The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879-1921

Trotsky #1

by Isaac Deutscher

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; and yet there was at one time a danger that his name would disappear altogether from history. Isaac Deutscher’s magisterial three-volume biography was the first major publication to counter the powerful Stalinist propaganda machine, and in this definitive work Trotsky emerges in his real stature, as the most heroic, and ultimately tragic, character of the Russian revolution.

This first volume of the trilogy, originally published in 1954, traces Trotsky’s political development: his early activities, the formation and crystallization of his distinctive and motivating idea—the permanent revolution— his long feud and final reconciliation with Lenin and Bolshevism, and his role in the October insurrection of 1917. The volume ends in the year 1921, when Trotsky, then at the climax of his power, unwittingly sowed the seeds of his own defeat.

Genres: History, Biography, Politics, Russia, Nonfiction, Russian History, Russian Revolution

497 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1954

About the author

Isaac 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.

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my adorable years of late-teens and early-twenties 'radicalism,' some of my heroes (cultural, aesthetic, political) included Salvador Dalí, Karen Finley, Emma Goldman, Marcel Duchamp, Jean-Paul Sartre, Jean-Luc Godard, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Rosa Luxemburg, Diamanda Galás, Jacques Derrida, Friedrich Nietzsche, J.D. Salinger, and Leon Trotsky. The motliest of crews, to say the least. Each member of this pantheon, although no longer gilded by the burnished and obscuring light of youth, retains some measure of my affection -- either to a greater or lesser degree -- but no one has perhaps suffered a more precipitous drop on the pop charts of my esteem than Leon Trotsky. And deservedly so.

For the most part, whatever lingers of his reputation as a champion of the oppressed relies upon comparisons to Stalin, that paranoiac barbarian who elbowed him out of the Soviet Throne (a comparison which in most cases, except maybe with Hitler, will always favor the non-Stalin entity), and also upon speculation (or wishful thinking) that he would have been a far more palatable despot.

Admittedly, Trostky makes for a much more appealing intellectual icon than that swarthy, unrefined, not-entirely-evolved Georgian who seemed in many of his photographs to be on the cusp of a sinister smile: a product of knowing, perhaps, that he had your entire family dispatched to the gulag that very morning over breakfast. Trotsky, meanwhile, had the goatee, the big poofy leonine hairdo, and -- fuck yeah -- the pince-nez. When selecting an icon, always go with the one wearing the pince-nez as a rule of thumb.

As with everything, Trotsky's appeal is only relative. He's not so bad when you take what you know about him and draw up a color-coded chart comparing him to Mao and Stalin and Hitler and Idi Amin Dada and so on. But that's (maybe) because he never enjoyed the power they did. He never even came close to it.

The Prophet Armed was the first volume of Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of Leon Trotsky. Since Deutscher liked Trotsky, both politically and personally, it's obviously a sympathetic account but never gives itself over to rapture or pure hagiography. This edition, published by Verso, contains more typographical errors than a reader should ever expect from a legitimate established publishing house. In other words, this editorial sloppiness is distracting and lends the impression (if only subliminally) that one is reading a bootleg or a spurious text.

[Jim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this first volume of three of Isaac Deutscher's massive biography of Leon Trotsky for a discussion group on Russian history. It turns out that seeing the Russian Revolution through the eyes of one man -- perhaps the most brilliant of the early Soviet leaders -- gave me a unique perception of Russia's successes and failures in those critical early years.

Communism started out more or less as an international debating society with branches all over Europe. It was only the proto-revolution of 1905 that showed Trotsky and Lenin that the whole thing was possible. What they didn't expect, however, was that the whole rest of the world did not march in lockstep with them. They conducted their revolution in the middle of World War I, while under attack by the Germans, succeeded in an almost bloodless overthrow of Kerensky's Menshevik government, then had to deal with several years of civil war against the White Russian forces of Denikin, Kolchak, and Wrangel -- not to mention an invasion of the Ukraine by the Polish. At the end of this time, Russia was in the middle of a famine, industrial production was way down, and something new had to be done.

Trotsky was not only the major player in the October Revolution, but founded the Red Army to combat the Poles and the Whites. As Deutscher writes:

It was his clear, consistent, and swift logic -- the logic of the great administrator -- that defeated Trotsky. His mind fixed on his objective, he rushed headlong into controversy, impetuously produced arguments and generalizations, and ignored the movement of opinion until he overreached himself and aroused angry resentment. The self-conscious administrator in him got the better of the sensitive political thinker and blinded him to the implications of his schemes. What was only one of many facets in Trotsky's experimental thinking [namely, a monolithic state] was to become Stalin's alpha and omega.

The first volume ends in 1921, as Trotsky was still in his prime, but beginning to run into opposition from Stalin and others.

On a squib of the back cover of my edition, Graham Greene states, "Surely this must be counted among the greatest biographies in the English language." To which I might add that it is a sine qua non for understanding how communism emerged from a theory into a large and powerful state.

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very solid biography--more detailed than is perhaps necessary at times, but it's so well organized that you can skim over some of the more turgid debates, knowing that you'll be able to find that debate should you ever need to, which, I hope, you won't. It's ultra-intellectual, in the sense that Trotsky's wife appears in about two sentences, and otherwise we're just talking about the minute discussions that, in some sense, determined the disastrous course of the Russian transition from shit (Tsarism) to shit ('communism').

It's also remarkably balanced. I was expecting Trotsky to come off much better than he did, frankly. Deutscher gives us a man who came up with all sorts of horrible ideas before Lenin did, but had the good fortune to lose the debate when his ideas were particularly noxious, so Lenin could take the short term glory and long term hatred, while Trotsky got all that love as the anti-Stalin... despite being totally proto-Stalin, but with a much, much (much) better personality and brain and luck. Weird stuff.

[Lamia Al-Qahtani · Rating 4 out of 5]

جهد جبار من المؤلف لتأريخ حياة تروتسكي بعدما حاول ستالين إخفاءها وطمس مجهوداته بسبب خلافاتهما. وجهد جبار كذلك من المترجم لترجمة عمل ضخم مثل هذا.
في هذا الجزء بدأ من البدايات في حياة تروتسكي أو برونشتاين اسمه الحقيقي وما اسم تروتسكي إلا اسم أحد سجانيه الذي اتخذه قبل فراره، وياللعجب! والمؤلف اعتمد على كتب تروتسكي ومراسلاته ومقالاته في الصحف وذكر تفاصيل كثيرة سببت لي مللا في بعض الأجزاء وحتى انتصار الثورة البلشفية وقيادته للجيش الأحمر ثم تركه للجيش والالتفات إلى الاقتصاد وآراء الحزب حيالها وتنتهي هذه الترجمة بنهاية عام 1921. وبقية حياته في الجزئين الآخرين: النبي المعزول والنبي المنبوذ.

[Jeff Clay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book of big ideas and actions to match. Once Big Ideas were the norm. We've moved beyond that: through the period of little, lean and mean ideas to the time of No ideas. Ideas have been replaced by positions (supported by its mutant step-child, talking points) and those usually appear fossilized. Action we do have. But unfortunately it comes from either Michael Bay or a drone.

But this book is about a different time. Big Ideas ruled and people could shape destinies armed with those ideas, and yes, of course, they needed and wielded power. But, the passion and vision of Lenin, Trotsky and others cannot be denied. They created a dream of social and economic justice that has never been rivaled or realized. That the dream vaporized before becoming reality is part of the fascination and wonder of it all. Though Deutshcer sheds much light on the why. They were after all, human, as we are. The seeds sown resulted in a different crop, yes. They all had a hand in that tilling. Could they have foresee Stalin's corruption of Ideal, Brezhnev's bankruptcy of State? No, but as a species we are remarkably un-prescient about our future.

It's obvious that Deutscher has sympathy for the Marxian Idea and for Trotsky, the revolutionary man of ideas and action. But, he doesn't let that color his criticism either. If you are looking for a book of Trotsky-bashing or Trotsky-glorification, search on as this is neither. It is instead a well-written, even enthralling account of a time where grand ideas coupled with visionary leaders moved people to act. Now, it seems almost hopelessly quaint, antique, a sepia pastiche of a far-removed time, and we are the weaker for it.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is pretty effing incredible. It's a lot more than a biography. Deutscher presents the political events of the era and the theory that Trotsky grappled with and developed in some pretty rich detail.

Trotsky's life is the stuff of high drama. The social events of the time and place are inspiring. And Deutscher writes brilliantly. Boy, if this kind of history was taught in school...

[David M · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Revolutions are true as movements but false as regimes." - Merleau-Ponty, Adventures of the Dialectic

First, this is not hagiography. Plenty of liberal historians have written biographies of American presidents; for a Marxist to write one of Trotsky is no more inherently biased.

In a little over a year the centenary of the October Revolution will be upon us, comrades. While the Soviet Union looks like a thoroughly discredited cause, the significance of this event may still be up for grabs. We have not yet reached the end of history and capitalism continues to produce conflict and crisis.

I come to Deutscher's biography as a leftist, obviously. I think that for the last 50 years or so the greatest publication in English has been Perry Anderson's New Left Review. I'm no longer very active politically, but when I do have political conversations I'm often surprised to find that on many issues my views are apparently well to the left of liberal consensus.

Granted I don't have much in the way of a positive alternative to the neoliberal world order. Do such alternatives exist? Reading a biography of Trotsky may seem like a roundabout way to investigate this question, but then my temperament was probably always too baroque to make a good activist.

The crimes of the Bolshevism have been roundly and rightly denounced by people of all political persuasions. However, there have been those that have maintained that it didn't have to be that way. That the horrors of Stalinism were the accident of one particular man coming to power; that if Trotsky had succeeded Lenin history would have been very different. We might have an idea of Communism as something other than totalitarian terror. Does the Trotskyist view have any real merit?

I keep this question constantly in mind as I read Deutscher's biography. After volume 1, I have to say the case for Trotksy does not look good. As the original commissar of the Red Army, he oversaw the first use of revolutionary terror. He was the first strong advocate of the militarization of labor, which later became the hallmark of Stalin's planned economy. Indeed, Stalin would take many of his most brutal policies directly from his chief political opponent. The narrative of Stalin the tyrant versus Trotsky the heroic dissident often obscures this fact.

[Baris Ozyurt · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Lenin, 24. Günün akşamı, yine çok gizli bir şekilde, Smolni’ye gelmişti. Genelkurmayla Askeri Devrimci Komite arasında dostça görüşmeler yapıdığı üzrine çıkan haberler yeniden kuşkulandırmıştı Lenin’i. Devrimin başarılamayacağından hâlâ korkuyordu. Son birkaç günden beri saklanmış olduğu Viborg banliyösünden gizlice Smolni’ye gelirken, sokaklarında yürüdüğü kentin fiilen partisinin eline geçtiğinden haberi yoktu. Troçki’ yi ve öteki liderleri soru yağmuruna tuttu; gerçekten Genelkurmayla anlaşmak üzere miydiler? Kent neden bu kadar sessizdi? Ama sorularına verilen cevapları dinledikçe, Askeri devrimci Komite odasındaki sıkı çalışmaları, verilen emirleri, gelen raporları gördükçe, isyan liderlerinin uykusuzluktan şişmiş gözlerine, yorgun, tıraşlı, pis ama azimli ve rahat yüzlerine baktıkça arkadaşlarının kendi yokluğunda her şeyi göze alarak ortaya atıldıklarını anladı ve kuşkuları kalmadı. Biraz çekinerek ve özür dileyerek, devrimin elbette bu şekilde hazırlanabileceğini söyledi – yeter ki başarıya ulaşsın.”(s.364)

[Türkay · Rating 4 out of 5]

Troçki’nin yaşam öyküsünü anlatan üç ciltlik kitap dizisinin ilk kitabı... Ekim devriminin öncesi, sonrasının ötesinde tarih anlatımı içeriyor. Troçki’nin sıra dışı yaşam öyküsünün arka planında Birinci Dünya savaşı öncesinde/sırasında Avrupa’da savaş karşıtı hareketleri, Barış isteyenleri, toplumsal hareketleri de izliyoruz.
Yirminci yüzyılın en önemli değişimlerinden olan, tarihsel bir olayı, kızıl orduyu kuran Troçki’nin hayatı izinden izliyor Deutscher. Troçki’nin yazıları, emirleri, yazışmaları; basında yer alan haberler; kongre, parti tutanakları gibi zengin bir kaynakça ile o dönemde yaşananlara ışık tutmaya çalışıyor.
Gelecekle ilgili olarak yazdıklarından, devrimin geleceğine ilişkin kehanetlerini de çıkarıyor.
“O zaman parti örgütü kendisini tüm partinin yerine koyar, sonra Merkez Komitesi kendini parti örgütünün yerine koyar ve en sonunda tek bir diktatör kendini Merkez Komitesi yerine koyar” uyarısını çok erken dönemlerde yapmış bir fikir ve eylem adamının hikayesi...

[Erik Graff · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having had my eyes opened about U.S. foreign policy by the invasion of the Dominican Republic in 1965 and my study of the history of the war in Southeast Asia, I joined the Young People's Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party, and Students for a Democratic Society, by my junior year in high school. I also made some older friends through the school's social science club, most of whom knew a lot more than I did and some of whom directed me to books about history, political science, economics and sociology which further opened my eyes.

The most influential and admired of these friends was Ed. His house became my second home, his mother, a member of Women Strike for Peace, my second mother. Our conversations weren't the usual bullshit gossip. They were about books, ideas, history. When Ed recommended a book, I read it. That's how I got turned on to Deutscher's three volume biography of Lev Davidovich Bronstein, aka Leon Trotsky.

[C · Rating 4 out of 5]

The other reviewers are right to call this biography hagiography. Although, since the Soviets kept such a tight lock on their historical information, and one can never trust Stalin's press releases as genuine, perhaps the limited information Deuscher had access to really did paint Trotsky in such a pristine light. I'm dubious though.

The serious problem with this book is that Deutscher sets out on too many goals at once, and thus fails to consummate any of them. He tries to write a bio without being too in depth, a history of the Russian revolution while assuming prior knowledge of his reader, and a foray or two into philosophy and literary criticism. There's no doubt the author is talented, learned, inquisitive, and passionate about his subject. However, he should of stuck to one task at a time, and perhaps published several books on these maters individually.
------------
Reread. Eh, not so sure this is hagiography anymore.

[Nihan D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Asıl adı Lev Davidoviç Bronştayn olan Troçki 7 Kasım 1879'da Güney Ukrayna'da bulunan Kerson köyünde doğmuş. Troçki adını hapiste tutulduğu süre boyunca görevli bulunan bir gardiyandan almış. Hatta bu ismin kalıcı olacağını hiç düşünmediğinden utanmış bir süre.

Bir kız kardeşi varmış ve babası çiftçilik yapıyormuş. 9 yaşında halasının yanına giderek eğitimi için büyük bir adım atmış ve daha sonra da kendini geliştirmek için çok uğraşmış. Hatta bir süre sonra köye döndüğünde, annesi ve babasıyla paylaşacak çok fazla şeyi olmadığını anlamıştı. Çevresindekilerin samimi olmasına rağmen kısıtlı yaşamı ona yetmiyordu.

Marksizm görüşünü öğrenciliği sırasında benimsiyor. O sıralar Çar yönetiminde olan Rusya’da Narodniklerle tanışıyor. Narodnikler Hükümeti silah yoluyla düşürmeye çalışmış olanlardı. İçlerinden Vera Zasuliç adlı bir kadın, Rus bir Generali kurşunlamıştı. Narodnik’ler hapislerde ve sürgünlerde yok olmuşlar. Troçki bu kadınla, bir barakada yapılan ilk grup toplantıları sırasında çok kavga etmişti. Bir fikri benimsediğinde onu o kadar aşırı ve körlemesine savunurdu ki kimse ses çıkaramazdı. Fakat bana göre karakterinin en şaşırtıcı yanlarından biri, bir zaman ölümüne karşı çıktığı bir fikri daha sonra ölümüne savunabilmesiydi.

Bu huyu karşısındakileri de şaşkınlığa düşürürmüş. Bu tutarsızlıkları yüzünden de Lenin ona çok zor güven duymuş.

Troçki okul yılları boyunca çok sayıda broşür ve makale yayınlamış. Edebiyatçı yönü ve eleştiri gücü onun en önemli yeteneklerinden. İlk tutuklanması da bu broşürler sebebiyle olmuş. Çıktıktan sonra Rus Sosyal Demokrat İşçi Partisi kongresine katılmış ve bu kongrede parti Bolşevikler ve Menşevikler olmak üzere ikiye bölünmüş. Bolşeviklerin başında Lenin, Menşeviklerin başında Martov varmış. Menşeviklere katılan Troçki , Lenin'e uzun süre düşmanlık duymuş, yazılarında birbirlerine ettikleri hakaretlerin önü arkası yok.

1.Dünya Savaşı sırasında ordunun yenilgisini devrimcilerin çıkarına gören Lenin’e karşı, Troçki yeni yenilgilerin devrime bir çıkarı olmayacağını savunuyordu. Aslında her ikisi de dipte bir görüşte birleşiyordu. O da başka ülkelerin topraklarını emperyalist amaçlar için işgal etmek yerine, derebeylerin topraklarını istemekti.

Lenin partisini devrime öncülük edecek tek parti olarak görüyordu, Troçki de onu kendisini işçi sınıfının yerine koymakla suçluyordu.

1.Dünya Savaşı sırasında Çar’a olan güvenin yerle bir olması ve işçi hareketinin muazzam güce ulaşması devrimin kalesi sayılacak olan Petrograd’da ihtilalle sonuçlandı.

Ekim Devrimi’nden sonra Menşeviklerin bölücü politikalarından bıkan Troçki, Bolşeviklerin yanında yer almaya başlıyor. Devrim sarhoşu olan partililer hemen Rus ordusunu terhis ediyor. Fabrika müdürlerini işten çıkarıyor. Ve 1. Dünya Savaşı’na katılan devletlere derhal barış istediklerini, emperyalizmin oyuncağı olmayacaklarını açıklıyorlar. Tabi durum hiç kolay olmuyor. İmzaladıkları Brest Litovsk anlaşması, barıştan çok ülkelerine savaş getiriyor. Her yerden saldırıya uğruyorlar ve ortada bir orduları bile yok. Troçki orduyu yoktan var ediyor. Otuz bin askerle başlayan Kızıl Ordu sayesinde beş milyona kadar ulaşıyor. Okurken Troçki’nin zor durumlarda nasıl olağanüstü doğru kararlar alabildiğini ve neredeyse bütün herkesin onun karşısında olmasına rağmen fikrini direttiğini gördüm. Oylama ile sunduğu çözümler reddedilse bile sonrasında ne kadar haklı olduğu anlaşılmış. Bu sebeple Lenin ona tam yetki vermiş. Ulaşım sorununu merkeziyetçi bir organizeyle çözmüş. Her işçi tek bir merkezden yönetiliyormuş. Ki bu sosyalizmin karşı olduğu bir durum aslında.

Daha sonra askeri alandaki bu başarısını iktisadi alana da uygulamaya kalkınca ortalık karışmış. Devrim dolayısıyla ve savaş sonrasında bıkkın ve başıboş işçiler her şeyi savsaklamaya başlamışlar. Kenttekiler fabrikalarda iş olmadığı için köylere kaçmışlar. Bu da bir süre sonra ekonominin çökmesine sebep olmuş.

Troçki’de savaş sırasında uyguladığı merkeziyetçi politikayı çalışma alanında yapmak istemiş. Herkes çalışmaya zorunlu olacak ve çalışma grupları askeri kurallara göre yönetilecekmiş. Ancak bu şekilde bu buhrandan kurtulunabileceğini düşünüyor. Bunun üzerine başta aşırı solcular olmak üzere herkes ayaklanmış. Diktatörlükle suçlanmaya başlamış ve bu uygulamanın bu derece başıbozuk bir ortamda işe yaramayacağı anlaşılmış. Bolşeviklerin işçiler üzerinde etkisi sönmeye yüz tutmuş. Eğer bir seçime izin verilse hükümetten düşecekleri çok açıkmış.

Bunu engellemek için bütün muhalefet grupları kapayıp yasaklamaya başlamışlar. Çünkü eğer Bolşevikler düşerse devrim de düşermiş. Onlar kadar devrimi savunan bir grup daha yokmuş.
Yani o zamanlar Troçki ilk başta şiddetle karşı çıktığı her şeyi bizzat kendi uygulamak zorunda kalmış. Onun ve Lenin’in düşüncesi, önce bu kurallarla birlikte ekonomiyi ve düzeni sağlamlaştırmak sonra da sosyalizmi en iyi şekilde uygulamaya koymakmış. Düzen sağlandıktan sonra muhalif partilere de söz hakkı vermek isteyen en başta onlarmış zaten.

Bana göre, onların bu hareketleri o dönemdeki karışıklıklar ve çaresizlikleriymiş. Amaçları asla diktatörlük değilmiş ama maalesef bu hareketleri sonradan gelecek olan dönem için bir başlangıç olmuş. Stalin, başa geçtiğinde Troçki’nin devletin kalkınması için hazırladığı bütün taslakları birebir kullanmış. Ama asla onun adını anmamış.

Troçki o sırada Bolşevik partisinden emekçi sınıfların yerine "kendisini koymasını" isterken, işlerin ve tartışmaların gürültüleri içinde, ilerideki aşamaları düşünememiş.

Ama derin bir uzak-görüşlülükle bu aşamaları çok önceden görmüş, o sözler de şunlar:
"O zaman parti örgütü kendisini tüm olarak partinin yerine kor; sonra Merkez Komitesi kendisini örgütün yerine kor; ve en sonunda bir tek diktatör kendisini Merkez Komitesinin yerine kor."

Diktatör de zaten hazırda bekliyormuş…

Yani sosyalizmin yararına atılacak olan adımlar, onun sonunu getirmiş. Troçki’ye hayran olmamak elimde değildi bu kitabı okurken. Onun kimi zaman kendi fikirlerini bile sosyalizmin ve partinin bütünlüğü için arka plana atması, o ileri görüşlülüğü ve akıllıca lafları insanı etkisi altına alıyor.

Kitapta beni en çok etkileyen yerlerden biri de Stalin ile ilk kez karşılaşmaları. Konuşmak için gittiği bir arkadaşının evinde karşılaşıyorlar ve Stalin’in ona bakışlarını soğuk ve ürkütücü olarak yorumluyor. Orada benim de tüylerim diken diken oldu.

Yazara gelirsem, böylesine ağır bir konuyu muhteşem bir akıcılıkla anlatmayı başarmış. Bazı yazarlar eften püften konuları bile sıkıcılıkta tavan yaparak anlatırken, yazarın bu dili ve yeteneği konusu kadar etkiledi beni. Aslında yazılacak milyon tane olay var ama o zaman kitabın kısa bir özetini çıkarmam gerekir.

Entrikaların her bölümünde döndüğü, dostun düşmanın belli olmadığı, bu karmaşa içinde sadece ezilen halkları düşünen büyük insanların mücadelelerinden oluşan Rus Tarihi belki de insanoğlunun yaradılışı açısından bize büyük ipuçları sunuyor. Bence en büyük hataları, devrimin tüm dünyaya yayılacak olması hayaline kapılmalarıydı. İnsanlık buna hazır değildi ve bence asla da hazır olamayacak.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Son, you're going to be a prophet someday."---My mother, speaking to me as I read Isaac Deutscher’s trilogy on Trotsky.

[Derek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Unbelievably good. Reads like a novel. The author was obviously writing a hagiography but I still loved every page of this book, and the other two books in the trilogy.

[Ⰰⱃⰿⰰⱀⰴ Ⱆⰾⰴⰵⱃⰻⰽⱁ Ⱅⰵⱄⰾⰰ · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sveučilišna naklada Liber
Zagreb, 1975.
Prevela Nada Šoljan
Jedna od mnogobrojnih crvenih knjiga koje se mogu pronaći u Estadiju Croata.
Sažeto bačeno: hagiografska iskrivljena slika jednog izuzetnog bitnog povijesnog hipa i jedne izuzetno zanimljive povijesne ličnosti.
Lav Davidovič Bronstein je bio poput svojevremenog Bin Ladena, terorist, radikal i kognitivna protuha.
Isaac Deutscher je žalosni odraz stanja zapadnjačkih sveučilišta, ovim hagiografskim djelom dokazuje neznanstvenost suvremenih sveučilišta.
Ova knjiga je istina izašla davne 1954., no danas je zasigurno u mnogim kurikulima, navedeno je u biti dobro. Ljevica nema oružja, nema misli, ne događa se kritičko razmišljanje u ljevičarskim umovima.
Također, nema muškosti u suvremenoj ljevici, kognitivne dangube nemaju hrabrosti ubiti nekoga, rastežu se newageovskim pokretima te, što je još bitnije i pozitivnije, nemaju i ne žele imati djecu.
U tom vidu možemo ustvrditi da je Lav Trocki bar bio pravi muškarac, spreman podnijeti žrtvu za ono što je vjerovao i stvorio je djecu na svijet.
Razdoblje Sovjetskog Saveza je bilo posljednje razdoblje kada je ljevica bila donekle normalna.
Sovjetski Savez je u dvadesetima ipak bio uistinu jedan od najslobodnijih hipa ljudske povijesti, sovjetski znanstvenici su izvršili najvrjednije postigunće u književnoj znanosti, stvorili su fokus na sam tekst, ne na autora ili čitatelja.
No, kako se radilo o bezbožnom društvu logično ie bilo za očekivati da će sve propasti.
Ova biografija pokazuje kako je Trocki bio inteligentan čovjek koji nikada nije radio.
Odakle novci boljševicima?
Kako su ljudi poput navodnih buntovnika mogli putovati iz jednog kraja Europe u drugi?
Sam začetak Trockijeva života je bio netipično židovski, njegova židovska obitelj je nedaleko Hersona imala jedno imanje, bili su vlasnici zemljišta.
Zanimljivo je kako Deutscher stalno ističe kako je Trocki odlazio na slikarske izložbe, prije nego što je upoznao onu brkatu rugobu u Meksiku, pročitavši njegov prvi dio biografije Trockoga mislim da je Trocki ipak bio filistar, midwit.
Odbacivši teologiju očito je koliko mu je inteligencija bila plitka.
Na kraju ovog prvog dijela biografije Isaac iznosi kako je Trocki zapravo 1921. gurao militarizaciju rada, ideju koju će Staljin sprovesti u tridesetima.
Trocki nije nikada ni bio nekakvo lijevo-slobodarsko piskaralo, već kognitivni jadnik, filistarsko piskaralo, jedan od brojnih koji su željeli svijet bez privatnog vlasništva, a od nekakve alternative kapitalizmu dočekao ih je ne samo šipak, već i metak.
U svakom slučaju budućnost je naša.
Rodna ideologija i feminizam su po svojoj prirodi protiv prirode, ne mogu prevagnuti.
Demografija radi na nestajanju ljevice, nemaju djece, otvoreno ne žele djecu.
Trocki možda nije bio na razini inteligencije kako bi postao vrstan teolog, no bilo bi mu pametnije da je okušao svoju sreću emigracijom u neku američku zemlju i tamo se okanio politike.
Naravno, povijest je njega zapamtila, no ono što je on želio, a to je promijeniti svijet, nije uspio.
Slava Zelenoj armiji i antonovštini!
Slava svim zelenim armijama ikada!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_a...
Sramota za piskarala Isaaca da nije spomenuo ovu bunu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_....
Slabo maže Mažemo, smrt antifašizmu i fašizmu!
Samo novac i slobodno tržište!
Demokratska i kapitalistička Hrvatska do Drine i Zemuna, demokratska i kapitalistička Ukrajina do Kaspijskog jezera.
Umiru revolucionari, revolucije crkavaju, Katolička Crkva stoji!
Ponosan sam što je svaki moj osvrt jedna kognitivna Zelena armija riječi!
Živila kontrarevolucija!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC611...

[Antonio Nunez · Rating 3 out of 5]

For nearly all its existence since Lenin's death in 1924 Trotsky (aka Lev Davidovich Bronstein) was Satan in the Bolshevik's manichean view of the world. Most of the purges of the 1930s were allegedly meant to cleanse Soviet society and its key institutions (the Communist Party, the unions, the Red Army, the intelligentsia) of the Trotskyte taint that, like some sort of Original Sin, pervaded the proletarian dictatorship. Stalin tried to erase Trotsky from the history of the Revolution. He even erased Trotsky's physical attributes, not just by killing him in 1940, half a world away, but by obliterating his likeness wherever it might have been found.

This book, published fifty years ago, tried to counter the Stalinist plot against Trotsky by vindicating his key role in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, in the Civil War and in the establishment of the Red Army and the Soviet state. The author partially succeeds. Here we see Trotsky in all his glory, as perhaps he would have liked to be remembered, as a child prodigy who from humble rural beginnings quickly found his way in the world, as a professional revolutionary, as a brilliant polemist and orator, who even as a young man was seen as worthy counterpart to Lenin, and far above the rest of the Party, as a good hearted man who tried to promote harmony within the Party and failed at it, as a cultured, civilized "westernizer", much more appealing than the brutal Stalin, who came straight from the "log cabin" of czarist barbarism. He also came up with many good ideas, such as Lenin's New Economic Policy. Deutscher also gives us some of the darker sides to Trotsky's scintillating personna. He was proud and haughty, but brittle. He was abusive to others, often unnecessarily. He often let abstractions and daydreams take the place of reality. And he came up with many bad ideas, such as War Communism and the Militarization of Labor.

But, given Deutscher's profile (he was a Trotskyte) the book is often a competent whitewash. The author shares Trotsky's (and the Bolshevik's) worldview to a great extent, and sees the October Revolution as a worthy action. Mostly, he takes Trotskyte and Bolshevik motives as justification for their actions. He portrays opponents (such as the White Guards and nationalist Ukrainians and Poles) as illegitimate. Nowhere does the awfulness of Soviet rule, and the brutality of the Bolshevik leaders come through, except perhaps in their remarkably abusive writings. To find such bitchiness nowadays one would have to refer to the academic world, where the nastiness is commensurate to the irrelevance of that which is being discussed.

Also, the book is often not very readable as history. The author will often refer to future or past events in a single page, without indication of the precise dates, which makes this a hard book to read for someone not familiar with the October Revolution.

Having said this, a good reason to read this book is that it is beautifully written, and that the author really does get very close to his subject, which is mostly a negative in that he lacks perspective, but does bring the advantage of great liveliness which makes this a very good read. This reminds me of Preston's life of General Franco. Preston hated his subject and was unable utterly to develop any empathy with him, so the book was fairly arid and not insightful. Deutscher has the opposite defect: he gets too close, as perhaps does Nicholas Farrell to Mussolini. The ideal would be like Kershaw's Hitler or Short's Mao: far enough to look the monster in the eye, but not close enough to kiss him.

At this book's end, Trotsky is at the apex of his power, from which he would begin to slip during Lenin's final year. But this is better left to volume II, which I also hope to review.

So read the book, but don't take Deutscher at his word. Complement this with Volkogonov's Trotsky. And with Trotsky's own voluminous writings, which are often very amusing (particularly his biography of Stalin).

[Carsten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Incredible part one to this three part biography. The way Deutscher is able to cover the political disputes between the differing factions is elucidating. Trotsky's portrayal in the book makes him out to be a "renaissance man" who's love of literature, journalistic creativity, and military might makes him seem almost superhuman. Definitely worth a read, even if only for the superb quotations Deustcher is able to use from Trotsky's own works.

[Milan Francis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Historische biografieen zijn wel vaker interessant, weinigen zijn even interessant én spannend als deze. Het was de eerste keer dat ik een beschrijving van de russische revolutie week-per-week, maand-per-maand, jaar-per-jaar las en miste enkel popcorn terwijl ik de pagina's opslorp.

Trotsky is een figuur waartoe ik al langer werd aangetrokken maar tot nu tegelijkertijd steeds met een skepsis naar keek. Hoezeer hij zich in "De Revolutie Verraden" ook als een ideologische tegenstander van Stalinisme profileerde - hij was en bleef een sleutelfiguur in de Bolsjevistische Partij tot Stalin hem tot politiek ballingschap dwong. Daarnaast heb ik een instinctieve afkeer tegenover figuren die door bepaalde mensen worden heilig verklaard en dit sloeg vaak om in een koppige achterdocht tegenover Trotsky.

Dit boek relativeerde voor mij niet alleen de fascinerende figuur Trotsky (zij het zijn liefde voor literatuur, zijn semi-journalistieke/semi-literaire polemieken of zijn standvast moreel kompas, ambitie en moed)...én zijn grote blunders en tekortkomingen - maar ook dat van de Bolsjevistische Partij (én diens blunders en tekortkomingen).

Net zoals het boek de ideologische evoluties en nuances van Trotsky's gedachtegoed in kaart brengt, brengt het ook evolutie van de Bolsjevistische Partij en Leninisme beter in kaart. De partij in 1904, 1917, 1921 en 1924 zijn niet dezelfde partij en het boek bracht voor mij veel nuance in mijn kennis over de Russisiche Revolutie waarover ik tot voorheen slechts een algemene kennis van had. (toch zeker voor de periode 1919-1921)

Het boek illustreert hoe Lenin's partij het gedachtegoed van Trotsky geleidelijk tegemoet kwam (en tegen het einde van de burgeroorlog alweer verliet) Trotsky's, Lenin's en Stalin's plaats in het Menshevisme-(links-)Bolsjevisme - helder - duidelijk maakten.

Korte en overgesimplificeerde conclusies zijn
1) Dat Trotsky's wel degelijk ideologisch voor een meer open, flexible, democratisch (al zij het ook meer agressief) Marxisme stond dan Lenin/Stalin en meestal een tussenpositie tussen Lenin's harde Bolsjewisme en het Links-communsime uitdroeg. - maar te gauw toegaf aan Leninisme in ruil voor "eenheid" en zo haar grootste kwalen accomodeerde

2) Dat tussen Lenin en Stalin wel degelijk een grote kloof ligt (maar dat over die kloof wel degelijk een brug hangt): Lenin stond in het begin van de revolutie voor een democratische aanpak en zijn repressieve oorlogsmaatregelen hielden steeds een meer open toekomst. Ik geloof in Lenin als een geprincipieerd idealist en niet louter als simpele voorloper van Stalinisme - al stond hij volgens mij meestal aan de verkeerde kant van de geschiedenis en is het onontkenbaar dat zijn hardere/strakker Marxisme richting Stalinisme vloeide

3) Stalin is Stalin en was altijd Stalin - manipulerend, geniepig, brutaal én gevaarlijk competent in zijn opzet

****Historische kritiek: dit boek werd geschreven om Trotsky's reputatie op te waarderen tegenover Stalin en soms geloof ik dat hij iets te apologerend schreef over Trotsky (en Lenin) - maar de uitputtende voetnoten/referenties lijken me in het algemeen toch vrij overtuigend.

[Tiarnán · Rating 4 out of 5]

Offers great insight into Trotsky, the man and revolutionary.

[Jim Weinstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

quite depressing on a bunch of levels

[Parthasarathy Warrier · Rating 5 out of 5]

Volume 1, Trotsky - Prophet Armed, depicts not only the rise of Trotsky as a revolutionary star but the background history of imperial Russia in late 19th century, under Tsardom, struggling with illiterate peasantry and serfdom. Revolution was not the product of overnight work. Isaac Deutscher help us to know how the émigré leadership of future revolution worked in Western Europe for more than 15 years, when they were forced to go underground in Russia, their deportation to Siberia and enigmatic escapes from polar circle camps, Operation of clandestine works, production of socialist news papers, grouping already progressed European socialists etc. Ideological differences made Trotsky to move away from Lenin resulting Mensheviks and Bolsheviks camps, both heading for the same cause. From 1905 to 1917 both Trotsky and Lenin were constantly attacking and defending each other. Trotsky always took the stand which made his comrades and enemies to suspect his intention and sincerity constantly. But his intelligence, knowledge, oratory skill to win masses kept him always on top order.

On the eve of 1917 October revolution, Lenin was in his hideout, stamped as German spy and fear of assassination or arrest, Stalin was unaccountably absent, What more, Trotsky lead the revolution like true General, with brave resolution and without bloodshed.

October revolution was followed by Russia’s withdrawal from WWI in Trotsky's initiative. Soon Civil war broke out; he formed Red Army and led from front like a Marshal not without ruthless. Ignoring Trotsky's reluctance, Bolshevik's Polish campaign was disastrous. Trotsky warned well in advance that Proletarian dictatorship in a foreign country is not possible by substituting Red Army or Russian Soviets instead of native call for revolution. When revolution lead to conquest in Russia, Bolsheviks tried for revolution in foreign soil by conquest. For another quarter century no revolution happened either in Europe or Asia. Trotsky's prophecy came true once again.

Lenin was a political genius, theorist, economist, émigré leader and unquestionable giant of his party, where as Stalin was Lenin's henchman, home bred expert of clandestine operations in underground, fund raiser by raiding Tsar's financial institutes, slowly anchored in Red Army and later arch enemy of Trotsky.

In 1930s Stalin spent billions of Roubles to erase Trotsky's role in revolution, millions murdered in the orchestrated great purge. But history already engraved Trotsky’s name in blood red letters.

[Mikee · Rating 5 out of 5]

(Current)
I feel, if anything, more reverential about Deutscher's work than I did when I first read it two years ago. A sweeping, yet personal, perspective on one of the most dynamic periods in history. Yet my sympathetic association with Trotsky's ideas are diminished by a more careful read on how mercurial his passions could be and on his willingness to dispel niceties such as democratic freedom in pursuit of his aims (which themselves are a bit inconsistent during the latter years of his position in the new ruling class). "Opposing ideas are to be encouraged, but their proponents are not to form a clique". Who then? Trotsky, even more than Lenin, may have set the stage for Stalin. Another idol busted. Darn!

(From 2012)
Volume I of a magisterial three-volume of Trotsky, this covers the period from his birth until the aftermath of the civil wars and the agonizing attempts to survive. It covers the whole complex story of the Revolution from the viewpoint of one of its most brilliant protagonists. It is sympathetic to his views but not blind to his shortcomings, and covers all the see-sawing and mistakes that were a part of this era. An excellent book. Two more to go.

[Mark Desrosiers · Rating 3 out of 5]

Isaac Deutscher is a perceptive historian and vivid prose stylist, and we're lucky to get this monumental portrait of the most quickly receding revolutionary of the last century. Trotsky was many things -- talented scribbler, devious escape artist, persuasive orator, wide-ranging theoretician, principled friend of the peasantry and proletariat (he came from neither class). But Deutscher can't erase the fact that, despite his charisma and brainpower, Trotsky was above all a stone bore. The Menshevik vs. Bolshevik shilly-shallying that characterized Trotsky's pre-1916 ideology now reads like so many American Anti-Masonic party tracts circa 1928. And when a revolution is based on head-scratching texts by the likes of Marx and Plekhanov, you know you're in for a long ride on a creaky prototype killdozer. Once Trotsky's "permanent revolution" theory appears -- and Deutscher's genealogy of the concept is careful and baffling -- it's like Thomist metaphysics. Irrelevant to almost everyone, possibly even a tad dumb, yet this sane genius gets sanctified for it.

So this is volume one of Deutscher's three-part bio. I'm guessing Trotsky gets more irritating and effective as he enlarges, post-1921.

[Tony duncan · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is a brilliant work about one of the greatest political minds in History. Deutscher is quite sympathetic to trotsky and that might bother some people as trotsky had a hand in ruthlessly killing hundreds of thousands of people. Those are a lot of broken eggs for an omelet that didn't end up being so tasty.

But we get inside Trotsky's head in a way no other author I have read does. Trotsky was a genius, a committed revolutionary, and he had a few fatal flaws. He believed he understood more than he really did. I highly recommend people comparing trotsky's thinking to Rosa Luxembourg, who in my view is possibly the greatest revolutionary thinker of the 19th or 20th century, even if she was not as outright Brilliant as Lenin Trotsky or Marx.


However trotsky was a true marxist, partly because he did not believe in Orhtodoxy. He was committed to understanding how things actually were and figuring out and analyzing every element of a problem

[Tripmastermonkey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the first book I've been able to get through on the Russian revolution, and I found it fascinating. The author, Isaac Deutscher, was reading Shakespearean tragedies while writing the book, and the narrative of this book does indeed show an arc from triumph to tragedy (and this is only the 1st of 3 books he wrote on Trotsky's life). World events, personal pride and ambition (his own and that of others), grave mis-steps- all show up in this biography. For someone I came to truly respect in so many ways from this book, it was all the more hard to read in particular the way in which he (and other Bolshevik leaders) handled the end of the civil war, eventually fighting their own comrades and quickly coming to regret it.

[Michael · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very detailed if somewhat hagiographic look at Trotsky from his birth to the end of the civil war. Also, since it's an older book, it doesn't have access to the archives that were opened in the 1990s. For this reason, while it's a good book on Trotsky, it's missing some interesting information about the russian revolution as a whole that can be found elsewhere.

[shayen · Rating 5 out of 5]

A triumph of a book. Want to look into the history of the Russian Revolution without jumping into the theoretical work of its main participants? This is a solid starting point. Deutscher writes with urgency and a commitment to historic truth. An honest biography — you will be dazzled by the trilogy.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mind bogglingly thorough history of Trotsky that started out for me as an assigned book for a Russian History class. I ended up becoming really fixated on Trotsky, so I read all three volumes. Everything you've ever wanted to know about the birth of Soviet Union and more.

[Grady Ormsby · Rating 5 out of 5]

End of volume one. End of the revolution. What good does it do to win the revolution and the civil war is there is nothing left? How do the workers unite when there is no more work, no more work places?

[Erin · Rating 5 out of 5]

that which goes around, comes around, oh ye communist revolutionaries.