Leon Trotsky (1879–1940)

I was very positively surprised by this book. Considering the author I was expecting the book to be more infused with political statements and philosophical views of the world and revolution. Surprisingly it was not, quite to the contrary.

Now I wont go into the character of Trotsky himself. It is obvious this was very educated man, highly eloquent (in what looks to be productive not just demagogue way) with interest in many areas and (as far as I can see) solid grasp on many subjects and as such, it is obvious why he was placed high in Bolshevik's ranks. Also it is visible that he was of that kind of man who know they are smartest in the room (or at least one of the smartest) and this would drive crazy anyone else in that same room. I also have a feeling that Trotsky would have had a very unrealistic plans for the revolution itself that would bring him into more direct conflict with the rest of the party. All of this would surely explain his exile and reason why he was not executed immediatelly - he left a strong mark post-revolution and especially strong mark on the military,

Again I am not familiar with all of the above developments so cannot fully atest to Trotsky and his goals, I can only give my impressions from this book.

Book shows clearly that Trotsky was a very practical man when it comes to warfare. This is visible in his constant comments that military work (as is case with every practical human endeavor) cannot be imbued with political dogma or philosophical views. I especially liked his view of military work, not as a science but as an art (or better yet, synthesis of various other sciences and arts). For him, true military commander is someone who knows a lot, from social sciences, physics and other natural sciences, with addition of military teachings of course. And I have to agree with it, ideally this would be the best case (but then again this would be great in case of any profession). In this entire book Trotsky constantly warns about dangers of presenting military works as result of some philosophical and dogmatic way of reasoning and thinking (and he clealry considers Marxism as one of those philosophies). For him military works are art, and concepts ruling it exist since first organized form of war took place under the sun. What is required is distilling the knowledge for the new generations (which trotsky very smartly describes as generations that wont be led by fires of the Revolution, they wont know much about it except from stories or books, so they need the acquired knowledge of the generations that fought in the Revolution) in order to ensure further development of military - both technologically and in view of history/application of war related activities.

This is also why trotsky saw no issues with using the acquired knowledge of old Imperial Army officers, because he was very much aware that without that knowledge currently existing revolutionary army (mostly partisan/guerilla in nature) cannot progress, evolve into the potent military force (capable of any type of assignments) and finally stand against the enemy states (whose armies are seen by Trotsky as professional and very experienced no matter the political forces running them). As history shows this merger of old, what might be called standard military knowledge, and new revolutionary approach to war would enable the Soviet Army to win WW2.

Again, very interesting book, surprisingly clear headed and practical when it comes to warfare. As a matter of fact Trotsky's comments how mixing (or as he says muddling) military works with philosophical and political dogma will always end up in disaster, sound very true even today.

Highly recommended.… (mais)

A few bits were eye-opening and definitely applicable to the political climate today. Especially the part mentioning weak parties putting forth "lesser evil" candidates. Another putting forth the idea that the bourgeoisie (the 1%) will try to capture as much holdings as possible while capitalism collapses turning the middle class (the petty bourgeoisie) against the proletariat (the working class and the poor) to achieve this. More relevant passages such as: We may set it down as a historical law: fascism was able to conquer only in those countries where the conservative labor parties prevented the proletariat from utilizing the revolutionary situation and seizing power. Seems a parallel to neoliberal suppression of progressives to me. It was a quick read and informational. As a political pamphlet it does its job but it reads like one. I could recommend this if you like politics especially something that may have a few eerie parallels to the current situation in it.… (mais)