Max Shachtman and Tony Cliff both developed influential theories of Soviet society — bureaucratic collectivism and state capitalism, respectively — but neither engaged Sylvia Pankhurst’s work, despite its direct relevance. Their avoidance wasn’t just accidental; it reflected deeper ideological, factional, and gendered dynamics within Marxist historiography.

🧠 Max Shachtman: Bureaucratic Collectivism and Strategic Erasure

• Theory: Shachtman argued that the USSR was ruled by a new bureaucratic class, neither capitalist nor proletarian. This “bureaucratic collectivism” was a third form of class society.
• Avoidance of Pankhurst:
  • No citations: Shachtman never referenced Pankhurst, despite her early critiques of Bolshevik centralism and her defense of democratic socialism.
  • Factional distance: He operated within the Trotskyist orbit, which often dismissed council communists and left-wing critics of Leninism as ultra-left.
  • Gendered marginalization: Pankhurst’s feminist and anti-imperialist lens was sidelined in favor of abstract class schemas.
• Why it matters: Shachtman’s theory preserved the legitimacy of party-led socialism while rejecting Stalinism — a move that Pankhurst’s radical anti-authoritarianism would have destabilized.

🔥 Tony Cliff: State Capitalism and Trotskyist Realignment

• Theory: Cliff argued that the USSR was capitalist in form, with the state functioning as the collective capitalist. His 1948 work The Nature of Stalinist Russia was foundational.
• Avoidance of Pankhurst:
  • No engagement: Cliff never cited or discussed Pankhurst, even though her critiques of the Labour Party and Bolshevik centralism aligned with his own anti-Stalinist stance.
  • Trotskyist orthodoxy: Cliff’s work was aimed at reformulating Trotskyism, not rupturing it. Pankhurst’s rejection of party centralism and compromise with reformists would have challenged his framework.
  • Strategic silence: Her emphasis on municipal socialism and democratic control didn’t fit the Leninist-Trotskyist lineage Cliff was trying to salvage.

🧵 Has Anyone Else Argued They Avoided Her?

While few have made this argument explicitly, there are critical voices that imply or suggest it:

• Feminist Marxists like those in Viewpoint Magazine and Historical Materialism have noted the erasure of women theorists like Pankhurst in canonical Marxist theory.
• Paul Hampton (in Workers’ Liberty) critiques Cliff and Shachtman for their selective genealogies, though he doesn’t name Pankhurst directly.
• Contemporary council communists and autonomists often cite Pannekoek and Rühle but lament the absence of Pankhurst in left historiography — especially given her unique synthesis of anti-imperialism, feminism, and councilism.

🧾 Conclusion

Shachtman and Cliff avoided Pankhurst not because she was irrelevant, but because she was too relevant — her work threatened the theoretical coherence of their respective frameworks. She exposed the contradictions in party-led socialism, the dangers of compromise with reformism, and the gendered dimensions of bureaucratic control. To engage her seriously would have required a reckoning they weren’t prepared to undertake.