What do you think?
Rate this book
Trotsky #3
The Prophet Outcast: Trotsky, 1929-1940
Few political figures of the twentieth century have aroused as much controversy as the Russian revolutionary Leon Trotsky. Trotsky’s extraordinary life and extensive writings have left an indelible mark on revolutionary conscience, yet there was a danger that his name would disappear from history. Originally published in 1954, Deutscher’s magisterial three-volume biography was the first major publication to counter the powerful Stalinist propaganda machine. In this definitive biography Trotsky emerges in his real stature, as the most heroic, and ultimately tragic, character of the Russian Revolution. This third volume of the trilogy, first published in 1963, is a self-contained narrative of Trotsky’s years in exile and of his murder in Mexico in 1940. Deutscher’s masterful account of the period, and of the ideological controversies ranging throughout it, forms a background against which, as he says, ‘the protagonist’s character reveals itself, while he is moving towards catastrophe.’
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1963
16 people are currently reading
1833 people want to read
About the author
Isaac Deutscher
68 books144 followersIsaac Deutscher was a Polish-born Jewish Marxist writer, journalist and political activist who moved to the United Kingdom at the outbreak of World War II. He is best known as a biographer of Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin and as a commentator on Soviet affairs. His three-volume biography of Trotsky, in particular, was highly influential among the British New Left.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews
August 23, 2016
wrapping up the Trotsky saga...
This last volume is easily the most moving in the trilogy. For readers who don't share my pedantic desire for completion, I'd almost recommend skipping straight to The Prophet Outcast. Here I think we find Trotsky as he is most remembered today - not man of power, founder of the Red Army and apparent successor to Lenin, but the tragic figure, cast out and persecuted yet defiant til the end. Though we live in cynical times many of us can still appreciate a heroic dissident.
In 2004 the great publishing house Verso reissued Deutscher's classic biography. In the press many critics took this as an opportunity to pay tribute again to the legend of Trotsky. See, for example, Chritopher Hitchens' piece in the Atlanitc (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...). Trotksy is commemorated almost as the conscience of Bolshevism, the one who could have brought about a better, more humane communism and kept Stalin from permanently bloodying that word.
It's a stirring narrative, but I actually think it does a disservice to Deutscher's great subtlety and rigor as a historian. He's too much of a historical materialist to ever go in for hagiography. His account of the birth and development of the Soviet Union is probably the most illuminating thing I've ever read on the subject. His admiration for Trotsky does not prevent him from showing the ways in which Trotsky was complicit in his own downfall and that of his country.
So then was Trotsky a great man?
It's all very complicated, of course, but my answer, after reading this biography... NO. I have no doubt Trotsky was amazingly brilliant and courageous. However, it seems to me that he ultimately failed very badly at what ought to have been the central task of his life. He couldn't stop Stalin. A great orator and military strategist, nonetheless his political judgment was often abysmal. We see this especially in the second volume, where he repeatedly underestimates his adversary. It's not just hindsight that makes this clear. Throughout the twenties other members of the politbureau (including Lenin) repeatedly tried to warn him of the danger posed by Stalin. He never took the threat seriously enough.
Moreover, the image of Trotsky as principled critic of Stalinism is a huge oversimplification. It's much more the case that Stalin was an extremely unprincipled opponent of Trotsky's physical and political existence. The critique Trotsky did develop lagged woefully behind the ungodly reality of Stalin's reign. To equate Stalin with 'Thermidor' was precisely the wrong analogy. If only that were true! The historical Thermidor actually brought an end to the terror in France. Stalin unleashed terror on an unprecedented scale. Nor can it honestly be said that he represented the forces of reaction or counterrevolution. Even at his most barbaric, Stalin acted from a certain revolutionary logic. A logic which Trotsky endorsed.
Trotsky was the first to speak up for 'primitive socialist accumulation,' a planned economy, and class war on the kulaks. Stalin appropriated these ideas directly from his arch rival. In the early thirties he applied them directly to the flesh of the peasantry, creating enormous hecatombs. This was Stalin's first genocide. The second came a few years later with the terror. Even though Trotsky and his followers were one of the explicit targets, even in this case Stalin showed signs of a tacit ideological agreement. Trotsky had constantly railed against the party bureaucracy turning into a new exploiting class. By killing or imprisoning the vast majority of party members, Stalin aimed in part to destroy this new class of bureaucrats.
This is not to say that Trotsky would have done exactly the same thing if he'd come to power. He was not exactly a gentle lamb himself, but still it's hard to imagine him being half as brutal as Stalin was. What does seem fairly clear is that Trotsky helped create the conditions which made Stalinism possible. This does not subtract from his tragic dignity at the end, but it does seriously complicate his legacy.
*
'The Opposition wanted industrialization and collectivization to be carried out in the broad daylight of proletarian democracy, with the consent of the masses and free initiative "from below";whereas Stalin relied on the force of the decree and coercion from above.' - pp 70
Hm, well, sometimes I think seriously about becoming an astronaut... No doubt this was a nice sentiment on the part of the Opposition, but as Deutscher's lucid historical analysis makes clear, no such consent could be forthcoming. Nor should it have been; why would the peasantry consent to be eradicated? Moreover, by 1929 the term 'proletarian democracy' was an oxymoron in the Soviet Union; the industrial working class made up only a small fraction of the population. The rural masses were increasingly hostile to the Bolshevik regime. True democracy would almost certainly have meant its dissolution. In that sense Stalin could accurately claim to be acting in defense of the revolution with his strong-arm tactics.
Which is not meant as a defense of Stalin, of course; it merely shows the limits of those who sought to dissent from him while remaining within the framework of Bolshevism.
*
During the height of the Ukranian genocide, it was a staple of Stalinist propaganda that the kulaks' hatred of the revolution was so intense that they elected to destroy their food supplies and starve rather than feed the Soviet Union. Was there any basis in reality to this outrageous claim? Deutscher writes:
"While the peasants were being rapidly reduced to this state [in 1929], they still took a fiercely insane plunge into dissipation. In the first months of collectivization they slaughtered over 15,000,000 cows and oxen, nearly 40,000,000 goats and sheep, 7,000,000 pigs, and 4,000,000 horses; the slaughter went on until the nation's cattle stock was brought down to less than half of what it had been" - pp 118
For the most part, even though he writes mainly from the view of party official rather than the peasant victims, Deutscher has done an admirable job avoiding euphemism or excuse when discussing the violence of collectivization. However, the passage above makes me a bit nervous and suspicious. Deutscher does not actually cite his source for this information. It's quite possible something like this did actually occur, but any official Bolshevik sources would have every reason to exploit the episode for propaganda purposes.
*
Bukharin: our great mistake was in identifying the party with the state.
Trying to make sense of Stalin's insane consolidation of power in the thirties. Maybe what's surprising is that it took as long as it did for a one man autocracy rise. From the start the Bolshevik regime could only survive through political repression. First all other parties were banned; then throughout the twenties it became increasingly that even within the Party there was no way to handle dissent. Competing factions were banned. Power became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By the late '20's the Stalinist faction was effectively the ruling party; then by the '30's it became narrower still: Stalin had to head off a tendency to factionalize within his own faction. So the party (and by extension, the state) came to be identified wholly with his own person. Seen from this angle, perhaps even the most bizarre slanders of the terror may have had a certain logic to them. There's a sense in which as he gained more power he became more vulnerable. His power was legitimized solely by... power, and so just to maintain it he had to exert it ever more extensively.
Also, from this perspective, Trotsky's reputation as a dissident intellectual is somewhat ironic. In the aftermath of '17 he helped set the repressive political machine in motion. The fact that he would eventually be one of its victims is perhaps more a sign of how out of control it became than of any dissident spirit on his part. Even after he was exiled, the terms in which he denounced Stalin can seem surprisingly tepid. For instance, he still refused the idea of forming another party. He was completely sincere in his commitment to the revolution and the one party system he helped create; he ended up painting himself in a corner with this commitment.
One more thought: by the early '30's the Soviet Union was basically in an undeclared civil war, of the party or urban population against the peasantry (if one hesitates at all to use the word 'war' here, it's only because the use of force was so extremely one-sided); to what extent can Stalin's consolidation be understood as him decreeing special 'war powers' for himself?
*
"Stalin had timed the trial to be staged just after Hitler's march into the Rhineland and shortly after the Popular Front had formed its government in France. In doing so he blackmailed the labor movement and the leftist intelligentsia of the west, who looked to him as their ally against Hitler." (pp 335)
One of the most mystifying episodes in xxth century intellectual history is the indulgence so many intellectuals gave to Stalin. Perhaps you could say this was somewhat excusable in the early thirties, when Stalin did everything possible to suppress information about the horrors of collectivization and the Ukranian genocide. Yet this indulgence continued after the show trials, which were of course public events. No outside observer with even a mildly critical intelligence could possibly believe that the accusations at the trials were true. Thus we find the unedifying spectacle of truly great minds resorting to grotesque casuistry to come up with some justification to keep supporting Stalin - for instance, Malraux, Brecht, & (it pains me to say this ) Merleau-Ponty.
At the same time, while it's easy now to excoriate this sort of thing, we shouldn't forget that Europe was in a truly desperate situation by the late '30s. Unfortunately it did prove to be true that Hitler could only be defeated through an alliance with Stalin.
*
The most inane statement encountered in these pages may come from George Bernard Shaw; in '37 he explained his reluctance to publicly defend Trotsky from Stalin's baseless slander
Oh, yes. If only both sides could acknowledge their share of the blame, then we could all move forward together! And note the nauseating appeal from personal experience. Having once spent a few hours in Stalin's company, Shaw now considers himself an expert. Because of course Stalin would level with an elite cultural emissary from the west. Shaw doesn't seem to consider the possibility that his visit was a highly staged propaganda coup for the Soviet Union.
This last volume is easily the most moving in the trilogy. For readers who don't share my pedantic desire for completion, I'd almost recommend skipping straight to The Prophet Outcast. Here I think we find Trotsky as he is most remembered today - not man of power, founder of the Red Army and apparent successor to Lenin, but the tragic figure, cast out and persecuted yet defiant til the end. Though we live in cynical times many of us can still appreciate a heroic dissident.
In 2004 the great publishing house Verso reissued Deutscher's classic biography. In the press many critics took this as an opportunity to pay tribute again to the legend of Trotsky. See, for example, Chritopher Hitchens' piece in the Atlanitc (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/a...). Trotksy is commemorated almost as the conscience of Bolshevism, the one who could have brought about a better, more humane communism and kept Stalin from permanently bloodying that word.
It's a stirring narrative, but I actually think it does a disservice to Deutscher's great subtlety and rigor as a historian. He's too much of a historical materialist to ever go in for hagiography. His account of the birth and development of the Soviet Union is probably the most illuminating thing I've ever read on the subject. His admiration for Trotsky does not prevent him from showing the ways in which Trotsky was complicit in his own downfall and that of his country.
So then was Trotsky a great man?
It's all very complicated, of course, but my answer, after reading this biography... NO. I have no doubt Trotsky was amazingly brilliant and courageous. However, it seems to me that he ultimately failed very badly at what ought to have been the central task of his life. He couldn't stop Stalin. A great orator and military strategist, nonetheless his political judgment was often abysmal. We see this especially in the second volume, where he repeatedly underestimates his adversary. It's not just hindsight that makes this clear. Throughout the twenties other members of the politbureau (including Lenin) repeatedly tried to warn him of the danger posed by Stalin. He never took the threat seriously enough.
Moreover, the image of Trotsky as principled critic of Stalinism is a huge oversimplification. It's much more the case that Stalin was an extremely unprincipled opponent of Trotsky's physical and political existence. The critique Trotsky did develop lagged woefully behind the ungodly reality of Stalin's reign. To equate Stalin with 'Thermidor' was precisely the wrong analogy. If only that were true! The historical Thermidor actually brought an end to the terror in France. Stalin unleashed terror on an unprecedented scale. Nor can it honestly be said that he represented the forces of reaction or counterrevolution. Even at his most barbaric, Stalin acted from a certain revolutionary logic. A logic which Trotsky endorsed.
Trotsky was the first to speak up for 'primitive socialist accumulation,' a planned economy, and class war on the kulaks. Stalin appropriated these ideas directly from his arch rival. In the early thirties he applied them directly to the flesh of the peasantry, creating enormous hecatombs. This was Stalin's first genocide. The second came a few years later with the terror. Even though Trotsky and his followers were one of the explicit targets, even in this case Stalin showed signs of a tacit ideological agreement. Trotsky had constantly railed against the party bureaucracy turning into a new exploiting class. By killing or imprisoning the vast majority of party members, Stalin aimed in part to destroy this new class of bureaucrats.
This is not to say that Trotsky would have done exactly the same thing if he'd come to power. He was not exactly a gentle lamb himself, but still it's hard to imagine him being half as brutal as Stalin was. What does seem fairly clear is that Trotsky helped create the conditions which made Stalinism possible. This does not subtract from his tragic dignity at the end, but it does seriously complicate his legacy.
*
'The Opposition wanted industrialization and collectivization to be carried out in the broad daylight of proletarian democracy, with the consent of the masses and free initiative "from below";whereas Stalin relied on the force of the decree and coercion from above.' - pp 70
Hm, well, sometimes I think seriously about becoming an astronaut... No doubt this was a nice sentiment on the part of the Opposition, but as Deutscher's lucid historical analysis makes clear, no such consent could be forthcoming. Nor should it have been; why would the peasantry consent to be eradicated? Moreover, by 1929 the term 'proletarian democracy' was an oxymoron in the Soviet Union; the industrial working class made up only a small fraction of the population. The rural masses were increasingly hostile to the Bolshevik regime. True democracy would almost certainly have meant its dissolution. In that sense Stalin could accurately claim to be acting in defense of the revolution with his strong-arm tactics.
Which is not meant as a defense of Stalin, of course; it merely shows the limits of those who sought to dissent from him while remaining within the framework of Bolshevism.
*
During the height of the Ukranian genocide, it was a staple of Stalinist propaganda that the kulaks' hatred of the revolution was so intense that they elected to destroy their food supplies and starve rather than feed the Soviet Union. Was there any basis in reality to this outrageous claim? Deutscher writes:
"While the peasants were being rapidly reduced to this state [in 1929], they still took a fiercely insane plunge into dissipation. In the first months of collectivization they slaughtered over 15,000,000 cows and oxen, nearly 40,000,000 goats and sheep, 7,000,000 pigs, and 4,000,000 horses; the slaughter went on until the nation's cattle stock was brought down to less than half of what it had been" - pp 118
For the most part, even though he writes mainly from the view of party official rather than the peasant victims, Deutscher has done an admirable job avoiding euphemism or excuse when discussing the violence of collectivization. However, the passage above makes me a bit nervous and suspicious. Deutscher does not actually cite his source for this information. It's quite possible something like this did actually occur, but any official Bolshevik sources would have every reason to exploit the episode for propaganda purposes.
*
Bukharin: our great mistake was in identifying the party with the state.
Trying to make sense of Stalin's insane consolidation of power in the thirties. Maybe what's surprising is that it took as long as it did for a one man autocracy rise. From the start the Bolshevik regime could only survive through political repression. First all other parties were banned; then throughout the twenties it became increasingly that even within the Party there was no way to handle dissent. Competing factions were banned. Power became concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. By the late '20's the Stalinist faction was effectively the ruling party; then by the '30's it became narrower still: Stalin had to head off a tendency to factionalize within his own faction. So the party (and by extension, the state) came to be identified wholly with his own person. Seen from this angle, perhaps even the most bizarre slanders of the terror may have had a certain logic to them. There's a sense in which as he gained more power he became more vulnerable. His power was legitimized solely by... power, and so just to maintain it he had to exert it ever more extensively.
Also, from this perspective, Trotsky's reputation as a dissident intellectual is somewhat ironic. In the aftermath of '17 he helped set the repressive political machine in motion. The fact that he would eventually be one of its victims is perhaps more a sign of how out of control it became than of any dissident spirit on his part. Even after he was exiled, the terms in which he denounced Stalin can seem surprisingly tepid. For instance, he still refused the idea of forming another party. He was completely sincere in his commitment to the revolution and the one party system he helped create; he ended up painting himself in a corner with this commitment.
One more thought: by the early '30's the Soviet Union was basically in an undeclared civil war, of the party or urban population against the peasantry (if one hesitates at all to use the word 'war' here, it's only because the use of force was so extremely one-sided); to what extent can Stalin's consolidation be understood as him decreeing special 'war powers' for himself?
*
"Stalin had timed the trial to be staged just after Hitler's march into the Rhineland and shortly after the Popular Front had formed its government in France. In doing so he blackmailed the labor movement and the leftist intelligentsia of the west, who looked to him as their ally against Hitler." (pp 335)
One of the most mystifying episodes in xxth century intellectual history is the indulgence so many intellectuals gave to Stalin. Perhaps you could say this was somewhat excusable in the early thirties, when Stalin did everything possible to suppress information about the horrors of collectivization and the Ukranian genocide. Yet this indulgence continued after the show trials, which were of course public events. No outside observer with even a mildly critical intelligence could possibly believe that the accusations at the trials were true. Thus we find the unedifying spectacle of truly great minds resorting to grotesque casuistry to come up with some justification to keep supporting Stalin - for instance, Malraux, Brecht, & (it pains me to say this ) Merleau-Ponty.
At the same time, while it's easy now to excoriate this sort of thing, we shouldn't forget that Europe was in a truly desperate situation by the late '30s. Unfortunately it did prove to be true that Hitler could only be defeated through an alliance with Stalin.
*
The most inane statement encountered in these pages may come from George Bernard Shaw; in '37 he explained his reluctance to publicly defend Trotsky from Stalin's baseless slander
The strength of Trotsky's case was the incredibility of the accusations against him... But Trotsky spoils it all by making exactly the same sort of attacks on Stalin. Now I have spent nearly three hours in Stalin's presence and have observed him with keen curiosity, and I find it just as hard to believe that he is a vulgar gangster as that Trotsky is an assassin.
Oh, yes. If only both sides could acknowledge their share of the blame, then we could all move forward together! And note the nauseating appeal from personal experience. Having once spent a few hours in Stalin's company, Shaw now considers himself an expert. Because of course Stalin would level with an elite cultural emissary from the west. Shaw doesn't seem to consider the possibility that his visit was a highly staged propaganda coup for the Soviet Union.
December 3, 2020
After some searching, I've actually been able to find the actual covers of the edition of Isaac Deutscher's three volume biography of Leon Trotsky I read in high school--now reprinted in a single volume. These, his history of the Russian revolution and a collection of his literary essays led me, by age sixteen, to assert in some companies that I was a Trotskyist. Now that seems naive. I really didn't know much of what I was talking about and what I did know was all written from a sympathetic perspective.
Trotsky had the advantage of being exiled before the revolution entirely revolved, revealing a dark underbelly of repression and coercion. Deutscher, definitely a sympathizer who would claim that things would have been much better had Lenin not had his strokes and had Trotsky politically defeated Stalin, to his credit does not paint an entirely positive picture of his subject, most notably in his treatment of Trotsky's behavior as military commander during the time of the Kronstadt mutiny. Still, his biography is as sympathetic as the facts, which he respects, allow.
This criticism notwithstanding, Deutscher's biography of Trotsky is an outstanding piece of work--well researched and well written.
Trotsky had the advantage of being exiled before the revolution entirely revolved, revealing a dark underbelly of repression and coercion. Deutscher, definitely a sympathizer who would claim that things would have been much better had Lenin not had his strokes and had Trotsky politically defeated Stalin, to his credit does not paint an entirely positive picture of his subject, most notably in his treatment of Trotsky's behavior as military commander during the time of the Kronstadt mutiny. Still, his biography is as sympathetic as the facts, which he respects, allow.
This criticism notwithstanding, Deutscher's biography of Trotsky is an outstanding piece of work--well researched and well written.
December 29, 2018
Wow - finally finished this trilogy after investing a serious amount of time in it. This last volume is the most depressing, not only knowing how it ends but also seeing the Sisyphean tasks Trotsky finds himself up against. Still totally worth the read - so many lessons for today!
March 6, 2023
All three of these biographical volumes are fantastic. The biographer has his biases of course…
May 5, 2018
أكثر الأجزاء قربا من حياته الشخصية وأكثرها ابتعادا عن الحياة السياسية وإن كان لا بعد عن السياسة أبدا في حياة تروتسكي.
Read
November 22, 2009So far, it's just about as astounding as the first two. Trotsky warns Europe about the Nazis, founds the fourth international... Although here comes the first major disagreement I have with Mr. Deutscher: He didn't seem to think Trotsky should have attempted to found the fourth international. It's true that the fourth international did not rise out of the same type of favorable circumanstances that the first three came out of. Nonetheless, it did preserve a revolutionary tradition (now isn't that a funny phrase, "revolutionary tradition"?) that had died in both the second and third internationals. What other option was there?
December 12, 2023
The most one could ask for from a biography. Deutscher spares no detail in his descriptions of the smallest trifles Trotsky began or found himself part of as a result of financial squabbles, ideological disagreements, or interpersonal issues. Most importantly, Deutscher manages to completely immerse the reader in this pathos of the period and how Trotsky related to it. Every page feels heavy, for both reader and author know the harrowing consequences of the Two-headed hydra Trotsky (in vain) struggled against: Nazi fascism and Stalinism. The story of his incessant wandering from Turkey to Norway provides the backdrop to the first half of the book until Trotsky’s final settlement in Mexico under the auspices of the regime of Lázaro Cárdenas.
Every word reads like a beautiful elegy to a giant, but one who the author never spares from necessary criticism. It is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read, and it may well be the best biography in the English language, as one of its famous reviewers is reported to have said.
Trotsky’s character as a man and thinker is revealed most concretely under the immensely difficult circumstances he was forced into resulting from his exile. The tragic story of his children, ending with his own death, adds to the pathology Deutscher manages to communicate throughout the book.
A beautiful and definitive work on the man who history elevated to ephemeral greatness and then immediately cast aside into the dustbin of history he himself relegated his critics at his apogee.
Deutscher is an amazing writer, so read this. Also read the footnotes!
Every word reads like a beautiful elegy to a giant, but one who the author never spares from necessary criticism. It is one of the most beautiful books I have ever read, and it may well be the best biography in the English language, as one of its famous reviewers is reported to have said.
Trotsky’s character as a man and thinker is revealed most concretely under the immensely difficult circumstances he was forced into resulting from his exile. The tragic story of his children, ending with his own death, adds to the pathology Deutscher manages to communicate throughout the book.
A beautiful and definitive work on the man who history elevated to ephemeral greatness and then immediately cast aside into the dustbin of history he himself relegated his critics at his apogee.
Deutscher is an amazing writer, so read this. Also read the footnotes!
March 22, 2021
Deutscher's pro-Trotsky bias becomes more annoying in the final volume of his otherwise excellent biography, which like other volumes focuses on the political rather than the personal, though Trotsky's troubled private life inevitably occupies more space here. The challenge is to tell an interesting story about a man who has been effectively neutralized and ostracized, and eventually assassinated, by Stalin. For the most part, it makes for a rather depressing read: Trotsky rails and roars against his fate, analysing and agitating, but he really is impotent, and his words fall on deaf ears. Sometimes he's right (as Deutscher never wearies of saying), but sometimes thoroughly wrong. The latter in no way excuses Stalin, who, of course, is a beast, and judging by the 'confessions' in the show trials somewhat monomaniacally obsessed with smearing Trotsky.
Read
July 29, 2007The harrowing saga of an evil genius martyred by an incomparably more brutal one.
August 19, 2022
Sveučilišna naklada Liber
Zagreb, 1976.
Prevela Nada Šoljan
Završnica jedne hagiografije, jednog neznanstvenog i subjektivnog pristupa životu jedne ubojice, kukavelji i radiklanog bezumnika, Lava Trockog.
Zanimljivo je kako i sam filotrockistički biograf ne skriva pravu istinu o Trockome, otvoreno govori da je Trocki bio još luđi i radikalniji nego Staljin, kako je sam Trocki želio još početkom dvadesetih provesti radikalnu industrijalizaciju i stvaranje kolhoza, otvoreno je navedeno želio ostvariti nasiljem.
Božja kazna je Trockija dostigla u Meksiku, način na koji je izvršeno ubojstvo je pravedna odmazda za sve što je ova bradata protuha u životu postigla.
Najveća odmazda je ipak to da je komunizam propao, propala je i staljinistička i trockistička ljevica, nigdje na svijetu ne postoji više ikakav masovan pokret sličan pokretima u kojima je Trocki rogoborio i baljezgao.
I oni koji se danas zovu komunistima ne mogu živjeti bez mrežnog pristupa, bez kapitalističke tehnologije, bez vegetarijanskih burgera.
Najveća odmazda je da kognitivna djeca Treće i Četvrte internacionalne nemaju djece.
Svijet se puni pripadnicima Opusa Dei, ortodoksnim židovima te mormonima.
Budućnost pripada vjernicima!
Posljednji dio ove pseudobiografije se odigrava na otoku Prinkipio, u Kemalovoj Turskoj, te u Francuskoj, Danskoj i naposljetku u Meksiku.
Sotonizam radikalne ljevice se ogledava u ciljanom ubojstvu cjelokupne Trockijeve obitelji, ne samo u tome.
Milijuni uvjerenih komunista je ubijeno od strane Sovjetskog Saveza, milijuni uvjerenih komunista je ubijeno od strane Sovjetskog Saveza.
Naš antifašistički vampir, Tito, je pobio cjelokupno izvorno rukovodstvo Komunističke partije Jugoslavije tokom tridesetih.
Zasigurno je crvena vrhuška tim ritualnim kolektivnim ubojstvima iskazivala počast svome gospodaru, sotoni.
Nemojmo biti naivni moje čitateljstvo.
Zar vi mislite da je radikalna ljevica isključivo ogled gluposti i nenačitanosti?
Istina, sotona iskorištava glupost i nenačitanost.
Masonerija ipak putem toga održava kolektivne rituale.
Što su svi ti sletovi, sve te povorke, sve te mezopotamsko masivne građevine nego rituali istovjetni ritualima u teokratskom socijalizmu drevne Mezopotamije ili Egipta.
Poganski rituali, demonske procesije.
Ljevica je regresivna.
Sama socijalistička ekonomija je postojala tisućama godinama, ogledavala se u robovlasničkom sustavu Sumera, Babilona i Egipta.
Nemojmo zaboraviti da navedene civilizacije nisu imale privatno vlasništvo.
Sjeverna Koreja je najoglednija spona Sumera i Sovjetskog Saveza.
Poliamorija i seksualne slobode su postojale prije abrahamskih religija.
Pederluk i pederastija prije abrahamskih religija su bili norma.
Dakle, ljevica je regresivna, vraća nas u prošlost.
Budućnost pripada Križu.
Neuki i nenačitani, neinteligentni i nemaštoviti mogu slaviti 1789. i sva njezina čudesa.
Isaac Deutscher navodi jedan dokument koji opisuje grozu staljinističkih logora.
Citat koji Deutscher navodi u ovoj knjizi je prvi put objavljen u menjševističkom listu "Socialističeskij Vestnik" 1961. godine.
Evo samog citata:
"Jednog jutra, krajem ožujka 1938, prozvano je dvadeset pet ljudi, uglavnom vodećih trockista, podijeljeno im je po kilogram kruha, naređeno im je da pokupe svoje stvari i da se pripreme za marš. Nakon srdačnog oproštaja s prijateljima, izišli su iz baraka; poslije prozivanja odvedeni su iz logora. U roku od kojih petnaest ili dvadeset minuta iznenada je ispaljen plotun otprilike pola kilometra od baraka, kraj strme obale male rječice Gornje Vorkute. Potom se čulo još nekoliko nevezanih pucnjeva i zavladala je tišina. Ubrzo su se vratili ljudi iz pratnje i prošli kraj baraka. Svi su shvatili na kakav su to marš poslana ona dvadesetpetorica.
Idućeg dana pozvana je na taj način čak četrdeset ljudi, podijeljena im je porcija kruha i naređeno im je da se spreme. Neki su bili toliko iscrpljeni da nisu mogli hodati; obećano im je da će ih smjestiti na taljige. Zadržavajući dah, ljudi u barakama osluškivali su škripanje snijega pod nogama odvedenih drugova. Svi su zvuci već bili zamrli; a ipak su svi još napeto osluškivali. Nakon otprilike jedan sat, pucnjevi su odjeknuli preko tundre. Gomila u barakam sada je znala što je čeka; ali poslije dugog štrajka glađu u protekloj godini i još duljeg niza mjeseci smrzavanja i gladovanja više nisu imali snage da pruže otpor. Tijekom cijelog travnja i svibnja nastavljala su se smaknuća u tundri. Svakog dana ili svakog drugog dana bilo je prozvano trideset do četrdeset ljudi. Preko razglasa objavljivana su saopćenja: Zbog kontrarevolucionarne agitacije, sabotaže, razbojništva, nepokoravanja radnoj disciplini i pokušaju bijega...
Djeca su ostavljana na životu samo ako još nisu navršila dvanaestu godinu..."
Isti taj antifašistički stroj za ubijanje i danas srlja na Ukrajinu.
Spoj krivoslavnog pravoslavlja i ateističkog marksizma je izuzetno smrdljiv spoj.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xid2_...
Zagreb, 1976.
Prevela Nada Šoljan
Završnica jedne hagiografije, jednog neznanstvenog i subjektivnog pristupa životu jedne ubojice, kukavelji i radiklanog bezumnika, Lava Trockog.
Zanimljivo je kako i sam filotrockistički biograf ne skriva pravu istinu o Trockome, otvoreno govori da je Trocki bio još luđi i radikalniji nego Staljin, kako je sam Trocki želio još početkom dvadesetih provesti radikalnu industrijalizaciju i stvaranje kolhoza, otvoreno je navedeno želio ostvariti nasiljem.
Božja kazna je Trockija dostigla u Meksiku, način na koji je izvršeno ubojstvo je pravedna odmazda za sve što je ova bradata protuha u životu postigla.
Najveća odmazda je ipak to da je komunizam propao, propala je i staljinistička i trockistička ljevica, nigdje na svijetu ne postoji više ikakav masovan pokret sličan pokretima u kojima je Trocki rogoborio i baljezgao.
I oni koji se danas zovu komunistima ne mogu živjeti bez mrežnog pristupa, bez kapitalističke tehnologije, bez vegetarijanskih burgera.
Najveća odmazda je da kognitivna djeca Treće i Četvrte internacionalne nemaju djece.
Svijet se puni pripadnicima Opusa Dei, ortodoksnim židovima te mormonima.
Budućnost pripada vjernicima!
Posljednji dio ove pseudobiografije se odigrava na otoku Prinkipio, u Kemalovoj Turskoj, te u Francuskoj, Danskoj i naposljetku u Meksiku.
Sotonizam radikalne ljevice se ogledava u ciljanom ubojstvu cjelokupne Trockijeve obitelji, ne samo u tome.
Milijuni uvjerenih komunista je ubijeno od strane Sovjetskog Saveza, milijuni uvjerenih komunista je ubijeno od strane Sovjetskog Saveza.
Naš antifašistički vampir, Tito, je pobio cjelokupno izvorno rukovodstvo Komunističke partije Jugoslavije tokom tridesetih.
Zasigurno je crvena vrhuška tim ritualnim kolektivnim ubojstvima iskazivala počast svome gospodaru, sotoni.
Nemojmo biti naivni moje čitateljstvo.
Zar vi mislite da je radikalna ljevica isključivo ogled gluposti i nenačitanosti?
Istina, sotona iskorištava glupost i nenačitanost.
Masonerija ipak putem toga održava kolektivne rituale.
Što su svi ti sletovi, sve te povorke, sve te mezopotamsko masivne građevine nego rituali istovjetni ritualima u teokratskom socijalizmu drevne Mezopotamije ili Egipta.
Poganski rituali, demonske procesije.
Ljevica je regresivna.
Sama socijalistička ekonomija je postojala tisućama godinama, ogledavala se u robovlasničkom sustavu Sumera, Babilona i Egipta.
Nemojmo zaboraviti da navedene civilizacije nisu imale privatno vlasništvo.
Sjeverna Koreja je najoglednija spona Sumera i Sovjetskog Saveza.
Poliamorija i seksualne slobode su postojale prije abrahamskih religija.
Pederluk i pederastija prije abrahamskih religija su bili norma.
Dakle, ljevica je regresivna, vraća nas u prošlost.
Budućnost pripada Križu.
Neuki i nenačitani, neinteligentni i nemaštoviti mogu slaviti 1789. i sva njezina čudesa.
Isaac Deutscher navodi jedan dokument koji opisuje grozu staljinističkih logora.
Citat koji Deutscher navodi u ovoj knjizi je prvi put objavljen u menjševističkom listu "Socialističeskij Vestnik" 1961. godine.
Evo samog citata:
"Jednog jutra, krajem ožujka 1938, prozvano je dvadeset pet ljudi, uglavnom vodećih trockista, podijeljeno im je po kilogram kruha, naređeno im je da pokupe svoje stvari i da se pripreme za marš. Nakon srdačnog oproštaja s prijateljima, izišli su iz baraka; poslije prozivanja odvedeni su iz logora. U roku od kojih petnaest ili dvadeset minuta iznenada je ispaljen plotun otprilike pola kilometra od baraka, kraj strme obale male rječice Gornje Vorkute. Potom se čulo još nekoliko nevezanih pucnjeva i zavladala je tišina. Ubrzo su se vratili ljudi iz pratnje i prošli kraj baraka. Svi su shvatili na kakav su to marš poslana ona dvadesetpetorica.
Idućeg dana pozvana je na taj način čak četrdeset ljudi, podijeljena im je porcija kruha i naređeno im je da se spreme. Neki su bili toliko iscrpljeni da nisu mogli hodati; obećano im je da će ih smjestiti na taljige. Zadržavajući dah, ljudi u barakama osluškivali su škripanje snijega pod nogama odvedenih drugova. Svi su zvuci već bili zamrli; a ipak su svi još napeto osluškivali. Nakon otprilike jedan sat, pucnjevi su odjeknuli preko tundre. Gomila u barakam sada je znala što je čeka; ali poslije dugog štrajka glađu u protekloj godini i još duljeg niza mjeseci smrzavanja i gladovanja više nisu imali snage da pruže otpor. Tijekom cijelog travnja i svibnja nastavljala su se smaknuća u tundri. Svakog dana ili svakog drugog dana bilo je prozvano trideset do četrdeset ljudi. Preko razglasa objavljivana su saopćenja: Zbog kontrarevolucionarne agitacije, sabotaže, razbojništva, nepokoravanja radnoj disciplini i pokušaju bijega...
Djeca su ostavljana na životu samo ako još nisu navršila dvanaestu godinu..."
Isti taj antifašistički stroj za ubijanje i danas srlja na Ukrajinu.
Spoj krivoslavnog pravoslavlja i ateističkog marksizma je izuzetno smrdljiv spoj.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xid2_...
September 8, 2024
يقول نيتشه : إذا كنت تريد قراءة سيرة، لا تبحث عن واحدة عنوانها " السيد فلان وزمانه " ، بل عن واحدة عنوانها " مقاتل ضد زمانه "
وهذه السيرة هي واحدة من أهم السير التي قرأتها، كيف لا وهي سيرة ليون تروتسكي، المناضل والمفكر الثوري والماركسي وأحد قادة وزعماء الثورة البلشفية ومؤسس الجيش الأحمر .
سيرة رجل عاصر أهم أحداث القرن العشرين الثورة الروسية والحرب العالمية الأولى والثانية، فترة صراع الأفكار والطبقات والمذاهب والأحزاب السياسية .
يقول مؤلف الكتاب : إن حياة تروتسكي وعمله الهائلين يشكلان عنصرين أساسيين من تجربة الثورة الروسية، وحتى من حبكة الحضارة المعاصرة . إن الطابع الفريد لأحداث حياته والصفات الأدبية والجمالية الخارقة لمحاولته تدافع عن نفسها بنفسها وتشهد على أهميته . ومن المستحيل ألا تحدث طاقة فكرية بهذا السمو، ونشاط بذلك الإعجاز، وشهادة بذلك النبل، كامل تأثيرها، إذ أن ذلك يتعارض مع كل معنى التاريخ . فهذه هي المادة التي تصنع منها الأساطير الأكثر سموًا والهامًا . إلا أن أسطورة تروتسكي منسوجة من وقائع ثابته وحقائق يمكن التحقق منها . هنا لا ترفرف أية أسطورة فوق الواقع، بل يرتفع الواقع بالذات إلى مستوى الأسطورة .
إن دور تروتسكي في الثورة الروسية لابد أنه سيفاجئ البعض . فمنذ حوالي ثلاثين عامًا تكالبت آلة الدعاية الستالينية الضخمة على محو اسم تروتسكي من سجلات الثورة، وحين تركته فيها كان ذلك بصفة خائن من الطراز الأول . وبالنسبة للجيل السوفياتي الحالي ولغيره أيضًا، تشبة حياة تروتسكي واحدًا من تلك القبور المصرية القديمة التي يعرف الناس أنها ضمت في الماضي جثمان رجل عظيم ورواية منجزاته المحفورة على ألواح من ذهب، إلا أن لصوص مقابر ومخربي آثار عاثوا بالضريح فسادًا وتركوه فارغًا وموحشًا إلى درجة أنه لم يعد ثمة أثر واحد للألواح التي كان يتضمنها سابقًا .
.
سيرة تستحق القراءة ضخمة مليئة بالتفاصيل والأحداث والنقاشات والمجادلات والقضايا السياسية والشخصية والتاريخية
تناول فيها المؤلف حياة تروتسكي ونضاله مع الاعتقالات والنفي والمنفى ، وعن موقفه وصراعه مع ستالين وتبدل مواقف رفاقه ، عن تنبؤاته وآراءه وأفكاره .
سيرة جميلة ومتعبة 😄
" الإيمان الذي تنقصه الأعمال هو إيمان ميت
May 11, 2025
Trilogia finita. Trotsky mi accompagna dal primo anno di università, quando dopo l’esame di Storia dei paesi slavi decisi di leggere il primo volume della biografia di Deutscher. Con calma, durante gli anni, ho avuto l’occasione di rileggerlo e di leggere gli altri due volumi. Deutscher è uno storico molto rigoroso, che non tralascia nessun dettaglio, nessuna disputa interna al movimento trotskista degli anni 30. L’autore ritraccia non solo gli avvenimenti della vita di Trotsky e della sua famiglia, ma anche l’evoluzione del suo pensiero. In particolare, ne Il profeta esiliato mi è parso molto interessante il capitolo che porta sulla reazione di Trotsky al nazismo. I tre volumi (e questo in particolare) sono pieni della stima che l’autore nutriva nei confronti di Trotsky e trasmettono al lettore contemporaneo un’immagine accurata e ricca di pathos del rivoluzionario bolscevico e dei suoi ideali. Leggendo questo volume mi sono addirittura ritrovata a piangere due volte, quando sono descritte le morti di Lyova e di Trotsky… Insomma, consiglio la trilogia a chiunque sia interessato a una delle figure più interessanti e ispiranti del secolo scorso, che ha ancora tanto da insegnarci.
March 30, 2020
Finally finished the book (and the series). Based upon it I can say Trotsky was one of the smartest people ever lived. His genius was more on the social side and extended from politics to arts to literature.
One thing that baffles me though is how Turkey and Ataturk are treated in the book. Having given refuge by the Turkish government Trotsky came to Istanbul after he was expelled from Russia by Stalin. As per Deutscher Trotsky was given his best accommodation arrangements in exile and was kept safe while he was in Turkey. Nobody interfered with his visitors, communication or affairs however Deutscher was not satisfied with all this. Maybe Ataturk should have invited Trotsky to run the country? Would it make Deutscher happy?
Another ingratitude comes directly from Trotsky. He says Stalin should not even be compared to Hitler but to Ataturk who he considers to be at the lowest status among contemporary leaders then. To this I can only say fuck you Trotsky, Stalin was right to treat you how he did.
One thing that baffles me though is how Turkey and Ataturk are treated in the book. Having given refuge by the Turkish government Trotsky came to Istanbul after he was expelled from Russia by Stalin. As per Deutscher Trotsky was given his best accommodation arrangements in exile and was kept safe while he was in Turkey. Nobody interfered with his visitors, communication or affairs however Deutscher was not satisfied with all this. Maybe Ataturk should have invited Trotsky to run the country? Would it make Deutscher happy?
Another ingratitude comes directly from Trotsky. He says Stalin should not even be compared to Hitler but to Ataturk who he considers to be at the lowest status among contemporary leaders then. To this I can only say fuck you Trotsky, Stalin was right to treat you how he did.
Want to read
November 26, 2019https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac...
"Before World War II, Deutscher opposed Zionism as economically retrograde and harmful to the cause of international socialism, but in the aftermath of the Holocaust he regretted his pre-war views. He argued the case for establishing Israel as a "historic necessity", to provide a home for the surviving Jews of Europe. In the 1960s, he became more critical of Israel for its failure to recognise the dispossession of the Palestinians, and after the Six-Day War of 1967 he demanded that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories. "This six-day wonder", he commented, "this latest, all-too-easy triumph of Israeli arms will be seen one day ... to have been a disaster ... for Israel itself.""
"Before World War II, Deutscher opposed Zionism as economically retrograde and harmful to the cause of international socialism, but in the aftermath of the Holocaust he regretted his pre-war views. He argued the case for establishing Israel as a "historic necessity", to provide a home for the surviving Jews of Europe. In the 1960s, he became more critical of Israel for its failure to recognise the dispossession of the Palestinians, and after the Six-Day War of 1967 he demanded that Israel withdraw from the occupied territories. "This six-day wonder", he commented, "this latest, all-too-easy triumph of Israeli arms will be seen one day ... to have been a disaster ... for Israel itself.""
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 9, 2024
Excellent research. Available sources at the time, the 1950s, were not so much of a problem in this third part, as it covers Trotsky's life in exile and he had a large personal archive. This is in contrast to the previous two parts where many Soviet sources weren't available to Deutscher at the time of writing.
Deutscher's writing is great regarding biographical facts, storytelling, and comment, but the problem with the latter is that he sometimes describes history in ideographical terms, which gives a simplified version of history. Trotsky himself suffered from this problem sometimes. As an example by giving his excellent work "The revolution betrayed" this title instead of "The revolution deformed" or the like.
Deutscher's writing is great regarding biographical facts, storytelling, and comment, but the problem with the latter is that he sometimes describes history in ideographical terms, which gives a simplified version of history. Trotsky himself suffered from this problem sometimes. As an example by giving his excellent work "The revolution betrayed" this title instead of "The revolution deformed" or the like.
June 13, 2023
He required his adherents to 'defend the Soviet Union unconditionally' despite Stalin, and to assail Stalinism with a vehemence matching his own. Himself never yielding an inch from his principles, he would not tolerate yielding in others. He demanded of his adherents unshakeable conviction, utter indifference to public opinion, unflagging readiness for sacrifice, and a burning faith in the proletarian revolution, whose breath he constantly felt (but they did not). In a word, he expected them to be made of the stuff of which he himself was made.
December 15, 2025
The worst of Deutscher's trilogy on Trotsky. Deutscher thought then formation of the Fourth International was a mistake, and didn't bother to visit Mexico or to talk with those who shared that last part of Trotsky's exile. Read Joseph Hansen's introduction to My Life: An Attempt at an Autobiography.
September 29, 2025
The story deutscher tells is that of a much more tragic figure -- turns out interwar Trotskyism was much less of a force than I had supposed. The death scene, if this account is true, really is something a screenwriter could not have come up without it being called "over the top".
Deutscher's prose is absolutely wonderful, consistently readable and entertaining.
Deutscher's prose is absolutely wonderful, consistently readable and entertaining.
November 3, 2020
It’s as if Deutscher is writing with Trotsky throughout the years of his life. An historical account that takes us back to the minds of revolutionaries and their opponents, recognizing mistakes made along the way and the tragedies that inspired others to make changes.
May 24, 2021
De la oposición de izquierda al destierro
El segundo volumen de la trilogía de Deutscher sobre Trotsky. Magistral relato del periodo 1921-1929 en la vida del revolucionario ruso e internacionalista; marcada por signos de tragedia en lo personal/familiar y la esfera política con el ascenso del stalinismo.
El segundo volumen de la trilogía de Deutscher sobre Trotsky. Magistral relato del periodo 1921-1929 en la vida del revolucionario ruso e internacionalista; marcada por signos de tragedia en lo personal/familiar y la esfera política con el ascenso del stalinismo.
July 20, 2025
A man destroyed by a system he helped to create.
June 23, 2007
This was Deutcher's last volume of his Trotsky trilogy. Although this is the volume where his soft position towards the Stalinist Beuracracy comes to the fore(his call for political reform as opposed to the Trotskyist call for political Revolution in the degenerated/deformed worker's states), It is, in my opinion the most interest of the three volumes. Deutcher writes of the last period of Trotsky's life with incredible verve.
He shows Trotsky, faced with exile, persecution and even death fought to last second of his life and how he, with the degeneration of the movement which inspired the october revolution, became a symbol of that same bolshevism that led it. There were many times when reading this book that one couldn't help being caught with emotion. Especially how when during the great purge, the Trotskyist oppositionists one after another, before their execution, would defiantly yell at their executioners "LONG LIVE TROTSKY!"
He shows Trotsky, faced with exile, persecution and even death fought to last second of his life and how he, with the degeneration of the movement which inspired the october revolution, became a symbol of that same bolshevism that led it. There were many times when reading this book that one couldn't help being caught with emotion. Especially how when during the great purge, the Trotskyist oppositionists one after another, before their execution, would defiantly yell at their executioners "LONG LIVE TROTSKY!"
November 9, 2014
AWESOME BOOK AND AWESOME TRILOGY!!!! I am amazed at the research and writing style of Deutscher which is only surpassed by Trotsky himself. Trotsky's insight and predictions as to what would happen in terms of Germany and Stalinism were right on. Just as feudalism was followed not by Equality, Liberty, Fraternity, but by capitalism, so capitalism was being followed not by socialism but by bureaucratic collectivism. Trotsky argued the USSR was still a workers state for there was no individual property and individual profit. He argued against Stalin's betrayal of the revolution moreover his collectivization from the top down which should have been done from the bottom up. It is amazing how similiar the Bolsheviks were to the Jacobins. Damn Stalin(the grave-digger of the revolution) and his purges. Long live the ideas of Lev Davidovich Trotsky!!!
March 4, 2011
Wow! What an adventure. It took a long while for me to finish Deutscher's epic. His scholarship is indeed impressive. It is dwarfed, however, by Trotsky's. An absolutely brilliant man of genius. That genius is matched by his passion, his energy and his dedication.
I felt a sense of overwhelming sadness as I read about his exile, his isolation and his marginalization. I was bewildered by the storm of ironies that dismantled his hope, aspirations and dreams.
Revolution. Counter revolution. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Power. Greed. Corruption. Mindless bureaucracy. Unintended consequences. Alas.
I felt a sense of overwhelming sadness as I read about his exile, his isolation and his marginalization. I was bewildered by the storm of ironies that dismantled his hope, aspirations and dreams.
Revolution. Counter revolution. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. Power. Greed. Corruption. Mindless bureaucracy. Unintended consequences. Alas.
August 11, 2011
This biography of an outcast condemned to languish in exile goes a great deal further in explaining Stalin's purges and the collapse of the Left in Spain, France and Germany (and the subsequent rise of Franco & Nazism and capitulation of the French Republic) than any historical overview concerned primarily with contemporary power brokers.
January 6, 2013
This volume caps Deutscher's magnificent trilogy on Trotsky's life. The subject is a superlative human being, broad in the sweep of his interests and insights. His life could be said to be a tragedy, since he died without realizing his aims, but Trotsky was a warrior and he never flinched from the battle. Amen.
May 1, 2024
Es la parte final de la trilogía biográfica de León Trosky. Muestra sus últimos años en el destierro siendo un apátrida. También como en sus últimos años siempre defendió sus ideas y buscó resarcir las ideas del marxismo-leninismo.
Recomendado leer las tres partes. Es un libro entretenido y cómodo de leer.
Recomendado leer las tres partes. Es un libro entretenido y cómodo de leer.
July 31, 2014
This is the best biography I have read. The three volumes tell the story of one of the 20th centuries most important and least understood figures. This period is particularly interesting. And the Deutscher trilogy also serves as an excellent history of the 1880-1940 Russia. Outstanding.
January 16, 2008
This would be the volume where Trotsky dies with an ice axe through the head (it still took two days for him to die).
Written by *THE* Trotsky biographer - no need to look elsewhere.
Written by *THE* Trotsky biographer - no need to look elsewhere.
November 16, 2009
i very much like the spine of this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 30 reviews