Trotsky e o papel dos indivíduos na História: a tese do Lenin insubstituível

In Chapter XVI, “Rearming the party”, of Volume I of History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky introduces the discussion on the role of individuals in history, questioning whether the revolution would have triumphed without Lenin. He argues that the opportunity would probably have been missed, highlighting the Bolshevik leader as an essential link in the chain of events. For his part, Deutscher raised questions about this interpretation and, relying on Plekhanov, criticized Trotsky, claiming that his approach was too subjectivist. The aim of this article is to analyze the theme of the role of the individual in history, based on the debate about Lenin’s role in the Russian Revolution. The article is structured in four parts. The first part presents Trotsky’s interpretation of Lenin’s role. The second part sets out Deutscher’s criticisms, based on his reading of Plekhanov. The third part discusses the fatalism present in the “traditional Marxist” conception. Finally, the fourth part argues that Trotsky’s interpretation is supported by the theory of uneven and combined development, as well as by the emphasis on the protagonism of the masses in struggle.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Marx e o Marxismo.
Published
2025-06-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.62782/2318-9657.2025.648
Primary Topic
Brazilian cultural history and politics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trotsky e o papel dos indivíduos na História: a tese do Lenin insubstituível

Carlos Prado
Marx e o Marxismo.
Brazilian cultural history and politics
article

Trotsky e o papel dos indivíduos na História: a tese do Lenin insubstituível

Carlos Prado
article en

Abstract

In Chapter XVI, “Rearming the party”, of Volume I of History of the Russian Revolution, Trotsky introduces the discussion on the role of individuals in history, questioning whether the revolution would have triumphed without Lenin. He argues that the opportunity would probably have been missed, highlighting the Bolshevik leader as an essential link in the chain of events. For his part, Deutscher raised questions about this interpretation and, relying on Plekhanov, criticized Trotsky, claiming that his approach was too subjectivist. The aim of this article is to analyze the theme of the role of the individual in history, based on the debate about Lenin’s role in the Russian Revolution. The article is structured in four parts. The first part presents Trotsky’s interpretation of Lenin’s role. The second part sets out Deutscher’s criticisms, based on his reading of Plekhanov. The third part discusses the fatalism present in the “traditional Marxist” conception. Finally, the fourth part argues that Trotsky’s interpretation is supported by the theory of uneven and combined development, as well as by the emphasis on the protagonism of the masses in struggle.

Marx e o Marxismo.Vol. 13(24)
Openalex Percentile: Top 78%
Brazilian cultural history and politics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.