The Russian revolution would be, at first, a capitalist, industrial revolution, to remove the tsarist and feudal aristocracy from power, and to place the bourgeoisie in government. The Bolsheviks ran ahead and made a socialist revolution. They even say that the revolution was financed by big capitalists. The victory of the Bolsheviks generated a reaction from the international bourgeoisie, which sent troops to Russia to fight the Bolsheviks. At the request of Lenin, Trotsky founded the Red Army and traveled throughout Russia by train and secured the survival of the socialist revolution. But the bureaucracy, created to administer the revolution, seized power and put Stalin as ironforehead.
Every discussion he hosts is like this, regardless of topic. The guy is a treasure. You can tell that Hitchens and Service both respect it and the conversation is all the better because of it.
Yeah although he shouldn;'t have been hesitant to call stalin a conservative. Everyone who's educated on the subject knows he was a conservative communist.
"He's one of the very few people of the communist movement about which it would be worth asking that question" - Hitchens' opening statement about whether Trotsky was good or bad. Prime example of the complexity of thought demonstrated by the man on the subject, hardly 'cretinous and insane doting' or 'fawning'. Also, if you care to investigate his record on Iraq you'll understand why he sided with the pro-war bunch, again his thought process a bit more complex than the neocon administration.
This conversation demonstrates why Joe Rogan became the most watched interviewer in history. This interviewer asks these authors to answer questions that deserve ten minutes in one or two sentences. Humans were starving for long form conversations because we were being exposed to this for years.
Not only a respectful and enlightening debate (enhanced by a well informed and professional moderator) between two formidable intellectuals and great communicators, but between two of the most outstanding experts on the subject of Trotsky and his place in the history of the Russian Revolution and Marxist theory in general. What a feast of knowledge to savor! It makes even sadder the loss of Christopher Hitchens.
Wow. What intellectual powerhouses... I feel like I should have paid admission. Very grateful for the Hoover Institute. I've learned so much through these interviews.
No, he's actually fairly ignorant about the Kronstadt rebellion and takes a conventional unquestioning view, & like many views of his, predetermined by the works of Orwell.
Tripp K I agree with you on Hitchens ignorance on certain and specific topics , however, I would argue that his perspective is being rather largely "Influenced" by Orwell, than Pre-Determined because of the significance of the word
Molly Streames The Soviet government was supposed to just "let" a mutiny occur in the middle of the civil war? It's holding a certain country to ridiculous standards he would never assign to another one, and he does this because it's fashionable and conventional.
Wow, an Uncommon Knowledge with Hitchens!!?? Somebody pinch me, please. We lost so much with the passing of Mr. Hitchens, but at least we still have archival interviews of high quality like this.
I loved this video. Two extremely knowledgeable minds in regards to trotsky (despite my general lack of interest in the man) with quite contrasting opinions and perspectives, both enlightening and complimentary to each other.
If anyone can find writings by Trotsky that share these men's thesis, that Trotsky supported the Winter War (Soviet vs Finland) or the Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact (carving up Poland) I'd like to see it. I've googled around the original texts that Trotsky wrote in 1938-1940 and found only a prescient Trotsky absolutely stern about doing what's best for workers as the huge capitalist powers dance into war and the paranoid bureacracy led by Stalin makes any deal that will save its bureaucratic bacon. I read second hand, that Trotsky supported one of both of these atrocities or changed his mind in some way, and would gratefully accept any proof in his own writing, which seems to be the opposite. It's not as if Trotsky hid his thoughts. He wrote continuously and the thread of empowering workers runs through it all. His early warnings about Hitler (1933) and softness in the Western governments regarding Hitler is consistent throughout.
It's far more interesting to listen to Hitchens talk about something he has some history and knowledge of rather than debating "How liberals are abolishing Christmas" or some other such rubbish on Fox.
20:09 - 20:37 There was a quote from Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim book (who designed the Maxim machineguns and other technology [electrical lights competitive to Edison, was going to beat the Wright brothers for the first controlled flight, etc.] ) called Li Hung Chang's Scrap-Book in memory to the named politician and friend of Maxim. It's interesting since those people (and still today) have a significantly better life than their ancestors did centuries ago due to educational/scientific/mathematical/technological advancements, but still have illogical beliefs no different than their ancestors. In the book, Sir Maxim says "The Chinese were generally puzzled as to how it was possible for people who are able to build locomotives and steamships to have a religion based on a belief in devils, ghosts, impossible miracles, and all the other absurdities and impossibilities peculiar to the religion taught by the missionaries."
I think it is really hard to comprehend such a radically different state of the world - one where World War I & II did not happen. Those events have so deeply colored our world. It almost seems too hypothetical to really be able to come up with an answer that can have real certainty. You simply have to make too many assumptions.
When Trotsky formed the Red Army under Lenin's authority, he did it by threatening the families of former Tsarist officers. They had to join up and serve loyally , or bad things would happen to their relatives. If you did not have a family to threaten, you could not be a Red Army officer in the beginning - that's Trotsky.
Had Trotsky gained the position of being the vanguard of the proletariat, we would be sitting here discussing how much better the soviet union would have been "If only had Stalin gained power"
“Despite its errors of prognostication, Trotsky book ‘Where Is Britain Going’ is the most, or rather the only effective statement of the case for proletarian revolution and communism in Britain that has ever been made.”-Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky’s biographer.
Trostky was an excellent, stylish writer. That's why writers like the late Hitch liked him so much. But he was another Lenin, or Stalin. Dude was a mass murderer.
This notion about Trotsky believing the the "proletariat" could not asume leadership is super, super important in the overstanding of the playing out of the social algorithm
I used to like Hitch. For his showmanship. Once you start listening to the man it's mostly intestinal gas. He likes Trotsky for his ideas to oppose Stalin when Stalin was out to kill him. He likes Trotsky because he liked literature.
Ideologically speaking, Trotsky became a Marxist-Leninist when he joined the Bolshevik Party after the first Russian Revolution in February 1917. Leninist theory is based in vanguardism - The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by a revolutionary vanguard party as the political prelude to the establishment of communism. Does the application of this theory only become a problem for Trotsky once Joseph Stalin is leading the vanguard party and not him? Could vanguardism simply open the door for authoritarianism, dictatorship, and what we now call Stalinism?
It seems to me that Trotsky followed a career path similar to Malcolm X. Both died with regret of their earlier pursuits and attempted to change their views later in life.
@iago201 I agree hitchens is such a smart fella, THere are some great videos of him on yt some of the are about current affairs in the 90s if your interested and there are a few on the founding fathers
It's a shame this interview wasn't with Hitchens and Stephen Kotka. Kotka would have ripped Hitchens a new one over Trotsky. I say that as a huge admirer of Hitchens. But on this matter he is simply wrong and Kotka would have schooled him very politely with a vastly superior understanding of the time Trotsky operated in and the real drivers of decision by Trotsky & others. You can find plenty of Kotka's interviews, lectures and discussions on Russia ans the Revolution and Stalin, Trotsky & Lenin on youtube. If you want a real education, I urge you to watch some of them.
"Trotsky was in favour of carrying on the revolution to other countries, Germany and China in particular." I can understand Germany being a powerful nation at the time but China? Why China?
coweatsman The empires had interests in China. Capitalism and free enterprise are not the same thing. There is no such thing as the free market either. It requires regulations.
Robert Service at 32:00 may as well have been talking about Hitchens' state toward the end of this discussion which thoroughly discredited his hero Trotsky.
Interestingly, these three man, Robinson, Hitchens, and Service, all attended Oxford University, respectively. In fact, I believe Robinson and Hitchens both have their BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from the institution. Intellectuals, all of them.
@AndrewMann552 @AndrewMann552 They were not debating that, were they? Service pointed out that the Left's image of Trotsky is a rather romantic one since his political opinions on repression and war were very similar to Stalin's. Whether you think troskyism/stalinism should rule the streets of Greece right now is another matter.
I understand that it's hard for this scholars but they never talked about the destiny... the maening of Stalin for USSR, Paranoia, famine, and all this old rotten lables without the discussion about historical destiny, Was industrialisation and collectivisation necessary? Did something like that happened in other countries? Was it soft or hard in other countries? How long did it take? Where in the hell the world would have ended if the USSR didn't manage to prepare to beat Hitler?
Trotsky was a great orator and a great writer , also Trotsky was the creator of the red Army , whom he lead ferociously against the Imperialistic facist white army , who Trotsky defeated .
The-Great- LFC You've discredited you're own statement by making an unimaginative, childish and cliche statement "imperialistic fascist" white army. The white army was a mixture of different people with varying motivations, some simply didn't want to be under communism. That doesn't make them all bad or neither fascist or imperialistic. If you also break down the actual meaning of 'imperialistic' and 'fascist' both of those could describe what became of the Soviet Union.
+Marco Ermini Robert Service, though obviously factual in his claims, strikes me as a real philistine. He doesn't understand both the complexity of Trotskyism as an ideology, nor - and this perhaps aids the latter - does he think it worth any consideration. Trying to understand Trotsky without dealing with, in detail, the left oppositionist movements across the globe he directly inspired, is a complete waste of time to me; which is why I prefer, for it all it's idealism and faults, Deutscher's trilogy of Trotsky, not least for it's sheer literary value - something Service, of course, comes no where near matching.
To be generous with your comment, I'd say you have unrealistic expectations regarding the responses of people being interviewed in real time. I'd like to hear how "nuanced" your conversation is on major figures on the spot with limited time to talk. In this video discussion you and Hitchens were forced to hear ugly things about your hero Trotsky, and you can't handle it.
Very well said. Trotsky was perhaps the least offensive to human rights of the Bolsheviks, but that's like saying the least offensive cockroach in a kitchen.
+Theun de groot It was because of the time limit. This discussion could have lasted for more than an hour easily. Nevertheless, it was lovely to see Hitchens being so insecure and dodgy, quite unusual of him. He wasn't so arrogant and bold this time. His desperate but somewhat ineffective attempts to defend Trotsky are also very meaningful. His hypocrisy got really exposed here, especially in that part when he conceded that Trotsky's prose was a "little thuggish". And Hitchens says that about a guy who wrote a book actually titled "In defence of terror", in which he endorsed any brutal and ruthless measures as a means to achieve his political objectives, that is, to seize power and achieve dominance. Was it really that that hard for Hitchens to see how his spiritual father was similar to Hitler in this case? Trotsky was a devious criminal, who was indeed power hungry, and whose hidden devilish agenda was to uproot the good old order, unleash hell and enslave the world. That was the real purpose of the so-called revolution, and that was the purpose of the USSR, most anti-humane and genocidal political systems that ever existed, which Trotsky designed himself and for which he laid ideological foundations. If Hitchens couldn't understand all that it means he was just a naive "useful idiot" which I doubt. If he did, then it leads me to believe that he was just a cynical and dishonest conmen, which is typical for communists, who was additionally fanatically blinded by convictions which he adopted in his youth, and that reveals how irrational and immature he was in fact.
***** When I compared Trotsky to Hitler I did not mean that they were equal in terms of the death toll, or suffering and destruction that they brought about. To make such comparisons is rather futile and pointless anyway. What I meant is that this two had a very similar mindset and personality. They were bold, ruthless, cynical and shared similar contempt for human life, and that expressed itself in their rhetoric and action. They were also great visionaries, very passionate and charismatic figures. In my opinion the similarity is striking. They both played in the same league of totalitarian ideologues and tyrants. If Hitler is indeed so akin to Trotsky and embedded in our culture as an epitome of ultimate evil and a horrific, sinister villain, then what is the matter with Hitchens making his relentless exhortations in favour of the latter, as if he tried to vindicate him. One may get an impression that he would make a saint of Trotsky if he could. But the figures of Trotsky and the like deserve utmost condemnation rather then vindication. I find it absolutely preposterous that Hitchens decided to defend such a lost cause in the name of youthful ideals that he clung to so tenaciously.
+Tomasz Serafin I don't think Hitchens was insecure at all. I believe this is the right tone for an academic discussion and actually gives very smart answers. If you have to talk to dumb theologians there is very little to argue about.
+Tomasz Serafin you are very wrong about Trotsky. You are actually just lying on the kind of misinformation spread by Stalinists communists about Trotsky. I invite you to read his autobiography.
You could try going on Marxists.org; there's a massive archive there with works including Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", and criticisms of Trotsky.
Start with Service (negative view, the paperback, which corrects some glaring errors in the original edition), Deutscher (positive, and a literary masterpiece in its own right), Stalin's Nemesis, and A Revolutionary's Life by Rubenstein, and Geoffrey Swain's bio. And Trotsky's own "The Revolution Betrayed" and "History of the Russian Revolution. With a wider scope Rabonowitch's trilogy on the Russian Revolution is essential, and the Civil War books by Mawdsley, W. Bruce Lincoln and Smele are the go to's on Trotsky's Red Army. A thorough reading of the brief but masterful texts both titled "The Russian Revolution" by Sheila Fitzpatrick and Rex Wade are excellent prerequisites/brief syntheses on the wider picture that combine massive depth in a concise manner that only a great writer and historian can do. (Mawdsley for example, is a great historian, but not a great writer). And in fact, just about everything these two authors did is essential. I'd argue to best understand Trotsky you need to weigh him against Lenin, and for that the biographies of Service and Lars Lih will give you a good intro into where the field is on Lenin at the moment (I don't think these writers like each other very much), and Lenin in Exile, The Practise and Theory of Revolution, Lenin on the Train and Beryl Williams Lenin & Christopher Read's bio are all worth reading. And why not Stalin? The definitive text is the duology by Kotkin, which is quite simply greater than any biography ever written on any of the three, and perhaps of any Soviet figure, ever.
I enjoyed Hitchen's talks. In my view, the talk of, "what if" about folks like Trotsky and Guevara are a waste of time. In both cases, they had no problem using brutality to further their cause. I think it can be said of both, they were morally bankrupt and ideological hypocrites. Just like Lincoln, they mentioned at the end. I'm open to correction, but that is how I see it now. Excellent talk though. These types of men are becoming a thing of the past. We live in reactionary times.
What is outstanding is the solid research done by the moderator.
yeh, he knew his shit alright
The Russian revolution would be, at first, a capitalist, industrial revolution, to remove the tsarist and feudal aristocracy from power, and to place the bourgeoisie in government. The Bolsheviks ran ahead and made a socialist revolution. They even say that the revolution was financed by big capitalists. The victory of the Bolsheviks generated a reaction from the international bourgeoisie, which sent troops to Russia to fight the Bolsheviks. At the request of Lenin, Trotsky founded the Red Army and traveled throughout Russia by train and secured the survival of the socialist revolution. But the bureaucracy, created to administer the revolution, seized power and put Stalin as ironforehead.
Every discussion he hosts is like this, regardless of topic. The guy is a treasure. You can tell that Hitchens and Service both respect it and the conversation is all the better because of it.
Yeah although he shouldn;'t have been hesitant to call stalin a conservative. Everyone who's educated on the subject knows he was a conservative communist.
@@iancalvert417 conservative communist has to be an oxymoron.
Hitchens read everything but the Surgeon General's Warning on a pack of cigarettes.
They just don’t make it like this anymore. Everything at the present seems so dumb. Truly regrettable.
such a misleading title. i was hoping to see trotsky back via time travel with hitchens and service.
"He's one of the very few people of the communist movement about which it would be worth asking that question" - Hitchens' opening statement about whether Trotsky was good or bad. Prime example of the complexity of thought demonstrated by the man on the subject, hardly 'cretinous and insane doting' or 'fawning'. Also, if you care to investigate his record on Iraq you'll understand why he sided with the pro-war bunch, again his thought process a bit more complex than the neocon administration.
This conversation demonstrates why Joe Rogan became the most watched interviewer in history. This interviewer asks these authors to answer questions that deserve ten minutes in one or two sentences. Humans were starving for long form conversations because we were being exposed to this for years.
Not only a respectful and enlightening debate (enhanced by a well informed and professional moderator) between two formidable intellectuals and great communicators, but between two of the most outstanding experts on the subject of Trotsky and his place in the history of the Russian Revolution and Marxist theory in general. What a feast of knowledge to savor! It makes even sadder the loss of Christopher Hitchens.
This interview should have been at least three times longer at least
Wow. What intellectual powerhouses... I feel like I should have paid admission. Very grateful for the Hoover Institute. I've learned so much through these interviews.
I have not seen people talking about Trotsky in a long time. This was smart and interesting. Thanks for the great upload.
I admire intelligence larger than my own.
Fantastic discussion. Thanks to the Hoover Institution for posting.
Why isn’t there more tv like this now?
10:18 - Hitchens works very hard not to show how delicious that was for him.
All praise for programs like this!
Hitchen's knowledge is amazing. He can sound so knowledgeable beside an academic who just wrote a 600 page book about Trotsky.
No, he's actually fairly ignorant about the Kronstadt rebellion and takes a conventional unquestioning view, & like many views of his, predetermined by the works of Orwell.
Tripp K I agree with you on Hitchens ignorance on certain and specific topics , however, I would argue that his perspective is being rather largely "Influenced" by Orwell, than Pre-Determined because of the significance of the word
How to you come to that conclusion Tripp and I wouldn't say hitch was unquestioning
Molly Streames The Soviet government was supposed to just "let" a mutiny occur in the middle of the civil war? It's holding a certain country to ridiculous standards he would never assign to another one, and he does this because it's fashionable and conventional.
"and he does this because it's fashionable and conventional."
Oh come on. He never cared for what was fashionable.
Wow, an Uncommon Knowledge with Hitchens!!?? Somebody pinch me, please. We lost so much with the passing of Mr. Hitchens, but at least we still have archival interviews of high quality like this.
I loved this video. Two extremely knowledgeable minds in regards to trotsky (despite my general lack of interest in the man) with quite contrasting opinions and perspectives, both enlightening and complimentary to each other.
Had Trotsky lived in American he would have reinvented himself as a theater
and film director " Revolution through Art
Fantastic book by the way. Nice to see Hitchens talking with someone who knows more than him on a subject.
Interesting and enlightening. Leaves a lot of issues in need of more discussion.
If anyone can find writings by Trotsky that share these men's thesis, that Trotsky supported the Winter War (Soviet vs Finland) or the Ribbentrop - Molotov Pact (carving up Poland) I'd like to see it.
I've googled around the original texts that Trotsky wrote in 1938-1940 and found only a prescient Trotsky absolutely stern about doing what's best for workers as the huge capitalist powers dance into war and the paranoid bureacracy led by Stalin makes any deal that will save its bureaucratic bacon. I read second hand, that Trotsky supported one of both of these atrocities or changed his mind in some way, and would gratefully accept any proof in his own writing, which seems to be the opposite.
It's not as if Trotsky hid his thoughts. He wrote continuously and the thread of empowering workers runs through it all. His early warnings about Hitler (1933) and softness in the Western governments regarding Hitler is consistent throughout.
It's far more interesting to listen to Hitchens talk about something he has some history and knowledge of rather than debating "How liberals are abolishing Christmas" or some other such rubbish on Fox.
goddamn that was good
20:09 - 20:37 There was a quote from Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim book (who designed the Maxim machineguns and other technology [electrical lights competitive to Edison, was going to beat the Wright brothers for the first controlled flight, etc.] ) called Li Hung Chang's Scrap-Book in memory to the named politician and friend of Maxim. It's interesting since those people (and still today) have a significantly better life than their ancestors did centuries ago due to educational/scientific/mathematical/technological advancements, but still have illogical beliefs no different than their ancestors.
In the book, Sir Maxim says "The Chinese were generally puzzled as to how it was possible for people who are able to build locomotives and steamships to have a religion based on a belief in devils, ghosts, impossible miracles, and all the other absurdities and impossibilities peculiar to the religion taught by the missionaries."
That tells you how hard our cultures are to understand each other, hence our trade war .
Great interview. Thanks for sharing.
I wish this was longer
I think it is really hard to comprehend such a radically different state of the world - one where World War I & II did not happen. Those events have so deeply colored our world. It almost seems too hypothetical to really be able to come up with an answer that can have real certainty. You simply have to make too many assumptions.
When Trotsky formed the Red Army under Lenin's authority, he did it by threatening the families of former Tsarist officers. They had to join up and serve loyally , or bad things would happen to their relatives. If you did not have a family to threaten, you could not be a Red Army officer in the beginning - that's Trotsky.
Trotsky sees, close to the end, that possibly the entire edifice was based on delusional ideology. What a rich bit of irony.
Thanks for uploading this. Quite interesting.
anyone else catch that at 24:51?
"even if extended by bayonets."
so subtle. great line Mr. Hitchens!
Goddamn I miss Hitch.
Had Trotsky gained the position of being the vanguard of the proletariat, we would be sitting here discussing how much better the soviet union would have been "If only had Stalin gained power"
that was fantastic. Thank you
Great discourse
“Despite its errors of prognostication, Trotsky book ‘Where Is Britain Going’ is the most, or rather the only effective statement of the case for proletarian revolution and communism in Britain that has ever been made.”-Isaac Deutscher, Trotsky’s biographer.
I like the way Service pronounces the word "Reich." I don't know why but I do.
Trostky was an excellent, stylish writer. That's why writers like the late Hitch liked him so much. But he was another Lenin, or Stalin. Dude was a mass murderer.
Great interview.
Very interesting video.
Pleasant discussion. Harder to find dialogues where a moderator/interviewer isn't trying to paint someone as a controversial character nowadays.
Wow seems like a wonderful discussion. If only I understood my native language
@bapyou
Because they realize that to understand one's own position, one must understand one's opponent's position equally.
This is a vital Video
This notion about Trotsky believing the the "proletariat" could not asume leadership is super, super important in the overstanding of the playing out of the social algorithm
I used to like Hitch. For his showmanship. Once you start listening to the man it's mostly intestinal gas. He likes Trotsky for his ideas to oppose Stalin when Stalin was out to kill him. He likes Trotsky because he liked literature.
Fantastic book by the way.
this would have been much better if the host didnt interrupt them every 5 seconds, its ridiculous how many times he cuts across them mid-point
Just bought Lenin and Stalin by Service, Lenin is great so far. love and miss you Hitch.
Ideologically speaking, Trotsky became a Marxist-Leninist when he joined the Bolshevik Party after the first Russian Revolution in February 1917. Leninist theory is based in vanguardism - The establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat led by a revolutionary vanguard party as the political prelude to the establishment of communism. Does the application of this theory only become a problem for Trotsky once Joseph Stalin is leading the vanguard party and not him? Could vanguardism simply open the door for authoritarianism, dictatorship, and what we now call Stalinism?
Better watch and listen on RUclips to Dr. AnthonySutton : WallStreet and The Bolshevic
Revolution
Peter--- do not interrupt.
Enchanted as always with Hitchens.....merci,ana maria
They could have don this over 2 hours why only 30 min?? Its the internet...
Great video! If only the moderator could have interrupted his guests mid-thought more often.
The section starting around 30:40 is very interesting.
Isaac deutscher seems like the most interestimg of the historians.
Excellent questions
It seems to me that Trotsky followed a career path similar to Malcolm X. Both died with regret of their earlier pursuits and attempted to change their views later in life.
@iago201 I agree hitchens is such a smart fella, THere are some great videos of him on yt some of the are about current affairs in the 90s if your interested and there are a few on the founding fathers
I agree with Service's assessment there at the end, well put.
The interviewer should stop trying to interrupt the genuinely interesting conversation with restless mentions of time constraints
It's a shame this interview wasn't with Hitchens and Stephen Kotka. Kotka would have ripped Hitchens a new one over Trotsky. I say that as a huge admirer of Hitchens. But on this matter he is simply wrong and Kotka would have schooled him very politely with a vastly superior understanding of the time Trotsky operated in and the real drivers of decision by Trotsky & others. You can find plenty of Kotka's interviews, lectures and discussions on Russia ans the Revolution and Stalin, Trotsky & Lenin on youtube. If you want a real education, I urge you to watch some of them.
I can't find any of Kotka's lectures on RUclips.
@@gurgortsac
archive.org/details/stephen-kotkin-paradoxes-of-power-audio
archive.org/details/stephen-kotkin-waiting-for-hitler-audio
"Trotsky was in favour of carrying on the revolution to other countries, Germany and China in particular."
I can understand Germany being a powerful nation at the time but China? Why China?
coweatsman The empires had interests in China. Capitalism and free enterprise are not the same thing. There is no such thing as the free market either. It requires regulations.
Always have loved Hitchens but as a real leftie he never went to live in a Communist country but landed up in America!!
too t o o GOOD ! thanks!
Robert Service at 32:00 may as well have been talking about Hitchens' state toward the end of this discussion which thoroughly discredited his hero Trotsky.
Interestingly, these three man, Robinson, Hitchens, and Service, all attended Oxford University, respectively. In fact, I believe Robinson and Hitchens both have their BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics from the institution. Intellectuals, all of them.
Everyone who goes to Oxford is an intellectual? Hm...
Now I understand so much better my friend from Mexico City who on the fall of the Soviet Union noted that it hadn’t followed “pure” communism.
what's missing that Hitchen's doesn't say? just curious
agreed with the previous two comments
@AndrewMann552 @AndrewMann552 They were not debating that, were they? Service pointed out that the Left's image of Trotsky is a rather romantic one since his political opinions on repression and war were very similar to Stalin's. Whether you think troskyism/stalinism should rule the streets of Greece right now is another matter.
@MikhailSilverwood (have you noticed Hitchens is very much pro-Trotsky?)
I understand that it's hard for this scholars but they never talked about the destiny... the maening of Stalin for USSR, Paranoia, famine, and all this old rotten lables without the discussion about historical destiny, Was industrialisation and collectivisation necessary? Did something like that happened in other countries? Was it soft or hard in other countries? How long did it take? Where in the hell the world would have ended if the USSR didn't manage to prepare to beat Hitler?
That's an interesting comparison.
Trotsky was a great orator and a great writer , also Trotsky was the creator of the red Army , whom he lead ferociously against the Imperialistic facist white army , who Trotsky defeated .
The-Great- LFC You've discredited you're own statement by making an unimaginative, childish and cliche statement "imperialistic fascist" white army. The white army was a mixture of different people with varying motivations, some simply didn't want to be under communism. That doesn't make them all bad or neither fascist or imperialistic.
If you also break down the actual meaning of 'imperialistic' and 'fascist' both of those could describe what became of the Soviet Union.
I've read service's books stalin and trotsky. Great books. Service doesn't display any bias in trotsky. Read it, its great
that interviewer always interrupts
great insight...my thought being...Stalin was local...while Trotsky was thinking global...
In what sense? Theoretically or in practice?
is that supposed to be Lenin as your profile picture?
1st class service
Russia NEVER has clear cut good or bad guys
Probably the only area where I disagree with C. Hitchens......
Service is eyerolling on the inside in this interview so much, and for good reason.
The best countries are more equal than others.
I believe Hitchens actually understands the nuances of Trotsky and Trotskyism much better than Service.
+Marco Ermini Robert Service, though obviously factual in his claims, strikes me as a real philistine. He doesn't understand both the complexity of Trotskyism as an ideology, nor - and this perhaps aids the latter - does he think it worth any consideration. Trying to understand Trotsky without dealing with, in detail, the left oppositionist movements across the globe he directly inspired, is a complete waste of time to me; which is why I prefer, for it all it's idealism and faults, Deutscher's trilogy of Trotsky, not least for it's sheer literary value - something Service, of course, comes no where near matching.
yonis gure I totally agree. I shall dig out the Deutscher's books out of my bookshelves
Service's Trotsky & Lenin biography is full of fictionalization and misquotes as well as a clear lack of objectivity.
To be generous with your comment, I'd say you have unrealistic expectations regarding the responses of people being interviewed in real time. I'd like to hear how "nuanced" your conversation is on major figures on the spot with limited time to talk. In this video discussion you and Hitchens were forced to hear ugly things about your hero Trotsky, and you can't handle it.
Tripp Read the Black Book of Communism- objectively 200 million people dead.
Twitter. , that’ll never catch on !
Very well said. Trotsky was perhaps the least offensive to human rights of the Bolsheviks, but that's like saying the least offensive cockroach in a kitchen.
WHY THE NEED TO ADMIRE HIM?
Follow that new Twitter everyone
Do you even lift?
sentence for trotsky - no point putting lipstick on a pig.
Fascinating, but the interviewer makes a restless, nervous affair of this interesting conversation
+Theun de groot It was because of the time limit. This discussion could have lasted for more than an hour easily. Nevertheless, it was lovely to see Hitchens being so insecure and dodgy, quite unusual of him. He wasn't so arrogant and bold this time. His desperate but somewhat ineffective attempts to defend Trotsky are also very meaningful. His hypocrisy got really exposed here, especially in that part when he conceded that Trotsky's prose was a "little thuggish". And Hitchens says that about a guy who wrote a book actually titled "In defence of terror", in which he endorsed any brutal and ruthless measures as a means to achieve his political objectives, that is, to seize power and achieve dominance. Was it really that that hard for Hitchens to see how his spiritual father was similar to Hitler in this case? Trotsky was a devious criminal, who was indeed power hungry, and whose hidden devilish agenda was to uproot the good old order, unleash hell and enslave the world. That was the real purpose of the so-called revolution, and that was the purpose of the USSR, most anti-humane and genocidal political systems that ever existed, which Trotsky designed himself and for which he laid ideological foundations. If Hitchens couldn't understand all that it means he was just a naive "useful idiot" which I doubt. If he did, then it leads me to believe that he was just a cynical and dishonest conmen, which is typical for communists, who was additionally fanatically blinded by convictions which he adopted in his youth, and that reveals how irrational and immature he was in fact.
***** When I compared Trotsky to Hitler I did not mean that they were equal in terms of the death toll, or suffering and destruction that they brought about. To make such comparisons is rather futile and pointless anyway. What I meant is that this two had a very similar mindset and personality. They were bold, ruthless, cynical and shared similar contempt for human life, and that expressed itself in their rhetoric and action. They were also great visionaries, very passionate and charismatic figures. In my opinion the similarity is striking. They both played in the same league of totalitarian ideologues and tyrants. If Hitler is indeed so akin to Trotsky and embedded in our culture as an epitome of ultimate evil and a horrific, sinister villain, then what is the matter with Hitchens making his relentless exhortations in favour of the latter, as if he tried to vindicate him. One may get an impression that he would make a saint of Trotsky if he could. But the figures of Trotsky and the like deserve utmost condemnation rather then vindication. I find it absolutely preposterous that Hitchens decided to defend such a lost cause in the name of youthful ideals that he clung to so tenaciously.
+Tomasz Serafin Pish!
+Tomasz Serafin I don't think Hitchens was insecure at all. I believe this is the right tone for an academic discussion and actually gives very smart answers.
If you have to talk to dumb theologians there is very little to argue about.
+Tomasz Serafin you are very wrong about Trotsky. You are actually just lying on the kind of misinformation spread by Stalinists communists about Trotsky. I invite you to read his autobiography.
In my opinion. The moment this "discussion" started. Peter Robinson already set his ears to listen to Service. I really think he's bias.
I think it was a mistake to have two guest experts being interviewed simultaneously.
I hate interviews with time limits and interviewers that interrupt the interviewee.
TV is TV there's not much you can do.
A longer interview with these extremely knowledgeable and eloquent guys would have been nice though.
Im sure it wasn't his idea.
Why do you put the interviewer on a pedestal?
Can someone give me a list of books *on* Trotsky that I should be reading?
I'd appreciate it greatly. Both, anti and pro-Trotsky books.
Aditya Kadambi I want this too ... actually I want books written by trotsky
You could try going on Marxists.org; there's a massive archive there with works including Trotsky's "The Revolution Betrayed", and criticisms of Trotsky.
Start with Service (negative view, the paperback, which corrects some glaring errors in the original edition), Deutscher (positive, and a literary masterpiece in its own right), Stalin's Nemesis, and A Revolutionary's Life by Rubenstein, and Geoffrey Swain's bio. And Trotsky's own "The Revolution Betrayed" and "History of the Russian Revolution.
With a wider scope Rabonowitch's trilogy on the Russian Revolution is essential, and the Civil War books by Mawdsley, W. Bruce Lincoln and Smele are the go to's on Trotsky's Red Army.
A thorough reading of the brief but masterful texts both titled "The Russian Revolution" by Sheila Fitzpatrick and Rex Wade are excellent prerequisites/brief syntheses on the wider picture that combine massive depth in a concise manner that only a great writer and historian can do. (Mawdsley for example, is a great historian, but not a great writer). And in fact, just about everything these two authors did is essential.
I'd argue to best understand Trotsky you need to weigh him against Lenin, and for that the biographies of Service and Lars Lih will give you a good intro into where the field is on Lenin at the moment (I don't think these writers like each other very much), and Lenin in Exile, The Practise and Theory of Revolution, Lenin on the Train and Beryl Williams Lenin & Christopher Read's bio are all worth reading. And why not Stalin? The definitive text is the duology by Kotkin, which is quite simply greater than any biography ever written on any of the three, and perhaps of any Soviet figure, ever.
I'm reading Results and Prospects by Trotsky, very fascinating. Reads very in a very contemporary seeming manner.
I enjoyed Hitchen's talks. In my view, the talk of, "what if" about folks like Trotsky and Guevara are a waste of time. In both cases, they had no problem using brutality to further their cause. I think it can be said of both, they were morally bankrupt and ideological hypocrites. Just like Lincoln, they mentioned at the end. I'm open to correction, but that is how I see it now. Excellent talk though. These types of men are becoming a thing of the past. We live in reactionary times.