Customer Reviews

Literature and Revolution

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is simply one of the most important books of the 20th Century. Trotsky wrote this book at the request of Lenin who edited it. They saw fighting against those who wanted to impose a so-called "proletarian" culture as the official culture of the Soviet Union, as a threat to a real Marxist understanding of culture. Judging culture by its explicit politics, rather than by its expression of human life, Trotsky explains, is as far from Marxism as you can get. Trotsky explains that even some of the most reactionary minded writers have create some of the most stirringly real and vibrant literature, how to road to real socialism will come by giving working people full and free access to the best and the worst of the literature and art that capitalism has produced. No one who reads this book will think that the garbage that passed for cultural theory in the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors or under Mao and his successors has anything to do with socialism or Marxism

Trotsky once wrote that of the three great tragedies in life- hunger, sex and death- revolutionary Marxism, which was the driving force behind his life and work, mainly concerned itself with the struggle against hunger. That observation contains an essential truth about the central thrust of the Marxist tradition. However, as Trotsky demonstrates here, Marxist methodology cannot and should not be reduced to an analysis of and prescription for that single struggle. Here Trotsky takes on an aspect of the struggle for mass cultural development.

In a healthy post-capitalist society mass cultural development would be greatly expanded and encouraged. If the task of socialism were merely to vastly expand economic equality, in a sense, it would be a relativity simple task for a healthy socialist society in concert with other like-minded societies to provide general economic equality with a little tweaking after vanquishing the capitalism mode of production. What Marxism aims for, and Trotsky defends here, is a prospect that with the end of class society and economic and social injustice the capacity of individual human beings to reach new heights of intellectual and creative development should flourish. That is the thought that underpins Trotsky's work here as he analyzes various trends in Russian literature in the immediate aftermath of the October Revolution of 1917. In short, Marxism is certainly not a method to be followed in order to write great literature but it does allow one to set that literature in its social context and interrelatedness.

You will find no Deconstructionist or other fashionable literary criticism here. Quite the contrary. Here Trotsky uses his finely tuned skill as a Marxist to great effect as he analyzes the various trends of literature as they were affected (or not affected) by the October Revolution and sniffs out what in false in some of the literary trends. Mainly, at the time of writing, the jury was still out about the prospects of many of these trends. He analyzes many of the trends that became important later in the century in world literature, like futurism constructivism, and others- some of which have disappeared and some of which still survive.

The most important and lasting polemic which Trotsky raised here, however, was the fight against the proponents of `proletarian culture'. The argument put forth by this trend maintained that since the Soviet Union was a workers state those who wrote about working class themes or were workers themselves should, in the interest of cultural development, be given special status and encouragement (read: a monopoly on the literary front). Trotsky makes short shrift of this argument by noting that, in theory at least as its turned out, the proletarian state was only a transitional state and therefore no lasting `proletarian culture' would have time to develop. Although history did not turn out to prove Trotsky correct the polemic is still relevant to any theory of mass cultural development.


One of the results of the publication of this book is that many intellectuals, particularly Western intellectuals, based some of their sympathy for Trotsky, the man and fallen hero on his literary analysis and his ability to write. This was particularly true during the 1930's here in America where those who were anti-Stalinist but were repelled by the vacuity of the Socialist Party were drawn to him. A few, like James T. Farrell (Studs Lonigan trilogy), did this mostly honorably. Most, like Dwight MacDonald and Sidney Hooks, etc. did not and simply used that temporary sympathy as a way station on their way to anti-Communism. Such is the nature of the political struggle.

A note for the politically- inclined who read this book. Trotsky wrote this book in 1923-24 at the time of Lenin's death and later while the struggle for succession by Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev was in full swing. While Trotsky did not recognize it until later (nor did others, for that matter) this period represented the close of the rising tide of the revolution. Hereafter, the people who ruled the Soviet Union, the purposes for which they ruled and the manner in which they ruled changed dramatically. In short, Thermidor in the classical French revolutionary expression was victorious. Given his political position why the hell was Trotsky writing a book on literary trends in post-revolutionary society at that time?

This book written decades ago is still alive ,fresh, and vibrant. One can't be a serious critic without reading it. It's funny how that 'old time Marxism/ Trotskyism' is still terribly RELEVANT.

Trotsky's approach on the subject of literature, culture and art, is a typical Marxist one with the usual class analysis and the base - superstructure relationship that dominates every Marxist text. However, "Literature & Revolution" is a rare application of Marxism on culture, with the advantage of being written by such a talented writer as Trotsky.

The analysis of Trotsky focuses around the Russian Revolution of 1917, as he compares pre-revolutionary literature, post-revolutionary literature, and the possibilities of the future art, culture and literature of society, discussing the possibility (or not) of a "proletariat culture" emerging in the Soviet Union.
Of course, "Literature & Revolution" concerns itself with other subjects, such as criticism of literature trends during the early 20th century, and a Marxist interpretation of the history of culture. The central point, however, that Trotsky is coming back to, is the Russian Revolution of the Bolsheviks, and its implications for the future, as well as its undeniable relevance to the Marxist theory of history.

For Trotsky, the Russian Revolution of 1917 was a proletariat revolution, establishing the proletariat class as the ruling class of society by enforcing the dictatorship of the proletariat, driving society towards Socialism. It was undoubtedly in his eyes the new stage of history and human development that had been advocated by Marx the previous century.

And here lies the problem with Trotsky's analysis. The Bolshevik Revolution established neither "the dictatorship of the proletariat" nor the new historical stage of Socialism. Rather, it established the rule of a new bureaucracy, based on the centralized state and party apparatus, the use of political terror, and the absence of any political freedoms to the people of Russia.
The Revolution itself was a direct contradiction to the Marxist ideology, which advocated that a Revolution would break out in developed capitalist countries with a proletariat majority population such as Germany and Britain. In contrast, Russia was neither a developed capitalist country (rather, an agricultural one), nor did it had a large proletariat population (in fact 85% of Russia's population belonged to the peasantry and only 2-3% of the total population was part of the proletariat working class). By the 1920s, the Soviet Union had already become a dictatorship of a new ruling class, the political elite of the Communist party, with the Communists, whose members were only a tiny fraction of the proletariat class (which in itself was only 3% of the total population) monopolizing every instrument of political power and enjoying a luxurious lifestyle in the residences of the old regime's upper classes.


Therefore, the disillusionment of Trotsky with the situation in the Soviet Union, in my opinion, renders his critique and analysis useless and bankrupt in itself. Such an absence from reality can be justified for people such as John Creed or prince Kropotkin, but not from a man that played a central role in the events of the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian civil war.

One would argue that I am becoming technical and loosing the point. But Marxism, and every branch of its critique, has as its decisive and central theme, the economic and class analysis of Marx. This is also the case with "Literature & Revolution", which uses this economic and class critique to explain culture and literature. When the theory of the development of history is in direct contradiction with reality, the Marxist critique in any subject falls apart - and such is the case with "Literature & Revolution".
And while other Marxist works, such as those of Marx and Lenin, had a tremendous impact in world history, Trotsky's works, with perhaps "The Revolution Betrayed" being the exception, are historically of no significant importance. Their influence is limited to ideological discussions of the far-left.


This book apparently belongs to where its thinker's ideas are, in the dustbin of history.


I am giving this book 2 stars only because of the outstanding edition of this book. The effort put by the publisher in the book is impressive.
The absence of any significant historical impact of the book and the historical inaccuracies that directly affect the author's argument do not justify the book for a higher rating.