Their Morals and Ours: The Class Foundations of Moral Practice

by Leon Trotsky

Participating in the revolutionary workers movement "with open eyes and an intense will--only this can give the highest moral satisfaction to a thinking being," Trotsky writes. He explains how morality is rooted in the interests of contending social classes. With a reply by the pragmatist philosopher John Dewey and a Marxist response to Dewey by George Novack.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History, Theory, Essays, 20th Century

126 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1938

About the author

See 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.

Reviews

[Arta · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterwork in the application of materialist dialectics which packs a punch in every sentence and continues to be one of my favourite Marxist works year after year.

Some particular highlights that caught my eye this time:

"The appeal to abstract norms is not a disinterested philosophic mistaken but a necessary element in the mechanics of class deception."

"...it is Stalin who in a historical sense fell victim to common sense, that is, its inadequacy, since that power which he possesses serves ends hostile to Bolshevism. Marxist doctrine, on the other hand, permitted us to tear away in time from the Thermidorian bureaucracy and continue to serve the ends of international socialism."

"Subjectively, they [reformists] sympathize with the oppressed no one doubts that. Objectively, they remain captives of the morality of the ruling class and seek to impose it upon the oppressed instead of helping them elaborate the morality of insurrection."

"The number of people who held a revolutionary position at the outbreak of the last war could be counted on one's fingers. The entire field of official politics was almost completely pervaded with various shades of chauvinism. Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Lenin seemed impotent, isolated individuals. But can there be any doubt that their morality was above the bestial morality of the 'sacred union'? Liebknecht's revolution- ary politics were not at all 'individualistic', as then seemed to the average patriotic Philistine. On the contrary, Liebknecht, and Liebknecht alone, reflected and foreshadowed the profound subterranean trends in the masses. The subsequent course of events wholly confirmed this. Not to fear today a complete break with official public opinion so as on the morrow to gain the right of expressing the ideas and feelings of the insurgent masses, this is a special mode of existence which differs from the empiric existence of petty-bourgeois conventionalists."

[CivilWar · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short few articles where Trotsky, clearly and with a sharp critical eye, shows the undeniable, objective material foundations of morality, rooted in class interest rather than any "ideals", and how the role of moralistic attacks by the middle classes, whether right-wing or leftist (anarchists, "socialists", social democrats, all other sorts of idiots), is nothing but a class trying to keep it's cozy life between two great raging fires.

This book effectively obliterates the need for any other moral philosophy or literature, for it has already gone to the root of the matter and shown the nature of such literature, which is always the same.

Not just that, Trotsky is an incredible writer - his love of literature certainly shows through, as he uses countless witty turns of phrase and an almost literary amount of rhetorical capability. Not just being completely correct, it is also a joy to read.

Once again, I repeat - the best book out there on moral philosophy and ethics.

[Nate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Morality bears a class character, refelcting the class character of our society. This short work by Trotsky cuts through the moral indictments against Marxism and socialism waged by the ruling class and those affected by its ideology.

[Beck Siegal · Rating 4 out of 5]

So full of bangers

[Mio · Rating 5 out of 5]

peak

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important explanation of the difference between bourgeois morality and that of revolution. One of Trotsky's most famous works. I recommend it highly to anyone interested in Marxism and revolutionary politics.

[Kaleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pamphlet by Trotsky where he responds to critics who labeled the Bolsheviks as immoral. To Trotsky, there are no transcendental moral truths. Instead, morality comes out of a historical process, and to understand morality, you have to understand the class structure and mode of production behind it("morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing immutable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character"). At this moment, morality is used by the bourgeoisie to keep the working class oppressed and prevent the revolution. In response, Marxists should create a revolutionary morality; basically whatever will lead to a successful revolution and an end to oppression. Trotsky also spends some time pointing that his critics are often hypocritical, accepting or tolerating behavior from the bourgeoisie that they don't accept from the Bolsheviks.

This book was pretty insightful and funny to read. Very polemical tone, Trotsky is clearly fed up people who had been criticizing him, so lots of barbs and witty insults. Too short to really get into its major philosophical claims, but that's fine.

Quotes

A slaveholder who through cunning and violence shackles a slave in chains, and a slave who through cunning and violence breaks the chains -let not the contemptible eunuchs tell us that they are equals before a court of morality!

Permissible and obligatory are those and only those means, we answer, which unite the revolu­tionary proletariat, fill their hearts with irreconcilable hostility to oppression, teach them contempt for official morality and its democratic echoers, imbue them with consciousness of their own historic mission, raise their courage and spirit of self-sacrifice in the struggle

In divine revelation the priests long ago discovered in­ fallible moral criteria. Petty secular priests speak about eternal moral truths without naming their original source.

Thus the teachings of Christ "purified" by them did not at all hinder the city bourgeois Luther from calling for the execution of revolting peasants as "mad dogs." Dr. Martin evidently considered that "the end justifies the means" even before that maxim was at­tributed to the Jesuits.

[Esta · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is ace!! proper made me think and reevaluate what i’d been taught and why and to the benefit of who!!! everyone should read it 10/10

[Donna Davis · Rating 5 out of 5]

It clears up a lot of confusion. If your thinking is out of kilter a bit from that of the standard legal definitions, first of all...be careful? Are you exercising what is really your moral code, or are you giving yourself an excuse to misbehave? I once read the riot act to a teenage shoplifter who claimed to be opposing capitalism. No, generally stealing is just stealing.

But once in awhile, Trotsky says, there are moments when the Marxist steps away from conventional modes. He tells us about rheism, for example, (not sure I spelled it correctly), which is identifying oneself with one's work up to the point where you cannot separate the two. The waitress who says "I'm tables 1,4 and 7" may not be at risk of finding herself feeling worthless if she is fired; this is, after all, a shallow type of rheism. But we should be careful. Likewise, as a U.S. citizen, I do not say "we" bombed Hiroshima. Hell no! The U.S. government did that. I didn't do that. If it happened during my voting lifetime, I still wouldn't own that. When the ruling class gives you Bad Candidate A and Bad Candidate B, the best thing is to do what most people here do: abstain. Work on issues, not for candidates, unless you do so with some sort of clear purpose (as for a protest candidate who has good ideas but is going to lose).

The central idea, which most people, even those who are not Marxists, can relate to is this: be conscious of what you are saying. What comes out of your mouth represents you. And your actions also speak for who you are.

[Corinne Lavallée · Rating 5 out of 5]

A deep dive into the question of morality and what is considered "good" and "evil" and what should the revolutionary approach be towards these questions: it's particularly enjoyable to compare Trotsky's ideas presented in a simple, concise manner (peppered with the author's occasional sass), with Victor Serge's unsufferable pedantic word salad. A must read that should be re-edited in French!

[James Richardson · Rating 5 out of 5]

A solid defense of Marxism and Bolshevism and an attack on Stalinism which is/was nothing more than a new aristocracy with more power than any monarchy ever dream of having.

[Zack · Rating 3 out of 5]

S'ok.

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trotsky is often remembered today as an inhuman monster, when he is not completely forgotten. Reading this passionate and moving text, another picture emerges. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of his two essays in this volume is their honesty. Trotsky is certain of his actions, but this is clearly the result of self-perficient skepticism, a method of doubt unafraid to draw the most radical conclusions. Trotsky's intervention challenges conventional morality, and at first blush can appear quite doctrinaire.

This judgment of his work, voiced in this volume by Dewey, opposes his deduction of moral orientation from class struggle, in favor of a view where class struggle takes secondary importance. Dewey proposes instead to ground morality on constant experimentation, judging only based on "objective consequences." As George Novack correctly points out, Dewey's alternative assumes the necessity of starting afresh "on every occasion, confronting the world around them empty-handed and empty-headed." However, overstating the differences between Trotsky and Dewey neglects the important common ground between pragmatism and historical materialism. I will suggest that this common ground is not merely an agreement concerning the facts of the Moscow Trials. Trotsky's criticism of religion, moral absolutes and common sense arrives at many of the same conclusions as pragmatism, with the key difference that it insists on the class determination of these ideas. After briefly reviewing Trotsky's arguments in these three areas, I will investigate Dewey's charge that Trotsky's ideas amount to a "fanatical and even mystical devotion to use of certain ways of conducting the class struggle to the exclusion of all other ways of conducting it."

Religion, as Trotsky understands it, encompasses any “acknowledgment of a special substance” or moral absolute, which he understands as pseudonyms for God. By positing an eternal realm of moral values, even if nominally secular, moralists withdraw to heaven, which remains “the only fortified position for military operations against dialectical materialism.” His atheism avoids any crude antithesis to this religious idealism, building instead on the absolute idealism of Hegel. Hegel enables Trotsky to subvert this heaven from within by theorizing them as Vorstellungen (representations). Trotsky turns Hegel’s method upon itself, suggesting that “idealistic fetishes” serve the interests of the ruling class as much as religious dogma. Any end that contradicts the interests of the ruling classes is portrayed as immoral, and these norms are enforced through “the cement of morality” produced by moralists. Moral fictions are “spiritual chains forged by the enemy to tame and enslave” the proletariat, and revolutionaries must overcome the instilled fear of a break with public opinion if they wish to loosen the internalized restraints which contain the oppressed in the eclectic dreamworld of late capitalism. Against the tendency to think in fragments, Trotsky seeks to grasp the internal connection between seemingly disparate phenomena, following their class character.

Moralism, Trotsky suggests, builds on indeterminate principles that express “the fact that people in their individual conduct are bound by certain common norms that flow from their being members of society.” Seemingly absolute imperatives are, for Trotsky, devoid of historical and social determinations, relying instead on allusions and insinuations. Trotksy detects in morality an attempt to subdue “Marxism by means of Kantianism,” rejecting not Kant himself, but the decontextualized development of his ideas. Moralism emanates from the divided interests of the petite bourgeois (pb), caught between subjective sympathy with the masses and objective allegiance to the ruling class. PB morality expresses itself as democratism: “compliant, accommodating, and conciliatory - towards the right, at the same time it is exigent, malevolent, and tricky - towards the left.” Democratism sanctifies the masses, dissolving into the given reality and declaring polling data to be the voice of god. Trotsky’s argument is best construed not as a denial of democracy tout court, but as a criticism of the reduction of democratic ideals to triangulation, opportunism and an over-reliance on focus groups. The pb moralists melancholically yearn for a return to the epoch of progressive liberal capitalism, failing to understand that the morality associated with this era has been definitively and irrevocably destroyed. The pb engage in a wild goose chase after a harmonious “formula of salvation that would enable them to avoid breaking with any of the camps,” only to fall back on the struggle between revolutionary socialism and fascist barbarism.

PB morality is governed ultimately by an appeal to common sense, “a clot of prejudices” whose inadequacy is revealed by the routine crises of capitalism. In order to understand these catastrophes, a more systematic method is necessary, taking “all phenomena, institutions, and norms in their rise, development, and decay.” Dialectics avoid the pb’s preferred method of lumping the conduct of reaction with that of revolution through analogical figures: czarism and Bolshevism are portrayed as twins. Whereas Max Eastman argued “if Trotsky had been guided not by Marxist doctrine but by common sense then he would not... have lost power,” Trotsky points out that Stalin’s victory was a capitulation to common sense, representing the interests of a bureaucratic pb.

A contemporary sceptic might wonder if Trotsky’s appeal to doctrine entails a sacrifice of the individual to the collective. Trotsky clarifies that at its root, the dialectical materialist worldview teaches how not to despair if history does not cater to one’s subjective tastes; the sacrifice is ultimately in one’s own interest, when understood in a broad enough sense. Writing in a time where the dominant Stalinist tendency is “occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists,” it is unsurprising that Trotsky recommends against idealizing the masses. When the masses lost faith in themselves and forced the old Bolsheviks into isolation, Trotsky suggests, they cleared the road for Stalin’s bureaucratic aristocracy. Learning the lessons of defeat means knowing how to swim against the stream, in the conviction that the next wave of revolutionary activity will carry them to the other shore. In words that remain moving today, Trotsky writes that “Not all will reach that shore, many will drown. But to participate in this movement with open eyes and with an intense will - only this can give the highest moral satisfaction to a thinking being!”

We can now see Dewey’s accusation in a new light. When Dewey argues that Trotsky shares with religion “the belief that human ends are interwoven into the very texture and structure of existence” we see the lumping mechanism Trotsky described at work. The disagreement between the two ultimately concerns their respective understandings of the legacy of Hegel. Dewey’s rejection of Hegel centers on his misreading of Hegel’s views on teleology, motivated in part by his attack on Nazi Germany (German Philosophy and Politics) and by the death of his two sons. For Dewey, it was Hegel’s teleological view of history as culminating in the Prussian state that helped explain the rise of Nazism. The least that can be said about this reading is that it expresses a myth about Hegel’s work, derived from Dewey’s reading of Rudolf Haym. On Dewey’s interpretation, a mystical devotion to teleology was still present in Trotsky’s understanding of the process of class struggle. While Trotsky is certainly devoted to his cause, there is no mystical teleology in his conception, as he recognizes that the victory of the proletariat is by no means inevitable. We can conclude that Dewey’s accusation is unfounded, as it relies on a misunderstanding about Hegel and a misinterpretation of Trotsky’s position. However, Dewey’s insistence that Trotsky’s deduction of historical laws fails should not be taken as barring mutually beneficial dialogue and collaboration between dialectical materialism and pragmatism, especially those varieties sympathetic to idealistic philosophy.

Following Peter Olen’s (https://journals.openedition.org/ejpa...) distinction between classical pragmatism, to which Dewey belongs, and the more realist strand of pragmatism of Sellars père et fils, it is possible to imagine a second encounter on the basis of the Sellarsian critique of classical pragmatism. The version of the critique articulated by Roy Wood Sellars, modified in certain respects by his son, expresses their shared opposition to Dewey’s reliance on a notion of immediate experience: “It is this term "experience" which makes me shudder… it is a "weasel word." Is there not in it always an implication of an experiencer? Of a conscious organism? I think that there is. If so, it is not a satisfactory cosmological term.” Experience and common sense belong to what Wilfrid Sellars called the manifest image, which appears immediate but must be understood in terms of its mediations. Sellars’ pragmatic analysis of mediation can be seen as complementary to Trotsky’s project, further fleshing out his essential insight that morality must be understood in terms of its social determinations. Trotsky, in turn, can radicalize the Sellarsian project by exposing its dependence on neo-Kantian dichotomies and by re-injecting much needed class consciousness into otherwise arid debates. Moralists are constantly harassed by history, which explodes all efforts at reconciliation; it is high time that those of us who recognize ourselves in Trotsky’s description stop trying to balance all the books, and begin developing a revolutionary morality.

[Katerina Pavlakou · Rating 4 out of 5]

Εάν το αντιλαμβάνομαι σωστά, στο έργο αυτό ο Τρότσκι προσπαθεί να κάνει debunk τη φράση "ο τροτσκισμός κι ο σταλινισμός είναι το ίδιο πράγμα" αναφερόμενος σε όλες τις ομάδες και σε αρκετά μεμονωμένα πρόσωπα τα οποία συνεισέφεραν στη γέννηση, διάδοση ή υποστήριξη της άποψης αυτής. Κατ αρχάς για να καταφέρει κανείς να διαβάσει αυτό το έργο σωστά, θα πρέπει να το τοποθετήσει στη συνθήκη κατά τη διάρκεια της οποίας γράφτηκε. Είναι διάχυτο στο έργο (εύλογα) το αίσθημα της προδοσίας από κάθε πιθανή ομάδα, εξ αρχής αντίπαλη αλλά και τέως φίλη. Είναι ένα πολύ ενδιαφέρον ανάγνωσμα το οποίο για έναν άνθρωπο χωρίς προηγούμενο ιστορικό μπαγκραουντ χρειάζεται παράλληλη έρευνα, η οποία ωστόσο συμβάλλει στον συγκεκριμένο χαρακτήρα του. Περιέχει ενδιαφέρουσες τοποθετήσεις γύρω απ' τη σχέση σκοπού και μέσου και την καθολική ηθική. Δε μπορώ να το τοποθετήσω σε μια κατηγορία αναγνωσματος, πολιτικής/ηθικής φιλοσοφίας, μανιφέστο, ιστορικό ή ακόμη και ημερολόγιο, σίγουρα πάντως είναι ευανάγνωστο και ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμο για οποιονδήποτε ασχολείται με το κομμάτι των πολιτικών ιδεολογιών και την ιστορία της αριστεράς

[Baran Şen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ahlak kavramı ve "Amaç araçları haklı çıkarır." konuları üzerine yapılan tartışmalara yapılan en parlak katkılardan biri. Her zamanki mükemmel kalemiyle Troçki, amacın aracı haklı çıkarması yanında özel olarak amacın haklılığına ve kim, hangi toplumsal sınıf tarafından sahiplenildiğine bakılarak karar verilmesi gerektiğini savunuyor. Sınıf savaşında farklı kamplar aynı aracı kullansalar da değerlendirme kıstası olarak bu bahsettiğim amacın haklılığı üzerinden yapılan kavrama formülü oldukça zihin açıcı. Kitapta, Troçki birçok farklı görüşün savunucuların tezlerine yer veriyor ve bunları tek tek çürüterek kendi tezini kuvvetlendiriyor. Her bir cümlesine katıldığım bu eser, bu tarz kitaplarla ve konularla ilgilenmeyen okurların bile içinde hayata dair çokça şey bulacağı ve bakış açılarının genişlemesini sağlayacak bir rehber niteliğinde.

[Steff Zultner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sehr empfehlenswert und wieder aktueller denn je.

„Der gesunde Menschenverstand arbeitet mit unveränderlichen Größen in einer Welt, wo nur die Veränderung beständig ist. Die Dialektik dagegen begreift alle Erscheinungen, Einrichtungen und Normen in ihrem Entstehen, Bestehen und Vergehen.
Die dialektische Auffassung der Moral als eines abhängigen und vergänglichen Produktes des Klassenkampfes erscheint dem gesunden Menschenverstand als „amoralische". Und doch gibt es nichts Flacheres, Schaleres, Selbstzufriedeneres und Zynischeres als die Moralvorschriften des gesunden Menschenverstandes!“

Der Text wurde Trotzkis Sohn und politischem Weggefährten gewidmet, der zum Zeitpunkt der Veröffentlichung von Geheimagenten Stalins umgebracht wurde.

[t.s. esque · Rating 4 out of 5]

Audiobook: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPFJ7g8UkWs

[Callie M · Rating 5 out of 5]

Banger

[Sky Harrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

Trotsky has beef with everyone, which seems quite normal for this period. Some dry ass sections where idk what's going on but he summarises it in the last few chapters.
I didn't read the other bits I came here for Trotsky not random Americans.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Un marxista revolucionario no puede abordar su misión histórica sin haber roto moralmente con la opinión pública burguesa y con sus agentes en el seno del proletariado."

"Para un marxista revolucionario, no puede haber contradicciones entre la ética personal y los intereses del partido, ya que en su conciencia el partido encarna las tareas y los fines más elevados de la humanidad."

[V. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently reread this book and got MUCH more from it than I did reading it the first time a few years ago, when I really didn't understand dialectics. This book is incredible.

[Marta Kazic · Rating 5 out of 5]

fascinating.

not how i'd live my life but goddamn fascinating.

[Serenata · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Bourgeois evolutionism halts impotently at the threshold of historical society because it does not wish to acknowledge the driving force in the evolution of social forms: the class struggle. Morality is one of the ideological functions in this struggle. The ruling class forces its ends upon society and habituates it into considering all those means which contradict its ends as immoral. That is the chief function of official morality. It pursues the idea of the “greatest possible happiness” not for the majority but for a small and ever diminishing minority. Such a regime could not have endured for even a week through force alone. It needs the cement of morality. The mixing of this cement constitutes the profession of the petty-bourgeois theoreticians, and moralists. They dabble in all colours of the rainbow but in the final instance remain apostles of slavery and submission."

A short work with important ideas. Trotsky, as ever, is razor-sharp in his critiques, genius in his insights and and entertaining in his wit. That someone could summarise such a topic in 80 short pages is an amazing feat in itself. And he does it impeccably.

Their Morals and Ours explains how the dominant morality in any society is set by the ruling class. It always has been, from ancient Egypt to European feudalism to the present-day capitalist society. This was laid bare in the 2020 uprising, where the destruction of property - mere bricks and mortar - were considered on par with the destruction of human life. It's seen when even the most "humane" governments, which in peaceful times “detest” war, proclaim during war that the highest duty of their armies is the extermination of the greatest possible number of people. It's the double standard in which working class people taking a pittance in welfare payments are seen as "leeches" but corporations getting handed corporate bailouts are worthy. So much of the state-sanctioned "morality" just protects the interests of property owners and capital.

Tl;dr any "oh shit he right" moments were had in this book

[Wouters Rodolphe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sur quoi baser la morale? Et qui ou quoi doit-elle servir?, demande Trotsky.

Si ces questions sont légitimes, —en ressortant de la lecture de ce court livret, disponible gratuitement en ligne—, on a l’impression qu’il a détruit tous les fondements de la morale et tente de les réutiliser à son compte. Il critique les abstractions morales des bourgeois mais recycle leurs mécanismes moraux pour justifier de la violence dans les révolutions.

Par exemple, pour Trotsky, le catholicisme établi une morale au-dessus des hommes et des classes, sans contact avec la réalité ou l’histoire. Etablie par les bourgeois pour les bourgeois. Par exemple le canonique ‘tu ne tueras point’: c’est quand même bon en cas de légitime défense. En temps de guerre le principe semble s’inverser et il est bon de tuer. Il devient une valeur, le patriotisme. Et qui décide de cette inversion de valeur ?

Autre exemple. Quid de l'"impératif catégorique" de Kant? C’est aussi une généralisation de ces normes morales. Ce n’est pas concret, dit Trotsky.

La démocratie?, encore une abstraction supra-historique utilisée politiquement comme un argument pour attaquer le bolchevisme. Une morale idéaliste.

Pareil pour l’utilitarisme. Cela entraîne assez rapidement que la fin justifie les moyens. Mais alors qu’est-ce qui justifie la fin?, demande Trotsky. De nouveau, historiquement, ce sont les valeurs bourgeoises.

Non, dit-il encore, les valeurs morales doivent être basées sur les classes sociales. Du point de vue des "vérités éternelles", la révolution est naturellement immorale, mais si on prend la réalité comme source, l’histoire montre que la violence est nécessaire au rétablissement de la morale. Par exemple la révolution d’octobre a aidé à briser un esclavage par les bourgeois - elle est donc morale.

Je pense que ce livret est une réponse cynique aux opposants: vos arguments justifient de la violence sous couvert de valeurs chrétiennes et de démocratie -Sachez que je peux utiliser vos mêmes arguments pour justifier ma violence.

[Ollie · Rating 2 out of 5]

It’s often hard to find the right sentence to start these reviews, but in this case, John Dewey has done the work for me. His section of this book starts with the statement, “The relation of means and ends has long been an outstanding issue in morals.” And that’s what Their Morals and Ours is really about. As the Moscow show trials were underway and Stalin’s atrocities became more obvious, the question arose whether Stalin’s actions were really that much different from Trotsky’s or Lenin’s.

Of course, Trotsky had a lot to say about this. Of course…

Trotsky argues that their goals were different than the Stalinists and that they employed these means to achieve the ends of human liberation and freedom and of our conquest over nature. That being the end, it justified the means of war and murder during the civil war.

But this book develops in a curious ways as Trotsky’s essay, followed by an attack on the reviewers of said article, is followed by an analysis by John Dewey, which is then followed by an analysis by George Novack. Trotsky is defending his position on the question of whether the ends justifying the means, Dewey is elaborating on the response to Trotksy’s article, and Novack is analyzing the beef between Trotsky and Dewey. It’s a real Russian doll situation.

Dewey helps explain what Trotsky was trying to say and counters by saying that class struggle is not the only means to that end and that means should be judged by their direct consequences. Novack then explains that Novack and Trotsky basically disagreed over method before forming his own criticism of Dewey, which I honestly did not understand.

And interesting book.

[OSCAR · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lo pequeño no quita lo polémico a este librito de León Trotsky. Me sorprende que Alasdair McIntyre no haya citado este trabajo en su libro sobre la ética. Trotsky en este opúsculo demuestra una comprensión amplia de la moral, y añade un elemento: la clase que establece una guía de comportamiento como la correcta. Esto revuelve las convicciones de uno, al cuestionarle la existencia de principios morales válidos para todas las circunstancias. Sin meditarlo, Trotsky hace notar que en situaciones de peligro, la moral "se suspende" y se busca ante todo eliminar al enemigo; en esto coincide con Carl Schmitt. Esto lleva a un aparente relativismo ético que resuelve el autor comunista con la referencia constante al grupo por el cual se lucha: el proletariado. Si bien trata Trotsky de escapar de la consigna "El fin justifica los medios" no lo consigue del todo y él mismo termina por decir que no hay nada escrito en la lucha por liberar a las clases oprimidas, por lo cual, si han habido en su teoría críticas a prácticas como el terrorismo, éstas se relativizan después de haberse hecho el estudio de la situación histórica en la que se encuentra el elemento revolucionario.

La cuestión moral no puede prescindir de estudiar este folletín. Lectura concisa, pero tremenda.

[Efrahim · Rating 3 out of 5]

Troçki'ye göre, sınıfsal eşitsizliklerin olduğu bir toplumda mücadelenin harlandığı zamanlarda soyut ve evrensel ahlaki ilkelerden bahsederek işçi sınıfına ve sosyalistlere vaaz vermek, aslında işçi sınıfını silahsız bırakmak ve burjuvazinin yanında yer almak anlamına gelir. Aynı doğrultuda, amacından ve tarihsel/sınıfsal bağlamından soyutlanmış bir aracı ya da mücadele biçimini lanetlemek, kavganın dışından atılmış küçük burjuvaca boş nutuklardır.
Troçki'nin cephe aldığı kesimlere karşı yaptığı iki yüzlülük eleştirisini anlıyor ve katılıyorum ancak yine de birtakım evrensel ahlaki ilkeleri doğrudan çöpe atmak için bir sebep göremiyorum. Örneğin; insanlık, dürüstlük, mertlik gibi ilkelerin sosyalistler tarafından kendi meşreplerince mücadele içerisinde kullanılmasının, hegemonya mücadelesi içerisinde önemli olduğunu düşünüyorum. Ayrıca bence "biz iç savaşta her türlü işi yaptık ancak dönemin sıcaklığı gereğince hepsi doğru ve meşruydu" demenin ve hiçbir özeleştiri kırıntısı göstermemenin Stalinizmle bağını kurmak çok da abes gelmiyor bana. Böyle olunca Troçki, kendi kendisini doğrulamaya çalışan ve öfkeli bir mağlup görüntüsü veriyor maalesef.
Bu nedenle, Troçki'den ziyade kitabın önsözündeki Traverso metnine çok daha yakın hissettim kendimi.

[Charles Bocquentin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trotsky est encore parfois réduit à un Robespierre responsable de la terreur bolchevique, ayant notamment fait fusiller des déserteurs et ordonné des prises d'otage.

Dans cet ouvrage il condamne ces moralistes qui renvoient dos à dos la violence trotskyste et la violence stalinienne au profit de l'oppression réactionnaire.

Trotsky insiste que la violence dont il fit usage était nécessaire à la libération du peuple, tandis que Staline opprime pour asseoir son propre pouvoir contre l'émancipation du peuple. En ce sens, affirme-t-il, Staline a trahi la révolution tandis qu'il la défendait.

D'un point de vue critique, il est difficile voire impossible de condamner la révolte de l'opprimé sans d'abord condamner l'oppression contre laquelle elle se manifeste. On peut aussi pressentir, pour éviter le risque de se corrompre en devenant le mal que l'on prétend combattre, qu'il vaut peut-être mieux privilégier la non-violence comme l'ont fait Gandhi et Martin Luther King.

Toutefois, l'autobiographie de Mandela nous rappelle que la resistance armée est bien souvent une forme de légitime défense, et comme le dit Kwama Ture "pour que la nonviolence fonctionne, il faut que l'oppresseur ait une conscience".

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

TROTSKY’S TITLE ESSAY, AND COMMENTS BY TWO OTHERS

The Introduction by David Salner to this 1969 book explains, “Leon Trotsky was the central organizer of the Red Army during the Russian civil war, which raged from 1918 to 1921, when the first socialist revolution was threatened by the intervention of imperialist armies as well as by counterrevolution. During this period, Trotsky became known as the foremost defender, in the military arena, of socialist revolution. In [this book] we see Trotsky as an equally effective combatant in the arena of moral ideas. This classic defense of revolutionary morality is directed at those disillusioned intellectuals of the thirties who attempted to rationalize their departure from revolutionary Marxism with the argument that some abstract notion of morality, and not the necessities of the class struggle, should be the guiding principle for those who attempt to create more rational and humane circumstances of life.” (Pg. 7)

He adds, “Pressing political obligations prevented Trotsky from responding to the essay included here by John Dewey… which appeared in the August 1938 ‘New International.’ The Marxist scholar George Novack, who had been the national secretary of the American Committee for the Defense of Leon Trotsky, reviews the debated issues and brings them up to date in this essay… first published in the Fall 1965 ‘International Socialist Review.’” (Pg. 10-11)

Trotsky asserts in the title essay, “Whoever does not care to return to Moses, Christ or Mohammed; whoever is not satisfied with eclectic hodge-podges must acknowledge that morality is a product of social development; that there is nothing immutable about it; that it serves social interests; that these interests are contradictory; that morality more than any other form of ideology has a class character.” (Pg. 21)

He continues, “petty-bourgeois moralists … do not understand that morality is a function of the class struggle; that democratic morality corresponds to the epoch of liberal and progressive capitalism; that the sharpening of the class struggle in passing through its latest phase definitively and irrevocably destroyed this morality; that in its place came the morality of fascism on one side, on the other the morality of proletarian revolution.” (Pg. 24)

He acknowledges, “There is no impervious demarcation between ‘peaceful’ class struggle and revolution. Evry strike embodies in an unexpanded form all the elements of civil war. Each side strives to impress the opponent with an exaggerated picture of its resoluteness to struggle and its material resources. Through their press, agents, and spies the capitalists labor to frighten and demoralize the strikers. From their side, the workers’ pickets, where persuasion does not avail, are compelled to resort to force. This ‘lying and worse’ are an inseparable part of the class struggle even in its most elementary form. It remains to be added that the very conception of ‘truth’ and ‘lie’ was born of social contradictions.” (Pg. 37)

He clarifies, “Stalinism merely screens itself under the cult of the party; actually it destroys and tramples the party in filth. It is true, however, that to a Bolshevik the party is everything. The drawing-room socialist Thomas is surprised by and rejects a similar relationship between a revolutionist and revolution because he himself is only a bourgeois with a socialist ‘ideal.’” (Pg. 44)

He argues, “The ‘amoralism’ of Lenin, that is, his rejection of supra-class morals, did not hinder him from remaining faithful to one and the same ideal throughout his whole life; from devoting his whole being to the cause of the oppressed; from displaying the highest consciousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest conscientiousness in the sphere of ideas and the highest fearlessness in the sphere of action; from maintaining an attitude untainted by the least superiority to an ‘ordinary’ worker, to a defenseless woman, to a child. Does it not seem that ‘amoralism’ in the given case is only a pseudonym for higher human morality?” (Pg. 45)

Trotsky states in the essay, ‘The Moralists and Sycophants Against Marxism, “It is inconceivable in our time to find a conciliatory formula in the sphere of political economy or sociology; class contradictions have forever overthrown the ‘harmony’ formula of the liberals and democratic reformers. There remains the domain of religion and transcendental morality…” (Pg. 65)

John Dewey says in his essay, “Since Mr. Trotsky also indicates that the only alternative position to the idea that the end justifies the means is some form of absolutistic ethics based on the alleged deliverances of conscience, or a moral sense, or some brand of eternal truths, I wish to say that I write from a standpoint that rejects all such doctrines as definitely as does Mr. Trotsky himself, and that I hold that the end in the sense of consequences provides the only basis for moral ideas and action, and therefore provides the only justification that can be found for means employed.” (Pg. 68)

George Novack observes, “The first question he tackled was the thorny one of the relation between means and ends in morality. Many liberal moralizers believe that such a maxim is the root of all evil. It may therefore come as a shock and surprise to them that Dewey agreed with Trotsky that the end justifies the means. The ends and means are independent.” (Pg. 79)

This book will mostly be of interest to those studying Trotsky.

[Julius · Rating 4 out of 5]

36 prall gefüllte Seiten mit der Herleitung inwiefern die ideologischen Gegner des Bolschewismus (zu dem der Author den Leninismus und den Trotskysmus zählt) Unrecht haben und Verlogen agieren. Dabei schlägt er in alle Richtungen aus.

Die eigene "Moral" kommt dabei deutlich weniger heraus als die Abgrenzung zum Stalinismus.

In meinem Fall war es nicht die Kindle Edition.