Introduction to Leon Trotsky

[Chomskyan]

I wanted to read some Trotsky to become familiar with his thinking, so I went to Marxist Internet Archive.

I saw literally hundreds of works, there is no way I could get through them all. If I wanted to get a thorough grounding in Trotsky's writings, which writings would I read?

[Illegalitarian]

The Revolution Betrayed. Don't bother with anything else, not worth it imo

[MonsterMan]

Some of his articles regarding the Spanish Civil War (1930's) are interesting

[Art Vandelay]

The Revolution Betrayed. Don't bother with anything else, not worth it imo

Yeah…thanks for providing a response to a question, in the learning sub forum, not influenced by your own personal politics…you have absolutely increased the intellectual standard of this site...great job…

:rolleyes:

OP:

The Transitional Program
The Revolution Betrayed
Permanent Revolution
In Defence of Marxism

By Lenin:

State and Revolution
Left Wing Communism: An infantile disorder
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky

[Q]

For the early Trotsky, I recommend chapter 9 of Lenin Rediscovered (which can be read mostly online here (http://books.google.nl/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)).

[Blake's Baby]

1905 I think is pretty important. That's where I'd recommend you start.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

For the early Trotsky, I recommend chapter 9 of Lenin Rediscovered (which can be read mostly online here (http://books.google.nl/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&hl=nl&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)).

You mean the early Trotsky that no one (particularly not the later Trotsky) cared for and that is only dragged out by Stalinists in order to imply that the later Trotskyists were semi-Mensheviks.

I mean, what is the relevance of this reply? It's as if someone asked for texts about Mao and you linked to his earlier and mostly-forgotten anarchist phase. This obsessive promotion of Lih and constant implied jabs at Leninism are not funny.

[Q]

You mean the early Trotsky that no one (particularly not the later Trotsky) cared for and that is only dragged out by Stalinists in order to imply that the later Trotskyists were semi-Mensheviks.

I mean, what is the relevance of this reply? It's as if someone asked for texts about Mao and you linked to his earlier and mostly-forgotten anarchist phase. This obsessive promotion of Lih and constant implied jabs at Leninism are not funny.
Implying I'm a Stalinist isn't funny either. What was striking me in that chapter particularly is how much of the early Mensheviks have in common with the later Trotsky. Saying that there is no link is at the very least an odd thing to say.

But for a more rounded view on the early RSDWP and where it (and therefore Trotsky) came from, I do recommend the whole book to the OP.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Implying I'm a Stalinist isn't funny either. What was striking me in that chapter particularly is how much of the early Mensheviks have in common with the later Trotsky. Saying that there is no link is at the very least an odd thing to say.

But for a more rounded view on the early RSDWP and where it (and therefore Trotsky) came from, I do recommend the whole book to the OP.

I didn't say you were a Stalinist; I said the Stalinists are the only actually-existing political tendency to care about the early Trotsky. The notion that the "early" Mensheviks had anything in common with the later Trotsky is also wrong - one wasn't likely to find (the later) Trotsky proposing a labour congress or working through the zemstvos. Trotsky himself dealt with the issue in "Three Conceptions of the Russian Revolution". I would say that one short article is more useful than the entire pro-Menshevik book you cite.

[Q]

I would say that one short article is more useful than the entire pro-Menshevik book you cite.
Sorry, I chuckled there a bit. Please at least give the impression to know what you're talking about if you're trying to join the discussion.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Sorry, I chuckled there a bit. Please at least give the impression to know what you're talking about if you're trying to join the discussion.

There really is no discussion - it's just that you're trying to flog a book that spends most of its last chapter trying to amnesty the Mensheviks in every way possible, starting from the split between Plekhanov and Lenin over the undemocratic means by which the former Iskra minority got into power in the then-united RSDRP.

[RedWorker]

The History of the Russian Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm)