DOCSLIB.ORG

Materializing Art History Materializing Culture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Materializing Art History Materializing Culture Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation https://archive.org/details/materializingartOOOOdoyg Materializing Art History Materializing Culture Series Editors: Paul Gilroy, Michael Herzfeld and Danny Miller Barbara Bender, Stonehenge: Making Space Laura Rival (ed.), The Social Life of Trees: Anthropological Perspectives Tree Symbolism Materializing Art History Gen Doy Oxford • New York First published in 1998 by Berg Editorial offices: 150 Cowley Road, Oxford, 0X4 1JJ, UK 70 Washington Square South, New York, NY 10012, USA © Gen Doy 1998 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of Berg. Berg is an imprint of Oxford International Publishers Ltd. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1 85973 933 4 (Cloth) 1 85973 938 5 (Paper) Typeset by JS Typesetting, Wellingborough, Northants. Printed in the United Kingdom by Biddles Ltd, Guildford and King's Lynn. Dedicated to Av and Liz, Mary and Ruth ... with love and thanks for all the time you've spent with me. Contents Acknowledgements ix List of Figures xi Introduction 1 1 Marxism and Dialectical Materialism 11 2 A Social or a Sociological History of Art? 45 3 A Social or a Socialist History of Art? 7 5 4 How is the Personal Political? 105 5 Concretizing the Abstract 173 6 Marxism, the Postmodern and the Postcolonial 203 Conclusion 257 Select Bibliography 261 Index 267 VII Acknowledgements Thanks to the staff of De Montfort University Library, especially the staff in the inter-library loans section. I am also grateful to the Research Committee of the School of Arts and Humanities, De Montfort University, for funding to help with the costs of photographs and permissions. I have attempted to contact all the copyright holders. However I was not always successful. If there are any who would like to contact me, I would be happy to rectify omissions. I am greatly indebted to Adrian Lewis for his meticulous reading of my manuscript and his very helpful comments, and to my editor Kathryn Earle at Berg Publishers, who was her usual efficient and cheerful self throughout the production of this book. I was helped enormously by the Pat Hearn Gallery and the Jack Tilton Gallery, New York, who lent me slides of Lyle Ashton Harris' and Renee Green's work. Marie-Cecile Miessner sent me material I needed from France, for which, as always, many thanks. Grateful thanks too to Lucy Marder and her successor at Jersey Museums, Louise Downie, for all their help with material on Claude Cahun. Very many thanks to David King for sending me a photo of Zina Bronstein from his collection, and to Helen Kornblum, for kindly allowing me to reproduce a Modotti photograph. Martin Richards lent me some of his collection of books on left politics and culture for which I am, as always, grateful. I am also indebted to Paul Mason and Keith Hassell for help with information about Ernest Mandel and various aspects of Marxism, politics and culture in the twentieth century. Special thanks to Pete Challis for finding me a new computer at a crucial stage in the preparation of this book. Throughout the book any words in square brackets are my additions to quoted texts. Finally, thanks and love to my sons Sean and Davey for giving me some peace to get on with preparing and writing this book. I am a very fortunate parent. IX ;P" List of Figures 1 Degas, Leaving the Bath, ca.1882, etching 12.5 x 12.5 cms State 5, Cabinet des Estampes et de la Photographie, Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 2 Cahun, Poupee 1, September 1936, photograph, 20.5 x 15.5 cms, Jersey Museum. 3 Cahun, Self-Portrait, photograph, ca.1921, 10.9 x 8.2 cms. Private collection. 4 Cahun, Untitled, photograph, 1932, 9 x 7.5 cms, Jersey Museum. 5 Modotti, Yank and Police Marionette, gelatin silver print photograph, 23.5 x 18.5 cms, 1929, Helen Kornblum collection. 6 Modotti, La Tecnica, gelatin silver print photograph, 23.5 x 18.5 cms, 1928, Museum of Modern Art, New York. 7 Still from Zina, director K. McMullen, 1985, British Film Institute Stills Library. 8 Photograph of Zina Bronstein, ca.1931, David King collection, London. 9 Cremonini, The Compartments, oil on canvas, 97 x 146 cms, Bologna, Raccolte Comunali, photo Witt Library. 10 C. Beaton, photo of Model in front of Pollock Painting from Vogue, 3.1.1951, 24 x 18.5 cms. Courtesy Vogue. Copyright 1951 The Conde Nast Publications Inc. 11 Malevich, Black Suprematist Square, oil on canvas, 79.5 x 79.5 cms, 1913-15, Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow. 12 Van Gogh, A Pair of Old Shoes, oil on canvas, 37.5 x 45.5 cms, 1886, Stedelijk Museum Vincent Van Gogh, Amsterdam. 13 Warhol, Diamond Dust Shoes, synthetic polymer paint, diamond dust and silkscreen ink on canvas, 229 x 178 cms, 1980, The Andy Warhol Foundation. Photo copyright the XI xii List af Figures Andy Warhol Foundation, Inc./Art Resource, N.Y., and permission from Design and Artist Copyright Society, London. 14 Renee Green, Revue, Mixed media installation, 241 x 638 x 36 cms, 1990, Courtesy Pat Hearn Gallery New York. 15 Renee Green, Revue, Mixed media installation, 241 x 638 x 36 cms, (detail) 1990, Courtesy Pat Hearn Gallery New York. 16 Lyle Ashton Harris, Toussaint VOuverture, Duraflex colour print 40.5 x 50 cms, 1994, photo courtesy of Jack Tilton Gallery. 17 Lyle Ashton Harris, Venus Hottentot 2000, Duraflex colour print 40.5 x 50 cms, 1994, photo courtesy of Jack Tilton Gallery, New York. Introduction As I write this introduction, I exist in a society whose leading cultural theorists and news media invite me to situate myself in the 'new world order' and accept the demise and disintegration of Marxism. No doubt my readers will be in the same position, since they are likely to encounter this book in one of the countries positioned within the dominant imperialist economies of the world. Some readers conversant with postmodern theoretical writings may also be wondering why I am addressing them resolutely in the first person from a conscious authorial position as an individual subject, when the death of the author and the individual subject in history, society and psychic space have been proclaimed. As will become clear in this book, I accept neither of these arguments, so will not be speaking/writing as "I". Why then am I engaged in a project to re-examine social histories of art and re¬ formulate a Marxist approach to the study of culture, since the Marxist method has apparently been proved disastrously wrong, and the existence of an imperialist 'new world order' self-evident? Can't we all conclude from what we see and hear daily that a new world situation exists, demanding new theoretical approaches and shifts within our understanding of ourselves and our position within contemporary society, culture and politics? The terms postmodern and postcolonial denote new cultural, economic and political formations which apparently require a revision, in part or perhaps in totality, of previous oppositional theoretical approaches to culture and its historical development. It will be my argument in the course of this book that Marxism, far from being proved inadequate and flawed by the events of twentieth century history, still provides the best methodological framework from which to understand culture and its living historical development. Indeed I will argue that the Marxist strand within 'the social history of art' needs to be retrieved and refocused. I want clearly to distinguish, 1 2 Materializing Art History and distance, Marxism from Stalinism. I will also be attempting to show how various figures and theoretical approaches within the non-Stalinist left contributed to a tradition of Marxist analysis of visual culture. I want to examine what Marxism actually is, what its theoretical method entails, and what the relationship of Marxism was and is to the rise of Stalinism and the collapse of the bureaucratically controlled societies of Eastern Europe in the period after 1989. I will seek to show that Marxism had very little to do with these societies after the late 1920s, hence their collapse cannot be regarded as a proof of Marxism's failure. However it is also important to recognize that the Marxist tradition itself has suffered serious setbacks, and that organizations throughout the world which seek to continue and refocus the political theories of Marxism are themselves fragmented and split. Of course Fascism and Stalinism played a significant part in this disintegration, but material, objective factors such as physical violence, isolation, and legal and political persecution were not completely responsible. Errors by the Marxist left and failure to grapple with new problems and developments thrown up by imperialism in its modern phase since the end of the Second World War cannot simply be blamed on adverse material conditions in which political and cultural theoreticians and activists of the left must operate. I will also be considering weaknesses in Marxist thought which need to be addressed, for example, the lack of a Marxist theory of the human subject. Throughout this book I will be arguing that conscious thought plays an important role in historical events, whether cultural or political. Marxism argues that both objective (material circumstances) and sub¬ jective factors (human consciousness) interact in historical and social change. When material circumstances are overwhelmingly unfavour¬ able to Revolution, no amount of subjective will by small numbers of people can change this.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Marxist Vol
    The Marxist Vol. XII, No. 4, October-December 1996 On the occasion of Lenin’s 125th Birth Anniversary Marxism Of The Era Of Imperialism E M S Namboodiripad The theoretical doctrines and revolutionary practices of Vladymir Illyich Lenin (whose 125th birth anniversary was recently observed by the Marxist-Leninists throughout the world), have well been called “Marxism of the Era of imperialism.” For, not only was Lenin a loyal disciple of Marx and Engels applying in practice their theory in his own homeland, but he also further developed the theory and practices of the two founders of Marxism. EARLY THEORETICAL BATTLES Born in Tsarist Russia which was seeped in its feudal environment, he noticed that capitalism was slowly developing in his country. He fought the Narodniks who advocated the doctrine of the irrelevance and no-applicability of Marxism to Russian conditions. His first major theoretical work was the Development of Capitalism in Russia where he proved that, though in feudal environment, capitalism was rapidly developing in Russia. He thus established the truth of Marxist theory of the working class being the major political force in the development of society. Further, an alliance of peasantry under working class leadership will form the core of the revolutionary forces in the conditions of backward feudal Russia. Having thus defeated the Narodniks, he proceeded to demolish the theory of “legal Marxists” according to whom Marxism was to be applies in perfectly legal battles against capitalism. He asserted the truth that the preparation for the social transformation in Russia should be based on the sharpening class struggle culminating in the proletarian revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification
    “Socialism in One Country” Promoting National Identity Based on Class Identification IVAN SZPAKOWSKI The Russian Empire of the Romanovs spanned thousands of miles from the Baltic to the Pacific, with a population of millions drawn from dozens of ethnic groups. Following the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks inherited the problem of holding together such a heterogeneous body. At the same time, they were forced to uphold Marxist ideology demanding worldwide revolution of the proletariat while facing the reality that despite the turmoil following the First World War no such revolution was forthcoming. In 1924 the rising Joseph Stalin, along with Nikolai Bukharin, devised the theory of “Socialism in One Country” which would become the solution to many of these problems facing the Bolsheviks. First of all, it proclaimed the ability of socialism to succeed in the Soviet Union alone, without foreign aid. Additionally, it marked a change from Lenin’s policy of self-determination for the Soviet Union’s constituent nations to Stalin’s policy of a compulsory unitary state. These non-Russian ethnics were systematically and firmly incorporated into the Soviet Union by the promotion of a proletariat class mentality. The development of the theory and policy of “Socialism in One Country” thus served to forge the unitary national identity of the Soviet Union around the concept of common Soviet class identity. The examination of this policy’s role in building a new form of national identity is dependant on a variety of sources, grouped into several subject areas. First, the origin of the term “Socialism in One Country,” its original meaning and its interpretation can be found in the speeches and writings of prominent contemporary communist leaders, chief among them: Stalin and Trotsky.
    [Show full text]
  • "Mein Leben" – "Моя Жизнь" Trockijs Autobiographie Essay
    "Mein Leben" – "Моя Жизнь" Trockijs Autobiographie Essay "Mein Leben" – "Моя Жизнь" Ein Essay über Trockijs Autobiographie und den jungen Trockij (1879-1904) von Wolfgang und Petra Lubitz, 2018/19 ________________________________________________________________________ Dieser Essay erscheint als Teil von Lubitz' TrotskyanaNet Inhaltsverzeichnis (1) Einleitung, Vorbemerkungen.............................................................................3 Zum Thema........................................................................................................................3 Zum Inhalt.........................................................................................................................3 Formale Hinweise.................................................................................................................4 (2) "Mein Leben" – Bibliographisch-buchhistorisches und Kurioses........................5 Einleitung...........................................................................................................................5 Buchbeschreibung der deutschen Erstausgabe.........................................................................5 Die russische Erstausgabe.....................................................................................................8 Vorabdrucke........................................................................................................................8 Online-Ausgaben.................................................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • The Bolshevil{S and the Chinese Revolution 1919-1927 Chinese Worlds
    The Bolshevil{s and the Chinese Revolution 1919-1927 Chinese Worlds Chinese Worlds publishes high-quality scholarship, research monographs, and source collections on Chinese history and society from 1900 into the next century. "Worlds" signals the ethnic, cultural, and political multiformity and regional diversity of China, the cycles of unity and division through which China's modern history has passed, and recent research trends toward regional studies and local issues. It also signals that Chineseness is not contained within territorial borders ­ overseas Chinese communities in all countries and regions are also "Chinese worlds". The editors see them as part of a political, economic, social, and cultural continuum that spans the Chinese mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, South­ East Asia, and the world. The focus of Chinese Worlds is on modern politics and society and history. It includes both history in its broader sweep and specialist monographs on Chinese politics, anthropology, political economy, sociology, education, and the social­ science aspects of culture and religions. The Literary Field of New Fourth Artny Twentieth-Century China Communist Resistance along the Edited by Michel Hockx Yangtze and the Huai, 1938-1941 Gregor Benton Chinese Business in Malaysia Accumulation, Ascendance, A Road is Made Accommodation Communism in Shanghai 1920-1927 Edmund Terence Gomez Steve Smith Internal and International Migration The Bolsheviks and the Chinese Chinese Perspectives Revolution 1919-1927 Edited by Frank N Pieke and Hein Mallee
    [Show full text]
  • The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again
    The Critique of Real Abstraction: from the Critical Theory of Society to the Critique of Political Economy and Back Again Chris O’Kane John Jay, CUNY [email protected] There has been a renewed engagement with the idea of real abstraction in recent years. Scholars associated with the New Reading of Marx, such as Moishe Postone, Chris Arthur, Michael Heinrich, Patrick Murray, Riccardo Bellofiore and others,1 have employed the idea in their important reconstructions of Marx’s critique of political economy. Alberto Toscano, Endnotes, Jason W. Moore and others have utilized and extended these theorizations to concieve of race, gender, and nature as real abstractions. Both the New Reading and these new theories of real abstraction have provided invaluable work; the former in systematizing Marx’s inconsistent and unfinished theory of value as a theory of the abstract social domination of capital accumulation and reproduction; the latter in supplementing such a theory. Yet their exclusive focus on real abstraction in relation to the critique of political economy means that the critical marxian theories of real abstraction -- developed by Alfred Sohn- Rethel, Theodor W. Adorno and Henri Lefebvre -- have been mostly bypassed by the latter and have largely served as the object of trenchant criticism for their insufficient grasp of Marx’s theory of value by the former. Consequently these new readings and new theories of real abstraction elide important aspects of Sohn-Rethel, Adorno and Lefebvre’s critiques of real abstraction; which sought to develop Marx’s critique of political economy into objective-subjective critical theories of the reproduction of capitalist society.2 However, two recent works by 1 Moishe Postone’s interpretation of real abstraction will be discussed below.
    [Show full text]
  • Marxist Philosophy and Organization Studies: Marxist Contributions to the Understanding of Some Important Organizational Forms by Paul S
    1 Marxist philosophy and organization studies: Marxist contributions to the understanding of some important organizational forms by Paul S. Adler Dept. of Management and Organization Marshall School of Business University of Southern California Los Angeles 90089-0808 Draft chapter for: Research in the Sociology of Organizations, Special Volume on Philosophy and Organization Theory, 2010, Guest editors: Haridimos Tsoukas and Robert Chia Version date: Feb 2, 2010 Author bio: Paul S. Adler is currently Harold Quinton Chair in Business Policy at the Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.. He received his PhD in economics and management at the University of Picardie, France. His research and teaching focus on organization design, with a particular focus on technical, professional, and manufacturing operations. Acknowledgments Earlier drafts benefited from research assistance from Jade Lo and from comments by Michael Burawoy, Richard Delbridge, Steve Jaros, Martin Kenney, David Levy, Richard Marens, Mark Mizruchi, Craig Prichard, Mick Rowlinson, Paul Thompson, and Matt Vidal, even if there is much with which they still disagree. 2 Marxist philosophy and organization studies: Marxist contributions to the understanding of some important organizational forms Abstract This essay aims to how Marx’s ideas and subsequent Marxist-inspired scholarship have contributed to the analysis of the various forms of work organization. It summarizes Marx’s basic philosophy, theory of history, and critique of political economy; it distinguishes more critical and more optimistic variants of Marxist theory; and it then shows how these ideas have been used in the analysis of key organizational forms, contrasting Marxist versus non-Marxist approaches and critical versus optimistic versions of Marxism.
    [Show full text]
  • Engels, Trotsky and the Natural Sciences: a Case Study in Cosmology
    LA ÚLTIMA MORADA DE TROTSKY GABRIELA PÉREZ NORIEGA http://dx.doi.org/10.23925/1982-6672.2020v13i38p19-49 Engels, Trotsky and the natural sciences: a case study in cosmology Alex Steinberg1 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2842-5687 Abstract: The topic of this essay is Trotsky’s approach to dialectical philosophy and the natural sciences. We will first summarize the tradition whose mantle Trotsky inherited as it was developed by Engels. We will then consider Trotsky’s relationship to the natural sciences. Trotsky, echoing Engels proclamations decades earlier, maintained that a dialectical philosophy is an essential guide to the work of the scientist while at the same time granting the autonomy and 19 freedom of scientists to pursue their research. Trotsky had a lifelong interest in following the developments in the natural sciences. He also had an intuitive grasp of some important developments in the natural sciences that would only come to fruition decades after his death. We will then present a case study of how a dialectical approach to nature can assist in overcoming a crisis that is plaguing contemporary physics. Specifically we will discuss how a dialectical approach to nature can inform cosmology in the 21st century and avoid the philosophical pitfalls and dead–ends that mark the contemporary crisis in physics. Keywords: Human Sciences; Marxism; Social History; Dialectical Materialism; Philosophy of Nature. 1 Alex Steinberg has taught classes on Hegel, Marxist philosophy, the dialectics of nature, and other topics at the Brecht Forum, the New Space and the Marxist Education Project. He has been a presenter and panelist at Socialist Scholars Conference, the Left Forum and Historical Materia- lism.
    [Show full text]
  • Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy
    TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY by Thomas Marshall Twiss B.A., Mount Union College, 1971 M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1972 M.S., Drexel University, 1997 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2009 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by Thomas Marshall Twiss It was defended on April 16, 2009 and approved by William Chase, Professor, Department of History Ronald H. Linden, Professor, Department of Political Science Ilya Prizel, Professor, Department of Political Science Dissertation Advisor: Jonathan Harris, Professor, Department of Political Science ii Copyright © by Thomas Marshall Twiss 2009 iii TROTSKY AND THE PROBLEM OF SOVIET BUREAUCRACY Thomas Marshall Twiss, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2009 In 1917 the Bolsheviks anticipated, on the basis of the Marxist classics, that the proletarian revolution would put an end to bureaucracy. However, soon after the revolution many within the Bolshevik Party, including Trotsky, were denouncing Soviet bureaucracy as a persistent problem. In fact, for Trotsky the problem of Soviet bureaucracy became the central political and theoretical issue that preoccupied him for the remainder of his life. This study examines the development of Leon Trotsky’s views on that subject from the first years after the Russian Revolution through the completion of his work The Revolution Betrayed in 1936. In his various writings over these years Trotsky expressed three main understandings of the nature of the problem: During the civil war and the first years of NEP he denounced inefficiency in the distribution of supplies to the Red Army and resources throughout the economy as a whole.
    [Show full text]
  • Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1959–1974
    Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1959–1974 By Joseph Paul Scalice A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in South and Southeast Asian Studies in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in Charge: Associate Professor Jerey Hadler, Chair Professor Peter Zinoman Professor Andrew Barshay Summer 2017 Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1957-1974 Copyright 2017 by Joseph Paul Scalice 1 Abstract Crisis of Revolutionary Leadership: Martial Law and the Communist Parties of the Philippines, 1959–1974 by Joseph Paul Scalice Doctor of Philosophy in South and Southeast Asian Studies University of California, Berkeley Associate Professor Jerey Hadler, Chair In 1967 the Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas (pkp) split in two. Within two years a second party – the Communist Party of the Philippines (cpp) – had been founded. In this work I argue that it was the political program of Stalinism, embodied in both parties through three basic principles – socialism in one country, the two-stage theory of revolution, and the bloc of four classes – that determined the fate of political struggles in the Philippines in the late 1960s and early 1970s and facilitated Marcos’ declaration of Martial Law in September 1972. I argue that the split in the Communist Party of the Philippines was the direct expression of the Sino-Soviet split in global Stalinism. The impact of this geopolitical split arrived late in the Philippines because it was initially refracted through Jakarta.
    [Show full text]
  • Dialectical Materialism: Marx's Method in Human Geography?
    Dialectical materialism: Marx’s method in human geography? Ipsita Chatterjee Department of Geography and the Environment University of North Texas [email protected] Waquar Ahmed Department of Geography and the Environment University of North Texas [email protected] Abstract Dialectical materialism, we argue is a philosophical praxis that guided Marx’s critique of capitalist political economy. In this article, we have attempted a self- critique of human geography by explicating that dialectical materialism has been largely used as a metaphor within the discipline. The article has been inspired by the over-whelming use of the terms ‘dialectics’ and ‘dialectical’ in human geography. The purpose has been to lay down some of the basic tenets of dialectical materialism in Marx’s work, and then lay down some human geography research that engages with dialectical materialism. We believe that philosophical introspection on methodology, particularly within the Marxist circles, is scarce. We argue that to develop a truly dialectical materialist human geography we must push dialectal materialism from metaphor to methodology. We also think that methodology and philosophy are inseparably tied and therefore, choice of research methodology is a reflector of the researcher’s philosophy about reality and hence research praxis should be an important matter of discussion and introspection. Published with Creative Commons licence: Attribution–Noncommercial–No Derivatives ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies, 2019, 18(2): 364-393 365 Keywords Materialism; human geography; radical geography; methodology; praxis Introduction The beliefs upon which we rest the objectives of our study form our philosophy, our own individual view of life and living.
    [Show full text]
  • Bio-Bibliographical Sketch of Rudolf Klement
    Lubitz' TrotskyanaNet Rudolf Klement Bio-Bibliographical Sketch Contents: Basic biographical data Biographical sketch Selective bibliography Sidelines, notes on archives Basic biographical data Name: Rudolf Klement Other names (by-names, pseud., etc.): Adolphe ; Roger Bertrand ; Camille ; Frédéric ; Rudolf Alois Klement ; Lodovic * Ludwig * Nic ; Emile Schmitt ; St. ; Walter Steen ; Theodor ; Théodore ; W.S. ; W. St. Date and place of birth: Nov. 4, 1908, Hamburg (Germany) Date and place of death: July 14 or 15 (?), 1938, Paris (?) (France) Nationality: German Occupations, careers, etc.: Student, professional revolutionary, translator Time of activity in Trotskyist movement: 1932 - 1938 (lifelong Trotskyist) Biographical sketch Rudolf Klement was a devoted young Trotskyist who shared the fate of so many members of Trotsky's family and secretarial staff in the 1930s: he fell victim to Stalin’s revenge and was murdered by accomplices of the Soviet secret service. This following biographical sketch is chiefly based on the items listed in the final paragraph of the Selective bibliography section below. Rudolf (Alois) Klement was born in Hamburg (Germany) on November 4, 1908 1 as son of an archi- tect. After finishing his secondary school education, Klement took up philological studies at various universities in Germany and abroad. It is said that he knew at least five languages, including Russian. As a student, he became a member of the Kommunistische Partei Deutschland (KPD, Communist Party of Germany) from which, however, he was expelled in 1932 when he approached Trotskyist positions and was recruited by Georg Jungclas to the Hamburg branch of the Linke Opposition der KPD, Bolschewiki-Leninisten) (LO, Left Opposition of the KPD, Bolshevik-Leninists), the German section of the International Left Opposition (ILO) inspired by Leon Trotsky and led by his son, Lev Sedov.
    [Show full text]
  • Leont Trotsky: in Defence of October
    LEONT TROTSY— 1932: IN DEFENCE OF OCTOBER Leon Trotsky's In Defence Of October A speech delivered in Copenhagen, Denmark in November 1932 The first time that I was in Copenhagen was at the International Socialist Congress and I took away with me the kindest recollections of your city. But that was over a quarter of a century ago. Since then, the water in the Ore-Sund and in the fjords has changed over and over again. And not the water alone. The war has broke the backbone of the old European continent. The rivers and seas of Europe have washed down not a little blood. Mankind and particularly European mankind has gone through severe trials, has become more sombre and more brutal. Every kind of conflict has become more bitter. The world has entered into the period of the great change. Its extreme expressions are war and revolution. Before I pass on to the theme of my lecture, the Revolution, I consider it my duty to express my thanks to the organisers of this meeting, the organisation of social-democratic students. I do this as a political adversary. My lecture, it is true, pursues historic scientific and not political lines. I want to emphasise this right from the beginning. But it is impossible to speak of a revolution, out of which the Soviet Republic arose, without taking up a political position. As a lecturer I stand under the banner as I did when I participated in the events of the revolution. Up to the war, the Bolshevik Party belonged to the Social-Democratic International.
    [Show full text]