What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lessons of October
Written several years after the October Revolution, Leon Trotsky took a look back and tried to bring together all he had learned about the key event of Russian history in which he had participated.
This book is the result.
Optimized for Kindle with a functioning table of contents.
This book is the result.
Optimized for Kindle with a functioning table of contents.
Paperback
First published October 1, 1924
13 people are currently reading
466 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,089 books798 followersSee also Лев Троцкий
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Russian theoretician Leon Trotsky or Leon Trotski, originally Lev Davidovitch Bronstein, led the Bolshevik of 1917, wrote Literature and Revolution in 1924, opposed the authoritarianism of Joseph Stalin, and emphasized world; therefore later, the Communist party in 1927 expelled him and in 1929 banished him, but he included the autobiographical My Life in 1930, and the behest murdered him in exile in Mexico.
The exile of Leon Trotsky in 1929 marked rule of Joseph Stalin.
People better know this Marxist. In October 1917, he ranked second only to Vladimir Lenin. During the early days of the Soviet Union, he served first as commissar of people for foreign affairs and as the founder and commander of the Red Army and of war. He also ranked among the first members of the Politburo.
After a failed struggle of the left against the policies and rise in the 1920s, the increasing role of bureaucracy in the Soviet Union deported Trotsky. An early advocate of intervention of Army of Red against European fascism, Trotsky also agreed on peace with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. As the head of the fourth International, Trotsky continued to the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, and Ramón Mercader, a Soviet agent, eventually assassinated him. From Marxism, his separate ideas form the basis of Trotskyism, a term, coined as early as 1905. Ideas of Trotsky constitute a major school of Marxist. The Soviet administration never rehabilitated him and few other political figures.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
June 9, 2020
This is a short synopsis of Trotsky's recollections of the decisive parts of the October 1917 Revolution from the perspective of someone involved in party politics. It is exciting to read about that time in the words of someone who was there. He does have a bit of a know-it-all attitude which people understandably find irritating, but I thought the points he brought up were good ones, especially for those involved in revolutionary politics who are trying to learn from past events - he points out mistakes and arguments which were happening in the moment, and especially brings up the examples of failed revolutions in Bulgaria and Germany to compare to the Russian revolution's success. I think there's maybe too much emphasis on the words of Lenin and a few other peoples' influence rather than the actions of the masses; Trotsky does talk about the war's effect on the populace but not as much about other aspects of the mass uprising.
The book is very short and easy to read and understand. Of course it doesn't go into great depth, being so short, but he quickly gets at the gist of his ideas and basically lays them all out from the onset, so it is not difficult to comprehend. I would highly recommend it for those interested in politics and history.
The book is very short and easy to read and understand. Of course it doesn't go into great depth, being so short, but he quickly gets at the gist of his ideas and basically lays them all out from the onset, so it is not difficult to comprehend. I would highly recommend it for those interested in politics and history.
November 10, 2023
For the 100th anniversary of the failed revolution in Germany in 1923 ("the German October"), I reread Leon Trotsky’s pamphlet on "The Lessons of October." Published in 1924, this was an attempt to draw some theoretical lessons from the insurrection of November 7, 1917. While Trotsky only mentioned 1923 briefly, this was actually a balance sheet of that fiasco. He drew comparisons between vacillations in the leadership of the Communist Party of Germany in 1923, and vacillations among certain top Bolsheviks like Zinoviev and Kamenev in 1917 (those two had just joined with Stalin in a Troika against Trotsky).
Throughout this pamphlet, Trotsky highlighted time as a central factor in revolutionary politics. Before the uprising, Lenin had written: "History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything." Looking back, Trotsky repeated: "It is not at all possible to accomplish on the morrow everything that can be done today." Delaying the revolution in 1923 in fact represented a historic defeat of the working class — it was not possible to try again later. This guaranteed the isolation of the Russian Revolution, leading to the consolidation of the Stalinist bureaucracy, while simultaneously preparing the ground for fascism in Germany. Everything came down to a window of opportunity of just a few hours. As Trotsky wrote "to seize power is to change the course of history. Is it really true that such a historic event can hinge upon an interval of twenty-four hours? Yes, it can."
Stalin, Thalheimer, and many others argued that the situation in 1923 in Germany was not revolutionary. Trotsky argued convincingly that there is simply no way to know the prospects for a victorious revolutionary struggle without a leap into the abyss.
Throughout this pamphlet, Trotsky highlighted time as a central factor in revolutionary politics. Before the uprising, Lenin had written: "History will not forgive revolutionaries for procrastinating when they could be victorious today (and they certainly will be victorious today), while they risk losing much tomorrow, in fact, they risk losing everything." Looking back, Trotsky repeated: "It is not at all possible to accomplish on the morrow everything that can be done today." Delaying the revolution in 1923 in fact represented a historic defeat of the working class — it was not possible to try again later. This guaranteed the isolation of the Russian Revolution, leading to the consolidation of the Stalinist bureaucracy, while simultaneously preparing the ground for fascism in Germany. Everything came down to a window of opportunity of just a few hours. As Trotsky wrote "to seize power is to change the course of history. Is it really true that such a historic event can hinge upon an interval of twenty-four hours? Yes, it can."
Stalin, Thalheimer, and many others argued that the situation in 1923 in Germany was not revolutionary. Trotsky argued convincingly that there is simply no way to know the prospects for a victorious revolutionary struggle without a leap into the abyss.
November 11, 2021
A competent history of the Russian Revolution, but with intentionally deceptive political analysis that implies Lenin accepted Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution simply because he rejected the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry post-February Revolution. This is categorically false, because a) Lenin himself rejected Trotsky's theses in 1907-1908, and never returned to nor read any of Trotsky's later work on the matter. The idea that Lenin came to accept permanent revolution or a concept identical is simply false because Lenin's attitude towards the peasantry was antithetical to Trotsky's: Trotsky saw the peasantry as a static petty-bourgeois force which a section of could be harnessed during the revolution, and then proved a danger to the DotP onwards; Lenin saw correctly that a hostile policy to the peasantry would lead to an immediate downfall of the USSR, and that the peasantry had to be educated and propagated to under socialism until the productive forces had developed enough for a full-scale urbanization and numerical domination of the peasantry by the proletariat.
Ironically, Trotsky comes out here against the fetishization of the organizational form of the Soviets, something he would absolutely fall into in his rabid campaign against Stalin. Alongside this are his (correct) severe criticisms of Zinoviev and Kamenev, men who would become his closest allies within the Left Opposition as part of that campaign.
Ironically, Trotsky comes out here against the fetishization of the organizational form of the Soviets, something he would absolutely fall into in his rabid campaign against Stalin. Alongside this are his (correct) severe criticisms of Zinoviev and Kamenev, men who would become his closest allies within the Left Opposition as part of that campaign.
January 16, 2019
Full disclosure, I'm not a historian and know very little of the details of the February and October revolutions discussed in this book, nor do I have a horse in the soviet-power-struggles-of-the-early-20th-Century race that forms the background of its writing. I was curious about Trotsky's writings, of which this is a slim example, and I wanted some preparation for my eventual reading of China Mieville's October which I've been told leans towards the Trotskyist interpretation of events.
That all being said, this is a well-written and persuasive account. Clocking in at about 100 pages, it's a quick and easy read. It doesn't get bogged down in either the minutia of mass organization/insurrection and it isn't weighed down by too much discussion of ideology. It was originally written as a preface for a larger set of writings and as any good preface should, it gets to the point in a clear and succinct manner. I enjoyed it and may end up reading more Trotsky after Mieville.
That all being said, this is a well-written and persuasive account. Clocking in at about 100 pages, it's a quick and easy read. It doesn't get bogged down in either the minutia of mass organization/insurrection and it isn't weighed down by too much discussion of ideology. It was originally written as a preface for a larger set of writings and as any good preface should, it gets to the point in a clear and succinct manner. I enjoyed it and may end up reading more Trotsky after Mieville.
August 23, 2019
Trotsky highlights the successes of the October Revolution and potential failures of before mentioned revolution which would come to pass. Great book by the main actor in the revolution.
August 14, 2025
Cool quotes;
Only last year we witnessed the very same tendency in Germany. This passive fatalism is really only a cover for irresolution and even incapacity for action, but it camouflages itself with consoling prognosis that we are, you know, growing more and more influential; as time goes on, our forces will continually increase. What a gross delusion! The strength of a revolutionary party increases only up to a certain moment, after which the process can turn into the very opposite. The hopes of the masses change into disillusionment as a result of the party’s passivity, while the enemy recovers from his panic and takes advantage of this disillusionment. We witnessed such a decisive Turing point in Germany in October 1923. We were not so very far removed from a similar turn of events in Russia in the fall of 1917. For that, a delay of a few more weeks would perhaps have been enough. Lenin was right. it was now or never!
(Page 68)
Shame on all the faint-hearted, all the waverers and doubters, on all those who allowed themselves to be intimidated by the bourgeoisie or who have succumbed to the outcries of their direct and indirect supporters!
Lenin quote ^
(Page 74)
The experience of the European struggles, and above all the struggles in Germany, when looked at in the light of our own experience, tells us that there are two types of leaders who incline to drag the party back at the very moment when it must take a stupendous leap forward. Some among them generally tend to see mainly the difficulties and obstacles in the way of revolution, and to estimate each situation with a preconceived, though not always conscious, intention of avoiding any action. Marxism in their hands is turned into a method for establishing the impossibility of revolutionary action. The purest specimens of this type are the Russian Mensheviks. But this type as such is not confined to Menshevism, and at the most critical moment is suddenly moment it suddenly manifests itself in responsible posts in the most revolutionary party.
The representatives of the second variety are distinguished by their superficial and agitational approach. They never see any obstacles or difficulties until they come into a head-on collision with them. The capacity for surmounting real obstacles by means of bombastic phrases, the tendency to evince lofty optimism on all questions (‘the ocean is only knee deep’), is inevitably transformed into its polar opposite when the hour for decisive action strikes. To the first type of revolutionist, who makes mountains out of molehills, the problems of seizing power lie in heaping up and multiplying to the nth degree all the difficulties he has become accustomed to see in his way. To the second type, the superficial optimist, the difficulties of revolutionary action always come as a surprise. In the preparatory period the behaviour of the two is different: the former is a skeptic upon whom one can not rely too much, that is in a revolutionary sense; the latter, on the contrary, may seem a fanatic revolutionist. But at the decisive moment, the two march hand in hand; they both oppose the insurrection. …
(Page 103)
Much has been spoken and written lately on the necessity of ‘Bolshevizing’ the Comintern. This is a task that cannot be disputed or delayed; it is made particularly urgent after the cruel lessons of Bulgaria and Germany a year ago. Bolshevism is not a doctrine (i.e not merely a doctrine) but a system of revolutionary training for the proletarian uprising. What is the Bolshevization of Communist parties? It is giving them such a training, and effecting such a selection of the leading staff, as would prevent them from drifting when the hour for their October strikes. ‘That is the whole of Hegel, and the wisdom of books, and the meaning of all philosophy…’
(Page 104)
HaymarketBooks centenary edition.
Only last year we witnessed the very same tendency in Germany. This passive fatalism is really only a cover for irresolution and even incapacity for action, but it camouflages itself with consoling prognosis that we are, you know, growing more and more influential; as time goes on, our forces will continually increase. What a gross delusion! The strength of a revolutionary party increases only up to a certain moment, after which the process can turn into the very opposite. The hopes of the masses change into disillusionment as a result of the party’s passivity, while the enemy recovers from his panic and takes advantage of this disillusionment. We witnessed such a decisive Turing point in Germany in October 1923. We were not so very far removed from a similar turn of events in Russia in the fall of 1917. For that, a delay of a few more weeks would perhaps have been enough. Lenin was right. it was now or never!
(Page 68)
Shame on all the faint-hearted, all the waverers and doubters, on all those who allowed themselves to be intimidated by the bourgeoisie or who have succumbed to the outcries of their direct and indirect supporters!
Lenin quote ^
(Page 74)
The experience of the European struggles, and above all the struggles in Germany, when looked at in the light of our own experience, tells us that there are two types of leaders who incline to drag the party back at the very moment when it must take a stupendous leap forward. Some among them generally tend to see mainly the difficulties and obstacles in the way of revolution, and to estimate each situation with a preconceived, though not always conscious, intention of avoiding any action. Marxism in their hands is turned into a method for establishing the impossibility of revolutionary action. The purest specimens of this type are the Russian Mensheviks. But this type as such is not confined to Menshevism, and at the most critical moment is suddenly moment it suddenly manifests itself in responsible posts in the most revolutionary party.
The representatives of the second variety are distinguished by their superficial and agitational approach. They never see any obstacles or difficulties until they come into a head-on collision with them. The capacity for surmounting real obstacles by means of bombastic phrases, the tendency to evince lofty optimism on all questions (‘the ocean is only knee deep’), is inevitably transformed into its polar opposite when the hour for decisive action strikes. To the first type of revolutionist, who makes mountains out of molehills, the problems of seizing power lie in heaping up and multiplying to the nth degree all the difficulties he has become accustomed to see in his way. To the second type, the superficial optimist, the difficulties of revolutionary action always come as a surprise. In the preparatory period the behaviour of the two is different: the former is a skeptic upon whom one can not rely too much, that is in a revolutionary sense; the latter, on the contrary, may seem a fanatic revolutionist. But at the decisive moment, the two march hand in hand; they both oppose the insurrection. …
(Page 103)
Much has been spoken and written lately on the necessity of ‘Bolshevizing’ the Comintern. This is a task that cannot be disputed or delayed; it is made particularly urgent after the cruel lessons of Bulgaria and Germany a year ago. Bolshevism is not a doctrine (i.e not merely a doctrine) but a system of revolutionary training for the proletarian uprising. What is the Bolshevization of Communist parties? It is giving them such a training, and effecting such a selection of the leading staff, as would prevent them from drifting when the hour for their October strikes. ‘That is the whole of Hegel, and the wisdom of books, and the meaning of all philosophy…’
(Page 104)
HaymarketBooks centenary edition.
July 26, 2021
Essay written by Trotsky at a time where October was not yet mythologized - indeed like he says, no work on the October revolution had been published yet, only on the events before and after it. After the terrible planning of the Bulgarian revolution in 1923 that led to its demise and the even worse sequel in Germany, where insurrection only went through in Hamburg due to the leaderships' pessimism about the possibilities for victory (likely stemming from a neurotic obsession with the catastrophic March Action insurrection in 1921), Trotsky decided that to extract some lessons from the October insurrection, to remember how Lenin acted in face of a highly opportunist Bolshevik leadership and how that was essential for proletarian victory.
Something Trotsky himself says is that all future insurrections will be fundamentally different for a variety of reasons - but that these lessons are nonetheless essential. And he is correct in that judgement.
Something Trotsky himself says is that all future insurrections will be fundamentally different for a variety of reasons - but that these lessons are nonetheless essential. And he is correct in that judgement.
April 23, 2018
A polemic text. Empty words. It would have been funny to see a shallow mind trying to recreate the Russian Orthodox church around the Marxist doctrine. There is only one church: the party. And everyone outside this church is heretical, or against the revolution. But it is not funny given how many have had to die for this new cult.
February 13, 2022
Excellent corrective to Stalinist and Menshevik lies and ideological rationalizations.
August 26, 2019
There can be no doubt that Leon Trotsky had an astonishing life. From humble beginnings, to revolutionary, to major political leader, to “disgraced” outcast, the man’s life has been extensively analyzed and will continue to be interpreted for decades, maybe even centuries, to come. And it only takes a cursory knowledge of what exactly went down in the Soviet Union to understand that, through it all, Trotsky got the short end of the stick. But, as Emma Goldman has said, maybe he got what’s coming to him.
Lessons of October seems like a harmless enough publication. After all, why not document the important developments of the October Revolution for future revolutionaries to contemplate? Now that Lenin is dead, what better man to do it than Trotsky? As Trotsky himself states in the introduction, this essay was released in 1924, 7 years after the revolution. Why did it become a priority now? Well, it was also being released just as Trotsky was starting to fall out of favor with the communist party and his power was beginning to weaken. So this was his attempt to set the record straight.
Lessons of October has a pretty straightforward account of the Russian Revolution, a topic Trotsky would write extensively about later on, and basically serves to establish Lenin as the hero of it all. The party and Russia was lost before Lenin showed up in April and the party was foolish to question any of his decisions throughout the process. It’s no wonder everything fell apart when he died because it seems like the party is filled with incompetent petty morons (or at least that’s the impression one gets). Maybe Trotsky doesn’t portray himself as a mayor player in these events, but he certainly isn’t afraid to throw the other leading party members under the bus, like Zinoviev and Kamenev and that whole affair with them voting against the storming of the Winter palace. Stalin isn’t even mentioned, either because he still wasn’t playing that large of a role in mid-20s Russia, or because Stalin had a minor role in the revolution and Trotsky wanted to prove it by omitting him from it all. So, while Trotsky wanted to maybe solidify his position, the backlash to this essay was such that it led to Trotsky’s further being outcast from the party and Russia itself. Poor Trotsky never knew how to make friends.
Lessons of October is short and sweet, and a great introduction to the events of the Russian Revolution and Trotsky’s writing. Funny enough, it’s also an unintentional entry into the drama that unfolded in the party and Trotsky’s life
Lessons of October seems like a harmless enough publication. After all, why not document the important developments of the October Revolution for future revolutionaries to contemplate? Now that Lenin is dead, what better man to do it than Trotsky? As Trotsky himself states in the introduction, this essay was released in 1924, 7 years after the revolution. Why did it become a priority now? Well, it was also being released just as Trotsky was starting to fall out of favor with the communist party and his power was beginning to weaken. So this was his attempt to set the record straight.
Lessons of October has a pretty straightforward account of the Russian Revolution, a topic Trotsky would write extensively about later on, and basically serves to establish Lenin as the hero of it all. The party and Russia was lost before Lenin showed up in April and the party was foolish to question any of his decisions throughout the process. It’s no wonder everything fell apart when he died because it seems like the party is filled with incompetent petty morons (or at least that’s the impression one gets). Maybe Trotsky doesn’t portray himself as a mayor player in these events, but he certainly isn’t afraid to throw the other leading party members under the bus, like Zinoviev and Kamenev and that whole affair with them voting against the storming of the Winter palace. Stalin isn’t even mentioned, either because he still wasn’t playing that large of a role in mid-20s Russia, or because Stalin had a minor role in the revolution and Trotsky wanted to prove it by omitting him from it all. So, while Trotsky wanted to maybe solidify his position, the backlash to this essay was such that it led to Trotsky’s further being outcast from the party and Russia itself. Poor Trotsky never knew how to make friends.
Lessons of October is short and sweet, and a great introduction to the events of the Russian Revolution and Trotsky’s writing. Funny enough, it’s also an unintentional entry into the drama that unfolded in the party and Trotsky’s life
August 7, 2021
The first chapter and last chapter I find worth reading -- the former discussing the importance of tactics, the crisis a party endures during a tactical & historical turn, and the consequences. The last chapter discusses the importance of the party in forming a proletarian revolution, the necessity for both organizational conservatism & need for freedom from routine. These were quite enlightening and useful.
The middle chapters are, mostly, an account of the history of the October revolution -- specifically so, as at the time of writing, 1924, no history *of* the October Revolution has been written, just of the periods preceeding and succeeding it. It is an ok account, but not really worth studying -- most interesting bits are the account of the taking of the Winter palace being, really, just the formal part of it -- as the Petrograd Soviet already weeks before staged an insurrection through denying its subordination to the February government. Can be found in the chapter 7., "The October Insurrection and Soviet 'Legality'". I didn't know that, and that was quite interesting.
Overall, it's ok, but if I'd recommend it, I'd probably just tell people to read the first and last chapter, to be honest.
The middle chapters are, mostly, an account of the history of the October revolution -- specifically so, as at the time of writing, 1924, no history *of* the October Revolution has been written, just of the periods preceeding and succeeding it. It is an ok account, but not really worth studying -- most interesting bits are the account of the taking of the Winter palace being, really, just the formal part of it -- as the Petrograd Soviet already weeks before staged an insurrection through denying its subordination to the February government. Can be found in the chapter 7., "The October Insurrection and Soviet 'Legality'". I didn't know that, and that was quite interesting.
Overall, it's ok, but if I'd recommend it, I'd probably just tell people to read the first and last chapter, to be honest.
July 16, 2024
One of the most important Marxist texts to be read and studied. There are two main lessons that Trotsky makes clear:
(1) You must have a party. Without a party the working class cannot conquer. Being contradictory, divided, and subject to hostile class forces, the Proletariat needs the party to guide them and to cut through these hostile class forces.
(2) The party must be guided by a revolutionary program and leadership. It can't just have nice slogans on paper. The party isn't some "magic bullet"; it doesn't stand outside and above the class struggle, being the leader of the proletarian struggle it exists in the midst of the class struggle. Thus, just as the proletariat is subject to hostile class forces, a revolutionary party is also subjected to the pressure of hostile and alien class forces. The party that is to lead the working class to power is that which has not lost touch with the historical interests of its class. However, it isn't to be taken to the point where Marxism is to be treated as a religion. The party must be guided by the revolutionary principles of Marxism, but it must take the immediate desires of the proletarian masses and make it into it's immediate program of action.
(1) You must have a party. Without a party the working class cannot conquer. Being contradictory, divided, and subject to hostile class forces, the Proletariat needs the party to guide them and to cut through these hostile class forces.
(2) The party must be guided by a revolutionary program and leadership. It can't just have nice slogans on paper. The party isn't some "magic bullet"; it doesn't stand outside and above the class struggle, being the leader of the proletarian struggle it exists in the midst of the class struggle. Thus, just as the proletariat is subject to hostile class forces, a revolutionary party is also subjected to the pressure of hostile and alien class forces. The party that is to lead the working class to power is that which has not lost touch with the historical interests of its class. However, it isn't to be taken to the point where Marxism is to be treated as a religion. The party must be guided by the revolutionary principles of Marxism, but it must take the immediate desires of the proletarian masses and make it into it's immediate program of action.
September 7, 2022
Say what you will about modern Trotskyism, there's no denying he was the best and most interesting writer of that time - this was a really exciting read
That said, this analysis just gets more depressing over time and as we deepen into irreversible ecological disaster! Or maybe pressing is a better phrase than depressing.
I think in this period of extreme precarity though, Trotsky's argument that rootedness, not routinism, as the most useful tool for revolutionaries is important. We need to be consistent with people without relying on the same old tricks that have proven ineffective. That perspective I find very forward thinking.
That said, this analysis just gets more depressing over time and as we deepen into irreversible ecological disaster! Or maybe pressing is a better phrase than depressing.
I think in this period of extreme precarity though, Trotsky's argument that rootedness, not routinism, as the most useful tool for revolutionaries is important. We need to be consistent with people without relying on the same old tricks that have proven ineffective. That perspective I find very forward thinking.
January 10, 2019
Although an important person during a once-important time, one can't read Trotsky's words without a sense of morose and sadness, knowing how events had unfold for the millions of lost soul and for him. However, his spirit of guidance and fervor to a new world order persevered his position as one of the most notable Marxist theorist. "Lessons of October" provides an extremely valuable voice, analysis, and observation from Trotsky's eye, and he is certainly a valuable historical person to learn from even with the failure of Bolshevism.
October 30, 2021
Ekim Dersleri Troçki'den inciler olarak tekrar adlandırılabilirmiş. Devrime giden yolda ortaya konması gereken davranış modellerini açıklamış. Başta Lenin'in ve bolşeviklerin tutumu, farklı olaylar karşısındaki çözümlemeleri, Menşevik duruşla kendi aralarındaki temel çelişkiler vb.
Alınacak en büyük ders, tarih size hamlenizi yapma sırasını verdiğinde tereddüt ederseniz mutlak bir mağlubiyet yaşayacağınızdır. Bence bu hayatın bir çok alanı için de geçerli.
Alınacak en büyük ders, tarih size hamlenizi yapma sırasını verdiğinde tereddüt ederseniz mutlak bir mağlubiyet yaşayacağınızdır. Bence bu hayatın bir çok alanı için de geçerli.
January 16, 2025
I bought this book when I was 15 but only read it now. Trotsky ate with this one chief. While I'm not the best versed in the intricacies of the Russian Revolution, the overarching analyses he makes remain so visible in our current times. His framework could be used to explain the Arab Spring and its failures to a tea but also serve as a launching pad to improve upon any attempt at positive change.
July 7, 2017
Very good book detailing the importance of leadership during a revolution. "A rising of the masses of the people needs no justification. What has happened is an insurrection, and not a conspiracy." ~Leon Trotsky. The insurrection was turned into a revolution by the Bolshevik Party leaders, namely Lenin and Trotsky.
November 23, 2018
A very interesting historical document.
September 26, 2021
Instruction manual on how to overthrow the ruling class. Would recommend.
September 29, 2025
hilarious how most of the book is like:
[quotes someone saying the revolution isn't possible
dated: two weeks before the revolution]
[quotes someone saying the revolution isn't possible
dated: two weeks before the revolution]
November 17, 2024
A short read & a kind of overview and of lessons to be taken from the success of the Russian Revolution as well as the failure of the subsequent & critical German Revolution. There is a focus on tools at the disposal of the working class & communist parties as well as the conditions of the respective revolutions, though the focus is primarily the Russian Revolution. There is also talk of what I understand to be balance in regard to the role & functions of the party so as to minimize errors & be able to take correct actions in decisive moments. I believe this is an important text to understand critical factors in regard to the aforementioned revolutions & what it means for the working class & parties of generations that followed.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews