Trotskyism And The Dilemma Of Socialism

Written by two long-time scholar/activists, this book is a detailed history of the Trotskyist movement set against the background of the Russian Revolution and the evolution of Soviet society. As the first comprehensive study of the subject in English, Trotskyism and the Dilemma of Socialism traces the ideas and activities of the Trotskyist movement over six decades and five continents. The history is paced within the context of the attempts by Trotsky and the movement to understand the nature of the evolving Soviet society, as in Trotsky's theory of the degenerated workers' state. Particularly valuable is the authors' in-depth analysis of the Soviet economy.

Trotskyists have long dominated the revolutionary tradition on the western left. This book provides a critical analysis of Trotskyism and argues that it is increasingly irrelevant as a means of achieving socialism. It argues that, as the realization grows that the revolutionary tradition and the authoritarianism which frequently results from it are wrong, the importance of the theory of the transition to socialism increases. The author states that on this point Trotskyism is weak; that Trotskyism's proposals for socialist transition are largely rhetorical and that its democratic impulse is weak. He supports this by showing that Trotsky's philosophy of history, implicit in his writings, which the author characterizes as evolutionary and automatiscist, coupled with a failure to grasp the distinctive theoretical structure of Marx's Capital, has a disabling effect on Trotsky's account of the transition to socialism and on his explanation of Stalinism.

A highly original and controversial examination of events in Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1927 in which Professor Day challenges both the standard Trotskyite and Stalinist interpretations of the period. At the same time he rejects the traditional emphasis on Trotsky's concept of Permanent Revolution and argues that a Marxist theorist is essential. Professor Day concentrates upon the economic implications of revolutionary Russia's isolation from Europe. How to build socialism - in a backward, war-ravaged society, without aid from the West: this problem lay behind many of the most important political conflicts of Soviet Russia's formative years.

During the twentieth century the problem of post-revolutionary bureaucracy emerged as the most pressing theoretical and political concern confronting Marxism. No one contributed more to the discussion of this question than Leon Trotsky. In Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy, Thomas M. Twiss traces the development of Trotsky’s thinking on this issue from the first years after the Bolshevik Revolution through the Moscow Trials of the 1930s. Throughout, he examines how Trotsky’s perception of events influenced his theoretical understanding of the problem, and how Trotsky’s theory reciprocally shaped his analysis of political developments. Additionally, Twiss notes both strengths and weaknesses of Trotsky’s theoretical perspective at each stage in its development.

This last of three documentary volumes, U.S. Trotskyism 1928-1965. Part III: Resurgence, spans 1954 to 1965, and includes a rich selection of primary sources on labor and social struggles, intellectual history, and the revolutionary impact of Leon Trotsky’s perspectives on U.S. socialism.

First published in 1987. Trotskyists have long dominated the revolutionary tradition on the Western left. Written from a critical socialist standpoint, this book provides an analysis of Trotskyism and argues that Trotskyism is increasingly irrelevant as a means of achieving socialism. It argues that, as the realisation grows that the revolutionary tradition and the authoritarianism which necessarily result from it are wrong, the importance of the problem of the transition to socialism increases. It argues that on this point Trotskyism is weak; that Trotskyism's proposals for socialist transition are largely rhetorical; and that its democratic impulse is weak. It supports this argument by showing that Trotsky’s philosophy of history, implicit in his writings, which the author characterises as evolutionary and necessitarian, coupled with a failure to grasp the moral basis of the socialist case, has a disabling effect on Trotsky's account of the transition to socialism and on his explanation of Stalinism. Moreover, it argues that Trotsky's intellectual and political heirs have been unable to escape from the contradictions inherent in his thought.

The Russian Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the USSR as a "workers' state" has dominated political thinking for more than three generations. In the past, it seemed enough for communists to define their radical separation with much of the "left" by denouncing the Soviet Union as state capitalist. This is no longer sufficient, if it ever was. Many Trotskyists, for example, now feel vindicated by the 'restoration of capitalism' in Russia. To transform society we not only have to understand what it is, we also have to understand how past attempts to transform it failed. In What Was The USSR?, Aufheben explores the inadequacies of the theory of the USSR as a degenerated workers' state and the various versions of the theory that the USSR was a form of state capitalism. Aufheben is a UK-based libertarian communist journal that has been active since 1992. What Was The USSR? was a series of articles published by them in issues #6-9 between 1997 and 2000. The Radical Reprint by Pattern Books is made to be as accessible and as close to manufacturing cost as possible.

In the new edition of this definitive work on the history of the revolutionary socialist current in the United States that came to be identified as "American Trotskyism," Paul Le Blanc offers fresh reflections on this history for scholars and activists in the twenty-first century. Includes a preface written especially for the new edition of this distinctive work. Paul Le Blanc is a professor of History at La Roche College and author of Choice Award–winning book A Freedom Budget for All Americans.