Bolshevism or Menshevism?

[Rousedruminations]

We all know that Lenin who was the leader of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian socialist party at the time before the revolution and through joint efforts with other Bolshevik factional/party members, succeeded in eliminating the Mensheviks !!

While both factions believed that a bourgeois democratic revolution was necessary, the Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate) and were more positive towards the "mainstream" liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) opposition. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, preferred collaboration with other radicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical) and with the peasantry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasantry).

Bolsheviks (or "the Majority") were an organization of professional revolutionaries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_revolutionaries) under a strict internal hierarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy) governed by the principle of democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism) and quasi-military discipline (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_discipline), who considered themselves as a vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proletariat). Their beliefs and practices were often referred to as Bolshevism.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsheviks#cite_note-4) The party was founded by Vladimir Lenin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin), who also led it in the October Revolution.

The Bolsheviks believed in organizing the party in a strongly centralized hierarchy that sought to overthrow the Tsar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar) and achieve power. Although the Bolsheviks were not completely monolithic, they were characterized by a rigid adherence to the leadership of the central committee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Committee_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_So viet_Union), based on the notion of democratic centralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_centralism). The Mensheviks favored open party membership and espoused cooperation with the other socialist and some non-socialist groups in Russia. Bolsheviks generally refused to co-operate with liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism) or radical parties (which they labeled "bourgeois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bourgeois)") or even eventually other socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist) organisations, although Lenin sometimes made tactical alliances.


During the days of the Cold War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War) in the United Kingdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom), labour union leaders and other leftists were sometimes derisively described as "Bolshie". The usage is roughly equivalent to the term "Commie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commie)", "Red (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist)" or "pinko (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinko)" in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) during the same period. However these days it is often used to describe a difficult or rebellious person e.g.:"Timothy, don't be so bolshie!" An alternative spelling is "bolshy". (Collins Mini Dictionary, 1998)

This is what needs to be given greater meaning in our world.... in Russia and more Socialist countries, a belligerent stance where Passiveness is at minimum, hostile tensions would increase with other capitalist countries and the western world ........but their needs to be a resurgence of Socialism, the old Russia and communism and at whatever cost ! Once again, American needs to tremble with fear and anxiety !...... So i believe to re-assert communism, Socialism and to defy American Imperialism and dominance..... Bolshevism should be re-asserted once again to put capitalism in its place and the New Progressive and infiltrating foreign American policies at bay....

So comrades Bolshevism or Menshevism is my question ? What is the current Russian Government under right now ? and whether a drastic change should occur ? I believe that Bolshevism should be adopted, and that a tougher more assertive tone should be voiced out of Russia so Captialist countries tremble at the strength of Russia's power, Communism/Socialism which they had before 1991... Russia needs a new radical approach similar to the Bolshevik Party, radical meaning extreme assertiveness of their own sovereignty and military power !

[Chapter 24]

So comrades Bolshevism or Menshevism is my question ?

Well for Russia in 1917, Bolshevism. But it's 2009.


What is the current Russian Government under right now ?

It is a capitalist oligarchy.


I believe that Bolshevism should be adopted, and that a tougher more assertive tone should be voiced out of Russia so Captialist countries tremble at the strength of Russia's power, Communism/Socialism which they had before 1991... Russia needs a new radical approach similar to the Bolshevik Party, radical meaning extreme assertiveness of their own sovereignty and military power !

My emphasis added. In the bold you contradict yourself because on the one hand you are vaguely correct that Russia needs a change, that certainly is true. But Russia is under entirely different conditions now than it was over ninety years ago. That being said, Bolshevism was the communist approach taken in that time, but trying to add on to the ideals of a "Bolshevik Party" is pointless. A modern communist movement under Russia needs to be built upon rather than a strictly Bolshevik one.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Menshevism equals treason and surrender to the capitalist ruling class.

Bolshevism is the ideal way of achieving Communism and power to the People.

[Soviet]

A modern communist movement under Russia needs to be built upon rather than a strictly Bolshevik one.
Bolshevism is a policy of struggle,menshevism is a policy of indulgence.What new kind of policy can you think up?

[ComradeOm]

Russia needs a new radical approach similar to the Bolshevik Party, radical meaning extreme assertiveness of their own sovereignty and military power !And since when was this the definition of 'radical'? 'Nationalist' seems more appropriate a label for what you envisage

[Rousedruminations]

Nationalism however patriotic in an individual, can provoke an individual and hence the collective masses in a nation to attack offensively against the insinuating US policies to mitigate Socialist Countries and the Russian influence that was once felt, in Europe. The degree of nationalism, can be differnet, as there are different levels yet we must ascertain that a 'Radical Nationalistic and a Patriotic' approach of vigor can be of use in a revolutionary struggle. For example we have moderately nationalistic people, and some Russians who will do what ever it takes, sacrifice their own life for the sovereignty of their own country, and the conscripting of soiliders in the military shows that of course....

The Extremism and Radicalism in Nationalism is needed,in communist comrades like ourselves and the politicians who supposedly represent a socialist alternative or communism. ......it is our duty therefore in each country that is to incorporate this nationalistic pride in Communism and Marxism. This coupling helps the struggle against imperialism as well as all forms of Capitalism..

Yet the Mensheviks were too moderate, soft-hearted, conceding to the West, its own imperialism and capitalism, it is because of this stance ! that America could bite back at Russia and spread its global dominance...

And of course, during the time of the revolutionary and before that The Bolsheviks were not the 'majority', ironically they were almost always outnumbered in the Russian Socialist party..... Hence it was Vladimir Illich or Lenin's Stubborness, Dogma in his belief of Bolshevism and utmost tenacity/determination that led to the overthrowing of the Tsar and Capitalism...

So it is in my belief as other comrades have said that Bolsheivism should be revived in Russia, Gorbachev after all conceded that it was his realized disillusioned belief in Lenin's ideologies and the facitonal party of Bolshevism that led to his ties and affiliation to the west and his much more softer tone with capitalist.. after that it led to the breaking away of ' Old Russia'... If this stance was NOT taken, could Russia be more prominent and potent today !?!?!

Well lets not say that we should strictly stick to Bolshevism, but a more authoritarian, inflexible and radial approach should sweep the Russian government now.. ridding itself of indulgent moderates like the Mensheviks who sit on the fence and are indecisive about what to do, moderation after all is a neutrality that provides no expedited developement..

[CommieCat]

Nationalism however patriotic in an individual, can provoke an individual and hence the collective masses in a nation to embark in not defensively defending their country by outside foreign policy to undermine the strength, power and potency that the Soviet Union once had before 1991 but to attack offensively against the insinuating US policies to mitigate Socialist Countries and the Russian influence that was once felt, in Europe. The degree of nationalism, can be differnet, as there are different levels yet we must ascertain that a 'Radical Nationalistic and a Patriotic' approach of vigor can be of use in a revolutionary struggle. For example we have moderately nationalistic people, and some Russians who will do what ever it takes, sacrifice their own life for the sovereignty of their own country, and the conscripting of soiliders in the military shows that of course....

The Extremism and Radicalism in Nationalism is needed,in communist comrades like ourselves and the politicians who supposedly represent a socialist alternative or communism. ......it is our duty therefore in each country that is to incorporate this nationalistic pride in Communism and Marxism. This coupling helps the struggle against imperialism as well as all forms of Capitalism..

Yet the Mensheviks were too moderate, soft-hearted, conceding to the West, its own imperialism and capitalism, it is because of this stance ! that America could bite back at Russia and spread its global dominance...

And of course, during the time of the revolutionary and before that The Bolsheviks were not the 'majority', ironically they were almost always outnumbered in the Russian Socialist party..... Hence it was Vladimir Illich or Lenin's Stubborness, Dogma in his belief of Bolshevism and utmost tenacity/determination that led to the overthrowing of the Tsar and Capitalism...

So it is in my belief as other comrades have said that Bolsheivism should be revived in Russia, Gorbachev after all conceded that it was his realized disillusioned belief in Lenin's ideologies and the facitonal party Bolshevism that led to his ties and affiliation to the west and much more softer tone.. after that led to the breaking away of ' Old Russia'... If this stance was NOT taken, could Russia be more prominent and potent today !?!?!

Well lets not say that we should strictly stick to Bolshevism, but a more authoritarian, inflexible and radial approach should sweep the Russian government now.. ridding itself of indulgent moderates the Mensheviks who sit on the fence and are indecisive about what to do, moderation after all is a neutrality that provides no expedited developement.. Briefly, this is unmitigated shit.

[Chapter 24]

Bolshevism is a policy of struggle,menshevism is a policy of indulgence.What new kind of policy can you think up?

The OP is suggesting we need a "new" Bolshevism. If this means a modern communist movement more suitable to modern Russian society, then of course I agree. But building a party along a Bolshevik Party line would only do more harm than good. And unless that modern communist movement only goes so far as crowds of old former Soviet citizens carrying portraits of Stalin while singing the Hymn to the CCCP, then that is a problem.

[Kassad]

Well, nationalism is slightly better than corporate imperialism. Radical nationalists, at the very least, want to use the resources for the coutnry they are so rabidly in support of. People will still be exploited, but at least their resources are being used for the people in the nation and not trans-national corporate interests. Not saying much, but anything is preferable to American corporate domination.

What some of you are advocating is rabid nationalism which fuels xenophobia and a divisive view on society. It places people high on a hierarchy of nations and claims that 'their' nation is supreme to someone else's. This, regardless of intention, will result in manipulation and a rabid nationalist fervor. It's quite disgusting, really, as a man who has seen far too many "America: Love it or leave it!" bumper stickers.

I'm a big supporter of Lenin's Bolsheviks. They were revolutionary socialists who ignited one of the largest mass-scale revolutions to date. The Mensheviks were merely in support of moderate and often reformist appeasement. In attempting to participate in the Duma and convince bourgeois politicians to support the proletariat, they were manipulated and totally lost sight of things.

Unfortunately, these terms do not apply to the extent that we wish they did. Bolshevism and Menshevism are not terms that will be revived, as each nation has a different level of class consciousness and revolutionary potential, so each nation will require a different form of solution. Our duty is to organize and educate so we can find out what the best possible solution is.

[JimmyJazz]

Bolshevism is a policy of struggle,menshevism is a policy of indulgence.What new kind of policy can you think up?

Well, that's how a Bolshevik would spin it obviously. :rolleyes:

The difference is in the Mensheviks' stageism. The Bolsheviks did not share it (and neither did Trotsky, which is why he joined them).

And, while I am not some dogmatic stageist--if I were, I would support the strike bans and general policy of 'capitalist development' in Nepal, which I absolutely don't--but I think most of us can agree that the Bolshevik experiment of building Marxist, working class socialism in a backward country turned out rather shitty for 90% of the country's population, the peasantry.

The whole idea of basing ourselves on "Bolshevism vs. Menshevism" is absurd. Most of us here live in the handful of the most thoroughly industrialized countries in the world. And 100 years have gone by to boot. A 1903 split in the Russian Social-Democratic Party could not be less relevant today.

[Rousedruminations]

‘philosophers have only interpreted the world differently – the point is to change it.’- Karl Marx

Bolshevism is a policy of ' Struggle' and Menshevism is a policy of 'Indulgence, moderation and 'stageism'. The difference is that Bolshevism incorporates the word struggle, and according to Marx it is adequate to interpret it differently and speak of it, but the point is to change it !

Karl Marx said that we can intepret it differently yet we should change it ?

Yet how does this change occur, and in what way does it manifest itself. Again i will accentuate what i said above,



Menshevism as stated above by Jimmy Jazz, is just pure stageism, they talk about about interpreting the world and stage it, yet putting into action can only change it! they became very deluded by the idea of a class struggle, and moderates who did not appreciate fully the benefits of taking a radical and extremist approach, as neutrality on the issue can only instill apathy and stagnance...

So therefore, a Menshevik style approach which i believe was taken during the 1990's and even now, is making Russia suffer in its dominance over old soviet countries, like Georgia, Ukraine and the others and thus world dominance. Even if some say that Bolshevism is outdated and obsolete, it is an approach what is desperately needed now ..

" The Bolsheviks, were revolutionary socialists who ignited one of the largest mass-scale revolutions to date. The Mensheviks were merely in support of moderate and often reformist appeasement. In attempting to participate in the Duma and convince bourgeois politicians to support the proletariat, they were manipulated and totally lost sight of things "

Exactly, reformist appeasement and pacification with the West and Capialist countries such as America, is just pure Menshevism, absolutely no alliance with the bourgeoise or
capitalists who indirectly and subtly support the proletariat because eventually they will delude, manipulate politicians who come close to representing Bolshevism. Since Stalin, Bolshevism was enforced yet he took it to the extreme and was in it for personal power, after that, things became mitigated precisely because of this reason the advocacy of moderate and often reformist appeasement.

And Kassad's sympathy that these words should be used for highlighting the different approaches now days should be applauded because i stand by him !... and this should be noted when relating to Russia's current political dilemma inside its government...

He also states that each approach would have brought out different forms of class consciousness as a revolutionary potential .. but achieving a revolution through Menshevism ? NO ! it wouldn't work.....couldn't work and will not work......

Menshivism MOST PROBABLY relates to the Unionist that operate in certain countries, condoning 'Workers rights', as the facade of a fighter for the 'proletariat' they are allied and affiliated with the bourgeise of society.... Does that involve a revolution ? a complete class struggle ... no ! it doesn't .. so its only Bolsheivism comrades !

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Menshevism" was too diverse to be considered a coherent political whole. It was a combination of elements of Iskra, Rabocheye Delo, the Bund, and later on Liquidators and Defencists.

As for the OP, we don't need a revival of Bolshevism or "Menshevism," per se, but rather a modern application of what Bolshevism and the more left-leaning elements of Menshevism belonged to: the Kautskyan Marxist center (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1203523&postcount=32).

[Soviet]

we need a "new" Bolshevism.And what is it?Is anybody know what is a "new"Bolshevism?



But Russia is under entirely different conditions now than it was over ninety years ago.So what have changed?Can you explane it clearly?

[proudhon10]

This debate ended in the 1920s. Bolsheviks won, for better or for worse. Mensheviks were all killed or fled. They do not exist as a political movement.

[Blackscare]

So what have changed?Can you explane it clearly?


Come on, that's just silly. Obviously modern Russia is MUCH more industrialized and "ready" to start a proletarian revolution in earnest (seeing as they actually *have* a large proletariat now). They wouldn't need to go about building themselves up from a backward agricultural state into a modern power.


Things are certainly different in modern Russia. Russia, back in the day, was just about the least ideal starting point for a communist revolution that one could imagine.

[LOLseph Stalin]

And unless that modern communist movement only goes so far as crowds of old former Soviet citizens carrying portraits of Stalin while singing the Hymn to the CCCP, then that is a problem.

lol at that! And yes, if Russia's revolutionary movement is to be successful it'll need a party equalivant to the Bolshevik party, in fact probably more because Russia has something now it didn't have during the first revolution: industry. With this increased industry there would likely be increased resistance among the Bourgeoisie as well.

[NecroCommie]

Modern revolution starts from the third- and so called "second"-world, spreading into the more developed countries. The entire discussion is pointless, because it divides ideas into black and white. Such is only the way of idealism, and idealism is harmful to the working class movement.