Trotsky

[Niall]

Can anyone recommend any good books on Trotsky. A dummy's guide if you will

[Fourth Internationalist]

Like on Trotsky as a person and life (biography) or as in his beliefs (Trotskyism)?

[DDR]

Here you go:

TheGodlessUtopian presents, Rev-left's Study Guides: Trotskyism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-study-guide-t178800/index.html?p=2580696#post2580696)

[Geiseric]

The transitional program is what to read about the politics. As for trotskys life, Isaac Deutcher wrote his epic trilogy which is considered definitive.

[Le Socialiste]

The two are intimately linked (the man's life and theory), I'd argue. I'd recommend the following:

Leon Trotsky, An Illustrated Introduction (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Leon-Trotsky), by Tariq Ali and Phil Evans


Amusing, well researched, and surprisingly sophisticated, Leon Trotsky: An Illustrated Introduction is the perfect primer on the life and thought of the great leader and chronicler of the Russian Revolution. With sympathy and humor, Tariq Ali and Phil Evans trace his political career, from prison to the pinnacle of revolutionary power, to his eventual exile and murder by Stalin.

Trotsky's Marxism & Other Essays (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/Trotskys-Marxism-and-Other-Essays), by Duncan Hallas


In this introduction to the politics of Leon Trotsky, Duncan Hallas analyzes four main strands in Trotsky’s writings.

First, the theory of “permanent revolution,” in which Trotsky elaborated a scenario for the revolution of 1917 and for understanding subsequent political developments in the underdeveloped world.

Second, the first sustained attempt at a materialist analysis of the rise of Stalinism, which Trotsky spent years seeking to understand—and against which he courageously organized international opposition.

Third, Trotsky’s analysis of the strategy and tactics of mass revolutionary parties in a wide variety of situations, particularly his theory of the “united front.”

Fourth, his views on the relationship between the revolutionary socialist party and the working class in periods of mass upheaval as well as in periods of decline.

My Life, An Attempt at an Autobiography (http://www.amazon.com/My-Life-Attempt-at-Autobiography/dp/0873481445/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1389651294&sr=1-2&keywords=trotsky+my+life), by Leon Trotsky


Autobiographical account by a leader of the October 1917 Russian revolution, the Soviet Red Army, and the battle initiated by Lenin against the Stalinist bureaucracy.

There's also a bunch of articles and readings one may find on Marxists.org and elsewhere, that could help you find what you're looking for.

[Raquin]

Trotskyism; Counter-Revolution in Disguise by M. J. Olgin

[Fourth Internationalist]

Here at the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/index.htm) almost anything that you could ever want to know and read about Trotskyism straight from Trotsky himself.


Trotskyism; Counter-Revolution in Disguise by M. J. OlginOh dear. Our plans have been uncovered. :ohmy:

[Art Vandelay]

If you're looking for books which discuss the topic of 'Trotskyism,' then a good place to start would be 'The Transitional Program' by Trotsky (which itself is not so much a 'program' but a method) and 'The Struggle for a Proletarian Party' by James P. Cannon. If you're looking for books on Trotsky, then as already suggested his autobiography 'My Life,' is quite good, but is ultimately surpassed in quality and depth by Deuthscher's 3 volume 'Prophet' series.

e: Also, ignore this, as even the better of the M-L's will admit to its lunacy:


Trotskyism; Counter-Revolution in Disguise by M. J. Olgin

[Brutus]

'The Struggle for a Proletarian Party' by James P. Cannon
This is pretty useful for understanding modern Trotskyism. It contains the tactics that the modern trots use (newspaper selling, for example).

[Hit The North]

This is pretty useful for understanding modern Trotskyism. It contains the tactics that the modern trots use (newspaper selling, for example).

Er, The Friend of the People (Jacobins); The Northern Star (Chartists); Neue Rheinische Zeitung (Marx); The Red Flag (Rosa Luxemburg); Iskra (Lenin and the Bolsheviks); The New Order (Gramsci); The Black Panther (Guess who?)

There's nothing Trotskyist about selling newspapers, it's part of a long revolutionary tradition. It's how the revolutionaries communicate their politics to wider layers of the class.

To the OP: Tony Cliff's four volume biography on Trotsky is free to read here (https://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/index.htm).

[robbo203]

Or try this

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/trotsky_the_prophet_debunked.php

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1970s/1978/no-890-october-1978/against-left-pt3

Personally I think Trotsky's concept of transitional deamnds is absolute baloney. Raising consciousness? More like inviting concussion by banging your head against a brick wall!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Trotskyism; Counter-Revolution in Disguise by M. J. Olgin

Yes, and top that off with some of Stalin's and Hoxha's thoughts on the matter. Send some PMs to Ismail for further questions. You can get a great explanation of how he was a secret fascist plotting to destroy the USSR because, despite being a Jewish Marxist, he really supported Nazi Germany.

[reb]

Trotsky and the Origins of Trotskyism (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2000-10-01/trotsky-and-the-origins-of-trotskyism) - ICT

What Distinguishes Revolutionaries from Trotskysim? (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/139/trotsykism) - ICC

[Sea]

Yes, and top that off with some of Stalin's and Hoxha's thoughts on the matter. Send some PMs to Ismail for further questions. You can get a great explanation of how he was a secret fascist plotting to destroy the USSR because, despite being a Jewish Marxist, he really supported Nazi Germany.I wouldn't go so far as to call Trotsky a Marxist.

[Five Year Plan]

For some reason I don't think the OP was looking for polemical screeds from tiny sects.

[Remus Bleys]

For some reason I don't think the OP was looking for polemical screeds from tiny sects.

Op asked for good reads on Trotsky. .. ie things on Trotsky and trotskyism we find interesting, good and useful.
You're the sectarian one here trying to bullshit around in the thread.

[Five Year Plan]

Op asked for good reads on Trotsky. .. ie things on Trotsky and trotskyism we find interesting, good and useful.
You're the sectarian one here trying to bullshit around in the thread.

You always try to make things personal, don't you? Either by being personally offended or trying to offend others. It isn't going to work with me, comrade. The OP asked for something equivalent to a "dummy's guide." He wanted something to cover the basic points of fact, not some polemical tract that touches on specific points of criticism or praise. Me posting my favorite Trot group's interpretation of Trotskyism is no more relevant than you littering the thread with some arcane criticism by a left-com sect.

[reb]

For some reason I don't think the OP was looking for polemical screeds from tiny sects.

So the OP wasn't looking for anything by any Trot group?

[Remus Bleys]

You always try to make things personal, don't you? Either by being personally offended or trying to offend others. It isn't going to work with me, comrade. The OP asked for something equivalent to a "dummy's guide." He wanted something to cover the basic points of fact, not some polemical tract that touches on specific points of criticism or praise. Me posting my favorite Trot group's interpretation of Trotskyism is no more relevant than you littering the thread with some arcane criticism by a left-com sect.

Lol I am not being personal. This stuff actually does cover the basics of Trotskyism. .. so why litter the thread with horseshit about the ict and icc (really funny when you are lrp btw. If they are a sect, what are you? ) and not rant about those who's posts have been other approaches to trotskyism (that are simply praises)
you seriously need to adjust your behavior on this thread. If this thread had been about stalin and someone posted a trot analysis would you be this upset?

[Sea]

Or try this

http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/trotsky_the_prophet_debunked.phpWhat hilarity, speaking of "one-party dictatorship" as if that is a bad thing, or that it is alien to the tactics of communism!

[Five Year Plan]

So the OP wasn't looking for anything by any Trot group?

The issue isn't who wrote it. The issue is the purpose of the text. I don't think the OP was looking for articles that basically consist of "Why Trotsky Was Awesome!" or "Why Trotsky Was an Authoritarian Who Broke from Marxism!"

[Remus Bleys]

The issue isn't who wrote it. The issue is the purpose of the text. I don't think the OP was looking for articles that basically consist of "Why Trotsky Was Awesome!" or "Why Trotsky Was an Authoritarian Who Broke from Marxism!"
neither the ict nor the icc nor left communism in general are anti-authoritarians.

[robbo203]

What hilarity, speaking of "one-party dictatorship" as if that is a bad thing, or that it is alien to the tactics of communism!

What? I would argue that it most definitely is! Communism itself, of course means the dissolution of political power as such i.e. the state and therefore the whole idea of political parties. But if you are alluding here to some hypothetical period proir to the establishment of communism i.e. when there is still technically capitalism and where you still have a state then the proposal to institute a one party dictatorship is altogether reactionary and counterproductive. in my view.

When are people going to learn the simple lesson: you cannot separate the ends and the means. Authoritarian coercive methods only serve to reproduce authoritarian coercive social structures

One party dictatorship is a recipe for the inevitable emergence of a new ruling class . Those closest to the political levers of state power - and the very idea of a one party dictatorship is inherently hierarchical - will inevitably exploit the machinery of state coercion to advance itheir own interests. To think otherwise is sheer idealism and to fly in the face of the facts of history. Every one party dictatorship that has ever existed has ended up as a seedy corrupt crony-capitalist society whose political elite cynically exploits the rhetoric of socialist emancipation for its own capitalist ends

Communism cannot be imposed from above by some enlightened vanguard from above. "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" (Communist Manifesto). Workers need to emancipate themselves and knowingly and consciously establish communism. Under those circumstances there will be absolutely no need for that quintessentially bourgeois concept - the one-party dictatorship.

It is an obstacle to communism, not a means of achieving it

[Remus Bleys]

Well if we are going to quote the manifesto... "This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves." so yeah the class is organized as one single party, and thus the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily involves single party dictatorship

and to keep this relevant, what was with trotsky and multi partyism?

[Le Socialiste]

and to keep this relevant, what was with trotsky and multi partyism?

While I'm aware of such convictions around 1905 on, I'm not sure whether that was a belief Trotsky held to in later years. Perhaps it was, and if so I'd be interested in hearing what his rationale was. I know that, prior to 1917, he voiced multiple concerns around Lenin's conception of democratic centralism, but gradually adopted a similar outlook over the course of the Russian revolution and the struggles that ensued in its aftermath. Same may be said for any views pertaining to multi-partyism, but it's not a subject I'm all too aware of, unfortunately.

Edit - You've got me scouring what sources I have available to me though, Remus.

[Le Socialiste]

I would also remind users that, in keeping with the stricter rules in the Learning subforum, one-liners, flaming, and/or tendency-baiting will result in an infraction. This isn't the place to muddle up the thread with unhelpful comments like this one:


I wouldn't go so far as to call Trotsky a Marxist.

To be clear, I haven't any issue with the gist of what this user is saying (though I myself disagree with it). What's at issue is the fact that Sea didn't bother to expound on their point, and instead let it rest as is. We want to discourage such habits in the Learning forum (and Revleft in general), so please - refrain from posting one-liners. They don't contribute much to the discussion, and are on the whole not very helpful.

[Fourth Internationalist]

and to keep this relevant, what was with trotsky and multi partyism?I found this from a quick Google search at http://danielbensaid.org/Trotsky-revolutions-and-the

The programme of the political revolution still included a series of democratic claims already advanced in 1927 in the Platform of the Left Opposition: “1) To prevent any attempt to lengthen the working day; 2) To increase wages, at least in relation to current industrial output*; 5) To reduce rents for ...”. This platform categorically condemned the practice of removing elected trade-union representatives under the pretext of internal party dissent. It advocated full independence for factory committees and local committees with respect to the state administration. On the other hand, it did not call into question “the position as a single party occupied by the Communist Party of Soviet Union”. It was satisfied to announce that this situation, “absolutely essential to the revolution”, generated a series of “particular dangers”. The Transitional Programme of 1938 marks a fundamental change on this point. There, political pluralism, the independence of the trade unions from the Party and the state and democratic freedoms become questions of principle, insofar as they express the heterogeneity of the proletariat and the conflicts of interests likely within it that are likely to persist well beyond the conquest of power. In The Revolution Betrayed, Trotsky had shown the theoretical bases of this principled pluralism. Classes are not homogeneous “as if the conscience of a class corresponded exactly to its place in society”. They are “torn by internal antagonisms and arrive at their ultimate goals only through competing tendencies, alignments and parties. One can recognise with some reservations which party is a fraction of which class, but as a class is made of a number of fractions the same class can form several parties”. Thus the proletariat of the Soviet society “is not less, but much more heterogeneous and complex that that of the capitalist country, and it can consequently provide a largely sufficient breeding ground for the formation of several parties” Trotsky concluded from this that the democratisation of the Soviets was from now on “inconceivable without the right to the multi-party system”.

The best place to read about this would probably be that section of "The Revolution Betrayed" briefly mentioned above.

[Diirez]

Trotskyism; Counter-Revolution in Disguise by M. J. Olgin

Oh no! We've been figured out! *rolls eyes*

Read, The Revolution Betrayed.

[Le Socialiste]

It would seem Trotsky's occasional emphases on multi-party democracy wasn't terribly uncommon amongst certain sections of the Bolshevik party leading up to October, 1917, but we should probably take note of how this outlook translated over into the revolution's immediate aftermath (up until 1921). Multi-partyism, or "left-wing plurality," after the events of October usually entailed the legal presence and functioning of a wide strata of leftist parties, organizations and associations, including Mensheviks and anarchists - while the new All-Russian Central Executive Committee, itself an outgrowth of the merger of the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies with the All-Russian Congress of Peasants' Deputies, had 306 members (160 Bolsheviks, 125 Left Socialist Revolutionaries, two Menshevik-Internationalists, three Anarcho-Communists, seven Socialist Revolutionary-Maximalists, seven Right Socialist Revolutionaries, and two Menshevik-Defensists).

Moreover, figures like Lenin argued for a multiparty democracy within the framework of the soviets in this early period. In a statement before the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of Soviets, he said the following: "Various parties have played a dominant role among us. The last time, the passage of influence from one party to another was accompanied by an overturn, whereas a simple vote would have sufficed had we the right of recall. . . .If the working people are dissatisfied with their party they can elect other delegates. . ." Victor Serge, commenting on the soviet congress in the spring of 1918, described it as "a whole system of inner democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not the dictatorship of a party, or of a Central Committee, or of certain individuals. . .Lenin himself is obliged to follow strict rules. He has to convince a majority of the Central Committee of his party, then discuss with the Communist fraction in the Vee-Tsik [All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets] and then, in the Vee-Tsik itself, brave the fire of the Left SRs, anarchists, and International Social-Democrats, all doubtful allies, and of the Right SRs and Mensheviks, irreducible enemies. Here the enemies of the regime enjoy free speech with a more than parliamentary latitude."

Trotsky, for his part, told his opponents after the Bolsheviks had won control of the Petrograd soviet in early 1917 that, "We are all party people, and we shall have to cross swords more than once. But we shall guide the work of the Petersburg Soviet in a spirit of justice and complete independence for all fractions; the hand of the praesidium will never oppress the minority."

This state of affairs would quickly come apart at the seams following an economic blockade by the U.S. and other European powers, as well as military intervention and support for pro-monarchist, anti-Bolshevik forces coalescing around the likes of Denikin and Kolchak. The Tenth Party Congress in 1921, which saw the introduction of NEP and the banning of factions, is widely seen as the final nail in the coffin for multi-party democracy in Soviet Russia. The rise of Stalinism within the party likely spurred people such as Trotsky to revisit the potential benefits of such a system, as seen within the contextual framework of soviet democracy from below.

Edit - This doesn't necessarily address your earlier question Remus, but it may help contextualize some of Trotsky's own personal leanings on the subject.