Le Blanc's Review of Service's Bio of Trotsky

The full review can be read here:

http://links.org.au/node/1440

Thanks, rather than read drivel like this from Service folks should read My Life by Trotsky or even Deutscher's "Prophet" books. Deutscher's work is weak on many fronts, but still worth reading.

Cliff wrote a bio of Trotsky that I thought was awful. Alos check through the Mandel internet archive: http://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works/index.htm There's a lot of goods material on Trotskyism from Mandel. Mandel's 1995 book Trotsky as Alternative is excellent.

Cliff's book wasn't a bio, but a political assessment, and it was excellent.

I'm still tempted to read it. I (and we (ie rp and rl)) probably should read it. I'll order it from the library or spend the twenty bucks.

The review lists all sorts of other biographies and commentaries --- their availability is pretty limited. I've read Trotsky as Alternative, which is great. Is it available online so that we could discuss it?

Can't comment on the Cliff stuff. Maybe I'll have an enough IS friends that they'll give me their extras. I loved Cliff's memoirs but haven't read anything else.

The book itself is not online.
Chapter 5 of the book is on the Mandel archive as Trotsky's conception of class self-organization and the vanguard party (In the book it is Class self-organization and Vanguard Party)
http://www.ernestmandel.org/en/works...89/trotsky.htm

I just read My Life. While it was a very easy read, I couldn't help but feeling that it was self-serving. I stopped at the point Lenin died.

I think it's good to read from people opposed to one's point of view. They can often be very illuminating. For example, I'm reading Orlando Figues', A People's Tragedy, about the Russian Revolution. Despite it's palpable hatred of the Bolsheviks and Lenin, what comes through is the absolute necessity of a revolution in Russia and how no one but Lenin and the Bolsheviks were prepared to give the masses what they wanted, despite his constant demonization of the Bolsheviks and his puffing up their opponents.

Service is an absolute tool, but I'll bet there's some good information there, in spite of his intentions.

While it was a very easy read, I couldn't help but feeling that it was self-serving.

It`s an autobiography. Whose interests did you want it to serve?

http://fora.tv/2009/07/28/Uncommon_K...Robert_Service

Joe Auciello's review of Two Trotsky biographies from the January Socialist Action:
Two New Trotsky Biographies: Biased, Inaccurate, Superficial

http://www.socialistworld.net/eng/2010/02/1301.html

I'm happy to see a post about Paul here! I know him personally, he lives a few blocks over from me in Pittsburgh! Awesome guy. Can't tell you why he joined the ISO though -_-

Joe Auciello's review of Two Trotsky biographies from the January Socialist Action:
Two New Trotsky Biographies: Biased, Inaccurate, Superficial

link is broken :/

Only skim read it at this stage but learnt a lot. Would it be fair to say that one of the main reasons for bureaucracy developing in the Soviet Union was that democracy was somewhat suspended during the civil war? I understand that in World War II in Britain for example, elections where suspended. Now, a bureaucratic, totalitarian elite did not emerge due to this, but then Britain was an advanced industrial nation with a democratic tradition.

Fair to say?
(Im new to this!)

Plus Britain was not attacked by an 'enemy within' etc etc bad comparison really but all I could think of lol. What I'm trying to say is, was it the unfortunate but necessary measures to suspend democracy for the duration of the civil war in Russia which greatly aided those who would take advantage of this to seize power indefinitely?

Thanks

link is broken :/

http://www.socialistaction.org/auciello45.htm

There were a number of factors in the degeneration of the USSR. Civil war and invasion by 14 imperialist armies being two. Another factor was the underdevelopment of Russia; Lenin and the Bolsheviks fully expected that a revolution would occur in a more developed country (Germany) and that this would help in the development of Russia.

The civil war was a huge factor. Class conscious workers enlisted in the Red Army to defend the revolution and a great many died. It's hard to maintain socialist democracy when the base of your revolution has been slaughtered. The turn to bureaucracy was an unfortunate byproduct.

A good place to start might be http://www.marxists.org/archive/trot...-therm-bon.htm

Only skim read it at this stage but learnt a lot. Would it be fair to say that one of the main reasons for bureaucracy developing in the Soviet Union was that democracy was somewhat suspended during the civil war? I understand that in World War II in Britain for example, elections where suspended. Now, a bureaucratic, totalitarian elite did not emerge due to this, but then Britain was an advanced industrial nation with a democratic tradition.

Fair to say?
(Im new to this!)

Thanks redphilly, I'll check that link out

Something must have persuaded Lenin to make a huge mistake. Yes, I believe that the banning of factions, etc. was a huge mistake.

But I don't know what triggered this reaction. For years, even during the Civil War, Lenin had pushed for democratic measures against the bureaucracy and against the false ideas of comrades like Trotsky. He even advised the party to take such measures in his will. What triggered his sudden, may I say short-lived turn in 1921?