good works of trotsky ?

[scarletghoul]

I'm gonna make an effort and read some of his stuff. Could anyone recommend some (note I'm NOT gonna read a 99999 page book. please recommend important articles or extracts of whatever).

What I've read so far is some of his discussions on "the negro question", and a bit of Terrorism and Communism. I like what he writes in T+C, though he doesn't seem very informed about black america (he thought they had their own secret language) and it seems like hes writing the 'negro question' stuff just so his american supporters had something to quote (he in fact just advocates the same national seperatism as stalin advocated)

Anyway are there any other things worth reading that arnt ridiculously long ? Both from his revolutionary and counterrevolutionary phases.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

History fo the Russian Revoluition (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/hrr/index.htm), The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm), The Permanent Revolution and Resuts and Prospects (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/tpr/index.htm), and his works on Fascism and how to fight it (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/index.htm).

[scarletghoul]

Thanks though I did ask for things that were not huge books, as theres a lot of other stuff i want to read. i will try to read his work on fascism however

[Black Sheep]

The Revolution Betrayed (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/index.htm),
Read this, was awesome.

[Widerstand]

The Permanent Revolution is by all means a short book, and his polemic against Stalin is made of pure awesome (in fact that's where I stopped reading, but the rest of the book might be good as well).

[scarletghoul]

I'll uhhh add it to my list.

[red cat]

I am planning to start with this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1918/military/index.htm) sometime soon.

[Aurora]

Try 'fascism: what it is and how to fight it' http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

It's short and i don't recall it mentioning Stalin much so you might find it palatable ;)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I agree that his articles on the rise of fascism and Germany and ways the KPD could have prevented or at least more effectively worked to block the rise of Hitler are excellent. This is available on the Trotsky Internet Archive, linked to the MIA. I know you don't want a book but his "History of the Russian Revolution" is well recommended.
"Our Morals and Theirs", a pamphlet polemicizing against John Dewey and illustrating the Marxist view of morality is quite interesting.

The Issac Deutcher "Prophet" books about Trotsky are fascinating although they have been controversial within the Trotskysite movement. At the very least they provide a compelling adventure story

[scarletghoul]

Try 'fascism: what it is and how to fight it' http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm

It's short and i don't recall it mentioning Stalin much so you might find it palatable ;)
Thanks.

And honestly I don't mind reading his criticisms of Stalin, its just I can't be bothered with a whole book. But yeah mostly I'm trying to see what theoretical contributions he's made that could be useful. Permanant Revolution and his military writings I intend to read at some point, but for now i'll finish terrorism and communism then read Fascism.

Zizek wrote an intro to Terrorism and Communism; does anyone know where I could find it online ?

[DaringMehring]

Articles/pamphlets:

Their Morals and Ours
The ABCs of Materialist Dialectics
Fascism: What it is and How to Fight it

Books:

History of the Russian Revolution (!!! - best book I ever read)

There are of course many others... Trotsky had strength as a writer, so I find reading random stuff by Trotsky tends to be more engaging than random stuff by Mao, Che, even Lenin (politics aside, which also puts differences between these authors).

[Blackscare]

Both from his revolutionary and counterrevolutionary phases.

Honestly I doubt that you're going to get much out of his work if you're already being so pig-headed about it.


Protip: if the ideas of Democratic Centralism had been followed, Trotsky would never have been expelled, and his criticism would have happened where it should have happened, internally. It's pretty clear though that once he was expelled that he saw the system was becoming sick (a true DC party, like I said, would not have allowed said expulsion), and warranted (as a last resort) international critique.



Stalin made that bed.

[scarletghoul]

There are of course many others... Trotsky had strength as a writer, so I find reading random stuff by Trotsky tends to be more engaging than random stuff by Mao, Che, even Lenin (politics aside, which also puts differences between these authors).
'even Lenin' ? I find Lenin's writing the most boring in the world. I can't stand it. In fact, I've never read a full work of his.
Mao is the easiest of the famous communists to read, and has some excellent poetry and rhetoric in his writings. Marx goes on a lot but his writing has a lot of soul and moments of beauty. With Lenin however i find it just dry and boring..
Trotsky does tend to go on a lot like Lenin, albeit with more literary flourishes.

Honestly I doubt that you're going to get much out of his work if you're already being so pig-headed about it.
It was a joke. In retrospect it was unwise as theres now an increased risk of this thread turning into another Stalin Vs Trotsky thread.. Honestly I just find it hard to make a trotsky related post without trolling a little.. need to kick that habit

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

DaringMehring:


The ABC of Materialist Dialectics

To be avoided like the plague since it's as bad as anything Stalin or Mao wrote on this 'theory'.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think Mao's writings on Dialectics are very good because he combined Marxism with some elements from Chinese philosophy. :)

Dialectics is central to Chinese thought! Just look at the Yin-Yang symbol. (Also the world's earliest symbol for transgenderism LOL) For this reason alone I will never reject dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iseul:


I think Mao's writings on Dialectics are very good because he combined Marxism with some elements from Chinese philosophy.

Dialectics is central to Chinese thought! Just look at the Yin-Yang symbol. (Also the world's earliest symbol for transgenderism LOL) For this reason alone I will never reject dialectics.

1. Dialectics is already a ruling-class form of thought, having been lifted from that card-carrying mystic and bourgeois 'theorist' Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up'), so Mao borrrowing from yet another mystical system is hardly surprising.

2. Alas, and independently of the above, Mao's theory, and Trotsky's (and Lenin's), if true, would make change impossible:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/dialectical-theory-change-t144536/index.html

[Dave B]

Trotsky is full of shit; why would anyone want to read it?

[Blackscare]

God forbid anyone ever mention dialectics without rosa totally shitting up whatever thread it happens to be in.

Some people are at least interested in learning about dialectics, even if they don't believe it. We all know how you feel about, your obsessiveness is not accomplishing anything other than annoying everyone.

[Blackscare]

Trotsky is full of shit; why would anyone want to read it?

Good to see such a thought provoking and productive critique.

[DaringMehring]

'even Lenin' ? I find Lenin's writing the most boring in the world. I can't stand it. In fact, I've never read a full work of his.
Mao is the easiest of the famous communists to read, and has some excellent poetry and rhetoric in his writings. Marx goes on a lot but his writing has a lot of soul and moments of beauty. With Lenin however i find it just dry and boring..
Trotsky does tend to go on a lot like Lenin, albeit with more literary flourishes.


Some of Lenin can be quite dry -- like Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism, or even What is to be Done? --- but even there he's methodical & thorough, names names and is specific in giving his thinking and predictions, and uses the form of a polemic or an argument. That is refreshing compared to the style of say, Fidel, or Mao, who often go into a mode of "cryptic great educator."

And Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder I found not dry at all anyway - fast paced & offers a lot of ideas.

[Blackscare]

What pisses me off is that Rosa won't even permit discussion of the topic, he/she/whocares needs to spam with repetitive bullshit over and over and over until nobody feels like wading though all of it to continue talking.


Why is this shit not considered spamming or trolling? This is more than beating a dead horse, the horse decomposed and as assimilated back into the biosphere sometime around 2006.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackscared:


God forbid anyone ever mention dialectics without rosa totally shitting up whatever thread it happens to be in.

In fact, I am merely cleaning up the ordure.


Some people are at least interested in learning about dialectics, even if they don't believe it. We all know how you feel about, your obsessiveness is not accomplishing anything other than annoying everyone.

Fortunately, not everyone -- but, you will do for starters.:)

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackscared:


What pisses me off is that Rosa won't even permit discussion of the topic, he/she/whocares needs to spam with repetitive bullshit over and over and over until nobody feels like wading though all of it to continue talking.

I think you said this before.


Why is this shit not considered spamming or trolling? This is more than beating a dead horse, the horse decomposed and as assimilated back into the biosphere sometime around 2006.

So, why do you want to debate it? Or are you into necromancy?:scared:

[Blackscare]

Blackscared:


Listen, fucker, I'm not 'scared' because I don't give a fuck about dialectics, it's irrelevant and your obsession with it is equally irrelevant. It just really pisses me off to see you intentionally stifle discussion of a subject because you don't agree with it.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Black_even_more_scared:


Listen, fucker, I'm not 'scared' because I don't give a fuck about dialectics, it's irrelevant and your obsession with it is equally irrelevant. It just really pisses me off to see you intentionally stifle discussion of a subject because you don't agree with it.

Oh dear, it p*sses you off.

That's going to stop me...:)

[Queercommie Girl]

Dialectics is already a ruling-class form of thought, having been lifted from that card-carrying mystic and bourgeois 'theorist' Hegel (upside down or the 'right way up'), so Mao borrrowing from yet another mystical system is hardly surprising.


Tangent: Marx did say that in many ways Chinese socialism is similar to European socialism (in antiquity) and Chinese philosophy similar to Hegelian philosophy. Perhaps dialectics is the link.

Also, isn't it true that in a socialist society, the working class is technically the ruling class too? Lenin and Mao believe that socialists shouldn't completely reject the cultural elements from past societies, but only dialectically reject them, while absorbing their positive aspects. Socialists can learn from capitalist, feudal and even slave-lord classes, combining the spirit of the Hammer and Sickle with the spirit of the Great Pyramids, the Great Wall and the Eiffel Tower, to create the greatest civilisation in all of human history, and the history of our planet, an "empire that is as eternal as the stars"!

[scarletghoul]

Some of Lenin can be quite dry -- like Imperialism, Highest Stage of Capitalism, or even What is to be Done? --- but even there he's methodical & thorough, names names and is specific in giving his thinking and predictions, and uses the form of a polemic or an argument. That is refreshing compared to the style of say, Fidel, or Mao, who often go into a mode of "cryptic great educator."
Polemics can be good but only if they're relevant. I find polemics against people who died 100 years ago to be boring and more 'cryptic' that anything Mao wrote, because its 'encrypted' deeply into a certain historical and intellectual context. Mao's writing is easy to understand because its aimed at ordinary people (many of his famous works were originally lectures delivered to party cadres), and where there is an abstract philosophical point its almost always supplemented by a real life example. He is also much more concise than other marxist writers, which i like.

What Is To Be Done is the most boring thing I have ever tried to read. Couldn't get past the first chapter.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iseul:


Tangent: Marx did say that in many ways Chinese socialism is similar to European socialism (in antiquity) and Chinese philosophy similar to Hegelian philosophy. Perhaps dialectics is the link.

Unless you can show that this is the link, that won't wash.

But, it's not likely, anyway, since socialism has nothing to do with mysticism.


Also, isn't it true that in a socialist society, the working class is technically the ruling class too? Lenin and Mao believe that socialists shouldn't completely reject the cultural elements from past societies, but only dialectically reject them, while absorbing their positive aspects. Socialists can learn from capitalist, feudal and even slave-lord classes, combining the spirit of the Hammer and Sickle with the spirit of the Great Pyramids, the Great Wall and the Eiffel Tower, to create the greatest civilisation in all of human history, and the history of our planet, an "empire that is as eternal as the stars"!

Indeed, we should learn from the past, and preserve what is good -- but not everything, surely. Otherwise we should have to preserve theology, astrology and crystal gazing.

And especially so if that theory, if true, would make change impossible.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Mao's writing is easy to understand because its aimed at ordinary people (many of his famous works were originally lectures delivered to party cadres)

In most cases, I think you are right, but when it comes to dialectics, he is as obscure as Trotsky, Engels and Lenin.

Certainly you have not been able to explain his theory of change -- and neither has anyone else -- without it implying that change is impossible.

[Queercommie Girl]

Iseul:

Unless you can show that this is the link, that won't wash.

But, it's not likely, anyway, since socialism has nothing to do with mysticism.


Actually much of Chinese philosophy isn't mystical, but rational, at least on par with Classical Greco-Roman thought, if not modern philosophy.

Hegel did explicitly state that ancient Chinese philosophy was the earliest form of philosophy in the world, and commented on the dialectical thought in Daoism.

Marx and Engels praised the ancient peasant rebellions in China, as an early and crude experiment in utopian socialism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Iseul:


Actually much of Chinese philosophy isn't mystical, but rational, at least on par with Classical Greco-Roman thought, if not modern philosophy.

Nice try, but as I have shown, all traditional philosophy is non-sensical, not rational:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1995528&postcount=1


Hegel did explicitly state that ancient Chinese philosophy was the earliest form of philosophy in the world, and commented on the dialectical thought in Daoism.

Maybe so, but you'd expect a mystic to appreciate other forms of mysticism.


Marx and Engels praised the ancient peasant rebellions in China, as an early and crude experiment in utopian socialism.

I serioulsy doubt they had anything to do with philosophy.

[Red Commissar]

Are there any websites that provide companions or summaries of his works? I think that would also be a relevant contribution to this request for any one else. Personally I'm not acquainted with his works, but I have to imagine some Trotskyist somewhere has put this up.

[scarletghoul]

I serioulsy doubt they had anything to do with philosophy.Of course they have everything to do with philosophy. The fact that you deny this shows you do not at all understan dialectical materialism

[scarletghoul]

Are there any websites that provide companions or summaries of his works? I think that would also be a relevant contribution to this request for any one else. Personally I'm not acquainted with his works, but I have to imagine some Trotskyist somewhere has put this up.
Yeah a summary of his ideas would be great. Unfortunately many trots seem to be incapable of writing anything other than useless walls of text

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Scarlet:


Of course they have everything to do with philosophy.

So, what philosophy did these rebels accept/utilse?


The fact that you deny this shows you do not at all understan dialectical materialism

1. At the very best it illustrates my lack of detailed knowledge of Chinese history. I fail to see what this fact has got to do with Dialectical Materialism. Can you enlighten me?

2. If I do not 'understand' this 'theory' of yours, then I'm in good company, since Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin and Mao didn't understand it (or if they did, they kept that secret well hidden). And it's plain you do not, either, since you are totally incapable of explaining clearly Mao's theory of change.

[S.Artesian]

The subject was what to read by Trotsky. Forget everything else and don't read anything until you've read The History of the Russian Revolution, perhaps the greatest work of historical materialism of the 20th century.

Yeah it's three volumes, but we are where we are and what we are because of the Russian Revolution.

If you want to start with something smaller, OK, but it's pointless if you don't read the History.

Smaller? Try 1905 and the short pamphlet Results and Prospects.

I could condense Trotsky's argument, analysis, and prognosis, and I could do it in short numbered points, but then you're going to miss the most important part, which is the argument, analysis, prognosis, actually come alive, take an animate existence in the movement of classes.

Besides, when he writes history, he's on a par with Marx's Eighteenth Brumaire and Class Struggles in France 1848-1850.

[S.Artesian]

Why is this shit not considered spamming or trolling? This is more than beating a dead horse, the horse decomposed and as assimilated back into the biosphere sometime around 2006.

You're a moderator, no? Can't you issue a warning, and then an infraction if the behavior persists?

[Blackscare]

Hey look, another thread has totally drifted away from it's original purpose because of rosa. :rolleyes:



You're a moderator, no? Can't you issue a warning, and then an infraction if the behavior persists?

I'm a lowly peon local mod at the moment, so unfortunately I cannot do so here.

Although I invite Rosa to come try to shit up Worker's Struggles. :cool:

[Imposter Marxist]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm

Some of this is pretty good.

[RedTrackWorker]

The dilemma is that History of the Russian Revolution is clearly his best book but also the longest. CLR James, even I believe well after he had broken with Trotskyism, would say that is was the greatest history book ever written.
That being said, a key piece of political work I haven't seen mentioned here is his writing on the Spanish revolution, of which, http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1937/xx/spain01.htm The Lessons of Spain: The Last Warning is a fine place to start.

[Volcanicity]

Are there any websites that provide companions or summaries of his works? I think that would also be a relevant contribution to this request for any one else. Personally I'm not acquainted with his works, but I have to imagine some Trotskyist somewhere has put this up.
There's a few brief summaries of Trotsky's ideas mostly written by Alan Woods or Ted Grant here http://trotsky.net/index.html and some of Trotsky's writing's are available here as well.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackscared:


Hey look, another thread has totally drifted away from it's original purpose because of rosa.

It's not I who first mentioned dialectics in this thread.

As a mod, you are supposed to notice such things.:rolleyes: