Trotsky: A Biography

In this book, Robert Service completes his biographical trilogy of the protagonists of the October Revolution and its aftermath - Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky. As he has in the two earlier accounts, Service meticulously lays bare the influences upon and generated by his subject. While disclosing Trotsky's personal faults, his inability to coalesce factions into a realistic governing role, his inability to empathize on a personal level, his failure at critical times to seize the moment and exercise sound judgment, the author reveals that the heart of Trotsky's downfall was his utopian vision, a worldview historically untenable, philosophically unsustainable, and psychologically misanthropic. Contrary to the assessment offered by Trotsky's apologists throughout the years, Service rightfully concludes that the man was no more likely to have brought to fruition the workers' paradise than was his bête noire, Stalin. "He was close to Stalin in intentions and practice. He was no more likely than Stalin to create a society of humanitarian socialism even though he claimed and assumed that he would. Totsky failed to work out how to move from party dictatorship to universal freedom. He reveled in Terror. . . . Trotskyists invented a man and a leader who bore only an erratic kinship to Lev Davidovich Trotsky." (pp. 497-8) I strongly recommend that you read Trotsky: "Downfall of a Revolutionary," Bertrand M. Patenaude, Harper Collins (2009), in conjunction with Service's "Trotsky: A Biography." Patenaude provides a detailed account of Trotsky's years in exile that is unrivalled. The reader will gain greater insight into the man's later years as he grew older yet unflexible in his commitment to his faith in the ultimate triumph of Marxism. The reality is that even Trotsky was unable to set forth a consistent explication of what all the nonsense was about "dialectical materialism." "Few comrades even professed to understand its meaning." (Patenaude, p. 222) Many of his followers and fellow-travelers were enthusiastic about Trotsky and his views because of their own naivety. "They were blind to Trotsky's contempt for their values. They overlooked the damage he aimed to do to their kind of society if ever he got the chance." (Service, p.466) The truth is that Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and his acolytes were (and still are) iconoclasts and sloganeers, and nothing more. "Civilization can only be saved by the socialist revolution. . . . Only that which prepares the complete and final overthrow of imperialist bestiality is moral, and nothing else. The welfare of the revolution - that is the supreme law." - Trotsky, "Their Morality and Ours: The Moralists and Sychophants against Marxism" (1938) (Service pp. 470-1) There is an interesting little book written by a child of American Trotskyists, Saïd Sayrafiezadeh, "When Skateboards Will be Free," Dial Press (2009), that reveals the vacuity of blind faith in bankrupt ideology. He notes that his father, a life-long social revolutionary activist, "will gladly hold forth on the largest of subjects: the social evolution of human beings since Homo habilis; the materialist underpinnings of ancient civilization; the French Revolution; the Cold War. . . . The subjects he chooses are usually so vast, so breathtaking, that one can be forgiven for failing to realize how hollow the information is that he imparts. . . . It doesn't matter if he himself knows the intimate details of the topics on which he expounds; his concern is with Truth." (Sayrafiezadeh, p. 134; to his credit, Sayrafiezadeh, when confronted by his girlfriend with the questions: What does it mean to be a communist; what is socialism? ultimately concludes: "I guess I don't know what I'm talking about." pp. 253-4) Despite Trotsky's literary flair and his historic role in dramatic 20th century events, one rightly wonders whether, in the end, he knew what he was talking about. Robert Service has done a masterful job recounting the life and ideas of Trotsky. Typically for him, his research is exhaustive, his writing is insightful, his style exquisite.

For years I’d heard the USSR would have been radically different had Trotsky won the struggle for power. A main contention of Service is that Trotsky was never going to come out the victor for a variety of well documented reasons. Service presents a convincing argument that this unlikely result would only have been totalitarianism of a slightly different flavor. Well written account of a fascinating man and times.

A superb detailed biography.

This is such a good book. If fills in much of the Russian history and explains why Stalin and the rest were afraid of him.

The photo of Trotsky on the book's jacket is one of the most arresting I've ever seen. The face -- young, intelligent, earnest and, unobscured by the beard, appealing -- explains much about this man's complex character. And the book is billed by The New Yorker as, "unlike much work about Trotsky...the work of a historian, not an ideologue," alluding presumably to Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky's Marxist biographer. So I was well-disposed towards this book. There's obviously much an historian's work behind Robert Service's book, but alas, I can't see much of the historian's craft in it. I was a history major and attended Oxford, and my impression was that the historian's prime directive is rigor. I fail to see much of that here. Besides editorial sloppiness and uneven annotation, there's a lack of detachment. It belies an eagerness to announce, "See, see, I told you he was a bad guy!" which I find unseemly in an historian. Specifically: Service makes it clear early on that his mission is to serve as an antidote to what he regards as the hagiography surrounding Trotsky. What he comes up with is this rather mean-spirited effort to bring Trotsky down a notch or two, mainly by gratuitous and petty personal jabs, often following faint praise. While admitting to Trotsky's intellect, organizing acumen and faithfulness to his creed, Service apparently finds the revolutionary's narcissism a worthy counterweight. Service relates Trotsky's scrupulous reading of a friend's book: "[T]he exclamation marks in the margins testify to angry self-righteousness and intellectual self-regard." I've done that before -- exclamation marks noting something interesting or that I agree with strongly. Was I being self-righteous or egotistical? Risibly, Service opens himself to the same charge later, when he quotes Trotsky relating how, after being on a prison barge for three weeks in Siberia, he "was put ashore with one of the women exiles, a close associate of mine from Nikolaev". Service then uses his own exclamation mark, as he observes: "The last sentence refers to his pregnant wife Alexandra. Just possibly Trotsky was trying to spare her feelings at the time of writing. Even so, what misleading primness!" A rather innocent remark is construed (with that Trotskyist exclamation mark) as marking a character flaw. Service thanks a half-dozen people for reading his manuscript. Apparently their only task was to tell the author how brilliant he is (or maybe how brilliant they are), because they certainly did a lousy job of proofreading. Service identifies one figure as Karlson, then the same person in following passages as Carlson. Service's use of commas evidently depends on his mood. Sometimes he uses them to separate independent clause, but usually not. So we are treated to the likes of (speaking of a Trotsky cousin): "He had recently married Fanni who was the principal of the state school for Jewish girls in Odessa and it was her salary that kept the couple afloat...." This kind of run-on is everywhere. In one paragraph, Service starts calling Bronstein, Trotsky; then in the next calls him Bronstein again. In fact, Service gives a sloppy, off-hand treatment of Lev Bronstein's becoming Leon Trotsky. When did Bronstein finally settle on calling himself Trotsky? Did colleagues and intimates call him Trotsky or did they call him Bronstein or Lev or some nickname? Service gives no explanation about how Bronstein/Trotsky got busted the first couple of times. What exactly were the charges? (Sedition?) We aren't told -- only the rather vague connection with Lev's published polemics, but nothing specific about Trotsky as an agitator, even though Service says Trotsky believed that street agitation was necessary. You'd think there would be transcripts for Service to access. Service is inconsistent in his digs. He says Trotsky "disliked boastfulness," then in the next sentence describes how Trotsky "went on loudly about himself". Service says Trotsky was not well regarded, yet in next passage says he was "marked for leadership". Really? Service is sketchy about Trotsky's unifying beliefs; he doesn't provide at the outset a précis of Trotsky's political philosophy. He talks about Trotsky's "permanent revolution" without explaining what he meant by it. The footnotes are haphazard. Example amongst many: "His eloquence was recognized but the feeling was strong that..." (no footnote). Here Service belies his membership in the Wikipedia school of weasel words. Service tells us of Trotsky's scorn for the Red Cross, as an imperialist tool, then opines that this exposes Trotsky's "lack of humanity". A proper historian would allow the reader to draw his own conclusion or at least limit this kind of stuff to a preface or end chapter. By the way, I don't see any anti-Semitism here, as others claim to have found. Service's coverage of Trotsky's Jewish background seems mattter-of-fact and uncolored by prejudice. In summary: The charitable view of this book is that the enormous body of research Service claims to have done has biased him unfavorably against Trotsky and informs every detail of his narrative. I think it more likely that Service has approached Trotsky like Trevor-Roper approached Hitler: "Trotsky as monster -- a Russian Robespierre -- is a given, and I must remind readers from time to time that I've not fallen in love with my subject." This may work for a polemic but not for a purportedly sober history. And this is very frustrating for a book that is, if you can filter out the editorial sloppiness, the gratuitous asides and the run-on sentences, quite readable and informative, which is why I give it three stars.

I found this book both insightful and thorough. While it is obvious Robert Service does not care for either Trotsky's position or Leon as a man, it is also obvious that his knowledge into the inner workings and mechanics of the early communist movement in Russia/USSR is quite detailed. It's a great read that keeps one engaged and performs the most difficult task in historical literature, translating historical figures into three dimensional, flesh and blood people.

As others have already noted (American History Review for example) this is close to worthless as history. More than that, it is so politically tendentious you'll think you're watching Fox News. If that's what you're looking for, have at it. The only positive thing I can say about it is that it drove me back to reading Deutscher, a most admirable biography which -- contrary to the assertion in Gilbert Taylor's 'Editorial Review' above -- does not whitewash Trotsky's failings, either personal or political, and has a much better grasp of the political and social narrative. Less than zero, but of course, Amazon won't let you post anything less than 1 star.

Purchased for my husband after watching documentary. He’s found some major differences in it from the documentary which he finds very interesting and thinks it’s excellent!! Hooray! Thank you! Arrived quickly and very very well packaged- like a precious gift!

Obviously well researched and detailed while the division of the book into short sharp chapters by timeline (8-10 pages) ensures readability and comprehension

Dans sa critique de la traduction française de cet ouvrage, récemment parue, le grand historien français Benjamin Stora écrit:"S'appuyant sur une imposante masse d'archives, l'historien britannique Robert Service dresse un portrait sans complaisance du fondateur de l'Armée rouge." Et il ajoute: "Les partisans ou les admirateurs de Trotski auraient tort de passer à côté d'un tel livre." Je souscrit entièrement à ces deux jugements. J'ai acheté le livre en V.O. car un original est généralement préférable à une traduction. Mais les personnes qui ne lisent pas l'anglais facilement - et le style de Robert Service est un peu touffu - trouveront certainement leur bonheur dans la traduction française.

This book was a great story! I didn't know much about Trotsky but found lots of interesting things about him written here. If you want a good read I recommend this book. Very informative!

The man who said: " Life is beautiful." Service's biography, quite naturally, focuses on the more political aspects of Trotsky, but it is such a remarkable life, although briefer than expected. It seems like this should have been multiple volumes merely to ensure that readers get to know more about the monumental man that Trotsky was. A man with his own set of follies and foibles, Trotsky serves as an ideal subject for a biography of this scale and measure.

レーニン、スターリンの伝記を書いているイギリスの高名な歴史学者ロバート・サーヴィス（１９４７年生）の書いたトロツキー（１８７９－１９４０）の伝記。白水社から上・下二冊で翻訳が出ているのを知らなかった。知っていたとしても、二冊で９、０００円もするのでは年金生活者には手が出せない。岩波から出たレーニン伝も上・下で７、６００円もした。ペーパー・バック版なら、円が下がっていても、２、０００円で買える。英語の勉強を兼ねて時間をかけて読んだ。今なぜトロツキーを読むのか？そこに現代の課題を解く何らかの鍵があるとは思えない。単なる老人の回顧趣味と言うべきか？同じ問いは、ロシア共産主義の実験に何の共感も抱いている様には思えないこの本の著者にも投げかけられるべきだろう。レーニンの後継者と目されながらスターリンとの権力闘争に敗れ、国外追放されて諸国を転々とし、最後に落ち着いたメキシコの隠れ家でスターリンの送った暗殺者に殺害されたトロツキーの生涯はあまりに有名だ。これまでに書かれた伝記（殊にアイザック・ドイッチャーの三部作は有名）に比べて、このサーヴィスの本にはどういう特徴があるのだろう。従来知られなかった新しい事実の発掘があるのだろうか？これは、専門家ではない私には分からない。ただ、雄弁で華麗な文筆家であり、赤軍の指導者だった彼は、党内の権力闘争への執念を示さず、味方を引き付ける努力の出来なかった人だというのが著者の力説するところの様だ。そして、後には党内民主主義を主張しても、革命から内戦時にかけてトロツキー自身が苛烈な弾圧者であった（クロンシュタット港の水兵の反乱）事実は隠せないと手厳しい。ただ、何故ロシア革命は民衆の期待を「裏切った」のか、その歴史的・社会的背景（ロシアの後進性と官僚制等）を追求した彼の業績には相応の敬意を払っていると思われる。ゴルバチョフの時代に名誉が回復されたが、ユダヤ教徒に改宗しイスラエルに移住したひ孫のVadim（Davidと改名）は（周知の様にトロツキーはユダヤ人であり、革命時に要職に就くようレーニンから要請されても、それを理由にしばしば断っている）、ロシア政府の慰謝料の受け取りを拒否したそうだ。トロツキーの女性関係（最後のメキシコの画家フリーダ・カーロに至る）に悩まされながら献身的に付き添ったナターリア、自殺した娘、病院内で殺された可能性の高い息子等、家族をめぐるエピソードは哀切極まりない。なお、第４９章では、晩年のトロツキーを支えたアメリカの若きトロッキストの群像が描かれているが、『経営者革命』を後に著す若き日のジェームズ・バーナム（１９０５－１９８７）が「経営」という概念の大切さを（ソヴィエトに於いても）説いているところ等が印象に残った。