Emil Lederer’s review assesses Trotsky’s account of the Russian Revolution as a historical document whose distinctive value lies in joining direct political participation, vivid narration, and Marxist explanation. Opening with Max Weber’s analyses of Russia as a benchmark for comprehensive sociological interpretation, Lederer identifies what Trotsky adds: an insider’s reconstruction of the revolution as a workers’ movement. Trotsky’s leadership in the Petersburg workers’ council gave him access to events beyond those he personally witnessed and enabled him to grasp their connections.
Die Lebendigkeit seiner Anschauung, die er durch eine künstlerisch gestaltende Darstellung dem Leser ganz zugänglich macht, wird gesteigert durch eine ebenso knappe als instruktive und eindringliche Analyse der ökonomischen Gegebenheiten vor der Revolution.
English translation: The vividness of his view of things, which he makes wholly accessible to the reader through an artistically shaping presentation, is heightened by an analysis of the economic conditions before the revolution that is as concise as it is instructive and penetrating.
For Lederer, narrative immediacy and structural analysis reinforce one another. He particularly praises the account of Russia’s prerevolutionary economy, which makes subsequent developments intelligible, especially to readers unfamiliar with Russian society. His review then moves from the book’s evidentiary and literary strengths to its central political interpretation: the workers’ council was an organization for winning revolutionary power and coordinating the other institutions of the working class. Formally nonpartisan and initially neutral, it came under Social Democratic leadership through that party’s theoretical preparation and capacity for political orientation.
Der prinzipielle Charakter der Revolution war daher nach Trotzky eine von der Arbeiterschaft ausgehende Massenbewegung, die notwendigerweise, als solche schon, in die Einflußsphäre der Sozialdemokratie gelangen muß, die von bürgerlichen Parteien sich sofort scharf abtrennt.
English translation: The character of the revolution in principle was therefore, according to Trotzky, a mass movement proceeding from the working class, which necessarily, as such alone, must come into the sphere of influence of Social Democracy, which at once sharply separates itself from the bourgeois parties.
Lederer explicitly attributes this argument to Trotsky. Its decisive conceptual move is to connect the revolution’s working-class basis with both Social Democratic leadership and separation from bourgeois parties. The political mass strike accordingly appears as more than an interruption of the existing order: to succeed, it must assume state functions. The council’s interventions in public safety, communications, transport, and industrial disputes exemplify this transfer of authority. Its attempt to impose the eight-hour day is especially revealing for Lederer, since it exposed the division between proletarian and bourgeois revolution while contributing to the council’s downfall.
The review follows this analysis with the council’s suppression and the prosecution of its members. Lederer values the trial narrative because it renders class antagonisms explicit and conscious.
Weiterhin enthält das Buch Aufzeichnungen über die Erlebnisse des Verfassers auf seiner Deportation nach Sibirien und seine Flucht.
English translation: Furthermore, the book contains records of the author's experiences during his deportation to Siberia and of his escape.
This brief notice locates the autobiographical continuation within the book’s broader documentary scope. Lederer also praises Sarudnaja-Kawoß’s drawings for bringing revolutionary individuals, crowds, and opponents to life. His final assessment gathers these political, analytical, and artistic dimensions into a single judgment:
Das Buch Trotzky wird immer als eines der wertvollsten Dokumente über die Anfänge der russischen Revolution gelten müssen: weil es von einem unmittelbar Beteiligten herrührt, aus einem prachtvollen Temperament heraus geschrieben ist, der Mannigfaltigkeit der Ereignisse gerecht wird und alle Zusammenhänge des Geschehens aus einer einheitlichen wissenschaftlichen Anschauung heraus begreift; dadurch wird es auch allen denen viel bieten, die den landläufigen Parteidarstellungen sonst nicht viel Geschmack abgewinnen können.
English translation: The book Trotzky will always have to be regarded as one of the most valuable documents on the beginnings of the Russian revolution: because it comes from one immediately involved, is written out of a magnificent temperament, does justice to the manifoldness of the events, and grasps all the interconnections of what happened from a unified scientific outlook; thereby it will also offer much to all those who otherwise can find little to their taste in the customary party accounts.
The review’s significance lies in this account of how a politically committed participant can produce knowledge of lasting value. Lederer does not treat commitment as sufficient in itself: he grounds his praise in the conjunction of firsthand access, attention to diverse events, expressive force, and a coherent explanatory framework.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian