5 comments about Chester Alan Arthur (The American Presidents).

1. Chester Alan Arthur was a surprise president. He was selected to run for VEEP from pure political reasons. However, he fell into the presidency and, against many fears, did not mess up in that office. As the author states (Page 143): ". . .some men are neither born great, nor achieve greatness, nor have it thrust upon them. Some people just do the best they can in a difficult situation, and sometimes that turns out just fine."
   
   Chester Arthur was one of the United States' "accidental presidents," thrust into office because of the assassination of James Garfield. This book, as others in the series, provides a thumbnail sketch of Arthur (text is 143 pages long). Born in Vermont, his family moved to New York when he was ten years old. He began his political work as a bureaucrat and patronage administrator. While he was enmeshed in the "spoils system," he was not corrupt and was generally pretty well liked. In 1871, he received a coveted position--collector of the New York customhouse. He earned plenty in that role.
   
   Comes the 1880 presidential race. Garfield, a "dark horse," won the nomination and Arthur was selected as his V-P partner, as a result of torturous Republican politics. And he had never been elected to any office prior to that!
   
   The Republicans won, Garfield was assassinated, and Arthur became president. One comment says a great deal, when someone said (Page 61): "Chet Arthur? President of the United States? Good God!" Against the expectations of many, he served without any great errors, and with some positive contributions. (1) While he did not take an active role, he did sign the Pendleton Law, providing Civil Service reform. (2) He did take steps to modernize the embarrassing United States Navy. (3) He was involved with reducing the tariff. (4) Etc. Perhaps more important, he made no major blunders (as many had expected).
   
   He was diagnosed with a dreadful disease, Bright's Disease, which made the last part of his stint as President miserable. While he would have liked another term, such was not to be. He left the presidency with dignity, but with a disease that doomed him.
   
   All in all, a nice biography of a little known and not very great president--but one who did not make things worse than when he entered office.



2. Not all presidents are created equal. While there are plenty of big name presidents - Washington, Lincoln, FDR, etc. - there are also plenty of obscure ones who are mere footnotes in American history. Chester Arthur definitely fits in this latter category. As Zachary Karabell's brief biography relates, this obscurity is well-deserved. Arthur was neither good nor bad and served in a time that had no real crises.
   
   Arthur spent most of his career in appointed positions, not seeking election until asked to be Garfield's running mate as an attempt to balance the two wings of the Republican party. Arthur was, to be blunt, a party hack, a loyal Republican who may have been honest but was no activist. Instead, Arthur was a realist who rarely let his ideals overwhelm his pragmatism. Accepting the vice presidency only out of party loyalty and with no ambition for the top office; when Garfield was assassinated, Arthur wound up being one of the most reluctant presidents ever.
   
   Arthur did have some redeeming values and occasionally took risks, such as when he vetoed a clearly racist immigration bill. For the most part, however, he rarely pushed his ideas very hard. The most significant legislation to arise during his presidency dealt with civil service reform, but he didn't provide much leadership on the issue. When he did become president, he put the office above party loyalty, which would cost him any chance at the nomination in the next election.
   
   As part of the American Presidents series, this biography is very brief (less that 150 pages) and focuses primarily on Arthur's tenure in office. With these editorial limitations, Karabell is restricted in giving much real details on Arthur, who winds us being a remote character who it's hard to get a feel for. Nonetheless, this is a well-written book and Karabell is able to put Arthur in the context of his times. As an introduction to this minor Chief Executive, this book works well.



3. As a cursory look at the shelves of any bookstore would show, figures such as Lincoln, Churchill, or the Roosevelts are often frequented by biographers to various levels of success. This is possible given both the amount of writings and speeches left behind from these types of figures, and their enduring influence in today's government and society.
   
   Harder to write are biographies on historical figures who seemed to have only passed through the night, important as links in a chain, but without personal significance in their own right. In the American Presidents series, John Dean was successful in resuscitating life into the otherwise dead legend of Warren Harding. Less successful was Kevin Phillips' book on William McKinley.
   
   Alas, this short bio on Chester Arthur by Zachary Carabell falls closer to the latter than the former in trying to find interest in a long forgotten president. Carabell acknowledges the difficulty with his subject since Arthur was the accidental president (took office after Garfield's assassination) and a person who was satisfied in acting as the unseen executive in the political machine.
   
   Arthur left no historical papers of interest. The most interesting anecdote was his venture into the 1850's Kansas-Missouri civil war. But even this ended without drama with his running back on almost the next train to New York.
   
   The author seeks to find importance to the Arthur administration, but his efforts are in vain. The author's best effort was discussing Arthur's efforts to redecorate the White House. That Louis Tiffany was contracted by Arthur to be the decorator showed exceedingly good taste for the widower president.
   
   As for policy, however, Carabell could only be said to have convinced himself that Arthur achieved any importance. Aside from some minor naval buildup, he initiated no legislation. Arthur vetoed a blatantly bigoted anti-immigration bill, but immediately signed a slightly revised version. He signed a civil service reform bill, but played no part in its passage and only after its passage by a lame-duck Congress that was soundly defeated in the just completed elections. The author concludes that Arthur could not be blamed for his party's resounding election defeats and later loss of the presidency, but that only magnifies his lack of influence within his own party and the electorate. Most odd was the author's stated surprise at the lack of biographies written about Arthur. After completing this work, one could only wonder why anyone would want to write anything more about him.



4. Back in the post Civil War days when many plum governmental jobs were gotten from political bosses, Chester A. Arthur had one of the best patronage jobs of all, collector at the US Customhouse in New York. Prior to the federal income tax, this was the country's principal source of income. The collector, under the perfectly legal rules of that time, got a commission on what he collected as well as a comfortable salary. If you paid an assessment to the party, you might be able to secure a patronage job. From this system arose the career of Arthur.
   
   The Republican party was divided into factions. The stalwarts (who had been Ulysses S. Grant supporters) were led by Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. There was a reform wing of the party and then there was a faction, led by James Blaine of Maine (hmmmm that rhymes) called the half breeds. Arthur was aligned with the stalwarts and the patronage system. As a stylish New York lawyer who was in to the local social scene, he was happy being part of the bureaucracy. At times, he would lose his spoils system position in the bureaucracy due to politics but, he always had his law practice to fall back on. In 1880, his life changed as he ended up as a sort of unoffending compromise candidate for vice president on the ticket led by James Garfield. They were elected and shorly thereafter, Garfield was assasinated. Arthur, who had no aspirations ended up as president. He was as reluctant to assume the presidency as the rest of the nation was to have him take that office.
   
   There were low expectations for Arthur, after all, he was never elected to office other than as Grafield's running mate. However, although he may not have been a great leader, there were significant accomplishments during his term. Most notable was the Pendleton Civil Service Act which began the breakup of the spoils system from which Arthur had arisen. Arthur took moral stands opposing an anti Chinese immigrant piece of legislation and a pork barrel Rivers and Harbors bill. His opposition to both led to their being significantly modified but, he didn't have the political clout to ultimately prevent either from being enacted. All he really did was cut his stalwart ties without creating any real new alliance with the reformers.
   
   Arthur was ill. He had a kidney disease. Also, he really didn't want to be president. However, pride made him seek the nomination in 1884. He had cut himself off from his stalwart base and was not renominated. The Republican nominee, Blaine, lost a close election to Grover Cleveland. All in all, Arthur wasn't a bad president and perhaps deserves to be remembered in history. However, he was not a great president either. The picture that author Zachary Karabell paints is of a president whose legacy may be that he did a decent job of presiding over a period of peace and prosperity.



5. The wonderful thing about reading books concerning the US Presidents is that these men represent a finite group.....forty-two men and forty-three presidencies. Writing for "The American Presidents" series, Zachary Karabell has offered up a slightly expanded thumbnail sketch of our twenty-first president, Chester Alan Arthur.
   
   Since Arthur held the office of president, someone has to write about him. The problem with President Arthur is that not much about him survives. Most of his papers were destroyed after his death, so Karabell must rely largely on newspaper accounts of the day mixed in with a few anecdotes regarding the president, which, as the author mentions, may or may not be true.
   
   We know that Arthur was a bon vivant, never aspired to the presidency and was passable at being the chief executive during his tenure from 1881-1885. Indeed, most presidential ratings place Arthur squarely in the middle or slightly below. Even the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, the most important piece of legislation passed during Arthur's presidency, was not a direct act of Arthur's leadership. (I think one more lasting thing to come out of the Arthur years, which Karabell doesn't touch on, is the adoption of Standard Time)
   
   The author does his best to be fair. The few parts of this book with any real drama are Arthur's dealings with Senators Roscoe Conkling and James G. Blaine. The president certainly had a balancing act to do with these two bitter adversaries.
   
   Chester Alan Arthur undoubtedly brought style and grace to the presidency and presided over a few relatively quiet and prosperous years in the United States. We should at least give him credit for that.

5 comments about Sharon and My Mother-in-Law: Ramallah Diaries.

1. After reading this book, I enjoyed the funny tune that Amiry used to get to the point. But it is not even close to show the real suffering of people under occupation and harsh living condition with an enemy that is trying viciously to erase the Palestinian identity and spread rumors that it was a land without people. Another myth spread by jews.
   As a Palestinian American, just visiting Palestine was a pain. Not as bad as the pain Palestinian face every day of their life. I wasn't too sure if some of the comments here made any sense. I understand that these are from Israelis that think they have right to that land.
   They claim to suffer because every once awhile they are faced with a bombing, some calamity, or a lose of a loved one. But millions of Palestinians in the Diaspora are faced with the same issues in addition to a sever feeling of "waking up EVERY DAY having no land" to live in or say that this is their homeland. Please don't say that these Palestinians can live in other Arab countries. If this is the case, then similarly, jews can go and live back where they came from. And don't say, this was the promise land because jews originally came from Egypt then ran away to Palestine. Jews had existed in the Middle East, but majority of them converted to Christianity and Islam. Whoever was left was having a good life there, better than other Arabs inmost cases.
   Most of the jews in Palestine are from east Europe, not even from the Middle East. They started to migrate in the late 1800's when the Ottoman empire was getting week and the rich Russian jews in addition to Hitler's plan to get red of his jews. Jews used the British influence to get a better access to Palestinian land. Especially during the British mandate, the British, used an Islamic law, Waqf, which means "for the sake of God", to confiscate land and give it to the jews. During the Ottoman Empire and according to the Islamic law, land belongs to the Islamic state (Ottomans). When Ottomans lost in the WWI, Britain took over and took all the land, and helped the jews steal other private land.



2. As an Israeli living in the US, I was looking forward for an eye-opener on life in Ramallah.
   This may have been cute as emails, yet as a book it is one long tedious collection of cliches, full of self-pity, and quite hard to feel any real sorrow beacuase of the "Party-line" style.
   My Jewish family, too, had to flee their home in Arab hostile Morocco. We recently visited and it was quite nostalgic! We do have a life in our new-found countries.
   So 2 words:
   As a book, it stinks;
   Have a life already.



3. I read this book within a day, I just couldn't put it down, it was so beautifully written, and so easy to read.
   Suad Amiry has a remarkable ability to say in one sentence what other writers take three pages over. A single sentence can be so thought-provoking, you consider all the many implications that follow from just one statement.
   Despite the misery of her situation, Suad's defiance of her occupiers is hilarious - what a courageous and spunky woman! Her frankness and honesty of her own feelings, including her failings, are also very impressive.
   Well done to Suad Amiry, I eagerly look forward to her next book - I hope she will write one!



4. Arafat and my hot flashes - an Israeli response to Suad Amiry's Sharon and my Mother-in-Law.
   
   After reading Suad Amiry's novel Sharon and my mother in law I was extremely moved ... as an Israeli, living in Tel-Aviv at ta time when all around me people were "bursting at the Seams" or merely committing suicide at their leisure while taking other people's lives, limbs, children and women with them, I could identify myself with her agony at not being able to move freely...
   
   It was Saturday eve; I always felt weird on Saturday eve, uneasy. On a verge of a panic attack. Maybe it was to do with the gloom I experienced at home, as a child on Sat. eve (My mother was a BA -graduate of Auschwitz). It was exactly 2 years ago, me and my not-such-a-great-hero, husband, who was an extremely gifted and intelligent man but the biggest coward if there's ever was one, were having a row, after a long week ... I wanted to venture out. Out of doors...out of our building; living in Tel Aviv had become a Russian roulette ... the streets were very quiet and empty ... not a dog in sight, the stray cats had totally disappeared, everyone was waiting for the next one, and we didn't know where it would come from. I wanted to go to the movies.
   "Are you out of your mind?!!!" Gideon screamed. I couldn't sit at home anymore I had to go out. To a coffee place, "A coffee place?!!! Now?!!" Only yesterday one of the most popular coffee places in Tel Aviv blew up.
   "Ok then, the bar around the corner is always empty! Why would a suicide bomber come there, to kill us and the barman?". I thought that was reasonable enough.
   "I don't know why?" argued Gideon back "he might just get fed up half way to the Hilton, did you think about that?".
   I tried the movies, again.
   "Crowded places?!!! Hello? Anybody home?", pointing at my head.
   "but we never had a suicider at the cinema!!", I tried to reason.
   "Exactly!!!", exclaimed Gideon with a big smile, winning the argument.
   
   I felt a hot flash coming on. It was August and I just had to have some air. "I don't care!!!", I screamed, "I am going out!!! Now!"
   
   All of a sudden a siren was heard, and another one and another one, a string of sirens always meant a suicide bomber, and the ambulances were rushing to the scene. We looked at each other with terror and turned on the TV. There was a suicide bomber at Michael's Pub, a few minutes away from us. It was my son's favorite hang out; thank God he had been living in Holland for the last few years. He didn't even come home for a visit; I wouldn't let him, my only son...
   
   Gideon, quickly rushed to the phone to ring his three children (from his 2 ex wives) they were all in their twenties ... that was his usual routine, every time a bomber hit the town. Then he would take his clooney (Cloonex - a tranquilizer) I was always angry when he took it, being a practitioner of Chinese medicine, it was totally against my principals. But he couldn't care less. He was slowly becoming addicted to clooney.
   
   We stayed at home glued to the TV watching the horrible scenes of children, women, blood, screaming, etc etc. Gideon began his usual snores beside me, the clooney had knocked him out!
   
   The next day we heard on the news that Palestinians were under curfew ....
   
   There are always three sides to every divorce: the wife, the husband and the truth...
   
   We are having a terrible, endless bloody row: it's time to stop talking about the past. I would expect an educated person like Suad not to live in the past, but to accept our existence in Israel and to start talking from that point. We have no where else to go, and the experience of living as a Jew outside Israel has not been very successful ... I could attach a picture of my mother's green number tattooed on her arm, she is only 74, she was 12 when they took her to the camps, one of the last survivors in the world ... Tell me Suad, the truth: this is not about the occupied territories. Barak begged Arafat to take it back. This is about Jaffa...according to your book. Do you expect my mother to go back to Czechoslovakia? And look for her confiscated home? And what about me? I was born here, am I to take a dive in the sea?
   
   Yours sincerely,
   
   Yael Stern O'Dwyer



5. I enjoyed reading this book but was chilled at the author's inclusion of "1929" as a year of Palestinian "pride" without mention of the atrocities of the Hebron pogroms. "Text without context is pretext" as the PLO's old friend Jesse Jackson used to remind us. Tom Segev's One Palestine, Complete: Jews and Arabs Under the British Mandate (which alot of Amazon reviewers think has an anti-Zionist bias) would be a good corrective for the reader new to these issues.
   
   Amiry is not a fanatic or a fundamentalist and this is her P.O.V. and her life. Can she address the moral failures of the Palestinian leadership, beginning with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and ending in Hamas? Maybe, but this is not that book.

5 comments about The Seventeen Traditions.

1. This book is one of Nader's finest published works. It chronicles his life, and how he was raised. He takes the lessons learned as a kid growing up and puts them into seventeen specific traditions that are very easy to read.
   
   The rare and valuable part of this book is that it's one of the only times you can find Ralph Nader willing to talk about his life rather than about politics. There isn't much, if any, political discussion in this book other than a few instances of how his family used politics to bring home values.
   
   I highly recommend this book to all of my friends and family. He touches you with stories of how his parents immigrated from Lebanon and the lessons passed on to him and his siblings. The book will give you an appreciation for spending time with family, and does so in a way that is easy to read and enjoy.



2. This book offers greatly needed insight for a nation filled with antidotes, from fast-paced labeling of psychological disorders to quick fix prescription drugs and self-help book remedies. Ralph Nader takes the reader back to a slower paced society--a world enveloped by the wisdom of his parents. Chapter by chapter, Nader shares pithy, memorable maxims such as, "Jokes are to words as salt is to food" (81), along with other valuable scenarios which serve as life-enriching lessons. For a sampling of the earnest adult figure many of us may have missed while growing up, Nader's book is analogous in resource value (on a smaller scale) to The Discourses of Epictetus.



3. A short book that reflects on society, democracy, and the peace
   of a good life.



4. I've long admired Ralph Nader and have enjoyed some of his
   other books . . . so when a friend recommended that I read his
   latest, THE SEVENTEEN TRADITIONS, I made it a point to get a copy.
   
   My only problem came afterwards; I couldn't put it down . . . so
   some other projects had to be aside as I read about Nader's
   boyhood in a small town in Connecticut, and how that existence
   and the role of his parents affected the rest of his life.
   
   As he notes:
   * I am often asked what forces shaped me. Rather than trying
   to give a full answer to that question-which would take
   longer than a limited interview would allow-I often reply
   simply, "I had a lucky choice of parents." My brother, two
   sisters, and I had a remarkable father and mother, who
   cared for us in both direct and subtle ways. The examples
   of their lives set us on the solid paths we have explored
   ever since.
   
   As I was reading it, I kept thinking of how my parents were
   similar in so many ways . . . in particular, this passage
   could almost have been written about them as well:
   
   * Mother and Father each lived to be just short of a century
   old; we benefited from their seasoned perspectives and
   wisdom for many, many years. They were forever young,
   exemplifying my mother's strong belief in the importance
   of remaining "interested and interesting." And they succeeded
   in doing this throughout their lives, attracting ever-younger
   friends to visit, whether we children were home or not. They
   created the strong family base from which my siblings and
   I sallied forth into the wider world, full of new experiences
   and high expectations.
   
   In sharing the lessons he learned from his parents, Nader
   also gave this advice that should be heeded by anybody raising
   children today:
   
   * Perhaps it was my father who best captured their attitude. Once,
   when I told him that I'd done my best at something, he leaned
   over quietly and looked at me. "Son, never say you did your
   best, because then you'll never try to do better."
   
   As the holiday season approaches, methinks that THE SEVENTEEN
   TRADITIONS would make a perfect gift for anybody wanting to
   read about life back when his or her parents were younger . . . and
   how much of what took place then could still be put into effect now.



5. For the money, it was not much of a book. For the talent accepted for the author, it was not much of a book. Simple platitudes which are mostly captured in the first chapter, and the rest of the book just re-hashes that theme: My parents were great, I am great, why don't you do likewise! Of course it is too late to change parents, but it does give some good foundation thinking for people just starting out to raise a family, and who are looking for some parenting skills.

5 comments about Napoleon Bonaparte: A Life.

1. This book offers a tremendous amount of detail and information and that makes it an ok work. However, the problem with it is author's bias and an outright, unconcealed animosity toward Napoleon. In general I am against historians making moral value judgments in their books, however, if the do it than the bare minimum which we as readers should get is balance. In this work Schom essentially highlights all the bad traits which marked Napoleon and by skipping over the faults of other historical figures he makes Napoleon look like a 19th. century Hitler, as someone already said. While he goes into gruesome detail to explain the problems of 19th. century battlefield medicine in the French army he never mentions the fact that other armies were not all that great either, and when English loose thousands soldiers to disease as they did when they tried to take Antwerp, he does not describe the details of those 4,000 gruesome deaths and does not blame the surgeons, the lack of medical staff and equipment etc. in the British army.



2. THis is a truly bad biography of a seemingly masochistic writer who strongly dislikes his subject. The author suggests to be more diligent with sources, thus justifying his particularly negative view of Napoleon. However, even from the citations he inserts into the text, it may be gleaned that these sources are far from giving an objective view. Occasionally it is quite unclear when the statements were given - in particular in the case of Bourrienne, this is interesting: Bourrienne tried very hard to obtain the approval of the new masters after Napoleon's downfall, and he had a clear personal interest in speaking badly of Napoleon. This is clearly different from an immediate, unbiased first-hand accord of circumstances from within a given situation. Schom nonetheless tries to convince his readers that these statements are without guile and given without a particular aim - while they were often given much later out of memory, with the clear aim in mind to debase the fallen emperor, and to cleanse himself, Bourrienne, from any negative role he may have played. This use of sources can by no means qualify as diligent, in spite of all the allegedly well-researched details.



3. This is a sweeping, almost lush, detailed and comprehensive story of one of the greatest Military and political leaders and thinkers of world history, told with great skill, sensitivity but without sentimentality and without pulling any punches: We get to see Napoleon in the raw, warts and all. One gets the impression that Mr. Schom has lost his taste for the heroic image of Napoleon and has replaced it with a more realistic one based on "deeply honed" research into his life.
   
   Nowhere have I ever seen such an ambitious project pulled off so well. It covers Napoleon's life from cradle to grave. It covers his thinking during all of his various military campaigns, the military triumphs and the strategic and tactical failures. It covers Napoleon's brooding reaction to his mistakes and his elation to his foreordained victories. It covers the conflicts and romps with all of his wives and his many female consorts. It covers the feuds with his family and with his general staff, his personality flaws and his lack of sensitivity to his soldiers and to the great harm his campaigns did to the peoples of the lands he conquered. We get a front row seat into the mind and the actions of one of the foremost heroes of Western History.
   
   Altogether this is a thoroughly engrossing although not the most balanced book; yet it will endure. There may be better books "out there" on Napoleon, but I doubt if there are any as complete as this one. We must be grateful to Alan Schom for the prodigious effort exerted to produce this masterpiece of a tome. It is the one book on Napoleon that is a must read. Five Stars and Amen.



4. Do I think that books critical of Napoleon are of absolutely no value? Not at all, but any author who writes such a book should at least present all of the facts, and not just give the half of the story that supports his thesis. Alan Schom definitely distorts the facts and stacks the deck in favor of his biases.
   The most glaring example is his treatment of the battle of Austerlitz, where Napoleon demolished the combined armies of Austria and Russia. Schom gleefully tells us how Napoleon instructed his troops to take no Russian prisoners-to kill every Russian in their path. "Seldom had Napoleon shown himself to be so vicious," says Schom.
   As anyone who has read anything about Austerlitz knows, in the earlier battles of the Austerlitz campaign, the advancing French had been fired upon from behind by wounded Russians; it was actually a quite common occurrence. Napoleon's order was thus not motivelessly malignant; he simply was sick and tired of seeing his troops shot in the back. Schom not only fails to give us this background information;he also fails to mention the thousands of Austrian prisoners taken in the battle. Napoleon had no reason to order the execution of wounded and captured Austrians since they didn't shoot his men in the back!
   Schom also posits, without offering any evidence, that Napoleon murdered Admiral Villeneuve(who actually committed suicide after being defeated at Trafalgar) and Marshal Berthier(accidental fall from a window). He takes the very complex individual who was Napoleon and turns him into a one dimensional cartoon character. Napoleon was much closer to being an early nineteenth century enlightened despot than the twentieth century genocidal dictator Schom portrays him as.
   The only thing that saves this book from being a one star waste of ink and paper is Schom's ability as a writer. If you've never read anything about Napoleon, then I suggest you balance this book with the more favorable biography by Vincent Cronin.



5. Alan Schom is very vocal in praising Napoleon as military tactician. He finds him audacious and personally brave, though often quite lucky. There is absolutely nothing else positive to say about him and he says alot. There frankly isn't too much positive one can say about Napoleon but what makes Schom's book unique is the vitriolic attack on his personality, detailing several obscure episodes that expose him as an awkward seducer of his friends' wives, a cheater of parlour games with a boorish social sense. He includes a medical appendix where he amateurishly argues that Napoleon was psychotic. Brutal megalomaniac? OK, but incapable of feeling genuine love or remorse with no friendships? Schom's accounts of his tolerance of duplicitous subordinates, his wife's lover, love for Josephine and Duroc and many others-belies his own assertions of psychosis. His coverage of military matters is decent, but better realized in the work of specialized accounts like Chandlers' and Eltings'.

3 comments about His Finest Hour (Penton Audio).

1. This is a fantastic find for any history buffs who want to hear Mr. Churchill's words in the original format.



2. The editor's introductions to the speeches are sometimes inaccurate, but Churchill is a wonder to listen to. Highly recommended by anyone with an appreciation for history or literature.



3. Those 16 of his finest speaches made during the darkest days of WWII demonstrated courage and inner strength of a great leader in modern world. I and my 11 year old have enjoyed it very much.

No comments about Cicero: Select Letters (Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics).

No comments about A Pryor Commitment: The Autobiography of David Pryor.

3 comments about Sandinista: Carlos Fonseca and the Nicaraguan Revolution.

1. Having lived trought the early years of the revolution in Nicaragua, althouhg just a child I got a first hand view of some of the struggles and dangers of the revolution. Because I was only a child I was not able to fully grasp the grand scheme of things and now as an adult I decided to begin reading about the revolution in Nicaragua and stubled upon this book.

   The book gives a clear, no nonsense account of Carlos Fonseca. Who he was, how he was raised and what he stood for over the course of his life. A clear chronological order of events into his life is presented as well as the struggles the young rag tag band of rebels went trought.

   If want to read an unbiased account into the revolution in Nicaragua and the role Carlos Fonseca played as leader of the FSLN then read this book. For me it shed light on some of the missing pieces about the revolution, the struggle and the ultimate outcome of the FSLN after the death of Fonseca.

   Good reading.




2. This is the first book I read about Carlos Fonseca that has more accurate information about him, than any other book I have read.
   I know this because I am the son of Raul Fonseca, but grew up with Carlos example and support. Carlos was the only father figure I ever had.

   Quite a task Ms. Zimmermann. Congratulations.

   I just read a few pages, but when I finish I will write a more complete review.

   God bless you!




3. This book pulls off a difficult feat, providing a balanced, neutral account of a subject about which supporters and opponents usually speak in strident, propagandistic terms.

   Because of the absence of any preachy rhetoric, and the reliance on first-hand interviews and actual source documents, the author delivers a compelling portrait of a leader whose faithfulness to pure idealism in a struggle against a seemingly unstoppable evil system can be compared to that of Churchill, Gandhi, and King.

   The Sandinistas were not the only group that took to the hills to arouse the populace in Latin America after the successful Cuban revolution, but they were the only group which actually came to power. Dr. Zimmermann's book is the story of the man who was the driving force behind the ideas, organization, strategy and success of their revolution.

   She does not flinch from criticizing the Sandinistas for their initial ill-informed and patronizing attitudes toward the indigineous peoples of their country, nor for their slow acceptance of their female compatriots, nor for their many tactical errors and blunders.

   Instead, this telling of the story of Fonseca and the Sanidnistas allows the reader to sense the very human feelings which became the basis of their appeal and allowed their success, even after Fonseca's death.

2 comments about Legacy of Love: My Education in the Path of Nonviolence.

1. Please consider Mr. Gandhi's ongoing attacks against Israel as well as his latest statement that "the Jews are the biggest players" in global violence (WashPost OnFaith, Jan 10, 2008).
   
   Such statements are extremist, false, and extremely biased. Do you want to support such an author?



2. Written by Arun Gandhi (the fifth grandson of the great spiritual and political leader Mahatma Gandhi), Legacy Of Love: My Education In The Path Of Nonviolence is an autobiographical account of one man's struggle to understand, cope with, and learn to peacefully resist social injustice in all of its forms. Born in 1934 in South Africa, Gandhi and his family were subjected to the wrongs of apartheid while he was growing up. In Legacy of Love, his reflections on the profound power of truth, morality, and the spiritual meaning of nonviolent resistance fill the pages with meaningful and insightful testimony.

5 comments about The Prophet Armed: Trotsky 1879-1921.

1. This first of 3 volumes in Deutscher's biography is an astonishing and captivating achievement. Deutscher weaves together character study, drama, and historical narrative to give an authoritative account of Trotsky's life and the Russian Revolution from Trotsky's birth up through the quickening bureaucratization of Soviet Russia in 1921.
   
   Deutscher's deft handling of the facts, personalities, ideas, and situations of the time is simply unparallelled, and makes for a tremendously enjoyable and informative read.
   
   Essential material for anyone exploring the question of where socialism went wrong in the 20th century.



2. THIS YEAR MARKS THE 66TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE ASSASSINATION OF LEON TROTSKY-ONE OF HISTORY'S GREAT REVOLUTIONARIES. IT IS THEREFORE FITTING TO REVIEW THE THREE VOLUME WORK OF HIS DEFINITIVE BIOGRAPHER, THE PROPHET ARMED, THE PROPHET UNARMED, THE OUTCAST.
   
   Isaac Deutscher's three-volume biography of the great Russian Bolshevik leader Leon Trotsky although written over one half century ago remains the standard biography of the man. Although this writer disagrees , as I believe that Trotsky himself would have, about the appropriateness of the title of prophet and its underlying premise that a tragic hero had fallen defeated in a worthy cause, the vast sum of work produced and researched makes up for those basically literary differences. Deutscher, himself, became in the end an adversary of Trotsky's politics around his differing interpretation of the historic role of Stalinism and the fate of the Fourth International but he makes those differences clear and in general they does not mar the work. I do not believe even with the eventual full opening of all the old Soviet-era files any future biographer will dramatically increase our knowledge about Trotsky and his revolutionary struggles. Moreover, as I have mentioned elsewhere in other reviews while he has not been historically fully vindicated he is in no need of any certificate of revolutionary good conduct.
   
   At the beginning of the 21st century when the validity of socialist political programs as tools for change is in apparent decline or disregarded as utopian it may be hard to imagine the spirit that drove Trotsky to dedicate his whole life to the fight for a socialist society. However, at the beginning of the 20th century he represented only the one of the most consistent and audacious of a revolutionary generation of mainly Eastern Europeans and Russians who set out to change the history of the 20th century. It was as if the best and brightest of that generation were afraid, for better or worse, not to take part in the political struggles that would shape the modern world. As Trotsky noted elsewhere this element was missing, with the exceptions of Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and precious few others, in the Western labor movement. Deutscher using Trotsky's own experiences tells the story of the creation of this revolutionary cadre with care and generally proper proportions. Here are some highlights militant leftists should think about.
   
   On the face of it Trotsky's personal profile does not stand out as that of a born revolutionary. Born of a hard working, eventually prosperous Jewish farming family in the Ukraine (of all places) there is something anomalous about his eventual political occupation. Always a vociferous reader, good writer and top student under other circumstances he would have found easy success, as others did, in the bourgeois academy, if not in Russia then in Western Europe. But there is the rub; it was the intolerable and personally repellant political and cultural conditions of Czarist Russia in the late 19th century that eventually drove Trotsky to the revolutionary movement- first as a `ragtag' populist and then to his life long dedication to orthodox Marxism. As noted above, a glance at the biographies of Eastern European revolutionary leaders such as Lenin, Martov, Christian Rakovsky, Bukharin and others shows that Trotsky was hardly alone in his anger at the status quo. And the determination to something about it.
   
   For those who argue, as many did in the New Left in the 1960's, that the most oppressed are the most revolutionary the lives of the Russian and Eastern European revolutionaries provide a cautionary note. The most oppressed, those most in need of the benefits of socialist revolution, are mainly wrapped up in the sheer struggle for survival and do not enter the political arena until late, if at all. Even a quick glance at the biographies of the secondary leadership of various revolutionary movements, actual revolutionary workers who formed the links to the working class , generally show skilled or semi-skilled workers striving to better themselves rather than the most downtrodden lumpenproletarian elements. The sailors of Kronstadt and the Putilov workers in Saint Petersburg come to mind. The point is that `the wild boys and girls' of the street do not lead revolutions; they simply do not have the staying power. On this point, militants can also take Trotsky's biography as a case study of what it takes to stay the course in the difficult struggle to create a new social order. While the Russian revolutionary movement, like the later New Left mentioned above, had more than its share of dropouts, especially after the failure of the 1905 revolution, it is notably how many stayed with the movement under much more difficult circumstances than we ever faced. For better or worst, and I think for the better, that is how revolutions are made.
   
   Once Trotsky made the transition to Marxism he became embroiled in the struggles to create a unity Russian Social Democratic Party, a party of the whole class, or at least a party representing the historic interests of that class. This led him to participate in the famous Bolshevik/Menshevik struggle in 1903 which defined what the party would be, its program, its methods of work and who would qualify for membership. The shorthand for this fight can be stated as the battle between the `hards' (Bolsheviks, who stood for a party of professional revolutionaries) and the `softs' (Mensheviks, who stood for a looser conception of party membership) although those terms do not do full justice to these fights. Strangely, given his later attitudes, Trotsky stood with the `softs', the Mensheviks, in the initial fight in 1903. Although Trotsky almost immediately afterward broke from that faction I do not believe that his position in the 1903 fight contradicted the impulses he exhibited throughout his career- personally `libertarian', for lack of a better word , and politically hard in the clutch.
   
   Even a cursory glance at most of Trotsky's career indicates that it was not spent in organizational in-fighting, or at least not successfully. Trotsky stands out as the consummate free-lancer. More than one biographer has noted this condition, including his definitive biographer Isaac Deutscher. Let me make a couple of points to take the edge of this characterization though. In that 1903 fight mentioned above Trotsky did fight against Economism (the tendency to only fight over trade union issues and not fight overtly political struggles against the Czarist regime) and he did fight against Bundism (the tendency for one group, in this case the Jewish workers, to set the political agenda for that particular group). Moreover, he most certainly favored a centralized organization. These were the key issues at that time. Furthermore, the controversial organizational question did not preclude the very strong notion that a `big tent' unitary party was necessary. The `big tent' German Social Democratic model held very strong sway among the Russian revolutionaries for a long time, including Lenin's Bolsheviks. The long and short of it was that Trotsky was not an organization man, per se. He knew how to organize revolutions, armies, Internationals, economies and so on when he needed to but on a day to day basis no. Thus, to compare or contrast him to Lenin and his very different successes is unfair. Both have an honorable place in the revolutionary movement; it is just a different place.
   
   That said, Trotsky really comes into his own as a revolutionary leader in the Revolution of 1905 not only as a publicist but as the central leader of the Soviets (workers councils) which made their first appearance at that time. In a sense it is because he was a freelancer that he was able to lead the Petrograd Soviet during its short existence and etch upon the working class of Russia (and in a more limited way, internationally) the need for its own organizations to seize state power. All revolutionaries honor this experience, as we do the Paris Commune, as the harbingers of October, 1917. As Lenin and Trotsky both confirm, it was truly a `dress rehearsal' for that event. It is in 1905 that Trotsky first wins his stars by directing the struggle against the Czar at close quarters, in the streets and working class meeting halls. And later in his eloquent and `hard' defense of the experiment after it was crushed by the Czarism reaction. I believe that it was here in the heat of the struggle in 1905 where the contradiction between Trotsky's `soft' position in 1903 and his future `hard' Bolshevik position of 1917 and thereafter is resolved. Here was a professional revolutionary who one could depend on when the deal went down.
   
   No discussion of this period of Trotsky's life is complete without mentioning his very real contribution to Marxist theory- that is, the theory of Permanent Revolution. Although the theory is over one hundred years old it still retains its validity today in those countries that still have not had their bourgeois revolutions. This rather simple straightforward theory about the direction of the Russian revolution (and which Trotsky later in the 1920's, after the debacle of the Chinese Revolution, made applicable to what today are called "third world" countries) has been covered with so many falsehoods, epithets, and misconceptions that it deserves further explanation. Why? Militants today must address the ramifications of the question what kind of revolution is necessary as a matter of international revolutionary strategy. Trotsky, taking the specific historical development and the peculiarities of Russian economic development as part of the international capitalist order as a starting point argued that there was no `Chinese wall' between the bourgeois revolution Russian was in desperate need of and the tasks of the socialist revolution. In short, in the 20th century ( and by extension, now) the traditional leadership role of the bourgeois in the bourgeois revolution in a economically backward country, due to its subservience to the international capitalist powers and fear of its own working class and plebian masses, falls to the proletariat. The Russian Revolution of 1905 sharply demonstrated the outline of that tendency especially on the perfidious role of the Russian bourgeoisie. The unfolding of revolutionary events in 1917 graphically confirmed this. The history of revolutionary struggles since then, and not only in `third world' countries, gives added, if negative, confirmation of that analysis.
   
   World War I was a watershed for modern history in many ways. For the purposes of this review two points are important. First, the failure of the bulk of the European social democracy- representing the masses of their respective working classes- to not only not oppose their own ruling classes' plunges into war, which would be a minimal practical expectation, but to go over and directly support their own respective ruling classes in that war. This position was most famously demonstrated when the entire parliamentary fraction of the German Social Democratic party voted for the war credits for the Kaiser on August 4, 1914. This initially left the anti-war elements of international social democracy, including Lenin and Trotsky, almost totally isolated. As the carnage of that war mounted in endless and senseless slaughter on both sides it became clear that a new political alignment in the labor movement was necessary. The old, basically useless Second International, which in its time held some promise of bringing in the new socialist order, needed to give way to a new revolutionary International. That eventually occurred in 1919 with the foundation of the Communist International (also known as the Third International). Horror of horrors, particularly for reformists of all stripes, this meant that the international labor movement, one way or another, had to split into its reformist and revolutionary components. It is during the war that Trotsky and Lenin, not without some lingering differences, drew closer and begins the process of several years, only ended by Lenin's death, of close political collaboration.
   
   Secondly, World War I marks the definite (at least for Europe) end of the progressive role of international capitalist development. The outlines of imperialist aggression previously noted had definitely taken center stage. This theory of imperialism was most closely associated with Lenin in his master work Imperialism-The Highest Stage of Capitalism but one should note that Trotsky in all his later work up until his death fully subscribed to the theory. Although Lenin's work is in need of some updating to account for various technological changes and the extensions of globalization since that time holds up for political purposes. This analysis meant that a fundamental shift in the relationship of the working class to the ruling class was necessary. A reformist perspective for social change, although not specific reforms, was no longer tenable. Politically, as a general proposition, socialist revolution was on the immediate agenda. This is when Trotsky's theory of Permanent Revolution meets the Leninist conception of revolutionary organization. It proved to be a successful formula in Russia in October, 1917. Unfortunately, those lessons were not learned (or at least learned in time) by those who followed and the events of October, 1917 stand today as the only `pure' working class revolution in history.
   
   An argument can, and has, been made that the October Revolution could only have occurred under the specific condition of decimated, devastated war-weary Russia of 1917. This argument is generally made by those who were not well-wishers of revolution in Russia (or anywhere else, for that matter). It is rather a truism, indulged in by Marxists as well as by others, that war is the mother of revolution. That said, the October revolution was made then and there but only because of the convergence of enough revolutionary forces led by the Bolsheviks and additionally the forces closest to the Bolsheviks (including Trotsky's Inter-District Organization) who had prepared for these events by the entire pre-history of the revolution. This is the subjective factor in history. No, not substitutionalism, that was the program of the Social Revolutionary terrorists and the like, but if you like, revolutionary opportunism. I would be much more impressed by an argument that stated that the revolution would not have occurred without the presence of Lenin and Trotsky. That would be a subjective argument, par excellent. But, they were there.
   
   Again Trotsky in 1917, like in 1905, is in his element speaking seemingly everywhere, writing, organizing (when it counts, by the way). If not the brains of the revolution (that role is honorably conceded to Lenin) certainly the face of the Revolution. Here is a revolutionary moment in every great revolution when the fate of the revolution turned on a dime (the subjective factor). The dime turned. (See review dated April 18, 2006 for a review of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution).
   
   One of the great lessons that militants can learn from all previous modern revolutions is that once the revolutionary forces seize power from the old regime an inevitable counterrevolutionary onslaught by elements of the old order (aided by some banished moderate but previously revolutionary elements, as a rule). The Russian revolution proved no exception. If anything the old regime, aided and abetted by numerous foreign powers and armies, was even more bloodthirsty. It fell to Trotsky to organize the defense of the revolution. Now, you might ask- What is a nice Jewish boy like Trotsky doing playing with guns? Fair enough. Well, Jewish or Gentile if you play the revolution game you better the hell be prepared to defend the revolution (and yourself). Here, again Trotsky organized, essentially from scratch, a Red Army from a defeated, demoralized former peasant army under the Czar. The ensuing civil war was to leave the country devastated but the Red Army defeated the Whites. Why? In the final analysis it was not only the heroism of the working class defending its own but the peasant wanting to hold on to the newly acquired land he just got and was in jeopardy of losing if the Whites won. But these masses needed to be organized. Trotsky was the man for the task.
   
   Both Lenin's and Trotsky's calculation for the success of socialist revolution in Russia (and ultimately its fate) was its, more or less, immediate extension to the capitalist heartland of Europe, particularly Germany. While in 1917 that was probably not the controlling single factor for going forward in Russia it did have to come into play at some point. The founding of the Communist International makes no sense otherwise. Unfortunately, for many historical, national and leadership-related reasons no Bolshevik-styled socialist revolutions followed then, or ever. If the premise for socialism is for plenty, and ultimately as a result of plenty to take the struggle for existence off the agenda and put other more creative pursues on the agenda, then Russia in the early 1920's was not the land of plenty. Neither Lenin, Trotsky nor Stalin, for that matter, could wish that fact away. The ideological underpinnings of that fight centered on the Stalinist concept of `socialism in one country', that is Russia going it alone versus the Trostskyist position of the absolutely necessary extension of the international revolution. In short, this is the fight that historically happens in great revolutions- the fight against Thermidor (from the overthrow of Robespierre in 1794 by more moderate Jacobins). What counts, in the final analysis, are their respective responses to the crisis of the isolation of the revolution. The word isolation is the key. Do you turn the revolution inward or push forward? We all know the result, and it wasn't pretty, then or now. That is the substance of the fight that Trotsky, if initially belatedly and hesitantly, led from about 1923 on under various conditions until the end of his life by assassination of a Stalinist agent in 1940.
   
   Although there were earlier signs that the Russia revolution was going off course the long illness and death of Lenin in 1924, at the time the only truly authoritative leader the Bolshevik party, set off a power struggle in the leadership of the party. This fight had Trotsky and the `pretty boy' intellectuals of the party on one side and Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev (the so-called triumvirate).backed by the `gray boys' of the emerging bureaucracy on the other. This struggle occurred against the backdrop of the failed revolution in Germany in 1923 and which thereafter heralded the continued isolation, imperialist blockade and economic backwardness of the Soviet Union for the foreseeable future.
   
   While the disputes in the Russian party eventually had international ramifications in the Communist International, they were at this time fought out almost solely with the Russian Party. Trotsky was slow, very slow to take up the battle for power that had become obvious to many elements in the party. He made many mistakes and granted too many concessions to the triumvirate. But he did fight. Although later (in 1935) Trotsky recognized that the 1923 fight represented a fight against the Russian Thermidor and thus a decisive turning point for the revolution that was not clear to him (or anyone else on either side) then. Whatever the appropriate analogy might have been Leon Trotsky was in fact fighting a last ditch effort to retard the further degeneration of the revolution. After that defeat, the way the Soviet Union was ruled, who ruled it and for what purposes all changed. And not for the better.
   
   In a sense if the fight in 1923-24 is the decisive fight to save the Russian revolution (and ultimately a perspective of international revolution) then the 1926-27 fight which was a bloc between Trotsky's forces and the just defeated forces of Zinoviev and Kamenev, Stalin's previous allies was the last rearguard action to save that perspective. That it failed does not deny the importance of the fight. Yes, it was a political bloc with some serious differences especially over China and the Anglo-Russian Committee. But two things are important here One- did a perspective of a new party, which some elements were clamoring for, make sense at the time of the clear waning of the revolutionary ebbing the country. No. Besides the place to look was at the most politically conscious elements, granted against heavy odds, in the party where whatever was left of the class-conscious elements of the working class were. As I have noted elsewhere in discussing the 1923 fight- that "Lenin levy" of raw recruits, careerists and just plain thugs which enhanced the growing power of the Stalinist bureaucracy was the key element in any defeat. Still the fight was necessary. Hey, that is why we talk about it now. That was a fight to the finish. After that the left opposition or elements of it were forever more outside the party- either in exile, prison or dead. As we know Trotsky went from expulsion from the party in 1927 to internal exile in Alma Ata in 1928 to external exile to Turkey in 1929. From there he underwent further exiles in France, Norway, and Mexico when he was finally felled by a Stalinist assassin. But no matter when he went he continued to struggle for his perspective. Not bad for a Jewish farmer's son from the Ukraine.
   
   The last period of Trotsky's life spent in harrowing exiles and under constant threat from Stalinist and White Guard threats- in short, on the planet without a visa -was dedicated to the continued fight for the Leninist heritage. It was an unequal fight, to be sure but he waged it and was able to cohere a core of revolutionaries to form a new international, the Fourth International. That that effort was essentially militarily defeat by fascist or Stalinist forces during World War II does not take away from the grandeur of the attempt. He himself stated that he felt this was the most important work of his life- and who would challenge that assertion.
   
   But one could understand the frustrations, first the failure of his correct analysis of the German debacle then in France and Spain. Hell a lesser man would have given up. In fact, more than one biographer has argued that he should have retired from the political arena to, I assume , a comfortable country cottage to write I do not know what. But, please reader, have you been paying attention? Does this seem even remotely like the Trotsky career I have attempted to highlight here? Hell, no.
   
   Many of the events such as the disputes within the Russian revolutionary movement, the attempts by the Western Powers to overthrow the Bolsheviks in the Civil War after their seizure of power and the struggle of the various tendencies inside the Russian Communist Party and in the Communist International discussed in the book may not be familiar to today's audience. Nevertheless one can still learn something from the strength of Trotsky's commitment to his cause and the fight to preserve his personal and political integrity against overwhelming odds. As the organizer of the October Revolution, creator of the Red Army in the Civil War, orator, writer and fighter Trotsky he was one of the most feared men of the early 20th century to friend and foe alike. Nevertheless, I do not believe that he took his personal fall from power as a world historic tragedy. Moreover, he does not gloss over his political mistakes. Nor does Trotsky generally do personal injustice to his various political opponents although I would not want to have been subject to his rapier wit and pen. Politicians, revolutionary or otherwise, in our times should take note.
   
   REVISED JULY 25, 2006



3. Firstly, it's necessary to keep in mind that Deustscher was not trying to write a biography of Trotsky- if by that is meant an account of his life for its own sake- nor was he trying to write a history of the Russian Revolution and its leaders as a self-contained account. Deutscher's goals where twofold: to vindicate Trotsky's early opposition against Lenin's conception of the revolutionary party as well as his later opposition to Stalin's policies _in the long run_ and at the same time to acknowledge the necessity of Leninism and Stalinism _in the short run_. However objectionable such a view is today, Deutscher's political dialogue with Trotsky's ghost is superbly argued and documented, and anyone, no matter one's political views, will finish reading this work feeling one knows more about the subject than beforehand. In all the languages this work was translated (and I remember the ruckus produced in Brazil by the 1960s Portuguese trans.) it played havoc with accepted Left commonplaces.
   
   There are many faults in this new Verso edition: first, its paperback binding is atrocious (after a first read, I have already a couple of loose pages); secondly, there lacks an introduction that sets the work in perspective 50 years after its publication, as well as a glossary of unusual terms for today's conservative age (such as comissar, soviet, etc.) and, perhaps, some short biographies of the smaller characters,with dates of birth and decease, positions held, whereabouts, etc.However, the work can still be enjoyably read on its own, even if you miss some (admittedly small) points.



4. It is indeed odd to read the early life of Leon Trotsky up to 1920 now, fifteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union he saved from civil war 88 years ago. The reissue of this classic work, written right after WWII to vindicate the man who had done the most to give birth to the Soviet experiment and had been written out of its history by Stalin and his henchmen, is welcome. We are allowed to remember what we would rather forget, that despite our difficulties with Boshevism it did seek to right the wrong of Tsarism, one of the most backward, brutal, and desensitizing systems of oppression known to European man up to that time. Trotsky was unquestionably a genius, a hero, and of course also a man of weaknesses and ego who set the Soviet Union on a path which he could easily justify but which could also be used for more narrow and nefarious purposes by his old enemy, Joseph Stalin. Stalin in fact, while opposing Trotsky at almost every turn before and after Lenin's death, managed in the end to adopt Trotsky's economic policies with a ruthlessness which Trotsky would have approved had he not been forced to disapprove of it as a proscribed enemy of Stalinism.
   
   Trotsky demonstrates that a certain logic of history, in this case Russian history, a history half-European and half-Asiatic, forced the liberation of Russia to become its subjugation to a tyrrany more verbally benevolent but no less horrible than Tsarism. Trotsky was undoubtedly a more enlightened and humane man than the half-barbarian Stalin, but it is not clear that had he beaten Stalin he would have been able to do better than Stalin in two tasks: setting Russia on a path of industrialization and modernization and defeating Hitler. For Stalin, lest we forget because of his crimes, Stalin did these two important things and did them very well indeed.
   
   To relive the heroic days of the Russian Revolution is to be reminded that once Russian Socialism (including Bolshevism) deserved the respect of the onlooking world. The Cold War has distorted much about this history and hidden much from our eyes. We have allowed ourselves to adopt the counter-revolutionary ideology of the reactionary classes when it comes to the birth of Soviet Russia. Isaac Deutscher deserves praise for not only restoring our view of Trotsky but for having restored our view of the Russian revolutionary tradition.



5. For nearly all its existence since Lenin's death in 1924 Trotsky (aka Lev Davidovich Bronstein) was Satan in the Bolshevik's manichean view of the world. Most of the purges of the 1930s were allegedly meant to cleanse Soviet society and its key institutions (the Communist Party, the unions, the Red Army, the intelligentsia) of the Trotskyte taint that, like some sort of Original Sin, pervaded the proletarian dictatorship. Stalin tried to erase Trotsky from the history of the Revolution. He even erased Trotsky's physical attributes, not just by killing him in 1940, half a world away, but by obliterating his likeness wherever it might have been found.
   
   This book, published fifty years ago, tried to counter the Stalinist plot against Trotsky by vindicating his key role in the 1905 and 1917 revolutions, in the Civil War and in the establishment of the Red Army and the Soviet state. The author partially succeeds. Here we see Trotsky in all his glory, as perhaps he would have liked to be remembered, as a child prodigy who from humble rural beginnings quickly found his way in the world, as a professional revolutionary, as a brilliant polemist and orator, who even as a young man was seen as worthy counterpart to Lenin, and far above the rest of the Party, as a good hearted man who tried to promote harmony within the Party and failed at it, as a cultured, civilized "westernizer", much more appealing than the brutal Stalin, who came straight from the "log cabin" of czarist barbarism. He also came up with many good ideas, such as Lenin's New Economic Policy. Deutscher also gives us some of the darker sides to Trotsky's scintillating personna. He was proud and haughty, but brittle. He was abusive to others, often unnecessarily. He often let abstractions and daydreams take the place of reality. And he came up with many bad ideas, such as War Communism and the Militarization of Labor.
   
   But, given Deutscher's profile (he was a Trotskyte) the book is often a competent whitewash. The author shares Trotsky's (and the Bolshevik's) worldview to a great extent, and sees the October Revolution as a worthy action. Mostly, he takes Trotskyte and Bolshevik motives as justification for their actions. He portrays opponents (such as the White Guards and nationalist Ukrainians and Poles) as illegitimate. Nowhere does the awfulness of Soviet rule, and the brutality of the Bolshevik leaders come through, except perhaps in their remarkably abusive writings. To find such bitchiness nowadays one would have to refer to the academic world, where the nastiness is commensurate to the irrelevance of that which is being discussed.
   
   Also, the book is often not very readable as history. The author will often refer to future or past events in a single page, without indication of the precise dates, which makes this a hard book to read for someone not familiar with the October Revolution.
   
   Having said this, a good reason to read this book is that it is beautifully written, and that the author really does get very close to his subject, which is mostly a negative in that he lacks perspective, but does bring the advantage of great liveliness which makes this a very good read. This reminds me of Preston's life of General Franco. Preston hated his subject and was unable utterly to develop any empathy with him, so the book was fairly arid and not insightful. Deutscher has the opposite defect: he gets too close, as perhaps does Nicholas Farrell to Mussolini. The ideal would be like Kershaw's Hitler or Short's Mao: far enough to look the monster in the eye, but not close enough to kiss him.
   
   At this book's end, Trotsky is at the apex of his power, from which he would begin to slip during Lenin's final year. But this is better left to volume II, which I also hope to review.
   
   So read the book, but don't take Deutscher at his word. Complement this with Volkogonov's Trotsky. And with Trotsky's own voluminous writings, which are often very amusing (particularly his biography of Stalin).