What do you think?
Rate this book
History of the Russian Revolution #1-3
The Russian Revolution
جزءان
524 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1931
534 people are currently reading
11434 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,096 books801 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 - 30 of 158 reviews
April 5, 2017
All Power to the Soviets!
Written in three parts some years after the Revolution of 1917, Trotsky sets out to give a detailed history of the events of that year, combined with his analysis of what led to Russia being ripe for revolution at that moment in time. He admits to his own bias, but claims that he has rigorously fact-checked, including only what can be verified in written records. In order to stop the book reading like an autobiography or memoir, he refers to himself in the third person throughout. I ended up with 24 A4 pages of notes on this 900-page book, so will be summarising and paraphrasing brutally to keep this review even close to a readable length. Given the complexity of the subject, it's highly likely that a different reader would disagree with my interpretations or emphases.
Trotsky begins by giving a fascinating explanation of why revolutions arise, and how they differ from other forms of changes of government, even violent ones. His position is that the involvement of the masses is key – that a tipping point is reached when people suddenly feel they cannot tolerate the existing regime any longer. Therefore the masses create the demagogue to lead them once that point is reached, rather than the demagogue being the starting point. This section, and other sections where Trotsky talks in general terms on political theory, are excellent – intelligent, concise and clear; and the translation is remarkable, especially for such a complex subject. The translator, Max Eastman, knew Trotsky and was well aware of the events under discussion, which perhaps makes his translation transcend the literal.
Next Trotsky explains the historical background which brought Russia to the tipping point. His argument, in summary, is that for geographical and cultural reasons Russia was a backwards nation, politically and economically, so that, when it came under pressure from the encroaching Western powers to industrialise and modernise, it did so by jumping some of the steps that those more developed countries had already gone through. He calls this the law of combined development. This sudden industrialisation led to skewed figures in terms of the percentage of the population employed in huge industrial concerns – this new industrial class, the proletariat, forming an ideal environment for revolutionary ideas to ferment. And the increased poverty and suffering brought on by the lengthy war – an imperialist war – sped up the natural progression towards the revolutionary tipping point. At all stages, Trotsky's argument is that the pressure for revolution came from the masses upwards, and that the Bolsheviks merely gave guidance to the process of insurrection through providing a Marxist-based political education to the workers.
Trotsky next speaks of the Romanovs and their supporters, and it's here that any pretence of impartiality or balance disappears entirely. Trotsky's words positively drip hatred and venom. He criticises their intelligence, understanding, lack of compassion, cruelty. He compares them to other monarchies overthrown in earlier revolutions, specifically the French and English, but ranging widely and knowledgeably over centuries of history. His anger and scorn come through in every word, and, while the various overthrown Kings are shown as weak and contemptible, he puts much of the blame on the Queens in virulent, misogynistic prose.
The whole establishment of the historical, political and philosophical background to the Revolution is excellent, so long as the reader keeps Trotsky's bias firmly in mind at all times. The following sections then go into an extremely detailed blow-by-blow account of the period from February – the beginning of the 1917 insurrection – to October, when the Bolsheviks finally came to power. I found these parts much harder to follow, because Trotsky assumes a good deal of familiarity with the political stance of the many factions and personalities involved, and therefore often doesn't explain them. I found I was constantly referring to the lists at the back of the book, which give brief summaries of each of the parties and explain the unfamiliar terms that appear frequently in the text. These lists are very good in that they are concise and focused, but I still found myself confused and glazing over at many points. As the book goes on (and on), I gradually grew to have a greater understanding of all these factions and their leaders, so that the last third was much clearer to me than the middle section when they are referred to first. If I had the strength of mind, I'm sure that a re-read of those middle chapters would be much easier, but on the whole, by the end, I felt I had gleaned enough to understand the overall progress of the Revolution even if some of the detail had passed over my head.
In terms of the writing itself, there's a real mix. When Trotsky is detailing the more technical stuff, it can be very dry with long, convoluted sentences full of Marxist jargon, which require concentration. At other times, mainly when talking of Stalin or the bourgeoisie, he is sarcastic and often quite humorous. The Romanovs and imperialists in general bring out his anger and contempt. These are all written in the past tense. But when he gets misty-eyed about the masses, describing a rally or demonstration or some other part of the struggle, he drifts into present tense, becoming eloquent and, I admit, inspirational, writing with real power and emotionalism, and rising almost to the point of poeticism at times. I would find my critical faculties had switched off, and become suddenly aware of tears in my eyes – the power of the demagogue reaching beyond speech onto paper, indeed! These passages break up the more factual stuff, and remind the reader that Trotsky was an observer, a participant and a passionate leader in the events he's describing.
By the time Trotsky was writing this, Lenin was of course dead, and Stalin had come to power. Trotsky appears to have three major aims in addition to recounting the history: firstly, to show that he himself played a crucial and central role in events; secondly, to prove that while he and Lenin may have disagreed on some practical issues, their political philosophies had been closely aligned; and thirdly, and leading on from the previous two, that Stalin's attempt to re-write history must be exposed and repudiated. Stalin, Trotsky suggests, is deliberately changing history as it relates to Lenin and Trotsky, in order to justify his own policies – which, by extension, Trotsky believes are out of line with the Marxist-Leninist origins of the Revolution.
Again, he often assumes more understanding of the variations between Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism than this poor reader has, and it began to feel like those endless nights down the pub in the '70s when my fellow leftist unionists (usually the men) would start arguing over abstruse points of political ideology and calling each other names, generally after their fifth pint or so. It all seemed rather... trivial, though that feels like an inappropriate word given the many millions of people who have suffered and died under the yoke of these ideologies over decades. But Trotsky's sycophancy over Lenin, self-aggrandisement, and sarcasm and spite towards Stalin ensured that any lingering affection I may have harboured for the idea of a socialist revolution dissipated long before I reached the end of the book. Power undoubtedly corrupts and I couldn't quite see that the leadership of the USSR was much improvement over the admittedly hideous Romanovs in the end.
A fascinating book, not by any means an easy read, but certainly an enlightening and worthwhile one. It gets the full five-stars from me, though I freely admit the fifth one may be due purely to the euphoria I felt on finishing.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Penguin Modern Classics.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
Written in three parts some years after the Revolution of 1917, Trotsky sets out to give a detailed history of the events of that year, combined with his analysis of what led to Russia being ripe for revolution at that moment in time. He admits to his own bias, but claims that he has rigorously fact-checked, including only what can be verified in written records. In order to stop the book reading like an autobiography or memoir, he refers to himself in the third person throughout. I ended up with 24 A4 pages of notes on this 900-page book, so will be summarising and paraphrasing brutally to keep this review even close to a readable length. Given the complexity of the subject, it's highly likely that a different reader would disagree with my interpretations or emphases.
Trotsky begins by giving a fascinating explanation of why revolutions arise, and how they differ from other forms of changes of government, even violent ones. His position is that the involvement of the masses is key – that a tipping point is reached when people suddenly feel they cannot tolerate the existing regime any longer. Therefore the masses create the demagogue to lead them once that point is reached, rather than the demagogue being the starting point. This section, and other sections where Trotsky talks in general terms on political theory, are excellent – intelligent, concise and clear; and the translation is remarkable, especially for such a complex subject. The translator, Max Eastman, knew Trotsky and was well aware of the events under discussion, which perhaps makes his translation transcend the literal.
Next Trotsky explains the historical background which brought Russia to the tipping point. His argument, in summary, is that for geographical and cultural reasons Russia was a backwards nation, politically and economically, so that, when it came under pressure from the encroaching Western powers to industrialise and modernise, it did so by jumping some of the steps that those more developed countries had already gone through. He calls this the law of combined development. This sudden industrialisation led to skewed figures in terms of the percentage of the population employed in huge industrial concerns – this new industrial class, the proletariat, forming an ideal environment for revolutionary ideas to ferment. And the increased poverty and suffering brought on by the lengthy war – an imperialist war – sped up the natural progression towards the revolutionary tipping point. At all stages, Trotsky's argument is that the pressure for revolution came from the masses upwards, and that the Bolsheviks merely gave guidance to the process of insurrection through providing a Marxist-based political education to the workers.
Trotsky next speaks of the Romanovs and their supporters, and it's here that any pretence of impartiality or balance disappears entirely. Trotsky's words positively drip hatred and venom. He criticises their intelligence, understanding, lack of compassion, cruelty. He compares them to other monarchies overthrown in earlier revolutions, specifically the French and English, but ranging widely and knowledgeably over centuries of history. His anger and scorn come through in every word, and, while the various overthrown Kings are shown as weak and contemptible, he puts much of the blame on the Queens in virulent, misogynistic prose.
The whole establishment of the historical, political and philosophical background to the Revolution is excellent, so long as the reader keeps Trotsky's bias firmly in mind at all times. The following sections then go into an extremely detailed blow-by-blow account of the period from February – the beginning of the 1917 insurrection – to October, when the Bolsheviks finally came to power. I found these parts much harder to follow, because Trotsky assumes a good deal of familiarity with the political stance of the many factions and personalities involved, and therefore often doesn't explain them. I found I was constantly referring to the lists at the back of the book, which give brief summaries of each of the parties and explain the unfamiliar terms that appear frequently in the text. These lists are very good in that they are concise and focused, but I still found myself confused and glazing over at many points. As the book goes on (and on), I gradually grew to have a greater understanding of all these factions and their leaders, so that the last third was much clearer to me than the middle section when they are referred to first. If I had the strength of mind, I'm sure that a re-read of those middle chapters would be much easier, but on the whole, by the end, I felt I had gleaned enough to understand the overall progress of the Revolution even if some of the detail had passed over my head.
In terms of the writing itself, there's a real mix. When Trotsky is detailing the more technical stuff, it can be very dry with long, convoluted sentences full of Marxist jargon, which require concentration. At other times, mainly when talking of Stalin or the bourgeoisie, he is sarcastic and often quite humorous. The Romanovs and imperialists in general bring out his anger and contempt. These are all written in the past tense. But when he gets misty-eyed about the masses, describing a rally or demonstration or some other part of the struggle, he drifts into present tense, becoming eloquent and, I admit, inspirational, writing with real power and emotionalism, and rising almost to the point of poeticism at times. I would find my critical faculties had switched off, and become suddenly aware of tears in my eyes – the power of the demagogue reaching beyond speech onto paper, indeed! These passages break up the more factual stuff, and remind the reader that Trotsky was an observer, a participant and a passionate leader in the events he's describing.
By the time Trotsky was writing this, Lenin was of course dead, and Stalin had come to power. Trotsky appears to have three major aims in addition to recounting the history: firstly, to show that he himself played a crucial and central role in events; secondly, to prove that while he and Lenin may have disagreed on some practical issues, their political philosophies had been closely aligned; and thirdly, and leading on from the previous two, that Stalin's attempt to re-write history must be exposed and repudiated. Stalin, Trotsky suggests, is deliberately changing history as it relates to Lenin and Trotsky, in order to justify his own policies – which, by extension, Trotsky believes are out of line with the Marxist-Leninist origins of the Revolution.
Again, he often assumes more understanding of the variations between Marxism, Leninism, Trotskyism and Stalinism than this poor reader has, and it began to feel like those endless nights down the pub in the '70s when my fellow leftist unionists (usually the men) would start arguing over abstruse points of political ideology and calling each other names, generally after their fifth pint or so. It all seemed rather... trivial, though that feels like an inappropriate word given the many millions of people who have suffered and died under the yoke of these ideologies over decades. But Trotsky's sycophancy over Lenin, self-aggrandisement, and sarcasm and spite towards Stalin ensured that any lingering affection I may have harboured for the idea of a socialist revolution dissipated long before I reached the end of the book. Power undoubtedly corrupts and I couldn't quite see that the leadership of the USSR was much improvement over the admittedly hideous Romanovs in the end.
A fascinating book, not by any means an easy read, but certainly an enlightening and worthwhile one. It gets the full five-stars from me, though I freely admit the fifth one may be due purely to the euphoria I felt on finishing.
NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Penguin Modern Classics.
www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com
December 5, 2017
A Note About the Author
Preface
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume One: The Overthrow of Tsarism
Chronological Table for Volume One
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Introduction to Volumes Two and Three
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume Two: The Attempted Counterrevolution
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume Three: The Triumph of the Soviets
Appendix Note
Appendix I: Some Legends of the Bureaucracy
Appendix II: Socialism in a Separate Country
Appendix III: Historic References on the Theory of "Permanent Revolution"
Chronological Table
A Short List of Principal Persons
A Short List of Principal Places
A Brief Glossary of Unfamiliar Terms
A List of Parties and Political Groups
Index
Preface
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume One: The Overthrow of Tsarism
Chronological Table for Volume One
Appendix I
Appendix II
Appendix III
Introduction to Volumes Two and Three
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume Two: The Attempted Counterrevolution
--History of the Russian Revolution Volume Three: The Triumph of the Soviets
Appendix Note
Appendix I: Some Legends of the Bureaucracy
Appendix II: Socialism in a Separate Country
Appendix III: Historic References on the Theory of "Permanent Revolution"
Chronological Table
A Short List of Principal Persons
A Short List of Principal Places
A Brief Glossary of Unfamiliar Terms
A List of Parties and Political Groups
Index
July 24, 2016
Trotsky's book is divided into 3 volumes, The Overthrow of Tsarism, the History of the Russian Revolution and the Triumph of the Soviets. The first volume primarily looks at Russia under Tsarism, the February Revolution, the Provisional Government and the initial formulation of a new strategy upon the arrival of Lenin back to Russia. Volume Two is focused on the events between the February and October Revolutions, ranging from the Counter Revolutionary conspiracies to the ups and downs in the confidence of the masses towards the government and other political parties. Volume Three covers the culmination of the two previous volumes in the October Revolution, delving at depth into the decision making processes in the moments before the revolution, during the revolution and the initial period after its successful completion in Petrograd.
This book took me a long time to read, whilst its not a difficult read its not an easy one either, especially if you do not have a vast knowledge of this period of Russian history. The book should be read in its entirety rather than skipping chapters to areas of interest, otherwise its very difficult to gain a full comprehension of events due to Trotsky often jumping between different periods as he tries to explain his reasoning behind the causes of these events, it should be noted that even with this to and fro jumping about its not a hard to follow narrative. I was very interested in the political theories of the Bolsheviks, the views on the Social structure of the country and the actions they undertook to accomplish the revolution, and Trotsky does not hold back in any of those areas. The author goes into extensive detail using a cause and effect methodology, often spending multiple pages explaining the Bolshevik policies and how they came about, to the extent that if the reader does not have a specific interest in learning these, they will most likely end up skipping multiple pages of this book. The author quotes extensively from leading characters and documents of the time, always going on to explain his opinion of the text rather than leaving it to the reader to deduce for themselves, whilst at times this can become a bit jarring, it is extremly useful for a thorough understanding of the political spectrum at the time.
In summary if you are looking for a casual overview of the Russian Revolution between February 1917 and October 1917, or simply for a detailed timeline of events, then this is not the book for you. If you are interested in the first hand account of a Bolshevik theorist (big hint as to what type of read this is) into the lead up to the Russian Revolution, the Revolution itself, and learning about the political and sociological forces at play, then this is a required and fantastic read.
The translation is top notch and doesn't suffer from the commonly seen misrepresentation of words forcing the reader to loose the true meaning.
The reader should also ensure they read the appendix, its a bit of a diatribe against Stalin and other Bolsheviks Trotsky considered as failing the revolution but gives invaluable insight into the thinking and conflicts of the Bolshevik leadership during the year 1917, and although only brief, we get a glimspe of Trotsky's personal views on his fellow revolutionary leaders, if anything it highlights just how isolated Lenin truly was at this pivotal period in history.
This book took me a long time to read, whilst its not a difficult read its not an easy one either, especially if you do not have a vast knowledge of this period of Russian history. The book should be read in its entirety rather than skipping chapters to areas of interest, otherwise its very difficult to gain a full comprehension of events due to Trotsky often jumping between different periods as he tries to explain his reasoning behind the causes of these events, it should be noted that even with this to and fro jumping about its not a hard to follow narrative. I was very interested in the political theories of the Bolsheviks, the views on the Social structure of the country and the actions they undertook to accomplish the revolution, and Trotsky does not hold back in any of those areas. The author goes into extensive detail using a cause and effect methodology, often spending multiple pages explaining the Bolshevik policies and how they came about, to the extent that if the reader does not have a specific interest in learning these, they will most likely end up skipping multiple pages of this book. The author quotes extensively from leading characters and documents of the time, always going on to explain his opinion of the text rather than leaving it to the reader to deduce for themselves, whilst at times this can become a bit jarring, it is extremly useful for a thorough understanding of the political spectrum at the time.
In summary if you are looking for a casual overview of the Russian Revolution between February 1917 and October 1917, or simply for a detailed timeline of events, then this is not the book for you. If you are interested in the first hand account of a Bolshevik theorist (big hint as to what type of read this is) into the lead up to the Russian Revolution, the Revolution itself, and learning about the political and sociological forces at play, then this is a required and fantastic read.
The translation is top notch and doesn't suffer from the commonly seen misrepresentation of words forcing the reader to loose the true meaning.
The reader should also ensure they read the appendix, its a bit of a diatribe against Stalin and other Bolsheviks Trotsky considered as failing the revolution but gives invaluable insight into the thinking and conflicts of the Bolshevik leadership during the year 1917, and although only brief, we get a glimspe of Trotsky's personal views on his fellow revolutionary leaders, if anything it highlights just how isolated Lenin truly was at this pivotal period in history.
March 26, 2013
I read two adbridgements of major books as an adolescent. One was Gibbon's Decline and Fall, the other Trotsky's History. Years later I reread the complete Decline, but have yet to do the History. Additionally, as an even younger person, I even read condensed works of fiction--usually from Readers' Digests' books which Nanny, our paternal grandmother, had around her cottage in Michigan.
All of this is mentioned as a kind of confession. I would never do such a thing today. Indeed, by college, I wouldn't even read the portions of books assigned without finishing the rest of the work. Virtually the only exceptions to this practice were assignments from volumes containing collected selections from various sources, many of which were inaccessible to me.
Reading all of Gibbon was certainly worth the effort. Reading all of Trotsky would likely be similarly rewarding. With Gibbon, much of the funnier and most controversial parts had been left out of the abridgement, particularly the stuff about the Church and the author's attitude towards it. With Trotsky, I can only wonder...
This notwithstanding, I found this condensed History a page-turner, enlivened by the fact that its author was a participant in many of the events he describes.
All of this is mentioned as a kind of confession. I would never do such a thing today. Indeed, by college, I wouldn't even read the portions of books assigned without finishing the rest of the work. Virtually the only exceptions to this practice were assignments from volumes containing collected selections from various sources, many of which were inaccessible to me.
Reading all of Gibbon was certainly worth the effort. Reading all of Trotsky would likely be similarly rewarding. With Gibbon, much of the funnier and most controversial parts had been left out of the abridgement, particularly the stuff about the Church and the author's attitude towards it. With Trotsky, I can only wonder...
This notwithstanding, I found this condensed History a page-turner, enlivened by the fact that its author was a participant in many of the events he describes.
August 3, 2015
A phenomenal work of historical and political writing. Every bit as good as its reputation suggests. I'm chagrined I've been so delinquent in arriving at this title. Now that I'm in it; I am loving the experience. Superbly written; arcing in scope; chock full of razor-keen insight and observation. Here is Trotsky at the height of his elocution. What a mind the man had.
May 25, 2022
Having read a fair amount that covers this momentous event, I was reasonably confident that any bias shown by the author in his take on how all came to be would be somewhat transparent. I need not have concerned myself, I found this to be thoroughly objective throughout; and an exemplary account.
It is an historical telling, but at the same time the story of the revolution is told, pulling you in and keeping you caught up in the drama. Outside of one's political leanings, it is apparent, Trotsky is a most accomplished penman and stresses from the very outset how in the telling of all history, the teller must remain impartial and, "ought first of all to tell what happened and how."
Trotsky strives to take a back seat, writes in the third person and notes his presence within proceedings sparingly. A better history book I doubt I have read and a better account of how the revolution of 1917 came to be, I doubt I have read.
I am most impressed with this and so glad I choose to pick it up.
It is an historical telling, but at the same time the story of the revolution is told, pulling you in and keeping you caught up in the drama. Outside of one's political leanings, it is apparent, Trotsky is a most accomplished penman and stresses from the very outset how in the telling of all history, the teller must remain impartial and, "ought first of all to tell what happened and how."
Trotsky strives to take a back seat, writes in the third person and notes his presence within proceedings sparingly. A better history book I doubt I have read and a better account of how the revolution of 1917 came to be, I doubt I have read.
I am most impressed with this and so glad I choose to pick it up.
December 2, 2012
Let's get this out of the way - yes, Trotsky's history is self-serving, both as a defense of the October Revolution and as a prop for Trotsky's own status as a revolutionary.
But this gets five stars for a number of reasons, first and foremost because Trotsky writes a gripping narrative that delves deep into the sociology that underpins 1917. But the real treasure in this read is the historical significance - has any other prime mover of such a massive historical event written an analytical history of that event? Other than memoirs, to my knowledge nothing else comes close.
Trotsky's greatest strength as an analyst is his understanding of the sociology of pre-revolutionary Russia and the social forces which propelled the revolution forward. His weakness - and the weakness of Bolshevism in general - is his blind faith in the science of history and revolution, that a "scientific" view of history and application of revolutionary technique could only produce such a result. This mechanistic view of society and how to manipulate it is the seed from which the totalitarian state grew.
This is a historical document of huge importance that also makes for a great read. Absolutely essential.
But this gets five stars for a number of reasons, first and foremost because Trotsky writes a gripping narrative that delves deep into the sociology that underpins 1917. But the real treasure in this read is the historical significance - has any other prime mover of such a massive historical event written an analytical history of that event? Other than memoirs, to my knowledge nothing else comes close.
Trotsky's greatest strength as an analyst is his understanding of the sociology of pre-revolutionary Russia and the social forces which propelled the revolution forward. His weakness - and the weakness of Bolshevism in general - is his blind faith in the science of history and revolution, that a "scientific" view of history and application of revolutionary technique could only produce such a result. This mechanistic view of society and how to manipulate it is the seed from which the totalitarian state grew.
This is a historical document of huge importance that also makes for a great read. Absolutely essential.
April 28, 2025
I've not read that much (enough) on the subject. However, I found Trotsky's take on events most satisfying: easy to read and all round rather objective.
July 27, 2024
An epic and yet remarkably thorough account of one of the greatest event in human history, where even the most mundane detail carries a significance and a lesson for the new generation of revolutionaries. One of Trotsky's masterpieces.
January 24, 2021
من چی میتونم بگم واقعا؟ بعضی کتاب ها اینقدر عظیم هستن که نوشتن درباره اشون واقعا سخته .این کتاب هم دقیقا یه همچین اثریه.واقعا فاخره و جز افتخارات مطالعاتی من اینه که (تاریخ انقلاب روسیه) رو خوندم و جملات زیادیش رو خط کشیدم و هایلایت کردم.به نظرم برای خوندن این کتاب باید حتما با اصول و مفاهیم مارکسیسم،لنینیسم،سوسیالیسم،کمونیسم اشنایی داشت و البته تاریخچه مختصری از انقلاب بلوشیکی بلد بود .وگرنه واقعا خوندش سخت میشه .در کل بی نهایت دوسش داشتم و از جملات نابش لذت بردم
July 15, 2009
OK I really likes this book. The modestly told tale of Trotsky's personal life is beautifully woven with the monumental tale of the crisis of capital, war and the class struggle. The will of millions, the reviled heroes and honored betrayers all are summed up calmly and masterfully. The man writes like he lived- with an unshaken confidence in the course of human history.
July 29, 2014
Trotsky's masterpiece and not only the greatest work of history, but a great work of literature. Aristotle, in the Poetics, said a gift for metaphor is the surest sign of literary genius. And Trotsky's gift for metaphor is second only to the likes of Shakespeare, Homer and Milton.
December 4, 2020
I've started reading this because perspective is very interesting: a man who actually MADE the coup and WON civil war was later rejected by the revolution, expelled and murdered. What he had to say about the whole thing in 1931? Well, the only thing he wanted, was to whiten black dog. At some point I couldn't bear anymore the amount of lies and blind-eyeing about bolsheviks intentions, actions and methods. Hell with him and his book. I think those old bolsheviks who were imprisoned under stalin and argued if their fate would be the same if Trotsky would win... They should have known it would.
March 4, 2023
After reading this for the better part of a year, I am so happy to mark it as finished. Things that I didn't like: it was incredibly long-winded, and the style was very convoluted in its storytelling. Trotsky at times seems defensive of himself, the Bolshevik party, and Lenin, and in those cases his writing makes a lot of assumptions about what the reader has already heard about the events in question, which is not helpful if you're new to the story.
However, I learned so much reading this. The revolutionary spirit and the intense amount of hope and promise during the revolution really shine through, as well as the author's marked disappointment and disillusionment with the Stalin regime.
Overall I would not recommend this to anyone unless you are completely obsessed with Russian history like I am.
However, I learned so much reading this. The revolutionary spirit and the intense amount of hope and promise during the revolution really shine through, as well as the author's marked disappointment and disillusionment with the Stalin regime.
Overall I would not recommend this to anyone unless you are completely obsessed with Russian history like I am.
November 25, 2017
This famed and, perhaps overly, influential book is, if nothing else, a very good read. At almost 1200 pages it doesn’t feel overly long, and that in and of itself is an accomplishment. The english language reader’s enjoyment is greatly accentuated by Max Eastman’s spectacular translation. If one didn’t know better, one would think the three volumes that comprise this book were written in English.
As even his enemies would sometimes acknowledge, Trotsky was a hell of a writer. Here, he adopts a pseudo-observational perspective borrowed in no small part from Thomas Carlyle’s history of the French Revolution. Carlyle’s perspective was psuedo-observational because he was writing as if he were a man on the streets of Paris in 1791, when he would not yet be born until decades later. Trotsky’s observationalism is equally artificial, but for completely opposite reasons. Not only was he alive and present during the events he is describing, but he was one of the key actors in those events. Trotsky, as a writer, certainly is not being modest. Rather, he is trying to make his version of events seem more “objective” by writing about his role in them in the third person. Trotsky the Revolutionary is a key character in Trotsky the Historian’s narrative. It reads as less self-aggrandizing to attribute actions to “Trotsky” rather than to “I/ me/ myself” but, of course, that is what Trotsky is doing. To be fair, however, I think most responsible historians would not claim that Trotsky is overestimating his own importance during the months between the February and October Revolutions. Especially as the latter grew near, he was, more than Lenin who was in hiding, the face of the Bolsheviks to the masses that would kick the Provisional Government out of power.
Trotsky’s writing also shares with Carlyle’s the attribute of being extremely affecting. Both writers beautifully convey the tension of cities convulsing with world changing events, masses hurtling between revolution and reaction, sometimes simultaneously. The main difference is that Carlyle was a beautiful, but pretentious prose stylist, where Trotsky’s language is far more to the point. This is not to say that Trotsky is never pretentious, just that it does not affect his writing style. He loves to show off his intellectualism, sometimes pausing the historical narrative to offer harsh critiques of “bourgeois” literary figures, such as Proust, just to show that while he may not like them, you better believe he’s read them!
Trotsky had a multitude of motivations for writing this history. The first and foremost was financial survival. He wrote it in exile, and publishing was the only means he had to support himself and his family (hence his efforts to make it a page-turner). Secondly, he was trying to counter the Stalinist revisionist lies that were being told about him in the USSR. Thirdly, Trotsky wants to propose his interpretation of the events of 1917 as a kind of blue-print for world revolution. It might not seem so, but this is at heart a theoretical book, and perhaps this is its deepest flaw.
Trotsky rejects notions that the February Revolution that ousted Russian feudalism was, as often proposed, “spontaneous.” Rather, he tries to convince the reader that the February Revolution was the delayed response to the frustrations of the defeated uprisings of 1905, during which the Soviets were founded. This is not unreasonable in and of itself. Indeed, the significance of the worker’s soviets is undeniable. But one must wonder how much Trotsky insists on the paramount significance of 1905 because doing so enhances his own historical significance as he played a leading role in 1905 as, at the time, an opponent of the Bolsheviks.
For Trotsky, Russia did indeed experience a bourgeois revolution and a capitalist phase. The only difference from the other capitalist states is that Russia’s capitalist phase lasted only eight months. Indeed, this nearly 1200 page book is actually the history of capitalist Russia, it’s sudden rise, very short life, and violent death. Trotsky argues that because Russia’s capitalist revolution was so historically late it’s contradictions were, from it’s inception, over-ripe. England had the earliest such revolution. But because it was the first, it’s revolutionary class, the bourgeois, were untested. They therefore formed an alliance with the reactionary feudal class that survives to this day. Russia’s bourgeois had the opposite problem. By the time they took power they were already an old, quasi-decrepid class that’s oppressive nature had already been demonstrated to the proletariat.
Indeed, Russia’s bourgeois, according to Trotsky, never actually took power. The Russian workers swept away the monarchy and then, being as untested and clueless as the English bourgeois had been, gave the power to the bourgeois not knowing what else to do.
One is struck by how marginal a role Trotsky ascribes to the Bolshevik Party, especially in the early sections of the book. In this too, Trotsky has political motivations. During the course of the February Revolution and its direct after-math, the Bolsheviks were being led by Trotsky’s arch enemy Stalin while Lenin was still in exile. Throughout the book Trotsky tries to minimize and marginalize Stalin’s contributions.
But he also has a theoretical motivation for making the Bolsheviks seem initially irrelevant. Perhaps the theoretical core of the book is the proposition of a dialectical relationship between the masses and the “vanguard” represented by the revolutionary party. The masses have power and energy but lack political vision. The vanguard is wise but, in and of itself, impotent. (Trotsky’s interpretation of “vanguardism” is, indeed, elitist, more so than that of Lenin’s conception of the vanguard party as an organization of the most ACTIVE revolutionaries.) The revolutionary process is envisioned by Trotsky as the dialectical process by which the masses empower the vanguard and the vanguard enlightens the masses.
The Bolsheviks, Trotsky insists, consistently proposed the best strategies. But their radical nature was too alien for the inexperienced masses, who still did not understand their own power, to embrace. They turned first to the bourgeois, then to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionary “compromisers” and even to the anarchists, before they embraced the radical social vision of the Bolsheviks, but, through trial and error, they came to realize the slogans of the Bolsheviks as the best, adopted those slogans, and put the Bolsheviks in power.
This interpretation makes the actual organizational and conspiratorial activity of the Bolsheviks essentially irrelevant. The only significant thing they did, from Trotsky’s perspective, was to put forth the slogans that would properly militarize the masses who in turn empower the Party. Indeed, it might well have seemed that way to Trotsky who did not, after all, join the Bolsheviks until well after the February Revolution and did not know or understand the Party’s activity in Russia in the proceeding years. A veteran, on the ground, Bolshevik activist such as Stalin might reasonably have objected to such a depiction.
Trotsky’s notion of the dynamic between the Party and the masses has had some unfortunate, lasting consequences for the movement that calls itself “Trotskyist.” For many such groups, politics is not about engaging in actual struggle or even interacting with workers. Rather, one must simply put forward the “correctly revolutionary” slogan in one’s tiny newspaper and the workers will, one day, pick up that newspaper, love the slogan and put some obscure little cabal of commies into absolute power. Much partisan silliness has gone down in the name of Trotsky’s theoretical formations, especially in the “advanced” capitalist countries.
As much as Trotsky is imagined to be the commie-anti-Stalin, I found myself seeing as many similarities between the two men as differences. Trotsky insists that the revolutionary process he describes is not just a description of how the Bolsheviks took power in Russia but of how the working class in all countries can be victorious. Similarly, Stalin thought that only communist parties that precisely copied the format of the Bolsheviks could, or should, take power. Trotsky’s account is far more cosmopolitan and nuanced than that of Stalin, but in the end it is as absolutist.
Lenin does, indeed, seem the most thoughtful of the three most celebrated leaders of Bolshevism. He never lost sight of the fact that his struggle was, at least initially, a Russian one and that the strategies embraced were reactions to particular contexts and particular challenges. Furthermore, he was unafraid to admit that some strategies had been mistaken and should be rethought or rejected. As Marx was “definitely not a Marxist” Lenin could be said to not be a Leninist. Stalin was an absolute Stalinist and Trotsky was, alas, a Trotskyist.
As even his enemies would sometimes acknowledge, Trotsky was a hell of a writer. Here, he adopts a pseudo-observational perspective borrowed in no small part from Thomas Carlyle’s history of the French Revolution. Carlyle’s perspective was psuedo-observational because he was writing as if he were a man on the streets of Paris in 1791, when he would not yet be born until decades later. Trotsky’s observationalism is equally artificial, but for completely opposite reasons. Not only was he alive and present during the events he is describing, but he was one of the key actors in those events. Trotsky, as a writer, certainly is not being modest. Rather, he is trying to make his version of events seem more “objective” by writing about his role in them in the third person. Trotsky the Revolutionary is a key character in Trotsky the Historian’s narrative. It reads as less self-aggrandizing to attribute actions to “Trotsky” rather than to “I/ me/ myself” but, of course, that is what Trotsky is doing. To be fair, however, I think most responsible historians would not claim that Trotsky is overestimating his own importance during the months between the February and October Revolutions. Especially as the latter grew near, he was, more than Lenin who was in hiding, the face of the Bolsheviks to the masses that would kick the Provisional Government out of power.
Trotsky’s writing also shares with Carlyle’s the attribute of being extremely affecting. Both writers beautifully convey the tension of cities convulsing with world changing events, masses hurtling between revolution and reaction, sometimes simultaneously. The main difference is that Carlyle was a beautiful, but pretentious prose stylist, where Trotsky’s language is far more to the point. This is not to say that Trotsky is never pretentious, just that it does not affect his writing style. He loves to show off his intellectualism, sometimes pausing the historical narrative to offer harsh critiques of “bourgeois” literary figures, such as Proust, just to show that while he may not like them, you better believe he’s read them!
Trotsky had a multitude of motivations for writing this history. The first and foremost was financial survival. He wrote it in exile, and publishing was the only means he had to support himself and his family (hence his efforts to make it a page-turner). Secondly, he was trying to counter the Stalinist revisionist lies that were being told about him in the USSR. Thirdly, Trotsky wants to propose his interpretation of the events of 1917 as a kind of blue-print for world revolution. It might not seem so, but this is at heart a theoretical book, and perhaps this is its deepest flaw.
Trotsky rejects notions that the February Revolution that ousted Russian feudalism was, as often proposed, “spontaneous.” Rather, he tries to convince the reader that the February Revolution was the delayed response to the frustrations of the defeated uprisings of 1905, during which the Soviets were founded. This is not unreasonable in and of itself. Indeed, the significance of the worker’s soviets is undeniable. But one must wonder how much Trotsky insists on the paramount significance of 1905 because doing so enhances his own historical significance as he played a leading role in 1905 as, at the time, an opponent of the Bolsheviks.
For Trotsky, Russia did indeed experience a bourgeois revolution and a capitalist phase. The only difference from the other capitalist states is that Russia’s capitalist phase lasted only eight months. Indeed, this nearly 1200 page book is actually the history of capitalist Russia, it’s sudden rise, very short life, and violent death. Trotsky argues that because Russia’s capitalist revolution was so historically late it’s contradictions were, from it’s inception, over-ripe. England had the earliest such revolution. But because it was the first, it’s revolutionary class, the bourgeois, were untested. They therefore formed an alliance with the reactionary feudal class that survives to this day. Russia’s bourgeois had the opposite problem. By the time they took power they were already an old, quasi-decrepid class that’s oppressive nature had already been demonstrated to the proletariat.
Indeed, Russia’s bourgeois, according to Trotsky, never actually took power. The Russian workers swept away the monarchy and then, being as untested and clueless as the English bourgeois had been, gave the power to the bourgeois not knowing what else to do.
One is struck by how marginal a role Trotsky ascribes to the Bolshevik Party, especially in the early sections of the book. In this too, Trotsky has political motivations. During the course of the February Revolution and its direct after-math, the Bolsheviks were being led by Trotsky’s arch enemy Stalin while Lenin was still in exile. Throughout the book Trotsky tries to minimize and marginalize Stalin’s contributions.
But he also has a theoretical motivation for making the Bolsheviks seem initially irrelevant. Perhaps the theoretical core of the book is the proposition of a dialectical relationship between the masses and the “vanguard” represented by the revolutionary party. The masses have power and energy but lack political vision. The vanguard is wise but, in and of itself, impotent. (Trotsky’s interpretation of “vanguardism” is, indeed, elitist, more so than that of Lenin’s conception of the vanguard party as an organization of the most ACTIVE revolutionaries.) The revolutionary process is envisioned by Trotsky as the dialectical process by which the masses empower the vanguard and the vanguard enlightens the masses.
The Bolsheviks, Trotsky insists, consistently proposed the best strategies. But their radical nature was too alien for the inexperienced masses, who still did not understand their own power, to embrace. They turned first to the bourgeois, then to the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionary “compromisers” and even to the anarchists, before they embraced the radical social vision of the Bolsheviks, but, through trial and error, they came to realize the slogans of the Bolsheviks as the best, adopted those slogans, and put the Bolsheviks in power.
This interpretation makes the actual organizational and conspiratorial activity of the Bolsheviks essentially irrelevant. The only significant thing they did, from Trotsky’s perspective, was to put forth the slogans that would properly militarize the masses who in turn empower the Party. Indeed, it might well have seemed that way to Trotsky who did not, after all, join the Bolsheviks until well after the February Revolution and did not know or understand the Party’s activity in Russia in the proceeding years. A veteran, on the ground, Bolshevik activist such as Stalin might reasonably have objected to such a depiction.
Trotsky’s notion of the dynamic between the Party and the masses has had some unfortunate, lasting consequences for the movement that calls itself “Trotskyist.” For many such groups, politics is not about engaging in actual struggle or even interacting with workers. Rather, one must simply put forward the “correctly revolutionary” slogan in one’s tiny newspaper and the workers will, one day, pick up that newspaper, love the slogan and put some obscure little cabal of commies into absolute power. Much partisan silliness has gone down in the name of Trotsky’s theoretical formations, especially in the “advanced” capitalist countries.
As much as Trotsky is imagined to be the commie-anti-Stalin, I found myself seeing as many similarities between the two men as differences. Trotsky insists that the revolutionary process he describes is not just a description of how the Bolsheviks took power in Russia but of how the working class in all countries can be victorious. Similarly, Stalin thought that only communist parties that precisely copied the format of the Bolsheviks could, or should, take power. Trotsky’s account is far more cosmopolitan and nuanced than that of Stalin, but in the end it is as absolutist.
Lenin does, indeed, seem the most thoughtful of the three most celebrated leaders of Bolshevism. He never lost sight of the fact that his struggle was, at least initially, a Russian one and that the strategies embraced were reactions to particular contexts and particular challenges. Furthermore, he was unafraid to admit that some strategies had been mistaken and should be rethought or rejected. As Marx was “definitely not a Marxist” Lenin could be said to not be a Leninist. Stalin was an absolute Stalinist and Trotsky was, alas, a Trotskyist.
October 14, 2025
Trotsky comprehensively details, step by step, the developments from the February revolution and the overthrow of Tsarism to the October insurrection and the Congress of the Soviet Dictatorship.
He delineates the complexities of the political relations between the parties, and the failure of the Povisional Government to break from the bourgeoisie, succumb to the will of the masses, and end the war. He offers insight into how the proletarian revolution transformed to incorporate the peasantry.
It is clear from the description of events that the incompatible alliance of social revolutionaries and Mensheviks, ‘the compromisers’ forming the provisional government, paved the way for the single minded communist dictatorship.
Trotsky claims historical objectivism guided solely by facts found in records. He even speaks of himself in the third person. Yet somehow, the reader can sense his influence in the narrative. He implies his crucial and architectural role in the revolution. He does not hide his abhorrence for Stalin, nor his conviction that Stalin is attempting to rewrite the history of the revolution.
The points I take issue with are Trotsky’s insinuations that the insurrection occurred without blood spilled and with hardly any resistance, for example, his claim the telephone exchange was captured without a battle, and that every bicycle battalion sent by Kerensky came over to the side of the revolutionary people. He also rarely alludes to the civil war.
What Trotsky does is fail to portray the true nature of the Bolsheviks. Their polarising politics and ruthless inhumanity gave rise to a civil war that took the lives of 12 million people. Yet Trotsky describes the question of whether the ‘consequences of a revolution justify the sacrifices’ as ‘fruitless’.
Seems rather fitting that I read this book from February to October.
He delineates the complexities of the political relations between the parties, and the failure of the Povisional Government to break from the bourgeoisie, succumb to the will of the masses, and end the war. He offers insight into how the proletarian revolution transformed to incorporate the peasantry.
It is clear from the description of events that the incompatible alliance of social revolutionaries and Mensheviks, ‘the compromisers’ forming the provisional government, paved the way for the single minded communist dictatorship.
Trotsky claims historical objectivism guided solely by facts found in records. He even speaks of himself in the third person. Yet somehow, the reader can sense his influence in the narrative. He implies his crucial and architectural role in the revolution. He does not hide his abhorrence for Stalin, nor his conviction that Stalin is attempting to rewrite the history of the revolution.
The points I take issue with are Trotsky’s insinuations that the insurrection occurred without blood spilled and with hardly any resistance, for example, his claim the telephone exchange was captured without a battle, and that every bicycle battalion sent by Kerensky came over to the side of the revolutionary people. He also rarely alludes to the civil war.
What Trotsky does is fail to portray the true nature of the Bolsheviks. Their polarising politics and ruthless inhumanity gave rise to a civil war that took the lives of 12 million people. Yet Trotsky describes the question of whether the ‘consequences of a revolution justify the sacrifices’ as ‘fruitless’.
Seems rather fitting that I read this book from February to October.
January 25, 2025
I wouldn’t think it possible for somebody to do justice to the Russian revolution in one book. Yet Trotsky captures the revolution’s magnitude, lessons and beauty in one piece of work.
‘Elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process. To the smug politicians of liberalism and tamed socialism everything that happens among masses is customarily represented as an instinctive process, no matter whether they are dealing with an anthill or a beehive. In reality the thought which was drilling through the thick of the working class was far bolder, more penetrating, more conscious, than those little ideas by which the educated classes live.’
‘Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.’
‘Elements of experience, criticism, initiative, self-sacrifice, seeped down through the mass and created, invisibly to a superficial glance but no less decisively, an inner mechanics of the revolutionary movement as a conscious process. To the smug politicians of liberalism and tamed socialism everything that happens among masses is customarily represented as an instinctive process, no matter whether they are dealing with an anthill or a beehive. In reality the thought which was drilling through the thick of the working class was far bolder, more penetrating, more conscious, than those little ideas by which the educated classes live.’
‘Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston box. But nevertheless what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam.’
November 14, 2025
an absolutely immense work of great power and relevance. should be read by anyone with even the slightest interest in 20th century history, Russian history or the history of left-wing politics.
December 31, 2024
This massive book is a relatively objective overview of the Russian Revolution. I mean, it’s objective when set against any history written by one of the prime over of the events it describes. Even so, it’s not a particularly exciting read and I can’t say I learned much that I hadn’t already encountered in many other histories. And for my money, I would recommend Trotsky’s autobiography to get a better sense of the man’s literary skill and charismatic personality.
June 9, 2013
god lesning. Jeg hadde ikke sånne forhåpninger. Jeg er generellt ikke spesielt imponert av den trotskistiske retninga. Men dette er ganske god marxisme, altså.
Jeg liker virkelig godt hvordan han sammenligner forskjellige revolusjoner og opprør gjennom tidene, og systematiserer i stadier og faser, noe som gjør at det er en nyttig bok i forståelsen av andre opprør og revolusjoner av en hvis størrelse. Også de i moderne tid. Mye av dynamikken er ganske lik. Jeg hadde stor nytte av den for å skjønne det egyptiske opprøret, foreksempel.
Det var også overaskende for meg var å se at Trotsky jo strengt tatt ikke er enig med trotskistene på det nasjonale spørsmålet. Han står nærmere Stalin På dette enn jeg trodde, mens han kritiserer Rosa Luxenburg og Spartakistene ganske hardt på deres "internasjonalistiske" linje.
Jeg leste en svensk versjon.
Jeg liker virkelig godt hvordan han sammenligner forskjellige revolusjoner og opprør gjennom tidene, og systematiserer i stadier og faser, noe som gjør at det er en nyttig bok i forståelsen av andre opprør og revolusjoner av en hvis størrelse. Også de i moderne tid. Mye av dynamikken er ganske lik. Jeg hadde stor nytte av den for å skjønne det egyptiske opprøret, foreksempel.
Det var også overaskende for meg var å se at Trotsky jo strengt tatt ikke er enig med trotskistene på det nasjonale spørsmålet. Han står nærmere Stalin På dette enn jeg trodde, mens han kritiserer Rosa Luxenburg og Spartakistene ganske hardt på deres "internasjonalistiske" linje.
Jeg leste en svensk versjon.
November 30, 2024
Leon Trotsky was, uncommonly for a Marxist theorist, a fine writer, and he had the advantage of his role as a major player in the Revolution and the subsequent Civil War. As a professional insurrectionist, he had a deep interest in the causes of the Revolution, and his writing (like the man himself) has a flair for the dramatic. Trotsky, whatever else he was, could really write and, of course, he was an important participant in the events. Occasionally there are long passages of Marxist theory and Trotsky couldn't be accused of historical neutrality. But it's a great read and a good way to learn about the Revolution from the inside. I wouldn't say it should be the first book you read about it, but it could be the second.
February 4, 2023
”Even supposing for a moment that owing to unfavourable circumstances and hostile blows the Soviet régime should be temporarily overthrown, the inexpugnable impress of the October revolution would nevertheless remain upon the whole future development of mankind.”
June 23, 2007
An unsurpassed contribution to history of the Russian Revolution in particular and to the Marxist analysis of history in general! The best book I ever read!
April 8, 2013
Best book I've ever read. Period!
Still waiting for the revolution mind.
Still waiting for the revolution mind.
November 11, 2025
rich use of metaphor and portraits of the leading figures.
April 19, 2025
Not going to mine any words, reading this book was quite a significant commitment. That being said, I definitely came off with a better understanding of the Russian Revolution as a historical event than before. I would say that it is very well worth reading to get a deep, reflexive account of the events of October (though by no means should one think that this is the definitive account, in history there is no such thing and I believe that Trotsky would more or less agree).
There were aspects of the narrative that were an absolute slog to get through. A book of this size and scope typically will do one of the following: it will revel in a minute accounting of the names of people, organizations, etc. with no narrative content (e.g. the stuff that actually makes a work of history, the analysis of discrete facts) or it forsakes the depth of data for fluff; Trotsky manages to successfully incorporate both aspects to make reading the book less of a chore and his insight is at times valuable. In comparison to many accounts of the events on which Trotsky was drawing from, such as Sukhanov's Eyewitness account and many contemporary literature, it has an intimacy with many of the important personages of the revolution that are unparalleled and has a good grasp of Marx's theory of history, which he uses as a way to synthesize the story in a way which other accounts miss, this will be discussed in depth later when discussing the theoretical insights of this work. There were some interesting historical bits that I was not aware of, which I appreciated were included to illustrate the international impact of the revolution and its magnitude. In one section, there is a description of a mutiny by Russian expeditionary forces in France who upon hearing of political upheaval in their home country refused to continue fighting for the Entente Powers; these troops, though loyal to the Provisional Government, fought off repeated attacks by French troops sent to apprehend them. One gets a sense for the immense political struggle for the hearts and minds of the populations of the Empire between the Provisional Government and the Radical forces in the country. It also is quite interesting how Trotsky manages to downplay some of the badass stuff that he and other Bolsheviks managed to pull off during the insurrection in October, like how he and a couple other delegates managed to 'capture' the Peter and Paul Fortress in Petrograd without firing a shot (other accounts like Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks Come to Power give more details); though the narrative suffers some limitations like its downplaying/polemicizing of the role that Stalin and others like Kamenev had in the months when other prominent party leaders were in hiding or arrested (though Trotsky is correct in his criticism of the former two wanting to compromise with the Provisional Government).
There were some interesting theory bits as well that stood out to me. Trotsky uses historical evidence to back his claim that in poor countries there cannot be two-stage revolutions, using the first chapter of the book to point out that the combination of political autocracy which led to a complacent bourgeois class in Russia (which was too comfortable and weak to seek political power for itself), grinding poverty in the countryside, the creation of large monopolist industry with a well-organized working class, etc. precluded the rise of a 'pluralist' liberal democratic order. On the surface this seems like a plausible theory which can explain the appeal of theories like Marxism in places as varied as China, Latin America and Africa. Another interesting bit is Trotsky's analysis of the theory of Revolution, to which he dedicates many digressions. Many critics of the Bolsheviks call them 'Blanquists' of some variety (Trotsky also criticizes contemporary accounts of this sort like Curzo Malaparte's Coup d'Etat book, which recently gained popularity due to Zizek's discussion of it), which acted with little to no popular mandate and seized power from a democratic government. Trotsky gives Blanqui credit where it is due, claiming that while the former understood the technique of insurrections, the importance of a mass popular movement with which the party is integrated with is given emphasis. It is why the Bolsheviks refrained from seizing power in the July Days, Trotsky says, because while support was sufficient in the Capital City, the provinces were still hoping for reforms that would make the Provisional Government more responsive and democratic. There is a deep understanding of the pedagogical role that political organizations must play in mass-based movements.
With the benefit of hindsight, participants in events of world historic events like Lenin and Trotsky are able to distill the essence of their Revolution which was built on a mass movement for change. I may disagree with Trotskyists on many things, but the man who inspired their ideas shines here as a chronicler, who in spite of his mistakes after the Revolution, manages to capture the immensity of the events of October in an account that is expansive and worth reading.
There were aspects of the narrative that were an absolute slog to get through. A book of this size and scope typically will do one of the following: it will revel in a minute accounting of the names of people, organizations, etc. with no narrative content (e.g. the stuff that actually makes a work of history, the analysis of discrete facts) or it forsakes the depth of data for fluff; Trotsky manages to successfully incorporate both aspects to make reading the book less of a chore and his insight is at times valuable. In comparison to many accounts of the events on which Trotsky was drawing from, such as Sukhanov's Eyewitness account and many contemporary literature, it has an intimacy with many of the important personages of the revolution that are unparalleled and has a good grasp of Marx's theory of history, which he uses as a way to synthesize the story in a way which other accounts miss, this will be discussed in depth later when discussing the theoretical insights of this work. There were some interesting historical bits that I was not aware of, which I appreciated were included to illustrate the international impact of the revolution and its magnitude. In one section, there is a description of a mutiny by Russian expeditionary forces in France who upon hearing of political upheaval in their home country refused to continue fighting for the Entente Powers; these troops, though loyal to the Provisional Government, fought off repeated attacks by French troops sent to apprehend them. One gets a sense for the immense political struggle for the hearts and minds of the populations of the Empire between the Provisional Government and the Radical forces in the country. It also is quite interesting how Trotsky manages to downplay some of the badass stuff that he and other Bolsheviks managed to pull off during the insurrection in October, like how he and a couple other delegates managed to 'capture' the Peter and Paul Fortress in Petrograd without firing a shot (other accounts like Rabinowitch's The Bolsheviks Come to Power give more details); though the narrative suffers some limitations like its downplaying/polemicizing of the role that Stalin and others like Kamenev had in the months when other prominent party leaders were in hiding or arrested (though Trotsky is correct in his criticism of the former two wanting to compromise with the Provisional Government).
There were some interesting theory bits as well that stood out to me. Trotsky uses historical evidence to back his claim that in poor countries there cannot be two-stage revolutions, using the first chapter of the book to point out that the combination of political autocracy which led to a complacent bourgeois class in Russia (which was too comfortable and weak to seek political power for itself), grinding poverty in the countryside, the creation of large monopolist industry with a well-organized working class, etc. precluded the rise of a 'pluralist' liberal democratic order. On the surface this seems like a plausible theory which can explain the appeal of theories like Marxism in places as varied as China, Latin America and Africa. Another interesting bit is Trotsky's analysis of the theory of Revolution, to which he dedicates many digressions. Many critics of the Bolsheviks call them 'Blanquists' of some variety (Trotsky also criticizes contemporary accounts of this sort like Curzo Malaparte's Coup d'Etat book, which recently gained popularity due to Zizek's discussion of it), which acted with little to no popular mandate and seized power from a democratic government. Trotsky gives Blanqui credit where it is due, claiming that while the former understood the technique of insurrections, the importance of a mass popular movement with which the party is integrated with is given emphasis. It is why the Bolsheviks refrained from seizing power in the July Days, Trotsky says, because while support was sufficient in the Capital City, the provinces were still hoping for reforms that would make the Provisional Government more responsive and democratic. There is a deep understanding of the pedagogical role that political organizations must play in mass-based movements.
With the benefit of hindsight, participants in events of world historic events like Lenin and Trotsky are able to distill the essence of their Revolution which was built on a mass movement for change. I may disagree with Trotskyists on many things, but the man who inspired their ideas shines here as a chronicler, who in spite of his mistakes after the Revolution, manages to capture the immensity of the events of October in an account that is expansive and worth reading.
December 23, 2022
دعونا لا نقيم شخصية تروتسكى كثورى نظرا لعدم مناسبة المكان ولكن دعونا نقيمه كمؤرخ بعد قرائتنا لتأريخه لثورة من أهم الثورات فى التاريخ والتى كان عنصرا هاما فيها من بدايتها وحتى نهايتها ونظرا لكونه قريبا من الشعب ومن الطبقات السياسية الثورية وشبه الثوريه ونظرا لطبيعة مهمته وموقعه فقد كان متطلعا على التطورات السياسية لحظة بلحظة . وهى كلها عوامل تجعل تأريخه لتلك الثورة ذو أهمية بالغه ولكن ذلك لا يمنعنا من نقد هذا التأريخ والانفتاح على النظرات المعارضة المعاصرة له ، والنقد المعاصر لهذا التاريخ .
يرى تروتسكى الثورة الروسية فى فبراير ١٩١٧ كإمتداد لثورة ١٩٠٥ والتى تنازل فيها الإمبراطور و أقر بعض المطالب السياسية للمعارضة الشعبية بعد الهزيمة فى الحرب اليابانية ، ثم تراجع القيصر عن تنازلاته السياسية فيما تلى مستخدما القمع البوليسى وسلطة الحاكم الفردى .
وبعد ان اعتقد القيصر نيقولا الثانى ان خوض روسيا غمار الحرب فى ١٩١٤ هو الخلاص بالنسبة له من التوتر السياسى الداخلى ، كانت الحرب على خلاف ذلك سبباً مواتياً لخلاص الشعب النهائى من الحكم القيصرى فى فبراير ١٩١٧ .
ولكن كما كان تقديم بعض التنازلات السياسية اثر ثورة ١٩٠٥ مجرد مخاتلة حتى استتباب الوضع ، كذلك كان التنازل عن العرش فى فبراير ١٩١٧ مجرد مخاتلة سياسية اخرى للشعب .
وكادت المخاتلة الثانية ان تتم كالأولى فالتنازل عن العرش وتشكيل حكومة من المعارضة البرجوازية ( حزب الكاديت ) والليبرالية كان مجرد غياب إضطرارى عملت الحكومة الثورية ذاتها على أن يكون غياب العرش مؤقتاً .
على حين ضمن تشكيل السوفييتات ولو شكليا تحقيق انجازات ومطالب الثورة أمام الشعب على أرض الواقع . ويتم في السوفييتات تمثيل كافة المقاطعات و الطبقات والقطاعات الاقتصادية كعمال المصانع والنقابات والجنود وجاءت انتخابات السوفييتات بيمين المعارضة والتى تضم الديماغوغيون والطوباويون من الاشتراكيين الثوريين الأكثر إنتشارا بين الطبقات الشعبية والفلاحين الروس ، والمناشفة وهم يمين المعارضة اليسارية من المثقفين والانتلجنسيا الروسية .
وظلت الحكومة البرجوازية والتى جائت بمباركة التوفيقيين ( قيادات السوفييت ) تعمل ضد الارادة الثورية والتى يمكن تلخيص أهم مطالبها بإنهاء الحرب وحل مشاكل ملكية الفلاحين الصغار للأرض حيث ظلت الحكومة بمساعدة السوفييت تعمل على تأجيل أخذ قرارات وإجراءات فى هذه الأمور الحاسمة بالنسبة للفلاحين والجنود ولا ننسى كذلك تأجيل حل مطالب العمال من تثبيت يوم العمل ب ٨ ساعات وتعديل الأجور بما يتناسب وأرباح الشركات المستغلة للبروليتاريا .
ويوضح تروتسكى أن المماطلة وعدم اتخاذ قرارات او التأخر فى اتخاذها فى أفضل الأحوال كانت الروح السائدة لدى حكومة ثورة فبراير البرجوازية . وهو الأمر الذى افتضح على يد لينين لدى عودته من المنفى مطلع ابريل والذى دفع الجماهير الثورية دفعة كبيرة الى اليسار ، ويوضح تروتسكى الخوف الذى ساد لدى طبقات السياسيين المختلفة الاتجاهات بما فيها نخبة الحزب البلشفى الذى ينتمى له لينين والذى سينضم له تروتسكى فيما بعد بسبب اتفاقه مع لينين على الأهداف الثورية الرئيسية وتأجيل او نسيان خلافات دامت لأعوام سابقة .
وبعد ان استشعرت الجماهير الخطر وخصوصا الفلاحين الذين انضموا مؤخرا الى الاحتجاجات الثورية ، سقطت الحكومة البرجوازية التى ظلت تخفى العائلة الملكية خلف ستارها ولا شاغل لها الا استمرار الحرب لما تغذى به هذه البرجوازية من أرباح طائلة ، ثم الحفاظ على ثروات الطبقات المالكة دون مساس . وهنا كادت انتفاضة تشبه اتتفاضة اكتوبر اللاحقة ان تقع لولا محاولة البرجوازية لتدارك الموقف فسلمت مقاليدها اللى الليبرالية والتى تولى رئاسة حكومتها ووزارة دفاعها كرنسكى كغطاء من المعارضة السياسية القديمة والذى لم يتورع عن العمل لصالح الطبقات المالكة والرأسمالية الروسية والتآمر الذى وصل حد الفضيحة عند محاولة الجنرال كورنيلوف قمع الثورة التى كانت حماستها وخبرتها السياسية تزداد يوما بعد يوم ، ولكن نظرا لخوف كرنسكى من الاطاحة به من على رأس الحكومة اذا نجح انقلاب كورنيلوف على الثورة التى جائت بكرنسكى الى رئاسة الوزراء والذى تعتبره الارستقراطية القيصرية والعسكرية احد العوام ، ونظرا كذلك لتعقد العلاقات الثورية التى ظل يشتد عودها يوما بعد يوم بين طبقات الفلاحين والعمال والجنود كان المصير الحتمى للثورة المضادة الكورنيلوفية هو الضياع التام وتوطيد الوضع الثورى .
وبعد ان انقذ كرنسكى نفسه من اعلان مشاركته فى المآمرة قام بتراجع امام الجماهير - التى جعلت كورنيلوف يولى الأدبار وحيدا - وقام بتغيير حكومته وتشكيل حكومة إئتلافية جديدة من التوفيقين اليساريين الذين كانت شعبيتهم آخذة فى الإضمحلال فى السوفييتات التى كانوا يمثلون أغلبية قيادتها منذ مارس ، وها هم فى اغسطس و نظرا لتعاونهم الصامت قدر الامكان مع الحكومات البرجوازية والليبرالية السابقة وتخاذلهم عن تحقيق مطالب الجمهور ، يخسرون شعبيتهم فى السوفييتات الديموقراطية وينتشر فى اماكنهم هذه البلاشفة الذين كانوا اخر امل للشعب الذى ضحى من أجل الحرية والسلام بآخر ما يملك . وفى المقابل تحول هذا اليمين اليسارى التوفيقى الى العمل الحكومى وتولى الوزارات والهيئات الى جانب البرجوازيين والليبراليين وكانت هذه فرصتهم الأخيرة لدى الشعب الذى لم يجد لديهم جديد ، ما حفز لينين صاحب الرؤية السياسية والفكر الثورى المناسب للوضع بقياس حرارة الثورة انذاك ونضاله ضد زعماء حزبه بشكل أساسى كى لا يخسروا تعاطف الجماهير كغيرهم من الأحزاب شبه المعارضة وكذلك كى يستغلوا سيطرتهم الحديثة على السوفييتات والتى تمثل درع الثورة القانونى الأول والتى تتقاسم السلطة والإدارة مع الحكومة كأحد اشكال ازدواجية السلطة . ولما اثبتت الحكومة فشلها فهى بالتالى لا تستحق ولو نصف سلطة فطالب لينين الحزب بتحريض الجماهير على انتفاضة اخيرة لقلب حكومة كرنسكى وفضح مؤامراتها والمطالبة بالسلطة الكاملة للسوفييتات التى أصبحت بشكل كبير تحت سيطرة البلاشفة وهو ما تم فى أكتوبر بتضامن لا نظير له بين الفلاحين والعمال والجنود الذين وعدهم البلاشفة بالحق فى الأرض وبإنهاء الحرب وتشكيل حكومة اشتراكية .
ونهايةً أعتقد ان التماسك فى بناء تفاصيل الثورة وفى مواقف الأشخاص النابعة من تمثل شخصياتهم التى يصورها لنا تروتسكى بعبقرية لا تخلو من الاستحسان ولا السخرية اللاذعة هى أهم العوامل التى تجعلنا نتفق بشكل مبدئى مع سير الأحداث كما رواها ولا تؤثر هذه الاراء الشخصية من استحسان او سخرية على الطبيعة الموضوعية للكتاب بل انها جزء لا يتجزأ من الفهم الأعمق للأحداث فراويها والذى كان أقل الشخصيات ذكرا فى الكتاب والذى عامل نفسه بصيغة الغائب خلال السرد كان فى نظرى ثانى أهم القيادات الثورية بعد لينين وهو ذو حس وذكاء سياسى حادين وهو يوضح بصراحة الالاعيب السياسية وكيفية استغلال الظروف لكل طرف سياسى . الا انه أثبت كذلك ان المخاتلات والنظريات والأيديولوجيات السياسية وحدها ليست العوامل الحاسمة خلال الثورات بل يجب ان يتمتع أحد قادة الثورة بحس فنى اسماه فن الانتفاضه وأوضح معناه فى فصل كامل وصف فيه كيف أخذ لينين الثوره فى أحلك الظروف بفنه السياسى الى السلطة .
يرى تروتسكى الثورة الروسية فى فبراير ١٩١٧ كإمتداد لثورة ١٩٠٥ والتى تنازل فيها الإمبراطور و أقر بعض المطالب السياسية للمعارضة الشعبية بعد الهزيمة فى الحرب اليابانية ، ثم تراجع القيصر عن تنازلاته السياسية فيما تلى مستخدما القمع البوليسى وسلطة الحاكم الفردى .
وبعد ان اعتقد القيصر نيقولا الثانى ان خوض روسيا غمار الحرب فى ١٩١٤ هو الخلاص بالنسبة له من التوتر السياسى الداخلى ، كانت الحرب على خلاف ذلك سبباً مواتياً لخلاص الشعب النهائى من الحكم القيصرى فى فبراير ١٩١٧ .
ولكن كما كان تقديم بعض التنازلات السياسية اثر ثورة ١٩٠٥ مجرد مخاتلة حتى استتباب الوضع ، كذلك كان التنازل عن العرش فى فبراير ١٩١٧ مجرد مخاتلة سياسية اخرى للشعب .
وكادت المخاتلة الثانية ان تتم كالأولى فالتنازل عن العرش وتشكيل حكومة من المعارضة البرجوازية ( حزب الكاديت ) والليبرالية كان مجرد غياب إضطرارى عملت الحكومة الثورية ذاتها على أن يكون غياب العرش مؤقتاً .
على حين ضمن تشكيل السوفييتات ولو شكليا تحقيق انجازات ومطالب الثورة أمام الشعب على أرض الواقع . ويتم في السوفييتات تمثيل كافة المقاطعات و الطبقات والقطاعات الاقتصادية كعمال المصانع والنقابات والجنود وجاءت انتخابات السوفييتات بيمين المعارضة والتى تضم الديماغوغيون والطوباويون من الاشتراكيين الثوريين الأكثر إنتشارا بين الطبقات الشعبية والفلاحين الروس ، والمناشفة وهم يمين المعارضة اليسارية من المثقفين والانتلجنسيا الروسية .
وظلت الحكومة البرجوازية والتى جائت بمباركة التوفيقيين ( قيادات السوفييت ) تعمل ضد الارادة الثورية والتى يمكن تلخيص أهم مطالبها بإنهاء الحرب وحل مشاكل ملكية الفلاحين الصغار للأرض حيث ظلت الحكومة بمساعدة السوفييت تعمل على تأجيل أخذ قرارات وإجراءات فى هذه الأمور الحاسمة بالنسبة للفلاحين والجنود ولا ننسى كذلك تأجيل حل مطالب العمال من تثبيت يوم العمل ب ٨ ساعات وتعديل الأجور بما يتناسب وأرباح الشركات المستغلة للبروليتاريا .
ويوضح تروتسكى أن المماطلة وعدم اتخاذ قرارات او التأخر فى اتخاذها فى أفضل الأحوال كانت الروح السائدة لدى حكومة ثورة فبراير البرجوازية . وهو الأمر الذى افتضح على يد لينين لدى عودته من المنفى مطلع ابريل والذى دفع الجماهير الثورية دفعة كبيرة الى اليسار ، ويوضح تروتسكى الخوف الذى ساد لدى طبقات السياسيين المختلفة الاتجاهات بما فيها نخبة الحزب البلشفى الذى ينتمى له لينين والذى سينضم له تروتسكى فيما بعد بسبب اتفاقه مع لينين على الأهداف الثورية الرئيسية وتأجيل او نسيان خلافات دامت لأعوام سابقة .
وبعد ان استشعرت الجماهير الخطر وخصوصا الفلاحين الذين انضموا مؤخرا الى الاحتجاجات الثورية ، سقطت الحكومة البرجوازية التى ظلت تخفى العائلة الملكية خلف ستارها ولا شاغل لها الا استمرار الحرب لما تغذى به هذه البرجوازية من أرباح طائلة ، ثم الحفاظ على ثروات الطبقات المالكة دون مساس . وهنا كادت انتفاضة تشبه اتتفاضة اكتوبر اللاحقة ان تقع لولا محاولة البرجوازية لتدارك الموقف فسلمت مقاليدها اللى الليبرالية والتى تولى رئاسة حكومتها ووزارة دفاعها كرنسكى كغطاء من المعارضة السياسية القديمة والذى لم يتورع عن العمل لصالح الطبقات المالكة والرأسمالية الروسية والتآمر الذى وصل حد الفضيحة عند محاولة الجنرال كورنيلوف قمع الثورة التى كانت حماستها وخبرتها السياسية تزداد يوما بعد يوم ، ولكن نظرا لخوف كرنسكى من الاطاحة به من على رأس الحكومة اذا نجح انقلاب كورنيلوف على الثورة التى جائت بكرنسكى الى رئاسة الوزراء والذى تعتبره الارستقراطية القيصرية والعسكرية احد العوام ، ونظرا كذلك لتعقد العلاقات الثورية التى ظل يشتد عودها يوما بعد يوم بين طبقات الفلاحين والعمال والجنود كان المصير الحتمى للثورة المضادة الكورنيلوفية هو الضياع التام وتوطيد الوضع الثورى .
وبعد ان انقذ كرنسكى نفسه من اعلان مشاركته فى المآمرة قام بتراجع امام الجماهير - التى جعلت كورنيلوف يولى الأدبار وحيدا - وقام بتغيير حكومته وتشكيل حكومة إئتلافية جديدة من التوفيقين اليساريين الذين كانت شعبيتهم آخذة فى الإضمحلال فى السوفييتات التى كانوا يمثلون أغلبية قيادتها منذ مارس ، وها هم فى اغسطس و نظرا لتعاونهم الصامت قدر الامكان مع الحكومات البرجوازية والليبرالية السابقة وتخاذلهم عن تحقيق مطالب الجمهور ، يخسرون شعبيتهم فى السوفييتات الديموقراطية وينتشر فى اماكنهم هذه البلاشفة الذين كانوا اخر امل للشعب الذى ضحى من أجل الحرية والسلام بآخر ما يملك . وفى المقابل تحول هذا اليمين اليسارى التوفيقى الى العمل الحكومى وتولى الوزارات والهيئات الى جانب البرجوازيين والليبراليين وكانت هذه فرصتهم الأخيرة لدى الشعب الذى لم يجد لديهم جديد ، ما حفز لينين صاحب الرؤية السياسية والفكر الثورى المناسب للوضع بقياس حرارة الثورة انذاك ونضاله ضد زعماء حزبه بشكل أساسى كى لا يخسروا تعاطف الجماهير كغيرهم من الأحزاب شبه المعارضة وكذلك كى يستغلوا سيطرتهم الحديثة على السوفييتات والتى تمثل درع الثورة القانونى الأول والتى تتقاسم السلطة والإدارة مع الحكومة كأحد اشكال ازدواجية السلطة . ولما اثبتت الحكومة فشلها فهى بالتالى لا تستحق ولو نصف سلطة فطالب لينين الحزب بتحريض الجماهير على انتفاضة اخيرة لقلب حكومة كرنسكى وفضح مؤامراتها والمطالبة بالسلطة الكاملة للسوفييتات التى أصبحت بشكل كبير تحت سيطرة البلاشفة وهو ما تم فى أكتوبر بتضامن لا نظير له بين الفلاحين والعمال والجنود الذين وعدهم البلاشفة بالحق فى الأرض وبإنهاء الحرب وتشكيل حكومة اشتراكية .
ونهايةً أعتقد ان التماسك فى بناء تفاصيل الثورة وفى مواقف الأشخاص النابعة من تمثل شخصياتهم التى يصورها لنا تروتسكى بعبقرية لا تخلو من الاستحسان ولا السخرية اللاذعة هى أهم العوامل التى تجعلنا نتفق بشكل مبدئى مع سير الأحداث كما رواها ولا تؤثر هذه الاراء الشخصية من استحسان او سخرية على الطبيعة الموضوعية للكتاب بل انها جزء لا يتجزأ من الفهم الأعمق للأحداث فراويها والذى كان أقل الشخصيات ذكرا فى الكتاب والذى عامل نفسه بصيغة الغائب خلال السرد كان فى نظرى ثانى أهم القيادات الثورية بعد لينين وهو ذو حس وذكاء سياسى حادين وهو يوضح بصراحة الالاعيب السياسية وكيفية استغلال الظروف لكل طرف سياسى . الا انه أثبت كذلك ان المخاتلات والنظريات والأيديولوجيات السياسية وحدها ليست العوامل الحاسمة خلال الثورات بل يجب ان يتمتع أحد قادة الثورة بحس فنى اسماه فن الانتفاضه وأوضح معناه فى فصل كامل وصف فيه كيف أخذ لينين الثوره فى أحلك الظروف بفنه السياسى الى السلطة .
August 9, 2024
I have read other works on the subject. However, I'm of the mind, Mr Trotsky's take on the events is the most enlightening: from his own perception, I will accept, but most and more illuminating than others. Written well and in the third person, surprising as he did witness the events first-hand and a good deal from the workers perspective.
From the the early days and how the events grew to the revolution are, I found, revealing.
A great work that I shall read again.
From the the early days and how the events grew to the revolution are, I found, revealing.
A great work that I shall read again.
June 27, 2019
Essential reading.
May 18, 2020
Un libro de un detalle extremo, como reconoce el propio autor. Dedicar 1.000 páginas a ocho meses de eventos no está nada mal.
No valoro el libro por su contenido en el sentido de la interpretación de los eventos. Está claro que la interpretación de los mismos por parte de Trotski va a ser muy diferente a la que hacen los historiadores convencionales. Digo convencionales no por criticar, sino porque son los que suelo leer. Quizá este sea el aspecto que más me ha llamado la atención en la lectura de este libro: nunca había leído un libro de historia "materialista". En él, las masas funcionan como una persona: se le atribuyen estados de ánimos, deseos, intenciones y acciones. No solo eso, los eventos no los provocan las personas individuales: se desenvuelven según las leyes históricas y los movimientos de clase. Estos puntos de vista son totalmente ajenos a mi experiencia previa y han sido muy enriquecedores.
No cabe duda de que el autor es un hombre extrema inteligencia. Esto hace que la lectura de este tomazo sea de gran interés, aunque no de manera uniforme. Quizá porque mi interés estaba más centrado en los acontecimientos que en la situación política, los capítulos estríctamente políticos me han parecido, por decirlo así, excesivamente técnicos. Sin embargo, tengo que reconocer que han llenado un gran vacío de conocimientos que tenía. Tengo que reconocer que, para lo poco interesado que estoy en general en la política teórica, este libro ha despertado en mí un cierto interés.
También comprendo mucho mejor ahora el marxismo y sus intenciones de lo que era antes capaz de imaginar. Es la diferencia de conocer cosas que son ciertas, pero que están escritas desde un marco cognitivo totalmente distinto del que generó esas cosas. No quiere decir esto que ahora sea un marxista. No estoy de acuerdo con las premisas del marxismo, y tampoco con sus resultados. Pero aunque solo sea por poder asomarse a los pensamientos de alguien que lo cree, merece la pena leer este libro.
Finalmente, hay que reconocer que la obra es monumental. Llama la atención la cantidad de detalle que es capaz de plasmar el autor en una narrativa coherente y hasta cierto punto emocionante. La redacción del libro es brillante (me ha sorprendido la faceta literaria de una persona de la que solo conocía su vertiente política) y en algunos momentos parece un gran discurso rugido a las masas en un momento decisivo de la historia. Esta cualidad, su deslumbrante estilo y ser capaz de sentir el ardor bolchevique de los momentos decisivos de 1.917, es una de las más impresionantes del volumen.
No valoro el libro por su contenido en el sentido de la interpretación de los eventos. Está claro que la interpretación de los mismos por parte de Trotski va a ser muy diferente a la que hacen los historiadores convencionales. Digo convencionales no por criticar, sino porque son los que suelo leer. Quizá este sea el aspecto que más me ha llamado la atención en la lectura de este libro: nunca había leído un libro de historia "materialista". En él, las masas funcionan como una persona: se le atribuyen estados de ánimos, deseos, intenciones y acciones. No solo eso, los eventos no los provocan las personas individuales: se desenvuelven según las leyes históricas y los movimientos de clase. Estos puntos de vista son totalmente ajenos a mi experiencia previa y han sido muy enriquecedores.
No cabe duda de que el autor es un hombre extrema inteligencia. Esto hace que la lectura de este tomazo sea de gran interés, aunque no de manera uniforme. Quizá porque mi interés estaba más centrado en los acontecimientos que en la situación política, los capítulos estríctamente políticos me han parecido, por decirlo así, excesivamente técnicos. Sin embargo, tengo que reconocer que han llenado un gran vacío de conocimientos que tenía. Tengo que reconocer que, para lo poco interesado que estoy en general en la política teórica, este libro ha despertado en mí un cierto interés.
También comprendo mucho mejor ahora el marxismo y sus intenciones de lo que era antes capaz de imaginar. Es la diferencia de conocer cosas que son ciertas, pero que están escritas desde un marco cognitivo totalmente distinto del que generó esas cosas. No quiere decir esto que ahora sea un marxista. No estoy de acuerdo con las premisas del marxismo, y tampoco con sus resultados. Pero aunque solo sea por poder asomarse a los pensamientos de alguien que lo cree, merece la pena leer este libro.
Finalmente, hay que reconocer que la obra es monumental. Llama la atención la cantidad de detalle que es capaz de plasmar el autor en una narrativa coherente y hasta cierto punto emocionante. La redacción del libro es brillante (me ha sorprendido la faceta literaria de una persona de la que solo conocía su vertiente política) y en algunos momentos parece un gran discurso rugido a las masas en un momento decisivo de la historia. Esta cualidad, su deslumbrante estilo y ser capaz de sentir el ardor bolchevique de los momentos decisivos de 1.917, es una de las más impresionantes del volumen.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 158 reviews