e shipm ent o f the subscribed copies to B elgium w ill w eigh m ore than' a ton; im agine: a to n o f explosives carried by train . . .’46 M andel dedicated his brainchild to his father, w h o h ad w an ted a scholarly career for him instead o f th e political life h e had chosen. In Marxist Economic Theory the father’s am b itio n and th e son’s h ad finally b e e n reconciled. T h e follow ing w ords appeared o n the flyleaf: T o the m em ory o f m y father, H enri M an d el/ Brave in spirit, generous in. heart, W ho introduced me to Marxism A nd taught m e to com bat exploitation and oppression in all their forms So that all m en can becom e brothers.47 Marxist Economic Theory received a m ix ed recep tion in political and in ­ tellectual circles. It was highly praised — Belgian radio spoke w ith great respect o f a sequel to M arx ’s Capital— b u t there was a deafening silence from official Social D em ocratic sources. M an d el com plained to A ndre R e n a rd o f feeling him self victim o f ‘a conspiracy o f silence o n the part o f the “big press” ’.4S T h e Belgian historian M arcel Liebm an w rote to Isaac D eutscher about the b o o k , calling it ‘an im p o rtan t co n trib u tio n to M arxist th in k in g ’, only regretting that the chapter o n the Soviet econom y ‘[is] so strikingly biased and so p o o rly docum ents present developm ents in R ussia’.49 D eutscher shared this o pinion, w h ich seem ed to be inspired by th eir expectations o f the self-reform o f die bureaucracy.50 T h a t was an illusion, as M andel did n o t fail to p o in t out. Y et D eu tscher’s appreciation for the b o o k was undim inished. H e praised the ‘great intellectual m e rit’ o f the work, for which, as he w ro te Rosdolsky, ‘w e have been w aiting since [sic] m any, m any years’.51 A t their first m eetin g in M ay 1962 in L ondon,

94

ERNEST M A ND EL

D eu tsch er p rom ised M andel that he w o u ld review it in The Economist. Since the w ar D eutscher, w h o was ju st finishing his o w n trilogy o n T rotsky, had been w ritin g for th e C ity o f L o n d o n ’s house organ.52 D eu tsch er’s review appeared u n d er the title ‘M arxist H ere tic ’, w h ich was an undeniable tribute from the p e n o f the a u th o r o f Heretics and Renegades. D eu tsch er praised M an d el as an independent thinker, com bining an exceptionally wide erudition w ith a remarkable lucidity and fluency o f expression. His treatise is by far the best popularisation o f M arx’s economic theory that has appeared for forty or fifty years. A nd it is far m ore than that — an ambitious, and largely successful, attem pt to bring the doctrine up to date. T h e re w ere weaknesses, o f course, b u t ‘n o student can afford to ignore this very im p o rtan t w o rk ’.53 D eu tsch er’s ehcom ium s surprised M andel: ‘I’m sure I d o n ’t deserve h a lf y o u r praise, and there are certainly m u ch [sic] m ore weaknesses in th e b o o k than those y o u m e n tio n .’54 M o re flattering responses follow ed, in such journals as N ew Left Review, the Italian Critica marxista, Survey, the B elgian Socialistische Standpunten, La Nouvelle Revue Marxiste, L ’Express and Combat — the last three all from Paris. A n d re B aijonet, the econom ic specialist o f the F rench General C onfed eratio n o f LabOur (C G T ); th e A ustrian-born F rench M arxist L ucien Laurat; th e F rench historian M axim ilien R u b el; the Yugoslav R u d i Supek; and th e British C o m m u n ist M aurice D o b b d ev oted essays to it.55 A ndre R e n a rd w ro te, ‘W eig h in g m y w ords carefully, I have to call y o u r b o o k rem arkable and even fantastic.’56 T h e dissident Polish econ­ om ist O skar Lange praised M andel directly: ‘T h e b o o k has m ade a strong im pression o n m e. It is definitely an original attem p t to handle M arxist econom ics in th e spirit o f o u r tim es.’57 T h e B ritish Observer called it the best M arxist creation o f the last fifty years. T h e b o o k w o u ld be reprinted countless times and be translated in to languages ranging from Spanish to Japanese and H in d i to H eb rew . W h eri th e English edition was published, a review by R o b e rt L. H eilb ro n er appeared in the N ew York Review o f Books. A professor at the N e w School for Social R esearch in N e w Y ork, H e ilb ro n e r acclaim ed the publication as ‘an even t o f great im p o rtan ce’ and a ‘m asterful representationo f M arxism ’. It w o u ld be an in d u cem en t to becom e a M arxist w ere it n o t that ‘in reading so free a w o rk as M an d el’s the lim itations o f M arxism and M arxian econom ics also stand forth, at least in m y eyes’, lim itations that, H eilb ro n er said, m ade it impossible for him to jo in the M arxist camp. A m o n g these H eilb ro n er included ‘the b e lie f in dialectics and class struggle’

M A R X IST ECONOMIC THEORY

95

as basic to h u m an history. F or him , this was a theoretical bed o f Procrustes that w o u ld n o t naturally fit every historical experience.58 M andel was curious to k n o w h o w R osdolsky w o u ld ju d g e the bo o k . H e sent h im a copy, b u t got n o reaction. R osdolsky told the y o u n g Swiss M arxist and H egel specialist O tto M o rf that he found the b o o k ‘w eak’.59 T h e study w o u ld have b enefited from being discussed in b ro ader circles.60 M andel rem ain ed ig n o ran t o f these judgem ents. R osdolsky recoiled from giving such criticism outright, particularly i f it concerned w o rk by friends he considered serious scholars. D eu tsch er com plained that R osdolsky too often pulled his p u n ch es.61 Finally in 1964 after m u ch urging from M andel (‘W h y haven ’t y o u sent m e m o re criticism o f m y book? I w o u ld b e very grateful for a th o ro u g h critiq u e’), R osdolsky confessed that he felt driven into a com er.62 T o o often h e h ad experienced authors w h o could n o t bear criticism: ‘T h u s Isaac [D eutscher] broke with me because o f m y critique o f his th ird volum e; since then I m osdy hold m yself back.’63 N o w , how ever, M andel was pressing him . R osdolsky sum m arized his concerns in three points. T o begin w ith, M andel had sacrificed M arx ’s eco n o m ic m eth o d o lo g y in his w ish to reach a broad public. H e had g o n e to o deeply in to ‘m ere facts’ and had thereby abandoned M arx ’s specific dialectical m eth o d , the heart o f his econom ic theory. H e had also b e e n unclear a b o u t w h a t R osdolsky considered the core o f M arxism , the th e o ry -o f collapse, the final co llap se o f the capitalist order. T his concept distinguished revolutionary M arxism from A ustro-M arxism and its equil­ ibrium theorists, such as H ilferding and O tto B auer. Finally, M andel had been too vague ab o u t th e q uestion o f the falling rate o f profit and crisis th eo ry .64 M andel had to understand that he, R osdolsky — as lo n g as the situation rem ained as it was —did n o t w a n t to w rite publicly about the bo o k . F or the sake o f th e m o v em en t, publicity as favourable as possible was essential: ‘B ut you have forced m e to tell y o u m y opinion, and I h o p e n o w th at y o u will react differently fro m the w ay Isaac did.’65 M andel replied th at if he reproached R osdolsky for anything, it was that his criticisms w ere too brief. H e subscribed to the rem arks about the collapse th eo ry and aslced R osdolsky to am plify his critique o f the treatm ent o f crisis th eo ry .66 H e m ade it obvious that h e to o k seriously the rem arks o n w h at he had titled ‘T h e E p o c h o f C apitalist D eclin e’. H e w o u ld gain new insights fro m this criticism for his later w o rk o n the lo n g waves o f capitalist developm ent. Debate with Jean-Paul Sartre M arx’s econom ic th eo ry was n o t the first subject into w hich M andel had sunk his teeth. A t th e end o f the 1940s he had gone deeply into ‘an extensive

96

ERNEST M A NDEL

history o f th e rise and fall o f the C o m m u n ist International’. F edem u n d e r­ sto o d that this w o u ld be a ‘trem endous w o rk ’, one in w hich M andel had b e e n engaged ‘for years already’, an d fro m w h ich he h o p e d his first b o o k w o u ld em erge.67 T his indicates th at M a n d el’s th o u g h t at that tim e was do m in ated b y th e debate over Stalinism, the nature o f the Soviet U n io n and the question o f w orkers’ states. D u rin g this p erio d M an d el published ‘Die Wissenschaft. der Entschleiemng’ (T he Science o f R evelation). T his was a response to Professor Carlo Schm id, th e leader o f th e Social D em ocratic P arty (SPD) in the G erm an parliam ent, w h o h ad attem p ted to ‘reveal’ the n ature o f historical m aterialism at a party congress.68 In addition M andel w ro te articles on political theory for the B erlin periodical Pro und contra: Diskussioitsbldtt.er fu r demokratischen Sozialismus (For and Against: Discussion Papers for D em ocratic Socialism), using the p seu d o n y m W ilh elm Sprenger. Finally, in the early 1950s h e con trib u ted to the debate o n ‘T h e C om m unists arid P eace’ th at Jean -P au l Sartre had lau n ch ed in Les Temps Modernes.69 A lth o u g h Sartre was n o t a m e m b e r o f the French C o m m u n ist Party (PCF), he argued that it was indispensable. T h e w o rk in g class did n o t exist u n til it was organized in a vanguard party, and the P C F seem ed to be such a party.70 T his view was criticized fro m various sides. In Adventures o f the Dialectic M aurice M erleau -P o n ty called Sartre’s position . ‘ultra-B olshe­ vism ’,71 and C laude Lefort, a m em b er o f th e group ‘Socialisme o u Barbarie’, blam ed Sartre for considering the w o rk in g class only in the c o n te x t o f the party and having no eye for its separate existence.72 As for E m est M andel, he accused the existentialist philo so p h er o f an un-M arxist fatalism.73 In an ex ten d ed argum ent Sartre replied that M andel was cursed w ith ‘a probabilistic idealism ’ and that h e dealt n o t w ith realities b u t possibilities, ‘w h ich are based m ost often o n simple extrapolations’.74 M andel had argued that the P C F had missed the o p p o rtu n ity to take p o w e r in 1944—45.75 H e did n o t agree w ith Sartre that th e P C F ’s politics o f restraint was the only possible strategy at the tim e, or, in Sartre’s w ords: ‘it reveals itself as existence only m anifesting itself as praxis’.76 A ccording to M andel this was the same argum ent that H eg el h ad used ‘to declare the absolutist state holy, a position that M arx h ad mercilessly m o c k e d ’.77 If success w ere to be the only criterion for realism and effectiveness, th e n Sartre had to adm it that in B elgium or Britain, w h ere social dem ocrats set th e tone, the C om m unists w ere tarred w ith the same ‘idealism o f possibilities’ as the Trotskyists w ere in France. M andel considered the idea that reality could only develop in one direction to be fatalistic and in conflict w ith M arxism . In the years 1944—5 the revolutionary situation in France had allow ed tw o diametrically opposed prospects, victory o r defeat. Sartre considered the role o f the

M ARXIST ECONOMIC THEORY

97

C om m unists in the defeat that ensued to be accidental, w hile M andel considered it decisive.78 W e d o n ’t say that they could have taken pow er on 27 August 1944 . . . W e do say that in 1944—5 there w ere hundreds o f opportunities to build oppositional p ow er for w hich the seeds had been form ed by the masses themselves (liberation committees, factory committees, militias). A true com m unist leadership . . . w ould have seen its duty as taking the greatest possible advantage o f these achievements. W h at the results m ight have been w ould have depended on developm ents in the relationship o f forces that no one could have predicted exactly.79 M andel, revolutionary and anti-d eterm in ist that he was, concerned him self w ith w h at was possible, w ith ‘th in k in g that did n o t yet exist’, in the w ords o f the G em ian philo so p h er E rnst B lo ch ,80 n o t w ith w h a t was realistic or necessary, the excuse m ade b y every conform ist current.81 M andel offered his critique to Les Temps MoAernes, b u t Sartre did n o t publish it. F ollow ing th e events o f M ay 1968 Sartre w o u ld revise his perspective: After 1945 Stalinism made it impossible for W estern Com m unist parties, and particularly the French C om m unist Party, to take pow er . . . A nyone w ho attem pted to take advantage o f the C om m unists’ admirable position during the war, anyone w ho attem pted to push through revolutionary reforms or encouraged the w orkers to be m ore combative, was called to order by the party, silenced or expelled. T h e party simply did n o t aim to make a revolution.82 O n e can easily see this ju d g e m e n t as a late echo o f M andel’s 1952 critique.

6

In the F o u rth In tern atio n al

M ichalis (M ichel) R aptis w e n t th ro u g h life u n d e r the p seudonym M ichel Pablo. W h e n E rnest M andel m et h im he was th irty -th ree, tall and already balding, w ith a soft y e t clear voice and a ro u n d face u n d e rc u t by a receding chin. H e was a native o f A lexandria b o m in 1911 to a Greelc father and an E gyptian m o th e r.1 - H e h ad originally studied to be an architect, and there was som ething o f the artist in his dress — in the hat he w o re, in the cut o f his collar. D istinguished and stylish, he was w ell m atched w ith his aristocratic life p a rtn e r H elen e, w ith h e r coal black eyes and electric hair. H e adored her. B o m Ellie D iovoniotis in 1907, she cam e fro m an influential G reek family and h a d g ro w n u p in A thens and studied law. H e r inheritance was sufficient to free th e m fro m having to earn a living. She and Pablo w ere able to devote them selves entirely to the revolution. As a stu d e n t at the polytechnic institute in A thens in the late 1920s, Pablo jo in e d a quasi-illegal revolutionary group th at h a d split from the C om m unist Party. In 1934 he and Pantelis P ouliopoulos, the ex—general secretary o f the C P , h elp ed fo rm th e first G reek Trotskyist group, the O rganization o f Internationalist C om m unists o f G reece (O K D E ).- T his was tw o years before the coup d ’etat o f G eneral M etaxas, w h ich sent P ablo to a prison on the island Folegandros and then to A cronauplion, an eig h teen th -cen tu ry V e­ n etian fort that to w ered above the P eloponnesian coast. A bove its entry gate was the inscription ‘C o n cen tratio n C am p for C o m m u n ists’,3 H e and H elen e w ere given the choice o f subm ission o r exile. T h ey chose to emigrate. In 1937, after a short stay in Sw itzerland, they arrived in Paris-. T h e re they becam e acquainted w ith Pierre N aville, an influential Trotskyist w h o had m ade his nam e in the Surrealist m o v e m e n t o f the 1920s. T hey enrolled as students at the S orbonne and w ere often to be found at the fam ous cafe Les D eu x M agots iq com pany w ith such k in dred spirits as Jacques P revert and the actor Jean-L ouis Barrault. U sing a second pseudo­

IN THE F O U R TH IN T ER N A T IO N A L

99

nym , Speros, Pablo to o k part in foun d in g the Fourth International at Perigny in S ep tem b er 1938. Shoitly after the fou n d in g conference he contracted tuberculosis. H e was nursed at a sanatorium in S t-H ila ire -d u -T o u v e t near G renoble, w here he stayed until 1943. H e was also able to obtain travel docum ents in order to receive regular m edical treatm en t in G eneva. H is stay in St-H ilaire proved a great stroke o f luck, because the parents o f M arcel H ie, the leader o f the French section o f the F o u rth International (PO I), had a bookshop there. By w ay o f this village in th e Isere, th e E u ro p ean Secretariat led by H ie in Paris was able to rem ain in contact w ith th e rest o f th e F ourth International. W h e n H ie was arrested in O c to b e r 1943, Pablo, th en relatively u n k n o w n b u t very know ledgeable, replaced h im as secretary. H e retu rn ed to Paris, w here for a w hile he was able to keep Paul W id elin o u t o f the hands o f the G estapo4 —P ab lo ’s ro o m o n th e B oulevard S t-M ichel was n e x t to that o f the intrepid publisher o f Arbeiter und Soldat.5 Pablo also m anaged to unite the three F rench T rotskyist groups in to a single party, the International C o m ­ m unist Party (PCI). M andel w itnessed this success w h en he and A braham L eon atten d ed the u n d e rg ro u n d E u ro p ean conference o f the International, held at S t-G erm ain -la-P o terie in February 1944. M andel adm ired P ablo’s courage an d skill. O n his visits to Paris he stayed w ith Pablo and enjoyed his fatherly sym pathy. T h e charm ing y o u n g G reek w ith his fluent French bore no resem blance th en to the authoritarian figure w ith w h o m M andel w o u ld one day clash. A third w orld w ar In the early 1950s, Pablo (by th e n k n o w n in the International by a third pseudonym , G abriel o r Gabe), becam e convinced that history was talcing an apocalyptic turn. T h e K orean W a r h ad b ro k en o u t in April 1950. W as it the beginning o f a n ew w o rld war? N o t only the com m unists b u t even D e Gaulle considered this a possibility. In Oi) allons-notis? (W here A re W e Going?) Pablo argued that the approaching w o rld cataclysm w o u ld take the form o f a w o rld ‘W a r-R e v o lu tio n ’ that w o u ld p it tw o great blocs — the ‘Stalinist w o rld ’ and th e capitalist — against each other. Like it o r not, ‘the overw helm ing m ajority o f the forces opposing capitalism are right n o w to be found u n d e r the leadership o r influence o f the Soviet bureaucracy’.6 A Stalinist w o rld objectively opposed to th e capitalist regim e — this idea m arked the com plete disappearance o f the idea o f a counterrevolutionary bureaucracy. This was om inous, because M arxist thinkers predicted that the transition from capitalism to com m unism , th e co n d ition in w h ich classes and state w o u ld be abandoned, w o u ld take several centuries.7 Pablo was

IOO

ERNEST M A NDEL

reproached w id i ju d g in g the Soviet bureaucracy to o m ildly. H e had replaced a class analysis w ith a campist th eory in w h ic h the w o rld was divided in to tw o p o w e r blocs, using term s such as class, n atio n and state all ju m b le d up to g eth er.8 P ab lo ’s analysis had to u ch ed sensitive nerves. H atred for Stalinism was often based o n personal traum a. T h e idea o f backing Stalinist-led revolutions was too m u ch for Trotskyists to swallow. C om rades asked indignantly w h e th e r they w ere supposed to tu rn the o th e r cheek w h e n the Stalinists ly n ch ed th em in the streets. P ablo also considered the changes in Y ugoslavia and C h in a to b e authentic revolutions. B u t if a rev o lu tio n co u ld o ccu r w h e n a Stalinist party b ro k e com pletely w ith the bourgeoisie in d ep en d en tly o f the K rem lin9 —in o th e r w ords, if Stalinists had th e p o w e r to lead revolutions — w h y struggle to b u ild n e w revolutionary parties? P a b lo ’s o p p o n en ts w ere horrified by the very idea. As the later T rotsky b io g rap h er Pierre B ro u e p u t it, ‘A cold shiver runs d o w n m y ,10 spine. In his Ten Theses, an essay o n Stalinism, E rnest M andel proposed a lim ited acceptance o f P ab lo ’s analysis and som ew hat dim m ed the rath er rosy light Pablo had shone o n the Soviet b u reau cracy.11 M em bers o f the French section, particularly its leaders M arcel B leibtreu, M ichel L equenne and P ierre Lam bert,, w ere far from reassured.12 B leibtreu had b e en raised in a cultu red and political family. His father was one o f France’s biggest textile m anufacturers, a collector o f m o d ern art and also an ‘im portant, m ilitant partisan o f D reyfus’.13 B leibtreu resisted w h a t Pablo considered the logical o u tco m e o f his analysis: the necessity fo r entry in to the mass parties, w h ich in. France m ean t the C o m m u n ist Party. T h e P C F was a closed fortress, to w h ic h every revolutionary sentim ent was alien. Critics saw in w h at soon cam e to b e called Pabloism a betrayal o f the anti-bureaucratic rev o lu tio n and in Pablo a pro-Stalinist liquidator w h o h ad to b e thw arted. M andel also h ad his doubts. P ablo’s generalizations, the am biguous concept o f the ‘Stalinist w o rld ’ and the idea that the transition to socialism w o u ld take centuries — these required clarification. B u t his doubts did n o t p rev en t h im from supporting P ablo.14 T h e threat o f a third w o rld w ar was decisive^ M an d el p o in te d o u t that ‘rearm am ent know s its o w n logic . . . and alm ost inexorably leads to w ar’.15 T h e re was ju st too little tim e to build in d ep en d en t organizations. O n ly th ro u g h entry into existing ones could the w ay to the w orkers be found. N o one in the leadership o f the F o u rth In ternational d o u b te d the threat o f w a r.16 T h e y even began preparing to go u n d erg ro u n d . Pablo sounded o u t the D u tch n ian Sal Santen ab o u t a mission to S o u th A m erica to lo o k for an alternative location for th e International S ecretariat.17 T h o u g h short o f funds, Santen left willingly enough,.'in 1952, taking a b o at from Marseilles to

IN TH E FO U R TH IN T E R N A T IO N A L

IOI

M ontev id eo . Santen, th e th irty-six-year-old new spaper stenographer and so n-in -law o f the revolutionary H e n k Sneevliet, w h o had b een killed by the Nazis, w o u ld stay in S o u th A m erica for a year. C riticism o f P ab lo continued.' Six m o n th s after the W o rld Congress o f A ugust 1951, th e F re n c h section was n o closer to e n try .18 D riv en by the con v ictio n th a t h e w as rig h t, P ab lo p u sh ed fo r th e suspension o f dissidents in th e F ren ch C en tral C o m m itte e , w h o w e re relieved o f th e ir positions. H esitatingly, M a n d e l accep ted the assignm ent to carry o u t the en try policy in th e n am e o f th e S ecretariat an d ‘w ith m ajo rity su p p o rt’.19 T his was an absurd m an o eu v re considering th at tw o -th ird s o f the m em bers w ere actually opposed. T h e debaters did n o t confine them selves to reasoned argum ents for or against th e m erits o f th e policy. T h e re w as nam e-calling as w ell (‘D eserters!’ ‘U n m a sk e d p etty -b o u rg e o is m oralists!’) and in the old theatre b u ild in g o n R u e l’A rb re-S ec th at was th e section’s headquarters there w e re n o c tu rn a l battles o v e r possession o f the stencil m achines, the offices and the files. M an d el was p u n c h e d w h e n h e trie d to a tte n d a m e etin g o f th e op p o sitio n . T h e section, w h ich had n u m b e re d 250 m em bers in 1951, fell apart.20 B leib treu and L am bert w e n t th e ir o w n w ay ."1 So did P ierre Frank, taking w ith h im the rem nants o f the P C I, perhaps a h u n d re d m em bers. T hese w ere painful m onths, durin g w h ich lifelong friends fo u g h t w ith each o th e r as if they were;,, deadly enem ies. A ccording to a stunned contem porary, ‘T h e re was an elem en t o flo v e tu rn ed sour in this violence.’22 W h y h ad th ere b een such haste to push th ro u g h this policy? Such’ excessive centralism? It was legitim ate to w a n t to b elo n g to a larger m ovem ent, b u t w h y co n co ct an adventurist th eo ry ab o u t a ‘w a r-rev o lu tio n ’ to w hich Stalinist parties w o u ld react in a revolutionary way? W h y the coercion? T h e F o u rth In ternational fo u n d itself at a lo w p o in t everyw here. T h e one exception was the section in C ey lo n (Sri Lanka) the Lanka Sama Samaya Party, w h ich had developed in to the strongest w o rkers’ party on the island. B ut in m ost countries section m em bership could be co u n te d in the tens, w ith a w o rld w id e total o f only a few h u n d red . A nd the French P C I and the U S SW P, the. biggest sections, tu rn ed inw ard u n d e r pressure from M cC arthyism and th e C o ld W ar.23 A nticipated b reakthroughs failed to m aterialize, and dem oralization spread. C ollective entry in to large w o rk ers’ parties was an attem pt to find a w ay o u t and stave o ff com plete dissolution. T his strategy had w o rk ed in B elgium , b u t as M an d el realized, the Social D em ocrats sim ply offered m ore scope th a n the C om m unists. B u t was th ere any alternative to the C o m ­ munists in a co u n try like France? T h e theory o f entry, h o w e v er abstract, aided discipline. B u t the triu m p h an t claim th at w ith entry the International

102

ERNEST MANDEL

was m aking the m ost progress since its founding, because the logic o f the international situation was T rotskyist, simply had n o basis in reality. S trong personalities in the sections, like Pablo, the A m erican Jam es P. C an n o n , Pierre Frank, Pierre Lam bert, the A rgentinean H o m e ro Cristali (pseudonym Juan Posadas) an d the B rito n Gerry H ealy (pseudonym s T o m B um s, M ason, Paddy 0 ’R.eagan, G. P reston and Philip W illiam s), exercised a d om inant influence. T hese leading figures w ere often the focus o f dev o tio n and im itation, y e t they lived in m utual jealousy. T h e y w ere the products o f organizations that w ere tight moralistic com m unities, n o t only because o f th eir idealistic aims b u t also because o f th e threats th ey faced, som e o f w h ich w ere real b u t ju s t as m any o f w hich w ere im agined. T h e tight bonds am ong their m em bers gave the organizations an appearance o f strength b u t the resulting incestuous conflicts w eak en ed them . D oubts w ere n o t tolerated; only loyalty co u n ted . This was a recipe for disaster in small, isolated organizations. Split in the Fourth International In 1952 and 1953 the ru p tu re in France spread to Britain, the U n ite d States and o th e r countries.24 Initially there was no difference in perspective b e tw e e n the SW T and the International Secretariat led by Pablo. Jam es P. C an n o n , leader o f the S W P and fo u n d er o f the left opposition in the U S C om m unist Party in 1928, d efended P ablo’s vision as ‘com pletely T ro t­ skyist’. T h eir personal c o n n ectio n also seem ed problem -free. F or C a n n o n ’s sixtieth birthday the sum o f 400 dollars had been collected, w h ic h he w an te d to donate to the International, b u t n o t if it w o u ld simply disappear into the organization’s general funds. As he in fo rm ed M andel and his friends, ‘W ith this strict lim itation, I d o n ’t care w h a t yo u do w ith the m o n ey . . . I f y o u are thirsty, y o u can spend it all o n cognac as far as I am co n cern ed ’, preferably w ith a toast to ‘the old so n -o f-a-b itch w h o believes th at m oney was m ade to be spent and shared w ith friends’.25 B u t this friendship tu rn ed sour w h en C an n o n becam e the b u tt o f criticism from the circle aro u n d the S W P w eekly The Militant. Dissidents, am ong th em H arry B raverm an,2fi tu rn ed to P ablo’s analyses to support their position and Pablo did n o t discourage them .27 Som e even used P ablo’s ideas as a p retex t to begin discussing the co ntinued existence o f the SW P. C an n o n accused th em o f b ein g agents o f Pablo, capitulating to Stalinism.28 As Lam bert had d one in France, C an n o n decided to break w ith the International and form a rival organization. T h e SW P, G erry H ealy’s group in Britain and the group led by A rgentinean H u g o Bressano (pseudonym N ahuel M oreno) cam e to g e th e r as' the International C o m m ittee (IC).

IN THE FO U RTH INTERN ATIO NAL

103

M andel was dism ayed. T h e International was o f suprem e im portance to him . H e accused C a n n o n o f b ad faith, and asked G eorge B reitm an, the editor o f The Militant, D o you really believe that w e are ‘capitulating before Stalinism’? . . . M ore concretely: do you believe that I, w ho have predicted perhaps alone in the w orld w hat w ould happen ill Russia and the rest o f the Stalinist sphere o f influence . . . have ‘capitulated before Stalinism’?29 B reitm an, a thin, silent m an originally from N e w Jersey was one o f the founders o f the S W P . H e h ad g o t to k n o w M andel in 1946 at the first postw ar conference o f the In ternational in Paris. B y the end o f 1953 their exchange o f letters was th e only rem aining dialogue b etw een the Interna­ tional Secretariat and th e S W P .30 M andel told B reitm an that he did n o t thin k w h a t he term ed a tragi­ com edy o f erro r an d m isunderstanding was w o rth a split.31 B u t in that case, B reitm an w an ted to k n o w , w h y had Pablo n o t distanced him self from dissidents like B raverm an?32 C a n n o n th o u g h t Pablo was m isusing M an d el.3j Breitm an w arn ed his friend, I hope you w o n ’t serve as Pablo’s advocate . . . I urge you: reconsider w hat has happened . . . I earnestly hope that you will take your place . . . against those whose . . . disorientation is driving them to conciliation w ith Stalinism and other alien forces.34 ' B ut M an d el refused to separate him self from Pablo. C a n n o n suggested that B reitm an en d th e correspondence, and he did so.35 A secret contact T h o u g h their dialogue h ad b e e n ended, M andel k e p t him self inform ed on the SW P. H e was am azed at th e A m ericans’ habit o f elevating their o w n orthodoxy to the status o f absolute truth. ‘T rotsky o r D eutscher?’, the title o f C an n o n ’s co m m entary o n The Prophet Armed, the first volum e o f the Polish— British historian Isaac D eu tsch er’s m o n u m en tal biography o f Trotsky, was telling.36 A ccording to C an n o n , D eutscher’s b e lief in the possibility o f reform ing Stalinism was heresy. M an d el’s review was m o re respectful, though he did n o t th in k m u ch o f the b o o k ’s characterization o f Trotsky as a classic tragic h ero w h o unw illingly paved the w ay for Stalinism.37 D eutscher th an k ed him for ‘the objective and o p en -m in d ed m an n er in w hich [he] has treated [the], w ritings.’38

104

ERNEST MANDEL

M an d el was in confidential contact w ith Karl M anfred, an o th er ed ito r o f The Militant. U sing the p seu d o n y m Janies Parkner, M anfred co n trib u ted item s to La Gauche. M anfred was originally from Frankfurt 0 11 M ain, w h ere he was raised in a rich, lib eraljew ish family. His father was a p ro m in e n t urologist; his m o th e r cam e from Sephardic aristocracy.39 A fter K ristallhacht, in N o v em b er 1938, th e M anfred family m o v ed to Brussels.40 B efore the d ep o rtatio n ofjew s from B elgium began in 1942, th e tw e n ty -tw o -y ear-o ld M anfred escaped to Sw itzerland. A fter th e w a r he retu rn ed to Brussels, w h ere h e becam e friends w ith E m est M andel, w h o recru ited h im to T rotskyism .41 By 1954 M anfred h a d b e e n living in N e w Y o rk fo r five years. D estitute after the w ar, he th o u g h t h e could m ost quickly b eco m e self-supporting as a journalist in the U S , w here it was easier to obtain citizenship. M anfred was n o t die only G erm an im m igrant w h o w o u n d up in o r aro u n d th e SW P. D espite the struggle that had b ro k e n o u t b e tw e e n its factions, he assured M andel, ‘I continue to have a m ost favourable im pression o f the A m erican organization.’42 M anfred was certainly n o factionalism and h e had the highest respect for M andel. T h e ir co n tin u ed and extensive exchange o f views was an open secret.43 M an d el th o u g h t it im p o rtan t to gauge the political b aro m eter in the U S , and he w an ted an audience for his calls fo r reunification. In 1956 he w ro te to M anfred that o n all questions —including H ungary, Poland, Suez and C hina —‘o u r respective papers say exactly the same things’. I f any profit w ere to be m ade from th e Stalinist crisis, th e n it was essential to jo in together w h at h ad b een p u t asunder: ‘T h e m ere fact o f this division prevents m any ex-Stalinists from jo in in g o u r ranks-’.44 -. : Poland and H ungary (1956) In the spring o f 1956 M andel was absorbed by events in Eastern E urope. I11 th e P ozn an revolt that b ro k e o u t o n 27 Ju n e he detected signs o f an incipient rev o lu tio n .43 D eu tsch er’s c o m m e n t that ‘the dem onstrations . . . began w ith singing “T h e Intern atio n al” b u t ended w ith the slogans “D o w n w ith the Jew s!” and “A w ay w ith the Russians!” ’ m ade n o im pression on M andel.46 H e was' co n cerned w ith the underlying te n o r o f the revolt, w h ich opposed the c o u n try ’s bureaucracy b u t did n o t question its social structure. H e enthusiastically cited the w eekly Po Prostu, m o u th p iece o f the W arsaw dissidents. Its editor-in-chief, Eligiuz Lasota, had b een im prisoned far Trotskyism in 1949 and only released a few m onths earlier. T h e censors w ere giving Po Prostu a free hand. ‘So events seem to be even m ore im p o rtan t than w e had th o u g h t. I’m p u ttin g everything into getting there as soon as possible.’47 M andel .asked D eutscher and R osdolsky for the addresses o f old friends in P oland '48

IN THE FO U R TH IN TERN ATIO N AL

105

T here was no Trotskyist group in Poland, th o u g h there w ere a few pre-w ar Trotskyists w ith o u t m u ch postw ar connection. O n e o f them was Kazimierz Badowski, a teacher from K ozienice w h o h ad stayed in A ntw erp in the 1930s. O nce back in Poland, he h ad b een d eported first by H ider and th en by Stalin. Badow ski lived in K rakow and was in contact w ith kindred spirits in France.49 A n oth er was the historian Ludwilc Hass, w h o in Septem ber 1939 had been deported to forced lab o u r in the V orkuta m ines in n o rthern Russia. H e returned to W arsaw in 1957 after seventeen years’ im prisonm ent. His family had b een killed in A uschw itz.50 In these m onths Badowski and Hass assembled a group o f aro u n d tw en ty activists.51 This was a m odest num ber, yet m ore than w ere in H ungary, w here things looked less rosy. T h e re too an an ti-bureaucratic rev o lu tio n was beginning, b u t M andel recognized th e real possibility o f a restoration o f capitalism in H ungary because o f the strength o f its conservative parties and the C atholic C h urch. H e asked A ustrian com rades to translate in to H ungarian the appeal ‘L O N G LIVE T H E IN D E P E N D E N T , D E M O C R A T IC H U N G A R IA N R E ­ P U B L IC O F W O R K E R S ’ C O U N C IL S !’52 and to sm uggle it over die border. M o n e y was n o object: ‘T his is today th e first priority o f the entire m o v e m e n t. . . A t revolutionary m o m en ts a dozen m ilitants w ith clear ideas can influence thousands o f p e o p le .’53 M an d el w arned that w ith o u t revolu­ tionary leadership ‘a positive o u tc o m e . . . is certainly n o t assured’.54 O n 4 N o v em b e r 1956, R ussian tanks raged th ro u g h Budapest to crush the insurrection. M andel rushed h ead lo n g to V ienna as a correspondent for Le Peuple. H e stayed for less than a-w eek, from 5—9 N o vem ber. F o r a w hile still he h o p e d that th e K rem lin could be b ro u g h t to its knees by a general strike.55 D espite the Soviet occupation, the w o rkers’ com m ittees rem ained vocal in support o f the socialist econom y. C o u ld the socialist consciousness o f the H ungarian w o rk in g class be m o re convincingly proven? M andel p h o n e d his reports th ro u g h fro m th e H u n g arian border, travelling aro u n d the cou n try for as lo n g as h e co u ld .56 O n c e back in B elgium , h e concen trated his energies o n La Gauche. T h e first issue was supposed to appear o n 15 D ecem b er, b u t he felt unable to stay for the p ap er’s inauguration. O n 10 D ecem b er he returned again to Eastern E urope, this tim e talcing a plan e to W arsaw , w here he w ould rem ain fo r over tw o w eeks at th e in vitation o f Zycie Warszawy, w hich had arranged an exchange o f journalists w ith Le Peuple.57 M andel expected a lo t from the trip; h e considered that the circum stances ‘seem propitious for an in te r­ vention o n o u r p art’.58 His travel jo u rn al, a densely w ritten n o te b o o k , gives an im pression o f frenzied activity, n o t only in W arsaw -but also in Lodz, Poznan, K rakow and N o w a H u ta .59 M andel spoke w ith Eligiuz Lasota o f Po Prostu and the econom ists M ichal Kalecki, E dw ard Lipinski and O skar

io 6

ERNEST MANDEL

Lange, w h o , as M andel reported to R osdolsky, ‘had developed in a good d irectio n ’.60 H e also spoke w ith Stanislaw B rodski, chair o f the journalists’ u nion; Jerzy T ep ich t, a specialist in agricultural questions; the you n g philo so p h er Jerzy W iatr; the literary critic, p o e t and ex-T rotskyist E dw ard Janus, only recently released from prison; Tatarlcow na, the first party secretary o f Lodz; and Leszek K olakow ski, a prom ising philosopher at the U niversity o f W arsaw .61 In addition, h e m et m any students and y o ung w orkers. T o his surprise, despite their ‘dreadful edu catio n ’ they w ere by no i m eans lost causes. 6 2 M an d el sensed a d e e p -ro o te d fear o f the K rem lin, w h ic h considered Poland, like H ungary, a source o f revolutionary infection. M andel k n ew that a Stalinist party faction was being n u rtu re d from the R ussian Embassy, m ade u p o f party m em bers w h o w o u ld b e trustw orthy accom plices ‘ju st in case. In any event I urge y o u to be d isc re e t. . . because few foreigners k n o w ab o u t this and I do n o t w a n t to m ake it to o easy for the source to be discovered.’63 W h e n he raised the idea o f publishing T ro tsk y ’s writings, he w a s ’given to understand that M oscow w o u ld regard this as a casus belli. M an d el presented him self in P oland as a ‘left-w in g socialist sym pathetic to T ro tsk y ’.64 T his left h im free, as he said, to m ee t w ith w h o m e v e r he w ished, an d at th e same tim e able to talk to C o m m u n ist P arty people. T his was im p o rtan t, because h e expected n ew divisions in the Polish CP; everyone’s position was shifting. M an d el re c o u n te d his im pressions in Le Peuple an d La Gauche and also in th e G erm an Sozialistische Politik an d in France Observateur. H e gave lectures o n E astern E u ro p e a n developm ents at th e M aison du P eu p le in Brussels an d La P o p u laire in L iege.65 P o lan d was a sensitive b u t prom ising arena for w o rk . Later, in th e 1970s, he discussed it w ith the historian T h e o van T ijn, a professor at th e U niversity o f U tre c h t.66 V an T ijn had b eco m e friends w ith Leszek K olakow ski in Poland. W h e n K olakow ski w e n t to A m ster­ d am in 1958 to study se v e n te e n th -ce n tu ry D u tc h religions, he lived for six m o n th s w ith V an T ijn ’s m o th e r.67 E v entually he becam e a ren o w n ed p h ilo so p h er. H e said later, ‘I h ad a personal affection for M andel and for T h e o [van T ijn]; they w ere sincere and h a d a realistic perspective on the socialist w o rld .’ B u t he w an te d n o th in g to do w ith a secret gathering in Brussels: ‘I was ready to go to priso n in P o la n d b u t please n o t for T rotskyism ; all friends w o u ld laugh at m e .’68 In 1957, the B elgian Socialist Y o u n g G uard (SJW) established contact w ith the Polish U n io n o f Socialist Y o u th .69 A few o f the Poles visited Brussels and A n tw erp in the sum m er and w ere hosted by the Socialist Party an d the A B W . M andel had high expectations fo r one o f them , Ludw ik M ik ru t, a steel w o rk e r from N o w a H u ta and vice-chair o f the Socialist

IN T H E F O U R T H I N T E R N A T I O N A L

1 07

Y o u th . H e stayed w ith G eorges D o b b eleer in Liege, read T rotsky’s The Revolution Betrayed in one nig h t and converted to Trotskyism .70 W h e n C o m m u n ist Party G eneral Secretary W adysaw G om ulka gradually reas­ sum ed control, M ik ru t was expelled from th e party and fired. H e co m ­ m unicated w ith T rotskyist friends in a ro u n d a b o u t m anner: I ask you to observe silence about m e because people are also concerned in the affair. T hey have assembled a m y ‘anti-com m unist’ social-democratic activities in m om ent I am slaving away like a beast o f burden god and H oly Father G om ulka.71

from our embassy nasty report about Belgium. At this and praising our

In 1959 M andel asked D obbeleer to renew the lapsed connection w ith Poland. G eorges D obbeleer, then almost thirty, was from a Liege family that had earned its spurs in the struggle against the Nazis, and in 1953, after a brief flirtation w ith C om m unism , he had turned to the F ourth International.72 O n his first trip to P oland he had visited Badowslci in K rakow . Badowski was distributing an illegal paper, and D obbeleer’s financial help was very w el­ com e.73 In W arsaw D obbeleer tried to m ake contact w ith Karol M odzelewski, a student o f m edieval history and the son o f a m em ber o f the Politburo and form er foreign m inister. H e had played a key role in the events o f 1956, b u t n o w h e seem ed disillusioned. H e told D obbeleer, ‘N o , I’m n o t going to get involved w ith politics. It’s over now . P eople aren’t interested in all that any m o re.’ B u t in the sum m er o f 1963, in collaboration w ith Jacek K uron, M odzelew ski w rote an ‘O p e n Letter to the Party’, containing a heretical view o f the bureaucracy and the single-party system, stating that ‘a m onopoly o f p o w er w e n t h a n d -in -h an d w ith the destruction o f freedom ’.74 Originally this manifesto had n o title, n o r was it signed. It was to be duplicated and distributed clandestinely, and D obbeleer offered to help.75 A t th e invitation o f the Polish C o m m u n ist y o u th group, D o b b eleer had gone to W arsaw th at July. In his baggage he had 1,000 copies o f ‘Stalinism in Crisis’, a resolution w ritten by M andel for the Sixth W o rld Congress o f the F ourth International in 1961, translated into Polish.76 Shortly before, a W est G erm an com rade had sm uggled a stencil m achine over the Polish bo rd er.77 T h e copies o f the resolution and the stencil m achine w ere in ten d ed for Ludw ik Hass, w h o m ade n o secret o f his sym pathies and show ed the resolution to K u ro n and M odzelew ski. K u ro n told Hass that he had little interest in it. It lo o k e d disreputable, having b een typed by M andel’s elderly au n t o n an ancient typew riter in an old-fashioned spelling no longer current in Poland. T h o u g h the resolution was scorned, the stencil m achine was avidly received: it gave K uron and M odzelew ski a chance to reproduce the

io8

ERNEST MANDEL

‘O p e n L etter1. Sixteen copies w ere m ade and circulated in M arch 1965. In his m em o ir Belief and Guilt, Jacek K u ro n w ro te, ‘I h an d e d tw o to Ludwilc Hass, rem arking, “ T hese are for th e W e st.” ,7S T h e n e x t m o rn in g K u ro n and M odzelew ski w ere arrested. A few days later a postcard p icturing a fo u n tain appeared in D o b b e le e r’s m ailbox in Liege —th e pre-arranged signal that th ere h a d b e e n arrests.79 K u ro n was sentenced to th ree years in prison, M odzelew ski to three and a half. Hass an d B adow ski w ere also sentenced to three years, as was D o b b eleer in absentia.80 T h e ‘O p e n L etter’ reached Paris in A pril 1966.81 M an d el w ro te o f it, ‘T h e analysis is n o t only M arxist. It is also profoundly revolutionary . . . p rofoundly internationalist.’82 Sherry M angan, writer and revolutionary T h e re was m u c h to criticize in the w o rk that the International had do n e in E astern E u ro p e in th e 1950s, b u t at least it was clear th at M andel and Pablo h ad n o t yielded, to Stalinism. T h e A m ericans could n o t fail to notice that everything they h ad d one expressed the desire to b u ild a n e w revolutionary m o v em en t. W ith satisfaction, M andel reco rded th at ‘o u r assessment today o f R ussian developm ents, as w ell as the Polish and H un g arian revolutions and the entire international situation, n o lo n g e r separates [us] fro m th e S W P ’.83 A n d in 1957 th e SW P gave Sherry M an g an the task o f lo o k in g in to the prospects for reunification.84 M angan h ad spent the early 1950s in C o chabam ba in Bolivia (‘the nicest place to live’85), w h ere he was w ritin g The Mountain o f Death, a novel about w orkers in the tin m ines. Since his psychiatric treatm en t in A m sterdam , he h ad b e e n preparing a literary com eback. B u t the sickness and death o f his life p artn er M arguerite Landin upset h im deeply, and h e was unable to com plete his novel. M an d el read the m anuscript and praised it as having ‘fine language’ and ‘living characters’.86 A fter a visit to N e w Y ork, w h ere he spent tim e w ith the ex-Trotskyists M ary M cC arth y and Saul B ellow , and a b rie f Spanish adventure, M an g an w o u n d up again in Paris, w h ere he translated Paul V alery’s p o etry .87 H e retu rn ed to N e w Y ork in M arch 1957, w ith the addresses o f M anfred and B reitm an in his pocket, and ren ted a m odest ro o m in the Chelsea H o tel. W h e n he spoke w ith the SW P, he sensed a sym pathetic stance to w ard M an del and P ab lo ’s group, b u t a m eetin g w ith Jam es P. C a n n o n , the only one w h o could actually m ove a reunification forw ard, deteriorated into an exchange o f abuse.88 A fter tw o m onths h e retu rn ed to Paris em p ty -h an d ed . A little w hile later h e tu rn ed his atten tio n to aiding the Algerian^ N atio n al L iberation F ront (FLN), then fighting for A lgerian indep en d en ce from France.

IN THE FOURTH IN TERN A TIO N A L

109

Supporting the Algerian independence struggle In 1953, th e K orean W a r e n d ed an d Stalin died, and th e threat o f a third w o rld w ar receded. W ith its rapid gro w th , the W estern E u ro p ean econom y was b rin g in g ab o u t radical changes.89 W ashing m achines, transistor radios, the first televisions, m otorbikes and autom obiles open ed u n p recedented possibilities for a b e tte r standard o f living. T h e radios w ere broadcasting n o t only ro c k -a n d -ro ll and th e songs o f C harles A znavour and Jacques B rel b u t also ever m o re freq u en t reports ab o u t th e F rench colony o f Algeria. It was 1956, and th e A lgerians’ fight for ind ep en d en ce was grow ing fiercer. T h o u g h M an d el and Pablo had b een m istaken about a third w o rld war, th eir intuitions ab o u t the o n rash in g colonial rev o lu tio n had n o t let them dow n; India, C eylon, Pakistan, Indochina, Indonesia, Iran and n o w N o rth Africa had all risen against th e im perialist pow ers in a strike for selfdeterm ination. Little su p p o rt for th e m co u ld be expected fro m the social dem ocrats o r C om m u n ists.90 It was fo rth co m in g from progressive Catholics, anarchists, a small faction o f th e Socialist SFIO , the cream o f F rench intellectuals from Sartre to Signoret, and the Trotskyists.91 T h e y w ere at the forefront, n o t only in France b u t elsew here in E uro p e. Pablo, M andel and their bare h u n d re d F ren ch com rades w ere am ong th e very first to support the stillm ysterious FL N . It was d e e d :a,s w ell as w ords that counted. Pablo said th at ‘a n ew ch ap ter has opened in the struggle for freedom in this country, a liberation th a t it w ill be im possible to sto p ’.92 T h e F L N was leading th e A lgerian revolution, b u t its influence in France — the fam ous S eventh W ilaya93 —was as y et lim ited. This was an opp o rtu n ity for th e Intern atio n al to help th e FL N g ro w b y enabling it to collect a revolutionary tax fro m th e tens o f thousands o f Algerians w h o w ere w o rk in g in France. T h e Trotskyists w ere backed b y w h a t was taking shape as the N e w Left, a loosely structured m ilieu containing ‘old Trotskyists for life’ like C raipeau, N aville and the m athem atician L aurent Schw artz, and radical socialists, ex-C o m m u n ists, academ ics like E dgar M o rin and journalists like C laude B o u rd e t and Gilles M artinet. T h e International was entrusted w ith the p ro d u c tio n an d distribution o f Resistance algerienne (Algerian Resistance), the F L N ’s first illegal paper in France.94 P ierre A vot-M eyers was given the task o f coord in atin g p ro d u c tio n and distribution. T h e con n ectin g links w ith the F L N w e re H adj M ’h a m m ed C herchalli and M o h am m e d H arbi, a tw en ty -y ear-o ld stu den t and o n e o f the few M arxists in the Front. A fter the rev o lu tio n H arbi becam e a n o te d historian.95 • As repression against th e m o v e m e n t grew , security becam e an ever greater concern. M an g an left his belo v ed Paris for the village o f O m e , in the

IIO

ERNEST MANDEL

N o rm a n countryside. N o o n e suspected that the A m erican journalist living in such seclusion spent his evenings ru n n in g a G estetner duplicating m achine o n b e h a lf o f the Algerian rebels. H alfw ay to Paris he had a w eekly rendezvous to exchange m aterials.96 E ventually the printing was sw itched to B elgium , w h ich lessened th e risks. T h e m any Algerians w o rk in g in the Liege steel industry and in the m ines fo rm ed a screen b eh in d w h ich the illegal w o rk was easily m asked.97 M an d el to o k ch ief responsibility for this operation too. O thers w h o w ere p ro m in en tly involved w ere A dolphine ‘D o u d o u ’ and Jean N eyens, journalists w ith B elgian television; the ju rist M ath e Lam bert; M alo u R o tiv ; and Pierre Le G reve, the actual leader, assisted by je a n G o d in as publisher. T h e papers w ere p roduced in Brussels, in N ey en s’s cellar.98 T h e Belgian Trotskyists, like their F rench counterparts, w ere active in w id e-ran g in g m ilieux. T h e B elgian C o m m ittee for Peace in Algeria, fo u n d ed in A pril 1958, soon had aro u n d 300 m em bers.99 ‘It’s incredible; y o u all k n o w each oth er!’ an FL N representative said to Pierre Le G reve, w h o n o d d e d approvingly.100 H o w ev er, the representative show ed concern as w ell as adm iration. D id n ’t this large and intim ate co m m u n ity endanger th e secrecy necessary to p ro tect such a project? Le G reve assured h im that on M a n d e l’s orders he to o k Resistance algerienne to Paris personally and regularly accom panied F L N leaders across the b o rd e r.101 T h e Algerians suggested that h e replace his litde C itro en w ith a faster car. Incidents such as assassinations an d attacks o ccurred regularly —th e w o rk o f T h e R e d H and, an offshoot o f th e F rench security police. O n a Friday in M arch 1960 Le G reve was teaching at his school. A t his h o m e in U ccle, a b o ro u g h o f Brussels, his wife op en ed a package that had arrived in the mail, w ith a legitim ate sender identified o n the w rapping, w h ic h was stam ped ‘special ed itio n ’ and claim ing to be a b o o k titled The Pacification, an in d ic tm e n t o f French torture. S h e op en ed the package and discovered a b o m b , w h ich m iraculously did n o t explode. Such good fortune did n o t befall G eorges Laperche, a history teacher in Liege. A similar device ex ploded in his hands, and caused his gruesom e death. T h e same day M andel w arn ed Sal Santen in the N etherlands and G eorg Jungclas in G erm any to be careful: ‘I have the feeling that the bandits are on o u r trail internationally . . . P articular safety m easures that I already spoke about at the last m eeting [of th e International Secretariat] have n o w beco m e extremely urgent.’102 Le G reve began carrying a pistol. G eo rg Jungclas, a lifelong T rotskyist, n o w alm ost sixty, was up to his neck in the A lgerian w o rk .103 T h e Trotskyists published Freies Algerien (Free Algeria) in C ologne, som etim es in an ed ition o f 6,000 copies. H ans-Jurgen W ischnew ski, later a m inister and vice-chair for the Social D em ocratic Party

IN THE FO U RTH IN TERN ATIO N AL

III

(SPD), was persuaded to act as p ublisher.104 T h e contact had b een m ade through M o h a m m e d H arbi. A d ru n k en y et cool-headed Sherry M angan had helped h im cross the b o rd e r.105 H arb i had m e t beforehand w ith Pablo and M andel in a Paris station restaurant, w here they assured him that the Germ ans w o u ld painstakingly abide b y the rules o f u n d erg ro u n d w o rk .106 Jungclas, w h o had conspiracy in his b lo o d , coordinated the m o v em en t o f m oney and the p ro d u c tio n o f w eapons. French and B elgian soldiers serving in occupied G erm an y w ere used as porters across the border, w hich they could cross inconspicuously.107 Bags filled w ith the m o n ey th at had been collected w ere h an d ed over at the G erm an embassy in Paris.108 Since N o v e m b e r 1953 G alician-bom Jakob M on eta had been there as the accredited representative o f the G erm an T rade U n io n Federation (DGB). W ith his diplom atic passport he could cross the b o rd er un hindered, carrying d ocum ents for the FLN , and he could deposit m o n ey in an account at the D eutsche B ank in Frankfurt. In 1961, M o n eta w o u ld be nam ed an officer o f the L egion o f H o n o u r by D e G aulle.109 His illegal activities had gone unnoticed . A year later he becam e the e d ito r-in -c h ie f o f b o th Der Gewerkscliafter, a m o n th ly for trade u n io n adm inistrators, and Metall, the paper o f the m etal w o rk ers’ u n io n IG M etall.110 M andel w ro te articles for him u n d e r th e p seu d o n y m P e te r K ipp; M o n e ta ’s daughter Dalia called him U ncle K ipp. Jungclas, Santen and Pabjo recruited an international group o f skilled craftsmen w h o h elp ed the Algerians m ake w eapons at various locations in M orocco. T h e y cam e from A rgentina, V enezuela, E ngland, France, G er­ m any, G reece and the N etherlands, and w o rk ed no n -sto p to produce m achine pistols and small m ortars.111 T h e w o rk was done in orange groves and ab an d o n ed factories and even in the centre o f R abat, a sto n e’s throw from th e A m erican em bassy.112 F or w eeks, som etim es m onths, the m em bers o f this international brigade did n o t see the light o f day.113 A D u tc h engraver helped equip the factories and supplied th e FL N w ith perfect French identity papers, w o rk perm its, factory passes and payroll lists seem ingly from th e largest F rench auto m anufacturers.114 Conflict with Michel Pablo Because o f the bom bings, the Secretariat o f the International decided to leave Paris in M ay 1958, as did the FLN , w h ich transferred its leadership to G erm any. D e G aulle had taken p o w e r w ith o u t the slightest opposition, a turn to the right that Pablo th o u g h t involved the danger o f dictatorship.115 Pablo and H elen e left for A m sterdam , w here they stayed w ith M aurice Ferares, a violinist and trade unio n leader. Ferares was from a d irt-p o o r

n o

ERNEST MANDEL

N o rm a n countryside. N o o n e suspected that the A m erican journalist living in such seclusion spent his evenings ru n n in g a G estetner duplicating m achine o n b e h a lf o f the A lgerian rebels. H alfw ay to Paris h e had a w eekly rendezvous to exchange m aterials.96 E ventually the prin tin g was sw itched to B elgium , w h ich lessened the risks. T h e m any Algerians w o rk in g in the Liege steel industry and in the m ines form ed a screen b eh in d w h ich the illegal w o rk was easily m asked.97 M an d el to o k c h ie f responsibility for this op eratio n too. O th ers w h o w ere p ro m in e n d y involved w ere A dolphine ‘D o u d o u ’ and Jean N eyens, journalists w ith B elgian television; the ju rist M ath e L am bert; M alo u R o riv ; an d Pierre Le G reve, the actual leader, assisted by Jean G o d in as publisher. T h e papers w ere p ro d u c ed in Brussels, in N ey en s’s cellar.98 T h e B elgian Trotskyists, like their F rench counterparts, w ere active in w id e-ran g in g m ilieux. T h e B elgian C o m m ittee for Peace in Algeria, fo u n d ed in A pril 1958, soon h ad aro u n d 300 m em bers.99 ‘It’s incredible; y o u all k n o w each o th er!’ an F L N representative said to Pierre Le G reve, w h o n o d d e d approvingly.100 H o w ev er, the representative show ed concern as w ell as adm iration. D id n ’t this large and intim ate co m m u n ity endanger the secrecy necessary to p ro tect such a project? Le G reve assured h im that on M an d el’s orders he to o k Resistance algerienne to Paris personally and regularly accom panied F L N leaders across the b o rd e r.101 T h e Algerians suggested that h e replace his little C itro en w ith a faster car. Incidents such as assassinations and attacks o ccurred regularly —th e w o rk o f T h e R e d H an d , an offshoot o f th e F rench security police. O n a Friday in M arch 1960 Le G reve was teaching at his school. A t his h o m e in U ccle, a b o ro u g h o f Brussels, his w ife o p en e d a package that had arrived in the mail, w ith a legitim ate sender identified o n the w rapping, w h ich was stam ped ‘special e d itio n ’ and claim ing to be a b o o k titled The Pacification, an in d ictm en t o f F rench to rtu re. She o p en e d the package and discovered a b o m b , w h ich m iraculously did n o t explode. Such g o o d fortune did n o t befall G eorges Laperche, a history teacher in Liege. A similar device exploded in his hands, and caused his gruesom e death. T h e same day M andel w arned Sal Santen in th e N etherlands and G eorgJungclas in G erm any to be careful: ‘I have the feeling that the bandits are o n o u r trail internationally . . . Particular safety m easures that I already spoke about at the last m eeting [of the International Secretariat] have n o w b ecom e extremely urgent.’102 Le G reve began carrying a pistol. G eorgJungclas, a lifelong T rotskyist, n o w alm ost sixty, was up to his neck in the Algerian w o rk .103 T h e Trotskyists published Freies Algerien (Free Algeria) in C ologne, som etim es in ?tn edition o f 6,000 copies. H ans-Jtirgen W ischnew ski, later a m inister and vice-chair for the Social D em ocratic Party

IN T H E F O U R T H I N T E R N A T I O N A L

III

(SPD), was persuaded to act as p u b lish er.104 T h e contact had b een m ade throug h M o h a m m e d H arbi. A d ru n k en y et cool-headed Sherry M angan had helped h im cross th e b o rd e r.105 H arbi h ad m et beforehand w ith Pablo and M andel in a Paris station restaurant, w h ere they assured h im th at the Germ ans w o u ld painstakingly abide by the rules o f u n d erg ro u n d w o rk .106 Jungclas, w h o h ad conspiracy in his b lood, coordinated the m o v e m e n t o f m oney and the p ro d u c tio n o f w eapons. F rench and B elgian soldiers serving in occupied G erm any w ere used as porters across the border, w h ic h they could cross inconspicuously.107 Bags filled w ith the m o n e y th at had been collected w ere h an d ed o v er at the G erm an embassy in Paris.108 Since N o v em b e r 1953 G alician -b o m Jakob M on eta had b een there as the accredited representative o f the G erm an T rade U n io n Federation (DGB). W ith his diplom atic passport he could cross the b o rd er u nhindered, carrying d o cum ents for th e FLN , and he could deposit m o n ey in an account at the D eutsche B ank in Frankfurt. In 1961, M o n eta w o u ld be n am ed an officer o f the L egion o f H o n o u r by D e G au lle.109 His illegal activities had gone u n n o ticed . A year later h e becam e the ed ito r-in -ch ief o f both. _Der Gewerkschqfter, a m o n th ly for trade u n io n adm inistrators, and Metall, the paper o f the m etal w orkers’ u n io n IG M etall.110 M andel w rote articles for h im u n d er the p seu d o n y m P e te r Kipp; M o n e ta ’s daughter Dalia called him U ncle K ipp. Jungclas, Santen and Pablo recruited an international group o f skilled craftsmen w h o h elped the Algerians m ake w eapons at various locations in M orocco . T h e y cam e from A rgentina, V enezuela, E ngland, France, G er­ m any, G reece and the N etherlands, and w o rk ed n o n -sto p to produce m achine pistols an d small m ortars.111 T h e w o rk was do n e in orange groves and abandoned factories and even in th e centre o f R ab at, a sto n e’s th ro w from the A m erican em bassy.112 F or w eeks, som etim es m onths, the m em bers o f this international brigade did n o t see the light o f day.113 A D u tc h engraver helped equip th e factories and supplied the FL N w ith perfect French identity papers, w o rk perm its, factory passes and payroll lists seem ingly from the largest F rench auto m anufacturers.114 C onflict with M ichel Pablo Because o f the bom bings, th e Secretariat o f the International decided to leave Paris in M ay 1958, as did the ELN, w hich transferred its leadership to G erm any. D e G aulle had taken p o w e r w ith o u t the slightest opposition, a turn to the right th at Pablo th o u g h t involved the danger o f dictatorship.115 Pablo and H elene left for A m sterdam , w h ere they stayed w ith M aurice Ferares, a violinist and trade u n io n leader. Ferares was from a d irt-p o o r

112

ERNEST M A NDEL

family and he h ad seen every one o f th e m taken aw ay in the w ar. H e had jo in e d the International soon after the O ccu p atio n ended. T h e entire third floor and attic o f a house o n the N ieu w e Prinsengracht, o n the b o rd e r o f a Jew ish n e ig h b o u rh o o d decim ated b y th e Germ ans, was m ade available to Pablo. H is secretary to o k u p residence o n the m ezzanine floor, w here the original Jew ish inhabitants had b een accustom ed to celebrate S ukkoth, the Feast o f the Tabernacles. O n ly Pablo had expressed a preference for A m sterdam ; the others considered R o m e a m o re suitable lo catio n .116 T h e y h ad gone along w ith Pablo to keep h im happy. Sal Santen was there: he and Santen w ere thick as thieves, and Santen was unw illing after his S o u th A m erican adventure o f 1952—3 to be separated again from his family. M o reo v er Pablo needed S anten to back h im in th e sharp differences o f o p inion a b o u t developm ents in E u ro p e that w ere com ing to light. In Paris H elen e R aptis had called P ierre F rank an id io t because he failed to recognize the historic defeat o f the w o rk in g class. Frank o bjected to H e le n e ’s presence at leadership m eetings, and M an d el and the Italian Livio M aitan supported h im in this. T he g rum bling trio gave in w h e n Pablo offered th e m the choice o f accepting A m sterdam and H elen e o r his resignation.117 E rnest M andel and Livio M aitan h ad k n o w n each o th e r since 1947. M aitan, originally from V enice, had studied classical languages in Padua and jo in e d th e R esistance durin g the w ar.118 In the last year o f the w ar h e w e n t to Sw itzerland, w h ere , he cam e into co n tact w ith Trotskyism . A fter the L iberation M aitan was chosen to be th e national secretary o f the Italian Socialist y o u th organization, w h ich had som e 30,000 m em bers. In April 1947 he atten d ed th e congress o f its French counterpart, w h ere h e first m e t M andel. S o o n afterw ard M andel lo o k ed h im up in M ilan; M aitan never fo rg o t h o w M andel, seeing chalked o n walls everyw here the slogan ‘Viva Intem azionale!’, delightedly exclaim ed, ‘A bsolutely incredible! So m any internationalists in Italy in spite o f the Stalinists and the reform ists.’ M andel h a d n ’t realized that ‘Intem azionale’ was sim ply the nam e o f a big M ilan football team .119 W ith Pierre Frank, M aitan and M andel form ed a trio in w h o m Pablo and Santen w o u ld m eet th eir m atch. Pablo was a com plex figure. H e was friendly and generous, b u t n o t w h e n faced w ith differences o f opinion. T h e n h e becam e suspicious and con­ vinced that plots w ere b ein g h atched against him . T his led to regular clashes in th e course o f 1958. M angan and M aitan th reatened to leave the In tern atio n al’s leadership.120 M andel co n vinced th em to reconsider, th o u g h h e was at least as tro u b led as they w ere b y P ab lo ’s h ig h -h an d e d behaviour. T o o often Pablo to o k positions that had n o t —o r n o t yet —b e e n collectively discussed. F u rth erm o re, M andel realized that Pablo lacked a sense o f

IN THE FO URTH INTERN ATIO NAL

113

p ropo rtio n ; everything was all o r n othing, n o w or never. This was an exaggerated style o f activism that w o u ld exhaust a small organization like the F o u rth International. L en in ’s m o tto , ‘B e tte r few er b u t better!’ was n o t for P ablo .121 M an d el th o u g h t it was tim e to b reak w ith this frenzied w ay o f w orldng: ‘W o u ld n ’t it have b e e n b etter i f I had b een able to finish w riting m y b o o k and h a d w ritte n som ew hat few er articles for periodicals?’122 In B elgian social dem ocratic circles he had learned to value a m ore balanced rhyth m , to give an d take rather than seeing everything sharply as black or w hite. Instead o f an adm inistrative office that bickered about priorities, M andel lo n g ed for a collective leadership, w o rk in g w ith patience instead o f pressure: ‘It’s only h u m an th at it m akes m e boil to h ear that I’m n o t doing en ough (I w o rk an average eight hours a day o n politics in addition to a full-tim e jo b ).’123 H e c o u ld n ’t change his o w n position w ith o u t affecting P ablo’s. B u t by 1959 the situation had b eco m e untenable. P ablo’s im periousness was unbearable. A part from Santen n o one saw the organization’s correspon­ dence o r k n e w w h a t was going o n w ith contacts o r finances. This had to end. As M andel said, I had to listen to all these heated stories about the necessity o f immediate, sharp changes o f course —supposedly ‘the only way to avoid crises’ —about France in 1950 and about the [US] SW P in 1953, w ith the tragic results w e all know . • H e feared a fiasco, n o w that Pablo insisted the situation in E u ro p e required a change in tactics.124 Pablo was ready to give up o n E urope. T h e w orldng class was fu rth er than ever from revolution. O n ly liberation m ovem ents in the T h ird W o rld m erited support. T his p ro n o u n c e m en t elicited a sigh from Pierre Frank: ‘M [ichel Pablo] doesn’t lead, he brutalizes.’125 In dismay M an d el saw the ‘paralyzed’ E u ro p ean proletariat th ro w n o n the scrapheap, w ith Pablo proposing th e m ost exotic solidarity initiatives as the alternative. M an d el was n o t inclined to abandon entry w o rk n o w that it finally appeared to be bearing fruit, w ith La Gauche and Links gaining readers in B elgium , m em bership d oubling in G erm any and Italy, and influence gro w in g am o n g th e C o m m u n ist y o u th in F rance.126 In N o v e m b e r 1959 in A m sterdam he and Pablo had a blazing row . D u rin g a break, H elene disdainfully referred to M andel as a"‘so-called T rotskyist’. M andel snapped back, ‘If y o u can say that, m y response is that y o u ’re either stupid or crazy.’127 T h e scene becam e m ore grotesque w h en Pablo ordered him to leave th e m eetin g and Santen, k n o w n for his gentleness, threatened him w ith violence. M andel felt deeply hum iliated .12S Pierre Frank avoided a

ERNEST MANDEL

b reak b y convincing th e Secretariat to refrain from m aking a choice betw een Pablo and M a n d e l.129 T h e in cid en t was seen as a clash o f tem peram ents, and ‘even if o n e thinks th ere are political divergences, that does n o t justify elim inating a co m rad e’.130 T h o u g h tem pers cooled, n o th in g changed in the organization’s opera­ tion. As before, Pablo and Santen controlled daily affairs. O n c e a m o n th th ey w e re assisted b y M andel, Frank, M angan (now living in R o m e),. Jungclas, M aitan and the A rgentinian A dolfo Gilly, w h o spent the spring o f 1960 in A m sterdam .133 T h e re was still n o o p en acco u n tin g o f the finances, w h ic h rem ain ed in P ab lo ’s hands. T h e same was true for contacts and corresp o n d en ce.132 T h e dissatisfaction o f others m ade little difference to Pablo. H e and n o o n e else had m ade th e International in to w h at it was. H e was co n vinced that w ith o u t his participation, everything w o u ld fall to pieces. Should M an d el have gone into battle against him ? T h e re w asn’t enough tim e. In addition to La Wallonie and his w o rk for La Gauche and Links, he was trying to finish Marxist Economic Theoiy and find a publisher fo r it. H e to ld M angan, ‘I really have no tim e to breathe . . .’ and pleaded w ith him , P.lease d on’t start overworking. It isn't worth it. T h e most precious thing w e have . . . are capable, trained arid reliable leaders o f the m ovem ent. To get their health in danger for any current jo b is w hat the Italians call contraprodncente [counter-productive].133 M angan was ju s t recovering from a heart ailm en t.134 Arrests, weapons and counterfeiting O n Friday 10 Ju n e 1960, a small arm y o fD u tc h national police storm ed into N ie u w e Prinsengracht 47 to arrest Pablo and his w ife H elene. It was her birthday. Sal Santen was b ein g h eld elsew here in A m sterdam . T h e D u tch and W est G erm an security police w ere ro u n d in g up a b a n d o f counterfeiters that was ab o u t to p roduce millions o f French banknotes. R a id in g a p rin te r in O snabrtick, the authorities had fo u n d Ab .O eldrich, the D u tc h engraver and m aster counterfeiter w h o had b een p ro d u cing m o n ey and docum ents for th e A lgerian cause. T h e new spapers rep o rted that they w ere n o w lookingfo r die p rin te r Jo o p Z w art, an old friend o f O e ld rich ’s from his y o u th and stu d en t days.135 O n his w ay h o m e from w o rk M aurice Ferares ran into his oldest daughter. She had b een w aiting for h im by the canal and in tears told h im w h a t had happened. Ferares w e n t im m ediately to the m ain post office

IN T H E F O U R T H I N T E R N A T I O N A L

I I

5

and telep h o n ed M andel to let h im kn o w . H e m ade an appointm ent to go to Brussels th e n e x t day to re p o rt in person. B ack at h o m e —H elene h a d b een released — Feroues learned fo r the first tim e ab o ut the p ro d u ctio n o f false papers and co unterfeit m o n e y and was com pletely stu n n e d .136 T h e n ex t day in Brussels he was m e t at the N o rth Station and driven by a rou n d ab o u t ro u te to an em pty apartm ent in the city centre. T h e Secretariat —consisting o f M andel, Frank, Jungclas and M aitan —was m eetin g there. Ferares gave his account. Ferares recalled later that the reactions w ere unequivocal: ‘B ut those are crim inal activities! W e can’t defend som ething like that!’ Som e­ thing clicked for Ferares: ‘I f th at’s the vanguard o f the revolution . . .’ B ew ildered, he headed ho m ew ard . Forty years later he said that ‘M andel had k n o w n ab o u t it anyw ay’ —H elen e h ad sw orn it.137 M aitan also th o u g h t that M andel and Pierre Frank had k n o w n a b o u t it, b u t ‘only in o u dine, n o t in detail’. It had n ev er b een discussed; he and Jungclas k n e w n o th in g .138 M andel, how ev er, denied that h e had k n o w n anything about the co u n ter­ feiting. Because o f the risks, he w o u ld n ev er have supported such an activity. T h a t was different from prep arin g false papers, w hich was defensible w h e n it allow ed u n d e rg ro u n d activists to survive.139 T h e co unterfeiting seem ed to have b een P ab lo ’s solo effort; only H elene and Santen had b een taken in to his confidence. ‘D id n ’t w e have to help the Algerians? W h o else could d r w ou ld ?’ P ablo’s conscience had b een gnaw ed at by such questions.140 O m a r B o u d ao u d had m ade the request on beh alf o f the FLN . Pablo h ad hesitated and consulted M o h a m m ed H arbi in Frankfurt, w h o advised against the ad v en tu re.141 N onetheless Pablo had gone ahead w ith it. Santen asked assistance from O eldrich, a H aarlem resident. In his tu rn O eldrich to o k o n tw o colleagues, o n e o f w h o m was a paw n o f O eldrich ’s frien d Jo o p Z w art. O n c e a stu d en t at the L enin School in M oscow , since 1948 Z w art had b een active in secret service circles. H e called him self a printer-publicist and, u n k n o w n to Santen, had previously h elped O eldrich p rod u ce false identity papers. T hanks to Z w art, the D u tch security police w ere follow ing the g ro u p ’s preparations step by step. T h e authorities struck ju st before the first p rin tin g .142 Pablo and S an ten ’s arrests did n o t im prove their relations w ith the Secretariat. T h e y felt ab an doned if n o t b etray ed .143 Pablo was afraid o f being sentenced to at least fo u r years and b ein g deported to France or G reece. H elen e added to the tensions. Partial and self-willed, she refused to m ake funds available for the w o r k 'o f the S ecretariat.144 T his did n o t stop M andel, Frank and M aitan from getting a cam paign u n d er w ay to defend the act o f supporting the Algerian revolu tio n by providing identity papers and w eapons. T h e y said the counterfeit bank notes w ere a provocation planted by the French R e d H a n d .145

ERNEST MANDEL

E ven from prison Pablo tried to keep the International’s leadership in his o w n hands. Bypassing the Secretariat, he appealed ‘to yo u all, com rades o f the International . . . I have th e m ost com plete trust in y o u r proletarian and revolutionary m orality. Y o u w ill k n o w h o w to defend the International.’146 His alarm ing to n e gave the im pression that the International was threatened from w ithin. Filled w ith suspicion, H elen e was convinced that th eir lives w ere endan g ered .147 M o n e y problem s m ade the atm osphere even w o rse .148 T h e Sixth W o rld C ongress was approaching, and travel costs for the h u n d re d delegates w o u ld draw heavily o n the International’s funds. D ele­ gates w o u ld be travelling from th e far com ers o f the w orld to Schw erte, a small place south o f D o rtm u n d . T h e extra m o n ey that H elene dem anded for Santen, Pablo and herself was h ard to justify. M andel atten d ed only p art o f the congress, held in D ece m b er 1960. In B elgium th e strike against the U n ity Law was being fought, and he could n o t miss this h ig h p o in t in the class struggle. H e heard from E m ile van C e u len that the congress had en d ed in chaos. E lectio n o f the leadership bodies to o k place only after m any delegates h ad left. T h a t allow ed Ju an Posadas, supported by A dolfo Gilly and th e U ru g u ay an A lbert Sendic, to get a m ajority. Posadas, b o m in A rgentina to p o o r Italian im m igrants, had b e en recruited b y Sherry M angan in 1941—2 .149 H e supp o rted Pablo in the struggle against the W estern Europeans. Pablo praised his dynam ism : ‘I declare to all the w o rld that y o u ’re the best.’150 Posadas was authoritarian, b u t also and above all charism atic.151 B etw een tw enty-five and thirty peo p le had follow ed h im to E u ro p e b y boat and idolized him . O n e after an o th er th ey declared, ‘I agree w ith com rade Posadas’, and ‘I fully agree w ith com rade Posadas.’ N e v e r before had a w orld congress ech o ed w ith such repetitive testim ony fro m disciples.152 E ncouraged by H elen e, Posadas presented him self as P ablo’s substitute. H e felt him self to be th e soul o f the colonial revolution. H e w an ted n o th in g to do w ith M andel and to o k pleasure in belittling him , rem arking that h e should stop reading detective stories.153 T h e death o f Sherry M angan T h e conflict w ith Pablo and Posadas stim ulated M andel to resum e his attem pts at reconciliation w ith th e U S SW P. ‘V ery tactful, very sensitive, very n u anced . . . b u t please keep it u n d e r y o u r hat, for the tim e b e in g ’, heconfided to M angan in R o m e .154 O n the eve o f Santen and P ablo’s trial M angan sent h im a b rie f letter: ‘I am a b it breathless about the trial . . . I am relatively optim istic. Still.’155 A few days later M angan was dead. F or three days he had lain sick in b ed in his m inuscule apartm ent, eating nothing. Beset by m o n ey w orries, he refused to call a doctor. D isquieted friends

IN TH E F O U R TH IN T E R N A T IO N A L

117

alerted the police, w h o fo u n d him dead o n Saturday 24 Ju n e 1961. T h e authorities w ere fascinated by the various papers spread around his apart­ m ent: ‘H a d they fo u n d a p o e t o r a dangerous subversive?’156 M angan had enclosed a p o e m in one o f his last letters to M andel. ‘A n ew p o e m o n a so m ew h at political subject — “B eethoven and the B o m b ” — conceived m any years ago in N e w Y o rk at an o u td o o r Stadium co ncert’ was i * 157 w n tte n m the m argin: Smack in the middle o f the ‘Em peror’ under the stars that plane shrieked over, deafening, and you grimaced, you and three thousand others, till it passed, and then forgot it utterly. W hile I, m y head rolled back, w atched it rejoin far squadrons (whose gibbering, colored lights, in night manoeuvres, m ocked searchlights’ fingers groping after them), and pictured radars’ sweeps and nukes following points, • H -bom bs air-bom e each h o u r o f the day and night, and others sheathed in lethal penciled length on earth, below the sea, at any m adm an’s mercy; and turned m y gaze again to w atch you —rapt, unheeding, as if the w orld w ere only music. O r on that other evening w hen y o u ’d grown im patient w ith m e for the time I’d spent in w orking on the protest, and in fear o f talk that m ight again grow bitter, w e had fled die issue, and w e w ere recapturing o u r m enaced sense o f love by listening together, sprawled o n a couch, w ith just o u r fingers touching, to the one-eleventh, w hile through them love flowed back, under the spell, and outside there was passingly sirens (this time, just fire-sirens, but sirens still sufficient to recall the final ones to come) and passingly also m y thought: there is so litde time to head them off, to save all tim e for love and music; but w hen I rolled m y head upon the pillow toward you, you w ere listening as if there w ere forever. If w e w ould still hear music, we m ust also listen to the knell

ERNEST MANDEL

tolling for music and for love. W ill it be only w hen I see your loved flesh turn from red to black, and m y already black flesh is crackling, and w e realize that w e had missed the epicenter, so w e w ere not blissfully vaporized, b u t must go on, and, it being o f course the m om ent for the supreme kiss, will it only be w hen o u r four lips fall together to ' the floor that w e shall wonder: did w e always, always in every way, w ith all o u r strength, fight to prevent this m om ent, or, w ere we, like all your clever friends, just listening to Beethoven? A rt an d politics w ere b len d ed to g e th e r in this synthesis o f M an g an ’s hybrid personality. J T h at p attern was repeated in his choice o f the E m p ero r C o n certo , B e e th o v e n ’s ode to N ap o leo n , the aestheticization o f his political convictions. M andel m ust have u n d ersto o d th e essence. His M arxism was m o re th an a critical research m eth o d , m o re than an in d ictm en t and an analysis. Just as w ith M angan, it expressed a long in g to change the w orld. Sherry M angan and his alter ego T eren ce P helan, p o e t and Bplshevik; E m est M andel and his alter ego E m est G erm ain, intellectual and revolutionary — the personalities could n o t be separated. M andel was depressed by M an g an ’s death. H e reproached him self for the im poverished circum stances in w h ich M an g an had died. In a m em orial he called atten tio n to M angan as a p o e t and novelist: ‘A bove all, m en tio n that h e w ro te a rem arkable novel ab o u t th e Bolivian m inew orkers — still unpublished — and th at he lived a m o n g th e m for three years in order to w rite it.’158 M angan was b u ried in the P rotestant cem etery in R o m e , near the ruins. N earb y lay Shelley, Keats and A n to n io G ram sci.159 It was actually a m isunderstanding o n the part o f the friends w h o organized it w ith o u t k n o w in g o f M an g an ’s w ish to be crem ated,160 M andel was n o t present at the cerem ony. In A m sterdam th e co u rt case against Pablo an d Santen was dragging on. T o spare them , the Secretariat tem porarily w ithheld the new s o f M angan’s d eath .161 T h e y w ere given fifteen m onths, a m ilder sentence than the p ro secu tio n ’s dem and for three yeays for Pablo and tw o for Santen. T h e y w ere saved by a secret b o x that Ab O eld rich h ad ke p t as a sort o f insurance in

IN T H E F O U R T H I N T E R N A T IO N A L

119

case the illegal w o rk w e n t awry. It contained docum ents that com prom ised high-ran k in g civil servants and authorities —even Prince B ernhard, husband o f the D u tc h q ueen, was m en tio n ed . T h e docum ents cam e fro m the archives o f th e D u tc h Political Investigation Service, w here O eld rich had w o rk ed in 1945. T h e b o x had b een given in a ro u n d ab o u t w ay to a trustw orthy L eiden anarchist for safekeeping.162 T h e defence negotiated secretly w ith the m inister o fju stice ab o u t a lim ited sentence, approxim ating the pre-trial tim e served, in exchange for retu rn o f the com prom ising docum ents. M andel coo rd in ated P ab lo ’s safe departure for N o rth Africa, an act o f loyalty hardly appreciated by H elen e, w h o com plained o f P ablo’s being let d o w n .163 She blam ed M an d el for starting a w itchhunt: ‘T h e m an is com pletely o u t o f his m ind; h e has n o decency. H e makes it seem as if he is tu rn in g against m e, w hile his attacks are actually aim ed against [Pablo] and o u r te n d en cy .’164 T his was the same indecent M andel w h o shortly afterw ard arranged h e r departure too, w ritin g that ‘w e have every reason to believe that th e application w ill b e favourably considered and ap p roved’.165 T h e last details o f P ab lo ’s passport w ere settled in Belgrade in consultation w ith B en K hedda, the m inister for social affairs in the provisional A lgerian g o v ern m en t.166 T h e liberated Pablo left for M o ro cco . In 1962 he m oved on to Algiers, w here he becam e an advisoj to the n e w A lgerian president, A h m ed B en B ella.167 Santen was unable to follow him , even i f he had w an ted to .168 H e was paying for his n e w fo u n d freed o m w ith serious psychological problem s; he had already b e e n h a u n te d b y th e loss o f his family in the w ar. O n his psychiatrist’s advice he w ith d re w from political activity.169 Pablo also advised h im against co m in g to A lgiers.170 R econciliation with the U S S W P A fter P ab lo ’s arrest, Posadas to o k o v er leadership o f the struggle in the International against th e ‘E u ropeans’, w h o refused to give the colonial revolution first priority. A form er soccer player, Posadas w o u ld n o t give up the team captaincy even w h e n Pablo was once again free. T h e A rgentinian tu rn ed against his fo rm er ally w ith slanderous im putations, a m ore than bizarre state o f affairs.171 U sing one pseudonym he w o u ld praise articles he h im self h ad w ritte n using another. H e called o n the Soviet U n io n to launch a p reventive nuclear w ar — a w ar he considered unavoidable — in o rd er to support the colonial revolution. H e d en o u n ced Fidel Castro as a petty -b o u rg eo is adventurer. H e expelled Ismael Frias; the leader o f the Peruvian section, for his hom osexuality and con d em n ed

120

ERNEST MANDEL

H u g o B lanco, the Peruvian farm ers’ leader, as a pro v o cateu r in the service o f A m erican im perialism .172 H is follow ers hailed Posadas as a m o d e m T rotsky. M andel considered his ideas the in co h e ren t thoughts o f a m an d ru n k w ith p o w e r and called Posadas one o f the nastiest schismatics the m o v em en t had ever k n o w n .173 In 1962 the fifty-yearold Posadas b ro k e w ith the International. * F ollow ing Posadas’s departure and w ith P ablo in R ab at, M andel was free to push fo r reunification w ith the S W P, w h ich n o w had b etw een 500 and 600 m e m b e rs.174 Karl M anfred, M an d el’s trusted ally in the U S organiza­ tion, supp o rted h im b u t did n o t understand w h y h e ru led o u t a reunification ‘o n th e basis o f equality’: ‘W o u ld n ’t it be a sham e if this question stands in th e w ay o f reunification?’175 M andel said h e was o p e n to any solution and ackno w led g ed th at the International did n o t represent all Trotskyist cur­ rents. B u t he d rew th e line at a parity settlem ent th at den ied the Interna­ tional an d its continuity: ‘T o b e a realist is o ne thing, to abandon principles is a n o th e r.’176 B y retu rn p o st M anfred le t h im k n o w th at his A m erican friends h ad given up o n n egotiations.177 T h ese friends w ere T ro tsk y ’s form er secretary, Jo sep h H ansen; Farrell D obbs, leader o f th e legendary T eam ster rebels in the 1930s, m aligned by som e fo r his bureaucratic attitude; and T o m K erry, the fifty-year-old SW P organizing secretary. In th e back g ro u n d as always was Jam es P. C annon, the m o v e m e n t veteran w h o had b e e n living retired in C alifornia since 1954. T h e y preferred to negotiate from strength., Because o f opposition from their E u ro p ean allies L am bert and H ealy, w h o ' refused any solidarity w ith the A lgerian F L N o r C uba, they w arn ed th at negotiations w o u ld b e long-term . N evertheless, M an d el was pleased that space had b ee n o p en e d for a m ore realistic political view . Little psychological blow s w ere h ittin g h o m e ,178 such as his pro test w h e n L am bert revealed in a pam p h let o n th e Belgian general strike th a t M an d el was the au th o r o f th e unsigned La Gauche editorials — a revelation that M andel d en o u n ced as a betrayal ‘b o th to the police and the leaders o f th e B elgian Socialist Party’.179 In the su m m er o f 1961 M anfred w rote to M andel that ‘the d o o r tow ard reunification is opening!’ B u t h e w arned against going to o fast ‘because o u r friends still th in k differently ab o u t the so-called “ c en te r” and its w ay o f w o rk in g .’180 H e w o u ld gladly help create a favourable clim ate for a N e w Y o rk visit.181 M andel finally had the tim e, as Marxist Economic Theory was. finished at last. H is only concern was g ettin g a visa. T h e N e w Left journalist C laude B o u rd et was asked i f his friend, the fam ous jo u rn alist I.F. Stone, could arrange for an invitatio n .182 It was a to u ch y question, because if the U S im m igration service rejected this first invitation it w o u ld continue to p rev en t M an d el’s entry. M urry W eiss, the rangy e d ito r-in -c h ie f o f Lite

IN THE F O U RTH IN T E R N A T IO N A L

121

Militant, w h o had participated in the m o v e m e n t defending Sacco and V anzetti w h e n he was only eleven, advised M andel to visit C a n n o n in California before proceeding to N e w Y ork. C a n n o n ’s authority co unted for a great deal.183 M andel v en tu red o n th e crossing in m id-M arch, travelling in an old Icelandic Airlines D C 6 to save m o n e y .184 B efore going on to California h e spent three days w ith Karl M anfred in N e w Y ork, a stopover that n o one else k n e w about. It gave M andel the o p p o rtunity to renew their friendship an d to get acquainted w ith th e city and ro o t aro u n d in the num ero u s big an d small bookstores, n e w and second-hand. M anfred paid for his hotel. T h e m eetin g w ith C a n n o n was a success. T h e seventy-year-old patriarch o f A m erican T rotskyism appreciated M an d el’s diplom atic approach. G eorge N o v ack also to o k p art in the m eeting, and his rep o rt convinced M andel that ‘it’s all arranged, if th ere are n o last-m inute hitches o n o u r side’.185 M andel’s visit did n o t go u n n o ticed b y outsiders.186 A headline in the Columbus Dispatch, a conservative daily in C olum bus, O h io , read, ‘F ourth Interna­ tional R evival B eing W a tc h e d .’ T h e accom panying article continued, ‘A n emissary o f o n e faction o f the T rotskyite m o v e m en t in B elgium receiidy visited the U n ite d States to discuss w ith S W P leaders efforts to reunite the F o u rth Intern atio n al.’187 T h e FBI had substantial inform ation about the SW P. Its special agents continuously observed S W P headquarters, a fourstorey re d -b ro w n brick building o verlooking U n io n Square in N e w Y o rk .188 As anticipated, L am bert and H ealy stayed o u t o f th e reunification, w hich was confirm ed th e day after the S eventh W o rld Congress in 1963. T h ey could n o t agree w ith the idea that C u b a was a n e w w orkers’ state. Pablo also had objections. H e regarded depriving th e Secretariat o f the right to interfere w ith national leaderships and th eir tactical decisions as an unac­ ceptable concession to the SW P. H e also disagreed w ith the assessment o f K hrushchev’s reform s in the Soviet U n io n as Stalinist, w hich he regarded as incorrect. In addition h e rejected support for th e M aoists in the Sino-Soviet conflict.189 N e v e r before had Pablo expressed such a strong b elief in the capacity o f th e Soviet bureaucracy for self-reform . H e characterized d eStalinization as an irreversible process ‘w ith an unavoidable revolutionary effect o n the foreign policy o f the Soviet U n io n ’.190 H e carried on an intensive exchange o f views w ith Isaac D eutscher, w h o confirm ed h im in his o p tim ism .191 In the reunified International, P ab lo’s followers m ade up 10 per cent, active in th e D u tch , D anish, A ustrian and A ustralian sections and in part o f the French section.192 U n til they split in 1965, they w o rk ed ever m ore openly as a public faction. * * *

122

ERNEST MANDEL

M o re strongly than Pablo, M andel held to such key concepts o f M arxism as the w o rk in g class, the bureaucracy and th e political revolution. Pablo was m o re im pressionistic intellectually, an instinctive politician w h o i f necessary w o u ld th ro w overboard every structure, dogm a o r scientific fact in order to focus 0 11 th e realities o f a situation. Som etim es this had rem arkable results, as w ith his analysis o f the Yugoslav revolution. B u t o ften the results w ere m ore doubtful, leading to his scepticism ab o u t the E u ro p ean w o rk in g class, his naive T h ird W orldism an d his b elief in de-Stalinization. F o r the first fifteen years after the w ar th e G reek was the leader. M andel valued P ab lo ’s accom plishm ents and practised m odesty and patience. W h e n they differed M an d el chose u n ity above his o w n opinions, as h e had in the conflicts w ith th e French section in 1951—2 -and w ith the SW P in 1953. T o avoid isolation he had stood w ith Pablo in trying to p u t d o w n roots in the actually existing m ovem ents o f th e colonial rev o lu tio n and am o n g the com m unist and social dem ocratic masses. B u t th eir b o n d gradually eroded durin g the late 1950s and the early 1960s. F or M an d el Belgian politics and the F o u rth International becam e separate w orlds. W h ile th e International was lo ck ed in sterile discussions a b o u t the co m in g w o rld w ar, the role o f the Soviet U n io n , entry into the French and Italian C o m m u n ist parties and th e issue o f the colonial revolution —a debate in w h ich his and P a b lo ’s positions increasingly diverged — M andel was struggling w ith the intractability o f daily politics in B elgium . T h e re it was all ab o u t questions o f social welfare, dem ocratic rights, .opposition to the m o n arch y and s u p p o rt'fo r a 're p u b lic . A little later, focus shifted to La Gauche, opposition w ith in the Socialist Party and the general strike o f 1960—61. M an d el becam e involved w ith practical issues and, m o re im ­ po rtantly, w ith people influential in the w o rk in g class, such as left-w ing Social D em ocrats like A ndre R en ard . T h o u g h the general strike o f 1960-61 was overshadow ed by the revolu­ tio n in Algeria, it h elped M andel to defend his b elief in the w o rk in g class o f the industrial w orld, and defend it, n o t least against Pablo. By the end o f the 1950s Pablo' had, lost faith in the E uro p ean proletariat and com e to idealize the colonial revolution, above all the A lgerian, and dem anded a change in the sections’ w o rk that w o u ld reflect the change in his o w n ideas. P ablo’s and M an d el’s personalities clashed m o re and m ore often. M andel found P ab lo ’s m ethods, his individualism , his faits accomplis, his instability andtyranny ever m ore offensive. W ith irritation he observed h o w Pablo, w ith his plea for unlim ited support for the colonial revolution, disparaged the en try w o rk in Belgian social dem ocracy. P ab lo ’s descriptions o f La Gauche as ‘reform ist’, ‘o pportunistic’, an d ‘p ro -W e ste rn ’ -also threw a spanner in the w orks, and his characterization o f R e n a rd ’s tendency as ‘reactionary’ sow ed

IN THE FO URTH IN T ERN A T IO N A L

123

suspicion.193 Pablo saw M an d el as shut in to ‘his little B elgium ’ and as displaying ‘dangerously rig h t-w in g political tendencies’ in his failure to do justice to th e colonial re v o lu tio n .194 T his exhausting discussion lasted alm ost ten years. M andel to ld Pierre Frank that he h ad finally had en o u g h o f P ablo’s pernicious w ilfulness.195 B u t th e conflict w ith Pablo gave M a n d e l’s scholarly w ork, like Marxist Economic Tlieoiy, an u n anticipated political significance. In breaking w ith E urocentrism in his b o o k , M an d el indicated the im portance o f the T h ird "World and the S oviet w o rld w hile k eep in g th e place o f the w o rk in g class and im perialism central in his analysis o f capitalism. In addition he gave n ew reality to the possibilities o f rev o lu tio n in th e developed capitalist countries. In M ay 1965 he n o ted , I have show n . . . that w ith neo-capitalism there has been no end to the causes for w orkers’ dissatisfaction and that it remains possible to wage pow erful campaigns — perhaps unavoidable. T he question is: can the campaigns assume a revolutionary dynamic in the coptext o f the welfare state? O r will they necessarily remain lim ited to reforms so long as there’s an atmosphere o f m ore o r less general prosperity.196 M andel agreed w ith critics w h o saw n o possibility o f replicating such revolutions as the G em ian ifco n e o f 1918 o r th e Y ugoslav one o f 1947. B,ut he d enied that rev o lu tio n was only possible follow ing an econom ic or m ilitary catastrophe;' ‘T h e re is a different historic m odel w h ich w e can refer to: th at o f the general strike o f Ju n e 1936 in France (and to a lesser extent, the Belgian general strike o f 1960—1961 . . .).’197 His classic view o f the colonial and political revolutions form ed the theoretical basis o f his conflict w ith Pablo. Finally, fed up w ith pandering to his fo rm er m en to r, h e prepared a com prehensive critique in w h ich he did n o t lim it him self to objections to this o r th a t aspect b u t m ade the entirety o f P ablo’s analysis his target. In the key d o c u m e n t for th e Seventh W o rld Congress (1963), he investigated the interactio n o f w h at he considered the three sectors o f the w o rld revolution: th e capitalist, industrial w orld (Belgium in 1960—61); the p o o r, d e p e n d e n t countries (Algeria and Cuba); and the transitional societies (Poland and H u n g ary in 1956). H e saw in this dialectic, rath er than in P ab lo ’s one-sided focus 0 11 the colonial revolution, the possibility for a fundam ental* change in the international political fram ew ork.

7

T h e W orlds o f Politics and Scholarship: A n O dyssey In th e in tro d u ctio n to the Italian translation o f Marxist Economic Tlteoty, w h ic h appeared in 1965, three years after th e F rench edition, E rnest M andel observed th at the debate ab o u t the contradictions w ith in capitalism was b o o m in g . Leaving aside the question o f h o w great a role Marxist Economic Tlieoiy had played,1 he an n o u n ced a n e w b o o k , o n the subject o f w h a t he called neo-capitalism and neo-colonialism . In it, he h o p ed to focus on the connections b etw een econom ic g ro w th and social structure and w h at they revealed ab o u t prevailing econom ic th eo ry .2 In April 1964 M andel had published a short article titled ‘T h e Econom ics o f N eo -C ap italism ’ in The Socialist Register, an annual publication from L o n d o n edited b y R a lp h M iliband an d J o h n Saville and also in Sartre’s Les Temps Moiernes? T h e projected b o o k was in te n d e d as an expansion o f this article. T h e plan lo o k ed prom ising: 300 pages in eight chapters, to be com p leted in six m o n th s.4 It w o u ld be alm ost ten years before the greatly exp an d ed m anuscript, titled hate Capitalism, was delivered to the G erm an p u blisher Suhrlcamp.5 In ‘T h e E conom ics o f N eo -C ap italism ’ M an d el expressed his conviction th at follow ing the periods o f o pen co m p etitio n and im perialism , capitalism h ad en tered a new , th ird period, neo-capitalism , o r capitalism in decline, or, as h e finally term ed it, late capitalism6. H e h ad expressed his thoughts about its anatom y earlier, in the spring o f 1963, in a n u m b e r o f lectures for a w e e k e n d leadership gathering o f the U n ified Socialist Party (PSU) in Paris. T h ese w ere published as Introduction to the Theory o f Marxist Economics7 M andel h eld that th e postw ar expansion in the industrialized w o rld was n o t prim arily a result o f reconstruction b u t o f w h a t he called a third industrial — o r technological — rev o lu tio n in a changed clim ate, m arked b y an u n in terru p ted arms race, g ro w in g state in te rv en tio n .in econom ic life, g o v ern m en t planning and p erm an en t inflation.8 M andel em phasized that despite capitalism’s n ew ways o f functionings th e general laws o f capitalist

THE W ORLDS

OF P O L IT IC S A N D

SCHOLARSHIP

125

developm ent, as initially revealed b y M arx, had in no w ay b een suspended. T h e n ew p erio d was b o th a p ro lo n g atio n and a partial negation o f the imperialist p eriod, ju s t as th e im perialist p erio d had b een a continuation and a partial n egation o f unrestrained capitalist com petition. M andel had n o t y e t reached a detailed analysis o f this phase, b u t was constructing th e beginnings o f a fram ew ork that w o u ld allow him to connect econom ic, political, technological and social factors and variables. Still follow ing M arx in Marxist Economic Theory, he had analyzed the cyclical course o f capitalist d ev elo p m en t as sh o rt-term fluctuations determ ined by recurrent industrial crises.9 H e had n o t considered o th er tim e spans, b u t he b roadened his perspective in th e article for Tlte Socialist Register. H e situated the postw ar expansion w ith in th e theory o f lo n g waves o f capitalist developm ent. T h e foundations for this theory had b een laid by Parvus10 and V an G eld eren 11 early in the century, th en by K ondratieff12 and T rotsky13 in th e 1920s an d S ch u m p eter14 in the 1930s.15 U sing their approach, M an d el declared that the en d o f th e ‘golden days o f w o rld capitalism’ was n e a r.16 M andel's article was a response to R osdolsky’s criticism o f his handling o f crisis th eo ry in Marxist Economic Theory. T h o u g h M andel had em phasized the unavoidability o f crises an d recessions,17 he had n o t offered a systematic treatm ent o f th e th eo ry o f collapse, w h ich R osdolsky considered the heart o f M arxism .18 M o reo v er, Rosjdolsky considered M andel’s synthesis o f the theories o f u n d erco n su m p tio n and disproportionality19 — tw o influential explanatory m odels o f eco n o m ic cycles —incorrect: ‘M arx opposed b o th o f these theories; h o w can th ey be “ reconciled” from a M arxist standpoint?’20 M andel felt th at in his latest article he h ad overcom e the weaknesses that R osdolsky fo u n d in Marxist Economic Theory/, particularly those in the overly descriptive fo u rteen th chapter, ‘T h e E p o ch o f Capitalist D ecline’. N o w his n ew insights n e e d e d to b e integrated in to a m o re extensive synthesis o f the third p erio d o f capitalism. In 1969, although his analysis rem ained in co m ­ plete M andel decided to include it as a supplem ent to the second French edition o f Marxist Economic Theory. O pposing Eurocentrism T h o u g h M andel h ad n o t y et achieved a finished synthesis o f late capitalism for his b o o k , he to o k o p p o rtu n ities'in less extensive w ritings to systematize his analysis and iro n o u t theoretical w rinkles.21 S oon after the appearance o f Marxist Economic Theoty he was given o n e such op p o rtu n ity by Lucien G oldm ann, a p h ilo so p h er and literary critic from south-eastern Galicia and a disciple o f the H u ng arian M arxist G eorg Lukacs. G oldm ann taught at the

126

ERNEST MANDEL

S o rb o n n e in Paris and was editing A History of Marxist Thought in six volum es. H e asked M an d el for a co n trib u tio n on the th em e ‘M arx ’s E co n o m ic T h o u g h t P rio r to Capital’.22 B u t w h en M andel delivered his article o f m o re th an seventy pages in A ugust 1965, G oldm ann was so taken up w ith his o w n studies that the p ro ject was abandoned.23 M andel decided to re w o rk his co n trib u tio n , an d it was published by M aspero in 1967 u n d e r the title La Formation de la pensee economique de Karl Marx, de 1843 ju sq u ’a la redaction du Capital: Etude genetique (T he Form ation o f the E co n o m ic T h o u g h t o f K arl M arx: 1843 to Capital). It appeared exactly 100 years after th e publication o f the first volum e o f Capital24 In this study M an d el follow ed the dev elopm ent o f M arx ’s th o u g h t in detail. H e sh o w ed h o w M arx cam e to accept D avid R ic a rd o ’s labour theory o f value an d th e n to im prove it.25 H e also discussed the m ost im portant discoveries M arx m ade before conceiving Capital. H e analyzed in detail the place o f th e idea o f alienation in th e various phases o f M arx ’s intellectual d ev elo p m en t and the im portance o f this co ncept to his th eo ry in general. Finally, in a fascinating chapter o n the so-called Asiatic m o d e o f pro d u ctio n , M an d el jo in e d the debate o p en ed in 1964 in La Pensee, a theoretical jo u rn a l close to the F rench C o m m u n ist Party, o n the no n -u n ilin ear character o f the succession o f m odes o f p ro d u c tio n .26 T h e re was a tendency at th e tim e to characterize all social form ations that d id n o t fit the unilinear schem a27 as having an ‘Asiatic’ m o d e o f p ro d uction, w h ic h deprived the co n cep t o f its analytical specificity.28 B u t w h a t was Asian ab o u t a m o d e o f p ro d u c tio n that, as M aurice G odelier dem onstrated, could be fo u n d in Africa, A m erica and even in M editerranean E u ro p e (in the C re to -M y c e n e an civilization)?29 M andel recalled that M arx and Engels had n o t d ev eloped th e co n cep t w ith a prim itive society in m in d .30 It was in te n d e d to describe Indian and C hinese societies at the m o m e n t w h e n they cam e in to contact w ith E u ro p ean industrial capital in the eighteenth century. In short, to answ er the question w h y India, C hina, E gypt and the Islamic w orld, w h ich for thousands o f years had form ed the centres o f ritual and m aterial culture, h ad follow ed a different developm ental path than h ad W estern and S o u th ern E u ro p e .31 M andel w ro te, ‘M arx only spends tim e o n the “ pre-capitalist forms o f p ro d u c tio n ” in ord er to show up, negatively, the factors w h ich in E u ro p e have led, positively, to the flow ering o f capital and capitalism’.32 M andel was co m m itted to d e-W estem izing the explanation o f the dev elo p m en t o f capitalism as a w o rld system, and this n o n -E urocentrism req u ired in d ep en d en t atten tio n to pre-colonial Asia, Africa, the Islamic w o rld and p re-C o lu m b ian Am erica. T his explains the im portance he attrib u ted to slave-based, sem i-feudal and Asian m odes o f p ro d u ctio n .33

T H E W O R L D S OF P O L IT IC S A N D

SCHOLARSHIP

127

T h e unilinearists h ad sow n confusion w ith their theory o f successive stages that every society in th e w o rld had to pass through. T h e y took no account o f diversity an d the coexistence o f capitalist, sem i-capitalist and pre-capitalist w orlds. T o M an d el this variety was characteristic o f the w orld econom y and n o t a tem porary situation that eventually w o u ld be abolished by a supposed general law o f capitalist d evelopm ent. T h e capitalist m o d e o f p ro d u ctio n was n o t ten d in g to b eco m e universal, contrary to w h at R osa L uxem burg had attem p ted to d em onstrate.34 T h e re had b een n o industrial revolution in cultural areas o th e r than E u ro p e b etw een the sixteenth and n in etee n th centuries. F or ju st this reason, u n d e r the influence o f international processes o f concentration, the w o rld m arket was p reventing any successful leap by the T h ird W o rld from prim itive accum ulation o f m o n e y capital to prim itive accum ulation o f industrial capital. M an d el n o ted , ‘Capitalism itself produces u nd erd ev elo p m en t . . . C apitalism is the dialectical u n ity o f developm ent and underd ev elo p m en t; the one necessarily determ ines the o th e r.’35 M a rx ’s classic d ictu m that und erd ev elo p ed countries could see th eir future reflected in the developed countries had lost its general validity during the im perialist period. In place o f a general law o f capitalist d evelopm ent, M andel posited unequal and com b in ed developm ent: a capitalism that, in o rd er to expand, p ro d u ced and m aintained p re - o r non-capitalist countries, sectors and regions.36 Against Louis Althusser The Formation o f the Economic Thought, o f Karl M arx p ro v o k ed discussion n o t only ab o u t the Asiatic m o d e o f p ro d u ctio n b u t even m ore about M an d el’s ideas co n cern in g the m ean in g ' o f M arx ’s early w orks, the Economic—Philosophical Manuscripts o f 1844 and The Gennan Ideology o f 1845.37 In his chap ter ‘F rom the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts to the Grundrisse: F rom an A nthropological to a H istorical C o n ce p t o f A lienation’, M andel to o k a definite position in a dispute that was raging in E u ro p e and to a lesser ex ten t in the U n ited States, fuelled by the 1965 publication o f For M arx and Reading Capital, b o th by the influential French C o m m u n ist and philosopher Louis A lthusser.’’8 W h a t was the relationship o f M arx ’s earlier w o rk to the Grundrisse and Capital? D id M arx co n tin u e to h o ld H eg el’s anthropologically based n o tio n o f alienation, alienation conceived as characteristic o f h u m an nature?39 O r was there a discontinuity that required conceptualizing different phases in M a rx ’s thinking? A nd, if so, w h at w ere these phases? M an d el distinguished three currents in the controversy, each o f w h ich responded differently to these questions.40 T h e first denied that there was a

128

ERNEST MANDEL

difference b etw een early and late M arx and saw the heart o f Capital — alienated lab o u r — as im plicitly present in the Economic-Philosophical M anu­ scripts.41 A second cu rren t held th at the M arx o f the Manuscripts had h andled the pro b lem o f alienated lab o u r m o re fully than the M arx o f Capital, th at this y o u n g er M arx h ad given the concept an ethical, anthropological and philosophical d im ension.42 Som e o f these theorists p itted th e tw o M arxes against each o th er, w hile others rein terp reted Capital in the light o f the Manuscripts. M andel, along w ith the G erm an p hilosopher Ju rg e n H aberm as, th o u g h t that b o th o f these currents h ad failed to take in to account the difference b e tw e e n an anthropological and a historical, concept o f labour43 and that they did n o t recognize th at th e M arx o f Capital had ab an d o n ed the m etaphysical co n cep t o f th e M arx o f 1844. T h e final curren t, represented by Louis A lthusser,44 held th at the alienated lab o u r co n cep t o f th e y o u n g M arx contradicted th at o f Capital and that this concept h ad originally h in d e re d acceptance o f the lab o u r th eo ry o f value. In A lthusser’s eyes alienation was a pre-M arxist idea that M arx had to discard before h e co u ld begin his scientific w o rk .45 M an d el did n o t agree w ith any o f these currents. O n the o n e han d he recognized th e discontinuity in M arx’s thinking; o n the o ther, h e denied that M arx h ad discarded the co n cep t o f alienation. M andel th o u g h t that the co n cep t h ad u n d e rg o n e a qualitative change, analogous to th e transform a­ tio n o f M arx ’s anthropologically-based th inking in to th in k in g based on historical-m aterialist categories. This transform ation fo u n d a cautious first expression in th e Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts o f 1844, w h e re M arx no lo n g er fo u n d e d his critique o f political eco n o m y o n a Feuerbachian or H egelian construct o f alienated labour b u t o n ‘his practical observation of the misery o f the workers’. M arx was n o lo n g er interested in a ‘philosophical solution o n th e plane o f thoughts, ideas’, b u t rather in an abolition o f private p ro p erty th ro u g h ‘actual com m unist action’. H ere, M andel concluded, ‘T h e call to rev o lu tio n ary action, to be carried o u t by the proletariat, is already substituted for th e resignation o f the “philosophy o f lab o u r” .’46 H e hastened to add that M a rx ’s th o u g h t at the tim e was still far from m ature, because he w e n t back an d fo rth b e tw e e n th e tw o conceptions, som etim es seeking the source o f w o rk e r alienation in the specific form o f the society, its division into'classes an d private p roperty, and at o th e r tim es view ing alienation as an expression o f th e h u m a n as ‘species b ein g ’ —w ith its source in h u m a n nature, i f not7in th e H egelian sense, th en as a n egation o f the so-called ideal m an. M arx gradually overcam e these contradictions, M andel said. H e reached an im p o rtan t tu rn in g p o in t in The Gennan Ideology, w h en he aband o n ed the

THE W O RLDS

OF P O L I T I C S A N D

SCHOLARSHIP

129

idea o f m an as ‘species b ein g ’ and situated the roots o f exploitation in the division o f lab o u r and com m odity pro d u ctio n , in private property and com p etitio n . It was to M arx ’s credit that he placed the co n cep t o f alienated labour in the d o m ain o f history and transform ed th e Feuerbachian-H egelian anthropological u n derstanding that preceded the Manuscripts into a historical concept in The German Ideology, the Gntndrisse and Capital.47 The Formation o f the Economic Thought o f Karl M arx was E m est M andel’s m ost philosophical b o o k , an o d e to M arx ’s insight and z-evolutionary passion.48 It was a polem ic against conservative and social dem ocratic circles th at attem pted to enlist M arx ’s au th o rity b y only recognizing his hum anistic, H egelian fo rm — a y oun g , ethical M arx in opposition to a com m unist m o v e m e n t m ired in socalled eco n o m ic problem s. M andel also w ro te against M arxists like W olfgang Jahn, A uguste C o rn u and Louis Althusser w h o rejected the term ‘alienation’ as rom antic, unscientific and pre-M arxist, and against Soviet apologists w h o w o u ld have liked to see th e term disappear entirely fro m public usage: ‘In Soviet society, alienation could not and must no longer be an issue. B y order from above, for reasons o f State, the concept had to disappear.’49 T h e h eart o f M a n d e l’s critique was directed at Althusser, w h o refused to integrate history in to his m ethodology. M andel w ro te to Perry A nderson that the a u th o r o f For M arx and Reading Capital had declared w ar on everything w hich is historical, i.e. dialectical in Marxism, and transfonned it into a kind o f metaphysical neo-positivism (static structuralism, w ithout built-in contradictions, w ithout m otion, w ithout understanding that the basis o f M arxism —as Marx him self said —was the understanding o f the historically perishable nature o f all ‘structures’, and the logic o f their evolution-revolution) .50 Althusser was a central figure in the French debates ab o u t M arxism . This was enoug h incentive fo r M andel to speak o u t w h erev er he could against Althusserian structuralism — w hat A nderson term ed ‘brilliant n e o ­ dogm atism ’.51 H e did so in his 1969 essay ‘A lthusser C orrects M arx’52 and d uring th e m uch-discussed three-day M arx colloquium at the G oethe U niversity in Frankfurt in Septem ber 1967,53 w h ere an impressive array o f scholars from East and W est had gathered to rehabilitate M arxism as a critique o f political econom y. T h e d e a th o f R o m a n R o s d o ls k y D u rin g the 1930s M arxism had w ithdraw n in to the universities, w here attentio n had shifted from political econom y to p hilosophy and sociology,

13 °

ERNEST MANDEL

w ith research in to cultural and ideological p h en o m e n a.54 U n d e r the dom in an ce o f Soviet M arxism , M arxist econom ics had degenerated into a dogm atism w ith in w h ich there was n o place for n ew d evelopm ent.55 T h e re w ere a few exceptional w riters o n the subject, including Gramsci, M oskow ska, M eek, D o b b and Sweezy.. In general, how ever, the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s w ere a lost tim e. T h e tide tu rn ed in the follow ing decade. M andel, B aran, Sw eezy, G uilder Frank, and G orz and econom ists like H eilb ro n er, B arrat B ro w n and R osdolsky co n trib u ted to this renaissance. T h e Grundrisse was also im portant; after its initial publication before the w ar it was rep rin ted in 1953, and its influence gradually spread.56 C o m in g in the w ake o f a revived anti-capitalist m o v e m e n t inspired by decolonization, anti­ racism, anti-Stalinism and the struggle against the w ar in V ietnam , the 1967 Frankfurt co llo q u iu m m arked a renew al o f the role o f political econom y in creative M arxism . B o th M an d el and R osdolsky w ere invited to speak at the colloquium , R osdolsky o n the m e th o d o f M arx ’s Capital, M andel on post-K eynesian g ro w th theory. M an d el lo o k e d forw ard to the re u n io n and told R osdolsky to go deeply in to M arx in order to p u t A lthusser in his place.57 A lthusser was supposed to respond to R osdolsky o n Capital b u t at the last m o m e n t decided n o t to participate, to R osdolsky’s disappointm ent. H e com plained, ‘Isn’t the occasion im p o rtan t e n o u g h for him , o r did all those Stalinists . . . oppose his participation?’58 H e m ean t the five East G erm an experts at the conference, am o n g th e m the secret dissident Fritz B ehrens, director o f the Institute for E co n o m ic Affairs in Berlin. N icos Poulantzas replaced Althusser, b u t th en R osdolsky fell ill and had to m iss.the debate himself. H e was in n o co n d itio n to travel to E urope. B oth his heart and kidneys w ere diseased, and the doctors w o u ld m ake no prognosis, as R o sd o lsk y ’s wife in fo rm ed M andel: ‘I m ean w ell in sharing this w ith you. T h o u g h I’ve n ev er had th e opp o rtu n ity to becom e ac­ q uainted w ith you personally, I k n o w th at m y husband regards you as one o f his closest co -th in k ers.’59 M andel w ro te back by return post to le t his friend k n o w w h a t had transpired in Frankfurt, em phasizing the value accorded R osdolsky’s w ritten co n trib u tio n .60 Poulantzas’s short response and his longer paper (we had to do w ithout Althusser) seemed thin by comparison . . . I tried to defend you as well as possible against Poulantzas, w hich wasn’t very difficult. W hen the Althusser school claims that Capital is ahistorical and anti-historical and has nothing to do w ith H egel’s dialectic, which- means that Marx had no clarity about his ow n m ethodology —just as little as Lenin —then there’s no lack o f arguments to put them in their place.61

T H E W O R L D S OF P O L I T I C S A N D S C H O L A R S H I P

131

A t the en d o f O c to b e r M andel received the sad message from D etro it that R osdolsky had died.62 I 11 a m o v in g le tte r his w ife w rote, Because R o m an never felt at hom e in this country, I’m flying w ith his ashes next w eek to Vienna, the city w here I was b om and where he spent a few good years o f his youth. I can’t take him any closer to his birthplace, and his wish to be buried o n the banks o f the D nieper will always remain unfulfilled. H e experienced great support from you and hoped that you w ould continue to be im portant for the ‘party in the historical sense’, to w hich he felt com m itted.63 R osdo lsk y ’s death shocked M andel. H e h a d lost m ore than a kindred spirit and a m en to r; he h ad also lost a m odest and affectionate friend. O f all the thinkers o f his tim e, R osdolsky was possibly the m ost know ledgeable about M arx ’s w ritings and represented best th e living M arxism o f the p re-w ar years.64 A few m o n th s earlier in the su m m er o f 1967, at new s o f the sudden death o f Isaac D eutscher, also a survivor o f fascism and Stalinism, R osdolsky' had bitterly exclaim ed, ‘O death, y o u cruel thief! . . . W h y do y o u rob us o f the best and m ost gifted?’65 M an d el felt him self ju st as abandoned n o w as R osdolsky h ad then: In a brief tim e I’ve lost two,,close friends, w ho, how ever differendy, both em bodied in their ow n ways tw o essential aspects o f the great tradition: R om an and ‘C h e’ [Guevara].66 It was a blessing to have gotten to know them and to have been friends w ith them both; it is hard to com prehend that they are no longer here.67 M andel co u ld offer R o sd o lsk y ’s w id o w n o m o re than a helping hand. H e in q u ired ab o u t the financial circum stances in w h ich E m m y and her son, still at university, h a d b e e n left. H e em phatically requested h e r to ‘w rite w ith o u t reserve h o w m y friends and I can help y o u so that R o m a n can at least receive th e reco g n itio n he deserved w ith post­ h u m ou s publication o f his w o rk .’68 In a rem em brance M andel praised Engels and the 'Nonhistone’ Peoples as R o sd o lsk y ’s m ost brilliant w ork. In this b o o k R osdolsky had m ade a plausible case: that M arx and E ngels’s o pposition to th e aspirations o f national m inorities — like the Czechs, Slovaks, C roats and U krainians — was based o n an inadequate analysis o f the social forces in the rev o lu tio n o f 1848.69

132

ERNEST M A NDEL

A m ultiplicity o f factors A t the Frankfurt co lloquium M andel h ad scrutinized econom ic g row th in the industrialized countries.70 D id th e idea o f g ro w th w ith o u t crises reflect reality o r was it wishful thinking? M an d el argued that in the lo n g ru n a g ro w th in productive investm ent was incom patible w ith a falling rate o f p rofit o r the underuse o f productive capacity. N e ith e r the creation o f m oney and credit, n o r planning, could affect this. In a given econom ic cycle, rising rates o f p rofit only tem porarily coincided w ith an expansion o f markets, n ev er perm anently. T h erefore investm ents also cam e in waves, no m atter w h a t countercyclical measures w ere taken. B u t w h y th e n d id n ’t em ployers periodically engage in feverish investing? W h y d id n ’t th ey try to avoid overheating the econom y? T h e question seem ed all the m o re pressing because em ployers had ways to direct the eco n o m y nationally, even internationally th ro u g h the E E C (C o m m o n M arket). M an d el follow ed in M arx ’s footsteps w ith his answer: w h at p rev en ted th e m was ‘com petition betyveen capitalists on the one hand, an d b etw een capitalists and the w o rk in g class o n the o th er.’71 . M an d el conceived the latter co m p etitio n as in h e re n t in neo-capitalism . Late, capitalism co u ld n o t p e n n it severe eco n o m ic crises, given the com plex international relationship o f forces. A policy o f countercyclical 'and anti­ recessionary m easures, how ever, w o u ld lead to a red u ctio n o f unem p lo y ­ m e n t and therefore to ‘such sharp w age increases that a rapid decline in the rates o f surplus value arid p rofit w o u ld b e unavoidable. Because trade unions could only be forced to lim it th eir freed o m o f m o v e m e n t by dictatorial m easures, M an d el th o u g h t, co m p etitio n w o u ld force individual em ployers to replace w orkers rapidly w ith m achines in o rd e r'to avoid a lasting increase in the w age p o rtio n o f added value: ‘T echnological progress and innovation are thus n o t exogenous factors in th e g ro w th processes o f a capitalist econom y. T h e y are an unavoidable result o f the in n e r logic and in h erent contradictions o f this m o d e o f p ro d u c tio n .’72 Severe crises could only be stopped at th e cost o f grow ing overcapacity an d a creeping, u n in te m ip te d currency devaluation, w ith obvious con­ sequences for econom ic grow th. T h e dow nside o f interm itten t bursts o f in vestm ent activity intro d u cin g n e w technology was a slowing, if n o t stagnation, in econom ic gro w th , due to an ever greater n u m b er o f m o n o polies'and sectors w h ere price co m p etitio n was elim inated and m arkets w ere divided. O n ly the arms industry and th e service sector still provided o pportunities fo r converting an increasing p art o f surplus value in to capital. T h e ordinary capitalization o f th£ b u lk o f surplus value -w o u ld have endangered the valorization o f the total capital in sectors w ith a socially

TH E W O R L D S OF P O L IT IC S A N D S C H O L A R S H I P

133

average rate o f profit th reaten ed by overcapacity. M andel reproached the pragm atic, post-K eynesian g ro w th theorists for paying no atten tio n to overcapacity, w h ic h is a characteristic o f late capitalism. Faced w ith a fresh rise in u n em p lo y m en t, the K eynesian school w o u ld im m ediately begin sw inging b e tw e e n deficit spending and com bating inflation w ith credit limits, because it was u n eq u ip p ed to recognize structural problem s, let alone solve them . M andel th o u g h t that M a rx ’s econom ic theory led to structural, and therefore m u ch b etter, solutions. A ccording to M arx, the rh y th m and extent o f econom ic g ro w th w ere d eterm in ed b y five strategic factors: the rate o f surplus value, th e rate o f accum ulation, the organic com position o f capital, the tu rn o v er tim e o f fixed capital and the ex ten t o f the expenditure o f n o n ­ accum ulated surplus value as revenue, that is, as private consum ption by capitalists. T h e interplay o f these factors could explain h o w , as m onopoliza­ tion and m arket con tro l increased, a grow ing surplus o f capital em erged, w hose u n productive con su m p tio n revealed an overcapacity th at led to a lo n g -term decline in g ro w th rates. W e re these dependent, h alf-dependent o r in d ep en d en t variables? M an d el did n o t show exactly h o w the interplay o f these factors transpired o r th eir relationship to o ne another.73 F o r the first tim e h e was p resenting a th eo ry o f late capitalism in w h ich the dynam ic o f the system was n o t d educed from o n e factor alone b u t from an array o f factors.74 H e re his approach, ^differed from the traditional M arxist m o n o causal analysis.!5 F or exam ple, H e n ry k G rossm ann76 proposed over­ accum ulation as the m o to r o f developm ent; R o sa L uxem burg and Paul Sweezy assigned th e leading role to the problem atic realization o f surplus value;77 R u d o lf H ilferding78 highlighted com petition; and M ichael K idron79 em phasized u n p ro d u ctiv e consum ption o f surplus value. M andel, on the o th e r hand, th o u g h t th e com plexity o f m o d e m capitalism p erm itted no reductionism . H e follow ed R o m a n R osdolsky, w h o had clearly p o lem icized fruitfully against th e neglect o f M arx ’s econom ic m eth o d o lo g y . As show n earlier, in his critique o f M an d el’s Marxist Economic Tlzeory R osdolsky em phatically d em an d ed atten tio n for the dialectic totality in M arx ’s w ork, b eyon d the ‘tangible’ and the ‘m ere facts’.Bn In later w orks as well, M an d el insisted that only the d ev elopm ent and correlation o f all variables co u ld account for the dynam ic o f the m ode o f production. H e seem ed less sure ab o u t the question o f w h ich variables w ere m ost basic. In his co n trib u tio n to the*Frankfurt colloquium he selected five; in his m ain w o rk Late Capitalism (1972), six; in his study Long Waves of Capitalist Development (1980), again five;81, and in a 1984 essay h e raised the n u m b er to ten .82 Sociopolitical conditions, like th e struggle b etw e en capital to d labour, did n o t c o u n t as basic factors in his form ula in either 1967 or

134

ERNEST MANDEL

1972. O n ly in 1984 w o u ld he add ‘th e law o f class struggle d eterm ination o f w ages’ as a ‘partially in d e p e n d e n t’ variable.83 In the 1960s and 1970s M andel discussed only variables that w ere en dogenous from an econom ic perspec­ tive, th at seem ed to flow naturally fro m th e structure o f the system, factors th at d eterm in ed th e speed and direction o f developm ents b u t that did n o t essentially change th e system itself. W ary o f m echanistic detem iinism , M an d el considered class struggle as an in d ep en d en t, exogenous factor o f equal value that was to be placed alongside th e endogenous logic, th e logic o f the extraction o f surplus value. Dissatisfied w ith analytical indeterm inacy, M andel reached a m o re specific form ulation in 1984: ‘Besides the in n e r logic o f the system, exogenous factors are at w o rk , w h ich partially co -d eterm in e the system ’s developm ent, at least at sh o rt- and m e d iu m -te rm ranges.’84 H e added th at the possibilities fo r change are circum scribed b y the natu re o f the system itself: ‘Inside the system y o u can b o o st o r u n d erm in e profits, deliberately o r inadvertently. B u t y ou can n o t suppress profits’. T h a t could be do n e only by elim inating the system; th a t is, by abolishing capitalism. ‘H en ce any in teraction b e tw ee n endogenous and exogen o u s forces is always lim ited by diese param eters . . .’ M andel gave as an exam ple class struggle in the form o f th e basic conflict over w ages and. w o rk in g conditions. T h e struggle w o u ld reach ‘its lim it w h e n it threatens to elim inate basic m echanism s o f the system ’.85 Class struggle was thus to som e ex ten t d eterm ined by the logic o f the system, th ro u g h fluctuations in th e lab o u r m arket and in the rate o f accum ulation, b u t n o t m echanistically an d n o t exclusively. T h e variables ■ w ere therefore ‘partially in d e p e n d e n t’, b o u n d to the system by an um bilical cord, th o u g h n o t direcdy borri o f it.86 Averse to econom ism , M andel pleaded for an integrated analysis o f the total societal reality. In an au to ­ biographical entry w ritte n for the Biographical Dictionary o f Dissenting Econ­ omists, M an d el co u n te d am o n g his m erits in the last p art o f his life that he had developed an econom ic, historical th eo ry based on the dialectical, para­ m etric co n cep t o f determ inism .87 U n lik e a m echanistic, determ inistic, unilinear M arxism , his theory to o k into account the possibility, ‘nay the inevitability’^8 o f choices in econom ic and social processes — b u t choices w ith in th e param eters o f the system, determ ined by conflicting social interests. It described the playing field on w hich the struggle for p o w er takes place. Lectures in Berlin O n e o f the participants chosen t;o discuss M andel’s co n trib u tio n to the Frankfurt colloquium was E lm ar Altvater. M andel confided to R osdolsky

THE W ORLDS

OF P O L IT IC S A N D

SCHOLARSHIP

135

that A ltvater was ‘a very gifted y o u n g M arxist econom ist’.89 A ltvater, n o t yet thirty years old, h ad g ro w n u p in a m ine w o rk e r’s family in the R u h r valley and had studied in M u n ich . In the 1960s he w o rk ed at the universities o f N u re m b u rg and E rlangen.90 F rom a y o u n g age he had b een a m em b e r o f the G erm an Social D em o cratic Party (SPD), b u t he left the party along w ith the Social D em o cratic stu d en t organization (SDS) w h en the SPD adopted the anti-M arxist G odesberg program m e in 1959. O pp o sed to the governing G rand C o alitio n 91 and influenced b y the m o v em en t against the V ietnam W ar, the SDS grew in to an extra-parliam entary m o v e m e n t w ith influence bey o n d the universities. A ltvater d ev eloped in to a M arxist econom ist o n his o w n initiative —w ithin the portals o f academ ia it was unthinkable to study M arx ’s Capital. T h e n came the recession o f 1966-7, w h ich m arked the en d o f G erm an y ’s ‘econom ic m iracle’, and the m y th o f crisis-free econom ic d ev elopm ent w ith o u t over­ p ro d u ctio n o r u n e m p lo y m e n t collapsed. S eeking an explanation for the reem ergence o f th e business cycle, A ltvater discovered M andel, w h o had first attracted atte n tio n w ith th e publication o f Marxist Economic Theory*2-and no w again w ith The German Economic Crisis.92 T h e latter w o rk argued that this first postw ar recession in the Federal R ep u b lic was n o anom aly; on the contrary, it was sym ptom atic o f late capitalism, w h ich was heading for a general crisis that w o u ld break o u t sim ultaneously in the m ost im p o rtan t W estern industrialized countries.94 M an d el h ad proposed this perspective hesitantly in 1964 b u t m ore and m o re em phatically b y the en d o f the decade.95 , A ltvater fo u n d in M andel a M arxist w h o besides offering his o w n ’analysis o f contem p o rary capitalism also had insights that provided keys to M arx ’s w orks. T his was w h a t A ltvater and his rebellious generation had b een seeking. E ven in the early 1960s M andel had been m u c h in dem and as a speaker in G erm any, w h ere his opinions w ere taken seriously.96 T h e evening before the F rankfurt M arx colloquium in 1967, stu d en t leaders R u d i Dutschlce and H ans Ju rg e n K rahl m e t w ith M andel in the back ro o m o f a cafe. W hile Krahl, a graduate stu d en t o f T h e o d o r A d o rn o ’s, presented his o w n theory o f capital, Dutschlce snared M andel for a course in econom ics for the Berlin com rades.97 A ltvater stressed that w ith o u t M an d el’s theoretical contribu­ tion, th e N e w Left an d the G erm an student m o v e m en t w o u ld have had difficulty em erging.98 U n lik e France, w ith its u n in terru p ted tradition o f a h e tero d o x left, G erm any h ad seen its M arxist contin u ity bro ken. B e tw e en 1933 and 1945 th e-left-w in g m ilieu had b een com pletely destroyed, to be replaced only by an o rth o d o x -p arty doctrine that derived its inspiration chiefly from East G erm any and, the Soviet U n io n .

I3