What do you think?
Rate this book
Their Trotsky and Ours: Communist Continuity Today
Book by Barnes, Jack
156 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1983
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 28, 2025
𝐄𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 to understand the living soul of marxist theory and communist politics in today's world:
"...𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴, 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞, 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘻𝘦𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴.
"𝘞𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴."
- From the chapter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, excerpt of which can be found in the November 18, 2019, issue of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵.
https://themilitant.com/2019/11/09/co...
"...𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴, 𝘩𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞, 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘦𝘯𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩, 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘻𝘦𝘯. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘴.
"𝘞𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴. 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴."
- From the chapter 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥, excerpt of which can be found in the November 18, 2019, issue of 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘔𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘵.
https://themilitant.com/2019/11/09/co...
November 4, 2025
I was a member of the Socialist Workers Party at the time, 1983, the speech was given that this book is based on (it was clearly much longer). Party leaders tried to convince me to go to the Young Socialist Alliance convention where it was to be given. I didn't have a good excuse for not going, but I didn't realize how important this was going to be, despite the fact that I was told that. I remain a supporter of the SWP, and work at keeping the books in print and indexing the 'Militant.'
It is quite amazing to see the gossip around this book; as Jack Barnes says, when it came out in the first issue of 'New International magazine,' "it was treated as a scandal." Today there are lots of people who have never read it and have never read a single issue of the 'Militant,' who have convinced themselves that they can fully explain this to you. Some prefer mindless speculation to reading.
To get another side of the argument, read Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects. But also read some Joseph Hansen--a former secretary to Trotsky and longtime leader of the Socialist Workers Party--without his contributions, like The Workers and Farmers Government and Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution: A Marxist Appreciation, it's unlikely this Barnes critique could have been written.
It was Lenin who said "It is necessary that every member of the party should study calmly and with the greatest objectivity, first the substance of the differences of opinion and then the development of struggles within the party. Neither the one nor the other can be done unless the documents of both sides are published. He who takes someone's word for it is a hopeless idiot who can be disposed of with a gesture of the hand."
You will find people who say that the SWP became "Castroist," whatever that means. We had always supported the Cuban Revolution. Others say outright that it has become "Stalinist," a term they seem to know nothing about. Those who were never in the party must be judged even more critically than the Lenin quote suggests: Why are they talking about something they know nothing about?
Some people claim that after this, the Socialist Workers Party went into a decline from which it has never recovered. But in fact, that statement is a total lie. Yes, some people maneuvered so as to get themselves expelled. This was not a loss for the party, it was a gain, and with the revolutions in Grenada and especially Nicaragua, the party grew considerably beyond the size it had been before this document.
Plus, if one were going to judge a party by size, then the Mensheviks would appear to have had all the advantages in Russia, and yet...
For different reasons, the revolutions in Grenada, Nicaragua, and El Salvador went down to defeat. We have analyzed all this in 'New International' and the 'Militant.' The Soviet Union collapsed, which we didn't see as a loss. We had always defended the Soviet Union and the other degenerated or deformed workers states against imperialism, but absolutely never had we defended the Stalinists from the working class. But many people of all political opinions were convinced that this meant that Marxism was discredited.
The working class in the US and most of the world went into a long retreat, which we are only now beginning to see the end of (see The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us: The Socialist Workers Party Looks Forward).
That was the thing that lost us members, not this or that "error," and the party is obviously not free from errors. Because of "social media," all of these disgruntled former members (who agree on almost nothing) appear to be a strong force, although in reality they are all on their way out of revolutionary politics. Some are doing Cuba solidarity work, but they are mostly not playing a positive role in it. Some have now wound up as supporters of the Jew-hating, pro-Nazi Hamas (see The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch).
Follow Lenin's advice and read this for yourself. Gossip is worthless.
It is quite amazing to see the gossip around this book; as Jack Barnes says, when it came out in the first issue of 'New International magazine,' "it was treated as a scandal." Today there are lots of people who have never read it and have never read a single issue of the 'Militant,' who have convinced themselves that they can fully explain this to you. Some prefer mindless speculation to reading.
To get another side of the argument, read Trotsky's The Permanent Revolution & Results and Prospects. But also read some Joseph Hansen--a former secretary to Trotsky and longtime leader of the Socialist Workers Party--without his contributions, like The Workers and Farmers Government and Dynamics of the Cuban Revolution: A Marxist Appreciation, it's unlikely this Barnes critique could have been written.
It was Lenin who said "It is necessary that every member of the party should study calmly and with the greatest objectivity, first the substance of the differences of opinion and then the development of struggles within the party. Neither the one nor the other can be done unless the documents of both sides are published. He who takes someone's word for it is a hopeless idiot who can be disposed of with a gesture of the hand."
You will find people who say that the SWP became "Castroist," whatever that means. We had always supported the Cuban Revolution. Others say outright that it has become "Stalinist," a term they seem to know nothing about. Those who were never in the party must be judged even more critically than the Lenin quote suggests: Why are they talking about something they know nothing about?
Some people claim that after this, the Socialist Workers Party went into a decline from which it has never recovered. But in fact, that statement is a total lie. Yes, some people maneuvered so as to get themselves expelled. This was not a loss for the party, it was a gain, and with the revolutions in Grenada and especially Nicaragua, the party grew considerably beyond the size it had been before this document.
Plus, if one were going to judge a party by size, then the Mensheviks would appear to have had all the advantages in Russia, and yet...
For different reasons, the revolutions in Grenada, Nicaragua, and El Salvador went down to defeat. We have analyzed all this in 'New International' and the 'Militant.' The Soviet Union collapsed, which we didn't see as a loss. We had always defended the Soviet Union and the other degenerated or deformed workers states against imperialism, but absolutely never had we defended the Stalinists from the working class. But many people of all political opinions were convinced that this meant that Marxism was discredited.
The working class in the US and most of the world went into a long retreat, which we are only now beginning to see the end of (see The Low Point of Labor Resistance is Behind Us: The Socialist Workers Party Looks Forward).
That was the thing that lost us members, not this or that "error," and the party is obviously not free from errors. Because of "social media," all of these disgruntled former members (who agree on almost nothing) appear to be a strong force, although in reality they are all on their way out of revolutionary politics. Some are doing Cuba solidarity work, but they are mostly not playing a positive role in it. Some have now wound up as supporters of the Jew-hating, pro-Nazi Hamas (see The Fight Against Jew-Hatred and Pogroms in the Imperialist Epoch).
Follow Lenin's advice and read this for yourself. Gossip is worthless.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews