Scan barcode
carise's review against another edition
5.0
In the “Critique of the Gotha Programme” (1875), Marx wrote:
“Between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There is a corresponding period of transition in the political sphere and in this period the state can only take the form of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The following century saw this phrase become one of the most contentious and prolifically debated quotes in all of Marx’s work. But perhaps no theorist (proponent) had attempted as thorough an analysis of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP) as Trotsky—and he did so in response to Karl Kautsky’s criticism of the Russian Revolution. The historical weight of this text was due to the fact that no realization of such a ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ had ever taken place on the scale of that of the Bolsheviks.
And yet Trotsky puts forth a polemic not based on any exceptionalism of Bolshevism, Soviet Society, or the leaders of the revolution. He needs only to point out that the methods executed by the Soviet DotP are no different than those executed by bourgeois revolutions like those of America and France. The aims, however, of a workers’ revolution are different, because their material conditions are drastically so, and this demanded another dramatic shift in the structure of social and economic relations. The difficulty was that:
“For the ignorant day-labourer, who all his life remains a beast of burden in the service of the bourgeoisie, the ideal right to influence the fate of the nations by means of the parliamentary elections remained little more real than the palace which he was promised in the kingdom of heaven” (pp. 42).
Trotsky believed that ‘democratization’ (which he states was the process of socialist reconstruction) requires using people with special knowledge where appropriate, and not ‘abolishing skilled forces’—a strategy he describes in great detail. This is, however, a common target of criticism by Marxist critics of the USSR (especially Stalinism). Foucault, for example, argued that the use of the intelligentsia in the “new regime” was the ultimate cause for its failure (1984, pp. 60). Trotsky believed the opposite, but perhaps didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that Foucault did:
“…it is not through the work of some engineer or of some general of yesterday that the Soviet regime may stumble - in the political, in the revolutionary, in the military sense, the Soviet regime is unconquerable. But it may stumble through its own incapacity to grapple with the problems of creative organization. The Soviet regime is bound to draw from the old institutions all that was vital and valuable in them, and harness it on to the new work. If, comrades, we do not accomplish this, we shall not deal successfully with our principal problems; for it would be absolutely impossible for us to bring forth from our masses, in the shortest possible time, all the necessary experts, and throw aside all that was accumulated in the past” (pp. 113).
There is plenty to disagree with in this work, and in this case it has the potential to be quite constructive. Like many revolutionary leaders, Trotsky’s writing is clear and accessible for anyone regardless of their familiarity with more academic or highly theoretical work. I think it’s invaluable not only for a historical understanding, but for lessons on socialist strategies for the future.
“Between capitalist and communist society lies a period of revolutionary transformation from one to the other. There is a corresponding period of transition in the political sphere and in this period the state can only take the form of a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
The following century saw this phrase become one of the most contentious and prolifically debated quotes in all of Marx’s work. But perhaps no theorist (proponent) had attempted as thorough an analysis of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP) as Trotsky—and he did so in response to Karl Kautsky’s criticism of the Russian Revolution. The historical weight of this text was due to the fact that no realization of such a ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ had ever taken place on the scale of that of the Bolsheviks.
And yet Trotsky puts forth a polemic not based on any exceptionalism of Bolshevism, Soviet Society, or the leaders of the revolution. He needs only to point out that the methods executed by the Soviet DotP are no different than those executed by bourgeois revolutions like those of America and France. The aims, however, of a workers’ revolution are different, because their material conditions are drastically so, and this demanded another dramatic shift in the structure of social and economic relations. The difficulty was that:
“For the ignorant day-labourer, who all his life remains a beast of burden in the service of the bourgeoisie, the ideal right to influence the fate of the nations by means of the parliamentary elections remained little more real than the palace which he was promised in the kingdom of heaven” (pp. 42).
Trotsky believed that ‘democratization’ (which he states was the process of socialist reconstruction) requires using people with special knowledge where appropriate, and not ‘abolishing skilled forces’—a strategy he describes in great detail. This is, however, a common target of criticism by Marxist critics of the USSR (especially Stalinism). Foucault, for example, argued that the use of the intelligentsia in the “new regime” was the ultimate cause for its failure (1984, pp. 60). Trotsky believed the opposite, but perhaps didn’t have the benefit of hindsight that Foucault did:
“…it is not through the work of some engineer or of some general of yesterday that the Soviet regime may stumble - in the political, in the revolutionary, in the military sense, the Soviet regime is unconquerable. But it may stumble through its own incapacity to grapple with the problems of creative organization. The Soviet regime is bound to draw from the old institutions all that was vital and valuable in them, and harness it on to the new work. If, comrades, we do not accomplish this, we shall not deal successfully with our principal problems; for it would be absolutely impossible for us to bring forth from our masses, in the shortest possible time, all the necessary experts, and throw aside all that was accumulated in the past” (pp. 113).
There is plenty to disagree with in this work, and in this case it has the potential to be quite constructive. Like many revolutionary leaders, Trotsky’s writing is clear and accessible for anyone regardless of their familiarity with more academic or highly theoretical work. I think it’s invaluable not only for a historical understanding, but for lessons on socialist strategies for the future.
xanderman001's review against another edition
5.0
Zizek's foreword to this is the equivalent to getting the right answer with the wrong formula.
jayrothermel's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting book. My notes /excerpts:
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
jayrothermel's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting book. My notes/excerpts:
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
jayrothermel's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting book. My notes/excerpts:
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
http://marxistupdate.blogspot.com/2020/02/trotsky-versus-renegade-kautsky.html?m=1
More...