PDF, EPUB, EBOOK

Leon Trotsky,M. Eastman | 240 pages | 27 Mar 2004 | Dover Publications Inc. | 9780486433981 | English | New York, United States The Revolution Betrayed | Foreign Affairs

While conceding the dictatorship's undoubted achievements in industrialization and state planning, he insists that all this has been accomplished at the expense of the Socialist Revolution, both in and out of Russia. The book is filled with facts, in large part derived from Soviet sources. As we would expect, it was written with fiery passion -- which has preserved in his excellent translation. This site uses cookies to improve your user experience. Click here to learn more. Search Search Sign in Cart. Foreign Policy. Sign in. Reviewed By Foreign Affairs July The Revolution Betrayed. View 1 comment. Feb 11, Tom Michalak rated it really liked it Shelves: non-fiction. His analysis of the 's development from the Great 's inception is a surprisingly well-balanced, materialist one. Going into the book, judging from my copy's picture of a scowling Stalin and the title which I've heard was originally when Trotsky wrote it "The Revolution Deformed" , I imagined it was going to be anti-communist ravings, when it wasn't. The Trotsky I was familiar with until actually reading what he had to say, as opposed to Trotskyist parties of the His analysis of the Soviet Union's development from the Great October Revolution's inception is a surprisingly well-balanced, materialist one. The Trotsky I was familiar with until actually reading what he had to say, as opposed to Trotskyist parties of the West. Chris Harman, , and ones like them claiming title to the Trotsky legacy have proven to be little more than petit-bourgeois enemies of socialism. They tout the line of "state capitalism", which Trotsky dismisses clearly as nonsense. They cheered on the fall of the Socialist Bloc in Europe, while Trotsky upheld the Soviet Union's proletarian class character. Oct 05, Kat rated it it was ok. Oh Trotsky. We all know that you're just bitter because Stalin won and you didn't. I have rather ambiguous feelings on this one. I wouldn't reject every continuity between the two leaderships, but I also believe the differences were important. Nor do I see Lenin as a psychopath merely out for his own power and influence and therefore no different from Stalin. So on this particular point, there would be at least some agreement between me and Trotsky. My problem I have rather ambiguous feelings on this one. My problem is more with the Stalin as representative of the bureaucracy element to the book. I'm not sure I entirely agree, because I think this is, how shall we say, an excessive mechanical reduction of the leadership to class forces as it were. While I would agree that one cannot explain the Soviet Union merely by reference to personality, I think in this book Trotsky goes too far in the other direction and seems to ignore the personality of Stalin too much. Funnily enough I think Trotsky's argument becomes perhaps more plausible after the ditching of the NKVD as a means to control society and the state post-Stalin as after Stalin there was no mass random terror, or course it was still used against dissidents etc. That said overall I'm not convinced that Trotsky fully explains the nature of effectively. In conclusion I would say that I definitely found this book an interesting read, but was not fully convinced by the arguments in some respects. Aug 16, Chuck Sheldon rated it it was amazing. Heavily biased perspective on the Russian Revolution and Stalin's leadership. Beautifully written and an important primary source for people interested in the Soviet Union and Trotsky. Sep 14, Radostinski rated it really liked it Shelves: english-language , , e-books. This is probably one of the most important books on the Soviet Union. If you are interested in its degeneration and the future collapse of the Eastern block, this is the perfect book to start with. As was the case with the most genuine revolutionaries, Trotsky tended to overestimate the revolutionary potential of the masses. In this book he professes that either there will be a new workers' revolution or capitalism will be restored in Russia. Well, guess what happened at the end. Jan 02, Andy Hempe rated it it was amazing. One of the most important political works of the 20th century. Explains what the Soviet Union started out as, and what it became. Essential reading for anyone interested in the history of socialism. As Trotsky wrote, the Soviet Union was not a communist country, and not even a socialist one; it was half way between capitalism and socialism. Jul 01, Christopher Koch rated it really liked it. Those who worship the established fact can't prepare for the future. Jan 28, Don rated it did not like it Shelves: bilge. Ghastly book by one of the few men who might've made the Soviet Union even worse than it was under Stalin. Aug 29, David rated it liked it Shelves: society-politics. I'd like to think that Trotsky represents a more hopeful alternative, although I don't begin assuming what he says is fact. It may be hard to find a fully objective analysis, regardless of the writer's politics, to verify some of Trotsky's data. Trotsky's description of the cause and effect of the changes in the early USSR leading to bureaucracy and authoritarianism seems plausible to me. Therefore, it only explains so much. We can say this of the Communist apparatuses of the late 's: Powers-that-be tend to use force to stop efforts for major social change. The Communist apparatus in many countries each chose not to do so. This suggests that a decisive part of the Communist apparatuses wanted to change to crony capitalism. That is, at least, what the kind of system Trotsky described leads to. The evolution of the early Soviet government might seem entirely explanatory of the eventual embrace of crony capitalism. This has been a more complicated explanation for those who view society and government from a class perspective. I've come to question whether a ruling group's voluntary transition from one class form to another need be as doubtful as has been argued. Suppose an agrarian class society faced climate change making wealth from agriculture on their land too limited, might that ruling class be swayed to try becoming an industrial ruling class? Or if an industrial ruling class faced an apocalyptic crisis in which industrial activity was too little, might they consider becoming an agrarian ruling class? I think they're more wed to the wealth than to the means of collecting it. Jul 10, Avery rated it really liked it Shelves: soviet-history. That being said, I actually really enjoyed this book and found it to be a prescient analysis of what the Soviet Union was at the time. Not nearly as anti-communist as it's painted to be, both by detractors and right-wingers who cynically use Trotsky to further their own agendas. A scathing critique of Stalin's regime in its early days and prescient prediction of the fate of the "Soviet" Union and the fate of Europe. Trotsky writes with a sharp wit, sarcastic rhetoric and amiable arrogance at times, however this does lead to some self indulgent meanderings at times. A must-read for anyone interested in Left politics as a cautionary tale about the dangers of the revolution and what can be done to prevent them when the time comes! This book serves very well as a sequel to Or A scathing critique of Stalin's regime in its early days and prescient prediction of the fate of the "Soviet" Union and the fate of Europe. This book serves very well as a sequel to Orwell's Animal Farm. Dec 05, Donna Davis rated it liked it Shelves: pol-sc , favorites-overflow , nonfiction , military-history , primary-sources , memoirs-biographies-autobio. Brilliant theory; wish he'd been right. Jul 02, J. Trotsky, thankfully accounts for it. All of which are important to help gain a clearer picture of just what happened. Some view it as state capitalist. Definite recommend. Sep 21, Simon rated it liked it. Stalin - the 'conservative' Communist [concentration of power in the State led by Stalin the dictator [Review draft work in progress] Reflecting on the notorious Politburo and Bolshevik Revolution [Disclaimer: coming from a Pacifist Libertarian Socialist perspective], the contrast between key figures remains with distinctive nuances on the spectrum [obviously, dictatorship of the puts every revolutionary here on the authoritarian end of the Left spectrum, but differences still remain]. Stalin - the 'conservative' Communist [concentration of power in the State led by Stalin the dictator - rapid industrialization, forced collectivization of agriculture, removal of kulaks wealthy landowners , violent purge mentality]. Lenin - the 'moderate' Communist [power of State in proletariat- led vanguard party, agrarian society for Tsarist Russia, critique of imperialist nations who outsource labour to lower discontent of proletariat]. Trotsky - the 'liberal' Communist [democratic ideals, anti-Stalinist - against bureaucratically degenerated workers' state, anti-dictatorship, anti- centralization of State]. Whilst I agree most with Trotsky's post-revolution principles, all sought for a dictatorship of the proletariat through violent revolution military communism , before either conforming to dictatorial rule or subverting it. Credit where it is due, Trotsky understood how the transitional regime was failing, and merely propagating a new brand of dictatorships - the jarring juxtaposition of conservative and communist values. It is worth highlighting Marx's Six Stages of Communism: Stage 1 — Primitive Communism hunter-gathering, survival instincts, no private property, no classes, power by merit. Stage 2 — Imperialism strong man ruled, owned land, grant land in return for military service, land-owning aristocracy created. Stage 3 - Feudalism aristocracy exploited peasantry who worked the land, food surplus sold by aristocrats, class of merchants and capitalists formed who wanted to share political power. Stage 4 — Capitalism bourgeois merchants and factory owners gained political power and exploited proletariat labourers, politically aware proletariat rises up to overthrow bourgeois government. Stage 5 — Socialism dictatorship of proletariat - workers' organisations re-distributed food, goods and services according to need, profits shared by all - petty bourgeois would understand that equality was superior to private ownership. Stage 6 — Communism common good - money and government no longer need, classless and state-less society, competition and wars would cease. The problem of labour productivity is explored in Chapter 4, where the transition from capitalism to socialism does not involve the cutting down of trade, but in fact, the extension of it. However, this productivity requires the consistency of the collective workforce with regards to morale, health and resilience, and ultimately, can only be sustained by an authority whose duties of delegation may lead to feudalistic interactions, and an oppressive working context. This is what former Communist movements failed to realise - authoritarian structures remained, whether Capitalist or Communist. Trotsky was the closest of the Politburo to address this paradigm. The 'above-and-beyond' workers of the Stakhanov Movement attempted to strengthen the Communist state with their genuinely enthusiastic labouring efforts. Trotksy's reverence to the Jacobins is important, because, in the UK, here was a group who were sympathetic to the protests but became disillusioned by the prevalence of violence, barbarism and brutality in the Reign of Terror. There are moments of epiphany, such as his analysis of village communities where citizens "struggle between individualistic and collective tendencies". The idea that individualistic behaviours as no longer just a bourgeois sensibility, compels Trotsky to consider the shortcomings of the Bolshevik Revolution, but his epiphany is only partial. His damning indictment of Bolshevism is clearly realised in Chapter 6: "The former Bolshevik party is now no longer the vanguard of the proletariat, but the political organization of the bureaucracy. The fractious tension with the League of Nations by and Trotsky can be summed up by his belief that LoN is a "Thermidorian bureauracy" that "will direct its future efforts to the suppression of revolutionary movements" such as the Soviet Union. His rhetoric becomes increasingly militant towards the end of the book, directing his rage at the bureaucrats in all of their guises: "The henchmen of the Soviet bureaucracy say that we 'underestimate' the inner forces of the Soviet Union, the , etc. The most damning element here is that Trotsky is insinuating that Stalin was a conservative like Bonaparte, disguised as a communist. It is a dizzying book that matches epiphanies with demagoguery, but also, an important counter to the far more menacing Stalin and the ensuing Great Purge to come. Dec 12, Shea Mastison rated it it was ok. He was the 'Left Opposition' to Stalin; and a political scapegoat for nearly every catastrophe that befell the Soviet Union after Lenin's death. In this book, Trotsky uses wit and cold facts to dismantle the bureaucratic mess that was the U. It's not that Trotsky disagrees with the objectives; he's just highly skeptical of the "new aristocracy" that had built itself upon t "The motor force of progress is truth and not lies. It's not that Trotsky disagrees with the objectives; he's just highly skeptical of the "new aristocracy" that had built itself upon the dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems that Marxists of various stripes are awfully good at criticism; but their solutions are fantastically unimpressive. Read this if you are a political junkie. Trotsky is undoubtedly one of the best polemicists I've read. He finds a way to inject his critiques with life such that they do not come off to be purely banal philosophy, but are instead full of passion and emotion. This isn't to say his philosophical thinking is lacking - by my estimate he does well here too - rather, it is simply a remark on the rare ability to combine the two which I find happens most often in leftist philosophers, coincidence? In this book, Trotsky does an outstanding jo Trotsky is undoubtedly one of the best polemicists I've read. In this book, Trotsky does an outstanding job of offering realistic evaluations of the Soviet regime. While one may be inclined to take them with a grain of salt due to Trotsky's having been exiled at this point, nothing came off to me as overtly biased. As well, it appears that history has largely appeared to vindicate much of what Trotsky had to say. It is undoubtedly true that the "socialist" regime of Stalin and other Soviet satellite states confirm his first observations that, although quantity of production has increased, quality lacks far behind. This observation seems to have much historical credence. Trotsky also does a great job of showing how Stalin shifted the USSR away from the views of Lenin or of whatever Trotsky ascribed to Lenin and broadly democratic socialism towards "bureaucratic socialism" which does not appear very socialistic. Trotsky does a great job showing of how Stalin's regime, not unlike previous capitalist and feudalist regimes, privileges one class at the expense of others. While Party members lived rather lavishly, the proletariat still lived largely in poverty. Rather than enact reforms that were truly for the benefit of the people, much was done with sleight of hand to make it appear as if the interests of the proletariat were in mind, when in reality it was a mere enrichment of the Party and Stalin's friends. This makes it hard for me to understand how anyone, especially self-described socialists, could be sympathetic to Stalinism given how far it departs from the basis of equality that makes socialism so attractive. One last thought I have is the connection between the stability of socialism and a . Trotsky insists that the persistence of socialism necessitates a world revolution or at least my understanding is this. Trotsky frames this mostly in terms of capitalist countries undercutting socialist countries economically or going to war. The bigger issue I see is the existence of varying levels of luxury products in capitalist and socialist countries and the effect of the capitalist ethos in neighbouring countries on the ethos of the socialist country. Socialist countries, due to their focus on basic material wellbeing and equality, will seemingly have lower levels of luxury than capitalist countries. This may breed resentment in their citizens as they see the levels of luxury that exist elsewhere and begin to desire it for themselves. Such desires for luxury seem to not be conducive to the socialist ethos and stability of socialism. Further, the ethos of greed, fear and accumulation native to capitalism seems also to undermine the socialist ethos of fraternity and equality. Unless a socialist country becomes isolationary undesirable for other reasons? Trotsky is great reading for anyone with interests in socialism, the history of socialism or the history of the USSR. Jun 16, Michael de Percy rated it it was amazing Shelves: reviewed. When I lecture I will often, in the heat of the moment, say things based on my understanding of the topic, and oftentimes it is hard to pin-point where this knowledge came from - a case of: how do I know what I know? The experience usually sends me back to the books to reconfirm my knowledge. Whenever I read the classic political science texts from J. Mill, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, Burke, et al. This is clearly a result of my education, but after hav When I lecture I will often, in the heat of the moment, say things based on my understanding of the topic, and oftentimes it is hard to pin-point where this knowledge came from - a case of: how do I know what I know? This is clearly a result of my education, but after having read these works, a series of gaps in my knowledge is simultaneously filled, and then, like a muscle at the gym, ripped asunder. To be sure, this is how we learn and improve, but the experience to this day leaves me feeling desperate for more time on this earth to learn the things I do not know - a list that grows daily. And Trotsky's work read like a familiar text. I may have read parts of it before, but in my class readers during my political science degree. But to rediscover these words and thoughts and ideas and ideals is mind-blowing. Trotsky was clearly a genius. This cannot be denied. But he was a politician in the same vein as Dr John Hewson: Fightback! : The Revolution Betrayed ()

Capital, Vol. Capitalism and the Transformation of Africa. Capitalism's World Disorder. The Case of Leon Trotsky. The Case of the Legless Veteran. The Challenge of the Left Opposition, — The Changing Face of U. Che Guevara and the Fight for Socialism Today. Che Guevara and the Imperialist Reality. Che Guevara Speaks. Che Guevara Talks to Young People. Chicano Liberation and Socialism. In workers and peasants of Russia were the motor force for one of the deepest revolutions in history. More About This Book. More on this subject:. Related Items. The Third International after Lenin. The Stalin School of Falsification. In , the phenomenon of Stalinism was entirely new and unexpected. It was not explained or even anticipated in the classical texts of Marx and Engels. In his last writings, Lenin expressed his concern about the rise of bureaucracy in the Soviet state, which he warned could destroy the regime of October. But Lenin thought that the prolonged isolation of the Russian workers' state would inevitably lead to capitalist restoration. This eventually occurred, but after a period of seven decades, during which the Soviet workers lost political power and the democratic regime established by the Bolsheviks in was transformed into a monstrous bureaucratic and totalitarian caricature. Only the nationalised property forms and planned economy established by the revolution remained. In The Revolution Betrayed , Trotsky provided a brilliant and profound analysis of Stalinism from the Marxist standpoint. His analysis has never been improved upon, let alone superseded. With a delay of 60 years, it has been completely vindicated by history. Trotsky warned that the Bureaucracy was placing the nationalised planned economy and the Soviet Union in danger. In reply, he was subjected to an unparalleled campaign of vilification by the "friends of the Soviet Union". Today, all those so-called Communists and fellow travellers who sang the praises of Stalin and ridiculed Trotsky should hang their heads in shame. Most of them have deserted the camp of Communism and Socialism altogether. The few that still formally adhere to Communism have nothing to say about what has happened to the Soviet Union. But this is precisely what the new generation and the best of the old generation also are insistently demanding. They will find no answer to their questions from their leaders. But in the pages of The Revolution Betrayed they will find that Trotsky not only predicted the outcome sixty years in advance, but analyses it and explains it from a Marxist standpoint. Nowadays the enemies of socialism try to maintain that the collapse of the USSR was the result of the failure of the nationalised planned economy, and that the latter is inseparable from a bureaucratic and dictatorial regime. This argument was answered by Trotsky in advance, when explained that a nationalised planned economy needs democracy as the human body needs oxygen. With the aid of a wealth of facts, figures and statistics, Trotsky shows how the Soviet Union, on the basis of a nationalised planned economy, created a colossal productive potential, but was unable to use it because of its inherent contradictions. The needs of the nationalised planned economy were in complete contradiction to the bureaucratic regime of Stalinism. This was always the case. Even in the period of the first Five-Year Plans, when it still played a relatively progressive role in developing the means of production, the Bureaucracy was responsible for colossal waste. Trotsky said that they developed the means of production, but at three times the cost of capitalism. This contradiction did not disappear with the development of the economy, but, on the contrary, grew ever more unbearable until eventually the system broke down completely. The productive forces of Russia were artificially constrained by the bureaucratic system. They had developed to a tremendous extent thanks to the nationalised planned economy, but were effectively sabotaged by bureaucratic mismanagement, waste, corruption and inefficiency. The only way the problem could have been solved was through the democratic control and administration of the working class, as Lenin had intended. This could have been achieved on the basis of the advanced economy that existed in the s. But the bureaucracy had no intention of going down that road. On the contrary, rather than hand control to the working class, the bureaucratic overlords preferred to return to capitalism. The movement towards capitalism did not arise from any economic necessity, but out of fear of the working class, and as a way to safeguard the power and privilege of the ruling caste. Trotsky had already warned that the bureaucrats would not be satisfied with their enormous privileges, luxurious cars, dachas and servants. Because all this was based upon state property, they could not pass these things on to their children. Sooner or later, therefore, they would seek to transform state property into private property. And that was just what occurred. What strikes one is the brilliant way in which Trotsky anticipated the main lines of what took place in Russia since However, in certain respects, events have unfolded differently to what he expected. In the s Trotsky was convinced that a capitalist counterrevolution could only come about as a result of civil war. He wrote: "The October Revolution has been betrayed by the ruling stratum, but not yet overthrown. It has a great power of resistance, coinciding with the established property relations, with the living force of the proletariat, the consciousness of its best elements, the impasse of world capitalism, and the inevitability of world revolution. This did not occur. The capitalist counterrevolution was carried out with only a minimum of resistance. However, this is not the first time in history that a profound social transformation has occurred without civil war. There have been times when a given regime has so exhausted itself that it fell without a fight, like a rotten apple. One example is what occurred in Hungary in when the bourgeois government of Count Karolyi collapsed and handed power to the Communist Party. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe in The Stalinist regimes were so demoralised that they gave up without a fight. In Poland, Jaruzelski just handed over power to the opposition. All of this did not occur without the intervention of the masses, who, incidentally, did not want a capitalist restoration. This process was accentuated by successive exiles of Trotsky, first in to the remote city of Alma Ata in followed the next year by Trotsky's physical expulsion from the Soviet Union to Turkey. Although separated from his dwindling band of committed followers in the USSR, Trotsky continued to function as an opposition political leader from exile throughout the rest of his life. This ongoing political activity against the regime headed by led to ongoing political pressure by the Soviet government against a series of host countries in which Trotsky had sought exile. In the spring of a beleaguered Trotsky formally sought political asylum in the Scandinavian kingdom of with an appeal to the Labour Party government in power. Norwegian authorities demanded that Trotsky obtain a permit for reentry into France before a visa for travel to Norway would be granted. The Revolution Betrayed was completed and sent to the publisher on 4 August , immediately prior to the sensational public announcement of the first of three great public generated by the secret police terror known to history as the "Great Purge" Yezhovshchina. The Revolution Betrayed has been characterized by historian Baruch Knei-Paz as Trotsky's "major work on Stalinism" and constituted the chief primary source for a chapter length summary of Trotsky's thinking on bureaucracy in a seminal intellectual survey. The book is a wide-ranging critique of the USSR and its rulers, and advocates a new to overthrow the Stalinist dictatorship and bring about a socialist democracy. It opens by praising the positive economic advances of the USSR since the death of Lenin, citing growth in electrical power, agricultural output, industry, etc. It then proceeds to describe the limits on this economic advance, the nature of the new ruling elite, and predicts the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union as a result of Stalinist rule. It places an emphasis on a Marxist method of analysis, and makes several key observations and predictions, some of which would only be borne out many decades later. The first few chapters examine the "zigzags," as Trotsky describes them, in the policy pursued by the Party , citing rapid panicked changes in policy as a direct result of a lack of democracy. Trotsky highlights the most important of these 'zigzags' in the field of economic policy, criticizing Stalin and Bukharin's policy of at first opposing voluntary collectivization and increasing privatization of land and then of an abrupt U-turn to break-neck industrialisation and forced collectivisation, which Trotsky brands "economic adventurism" that carried "the nation to the edge of disaster". Trotsky then discusses labor productivity and criticizes the uselessness of the Stakhanovite movement and "shock brigades. Trotsky then analyzes "The Soviet Thermidor " Thermidor is a reference to the later stages of the French Revolution , when conservative forces took hold of society. He analyzes the triumph of Stalin, the separation of the party from Bolshevism, and the rising bureaucratic stratum. The importance of this chapter lies in Trotsky's observation that the ruling stratum in the USSR are neither capitalists nor workers, but rather a section of the working class alienated from its class roots, influenced both by the bureaucracy left over from the Tsarist era and the de-politicisation of the working class. Trotsky refers to Stalinism as a form of " ," drawing a comparison with the French dictator Bonaparte and his capture of the French state after that country's revolution. Just as Bonaparte brought back the trappings of the aristocracy and imprisoned capitalists despite presiding over a new capitalist social system, Stalin imprisons workers and behaves like a Tsar despite failing to overturn the gains of a planned economy and nominal public ownership. At the same time, Trotsky writes that this ruling stratum impoverishes the rest of society, asserting that "a planned economy requires democracy just as the human body requires oxygen"; without democracy, he predicts economic stagnation. He next discusses everyday life in the Soviet Union, economic inequality and the oppression of the new proletariat. [Classics] The Revolution Betrayed

But Lenin thought that the prolonged isolation of the Russian workers' state would inevitably lead to capitalist restoration. This eventually occurred, but after a period of seven decades, during which the Soviet workers lost political power and the democratic regime established by the Bolsheviks in was transformed into a monstrous bureaucratic and totalitarian caricature. Only the nationalised property forms and planned economy established by the revolution remained. In The Revolution Betrayed , Trotsky provided a brilliant and profound analysis of Stalinism from the Marxist standpoint. His analysis has never been improved upon, let alone superseded. With a delay of 60 years, it has been completely vindicated by history. Trotsky warned that the Bureaucracy was placing the nationalised planned economy and the Soviet Union in danger. In reply, he was subjected to an unparalleled campaign of vilification by the "friends of the Soviet Union". Today, all those so-called Communists and fellow travellers who sang the praises of Stalin and ridiculed Trotsky should hang their heads in shame. Most of them have deserted the camp of Communism and Socialism altogether. The few that still formally adhere to Communism have nothing to say about what has happened to the Soviet Union. But this is precisely what the new generation and the best of the old generation also are insistently demanding. They will find no answer to their questions from their leaders. But in the pages of The Revolution Betrayed they will find that Trotsky not only predicted the outcome sixty years in advance, but analyses it and explains it from a Marxist standpoint. Nowadays the enemies of socialism try to maintain that the collapse of the USSR was the result of the failure of the nationalised planned economy, and that the latter is inseparable from a bureaucratic and dictatorial regime. This argument was answered by Trotsky in advance, when explained that a nationalised planned economy needs democracy as the human body needs oxygen. With the aid of a wealth of facts, figures and statistics, Trotsky shows how the Soviet Union, on the basis of a nationalised planned economy, created a colossal productive potential, but was unable to use it because of its inherent contradictions. The needs of the nationalised planned economy were in complete contradiction to the bureaucratic regime of Stalinism. This was always the case. Even in the period of the first Five-Year Plans, when it still played a relatively progressive role in developing the means of production, the Bureaucracy was responsible for colossal waste. Trotsky said that they developed the means of production, but at three times the cost of capitalism. This contradiction did not disappear with the development of the economy, but, on the contrary, grew ever more unbearable until eventually the system broke down completely. The productive forces of Russia were artificially constrained by the bureaucratic system. They had developed to a tremendous extent thanks to the nationalised planned economy, but were effectively sabotaged by bureaucratic mismanagement, waste, corruption and inefficiency. The only way the problem could have been solved was through the democratic control and administration of the working class, as Lenin had intended. This could have been achieved on the basis of the advanced economy that existed in the s. But the bureaucracy had no intention of going down that road. On the contrary, rather than hand control to the working class, the bureaucratic overlords preferred to return to capitalism. The movement towards capitalism did not arise from any economic necessity, but out of fear of the working class, and as a way to safeguard the power and privilege of the ruling caste. Trotsky had already warned that the bureaucrats would not be satisfied with their enormous privileges, luxurious cars, dachas and servants. Because all this was based upon state property, they could not pass these things on to their children. Sooner or later, therefore, they would seek to transform state property into private property. And that was just what occurred. What strikes one is the brilliant way in which Trotsky anticipated the main lines of what took place in Russia since However, in certain respects, events have unfolded differently to what he expected. In the s Trotsky was convinced that a capitalist counterrevolution could only come about as a result of civil war. He wrote: "The October Revolution has been betrayed by the ruling stratum, but not yet overthrown. It has a great power of resistance, coinciding with the established property relations, with the living force of the proletariat, the consciousness of its best elements, the impasse of world capitalism, and the inevitability of world revolution. This did not occur. The capitalist counterrevolution was carried out with only a minimum of resistance. However, this is not the first time in history that a profound social transformation has occurred without civil war. There have been times when a given regime has so exhausted itself that it fell without a fight, like a rotten apple. One example is what occurred in Hungary in when the bourgeois government of Count Karolyi collapsed and handed power to the Communist Party. Something similar happened in Eastern Europe in The Stalinist regimes were so demoralised that they gave up without a fight. In Poland, Jaruzelski just handed over power to the opposition. All of this did not occur without the intervention of the masses, who, incidentally, did not want a capitalist restoration. But in the absence of the subjective factor, the pro-capitalist elements were able to fill the vacuum and derail the movement on capitalist lines. How can one explain such a monstrosity? It was an extension of the state, composed overwhelmingly of careerists and stooges, aimed at controlling the working class and subordinating it to the ruling caste. Possession of a Party card was not, as in Lenin's day, a pledge to a life of sacrifice and struggle for the cause of the working class, but a passport for a career. For every honest worker who joined the Party, there were a hundred careerists, toadies, informers and strike-breakers. The role of a Party member was not to defend the working class, but to defend the Bureaucracy against the working class. It is necessary to underline that what failed in Russia was not socialism. The regime established by the Stalinist political counter-revolution after the death of Lenin was not socialism, and not even a workers' state in the sense understood by Marx and Lenin. It was a hideously deformed caricature of a workers' state - to use Trotsky's scientific terminology, a regime of proletarian Bonapartism. Like the Thermidorian reactionaries in the French Revolution, the old Stalinist leaders were ignorant, cynical and crude upstarts. But at least they had some links with the working class and socialism. But after many decades in power, the ruling caste degenerated completely. In the end it was composed of the children and grandchildren of privileged officials, people who had not the remotest connection with the real ideas and traditions of October. In the moment of truth, these creatures went over to capitalism with the same ease with which a man passes from a second class to a first class compartment on a train. Overnight, the seemingly powerful and monolithic "Communist" Party of the Soviet Union collapsed like a house of cards. When it became clear that the days of the Soviet Union were numbered, the first to jump from the sinking ship and embrace capitalism were the leaders of the "Communist Party" itself, headed by Boris Yeltsin. They fell over themselves in their haste to distribute the fruits of power to their families, friends and cronies, plundering the state and transforming themselves into billionaires. Compared to this, the betrayal of the leaders of the Social Democracy in was child's play. This colossal betrayal cannot be understood if one accepts the idea that what existed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe was "real socialism", as the CP leaders maintained for decades. The collapse of the Soviet Union was in reality the result of decades of bureaucratic degeneration. At a time when the Moscow bureaucracy was boasting about "building socialism" the USSR was in fact moving away from socialism. And, as Trotsky predicted in , the ruling caste of officials would not be satisfied with their privileges and high salaries, but would want to secure their position and that of their children, by turning state property into private property. This was inevitable, unless the working class overthrew the bureaucracy and returned to the Leninist policy of workers' democracy and internationalism. In the end, it was exactly what happened. Out of the 20 million members that were in it, only a mere , remained to form the CPRF. But this party also had nothing in common with communism except the name. Having been separated from the state, the leaders of the CPRF presented a semi-opposition to Yeltsin and the openly bourgeois wing, but in practice, they accepted capitalism and the market, and their opposition had the character of pure ritual and token. The same can be said of the leaders of the official trade unions the FNPR. Thus, the colossal anger, bitterness and frustration of the masses found no organised expression. This ongoing political activity against the regime headed by Joseph Stalin led to ongoing political pressure by the Soviet government against a series of host countries in which Trotsky had sought exile. In the spring of a beleaguered Trotsky formally sought political asylum in the Scandinavian kingdom of Norway with an appeal to the Labour Party government in power. Norwegian authorities demanded that Trotsky obtain a permit for reentry into France before a visa for travel to Norway would be granted. The Revolution Betrayed was completed and sent to the publisher on 4 August , immediately prior to the sensational public announcement of the first of three great public Moscow Trials generated by the secret police terror known to history as the "Great Purge" Yezhovshchina. The Revolution Betrayed has been characterized by historian Baruch Knei-Paz as Trotsky's "major work on Stalinism" and constituted the chief primary source for a chapter length summary of Trotsky's thinking on bureaucracy in a seminal intellectual survey. The book is a wide-ranging critique of the USSR and its rulers, and advocates a new political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist dictatorship and bring about a socialist democracy. It opens by praising the positive economic advances of the USSR since the death of Lenin, citing growth in electrical power, agricultural output, industry, etc. It then proceeds to describe the limits on this economic advance, the nature of the new ruling elite, and predicts the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union as a result of Stalinist rule. It places an emphasis on a Marxist method of analysis, and makes several key observations and predictions, some of which would only be borne out many decades later. The first few chapters examine the "zigzags," as Trotsky describes them, in the policy pursued by the Party , citing rapid panicked changes in policy as a direct result of a lack of democracy. Trotsky highlights the most important of these 'zigzags' in the field of economic policy, criticizing Stalin and Bukharin's policy of at first opposing voluntary collectivization and increasing privatization of land and then of an abrupt U-turn to break-neck industrialisation and forced collectivisation, which Trotsky brands "economic adventurism" that carried "the nation to the edge of disaster". Trotsky then discusses labor productivity and criticizes the uselessness of the Stakhanovite movement and "shock brigades. Trotsky then analyzes "The Soviet Thermidor " Thermidor is a reference to the later stages of the French Revolution , when conservative forces took hold of society. He analyzes the triumph of Stalin, the separation of the party from Bolshevism, and the rising bureaucratic stratum. The importance of this chapter lies in Trotsky's observation that the ruling stratum in the USSR are neither capitalists nor workers, but rather a section of the working class alienated from its class roots, influenced both by the bureaucracy left over from the Tsarist era and the de-politicisation of the working class. Trotsky refers to Stalinism as a form of " Bonapartism ," drawing a comparison with the French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte and his capture of the French state after that country's revolution. Just as Bonaparte brought back the trappings of the aristocracy and imprisoned capitalists despite presiding over a new capitalist social system, Stalin imprisons workers and behaves like a Tsar despite failing to overturn the gains of a planned economy and nominal public ownership. At the same time, Trotsky writes that this ruling stratum impoverishes the rest of society, asserting that "a planned economy requires democracy just as the human body requires oxygen"; without democracy, he predicts economic stagnation. He next discusses everyday life in the Soviet Union, economic inequality and the oppression of the new proletariat. He links the increasing conservatism in the treatment of women and the family directly with the rise of Stalinism, and compares it to the period before the revolution. From here he discusses foreign policy and the Soviet military: The failure to defeat fascism, the re-institution of ranks and the loss of a militia, and closes by examining the future of the Soviet Union. One of the key predictions made by Trotsky is that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy. This prediction was made at a time when most commentators, capitalist and Stalinist, predicted the continued rise of Soviet power. Lack of economic democracy coupled with computer technology that at the time was not yet advanced enough to plan the economy led to economic stagnation in the s and s The . Leading members of the ruling party who were overwhelmingly from the more privileged stratum of Soviet society responded to the stagnation by promoting capitalist reforms in the s , rather than expanding more democratic forms of socialism. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Tariq Ali James P. Current Internationals. Historical Internationals. Related topics. Malcolm Campbell, translator.

The Revolution Betrayed | Pathfinder

Physical copy of this book available from Wellred Books. If you want more information about joining the IMT, fill in this form. We will get back to you as soon as possible. Why we are Marxists Read More. The English Revolution: the world turned upside down Read More. Catch up on Marxist University! Read More. A world on the brink: revolution looming Read More. What Has Been Achieved 2. Economic Growth and the Zigzags of the Leadership 3. Socialism and the State 4. The Struggle for Productivity of Labor 5. The Soviet Thermidor 6. The Growth of Inequality and Social Antagonisms 7. Family, Youth and Culture 8. Foreign Policy and the Army 9. Social Relations in the Soviet Union Whither the Soviet Union? Appendix Postscript All Pages. Phone number. Although separated from his dwindling band of committed followers in the USSR, Trotsky continued to function as an opposition political leader from exile throughout the rest of his life. This ongoing political activity against the regime headed by Joseph Stalin led to ongoing political pressure by the Soviet government against a series of host countries in which Trotsky had sought exile. In the spring of a beleaguered Trotsky formally sought political asylum in the Scandinavian kingdom of Norway with an appeal to the Labour Party government in power. Norwegian authorities demanded that Trotsky obtain a permit for reentry into France before a visa for travel to Norway would be granted. The Revolution Betrayed was completed and sent to the publisher on 4 August , immediately prior to the sensational public announcement of the first of three great public Moscow Trials generated by the secret police terror known to history as the "Great Purge" Yezhovshchina. The Revolution Betrayed has been characterized by historian Baruch Knei-Paz as Trotsky's "major work on Stalinism" and constituted the chief primary source for a chapter length summary of Trotsky's thinking on bureaucracy in a seminal intellectual survey. The book is a wide-ranging critique of the USSR and its rulers, and advocates a new political revolution to overthrow the Stalinist dictatorship and bring about a socialist democracy. It opens by praising the positive economic advances of the USSR since the death of Lenin, citing growth in electrical power, agricultural output, industry, etc. It then proceeds to describe the limits on this economic advance, the nature of the new ruling elite, and predicts the ultimate downfall of the Soviet Union as a result of Stalinist rule. It places an emphasis on a Marxist method of analysis, and makes several key observations and predictions, some of which would only be borne out many decades later. The first few chapters examine the "zigzags," as Trotsky describes them, in the policy pursued by the Party , citing rapid panicked changes in policy as a direct result of a lack of democracy. Trotsky highlights the most important of these 'zigzags' in the field of economic policy, criticizing Stalin and Bukharin's policy of at first opposing voluntary collectivization and increasing privatization of land and then of an abrupt U-turn to break-neck industrialisation and forced collectivisation, which Trotsky brands "economic adventurism" that carried "the nation to the edge of disaster". Trotsky then discusses labor productivity and criticizes the uselessness of the Stakhanovite movement and "shock brigades. Trotsky then analyzes "The Soviet Thermidor " Thermidor is a reference to the later stages of the French Revolution , when conservative forces took hold of society. He analyzes the triumph of Stalin, the separation of the party from Bolshevism, and the rising bureaucratic stratum. The importance of this chapter lies in Trotsky's observation that the ruling stratum in the USSR are neither capitalists nor workers, but rather a section of the working class alienated from its class roots, influenced both by the bureaucracy left over from the Tsarist era and the de-politicisation of the working class. Trotsky refers to Stalinism as a form of " Bonapartism ," drawing a comparison with the French dictator Napoleon Bonaparte and his capture of the French state after that country's revolution. Just as Bonaparte brought back the trappings of the aristocracy and imprisoned capitalists despite presiding over a new capitalist social system, Stalin imprisons workers and behaves like a Tsar despite failing to overturn the gains of a planned economy and nominal public ownership. At the same time, Trotsky writes that this ruling stratum impoverishes the rest of society, asserting that "a planned economy requires democracy just as the human body requires oxygen"; without democracy, he predicts economic stagnation. He next discusses everyday life in the Soviet Union, economic inequality and the oppression of the new proletariat. He links the increasing conservatism in the treatment of women and the family directly with the rise of Stalinism, and compares it to the period before the revolution. From here he discusses foreign policy and the Soviet military: The failure to defeat fascism, the re-institution of ranks and the loss of a militia, and closes by examining the future of the Soviet Union. One of the key predictions made by Trotsky is that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy. This prediction was made at a time when most commentators, capitalist and Stalinist, predicted the continued rise of Soviet power. Lack of economic democracy coupled with computer technology that at the time was not yet advanced enough to plan the economy led to economic stagnation in the s and s The Era of Stagnation. Leading members of the ruling party who were overwhelmingly from the more privileged stratum of Soviet society responded to the stagnation by promoting capitalist reforms in the s , rather than expanding more democratic forms of socialism. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Tariq Ali James P. Current Internationals. Historical Internationals. Related topics.

https://files8.webydo.com/9592540/UploadedFiles/45C81599-1FF7-F11F-843D-7D32B56E4C02.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9588755/UploadedFiles/3151351D-9C3E-6CBF-75D9-E5CEA3B791A0.pdf https://static.s123-cdn-static.com/uploads/4638841/normal_6020596b559fd.pdf https://files8.webydo.com/9587986/UploadedFiles/70192089-9E77-2F87-CF03-8C4F3591077F.pdf