What do you think?
Rate this book
On Literature and Art
One of the outstanding revolutionary leaders of the 20th century discusses questions of literature, art, and culture in a period of capitalist decline and working-class struggle. In these writings, Trotsky examines the place and aesthetic autonomy of art and artistic expression in the struggle for a new, socialist society."Trotsky demonstrated a keen insight and a penetrating analysis of literature (Russian and foreign) and society."-ChoiceIndex, Annotation
248 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
4 people are currently reading
194 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,090 books800 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 - 3 of 3 reviews
Read
May 16, 2022I like how Trotsky treats literature and art as Lenin does, perhaps slightly more confident than Lenin, encouraging all artistic production in the service of the revolution while also being aware of the tendencies of such a position, especially in a post-revolutionary setting where hegemony is still being consolidated in all spheres of life. Unlike the provocateurs of the formalist/avant garde school, the extreme idealism of Anatoly "Loonie" Lunacharsky and the early manifestations of the sterile Zhdanov 'socialist realism', Trotsky and Lenin understands the importance of literature and art while constantly reminding us of its tendencies.
June 18, 2023
"Leon Trotsky On Literature and Art" is a collection of mixed literary essays by the great revolutionary leader, written over the course of his incredible life. They are gathered together for publication by Pathfinder, in 1970, and complement Trotsky's own book "Literature and Revolution," from 1925.
Trotsky is distinguished in the field of Marxist literary criticism. Firstly, by the fact that he was a revolutionary leader, and not a career-oriented, petit bourgeois academic. Trotsky reviewed current novels while travelling around Russia in an armored train, giving lightning motivational speeches to the soldiers of the Red Army during a fierce Civil War. His concern was to develop the policy of Communist Party with respect to literature and art.
At the same time, he is immediately distinguished from other revolutionary leaders, in that his concern with literature was essentially literary! In this combination of qualities, his case is almost singular.
For example, I think the most interesting paper in the collection is one titled "Class & Art." It is a transcription of a talk Trotsky gave to the Press Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, in May 1924. Trotsky was responding to a speech by Comrade Fedor Raskolnikov, in which he had argued what has become the mainstream Marxist position (Eagleton, Jameson, et al), that literature is an ideological reflection of fundamental social and political processes. Trotsky countered this orientation by defending a much more commonsense understanding of literature as expression:
“In works of art [Raskolnikov] ignores that which makes them works of art. This was most vividly shown in his remarkable judgment on Dante’s Divine Comedy, which in his opinion is valuable to us just because it enables us to understand the psychology of a certain class at a certain time. To put the matter that way means simply to strike out the Divine Comedy from the realm of art. Perhaps the time has come to do that, but if so we must understand the essence of the question and not shrink from the conclusions. If I say that the importance of The Divine Comedy lies in the fact that it gives me an understanding of the state of mind of certain classes in a certain epoch, what this means is that I transform it into a mere historical document, for, as a work of art, The divine comedy must speak in some way to my feelings and moods…. Nobody, of course, forbids a reader to assume the role of researcher and approach the Divine comedy as merely a historical document. It is clear though that these two approaches are on two different levels…”
Although the essays in this collection are varied, it seems to me that Trotsky's ultimate position on literature is very simple. He thought the way forward is to increase the basic literacy of the working class - and saw that bourgeois literature has a valuable role as educational reading material:
“It is childish to think that bourgeois belles lettres can make a breach in class solidarity. What the worker will take from Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, or Dostoyevsky will be a more complex idea of human personality, of its passions and feelings, a deeper and profounder understanding of its psychic forces and of the role of the subconscious, etc. In the final analysis, the worker will become richer.”
Trotsky's position here is clearly uncritical, or "precritical," and that's an obvious shortcoming. He does not address the ideological side of bourgeois literature - it's tendency to reinforce sexist, racist, colonial-imperialist and classist prejudices. And that critical practice is a challenge socialist revolutionaries must take head on.
Trotsky is distinguished in the field of Marxist literary criticism. Firstly, by the fact that he was a revolutionary leader, and not a career-oriented, petit bourgeois academic. Trotsky reviewed current novels while travelling around Russia in an armored train, giving lightning motivational speeches to the soldiers of the Red Army during a fierce Civil War. His concern was to develop the policy of Communist Party with respect to literature and art.
At the same time, he is immediately distinguished from other revolutionary leaders, in that his concern with literature was essentially literary! In this combination of qualities, his case is almost singular.
For example, I think the most interesting paper in the collection is one titled "Class & Art." It is a transcription of a talk Trotsky gave to the Press Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, in May 1924. Trotsky was responding to a speech by Comrade Fedor Raskolnikov, in which he had argued what has become the mainstream Marxist position (Eagleton, Jameson, et al), that literature is an ideological reflection of fundamental social and political processes. Trotsky countered this orientation by defending a much more commonsense understanding of literature as expression:
“In works of art [Raskolnikov] ignores that which makes them works of art. This was most vividly shown in his remarkable judgment on Dante’s Divine Comedy, which in his opinion is valuable to us just because it enables us to understand the psychology of a certain class at a certain time. To put the matter that way means simply to strike out the Divine Comedy from the realm of art. Perhaps the time has come to do that, but if so we must understand the essence of the question and not shrink from the conclusions. If I say that the importance of The Divine Comedy lies in the fact that it gives me an understanding of the state of mind of certain classes in a certain epoch, what this means is that I transform it into a mere historical document, for, as a work of art, The divine comedy must speak in some way to my feelings and moods…. Nobody, of course, forbids a reader to assume the role of researcher and approach the Divine comedy as merely a historical document. It is clear though that these two approaches are on two different levels…”
Although the essays in this collection are varied, it seems to me that Trotsky's ultimate position on literature is very simple. He thought the way forward is to increase the basic literacy of the working class - and saw that bourgeois literature has a valuable role as educational reading material:
“It is childish to think that bourgeois belles lettres can make a breach in class solidarity. What the worker will take from Shakespeare, Goethe, Pushkin, or Dostoyevsky will be a more complex idea of human personality, of its passions and feelings, a deeper and profounder understanding of its psychic forces and of the role of the subconscious, etc. In the final analysis, the worker will become richer.”
Trotsky's position here is clearly uncritical, or "precritical," and that's an obvious shortcoming. He does not address the ideological side of bourgeois literature - it's tendency to reinforce sexist, racist, colonial-imperialist and classist prejudices. And that critical practice is a challenge socialist revolutionaries must take head on.
February 25, 2023
Reading “Leon Trotsky on Literature and Art” reminds me of the Trotskyites I knew and liked during my years in the anti war movement during the War in Vietnam. They belonged to the Socialist Workers’ Party, which originated during the Great Depression, or to the Young Socialist Alliance, which was the SWP’s youth affiliate. Trotskyites I knew in the Workers’ League, on the other hand, had personality problems. They did not like me; I did not like them.
The appeal of Trotskyism is that the Trotskyite can believe that if only Trotsky had won the power struggle with Stalin after the death of Lenin, the early promises of the Russian Revolution would have been kept. I do not think so. I did not think so at the time. Trotsky led the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. This was an authentically working class rebellion against the Bolshevik dictatorship.
Trotsky also originated the idea of the consolidation of peasant farms into state owned collective farms. Stalin only borrowed that idea from Trotsky. The collectivization of agriculture led to famines and so alienated the Ukrainians that many of them welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
With no military background Trotsky learned military strategy from scratch, and led the Red Army in a victorious civil war against the whites. As a war leader in World War II Trotsky would not have made mistakes Stalin made. Before the War the Gestapo tricked Stalin into believing that the Soviet military high command was plotting a coup against him, so he executed them. Trotsky would not have done that. Nevertheless, Trotsky took Marxist dogma too seriously. I am afraid that he would have kept expecting the German working class to overthrow Hitler.
Also, when Stalin developed the program of “socialism in one country,” Trotsky continued to try to foment Communist revolutions in the West. If he had done that as the leader of the Soviet Union Western countries would have been less willing to help the Soviet Union against the German invasion.
I blush to confess that I came close to joining the Young Socialist Alliance. Just in time I read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.”
After reading Hoffer’s book I noticed that the members of the Socialist Workers’ Party I knew were failed professionals who flunked out of medical school or who could not pass the bar exam. The members of the Young Socialist Alliance I knew were college students who doubted that life had much to offer them after graduation.
Trotsky spends the first half of this book discussing the development of what he calls “proletarian literature.” He did not notice, but proletarian literature was all around him. Another term for it is “low brow literature.” It consists of pulp fiction, paper back novels, the lyrics of popular songs, television situation comedies, and Hollywood movies that do not demand too much of the audience.
Trotsky’s two essays about Tolstoy are better than they might have been. A lesser Marxist Leninist would have complained that Tolstoy was not a Marxist writer. Trotsky portrays Tolstoy as a kindly plantation owner who loves his farm laborers.
In his essay on Winston Churchill’s “The Aftermath” Trotsky makes a big point over Churchill’s errors in dating.
I wish Trotsky had dared to review Bertrand Russell’s “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.”
Russell was a democratic socialist who in 1920 traveled to the Soviet Union expecting to like what he saw. He did not like it and had the integrity to explain why. He expected to find a new kind of democracy. He found a new kind of dictatorship.
Trotsky’s essay about Maxim Gorky has merit, because he admits that Gorky was always ambivalent about the Soviet government.
In general this book reminds me of what a farrago of nonsense Marxist Leninism was. Neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor Stalin worked a day in a factory. Nevertheless, each claimed to speak for “the Proletariat,” even as they ordered the deaths of real Proletarians who disobeyed them.
The appeal of Trotskyism is that the Trotskyite can believe that if only Trotsky had won the power struggle with Stalin after the death of Lenin, the early promises of the Russian Revolution would have been kept. I do not think so. I did not think so at the time. Trotsky led the crushing of the Kronstadt Rebellion of 1921. This was an authentically working class rebellion against the Bolshevik dictatorship.
Trotsky also originated the idea of the consolidation of peasant farms into state owned collective farms. Stalin only borrowed that idea from Trotsky. The collectivization of agriculture led to famines and so alienated the Ukrainians that many of them welcomed the Nazis as liberators.
With no military background Trotsky learned military strategy from scratch, and led the Red Army in a victorious civil war against the whites. As a war leader in World War II Trotsky would not have made mistakes Stalin made. Before the War the Gestapo tricked Stalin into believing that the Soviet military high command was plotting a coup against him, so he executed them. Trotsky would not have done that. Nevertheless, Trotsky took Marxist dogma too seriously. I am afraid that he would have kept expecting the German working class to overthrow Hitler.
Also, when Stalin developed the program of “socialism in one country,” Trotsky continued to try to foment Communist revolutions in the West. If he had done that as the leader of the Soviet Union Western countries would have been less willing to help the Soviet Union against the German invasion.
I blush to confess that I came close to joining the Young Socialist Alliance. Just in time I read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.”
After reading Hoffer’s book I noticed that the members of the Socialist Workers’ Party I knew were failed professionals who flunked out of medical school or who could not pass the bar exam. The members of the Young Socialist Alliance I knew were college students who doubted that life had much to offer them after graduation.
Trotsky spends the first half of this book discussing the development of what he calls “proletarian literature.” He did not notice, but proletarian literature was all around him. Another term for it is “low brow literature.” It consists of pulp fiction, paper back novels, the lyrics of popular songs, television situation comedies, and Hollywood movies that do not demand too much of the audience.
Trotsky’s two essays about Tolstoy are better than they might have been. A lesser Marxist Leninist would have complained that Tolstoy was not a Marxist writer. Trotsky portrays Tolstoy as a kindly plantation owner who loves his farm laborers.
In his essay on Winston Churchill’s “The Aftermath” Trotsky makes a big point over Churchill’s errors in dating.
I wish Trotsky had dared to review Bertrand Russell’s “The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism.”
Russell was a democratic socialist who in 1920 traveled to the Soviet Union expecting to like what he saw. He did not like it and had the integrity to explain why. He expected to find a new kind of democracy. He found a new kind of dictatorship.
Trotsky’s essay about Maxim Gorky has merit, because he admits that Gorky was always ambivalent about the Soviet government.
In general this book reminds me of what a farrago of nonsense Marxist Leninism was. Neither Lenin, nor Trotsky, nor Stalin worked a day in a factory. Nevertheless, each claimed to speak for “the Proletariat,” even as they ordered the deaths of real Proletarians who disobeyed them.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews