What do you think?
Rate this book
Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence
Trotsky's Stalin biography is an important historical document. Unfortunately Trotsky was not able to complete the book himself - he was assassinated by the Spanish stalinist in Ramón Mercader - and the incomplete manuscript was edited and translated by Charles Malamuth.
1282 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1941
28 people are currently reading
534 people want to read
About the author
Leon Trotsky
1,081 books789 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 - 19 of 19 reviews
April 1, 2013
Probably Trotsky's least appreciated book, and maybe his most important. The unfinished manuscript was translated, edited and completed by Charles Malamuth. Many argue that Malamuth put words in Trotsky's mouth, falsely positioning Trotsky as one of those who links Lenin to Stalin. Read the book and judge for yourself. The portions which are in Trotsky's words are in larger type, the portions in Malamuth's in small type. Reading only those in Trotsky's words shows Trotsky grappling honestly with one of the twentieth century's greatest problems. How were the great hopes of the Russian Revolution corrupted and destroyed by the unimaginable horror of Stalin's Russia?
Here is the controversial section from the introduction. "Stalin took possession of power, not with the aid of personal qualities, but with the aid of an impersonal machine. And it was not he who created the machine, but the machine that created him. That machine, with its force and its authority, was the product of the prolonged and heroic struggle of the Bolshevik Party, which itself grew out of ideas ... Stalin did not create the machine but took possession of it" [xv].
These are among Trotsky's last written words. As the editor states, "On August 20, 1940, Trotsky was struck a mortal blow on the back of his head with a pickaxe and his brain wrenched out ... That is why this and other portions of this book remain unfinished" [xv].
Reflect upon these last words from Trotsky's pen. Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a machine. The machine created Stalin. Stalin took possession of the machine and crushed the revolution. These thoughts are clearly unfinished, they are clearly preliminary – but they contain very sobering challenges for any who are students of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky sees a three-way dialectic between ideas, the advanced workers in the cities, and the party machine built by the Bolsheviks. He sees all three of them as indispensable in the carrying out of the revolution. But the ideas were very narrowly carried in the party and the movement, massively dependent on the person of Lenin himself. With Lenin's illness and death, and the retreat, demoralization and death of the advanced workers, the machine left to itself, along with its staff of apparatchiks, only too easily became a tool that Stalin could twist and turn, fitting it for use in carving out bureaucratic counter-revolution.
The message is very clear. Our movement will require more than just a party. It will require a deep respect for ideas, and a completely open and democratic relationship with the advanced workers – the section of the working class and the oppressed who most clearly position themselves against capitalism. Without this, any party machine is at best a hollow shell. At worst ...
The middle portion of the book is tortuous. It has a highly speculative character extremely different from the incisive analysis usually associated with Trotsky's works. But this speculative style was forced on Trotsky by his impossible circumstances. He was writing in exile. His archives had been stolen. His collaborators and much of his family had been killed. It was almost impossible to get accurate information from Russia. This harsh context created a cramped writing style. Nonetheless, it is remarkably insightful in spite of the difficult conditions in which it was written.
At the end of the book, Trotsky is grappling honestly with the class nature of the Stalinist state. His criteria are bitterly clear. The substance of the counter-revolution represented by Stalinism "was, is and could not fail to be social in character. It stood for the crystallization of a new privileged stratum, the creation of a new substratum for the economically dominant class" [397]. Early on, the proletariat was eliminated as a contender in this contest, because "the petty bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy ... fought shoulder to shoulder [in the battle to break] the resistance of the proletarian vanguard. When that task was accomplished a savage struggle broke out between them" a struggle between the bureaucracy and the petty bourgeoisie "for the surplus products and for power" [408].
Think this through. The battle is over control of the surplus product, this battle is won by the bureaucracy, and this battle "was, is and could not fail to be social in character". It involved the "crystallization of a new privileged stratum ... a new substratum for the economically dominant class". In all but name, Trotsky here labels Stalinist Russia as state capitalist.
In short, this is an extraordinary document, one which deserves more respect and study than it has received in the years since Trotsky's death.
Here is the controversial section from the introduction. "Stalin took possession of power, not with the aid of personal qualities, but with the aid of an impersonal machine. And it was not he who created the machine, but the machine that created him. That machine, with its force and its authority, was the product of the prolonged and heroic struggle of the Bolshevik Party, which itself grew out of ideas ... Stalin did not create the machine but took possession of it" [xv].
These are among Trotsky's last written words. As the editor states, "On August 20, 1940, Trotsky was struck a mortal blow on the back of his head with a pickaxe and his brain wrenched out ... That is why this and other portions of this book remain unfinished" [xv].
Reflect upon these last words from Trotsky's pen. Lenin and the Bolsheviks created a machine. The machine created Stalin. Stalin took possession of the machine and crushed the revolution. These thoughts are clearly unfinished, they are clearly preliminary – but they contain very sobering challenges for any who are students of the Russian Revolution. Trotsky sees a three-way dialectic between ideas, the advanced workers in the cities, and the party machine built by the Bolsheviks. He sees all three of them as indispensable in the carrying out of the revolution. But the ideas were very narrowly carried in the party and the movement, massively dependent on the person of Lenin himself. With Lenin's illness and death, and the retreat, demoralization and death of the advanced workers, the machine left to itself, along with its staff of apparatchiks, only too easily became a tool that Stalin could twist and turn, fitting it for use in carving out bureaucratic counter-revolution.
The message is very clear. Our movement will require more than just a party. It will require a deep respect for ideas, and a completely open and democratic relationship with the advanced workers – the section of the working class and the oppressed who most clearly position themselves against capitalism. Without this, any party machine is at best a hollow shell. At worst ...
The middle portion of the book is tortuous. It has a highly speculative character extremely different from the incisive analysis usually associated with Trotsky's works. But this speculative style was forced on Trotsky by his impossible circumstances. He was writing in exile. His archives had been stolen. His collaborators and much of his family had been killed. It was almost impossible to get accurate information from Russia. This harsh context created a cramped writing style. Nonetheless, it is remarkably insightful in spite of the difficult conditions in which it was written.
At the end of the book, Trotsky is grappling honestly with the class nature of the Stalinist state. His criteria are bitterly clear. The substance of the counter-revolution represented by Stalinism "was, is and could not fail to be social in character. It stood for the crystallization of a new privileged stratum, the creation of a new substratum for the economically dominant class" [397]. Early on, the proletariat was eliminated as a contender in this contest, because "the petty bourgeoisie and the bureaucracy ... fought shoulder to shoulder [in the battle to break] the resistance of the proletarian vanguard. When that task was accomplished a savage struggle broke out between them" a struggle between the bureaucracy and the petty bourgeoisie "for the surplus products and for power" [408].
Think this through. The battle is over control of the surplus product, this battle is won by the bureaucracy, and this battle "was, is and could not fail to be social in character". It involved the "crystallization of a new privileged stratum ... a new substratum for the economically dominant class". In all but name, Trotsky here labels Stalinist Russia as state capitalist.
In short, this is an extraordinary document, one which deserves more respect and study than it has received in the years since Trotsky's death.
January 3, 2022
This book is certainly among the most important political biographies of the 20th century. Despite being unfinished, it provides a convincing, detailed and extremely chilling analysis of Stalin's personality and how he rose from obscurity during the revolutionary years and into the early 1920s, to eventually become the murderous dictator of the Soviet Union.
The book is much more than just a character study; it contains a Marxist analysis of pivotal historical experiences - the 1905 revolution, the First World War, the year 1917, the Civil War, the controversy over national self-determination in the Soviet republics, the failed German revolution, the death of Lenin, the beginnings of the counter-revolution, the attacks on 'Trotskyism', Stalin's pact with Hitler, etc..
One thing that makes this book so disturbing and powerful is the degree to which one can recognise aspects of Stalin's personality in all sorts of pseudo-left activists, journalists, academics and trade union thugs today (some of whom, of course, are open admirers of Stalin or Mao). In particular: the indifference to history and theory, the tendency to resort to abusive and vulgar language instead of argument, lust for power for its own sake, and contempt for political principles. All of this is very familiar.
Trotsky reveals how a very specific set of historical conditions were required for someone like Stalin - the most outstanding mediocrity in the Bolshevik party - to take control of the state apparatus and murder the entire generation that made the revolution. The book thoroughly debunks the most common and stupid right-wing lie - that Stalin was the natural continuation of Lenin, and that the seeds of Stalinism were inherent in the Bolsheviks' centralised party structure, etc.
Like all Trotsky's major works, this is brilliantly written, and combines a profound psychological insight into its subject with a rigorous attitude towards facts and documents. There is some repetition of basic concepts that Trotsky might have removed in the final revision. I also thought the new edition of this book would have benefited from a map, which would have been especially helpful in the chapters on the Civil War.
The book is much more than just a character study; it contains a Marxist analysis of pivotal historical experiences - the 1905 revolution, the First World War, the year 1917, the Civil War, the controversy over national self-determination in the Soviet republics, the failed German revolution, the death of Lenin, the beginnings of the counter-revolution, the attacks on 'Trotskyism', Stalin's pact with Hitler, etc..
One thing that makes this book so disturbing and powerful is the degree to which one can recognise aspects of Stalin's personality in all sorts of pseudo-left activists, journalists, academics and trade union thugs today (some of whom, of course, are open admirers of Stalin or Mao). In particular: the indifference to history and theory, the tendency to resort to abusive and vulgar language instead of argument, lust for power for its own sake, and contempt for political principles. All of this is very familiar.
Trotsky reveals how a very specific set of historical conditions were required for someone like Stalin - the most outstanding mediocrity in the Bolshevik party - to take control of the state apparatus and murder the entire generation that made the revolution. The book thoroughly debunks the most common and stupid right-wing lie - that Stalin was the natural continuation of Lenin, and that the seeds of Stalinism were inherent in the Bolsheviks' centralised party structure, etc.
Like all Trotsky's major works, this is brilliantly written, and combines a profound psychological insight into its subject with a rigorous attitude towards facts and documents. There is some repetition of basic concepts that Trotsky might have removed in the final revision. I also thought the new edition of this book would have benefited from a map, which would have been especially helpful in the chapters on the Civil War.
May 24, 2014
Author of this book was killed by the title hero of the book. It must be a rare case!
Lev Trotsky, communist hero of 1917's revolution and civil war was the main Stalin's rival in 20s and he lost. In 1917 when Stalin was cowardly hiding and Lenin was writing his manifests, revolution itself, the coup, the power-taking was made by Trotsky. When civil war started, communists had no idea how to handle troops, but Trotsky created Red Army, led it and won. But when fights were over and days of politics came, he lost. He failed to find a way to beat Stalin's union with a new, Red bureaucracy.
Later Stalin started to get rid of old bolsheviks who made October revolution. Trotsky was exiled and later killed by Stalin's agent in Mexico (did you see " Frida" movie? he was her husband there).
This book is a long Trotsky's rant against his opponent who has won. Trotsky follows Stalin's way from his childhood to the late 30s, trying to analyze how this grey mediocre person became such a monster we all know.
It's written from communist's point of view, for Trotsky all radical left ideas - universal equality, worldwide revolution and Karl Marx's classes theory - are fundamental truth without any doubt. As a modern reader you have to kinda read through it, knowing how badly communism failed. But still Trotsky has a great writer's talent, this book is full of anger and energy and contains a lot of vivid evidences.
Lev Trotsky, communist hero of 1917's revolution and civil war was the main Stalin's rival in 20s and he lost. In 1917 when Stalin was cowardly hiding and Lenin was writing his manifests, revolution itself, the coup, the power-taking was made by Trotsky. When civil war started, communists had no idea how to handle troops, but Trotsky created Red Army, led it and won. But when fights were over and days of politics came, he lost. He failed to find a way to beat Stalin's union with a new, Red bureaucracy.
Later Stalin started to get rid of old bolsheviks who made October revolution. Trotsky was exiled and later killed by Stalin's agent in Mexico (did you see " Frida" movie? he was her husband there).
This book is a long Trotsky's rant against his opponent who has won. Trotsky follows Stalin's way from his childhood to the late 30s, trying to analyze how this grey mediocre person became such a monster we all know.
It's written from communist's point of view, for Trotsky all radical left ideas - universal equality, worldwide revolution and Karl Marx's classes theory - are fundamental truth without any doubt. As a modern reader you have to kinda read through it, knowing how badly communism failed. But still Trotsky has a great writer's talent, this book is full of anger and energy and contains a lot of vivid evidences.
September 24, 2020
A disgusting pack of lies, absurd claims, and pages of racist attacks on Stalin. This book is what inspired Robert Conquest and others to write piles of nonsense(Applebaum, Pipes, Figes, etc, etc). This garbage was printed in 1946 and used as a prop to load Stalin with every crime imaginable and turn him into the Greater Hitler(not the one the US/UK and others secretly built up and funded to defeat the Soviet Union and failed).
August 6, 2023
A CRITICAL (BUT INSIGHTFUL) BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY OF STALIN
The ‘Editor’s Note’ to this 1941 book explains, “Leon Trotsky wrote and revised in the original Russian the first seven chapters and the appendix of this book… Trotsky was more optimistic that accurate about the expected date of completion… he set August, 1940 as the ‘deadline’… but his manuscript was not complete on the twentieth of August, when he was struck down by his assassin… The editor therefore left the first seven chapters and the appendix unrevised… Some of the manuscript of the unfinished portion was in Trotsky’s study… Most of it was undigested material filed under eighty-one subheadings in more than twice that many folders. Out of this largely raw material the Introduction, the chapters from eight to twelve inclusive, and the two supplements have been edited.”
Trotsky wrote in the Introduction, “Stalin represents a phenomenon utterly exceptional. He is neither a thinker, a writer nor an orator. He took possession of power before the masses had learned to distinguish his figure from others during the triumphal processions across Red Square. Stalin took possession of power, not with the aid of personal qualities, but with the aid of an impersonal machine. And it was not him who created the machine, but the machine that created him.” (Pg. xv)
He says of Stalin’s early days in theological training, “It is not hard to understand that from the moment Joseph inwardly broke with religion the study of homiletics and liturgy became insufferable to him. What is hard to understand is how he was able to lead a double life for such a long time… for seven whole years he patiently studied theology, although with diminishing eagerness… the young atheist in the course of five whole years continued to explore the mysteries of Orthodoxy.” (Pg. 22)
He recounts, “The memory of the revolution brought about by Lenin in April, 1917, was stamped forever on his consciousness. It rankled. He got hold of the records of the March Conference and tried to hide them from the Party and from history. But that in itself did not settle matters. Collections of the Pravda for 1917 remained in the libraries. Moreover, those issues … came out in a special reprint edition---and Stalin’s articles spoke for themselves. During the first years of the Soviet regime innumerable reminiscences about the April crisis filled all the historical journals and the anniversary issues of newspapers. All this had to be gradually removed from circulation, counterfeited, and new material substituted.” (Pg. 199)
He observes, “the masses were incomparably more revolutionary than the Party, which in its turn was more revolutionary than its committeemen. As on other occasions, Stalin expressed the conservative inclinations of the Party machine and not the dynamic force of the masses.” (Pg. 208)
He points out, “The biographer, no matter how willing, can have nothing to say about Stalin’s participation in the October Revolution. Nowhere does one find mention of his name---neither in documents nor the numerous memoirs. In order somehow to fil this yawning gap, the official historiographer implies his participation in the insurrection with some mysterious party ‘center’ … there never was any such ‘center.’ But the story of this legend is noteworthy.” (Pg. 232)
He suggests that during the war, “It is more likely that he was nursing his hurt pride inside of himself and brooding on how good it would be if those who disagreed with him would not dare to object. But in those days if did not even enter his head that a time would come when he would merely command and all others would obey in silence.” (Pg. 256)
He notes, “If in 1933 it developed that it was Stalin and not anyone else who had built the Red Army, then it would seem that the responsibility of selecting such a [faulty] staff of commanders should fall upon him. From this contradiction official historians extricate themselves… The responsibility for the appointment of traitors to commanding positions is placed entirely upon me, while the honor of victories secured by these very traitors belongs indisputably to Stalin. Today this unique division of historical function is known to every school boy from a History edited by Stalin himself.” (Pg. 269-270)
He explains, “Lenin’s relations with Stalin are officially characterized as a close friendship. As a matter of act, these to political figures were widely separated not only by the ten years’ difference in their ages, but by the very size of their respective personalities. There could be no such thing as friendship between the two.” (Pg, 351)
He states, “The only piece of serious Marxist writing Stalin had ever contributed to the arsenal of Bolshevik theory had been on the national question. That was back in 1913…” (Pg. 357)
He summarizes, “Politically, Stalin and I have long been in opposite and irreconcilable camps. But in certain circles it has become the rule to speak of my ‘hatred’ of Stalin and to assume a priori that everything I write… is inspired by that feeling… Yet Stalin and I have been separated by such fiery events as have consumed in flames and reduced to ashes everything personal, without leaving any residue whatever. Yet to me, in mind and feeling, Stalin’s unprecedented elevation represents the very deepest fall. Stalin is my enemy. But Hitler, too, is my enemy, and so is Mussolini, and many others. Today I bear as little ‘hatred’ toward Stalin as toward Hitler, Franco, or the Mikado… I try to understand the, so that I may be better equipped to fight them.” (Pg. 372)
He recalls, “Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know. But I am firmly convinced that Stalin could not have waited passively when his fate hung by a thread and the decision depended on a small, very small motion of his hand.” (Pg. 381)
He summarizes, “Stalin remains a mediocrity. His mind is not only devoid of range but is even incapable of logical thinking. Every phase of his speech has some immediate practical aim. But his speech as a whole never rises to a logical structure.” (Pg. 393)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Trotsky, Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.
The ‘Editor’s Note’ to this 1941 book explains, “Leon Trotsky wrote and revised in the original Russian the first seven chapters and the appendix of this book… Trotsky was more optimistic that accurate about the expected date of completion… he set August, 1940 as the ‘deadline’… but his manuscript was not complete on the twentieth of August, when he was struck down by his assassin… The editor therefore left the first seven chapters and the appendix unrevised… Some of the manuscript of the unfinished portion was in Trotsky’s study… Most of it was undigested material filed under eighty-one subheadings in more than twice that many folders. Out of this largely raw material the Introduction, the chapters from eight to twelve inclusive, and the two supplements have been edited.”
Trotsky wrote in the Introduction, “Stalin represents a phenomenon utterly exceptional. He is neither a thinker, a writer nor an orator. He took possession of power before the masses had learned to distinguish his figure from others during the triumphal processions across Red Square. Stalin took possession of power, not with the aid of personal qualities, but with the aid of an impersonal machine. And it was not him who created the machine, but the machine that created him.” (Pg. xv)
He says of Stalin’s early days in theological training, “It is not hard to understand that from the moment Joseph inwardly broke with religion the study of homiletics and liturgy became insufferable to him. What is hard to understand is how he was able to lead a double life for such a long time… for seven whole years he patiently studied theology, although with diminishing eagerness… the young atheist in the course of five whole years continued to explore the mysteries of Orthodoxy.” (Pg. 22)
He recounts, “The memory of the revolution brought about by Lenin in April, 1917, was stamped forever on his consciousness. It rankled. He got hold of the records of the March Conference and tried to hide them from the Party and from history. But that in itself did not settle matters. Collections of the Pravda for 1917 remained in the libraries. Moreover, those issues … came out in a special reprint edition---and Stalin’s articles spoke for themselves. During the first years of the Soviet regime innumerable reminiscences about the April crisis filled all the historical journals and the anniversary issues of newspapers. All this had to be gradually removed from circulation, counterfeited, and new material substituted.” (Pg. 199)
He observes, “the masses were incomparably more revolutionary than the Party, which in its turn was more revolutionary than its committeemen. As on other occasions, Stalin expressed the conservative inclinations of the Party machine and not the dynamic force of the masses.” (Pg. 208)
He points out, “The biographer, no matter how willing, can have nothing to say about Stalin’s participation in the October Revolution. Nowhere does one find mention of his name---neither in documents nor the numerous memoirs. In order somehow to fil this yawning gap, the official historiographer implies his participation in the insurrection with some mysterious party ‘center’ … there never was any such ‘center.’ But the story of this legend is noteworthy.” (Pg. 232)
He suggests that during the war, “It is more likely that he was nursing his hurt pride inside of himself and brooding on how good it would be if those who disagreed with him would not dare to object. But in those days if did not even enter his head that a time would come when he would merely command and all others would obey in silence.” (Pg. 256)
He notes, “If in 1933 it developed that it was Stalin and not anyone else who had built the Red Army, then it would seem that the responsibility of selecting such a [faulty] staff of commanders should fall upon him. From this contradiction official historians extricate themselves… The responsibility for the appointment of traitors to commanding positions is placed entirely upon me, while the honor of victories secured by these very traitors belongs indisputably to Stalin. Today this unique division of historical function is known to every school boy from a History edited by Stalin himself.” (Pg. 269-270)
He explains, “Lenin’s relations with Stalin are officially characterized as a close friendship. As a matter of act, these to political figures were widely separated not only by the ten years’ difference in their ages, but by the very size of their respective personalities. There could be no such thing as friendship between the two.” (Pg, 351)
He states, “The only piece of serious Marxist writing Stalin had ever contributed to the arsenal of Bolshevik theory had been on the national question. That was back in 1913…” (Pg. 357)
He summarizes, “Politically, Stalin and I have long been in opposite and irreconcilable camps. But in certain circles it has become the rule to speak of my ‘hatred’ of Stalin and to assume a priori that everything I write… is inspired by that feeling… Yet Stalin and I have been separated by such fiery events as have consumed in flames and reduced to ashes everything personal, without leaving any residue whatever. Yet to me, in mind and feeling, Stalin’s unprecedented elevation represents the very deepest fall. Stalin is my enemy. But Hitler, too, is my enemy, and so is Mussolini, and many others. Today I bear as little ‘hatred’ toward Stalin as toward Hitler, Franco, or the Mikado… I try to understand the, so that I may be better equipped to fight them.” (Pg. 372)
He recalls, “Whether Stalin sent the poison to Lenin or whether he resorted to more direct means I do not know. But I am firmly convinced that Stalin could not have waited passively when his fate hung by a thread and the decision depended on a small, very small motion of his hand.” (Pg. 381)
He summarizes, “Stalin remains a mediocrity. His mind is not only devoid of range but is even incapable of logical thinking. Every phase of his speech has some immediate practical aim. But his speech as a whole never rises to a logical structure.” (Pg. 393)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Trotsky, Stalin, and the history of the Soviet Union.
November 4, 2021
An excellent account of how a minor figure of the Bolshevik Party became the absolute ruler of the Soviet Union and exterminated virtually all leaders of the October Revolution. Five Stars!
September 7, 2016
Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and His Influence by Leon Trotsky is a very good book and the last book that Trotsky ever wrote before his assassination by one of Stalin's gools. In fact the manuscript pages for the book were found, some of them covered in Trotsky's own blood after his murder. Trotsky points out Stalin's lack of any role in the Revolution of 1905 and his very limited role in the October Revolution of 1917; moreover his lack of Marxist intellect and his personality defects which continued to grow and manifest itself in the purge trials of the 1930s. Stalin didn't care about Bolshevism or Communism but only power. By his Thermidor actions, He killed the most progressive revolution in the history of mankind in a period of ten years. He is the reason that communism has a bad reputation which is ironic, for Joseph Stalin was not even a real communist but only a DICTATOR And THUG.
December 22, 2022
Not so sure about this Stalin guy. Seems like maybe he’s up to no good.
August 26, 2020
Trotsky’s biography of Stalin is thorough, which is what I’ve come to expect reading him. It is important to remember that despite appearances, Trotsky has no hatred for Stalin, simply because he hardly encountered the man but because of the kind of person Stalin was, it’s unsurprising that Stalin hated Trotsky.
Trotsky starts with Stalin’s upbringing & brings you up through his rise to power. He shows how in every way Stalin was unremarkable as a revolutionary & was less that than an opportunist. Stalin was always out for Stalin, nothing more, nothing less.
Considering how Stalin distorted the truth of history, it was important to point out the contradictions to get a picture of just what he was about, himself & what he really did at critical moments, which is, to say, nothing. Ruthless & vindictive towards any slight, real or perceived but it was not enough to keep away the judgments of history permanently, only enough to do so during his lifetime. He might’ve had Trotsky killed because of this biography, which was never completed, but Trotsky got the final word.
It’s important to read for a number of reasons. Obviously, at least to me, because the truth matters but also because there is this weird love affair with modern leftist with Stalin that stems from a desire to be anti-west or anti-us no matter what with no critical understanding of history & I think it serves to be an impediment to a real leftist tendency because if you’re not getting the true picture or as close to it as possible, you’re bound to make mistakes in praxis & following history & it’s trends. The ugly truth of the reality of Stalin & Stalinism, which is in no way shape or form Bolshevism or Marxist, needs to be acknowledged in order to keep people from following the wrong path. Dishonesty is not necessary to win people over & sincere ignorance should be avoided as much as possible. It is also important to understand the truth so you can understand just how much was lost because of his brutal repression & where to go from there to get back on track. It is also important because people are going to have questions & the west has done a great job of further muddying the picture around Marx, Engels, Lenin & Trotsky by capitalizing on the confusion via misinformation & outright lies to consolidate the power of the bureaucracy &, to him, more importantly his own.
I have no doubt that Stalin understood enough to know how thorough Trotsky would be & it is little wonder he had him assassinated to stop the publication & thus his exposure. The emperor had no clothes & could not bare anyone to acknowledge it the way anyone who reads this book would certainly be forced.
The first 8 chapters I believe were written before Trotsky’s death & the last 6 were pieces together from what was left of his manuscripts. It had to be re-edited due to the original editor making additions that Trotsky would never have written or approved, likely to help further muddy the picture on top of helping the publishers make a buck while doing so. Two birds, one stone. It’s a long read but very much worth it for anyone interested in Stalin, his rise to power & the nature of Stalinism.
Trotsky starts with Stalin’s upbringing & brings you up through his rise to power. He shows how in every way Stalin was unremarkable as a revolutionary & was less that than an opportunist. Stalin was always out for Stalin, nothing more, nothing less.
Considering how Stalin distorted the truth of history, it was important to point out the contradictions to get a picture of just what he was about, himself & what he really did at critical moments, which is, to say, nothing. Ruthless & vindictive towards any slight, real or perceived but it was not enough to keep away the judgments of history permanently, only enough to do so during his lifetime. He might’ve had Trotsky killed because of this biography, which was never completed, but Trotsky got the final word.
It’s important to read for a number of reasons. Obviously, at least to me, because the truth matters but also because there is this weird love affair with modern leftist with Stalin that stems from a desire to be anti-west or anti-us no matter what with no critical understanding of history & I think it serves to be an impediment to a real leftist tendency because if you’re not getting the true picture or as close to it as possible, you’re bound to make mistakes in praxis & following history & it’s trends. The ugly truth of the reality of Stalin & Stalinism, which is in no way shape or form Bolshevism or Marxist, needs to be acknowledged in order to keep people from following the wrong path. Dishonesty is not necessary to win people over & sincere ignorance should be avoided as much as possible. It is also important to understand the truth so you can understand just how much was lost because of his brutal repression & where to go from there to get back on track. It is also important because people are going to have questions & the west has done a great job of further muddying the picture around Marx, Engels, Lenin & Trotsky by capitalizing on the confusion via misinformation & outright lies to consolidate the power of the bureaucracy &, to him, more importantly his own.
I have no doubt that Stalin understood enough to know how thorough Trotsky would be & it is little wonder he had him assassinated to stop the publication & thus his exposure. The emperor had no clothes & could not bare anyone to acknowledge it the way anyone who reads this book would certainly be forced.
The first 8 chapters I believe were written before Trotsky’s death & the last 6 were pieces together from what was left of his manuscripts. It had to be re-edited due to the original editor making additions that Trotsky would never have written or approved, likely to help further muddy the picture on top of helping the publishers make a buck while doing so. Two birds, one stone. It’s a long read but very much worth it for anyone interested in Stalin, his rise to power & the nature of Stalinism.
May 18, 2019
Un hombre derrotado escribe desde el exilio la biografía del hombre que lo venció. El vencedor, a su vez, sabe del libro, y está obsesionado con él. Sabe que el pretendido biógrafo, aunque esté lejos, sigue siendo su rival; la amenaza más importante a su permanencia en el poder. El vencedor tiene un control omnímodo en su país, y sus partidarios se extienden incluso fuera de él, pero el libro escapa a su poder. En el ámbito de las ideas y de las palabras, su enemigo siempre le llevó la ventaja, y decide que no puede dejarlo terminar el libro. El otro, que sabe de esto, y conoce esta determinación, vive en una paranoia simétrica, excepto que el suyo no es el temor a que lo reemplacen, sino a que llanamente lo maten, y tiene que escribir bajo esa espada de Damocles.
Este, el trasfondo de Stalin, es a todas luces mucho más interesante que el libro en sí.
Diría un psicoanalista que a Trotsky le hizo falta escribirlo, ante todo, para explicarse su propia caída. ¿Cómo ese hombre, al que había despreciado, terminó derrotándolo con tanta facilidad, ocupando el lugar que a él le correspondía por naturaleza, como heredero de Lenin? La hybris de Trotsky lo cegó al político letal que había en Stalin. Creyó suficiente saber que era un teórico incapaz, un orador más torpe que él. Con sus amigotes bolcheviques, lo llamaba “la más eminente mediocridad del partido”.
Stalin masticó las afrentas atrás de una sonrisa falluta; esperó a un momento más propicio para deshacerse de Trotsky. Así, mientras su enemigo se dedicaba a escribir las obras cumbres del pensamiento marxista, él hacía política. Aceptó un puestito en el partido, uno que nadie quería, y construyó desde ahí la recursiva nomenklatura, la inescapable maquinaria del estado soviético.
“El mundo”, escribe Trotsky, cuando podría escribir simplemente “yo”, “yo me di cuenta”, “a mí me pareció que no tenía prehistoria”. Demasiado tarde, tuvo que dedicarse en el exilio a lo que mejor sabía hacer, o sea a pensar y escribir. Esas serían las fuentes de sus únicas victorias, las de orden simbólico, sobre Stalin.
Solo que al final, como ya sabemos, el otro fue más rápido. Triunfó la política real, la fuerza bruta, frente a las blandas palabras.
Este, el trasfondo de Stalin, es a todas luces mucho más interesante que el libro en sí.
Diría un psicoanalista que a Trotsky le hizo falta escribirlo, ante todo, para explicarse su propia caída. ¿Cómo ese hombre, al que había despreciado, terminó derrotándolo con tanta facilidad, ocupando el lugar que a él le correspondía por naturaleza, como heredero de Lenin? La hybris de Trotsky lo cegó al político letal que había en Stalin. Creyó suficiente saber que era un teórico incapaz, un orador más torpe que él. Con sus amigotes bolcheviques, lo llamaba “la más eminente mediocridad del partido”.
Stalin masticó las afrentas atrás de una sonrisa falluta; esperó a un momento más propicio para deshacerse de Trotsky. Así, mientras su enemigo se dedicaba a escribir las obras cumbres del pensamiento marxista, él hacía política. Aceptó un puestito en el partido, uno que nadie quería, y construyó desde ahí la recursiva nomenklatura, la inescapable maquinaria del estado soviético.
“(Stalin) Parece no tener prehistoria. El proceso de su elevación transcurrió en alguna parte, tras una cortina política impenetrable. En un determinado momento su figura, en pleno atuendo de poder, se destacó súbitamente de la pared del Kremlin, y por primera vez el mundo se dio cuenta de Stalin como dictador ya hecho así.”
“El mundo”, escribe Trotsky, cuando podría escribir simplemente “yo”, “yo me di cuenta”, “a mí me pareció que no tenía prehistoria”. Demasiado tarde, tuvo que dedicarse en el exilio a lo que mejor sabía hacer, o sea a pensar y escribir. Esas serían las fuentes de sus únicas victorias, las de orden simbólico, sobre Stalin.
Solo que al final, como ya sabemos, el otro fue más rápido. Triunfó la política real, la fuerza bruta, frente a las blandas palabras.
October 31, 2025
“I have been informed that two books were confiscated. One of them is Trotsky’s ‘Stalin.’
“I suppose this was done because it is called ‘Stalin,’ because I cannot conceive of any other reason for such an action. Even if it had been written by a supporter of Stalin’s and were a defense of him, I sincerely do not believe that should be a reason for confiscating it. But the fact is that this case we are not dealing with an impartial critical study. This book was written against Stalin by Leon Trotsky, his most irreconcilable enemy; far from being a defense, it is an implacable attack on him. As you can see, the reason that might be adduced for confiscating it does not exist…
“The study of economic, social, or philosophical questions requires books and authors of the most diverse viewpoints so one can analyze, compare, etc. Without the freedom to read one cannot study either religion or sociopolitical doctrines….” —Fidel Castro in a 1954, letter to prison authorities, quoted in The Fertile Prison: Fidel Castro in Batista's Jails. He was in prison for his attack on the Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1953. He received the book with an apology.
I'm reviewing the edition of this book that was edited and translated by Alan Woods, with much additional material. It’s good to see that this book is finally available without the material outrageously inserted by the translator-editor Charles Malamuth, and with additional material by Trotsky from the Harvard archives. While the first edition was printed in 1941, it didn’t become available until the end of the second world imperialist slaughter, since Roosevelt didn’t want to upset his ally Stalin. If this surprises anyone, they should watch the movie of ‘Mission to Moscow’ the story of an ambassador of Roosevelt to the Soviet Union, who sings the praises of Stalin and supports the Moscow Trials.
This is still an unfinished book. I don’t question the legitimacy of the material that’s been added, but there’s no way to know with most of it that it’s in the final form Trotsky would have put it in, or even that it would have been included in the book. There’s a large amount of uncompleted material that Trotsky was working on before his assassination; he worked on many projects at the same time, and some were largely a way of working out his ideas. The ‘Writings of Leon Trotsky’ series 1939–40, and Supplement 1934–40 include many fragments. There are more in the Harvard archives. My personal opinion is that Trotsky would not have published the book in its present form. He always said that if Stalin early on had known where his politics would lead, he never would have carried them through. This book blames Stalin for a lot of things that Trosky had never blamed him for previously. I think he was trying out these chapters but hadn't decided whether he was going to use them or not. It almost becomes conspiratorial.
And while this may be an important book, it isn’t as important as Trotsky’s books analyzing Stalinism, which he saw as the rule of a privileged bureaucracy in a degenerated workers state, not just the cult of Stalin. For this, Trotsky’s most important books are The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going?, In Defense of Marxism: The Social & Political Contradictions of the Soviet Union, The Third International after Lenin, and The Stalin School of Falsification.
Trotsky would have preferred continuing his biography of Lenin (see ‘The Young Lenin,’ now in Trotsky on Lenin), but a biography of Stalin was what a bourgeois publisher wanted, and he needed the money (both for his family and the Fourth International). Of course, he also knew that whatever he wrote on was a way of getting out his ideas beyond the circulation of the party papers and magazines he routinely wrote for.
While I have no idea what Fidel Castro thought of Trotsky’s book, I do know that the Cuban Revolution managed to avoid a Stalinist coup attempt. For this see 'Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution: A Marxist Appreciation by SWP leader and former secretary to Trotsky, Joseph Hansen, and Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro. We also know that both Che Guevara and Pombo in their Bolivian diaries mention losing a book by Trotsky that they were planning to read to a river crossing.
A number of people from "Trotskyist" groups have an idea that all you have to do is show up in Cuba with a banner of Trotsky, and you can turn things in the direction you'd like. The idea that they could learn anything from Cuban Revolutionaries isn't considered. A number of these groups staged a provocation in Cuba, by having a symposium in 2019 on Trotsky without getting permission. The Cuban leadership just ignored it, which is the best way to handle provocations like this.
On the other hand, the Socialist Workers Party and Pathfinder Press have been attending Havana book fairs for 31 years taking their Trotsky books along with their other literature (In the last few years Pathfinder has been invited to bring their books to other gatherings as well). Trotsky is not the biggest seller there, but I don't think it's because of any fear of his ideas. I think most Cubans are just more interested in what the SWP has to say about politics today.
“I suppose this was done because it is called ‘Stalin,’ because I cannot conceive of any other reason for such an action. Even if it had been written by a supporter of Stalin’s and were a defense of him, I sincerely do not believe that should be a reason for confiscating it. But the fact is that this case we are not dealing with an impartial critical study. This book was written against Stalin by Leon Trotsky, his most irreconcilable enemy; far from being a defense, it is an implacable attack on him. As you can see, the reason that might be adduced for confiscating it does not exist…
“The study of economic, social, or philosophical questions requires books and authors of the most diverse viewpoints so one can analyze, compare, etc. Without the freedom to read one cannot study either religion or sociopolitical doctrines….” —Fidel Castro in a 1954, letter to prison authorities, quoted in The Fertile Prison: Fidel Castro in Batista's Jails. He was in prison for his attack on the Moncada Barracks on July 26, 1953. He received the book with an apology.
I'm reviewing the edition of this book that was edited and translated by Alan Woods, with much additional material. It’s good to see that this book is finally available without the material outrageously inserted by the translator-editor Charles Malamuth, and with additional material by Trotsky from the Harvard archives. While the first edition was printed in 1941, it didn’t become available until the end of the second world imperialist slaughter, since Roosevelt didn’t want to upset his ally Stalin. If this surprises anyone, they should watch the movie of ‘Mission to Moscow’ the story of an ambassador of Roosevelt to the Soviet Union, who sings the praises of Stalin and supports the Moscow Trials.
This is still an unfinished book. I don’t question the legitimacy of the material that’s been added, but there’s no way to know with most of it that it’s in the final form Trotsky would have put it in, or even that it would have been included in the book. There’s a large amount of uncompleted material that Trotsky was working on before his assassination; he worked on many projects at the same time, and some were largely a way of working out his ideas. The ‘Writings of Leon Trotsky’ series 1939–40, and Supplement 1934–40 include many fragments. There are more in the Harvard archives. My personal opinion is that Trotsky would not have published the book in its present form. He always said that if Stalin early on had known where his politics would lead, he never would have carried them through. This book blames Stalin for a lot of things that Trosky had never blamed him for previously. I think he was trying out these chapters but hadn't decided whether he was going to use them or not. It almost becomes conspiratorial.
And while this may be an important book, it isn’t as important as Trotsky’s books analyzing Stalinism, which he saw as the rule of a privileged bureaucracy in a degenerated workers state, not just the cult of Stalin. For this, Trotsky’s most important books are The Revolution Betrayed: What Is the Soviet Union and Where Is It Going?, In Defense of Marxism: The Social & Political Contradictions of the Soviet Union, The Third International after Lenin, and The Stalin School of Falsification.
Trotsky would have preferred continuing his biography of Lenin (see ‘The Young Lenin,’ now in Trotsky on Lenin), but a biography of Stalin was what a bourgeois publisher wanted, and he needed the money (both for his family and the Fourth International). Of course, he also knew that whatever he wrote on was a way of getting out his ideas beyond the circulation of the party papers and magazines he routinely wrote for.
While I have no idea what Fidel Castro thought of Trotsky’s book, I do know that the Cuban Revolution managed to avoid a Stalinist coup attempt. For this see 'Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution: A Marxist Appreciation by SWP leader and former secretary to Trotsky, Joseph Hansen, and Selected Speeches of Fidel Castro. We also know that both Che Guevara and Pombo in their Bolivian diaries mention losing a book by Trotsky that they were planning to read to a river crossing.
A number of people from "Trotskyist" groups have an idea that all you have to do is show up in Cuba with a banner of Trotsky, and you can turn things in the direction you'd like. The idea that they could learn anything from Cuban Revolutionaries isn't considered. A number of these groups staged a provocation in Cuba, by having a symposium in 2019 on Trotsky without getting permission. The Cuban leadership just ignored it, which is the best way to handle provocations like this.
On the other hand, the Socialist Workers Party and Pathfinder Press have been attending Havana book fairs for 31 years taking their Trotsky books along with their other literature (In the last few years Pathfinder has been invited to bring their books to other gatherings as well). Trotsky is not the biggest seller there, but I don't think it's because of any fear of his ideas. I think most Cubans are just more interested in what the SWP has to say about politics today.
February 21, 2021
Leon Trotsky's biography of Josef Stalin is the ultimate and most comprehensive work on how Stalin destroyed the Soviet Union ever written. It goes into great detail on the Russian Revolution, the Civil War, Lenin's death, and the counter-revolution and Stalin's annihilation of all of the revolutionaries and members of Trotsky's Left Opposition in the USSR. Stalin truly was a monster. He was not a Marxist. He cared only for his own advancement and growing power. He murdered all of his former comrades so no witnesses to his relative obscurity during the Revolution would survive to contradict his falsification of his own history and that of the Revolution itself.
In this volume--which Trotsky was working on when he was assassinated by an agent of the GPU, Ramon Mercader--Trotsky goes into great detail about Stalin's beginnings as a seminarian in Georgia, and reveals Stalin's lack of intellect and jealousy of anyone who was superior to him in any way. Stalin's rise to power was very Roman in the respect that he schemed, lied, betrayed, never forgot a slight and enjoyed exacting revenge. Trotsky even alludes to the possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin in Lenin's last illness, which is entirely possible, since Trotsky himself was ill and away when Lenin died.
This biography is required reading for all Marxists and for anyone who wants to discover how it was possible that Stalin went from being a Bolshevik to a monstrous dictator and murderer. After reading this there can be no doubt about the true history of Stalin's reign of terror and what it cost the world socialist movement, the repercussions of which have carried on right up to the present time.
In this volume--which Trotsky was working on when he was assassinated by an agent of the GPU, Ramon Mercader--Trotsky goes into great detail about Stalin's beginnings as a seminarian in Georgia, and reveals Stalin's lack of intellect and jealousy of anyone who was superior to him in any way. Stalin's rise to power was very Roman in the respect that he schemed, lied, betrayed, never forgot a slight and enjoyed exacting revenge. Trotsky even alludes to the possibility that Stalin poisoned Lenin in Lenin's last illness, which is entirely possible, since Trotsky himself was ill and away when Lenin died.
This biography is required reading for all Marxists and for anyone who wants to discover how it was possible that Stalin went from being a Bolshevik to a monstrous dictator and murderer. After reading this there can be no doubt about the true history of Stalin's reign of terror and what it cost the world socialist movement, the repercussions of which have carried on right up to the present time.
November 1, 2024
The work by Alan Woods, Rob Sewell, and others in putting together this last work of Trotsky's was completely worth it. The mature analysis of Trotsky shines through covering the nature of counter revolution, the role of the individual, the methods of party building, and more.
It is a historical tragedy that Trotsky was not able to write a biography of Lenin, but instead was forced by circumstance to write this biography of Stalin.
To be honest, the passages on Stalin became tiresome for me by the end. Far more vivid was Trotsky's summaries of the key periods of the history of the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks in power. Sukhanov's description of Stalin as "a grey blur" is a complete summary the man's role. In the end the positive aspects of his personality were so few they were easily dwarfed by the negative.
Certainly worth a read, but I would say pick up Sewell and Wood's "In Defence of Lenin" first. The knowledge they gained from the compilation and translation of Trotsky's work are clearly distilled within the pages of In Defence of Lenin, and the two volumes have the benefit of being able to focus on a titan of the revolution rather than a mediocrity.
It is a historical tragedy that Trotsky was not able to write a biography of Lenin, but instead was forced by circumstance to write this biography of Stalin.
To be honest, the passages on Stalin became tiresome for me by the end. Far more vivid was Trotsky's summaries of the key periods of the history of the Russian Revolution and the Bolsheviks in power. Sukhanov's description of Stalin as "a grey blur" is a complete summary the man's role. In the end the positive aspects of his personality were so few they were easily dwarfed by the negative.
Certainly worth a read, but I would say pick up Sewell and Wood's "In Defence of Lenin" first. The knowledge they gained from the compilation and translation of Trotsky's work are clearly distilled within the pages of In Defence of Lenin, and the two volumes have the benefit of being able to focus on a titan of the revolution rather than a mediocrity.
August 30, 2025
Extremely well written and historically illuminating book on the topic of how Stalin was able to get into power. Dispelling the notion that he was in any way paranoid or a true Bolshevik, who was committed to the ideology of communism, the book breaks down Stalins life from birth to power as the leader of the USSR and exposes him for the conniving, power hungry and, vengeful opportunist that he really was.
Also, it leaves one wondering what would have happened to the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union had Lenin and Trotsky disavowed Stalin much earlier? Would history have evolved differently or was a figure like Stalin inevitable given the pecularities of the Bolshevik party at the time?
Also, it leaves one wondering what would have happened to the Bolshevik party and the Soviet Union had Lenin and Trotsky disavowed Stalin much earlier? Would history have evolved differently or was a figure like Stalin inevitable given the pecularities of the Bolshevik party at the time?
May 28, 2021
Trotsky’s biography on Stalin is really an essential part of the puzzle to get the greater picture of what happened between 1905 and 1991. This is not only a story of Stalin (and Trotsky), but it gives a good background to why the Soviet system as it developed through the years and finally stagnated and came to a grinding halt. This is especially useful for the ones of us that still think that socialism is possible.
You do not need to agree with Trotsky’s views to make good use of this book to broaden your views of Russian history.
You do not need to agree with Trotsky’s views to make good use of this book to broaden your views of Russian history.
November 24, 2024
This book explains Stalin's history and more. Although it obviously ends in 1940, it grasps the essence of Stalin, how he came to power and how he was a gravedigger of the revolution. What happend after was just a continuation of his previous course. Book tells us why bureaucracy needed someone like him and Similarities between soviet and french thermidor.
August 25, 2025
A great work by Trotsky I would not suggest this version though the Haymarket books version was put together by Alan Woods Rob Sewel is much more faithful to Trotsky’s original vision
August 7, 2024
This political biography gives a lot of facts and details about Stalin’s political career. However, the problem is that the writer Trotsky oscillates between sharp analysis and entirely unfounded conclusions that do not seem to be based on anything other than a loathing of his enemy. These conclusions by the writer appear to stem from a deep-seated animosity towards his adversary. To be explicit, Trotsky often comes across as a vindictive bully. What is disheartening is that this approach doesn’t help the cause—the fight for genuine socialism against its degeneration.
The crimes in the degenerated Soviet Union under the rule of the so-called “stalinists” were horrific, including the persecution of Trotsky. The revolutionary’s emotions can totally be understood, but writing a biography of his enemy with lots of disparaging and prejudiced comments just doesn’t make things better. That it was done in this way, shows that things seem to be more complex than initially apparent. This complexity is of course no excuse for the horrendous crimes committed by the degenerated apparatus in the Soviet Union from 1927 and onwards. The writer’s murder while penning the book stands out as one of the worst.
Trotsky's contribution lies in providing a plethora of facts and details for other biographers of Stalin. These insights likely wouldn’t have been understood without his unique experience, not just as Bolshevik but also as a firsthand eyewitness of Stalin over many years.
The crimes in the degenerated Soviet Union under the rule of the so-called “stalinists” were horrific, including the persecution of Trotsky. The revolutionary’s emotions can totally be understood, but writing a biography of his enemy with lots of disparaging and prejudiced comments just doesn’t make things better. That it was done in this way, shows that things seem to be more complex than initially apparent. This complexity is of course no excuse for the horrendous crimes committed by the degenerated apparatus in the Soviet Union from 1927 and onwards. The writer’s murder while penning the book stands out as one of the worst.
Trotsky's contribution lies in providing a plethora of facts and details for other biographers of Stalin. These insights likely wouldn’t have been understood without his unique experience, not just as Bolshevik but also as a firsthand eyewitness of Stalin over many years.
July 31, 2014
It's an interesting book for 7 chapters, but unfortunately he was killed by the subject of the book. That's not usual! The rest is pieced together, so can't really rate it.
Here's a fabulous write-up by Trotsky's biographer:
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activi...
Here's a fabulous write-up by Trotsky's biographer:
http://www.frbsf.org/education/activi...
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews