FrankfurtSchool 2

8/3/2019 FrankfurtSchool 2

1/45


2/45

2008 Socialist Equality Party


3/45

Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1

II. Steiner/Brenner and the Heritage of Marxism ...................................................................................................................... 4

III. On the Origins of the Steiner/Brenner Polemic .................................................................................................................. 7

IV. Alex Steiner and the Socialist Equality Party ........................................................................................................................ 8

V. Steiners Letter of June 25, 1999 ........................................................................................................................................... 12

VI. Steiners Application to the SEP .......................................................................................................................................... 17

VII. The February 2000 Aggregate Meeting of the SEP and Steiners Articles on Heidegger .................................................. 23

VIII. The Death of Jeff Goldstein .............................................................................................................................................. 25

IX. Steiner and Science ............................................................................................................................................................. 28

X. Steiners Return to the Frankfurt School and the New Left............................................................................................. 36

XI. Steiners New Political Relations ........................................................................................................................................ 39


4/45


5/45

1

I. Introduction

In May-June 2006, I wroteMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousness, a reply to an attack on the InternationalCommittee o the Fourth International by Alex Steiner and Frank Brenner, two ormer members o the WorkersLeague (predecessor o the Socialist Equality Party) who had let the revolutionary socialist movement in thelate 1970s. Unabashed by the many years that they had spent in political retirement, Steiner and Brenner, in adocument entitled Objectivism or Marxism, denounced the theoretical work, political activity, and organizationalpractices o the SEP and ICFI. Steiner/Brenner claimed that the International Committee was opposed to dialecticsand ailed to conduct a struggle against pragmatism.

The consequences o the ICFIs alleged neglect o the dialectic ound expression in its (1) ailure to recognize theurgent need or a revival o utopianism as a means o rekindling socialist consciousness, and (2) indierence tothe problems o psychology and sexuality. For Steiner/Brenner, the latter play a decisive role in shaping politicalmotivations and orientation that, they maintain, are essentially irrational. By concentrating on historical explana-tions, political analysis and programmatic clarication, the International Committee ailed to conront, accordingto Steiner/Brenner, the psychological barriers to socialism that resided in the repressed eelings o the uncon-scious which persist in a human beings congealed, unexamined past.1

The Steiner/Brenner document was based largely on conceptions that have long been associated with the criticaltheory o the Frankurt School and related ideological tendencies, known collectively as Western or Human-

ist Marxism. Associated with the work o Max Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno, Karl Korsch, Herbert Marcuse,Ernst Bloch, Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich, the infuence o the Frankurt School reached its apogee during theheyday o radical student protests in the late 1960s. Ater that wave o middle-class radicalism receded, the infu-ence o the Frankurt School was consolidated in universities and colleges, where so many ex-radicals ound ten-ured positions. From within the walls o the academy, the partisans o the Frankurt School conducted unrelenting

1 Cited inMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousness (Oak Park, MI: Mehring Books, 2007), p. 102.

The Frankurt School vs. MarxismThe Political and Intellectual Odyssey o Alex Steiner

By David North


6/45

2 The Frankurt School vs. Marxism

warnot against capitalism, but, rather, against Marxism. In this struggle, they were remarkably successul. Withrare exceptions, very little resembling Marxismeven i one means by that term only the rigorous application ophilosophical materialism to the study o history, society and social consciousnesshas been taught or severaldecades in the humanities departments o colleges and universities.

Three interrelated historical actors underlay the persistent infuence o this intellectual trend: rst, the deeatso the working class during the rst hal o the 20th century and the annihilation (by ascism and Stalinism) o asubstantial section o the socialist intelligentsia and working class who were the bearers o the theoretical tradi-tions o classical Marxism; second, the post-World War II restabilization o international capitalism; and, third, theprotracted domination o the Stalinist, social-democratic and reormist labor and trade union bureaucracies overthe working class during much o the latter period. The complex combination o objective and subjective historicalactors that obstructed the revolutionary resurgence o the working class created a pessimistic and demoralizedintellectual environment hostile to Marxism.

To the extent that Marxism was barred by unavorable historical conditions rom serving as the theoretical spear-head o mass revolutionary class struggle, the path was cleared or its corruption and alsication in the interestso social orces isolated and alienated rom, and even hostile to, the working class. The Frankurt School playeda central role in this process. It sought to convert Marxism rom a theoretical and political weapon o proletarianclass struggle, which Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse rejected, into a socially amorphous orm o cultural criti-cism, in which the political pessimism, social alienation, and personal and psychological rustrations o sectionso the middle class ound expression.

The document o Steiner/Brenner provided an opportunity to dene the attitude o the Trotskyist movement tothe Frankurt School o anti-Marxism. Steiner/Brenners dierences with the International Committee, I wrote,are not over isolated programmatic points, but rather over the most undamental questions o philosophicalworld outlook upon which the struggle or socialism is based.2Marxism, History and Socialist Consciousnessexamined the signicance o Steiner/Brenners hostility to the development o political perspectives, upon whichthe Trotskyist movement has traditionally placed central emphasis. They opposed the conception that [Marx-ist] analysis and commentary, based on the method o historical materialism, is essential or even relevant to thedevelopment o socialist consciousness,3 and rejected the Marxist concept o perspective, which strives to rootrevolutionary practice in as correct and precise an analysis o the objective world as possible. They demanded,as I explained, that the International Committee concern itsel primarily not with politics and history, but withpsychology and sexparticularly as presented in the works o Wilhelm Reich and Herbert Marcuse.4

Steiner/Brenners subjective idealist standpoint was incompatible with the materialist oundation o the work con-ducted by the ICFI, which rejected their attempt to inltrate the disoriented anti-Marxist pseudo-utopianism oWilhelm Reich, Ernst Bloch and Herbert Marcuse into the Fourth Internationalthat is, to undamentally changethe theoretical and programmatic oundations and class orientation o the Trotskyist movement.5

2 Ibid, p. 62.

3 Ibid, p. 14.

4 Ibid, p. 16.

5 Ibid, pp. 7-8.


7/45

The Political and Intellectual Odyssey o Alex Steiner 3

The document warned that Steiner/Brenners denunciation o the ICFIs alleged objectivism sought to legitimizephilosophical irrationalism and subjectivism. They misused the term objectivism as an epithet directed againstthose who study the socio-economic processes that constitute the basis o revolutionary practice, and who insistupon a scientic understanding o the laws governing the world capitalist system, the international class struggle,

and the orms o their refection in mass consciousness.6

Opposing Steiner/Brenners appeal or a revival o utopian mythmakingwhich has become ashionable in petty-bourgeois radical circlesI wrote that the contradictions o capitalism provide the principal and decisive im-pulse or the development o revolutionary consciousness. The task o the Marxist movement was not to spur theworkers on with the mirage o an illusory utopia, but, rather

to develop, within the advanced sections o the working class, a scientic understanding o historyas a law-governed process, a knowledge o the capitalist mode o production and the social relationsto which it gives rise, and an insight into the real nature o the present crisis and its world-historical

implications. It is a matter o transorming an unconscious historical process into a conscious politi-cal movement, o anticipating and preparing or the consequences o the intensication o the worldcapitalist crisis, o laying bare the logic o events, and ormulating, strategically and tactically, the ap-propriate political response.7

This conception is opposed by those who see no basis or socialism in the objective conditions created bycapitalism itsel, who have been demoralized by the experience o deeats and setbacks, and who neither un-derstand the nature o the capitalist crisis nor perceive the revolutionary potential o the working class Forsuch individuals, the problem o transorming consciousness is posed in essentially ideal and even psychologi-cal terms. Insoar as there does not exist a real basis or socialist consciousness, the possibility or its develop-ment must be sought elsewhere. Herein lay the source o Steiner/Brenners belie that utopia is crucial to arevival o socialist culture.8

The nal sections o my reply examined some o the theoretical infuences, acknowledged and unacknowledged,in the Steiner/Brenner document. Attention was drawn especially to the key writings o Hendrik De Man (ThePsychology o Socialism), Wilhelm Reich (The Mass Psychology o Fascism), and Herbert Marcuse (Eros andCivilization). In conclusion, answering Steiner/Brenners claim that the real problems o ghting or socialistconsciousness exist beyond the horizon o objective conditions, I stated: We live and ght in the world oobjective conditions, which is both the source o our present-day problems as well as their ultimate solution.9

In September 2007 Steiner/Brenner began serializing their reply toMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousnessin installments that were published over a period o three months. The title o this document isMarxism WithoutIts Head or Heart: A Reply to David North [hereater reerred to as MWHH].

6 Ibid, p. 35.

7 Ibid, p. 95.

8 Ibid, p. 96.

9 Ibid, p. 145.


8/45


II. Steiner/Brenner and the Heritage of Marxism

Steiner/Brenner began their document with a denunciation oMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousness. It is,they assert, a dreadul piece o work, rie with misrepresentations and evasions, written in a bombastic style

which cannot conceal its meager substance. The document is, above all else, a demonstration o how theoreti-cally impoverished the IC leadership has become. What North calls Marxism is missing its head and hearti.e.,dialectics and the proletariat, which is to say, the very things that make Marxism a revolutionary doctrine.10

Adopting an intensely subjective and embittered tone, Steiner/Brenner attack me as a hypocrite o the rst orderand excoriate my pettiness, malice and dishonesty.11 This sort o language can make a avorable impression onlyon those who do not approach political disputes rom a principled standpoint. I see no need to reply to attacks othis sort. However, Steiner/Brenner do make one charge that does deserve careul attention. In this latest docu-ment, they write, [North] is no longer deending the heritage o revolutionary Marxism but instead rationalizingthe ICs abandonment o key parts o that heritage.12

This raises a crucial question: Precisely what do Steiner/Brenner consider to be the heritage o revolutionaryMarxism? For an entire decade they have been expressing steadily escalating disagreement with the theoreticaloundations o Marxism. Their dierences began to emerge with Brenners 1997 declaration that Marxism lackedan adequate psychology. In 1998, he announced that Marxism required a new theory o gender. In 1999 Steinerinormed me that he did not agree with the position o Friedrich Engels (the lielong collaborator o Karl Marx)that the relationship between materialism and idealism was the basic question o philosophy. Somewhat later, in2002, Brenner and Steiner demanded that the International Committee recognize the importance o utopianismor the contemporary development o socialist consciousness. In 2003 Steiner proceeded to denounce the vulgarmaterialism o G.V. Plekhanov, the ather o Russian Marxism. This was ollowed in 2004 with a lengthy attackby Steiner on LeninsMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism. Their campaign entered a new stage in 2005 with apublic attack on the ICFI or its objectivism and its reusal to incorporate the insights o Freudo-Marxists likeWilhelm Reich into its theoretical and political work.

In their latest document, all these themes are developed in the course o an exercise in unrestrained rhetoricalvituperation directed against the International Committee generally, and me personally. As is generally the casein politics, the insults are aimed at camoufaging the theoretical and political issues. This camoufage is requiredbecause, as they know, the Socialist Equality Party and the International Committee o the Fourth Internationalare based on a theoretical tradition that has nothing in common with the Frankurt School. This places Steiner/

Brenner in an awkward positionpromoting, while at the same time ormally distancing themselves rom, thetheoreticians whose ideas they are attempting to oist onto the ICFI. Thus, they claim that I have abricated a con-nection between their views and those o the Frankurt School. Steiner/Brenner declare:

No conspiracy theory is complete without some name-dropping, and so North drags in Reich, Marcuse

10 Marxism Without Its Head or Heart, pp. 2-3. The page numbering is based on a PDF printout o the entire document, combining individualchapters that are posted separately on the Steiner/Brenner web site. The site can be accessed athttp://www.permanent-revolution.org.

11 Ibid, p. 252.

12 Ibid, p. 2.


9/45


and Bloch. North is concerned with one thing at this point, which is to establish guilt by association: itis as i the simple invocation o these mens names constitutes prima acie evidence o our abandonmento Marxism. That this is being done under the banner o deending Marxist science only adds a bitter ironyto the whole exercise.13

They then proceed to reute my conspiracy theory by repeatedly insisting that the International Committee iscommitting a atal error by ailing to learn rom the work o Reich, Marcuse, Bloch and Adorno:

One doesnt have to be an apologist or Bloch or overlook his many serious ailings, above all his supportor Stalinism, to recognize that his work might still contain something o value.14

We have never been ollowers o Reich, and there is nothing in what we have written to suggest otherwise.While we recognize that the Freudo-Marxists made some important contributions, their legacy is a con-tradictory one, like so much else about the intellectual lie o the 20th century. As noted in the previous

chapter, when aced with such work, Marxists critically evaluate it and make use o whatever is still livingin it. That is our attitude to Reich.15

All that being said, however, there is still considerable political value to Reichs insights.16

Again one has to pick ones way careully through Reichs ideas (or instance, his views on treating thepolice as workers or debating with the Nazis were completely misguided) and much about everyday liehas changed since his time. But some o his ideas about youth have enduring relevance, and in that regardhe gave a good example o what thinking inside other peoples heads means politically.17

The attempt to dismiss the work o Adorno and Marcuse, as well as Ernst Bloch on the grounds that theywere politically reprehensible is nothing less than an appeal to intellectual and cultural backwardness. Steiner was saying that these gures may have had some valuable insights that we ignore at our peril. Thisis not to imply that their work is beyond criticism or that there is nothing in their work that can impinge ontheir politics and vice-versa. But the task or Marxists when conronted with such a heterogeneous oeuvreis to sit through the body o work and critically assimilate it. It is pointedly not to ignore or dismiss it asworthless beore even reading it on the grounds that the author was politically reprehensible.18

So much or my conspiracy theory! It is not I, but they, who exploit every opportunity to drag in Marcuse,

Bloch, Reich, et al. The above-cited paragraphs obligate one to ask, What has all o this to do with the deense othe Heritage o Marxism? Steiner/Brenner are advocating a theoretical eclecticism that has nothing in commonwith the philosophical traditions upon which the Trotskyist movement is based. Moreover, the very orm o their

13 Ibid, p. 17.

14 Ibid, p. 241.

15 Ibid, p. 267.

16 Ibid, p. 275.

17 Ibid, p. 278.

18 Ibid, p. 247.


10/45


argumentCan we not learn rom? Must we reject everything? Is there not something interesting in?epitomizes the sort o on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand sophistry that Marx invariably subjected to theharshest criticism.19

Steiner/Brenner object that the work o the Frankurt School is not worthless. That is not the word I used todescribe their writings. However, the issue is not whether the writings o the Frankurt School are worthless, butwhether they represent an alternative to and development beyond Marxism. Nowhere do Steiner/Brenner attempta systematic exposition o the conceptions o the Frankurt School, examine their historical, social and intellectualroots, establish the objective internal links between the works o its representative gures. Despite all their rhetori-cal invocations o the dialectic, Steiner/Brenner ail to present a historical and dialectical materialist analysis othe Frankurt School. This would have required an examination o the latters origins, development, contradictionsand, also, the class tendencies o which it is an ideological expression. Instead the reader is inormed that Reichor Marcuse may have written stupid things; but they also wrote some good things. Yes, Reich may have ended upan anti-Communist; but that last chapter o his lie had nothing to do with other chapters.

Steiner/Brenner simply ignore the act that not one o the leading gures in the Frankurt School was in politicalsympathy, let alone aliated, with the Fourth International. This was hardly accidental. The intellectual work othe Frankurt School was grounded in a reactionary philosophical traditionirrationalist, idealist and individu-alisticantithetical to the classical Marxism upon which Trotskys political and theoretical work was based. Thewritings o Marx and Engels played a ar less signicant role in shaping the outlook o the Frankurt School thanthose o Schelling, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Heidegger. And as or the political outlook that prevailed withinthe Frankurt School, its rejection o the revolutionary role o the working class, its historical and cultural pes-simism, and its impressionistic response to political events had nothing in common with the perspective, based ona dialectical and historical materialist analysis, that animated the work o the Fourth International.

The leading representatives o the Frankurt School lived most o their adult lives in a state o political prostration.The maestros o critical theory and the negative dialectic were, when it came to political analysis, incompetentand perennially disoriented. The rise o ascism and deeats o the working class in the 1930s shattered whatevercondence they may at some time have had in the possibility o socialist revolution. Dialectic o Enlightenmentby Horkheimer and Adornopublished in 1947 and generally considered the ounding philosophical statemento the Frankurt Schoolpronounced the downall o all prospects or human progress.

During the 1950s and 1960s, the politically reactionary implications o the outlook o the Frankurt School be-

came all too clear. Under the tutelage o its longtime director, Max Horkheimer, who returned to Germany romhis American exile, the Frankurt School played a central role in developing the new intellectual oundations othe post-Nazi West German bourgeois state. During the same period, the ideas o Wilhelm Reich and Herbert

19 As, or example, in The Poverty o Philosophy:For him, M. Proudhon, every economic category has two sidesone good, the other bad. He looks upon these categories as the pettybourgeois looks upon the great men o history:Napoleon was a great man; he did a lot o good; he also did a lot o harm.Thegood side and the bad side, theadvantages and the drawbacks, taken together orm or M. Proudhon the contradiction in everyeconomic category.The problem to be solved: to keep the good side, while eliminating the bad. [Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 6 (New York: Inter-national Publishers, 1976), p. 167.


11/45


Marcusewho had rejected the working class as a revolutionary orce in modern capitalist societyound anaudience among the milieu o the petty-bourgeois radical New Let. Thus, the heritage that Steiner/Brenner ac-cuses us o abandoning is one with which the International Committee o the Fourth International was never, andcould never be, associated.

In light o the real historical and theoretical roots o their criticisms, there is an element o sel-delusion, not tomention outright political dishonesty, in Steiner/Brenners invocation o the heritage o Marxism to justiy theirdenunciation o the International Committee. As individuals, Steiner and Brenner are entitled to their views. Butthey ail to explain why the ICFI should suddenly adopt theoretical and political conceptions that it has consistentlyrejected. Steiner/Brenner are demanding changes in the theoretical and political curriculum o the InternationalCommittee that have no basis in the history o the Fourth International.

III. On the Origins of the Steiner/Brenner Polemic

Steiner and Brenner have constructed a political narrative that casts them as the victims o a bureaucratic party ap-paratus, subservient to my will, that ruthlessly suppressed their criticisms o the movements alleged abandonmento Marxism. They present the SEPs reusal to oer them the World Socialist Web Site as a orum or their anti-Marxist conceptions as the act o an incipient political dictatorship. They have calculated that this story will winor them sympathy among those who are politically inexperienced, especially in the United States where the iden-tication o socialism with the suppression o individual rights is, as a consequence o decades o anti-communistpropaganda, embedded in popular consciousness. O course, there is the act, which cannot simply be ignored,that Steiner and Brenner let the movement 30 years ago. They have spent virtually all their adult lives in pursuito their private interests. The WSWS has been under no obligation to publish their documents. They attempt to getaround this problem by asserting:

We have no desire to belittle the signicance o party membership, but in this regard North ignores anembarrassing act which we raised in Objectivism or Marxism: Steiner applied to rejoin the party in1998, but the party leadershipand that would mean primarily Northnever acted on his applicationand never explained why. This application was made years beore any political dierences emerged andat a time when Steiner was contributing material to the WSWS. In short, it is North who kept Steiner out othe party and now he is blaming Steiner or not being a party member.

Nor does North provide anything resembling a credible account o the circumstances that gave rise to this

polemic.20

As a matter o act, an account o the origins o this polemic was provided in Marxism, History & SocialistConsciousness.21 However, I am quite prepared to supplement that initial account with urther details. This willrequire that I review the political biography o Alex Steiner. I doubt that he will appreciate this attention. Ater all,he writes in another part o the Steiner/Brenner document that Alex Steiner isnt the leader o a revolutionary

20 Ibid, p. 4.

21 SeeMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousness, pp. 69-76.


12/45


movement: his activities as an individual have no relevance to this discussion. 22 How modest, but I respectullydisagree.

Three points must be made. First, the issuing o a public political attackwhich includes a direct appeal to the

party membership to change its leadershipis not the action o an individual, but o a candidate or political lead-ership. It implies a willingness on the part o its author to assume leadership responsibilities should the occasionarisethat is, should he be called upon to carry through the political changes demanded in his documents. Sec-ond, Steiner is the principal author o those sections o the Steiner/Brenner documents in which the theoretical-philosophical line is elaborated. An examination o Steiners intellectual and political history will contribute to anunderstanding o the origins and implications o his theoretical arguments. Third, there exists a substantial writtenrecord, to which Steiner/Brenner ail to make any reerence, in which the development o Steiners dierenceswith the SEP, prior to the issuing o public attacks, are documented.

This record includes correspondence relating to Steiners application or membership in the SEP in 1999 (not

1998!). The letters written to me and the SEP clearly show that there already existed at that time signicant dier-ences on basic questions o Marxist philosophy as well as the history o the party between Steiner and the Social-ist Equality Party. Virtually all the dierences raised in subsequent documents written by Steiner/Brenner wereanticipated in Steiners 1999 letters. Among the hundreds o pages o polemical material that Steiner/Brennerhave published and posted on their web site, this correspondence is not included. Nor have they published othercorrespondence written by Steiner that presents an evaluation o my theoretical work that diers radically romtheir more recent and actionally motivated reappraisals. These conspicuous omissions are duplicitous and testiyto an absence o political and intellectual principles.

Beore we proceed to examine this written record, let us draw the readers attention to a glaring contradiction inthe Steiner/Brenner narrative. In presenting their theory o the alleged theoretical and political degeneration othe SEP, Steiner/Brenner assert that the movement succumbed to the blandishments o the capitalist environmentduring the years o the dot.com boom. They write: What happened in the years between 1993 and 1998 was acaving in by the IC leadership to the immense class pressures o bourgeois society.23

I this is indeed the case, how does Steiner now explain his 1999 application or membership? I Steinersappraisal o the downall o the ICFI is correct, it would suggest that he somehow ound the stench o politicaldegeneration attractive, that he was drawn to it, and wanted to be part o it. But this, o course, is not the explana-tion. As we shall see, the appraisal o the SEP made by Steiner when he applied or membership in 1999not

to mention the record o the correspondence that he maintained with me between 1997 and 2003completelycontradicts what he now writes in MWHH.

IV. Alex Steiner and the Socialist Equality Party

In the autumn o 1978, as the Workers League was in the nal stages o moving its political headquarters rom

22 Ibid, p. 127.

23 Ibid, p. 144.


13/45


New York to Detroit, Alex Steiner let the party without any explanation. Steiner had previously resigned rom themovement in 1973, during a political crisis in the Workers League that culminated in the resignation o its nationalsecretary, Tim Wohlorth. Steiner rejoined the party in the summer o 1974. But his second departure in 1978brought his career in the revolutionary movement to an end. In his last discussion with me prior to his departure,

Steiner said, Lie is very grim. I oten recalled these words, because they articulated not simply the personaldejection o an individual, but also the pessimism and demoralization o the broader milieu o petty-bourgeoisradical intellectuals. Nevertheless, I regretted Steiners departure rom the Workers League. Particularly ater herejoined the Workers League in 1974, we had collaborated on several theoretical projects. However, Steinersintellectual abilities were undermined by his extreme emotional volatility, susceptibility to discouragement whenconronted with problems, and pessimistic view o lie.

In 1985, in the midst o the public crisis in the International Committee provoked by the political explosion inthe British Workers Revolutionary Party, Steiner and other ormer members o the Workers League were invitedto a meeting in New York City in which I reviewed the political and theoretical issues involved in the controversy.

Steiner expressed agreement with the stand taken by the Workers League, but made it clear that he had no desireto rejoin the party. He had developed a proessional career and comortable liestyle that he did not wish to dis-rupt. Still, he expressed a desire to maintain somewhat more regular contact with the party.

It was not until the late 1990s that Steiner indicated that he was considering a reentry into political lie. Steinerrequently asked to meet with me during my trips to New York, and expressed, verbally and occasionally in writing,his agreement with the theoretical work o the partyespecially its ght against the infuence o postmodernism.For example, I received on June 10, 1997 the ollowing letter rom Steiner:

Dear Dave,

I enjoyed reading your recent talk about the Holocaust [Anti-Semitism, Fascism and the Holocaust: ACritical Review o Daniel Goldhagens Hitlers Willing Executioners]. It is especially topical because somuch o the opposition to any conception o lawulness in history uses the Holocaust as a prime example.This is especially true o those writers identiying themselves as post-modernists. Here we see continentalpost-structuralists (Derrida, Lyotard) making common cause with American pragmatists (Rorty) all in thename o liberating thought rom the meta-narratives. As pointed out by Habermas and others, theirattack on Reason is in a direct line o descent rom Nietzsche to Heideggertheir target, the overthrowingo Hegel and Marx.

The collaboration between the latter day Nihilists and the more traditional pragmatists and empiricists issomething that I nd quite ascinating. I can tell you rom personal experience that the spirit o the post-modernists resonates with large sections o middle-class intellectuals. I recently took a class on this stuand I was the only one trying to show that the post-modernist emperors have no clothes.24

24 Steiners 1997 letter presents an assessment o theoretical issues diametrically opposed to the position now being argued in the Steiner/Brennerdocuments. In the letter cited above Steiner values my lecture as especially topical because it challenges the prevailing and infuential positions othe postmodernists. And yet, in Objectivism or Marxism, written in 2006, Steiner/Brenner present an entirely dierent assessment. There, postmod-ernism is dismissed as a ad on the wane, barely deserving the attention o Marxists. Twenty years ago, Steiner/Brenner declaim, it would have


14/45


Steiner added a postscript at the end o his letter, praising another lecture that I had given. I distributedyour article on the Enlightenment [Equality, the Rights o Man and the Birth o Socialism] in my Hegelclassas an example o a contemporary deense o the Enlightenment.25

Several months later, in October 1997, Steiner attended a public meeting called by the SEP which commemoratedthe 20th anniversary o the 1977 assassination o a young leader o the Workers League, Tom Henehan. Steiner, whohad known and admired Henehan, was clearly aectedthough perhaps more emotionally than politicallybythe meeting. At its conclusion Steiner indicated to me that he was interested in collaborating more systematicallywith the SEP on writing projects related to Marxist theory. In February 1998 the International Committee launchedthe World Socialist Web Site. During the months that ollowed Steiner and I held a number o discussions thatexplored the possibility o developing a WSWS philosophy section. There was no indication on Steiners part thathe considered the establishment o the WSWS to be a retreat on the part o the ICFI to mere journalism. Quitethe opposite: he was enthusiastic over the possibilities it created or expanding the audience or Marxist theoryand politics.

There were indications, however, that the many years that Steiner had spent outside the movement had let animprint on his theoretical conceptions. An essay that he submitted to me in the autumn o 1998, entitled Alien-ation and Revolution, dealt with the young Marxs treatment o alienation in the 1844 Economic and Philo-sophical Manuscripts in a manner similar to that ound in the writings o Frankurt School and Western Marxisttheoreticians. The essay produced by Steiner signicantly underestimated the extent to which Marxs subsequentwritingsespeciallyThe Holy Family, The German Ideology and The Poverty o Philosophyrepresented adevelopment and deepening o the materialist and scientic character o Marxist theory. Even ater several redratso the document, I was not satised with Steiners essay and chose not to post it on the web site.26 Our discussions

mattered to mount an attack on postmodernism; today it is an exercise in fogging, i not a dead horse, at least a very puny one (Cited inMarxism,History & Socialist Consciousness, p. 19).What is also particularly noteworthy about the 1997 letter is the connection Steiner makes, in his reerence to Richard Rorty, between pragmatismand postmodernism. Yet, in both Objectivism or Marxism and most recently in MWHH, Steiner/Brenner denounce me or stressing the relationshipbetween these two orms o subjective-idealist and irrationalist philosophy!Steiner/Brenner write: When North says that postmodernism is itsel a major tendency within contemporary pragmatic philosophyhe is in eectsaying that by attacking postmodernism he has thereore disposed o pragmatism and we no longer need be concerned with it. [MWHH, p.88, emphasis in the original] Here Steiner/Brenner misrepresent what I wrote in order to belittle the link, upon which Steiner himsel had insistedin 1997, between pragmatism and postmodernism. What I actually wrote inMarxism, History & Socialist Consciousness is:

First o all, I have nowhere stated or even implied that postmodernism has replacedpragmatism. It is, rather, a variety o pragmaticthoughtindeed, one that takes the subjective idealist, voluntarist and even irrational elements that are present in classical pragmaticthoughtdating all the way back to Jamesto their most extreme and reactionary conclusion. To suggest, as your comment does, that

postmodernism represents a undamentally dierent species o theoretical thought is to make a major concession to pragmatism, to shieldpragmatism rom the intellectual embarrassment that it suers on account o the gross excesses o its postmodernist progeny. (Marxism,History & Socialist Consciousness, p. 19)

25 Steiners endorsement o my lecture on the Enlightenment is totally contradicted by Steiner/Brenners condemnation o my deense o the En-lightenment in their most recent documents.

26 Upon reviewingAlienation and Revolution more recently in the context o Steiners subsequent evolution, it became evident that his presentconceptions ound embryonic expression in this essay. The theoretical ramework o Steiners essay developed out o Marcuses existential andahistorical conception o mans essential nature, which Steiner adopts uncritically. Thus, we encounter in Steiners document the claim thatMans essential nature is dened by the reciprocal interaction between mans needs and his capacities. Later, he asserts that Marxs conceptiono mans essential nature has unortunately remained an incomprehensible black box to all but a ew commentators. In this context, Steiner reersspecically to the work o Horkheimer, Theodore Adorno and most signicantly, Marcuse. Steiners presentation, like that o Marcuse, rips Marxs


15/45


remained riendly, and, at least on the surace, Steiner seemed enthusiastic about the work o the WSWS. On Febru-ary 16, 1999 he wrote that Some o the recent work o the WSWS has been outstanding.

During this period Steiner was also working on a drat o a statement that was to serve as an introduction to a

new philosophy section o the WSWS. Several drats were produced, but none o them were suitable or publica-tion. They lacked a orceully stated theoretical perspective that established the Marxist and dialectical materialiststandpoint o the new philosophy section. The underlying source o the problem emerged in the last version othe statement, which I received in May 1999. The drat began by asserting that it would be the aim o the newphilosophy section

to encourage a discussion on the undamental philosophical issues that require clarication i mankind isto survive and fourish in the new millennium.

What are these issues?

Here it may be proper to take a step back into the very beginnings o speculative thought, to the world oancient Greece, In Platos Republic the question posed by Socrates is What is justice? Aristotle, in theNicomachean Ethics asks the question What is the good lie? Underlying these questions in the case oboth philosophers is the question o Being, o what exists. Without a notion o what is, and its relation tous, we cannot begin to answer the question o how we should live. Consideration o this question leads tothe urther question, What is knowledge? Are all claims to knowledge mere opinions or are there some

1844 Manuscripts out o its historical and intellectual context. Steiners essay goes so ar as to interpret Marxism as an exposition o the teleological

unolding o mans essential nature. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Marxism, which emphatically rejects teleology. As Marx deepened hiscritique o Hegelian idealism and the anthropologism o Feuerbach, he ceased to speak o a human essence or essential nature existing aboveand outside the historical development o mans social relations o production. Thus, in his Theses on Feuerbach, written in 1845, Marx states thatthe human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble o the social relations (Moscow: ProgressPublishers, 1973, p. 64). In subsequent writings, on the basis o the newly-elaborated materialist conception o history, Marx and Engels subjectedto withering criticism attempts to dissolve the real, existing, historically-specic man, conditioned intellectually and practically by denite socialrelations o production, into a philosophically-conceived abstract man. In this regard, their critique o Max Stirner (Saint Sancho) is especiallyapposite. Stirner

presents any object or relation whatsoever as that which is alien to the ego, as the alienation o the ego; on the other hand, Saint Sanchocan, as we shall see, also present any object or relation as something created by the ego and belonging to it. Apart, rst o all rom thearbitrary way in which he presents, or does not present, any relation as a relation o alienation (or everything can be made to t in theabove equations), we see already here that his only concern is to present all actual relations, [and also] actual individuals, [as alienated](to retain this philosophical [expression] or the time being), to [transorm] them into the wholly [abstract] phrase o alienation ( The

German Ideology, Collected Works, Volume 5 (New York, International Publishers, 1976), p. 281, brackets in the original text).Marxs historical materialist critique and reworking o the concept o alienation is most richly developed in his Grundrisse,written in 1857-58,inwhich he insists that the individuality o man and his alienation is the outcome o an historically-determined social process. As Marx explains:

Universally developed individuals, whose social relations, as their own communal [gemeinschatlich] relations, are hence also sub-ordinated to their own communal control, are no product o nature, but o history. The degree and the universality o the developmento wealth where this individuality becomes possible presupposes production on the basis o exchange values as a prior condition, whoseuniversality produces not only the alienation o the individual rom himsel and rom others, but also the universality and the comprehen-siveness o his relations and capacities (Grundrisse: Introduction to the Critique o Political Economy, tr. Martin Nicolaus (Middlesex,England, 1973) p. 162).

Alienation and Revolution is posted on the Steiner/Brenner web site. It is dated May 1997, but the version presented on the web site is the substan-tially redrated document that was completed in early 1999.


16/45


kind o universally valid principles? All these questions are interrelated. The constellation o such ques-tions and the ongoing eort to nd answers to them is the task o philosophy.

There was an element o intellectual pretentiousness in this opening, a sel-conscious attempt on the part o the

author to call attention to his erudition. But this was a matter o style. The more serious problem was that Steinersstep back into the very beginnings o speculative thought suggested a retreat rom a Marxist conception o thehistory o philosophy, which has placed central emphasis on the relationship between matter and consciousness.The discussion o this question has necessarily assumed the orm o a struggle between the two irreconcilablyopposed philosophical campsthat o the materialists, who have insisted upon the primacy o matter over con-sciousness, and that o the idealists, who, in one orm or another, have upheld the primacy o consciousness. AsSteiner had chosen to invoke the heritage o Greek philosophy, it would have been appropriate to point out thatthe confict between materialism and idealism can be traced back to that classical age.27 Marxists have tradition-ally viewed the establishment o a philosophical journal as a means o deending and advancing the materialistviewpoint. I could not help but wonder why Steiner had chosen a dierent and theoretically ambiguous approach.

The word materialism did not appear anywhere in the drat.

I met with Steiner in June 1999 during a visit to New York. He told me that he had been impressed by the standtaken by the SEP on the recently concluded US-led war against Serbia, and especially praised the statement thatI had written (posted on the WSWS under the title, Ater the Slaughter: Political Lessons o Balkan War 28).The ICFI, he told me, was the only socialist tendency that had been capable o developing what he reerred toas a Marxist theory o the war. The recent events, Steiner said, had led him to consider seriously applying ormembership in the SEP. But, he inormed me, there were issues o both a practical and theoretical character thatneeded to be claried. Among these was Engels insistence that the relationship o matter and consciousness wasthe undamental question o philosophy. We both had limited time, and it was immediately apparent to me that thedierences being raised by Steiner had been anticipated in his essay on alienation and in the drat introduction.They were not likely to be resolved in a brie discussion. I asked Steiner to write a letter explaining his position.Steiner replied that he would consider my proposal.

V. Steiners Letter of June 25, 1999

On June 25, 1999 I received Steiners letter. It began:

Dear Dave,

This is a private communication between us. Please do not show this letter to anyone else.29

Much was touched on o [sic], but there was little time to probe the issues discussed. I would like to begin

27 The opposition o idealism to materialism ound expression in the writings o Plato. According to Diogenes Laertius, Plato expressed the desireto burn all the writings o Democritus, whose atomistic theory laid the oundations or a materialist understanding o the nature.

28 http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jun1999/balk-j14.shtml

29 The obvious changes in Steiners political relations with the International Committee and his misrepresentation o his earlier relations with theSEP require that I place this and other correspondence in the public domain.


17/45


to do that now. I am writing these notes as a very general summary o some o my thoughts. There is noattempt to chase down quotes, etc.

1. Materialism/Idealism

Without doubt this is a undamental issue in the history o philosophy. And there is no question that Marx-ism represented a orm o materialism (a point that is oten obscured by some Western neo-Marxists).

That being said, I am not convinced that this is THE question that divides dierent philosophical systems.

This statement could not be read as anything other than a declaration by Steiner o a major objection to thetheoretical oundations o Marxism. By beginning his letter with this statement, Steiner was acknowledging its ar-reaching implications. How could he do otherwise? Steiner was calling into question Marxisms conception o thehistory o philosophy and the coherence o its materialist logic, epistemology and theory o knowledge. 30 Back in

1975, when he was still a member o the Workers League, playing a central role in the theoretical struggle againstthe pragmatic outlook o the Socialist Workers Party, Steiner specically attacked George Novack, the SWPs prin-cipal theoretician, on this issue. Novack, he wrote, panders to the prevailing myth that the question o the priorityo matter or idea is meaningless and that some third position is possible. 31 One year later, in an examinationo the theoretical conceptions o Tim Wohlorth, Steiner denounced him or attempting to dismiss and take orgranted the undamental question o philosophy, materialism or idealism. Steiner went on to describe Wohlorthsposition as idealist rubbish.32

Steiners letter o June 1999 went on to elaborate areas o potential theoretical confict:

2. The priority o Being to Consciousness. The materialism o Marx does indeed posit Being as prior toconsciousness both historically and logically. It is possible to have Being without consciousness (thougho course we would not be there to think about it) but it is impossible to have consciousness without Be-ing. That being said, it is also the case that consciousness when animated in the orm o social practice,can transorm Being, and at times become a decisive infuence.

The reciprocal relationship between Being and consciousness is just as important to Marxism as the logi-

30 The centrality o this question and its philosophical implications was initially elaborated by Friedrich Engels in his immensely infuential essay,Ludwig Feuerbach and the End o Classical Germany Philosophy. He wrote:

The great basic question o all philosophy, especially o more recent philosophy, is that concerning the relation o thinking and being. The question o the position o thinking in relation to being, a question which, by the way, had played a great part also in the scholasti-cism o the Middle Ages, the question: which is primary, spirit or naturethat question, in relation to the church, was sharpened intothis: Did God create the world or has the world been in existence eternally?The answers which the philosophers gave to this question split them into two great camps. Those who asserted the primacy o spirit tonature and, thereore, in the last instance, assumed world creation in some orm or other comprised the camp o idealism. The others,who regarded nature as primary, belonged to the various schools o materialism (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1973, p .23).

31 Marxism, Pragmatism and Revisionism,Fourth International, Autumn 1975, p. 109.

32 Trotskyism Versus Revisionism, Volume Seven: The Fourth International and the Renegade Wohlorth (New York: Labor Publications,1984), p. 93.


18/45


cal priority o Being. There are urthermore many levels o Being, each having its own specic categoriesand laws o motion. The complex interrelationships between and within each hierarchical level o Beingis a continuing subject or investigation.

Anyone who thinks that repeating the phrase that Being is prior to consciousness settles anything is simplybeing intellectually lazy and ooling themselves. (O course I am not saying you are doing thisbut manyostensible Marxists do just that and think they have analyzed something.)

Steiner, it appeared to me, had drited into the gravitational eld o theoretical tendencies hostile to Marxism.These paragraphs were reminiscent o passages ound in the writings o assorted praxis philosophers, aliateso the Frankurt School and other philosophically-eclectic tendencies that comprise what is known as WesternMarxism. The intellectual thread that binds these diverse tendencies together is dissatisaction and disagree-ment with philosophical materialism. Steiners assertion that The reciprocal relationship between Being andconsciousness is just as importantto Marxism as the logicalpriority o Being (emphasis added) was a major

concession to philosophical idealism. An understanding o the interaction between Being and consciousness canonly be established on the basis o a recognition o the primacy o matter over consciousness. Moreover, Marxism,as a world scientic outlook, views humankind, the mind and consciousness as a product o the dialectical evolu-tion o nature. From the standpoint o science, though not o idealist-tinged philosophy, the primacy o Being is amaterialandhistorical, and not merely alogical, priority.33

The paragraphs that ollowed presented a amiliar litany o objections to classical Marxism. There was the sugges-tion that Engels, though not entirely lacking in talent, had in some way contributed to a vulgarization o Marxism:Engels was not Marx Marx was undamentally the theorist and Engels the popularizer. This review o Engelssupposedly ambiguous legacy was ollowed by an all-too-amiliar critique o LeninsMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism: the version o materialism Lenin expounds in this work has much more in common with 18thcentury mechanical materialism than with Marxs materialist dialectic. Steiners argumentscounterposing thevulgar materialist Lenin oMaterialism and Empirio-Criticism to the Hegelianized dialectical Lenin o thePhilosophical Notebookswere ones that I had come across many times in the past, in the writings o idealistopponents o Marxism.

There was one hopeul note. Notwithstanding his sharp criticism o what he knew to be essential elements o thephilosophical heritage o the Trotskyist movement, Steiner oered a avorable assessment o the political develop-ment o the International Committee.

Events in the last 2 decades have created more avorable conditions or the renewal o Marxism. Notablewas the 1985 split and clarication in the International Committee, the collapse o Stalinism in the late1980s and early 1990s and the development o globalized communications and technology. The impact

33 As Trotsky wrote in his essay introducing the rst issue o the Under the Banner o Marxism, the Soviet theoretical journal ounded in 1922:Human society itsel, both by its historical roots and by its contemporary economy, extends into the world o natural history. We mustsee contemporary man as a link in the whole development that starts rom the rst tiny organic cell, which came in its turn rom thelaboratory o nature, where the physical and chemical properties o matter act (Problems o Everyday Lie [New York: Monad Press,1979], p. 272).


19/45


o the World Socialist Web Site over the past year, and particularly in the past ew months with its valuablecommentary on the Clinton impeachment drive and the war against Yugoslavia have shown the enormouspossibilities or reaching a mass audience throughout the world.34

Turning his attention to the relationship between Philosophy and the party, Steiner acknowledged that TheMarxist movement, organized as an international political party, can and has played an important role in the devel-opment o Marxist philosophy. This was a puzzling statement, or where else and bywhom else has Marxism beendeveloped? Steiner oered no specic example o Marxist philosophy being developed by individual theoreticiansworking outside o and unconnected to the Marxist movement. He noted that developments that are o signi-cance or philosophy come rom very unexpected quarters, such as or instance chaos theory. However, Steinercontinued: I believe o course that the ull integration and comprehension o these developments is only possiblewithin the ramework o Marxism, but that does not mean that 1there is some kind o privileged position thatonly Marxists have that enables them to grasp these developments, without mastering the subject at hand; 2thatnon-Marxists have nothing o importance to say on these developments.

As I read these lines, somewhat belligerent in tone, it seemed to me that Steiner was setting up a series o rhetoricalstraw men, in the service o an agenda that was not entirely clear. The issue is not one o a privileged positionwhatever that may meanbut o the essential role o Marxism, i.e., the most advanced and consistent orm omaterialist philosophy, in the development o a scientic understanding o nature, society and consciousness.Which Marxists have denied that developments such as the ormulation o chaos theory, necessarily emergingoutside the sphere o revolutionary politics, require the most serious attention? The theoretical traditions o clas-sical Marxism, dating back to the pioneering work o Engels, have always assigned to natural science a criticalrole in the development o materialism. But the advances made by scientists hardly lessen the crucial role playedby Marxists in promoting the conscious application o the dialectical method and a consistently materialist worldoutlook in all spheres o scientic research and, above all, in striving to develop a political and intellectual milieuavorable or the progressive development o culture as a whole. The critical nature o such work can hardly beexaggerated at a time when anti-intellectualism and social backwardness nds support at the highest levels o thecapitalist state.

Steiner ended this section o his letter with yet another enigmatic remark: Furthermore, he wrote, such de-velopments should be seen as avenues or enriching our theoretical comprehension, and not simply as anotherexample illustrating the correctness o our (ossied) perspective.

Again, except or the vague reerence to chaos theory, he oered no concrete example o the developments towhich he was reerring. But even more troubling was his description o the Marxist perspective as ossied. Plac-ing the word diplomatically within parentheses did not lessen its jarring impact. Taken as a whole, the argumentsadvanced by Steiner in this section o his letter, however ambiguous his ormulations, seemed directed against thedeense o Marxist conceptions in opposition to other philosophical viewpoints.

34 Let us compare this assessment, written in June 1999, to Steiner/Brenners present claim, which we have already cited, that What happened inthe years between 1993 and 1998 was a caving in by the IC leadership to the immense class pressures o bourgeois society. The reader will alsonotice the glaring contrast between Steiners highly avorable estimate o the World Socialist Web Site and its revolutionary potential in 1999 and thecontemptuous dismissal o the WSWS in the most recent documents o Steiner/Brenner.


20/45


The disturbing implications o his comments emerged all too clearly in the nal section o his letter, in whichSteiner turned to the question o party membership. He stated:

I will not be able to unction eectively in [a] party that has a dogmatic attitude toward philosophy. I do

not believe that the SEP and the International Committee today does have a dogmatic attitude. I have seena very open and rereshing attitude expressed in the WSWS. Some o the views I have expressed may seemunorthodox to some comrades. I do not insist that anyone necessarily agree with these views. I do expecthowever that they be given a orum and looked at with an open attitude.

Why, in a letter discussing philosophy and membership in the SEP, was Steiner raising the specter o dogmatism,with all its pejorative connotations? A dogmatic attitude is characterized by a blind and infexible set o belies,akin to a religion, impervious to arguments based on acts and reason. The accusation o dogmatism has beenraised all too requently by opponents o Marxism, as a means o discrediting its deense o materialism. 35 Steinershould have remembered that the International Committee had been attacked in similar terms, back in the early

1970s, when George Novack branded its opposition to idealist schools o philosophy as sectarianism. Steiners1975 article, Marxism, Pragmatism and Revisionism, rom which I have already quoted, was one o a numbero statements replying to Novacks attack.36 In the context o Steiners objections to Marxist ormulations on therelation between being and consciousness, his glib identication o a deense o basic materialist conceptionswith intellectual laziness, and his reerence to ossied perspectives, his raising o a dogmatic attitude towardphilosophy had the character o a warning shot being red by Steiner across the bow o the party.

Finally, Steiners letter ended on a distinctly ambivalent note:

Nevertheless, I would not be honest i I did not admit that I still have some doubts. I am just not sure howwell I would be able to t into the organization. I am also not sure i the level o commitment I am willingto make, in terms o my time and my nancial support, is sucient or party membership. On the otherhand, I dont think I have any way to determine the answer to these questions without trying the role oparty membership.

35 James Burnham, it should be recalled, sought to discredit Marxism in precisely this way. Justiying his unwillingness to engage in a debate withTrotsky over matters relating to dialectical materialism, he declared, I stopped arguing about religion long ago. To which Trotsky replied, As Iunderstand this, your words imply that the dialectic o Marx, Engels and Lenin belongs to the sphere o religion (In Deense o Marxism [London:New Park Publications, 1971], p. 91)

36 The most detailed answer to Novacks denunciation o philosophical sectarianism appeared in a 1973 statement by the International Committee

o the Fourth International:But what does Novack mean by sectarianism in philosophy?In this eld, Marxism certainly does notmake compromises. In the sphereo philosophy, every dierence must be analyzed and ought through to the end. Here the basic oundations o the movement are involvedIt is only on the rm basis o dialectical materialism that fexibility in tactics is possible, and that periodic shits in strategy can be un-dertaken. There is no question otactics in philosophy. The position o dialectical materialism, that theory is united with practice in andthrough the struggle to change the world, is a culmination o and at the same time a break with all philosophy beore Marx (a negation inthe Hegelian sense). All philosophy since Hegel is either part o the developing theory o Marxism or is bourgeois apologetics developedin struggleagainstdialectical materialism.The question o sectarianism can be raised here only by those who propose to blur the line between dialectical materialism and bour-geois philosophy (Trotskyism Versus Revisionism, Volume Six (London: New Park, 1975], p. 191).


21/45


I ater reading all my caveats you still think I should join the party, then I will do so. To me however, itwill seem like a trial membership.

And so, with this highly conditional declaration o his personal political commitment, Steiner brought his letter

to a conclusion. Steiner was clearly moving along a theoretical trajectory dierent rom that o the SEP and In-ternational Committee. I he were to join the SEP, it would be on his terms. His interest in becoming a memberwas primarily to obtain a public orum, via the WSWS, to advance a theoretical platorm alien to the philosophi-cal standpoint o the Fourth International. And in return or providing Steiner with a world audience to criticizeMarxism, the SEP would receive whatever small portion o his ree time and spare change that he elt willing topart with.

VI. Steiners Application to the SEP

Several weeks later, in August 1999, the Political Committee o the SEP received rom Steiner a ormal application

or membership.37 This was a very dierent document rom the letter that he had sent me in June. His applica-tion did not mention the dierences on philosophical questions that Steiner had raised in June. Nor did the letterindicate that Steiner was critical o the political orientation and practice o the SEP. There were no reerences toobjectivism and abstentionism, or, or that matter, degenerationwhich, i the Steiner/Brenner o MWHHare to be believed, had been underway since 1993, six years beore Steiner decided that he wanted to become amember! Steiner did not criticize the SEP or ailing to ght pragmatism, or chastise the party or holding an un-critical view o the Enlightenment.

The document that Steiner sent to the Political Committee was a lengthy and remarkably candid autobiographicalstatement. I will cite only rom those sections o the document that are related to the political issues raised bySteiner/Brenners attack on the ICFI.

Steiner began his essay with a review o his intellectual background. He described the process o his gradualradicalization. When the political quiescence o the post-war period nally ended in the late 60s I naturallygravitated toward the new student movement. I shared the political sensibilities o most o my generation and con-sidered mysel a New Letist. Steiner recalled that he studied philosophy at the New School or Social Research inNew York, an institute that was related intellectually to Horkheimers Institute o Social Research (the FrankurtSchool). Though he reerred to his areas o philosophical interest, Steiner did not review the major theoreticalinfuences that he encountered at the New Schoolthough one o its major gures at the time was Hannah Arendt,

the ormer pupil (like Marcuse) o Martin Heidegger. As or his politics, Steiner acknowledged that

I accepted somewhat uncritically the hal-baked myths and legends that circulated among the New Let.

37 In bothMarxism or Objectivism and MWHH, Steiner incorrectly gives 1998 as the year o his application or membership in the SEP. This erroris repeated in an addendum to MWHH, dated April 5, 2008,which Steiner/Brenner have posted on their web site. It is not entirely clear why Steinerrepeatedly misstates the date by one year, as one must assume that he has copies o his correspondence to the SEP and me. However, it should benoted that Steiner repeatedly assertsmost recently in the April 2008 addendumthat his application was submitted beore there had emergedany dierences over philosophical issues. The record shows, however, that Steiner applied or membership ater signicant dierences had beenrevealed in his letter o June 25, 1999. One must conclude that Steiner has changed the year o his application to t the needs o his present politicalnarrative.


22/45


Typical o the wild impressionism that passed or analysis in these circles was the theory, popularizedby the Black Panther Party, that America was a ascist country.38

Steiner joined the Workers League in 1970. He discussed the immense impact o its historically-grounded per-

spective on his own development:

For the rst time that I could recall, I was conronted with a reasoned explanation o current social andpolitical reality to which I had previously responded on an emotional level.

My education as a Marxist began. Ater several weeks o reading, attending lectures and many, many hourso discussion I became convinced that Marxism was indeed a living movement that was relevant to theproblems we in the United States were then acing. My study o the history o the Marxist movement con-vinced me that Trotskyism represented the only genuine continuity o Marxism in our time.

I read all the classics o Marxism: Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky as well as Plekhanov, Mehring, Kautsky,Luxemburg.39

Steiners letter then turned to the events o 1973-74, when the Workers League, and I with it, experienced aproound crisis brought on by the impressionistic perspective o the National Secretary, Tim Wohlorth. Theletter described the impact o Wohlorths actions on the Workers League and on himsel. But here his narrativeassumed an extremely subjective tone, and betrayed his own serious political weakness. Steiner recalled Wohl-orths personal attacks on him, and o being burdened with a never-ending stream o meaningless busy work.This was meant to isolate and demoralize me, encouraging me to leave. Within a ew months he succeeded and Ilet the movement. Wohlorths behavior was, indeed, atrocious. But Steiner ailed to examine why he succumbedpolitically to Wohlorths provocations. There were others who resisted and opposed Wohlorth. Nor did Steinerattempt to explain the deeper political reasons or the development o the crisis in the Workers League. Aside roma feeting reerence to the Watergate scandal, Steiners letter hardly touched on the major changes in the politicaland economic changes that were taking place in the United States and internationally. His letter ailed to examinethe connection between shits in the objective situation, their impact on the development o the class struggle, andtheir refection, politically and theoretically, within the party.

Rejoining the Workers League in 1974, ollowing Wohlorths removal rom the position o national secretary,Steiner recalled that The period rom 1974-77 was or me one o intense theoretical work. However, new

38 It is true that the Black Panthers described Amerika as a ascist state. But ar more important in giving this disoriented theory intellectualcredibility were the writings and speeches o Herbert Marcuse. He delivered a lecture at the New School, while Steiner was a student, in which heclaimed that among the American people at large, a conguration o political and psychological conditions point to the existence o a proto-ascistsyndrome (Counter-Revolution and Revolt[Boston: Beacon Press, 1972], p. 25).

39 These words, in which he ondly recalled the impact on his own development o reading, attending lectures and many, many hours o discus-sion, should be compared to Steiners present contemptuous dismissal o the eorts o the SEP to educate workers: How is a worker to gain anunderstanding o the historical role o the unions? he asks sarcastically. Presumably this will come rom reading the WSWS or attending a partylecture. This sterile propagandism is completely alien to the traditions o Trotskyism (MWHH, p. 119). In other words, lectures and readingand discussion are or intellectuals only.


23/45


problems were arising in the International Committee. In his discussion o the developing crisis in the WorkersRevolutionary Party, Steiner acknowledged his own limitations:

With more than two decades o hindsight, it is easy or me to see now that Healys practice o cog-

nition was the antithesis o materialist dialectics. It became a vehicle or introducing various orms omystication into the movement that could provide a philosophical cover or the WRPs increasingly op-portunist maneuvers. Unortunately, although I was troubled by Healys subjective interpretation o thetheory o knowledge o Marxism, I attributed whatever qualms I elt to my own inadequacies.

It was not long beore Steiner was again politically adrit. My own personal crisis, he wrote, came to a headin the period 1977-78. According to Steiners letter, the ault or his diculties lay more or less entirely with theWorkers League:

To begin with, the day to day work o the Workers League seemed to be increasingly dominated by an

anti-theoretical activism. This was the direct consequence o the alse perspective that had been intro-duced into the sections o the International Committee by the leadership o the WRP. Increasingly, we wereworking with the sense that a civil war was imminent. It thereore became urgent to build our ranks asrapidly as possibly [sic]. The idea o educational work and training came to be viewed as a wasteul luxuryrefecting the previous propagandist stage o the movement. Comrades were being asked to do impossiblechores, and this began to take its toll. Once again, as in the period o Wohlorths wrecking operation,the personal lives o the party members were put under incredible stress. In some ways the situation wenow encountered was worse than the one rom the 1973-74 period. The renetic activism launched byWohlorth, while pushing the party to the breaking point, did result at least initially, in the recruitment osome working class youth. This was above all a product o the dierent conditions prevailing in the work-ing class at that time. The period 1973-74 coincided with a period o militancy and radicalization o manylayers o the working class. Three years later, the wave o strikes and youth radicalization was denitely onthe wane. Despite our heroic eorts, ew i any new orces were recruited in this period.

Holding the party responsible or his own crisis, Steiners subjective account distorted, to the point o alsica-tion, the history o the Workers League during the mid- and late-1970s. It would not be dicult, on the basis oa review o party documents rom that period, and o an examination o what was published in the Bulletin (thesemi-weekly newspaper o the Workers League), to show that the period between 1974 and 1978 was exception-ally productive. Within the broader context o the historical development o the Workers League as a genuinely

Marxist party o the working class, the departure o Wohlorth marked the beginning o a denite break by theWorkers League with the political residue o American middle-class radicalism that Wohlorth personied. Inthe atermath o his resignation, the Workers League set out to place all aspects o its work in alignment with theTrotskyist heritage o the Fourth International. Steiner, obsessed with his individual pinpricks, seemed to havecompletely orgotten this central achievement. In this respect, it was especially noteworthy that Steiners lettermade no reerence to intensive work on political perspective that characterized this period or to the historicalinvestigation spearheaded by the Workers League [whose ndings were published under the titleSecurity and the


24/45


Fourth International] into the circumstances surrounding the assassination o Leon Trotsky, the rst ever to becarried out by the Fourth International.40

The deepening crisis in the British Workers Revolutionary Party created diculties or the Workers League. But

the political and theoretical lessons drawn by the Workers League out o the struggle against Wohlorths politicalbetrayal, and the subsequent renewal within our party o the struggle against all orms o opportunism, preparedthe party or the ght against the WRPs abandonment o Trotskyism.

Steiner was blind to these developments. By the time he wrote his letter, more than 20 years ater leaving the Work-ers League, he seemed to remember nothing but his personal diculties. My love o lie had disappeared, hewrote in his letter, and with it any enthusiasm I still had or party work. He then recalled the circumstances ohis departure rom the Workers League:

For me undoubtedly the low point came in October o 1978. I was awakened one morning with a

phone call rom our National Secretary, Dave North, asking me to come into the party oce immediately.I remember arriving at the oce and wondering what all the uss was about. It was then that I was toldthe shocking news that comrade Tom Henehan had been killed at a youth dance the night beore. Nothingcould have prepared me or such news.

For the next ew weeks and months, I drited politically. One day, I dont even remember exactly when,I let the movement.

There is no reason to doubt that Steiner was shaken by Tom Henehans death. But there was one major actualerror his account. Henehan was killed not in October 1978, but exactly one year earlierin October 1977. Thediscrepancy is signicant, or it resulted in an account o Steiners departure rom the Workers League in whichthe actual circumstances o his abandonment o revolutionary politics were misrepresented.41 In act, it was not

40 Steiners account o the practical work conducted during this work was a travesty o the actual record o the partys work and achievements. Itwas precisely during the period that the Workers League established a signicant presence among the most militant sections o the working classespecially the coal miners o West Virginia and Kentucky, among whom the party won a wide ollowing during two major national coal strikes.The second strike, in 1977-78, lasted more than 100 days and culminated in the successul deance o the anti-labor Tat-Hartley Act invoked byPresident Carter. Factions o the partys industrial arm, the Trade Union Alliance or a Labor Party, were active throughout the country. In New York,Ed Winn, a militant transit worker and member o the Workers League, was elected in December 1977 to a seat on the unions executive board.His campaign was based on an explicitly socialist program. And among the youth, the campaign launched by the Young Socialists in May 1976 orthe reedom o Gary Tyler, a victim o a rame-up in Louisiana, won substantial support among young people all over the country. It is no doubt thecase that the demands placed upon party members were substantial. But let us keep in mind that the Workers League was a revolutionary socialist

organization.

41 Aside rom Steiners conusion as to the year o Tom Henehans death, one is also astonished by his declaration that Nothing could haveprepared me or such news. As a matter o act, the partys investigation into the assassination o Leon Trotsky, and its exposure o the massivepenetration o government agents into the Socialist Workers Party, had led to a steady escalation o threats o violence against the Workers League.In the months prior to the killing o Henehan, there had been requent discussions, in which Steiner participated, o the need or greater attentionto security by party members. Ater Henehans death on October 16, 1977, the Workers League publicly rejected claims in the New York media thatthe shooting had been merely a senseless killing. It denounced the shooting as a politically motivated assassination and campaigned widely inthe labor movement or an investigation o the crime. Organizations representing several million workers in the United States, Canada and in othercountries endorsed this demand. For three years the New York City Police Department sheltered the killers. But this campaign led to the arrest in1980, and subsequent convictions, o the two men who had shot Henehan at a public event.


25/45


the death o Henehan that directly precipitated Steiners desertion. Rather, it was the decision taken by the WorkersLeague, several months ater Henehans death, to relocate the partys political center to Detroit. The purpose othis relocation, which went altogether unmentioned in Steiners letter, was to strengthen the partys identicationwith and involvement in the struggles o the working class in the important industrial centers o the Midwest. The

preparations or this relocation, which began in the spring o 1978, were accompanied by intensive work on thedrating o a new perspectives resolution.

Steiner was unsettled by the personal implications o the relocation o the party to the Midwest and the reorganiza-tion o its work. He was attached to the radical middle-class milieu o New York City, and recognized that the es-tablishment o a new party center in Detroit would lead to a change in the social complexion o the party and a armore intense day to day involvement in the struggles o the working class. The prospect o a change in his liestylewas not one that he relished. And though Steiner was not under an obligation to leave New York, his distress overthe impending relocation and his estrangement rom the partys perspective became all too evident. In the autumno 1978, as the rst stages o the relocation were completed Steiner let the movement.42

The act that Steiners abandonment o revolutionary politics was, in the nal analysis, an expression o a unda-mentally middle-class social orientation was substantiated in Steiners account o his reaction to the struggle thaterupted in the ICFI in 1985. He wrote that

These events animated me as nothing else had in the previous eight years. To say that I ollowed the de-velopments in the IC with interest would be a gross understatement. I devoured every bit o inormation Icould come by. I became an active supporter o the newly organized International Committee.

Steiners letter noted that the struggle within the ICFI had been waged not only on the immediate disagreementsover political perspectives, but on the broader questions o Marxist theory. However, he made no reerencewhatever to the content o the theoretical disagreementsa signicant omission given Steiners history in themovement. It struck members o the Political Committee as particularly odd that he had nothing to say about theInternational Committees extensive critique o Healys distortion o materialist dialectics. One cannot avoid theretrospective suspicion that Steiner chose to avoid the issue because he did not agreeat the time o the writingo this letter in 1999with the central thrust o the critique, i.e. that Healys practice o cognition was developedon the basis o an idealist revision o Marxism.

Though Steiner stated that he was tempted to throw in my lot with the movement once more, he eventually chose

to remain outside the party despite his agreement with the struggle conducted by the International Committee. Theexplanation that he oered in his letter to the SEP Political Committee was surprisingly candid:

In the end, I decided to remain a supporter instead o a member. My reasons or doing so were complexand not easy to articulate. In act, I have probably never tried to consciously analyze them until this veryminute. I believe what motivated me was a combination o circumstances. First, I was still nurturing mywounds rom my previous experience in the movement. In my mind, the political disorientation that I had

42 Three months later, in January 1979, ater spending less than one week in Detroit, Frank Brenner let the party without any explanation.


26/45


previously experienced was completely intertwined with my personal trauma rom the 1977-78 period.Added to that was the new station in which I ound mysel. I had by the mid 80s established mysel in a newproessional career in which I was quite successul. I had entered the ranks o the comortable middleclass, and despite all my attempts at sel-evasion, I knew that I did not want to rock the boat.

Although I was politically in solidarity with the movement, my day to day lie was ar removed rom theconcerns o revolutionary socialism. I was part o a middle class New York culture.

There is little that needs to be added to Steiners acknowledgment o his own complacent and basically conserva-tive petty-bourgeois outlook. It speaks or itsel. However, one could not help but be somewhat startled by hisadmission that he had never, until actually writing the August 1999 letter to the SEP, attempted to analyze his ownreasons or remaining outside the party. By that point, 14 years had passed since the 1985 split in the ICFI. What,one must ask, was he doing with his brain during that long period?43

The nal section o Steiners letter was lled with high praise or the work o the party. Contrasting its milieu tothe etid atmosphere o the prevailing political and social environment, he described the public meetings he at-tended as a breath o resh air. He recalled his meetings with Nadezhda Joe and Vadim Rogovin, and remarkedthat the very existence o such people is a nagging embarrassment to those who have bought into the culture osel-aggrandizement. These meetings, which had so proound an impact on Steiner, took place in 1995which,according to Steiners latest version o events, was roughly mid-point in the political degeneration o the party.

Steiner went so ar as to state that his attendance at party unctions

inspired me to renew my interest in philosophy. Sometime in 1996 I embarked on an extensive study oHegel, Marx and the entire tradition o Western philosophy. It was also probably not completely accidentalthat this period o my recent biography coincided with the development o the World Socialist Web Siteand the transormation o the Workers League into the Socialist Equality Party. However one explains thisconjunction, I began to appreciate the potential that could be harnessed through the new global com-munications media.

As he approached the end o his letter, Steiner stressed the immense impact o the party meeting that commemo-rated the 20th anniversary o the assassination o Tom Henehan. It was then, he wrote that I committed myselto raise the level o my contribution to the work o the movement. I had in mind some sort o journalistic contribu-

tions, the exact content o which remained vaguely dened.

43 There is another point that must be made. In explaining his decision not to rejoin the party, Steiner, quite correctly, placed central emphasison the impact o the social milieu upon his general outlook: I had entered the ranks o the comortable middle class, and I knew that I did notwant to rock the boat. So when it comes to dealing with his own political evolution, Steiner stressed the social environment and class pressures. Butcompare this approach to that which he takes, inMarxism or Objectivism and MWHH, when dealing with the collapse o the Second Internationaland the ate o individuals such as Plekhanov. In that case, Steiner insists that the undamental cause o their political ailures lay in their inadequateunderstanding o the dialectical method. My positionbased on the writings o Lenin and Trotskythat the essential cause o the collapse o theSecond International and the lamentable role played by so many o its leaders was to be ound in the socio-economic and political contradictionso their epoch (which, to a great extent, determined the specic character o their theoretical work) has been denounced by Steiner as objectiv-ism.


27/45


In conclusion Steiner declared:

I have now come to the realization that the role I wish to play is that o a participant in the struggle orsocialism. Nothing less will oer me the satisaction o implementing theory into practice. That is the real

essence o reedom.

Steiners letter raised many questions among members o the SEP Political Committee. There was sharp disagree-ment with his assessment o the history o the Workers League in the 1970s. His approach to the objective experi-ences o the party betrayed an extreme and disorienting subjectivism. What he seemed to remember most aboutthe events he reerred to were their impact upon Alex Steiner! Moreover, his appraisal o the confict withinthe Workers Revolutionary Partynotwithstanding his praise or the role o the International Committeewassupercial. The Political Committee was ar rom convinced that Steiner had worked through careully and system-atically the political and theoretical issues that were at the heart o the dierences with Wohlorth in the 1970s andwith the WRP leadership in the 1980s. While the Political Committee did not want to discourage Steiner, it was elt

that it would be premature to readmit him into the SEP. Further discussion would be necessary.

VII. The February 2000 Aggregate Meeting of the SEP and Steiners Articles on Heidegger

I preerred to speak to Steiner directly about the decision o the Political Committee, as I did not want him to drawthe conclusion that the door was being closed on the possibility that his application might be accepted at someuture date. Due to the pressure o work, it was not possible or me to arrange a meeting with Steiner or severalmonths. However, in order to provide the best possible environment or a discussion and to demonstrate the SEPsgenuine interest in developing a principled basis or uture collaboration, I extended to Steiner an invitation to at-tend, as a guest, a national membership meeting in Detroit. He accepted my oer, and participated in the meetingon February 12, 2000.

Though my remarks were not prepared or Steiners benet, they addressed issues that were highly relevant tothe theoretical dierences that Steiner had raised in his letter o the previous June. In the opening section o myreport, I stated:

The 20th century has just about come to an endbut we will not so quickly escape its legacy. The essentialcomponent o our political preparation or the upheavals o the new century will consist o a painstakingreview and assimilation o the history o the 1900s. This assimilation will consist not only o the gathering

o acts, but alsoand even more prooundlyin the deense and reassertion o the great intellectualconquests that constitute the theoretical oundations o the internation

FrankfurtSchool 2

Documents

Transcript of FrankfurtSchool 2