How revolutionary were the Mensheviks?

[Leaf]

My Dad thinks they were reformists.

What do you all think?

Or was there too much variety in the Party to know what exactly the Party stood for since they believed in 'a large party of activists with broad representation'?

Or were they revolutionary but disagreed with Lenin who wanted a small group of professionals to lead the revolution?

Also, why exactly do you think Trotsky changed from the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks? He seemed so sure of his beliefs before the October revolution. Which of Lenin's arguments do you think convinced him to swap?

And who do you think was right - the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks? Who would you have sided with if you were there when they split? Who was right with hindsight?

Probably my lack of history knowledge, but I am curious to what you guys think.

Sorry if there's been a billion of these threads, the revleft search engine never turns up what I'm looking for. Also, I didn't know whether to put this in learning or history...?

[ComradeOm]

Your dad is right. The actions of the Mensheviks in 1917 - actively seeking to neuter soviet power, opposing the transfer of power to the soviets, openly aligning with Tsarist reactionaries in attempting to crush a popular revolution - reveal them to have been reformist at best


Or was there too much variety in the Party to know what exactly the Party stood for since they believed in 'a large party of activists with broad representation'?The Menshevik leadership (yes, they had one) and party apparatus took a fairly consistent line towards the revolution and the soviets. Their actions post-October were perfectly in character with their pre-October policies. Those individual Mensheviks who did disagree with the party leadership, ie who did support the transfer of power to the soviets, were able to leave the party and join the Bolsheviks. Many did so both before and after October


Or were they revolutionary but disagreed with Lenin who wanted a small group of professionals to lead the revolution?If they had been revolutionary then they would not have actively sought to bolster the Provisional Government or later oppose the Revolution. Simple, no?

As for a "small group of professionals", see here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russian-revolution-bolshevik-t105275/index.html) as to the actual composition and orientation of the Bolshevik party in 1917


And who do you think was right - the Mensheviks or the Bolsheviks? Who would you have sided with if you were there when they split? Who was right with hindsight?The question is even simpler: would you have opposed a popular revolution that demanded the transfer of power to democratically elected worker councils?

[Pogue]

The Mensheviks were reformists, although I think they did have quite a few revolutionary minded members.

I don't think it was a choice of either Mensheviks or Bolsheviks. Both had strategies which stifled the revolutionary potential of the Russian people. The Mensheviks wanted reforms which would have led to nothing and the Bolsheviks wanted to reproduce a new state which turned out to be pretty awful.

[ComradeOm]

I don't think it was a choice of either Mensheviks or Bolsheviks. Both had strategies which stifled the revolutionary potential of the Russian people. The Mensheviks wanted reforms which would have led to nothing and the Bolsheviks wanted to reproduce a new state which turned out to be pretty awful.The idea that you can somehow control/direct a proletariat that has achieved class conciousness, and is actively pushing its own revolutionary agenda, is the same intellectual vanity that distinguished and ultimately destroyed the Mensheviks. There was indeed a choice but it was not one to be made by Mensheviks or Bolsheviks (not to mention you or I) but rather by the Russian workers themselves

[robbo203]

The idea that you can somehow control/direct a proletariat that has achieved class conciousness, and is actively pushing its own revolutionary agenda, is the same intellectual vanity that distinguished and ultimately destroyed the Mensheviks. There was indeed a choice but it was not one to be made by Mensheviks or Bolsheviks (not to mention you or I) but rather by the Russian workers themselves

And yet it was the same intellectual vanity displayed by Lenin . See for example

Quote:
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

It can be exercised only by a vanguard …………

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)

[ComradeOm]

And yet it was the same intellectual vanity displayed by Lenin . See for example

Quote:
But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

It can be exercised only by a vanguard …………

http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)And what is this vanguard? According to Lenin it is naught but "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes" (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm)). In short what he is saying above is that the most militant and revolutionary elements of the working class must take the lead in revolutionary struggles. Simple, no?

But it is a timely reminder as to the nonsense of pretending that Menshevism, or indeed almost any other socialist strain, was a viable alternative to Bolshevism in 1917. These were not abstract choices that faced the Russian proletariat, not options on a poll or topics to be debated. The Bolshevik party of 1917 was a true vanguard party in that it contained within it the "most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive" members of the Russian proletariat. As long as this was the case it was the only viable avenue for revolution in Russia

[robbo203]

And what is this vanguard? According to Lenin it is naught but "the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive section of the oppressed classes" (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/01.htm)). In short what he is saying above is that the most militant and revolutionary elements of the working class must take the lead in revolutionary struggles. Simple, no?

But it is a timely reminder as to the nonsense of pretending that Menshevism, or indeed almost any other socialist strain, was a viable alternative to Bolshevism in 1917. These were not abstract choices that faced the Russian proletariat, not options on a poll or topics to be debated. The Bolshevik party of 1917 was a true vanguard party in that it contained within it the "most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive" members of the Russian proletariat. As long as this was the case it was the only viable avenue for revolution in Russia

It may or not be the case that there was no viable alternative to the Bolsheviks - I personally think you are mistaken in this regard -.but that is hardly the point, is it? The point is that the only viable role that the Bolsheviks could have played - notwithstanding that it was composed of the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive members of the Russian proletariat - was to carry out a bourgeois revolution and to establish state capitalism. Even if the material circumstances were propitious (and they were certainly not) there was no way communism could have been established when the overwhelming majority of the population (and I include also the small working class in this) were not communist minded.

The fate of the Bolsheviks in the absence of a strong bourgeois class was to take on a role functionally equivalent to that class, to carry out a bourgeois revolution in their stead and to provide the material for a new bourgeois class of state capitalists.

Marx summed it up rather well I thought

"If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule" (K Marx "The Moralising Critique and the Critical Moral" quoted in Karl Marx: Selected Writings in Sociology and Social Philosphy, ed. T B Bottomore and Miximilien Rubel, Penquin Books, 1963. p.244


He could easily have been talking about the Bolshevik Revolution

[ZeroNowhere]

He could easily have been talking about the Bolshevik RevolutionTo be honest, that's not an especially accurate description of the bolshie revolution. This is probably more accurate:

"All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of the rule of one class by the rule of another; but all ruling classes up to now have been only small minorities in relation to the ruled mass of the people. One ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state in its stead and refashioned the state institutions to suit its own interests. Thus on every occasion a minority group was enabled and called upon to rule by the given degree of economic development; and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution for the benefit of the former or else simply acquiesced in it. But if we disregard the concrete content in each case, the common form of all these revolutions was that they were minority revolutions. Even when the majority took part, it did so — whether wittingly or not — only in the service of a minority; but because of this, or even simply because of the passive, unresisting attitude of the majority, this minority acquired the appearance of being the representative of the whole people.

"As a rule, after the first great success, the victorious minority split; one half was satisfied with what had been gained, the other wanted to go still further, and put forward new demands, which, partly at least, were also in the real or apparent interest of the great mass of the people. In isolated cases these more radical demands were actually forced through, but often only for the moment; the more moderate party would regain the upper hand, and what had been won most recently would wholly or partly be lost again; the vanquished would then cry treachery or ascribe their defeat to accident. In reality, however, the truth of the matter was usually this: the achievements of the first victory were only safeguarded by the second victory of the more radical party; this having been attained, and, with it, what was necessary for the moment, the radicals and their achievements vanished once more from the stage."
-Engels.

Also, that Marx quote was from 'Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality', IIRC, which I recall being quoted by Martov.

[ComradeOm]

The point is that the only viable role that the Bolsheviks could have played - notwithstanding that it was composed of the most class-conscious, most energetic and most progressive members of the Russian proletariat - was to carry out a bourgeois revolution and to establish state capitalismWhich is the same vulgar determinism masquerading as Marxism that marked the Mensheviks. The reality is that in 1917 Russia experienced a popular socialist revolution and only a reactionary (and in revolutionary times all reformists are reactionaries) could actively set themselves against this in the same of some sacrosanct political dogma

But I want to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that the best course of action in 1917 was the Menshevik position of supporting the Provisional Government with a view to establishing a bourgeoisie state? In the process this would require you to attempt to first limit and later openly oppose, in alliance with Tsarist generals, the growth of the Soviet movement and the expressed will of the Russian proletariat?

[choff]

Also, why exactly do you think Trotsky changed from the Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks? He seemed so sure of his beliefs before the October revolution. Which of Lenin's arguments do you think convinced him to swap?


The book I'm reading right now suggests that the Mensheviki began making concessions to the bourgeoisie in order to hinder the movement of the Bolsheviks. The author goes on to say that this motivated Trotsky to make the switch, as he had already been leaning in a much more revolutionary direction than most of his Menshevik peers.

I'm not necessarily proposing this as an answer to your question, as I can't really say with any confidence that this book is in the right place at all ideologically. The author, John Reed, is an incredibly biased journalist it seems. Can anyone confirm or refute what he said? I'm not as well-versed on the politicking of the Russian Revolution as I'd like to be.

[robbo203]

Which is the same vulgar determinism masquerading as Marxism that marked the Mensheviks. The reality is that in 1917 Russia experienced a popular socialist revolution and only a reactionary (and in revolutionary times all reformists are reactionaries) could actively set themselves against this in the same of some sacrosanct political dogma?

Thats rubbish and you know it. It wasnt a socialist revolution. It did not lead to establishment of socialism but a system of state capitalism (even Lenin said state capitalism would be a step forward) and the vast majority of the population were by no stretch of the imagination socialist-minded i.e. they did not understand and want socialism. Socialism in any case could not possibly have been established even if there was the majority political will to establish it. Capitalism was the only available route for the Bolsheviks to take and that is precisely what they took.



But I want to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that the best course of action in 1917 was the Menshevik position of supporting the Provisional Government with a view to establishing a bourgeoisie state? In the process this would require you to attempt to first limit and later openly oppose, in alliance with Tsarist generals, the growth of the Soviet movement and the expressed will of the Russian proletariat?

You are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say the Menshevik position was the "best course of action in 1917". I was only countering your unsubstantiated claim that the only viable course of action lay with the Bolsheviks. I did not make a judgement as to the merits of any alternative course of action.

In the event it was the Bolsheviks to whom it fell the task of establishing a bourgeois state and the fact that the agents of the bolshevik bourgeois revolution were for the most part the russian working class is neither here nor there. It is the outcome of the revolution that determines its nature

[ComradeOm]

Thats rubbish and you know it. It wasnt a socialist revolutionWe've discussed this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-and-ussri-t101016/index.html?t=101016) (probably more than once, I keep confusing you with your partner in crime Dave_B) but I'm ready to revisit the topic once again if you wish. One condition of course: when it comes to history I tend to deal in historical fact rather than polemical quotes pruned from MIA or wild political judgements


You are misrepresenting what I said. I did not say the Menshevik position was the "best course of action in 1917". I was only countering your unsubstantiated claim that the only viable course of action lay with the Bolsheviks. I did not make a judgement as to the merits of any alternative course of actionI am asking for clarification as to your position. Like the Mensheviks you too reject the possibility of any outcome from the Russian Revolution other than capitalism, based on a ridiculously deterministic stagism, so I'd be interested in your reaction when faced with a popular proletarian revolution that sought to achieve exactly that


In the event it was the Bolsheviks to whom it fell the task of establishing a bourgeois state and the fact that the agents of the bolshevik bourgeois revolution were for the most part the russian working class is neither here nor there. It is the outcome of the revolution that determines its natureBullshit. Don't even try to pass that deterministic economicism off as historical materialism. Class analysis is not something to be discarded whenever you wish but rather the central plank of Marxist analysis. The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary proletarian party (in terms of policies and membership) who enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Russian proletariat. The question is why they ultimately failed but your sectarian assumptions, and gross determinism, preclude all study of that question. The Russian Revolution was a failure and therefore, in your mind, its main protagonists were always capitalist agents and their mass support was either illusionary or profoundly stupid :rolleyes:

[Revy]

The Bolshevik-Menshevik split was over party organization originally, and the introduction of Lenin's concepts of democratic centralism and the idea of the membership being restricted to a small core of "professional revolutionaries", with everyone else being "sympathizers".

This turned out to be a controversial issue among those that would become the Mensheviks. The issue came to a vote and Lenin had the majority ("bolshinstvo") and the opposition a minority ("menshinstvo"), thus the origin of the labels Bolshevik and Menshevik.

This is why Leon Trotsky joined the Mensheviks, he did not agree with Lenin's ideas at the time. He soon left the Mensheviks a year later, due to his disagreement with their insistence on an alliance with the liberals that opposed the Tsarist monarchy but did not oppose capitalism. He then became "non-factional" until 1917, when he joined the Mezhraiontsy, or Menshevik Internationalists, an anti-war revolutionary split from the Mensheviks, which would eventually merge into the Bolsheviks.

The original reason for the split was not in fact, reform vs. revolution. Therefore I am not sure if it is even fair to say that at the time of the split one faction was more or less revolutionary than the other. it just so happened that the Mensheviks became reformist.

[robbo203]

We've discussed this before (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-and-ussri-t101016/index.html?t=101016) (probably more than once, I keep confusing you with your partner in crime Dave_B) but I'm ready to revisit the topic once again if you wish. One condition of course: when it comes to history I tend to deal in historical fact rather than polemical quotes pruned from MIA or wild political judgements

The question of whether or not the Bolshevik revolution was a socialist revolution IS a matter of political judgement and not simply "historical fact". From a marxian perspective I would say quite definitely that that the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that that revolution was a capitalist revolution that established state capitalism. As I said before the nature of a revolution is determined by its outcome not its agents



I am asking for clarification as to your position. Like the Mensheviks you too reject the possibility of any outcome from the Russian Revolution other than capitalism, based on a ridiculously deterministic stagism, so I'd be interested in your reaction when faced with a popular proletarian revolution that sought to achieve exactly that

You were NOT asking for "clarification". You made a definite assertion viz:" But I want to be perfectly clear on this: you believe that the best course of action in 1917 was the Menshevik position of supporting the Provisional Government". Unless my grasp of grammar is defective that is a statement not a question.

I take a marxist perspective. irrespective of whether or not it coincided with a menshevik perspective. The only option available to the Bolsheviks was to establish or consolidate capitalism. Even Lenin recognised this. He just twisted the meaning of socialism to equate it with state capitalism for his own opportunist ends. Only idealists like you can think otherwise - that anything is possible at any time.

The preconditions for a establishing a socialist system were simply not in place in Russia in 1917. There was not the necessary material infrastructure to support such a society. There was no mass socialist consciousness or understanding. Support for Bolsheviks was predicated on their slogan of peace land and bread instead. All this is undeniable and you can continue to bury your head in the sand but that is not going to change the "historical facts" you keep wittering on about.

One final thing. It is not "stageism" to maintain that there are certain preconditions that need to met in order to establish socialism. These preconditions stem from the very nature of socialism(communism) itself



Bullshit. Don't even try to pass that deterministic economicism off as historical materialism. Class analysis is not something to be discarded whenever you wish but rather the central plank of Marxist analysis. The Bolsheviks were a revolutionary proletarian party (in terms of policies and membership) who enjoyed the overwhelming support of the Russian proletariat. The question is why they ultimately failed but your sectarian assumptions, and gross determinism, preclude all study of that question. The Russian Revolution was a failure and therefore, in your mind, its main protagonists were always capitalist agents and their mass support was either illusionary or profoundly stupid :rolleyes:

You are talking crap again. And misrepresenting again what I said -I didnt say the Bolsheviks did not have mass support amongst the (small) Russian proletariat, the all-importnat point was what that support was for. Class analysis is indeed a central plank of Marxist analysis but it is only someone woefully ignorant of Marxian analysis who can seriously contend that just becuase a revolution is carried out overwhelmingly by a proletariat that that in itself means the proletariat will be the primary beneficiaries . Allow me to quote Marx again on this point "If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule" . Note here that Marx too is talking about the material conditions that make necessary the abolition of bourgeois role. I suppose that makes him a proponent of "stageism" too:rolleyes:


The utter absurdity of your position can easily be exposed by a very simple example. In the late 1970s Margaret Thatcher came to power with a landslide. Overwhelmingly the people who put her in power were the British proletariat. Presumably by your daft logic that makes the conservative government a proletarian government:laugh::laugh:

You seem to have no inkling of the concept of false consciousness despite your pretensions to being a "marxist"

[ZeroNowhere]

Even Lenin recognised this. He just twisted the meaning of socialism to equate it with state capitalism for his own opportunist ends.Actually, Lenin said that Russia, though under state capitalism, still had to 'build socialism'.

Edit: As an aside, since this thread is to do with Mensheviks, you seem to agree with Martov on this issue, good on ya.

[ComradeOm]

The question of whether or not the Bolshevik revolution was a socialist revolution IS a matter of political judgement and not simply "historical fact". From a marxian perspective I would say quite definitely that that the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that that revolution was a capitalist revolution that established state capitalism. As I said before the nature of a revolution is determined by its outcome not its agentsThere is absolutely nothing Marxian about your perspective or analysis. You have completely ignored class analysis and historical study in order to further your own petty political agenda. The only "weight of evidence" that you have provided is your own ridiculous assertion that because the revolution failed it was never a revolution in the first place. You seem to believe that a mass movement in which the Russian proletariat called for the abolition of autocracy/capitalism and the establishment of workers' democracy, all while organising into a spontaneous network of workers' councils, was irrelevant. You pretend that the transfer of power to the soviets was not the central goal of both the Russian workers and the Bolshevik party during 1917. You label the latter as 'bourgeois' even though they were the one party to stand aside from the actual bourgeois state, possessed an overwhelmingly working class membership, and advocated the complete destruction of the capitalist class

In France 1789 it was bourgeois organs, bourgeois ideals, and the bourgeoisie in general that took the lead in tearing down the old order. In Russian 1917 it was proletarian organs, proletarian ideals, and the massed proletariat that carried out this socialist revolution. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, or even examine the actual events, preferring instead to pass down blind political judgements

You give a 'counterpoint' below regarding Margaret Thatcher so let me put this in perspective. I would indeed call Thatcher's rise to power socialist if she had campaigned on a revolutionary platform that included crushing the bourgeoisie, transferring all power to worker councils, wide ranging land reform, etc. 'Socialism' is not a matter of historical necessity propelling events forward but of concrete policies and support

And this brief example ignores the very issue of class conciousness. Are you seriously contending that the British proletariat of the 1980s was as militant, as revolutionary, and as aware of that of the Russian proletariat of 1917? I've used this term a lot when dealing with you but such a position is indeed ridiculous


I take a marxist perspective. irrespective of whether or not it coincided with a menshevik perspective. The only option available to the Bolsheviks was to establish or consolidate capitalism. Even Lenin recognised this. He just twisted the meaning of socialism to equate it with state capitalism for his own opportunist ends. Only idealists like you can think otherwise - that anything is possible at any timeThat's all I wanted. You are in agreement with the Mensheviks on this issue


There was no mass socialist consciousness or understanding. Support for Bolsheviks was predicated on their slogan of peace land and bread insteadYou insolent bastard. Did you just write off the entire soviet movement on the basis that the Russian proletariat had no understanding of their material circumstances and were incapable of taking independent action?

You are telling me, and this is not a question, that the entire soviet movement - one that saw the establishment of a network of worker councils across Russia, the election of factory and military committees, the articulation of revolutionary demands by a militant proletariat - did not indicate the development of a "mass socialist conciousness". Instead the poor Russian workers were to be duped by the cunning Bolsheviks and their simple promise of "Peace, Bread, and Land"

Aside from your complete lack of any historical knowledge (no doubt your long forgotten school lessons did not cover "All Power to the Soviets") and extremely tenuous grasp of Marxism ('false conciousness' is more than a buzzword to be used to dismiss movements you do not approve of) your position is... well fuck it. If someone else wants to shovel this shit then let them. Personally I'm done with you robbo203, your Marxist pretensions, and your anti-worker attitude. I'm no longer going to waste my time on someone who actually takes pride in his ignorance

[h9socialist]

Comrades --

This discussion is getting carried away, and not serving a terribly useful purpose. If this was a historical society I could see the point in it. But you're arguing over factional issues that divided the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party over 90 years ago . . . Chill out! Factionalism always has been the poison of the Left. I happen to think that each faction serves its purpose -- and ways need to be found to establish common ground and goals. We have enough factional problems today, without borrowing from a century ago. The lesson I draw from the Bolshevik-Menshevik split is that not long after to October Revolution its only relevance was to historians.

[h9socialist]

Comrades --

This discussion is getting carried away, and not serving a terribly useful purpose. If this was a historical society I could see the point in it. But you're arguing over factional issues that divided the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party over 90 years ago . . . Chill out! Factionalism always has been the poison of the Left. I happen to think that each faction serves its purpose -- and ways need to be found to establish common ground and goals. We have enough factional problems today, without borrowing from a century ago. The lesson I draw from the Bolshevik-Menshevik split is that not long after to October Revolution its only relevance was to historians.

[robbo203]

There is absolutely nothing Marxian about your perspective or analysis. You have completely ignored class analysis and historical study in order to further your own petty political agenda. The only "weight of evidence" that you have provided is your own ridiculous assertion that because the revolution failed it was never a revolution in the first place. You seem to believe that a mass movement in which the Russian proletariat called for the abolition of autocracy/capitalism and the establishment of workers' democracy, all while organising into a spontaneous network of workers' councils, was irrelevant. You pretend that the transfer of power to the soviets was not the central goal of both the Russian workers and the Bolshevik party during 1917. You label the latter as 'bourgeois' even though they were the one party to stand aside from the actual bourgeois state, possessed an overwhelmingly working class membership, and advocated the complete destruction of the capitalist class

Here we go again. Im losing count of the number of times that you have claimed I have supposed to have said this or implied that when I manifestly haven't. Look at this one -"The only "weight of evidence" that you have provided is your own ridiculous assertion that because the revolution failed it was never a revolution in the first place" Bollocks. I said quite clearly- not once but several times - that it was a bourgeois or capitalist revolution. How for christ sakes can that possibly be construed as me suggesting it was "never a revolution in the first place" . You say I "pretend" that the transfer of power to the soviets was not a central goal of the Russian workers & the Bolshies. But I didnt even say anything about this so what the fuck are you on about? Soviet is just a Russian word for council, it doesnt signify socialism. Next one - Ive "ignored" Marxian class analysis. Really ? Even though I provided you with a quote from Marx (which I note you have conveniently ignored) which vindicates my position on the class nature of revolution. Then you come out with a few little porkies. Like this one - The Bolsheviks were the " one party to stand aside from the actual bourgeois state, possessed an overwhelmingly working class membership, and advocated the complete destruction of the capitalist class". Really? Are you quite sure of that? So how come Lenin said this:

Get down to business all of you! You will have capitalists beside you, including foreign capitalists, concessionaires and leaseholders. They will squeeze profits out of you amounting to hundreds per cent; they will enrich themselves, operating alongside of you. Let them, Meanwhile you will learn from them the business of running an economy, and only when you do that will you be able to build up a communist republic. (Collected Works, Vol. 33 page 72)

So, come on, smartarse - wriggle you way out that one. As for the Bolshies being the "one" party to stand aside from the bourgeois state and to be overwhelmingly comprised of workers - yes, it was comprised overwhelmingly of workers (though it wasnt the only one) and yes it stood aside from bourgeois state pre 1917. But so what? The the role of the Bolsheviks was to refashion the bourgeois state along state capitalist lines. In state capitalism - precisely what Lenin was explicitly pushing for - the state capitalist class perfomed the role functionally equivalent to the old bourgeois class - monopolising the means of production to the exclusion of the proletarian majority. They were as someone aptly called them the "red bourgeoisie"



In France 1789 it was bourgeois organs, bourgeois ideals, and the bourgeoisie in general that took the lead in tearing down the old order. In Russian 1917 it was proletarian organs, proletarian ideals, and the massed proletariat that carried out this socialist revolution. Yet you refuse to acknowledge this, or even examine the actual events, preferring instead to pass down blind political judgements

I have already explained to you umpteen times that it really does not matter who carries out the revolution- it is what the revolutuion accomplishes that defines its character. Look again at the quote from Marx that I provided,. So I am not "refusing" to acknowlegde that the Russian revolution was carried out overwhelmingly by workers. Why do you persist with this silly argument? What I am refusing to acknowledge is that it led to socialism. It did not lead to socialism. It lead to state capitalism. Therefore it was a capitalist revolution. Now why dont you acknowlege that ? You said the revolution failed. So what do you think its outcome was if not capitalism



You give a 'counterpoint' below regarding Margaret Thatcher so let me put this in perspective. I would indeed call Thatcher's rise to power socialist if she had campaigned on a revolutionary platform that included crushing the bourgeoisie, transferring all power to worker councils, wide ranging land reform, etc. 'Socialism' is not a matter of historical necessity propelling events forward but of concrete policies and support

You are wriggling on the hook and you know it. My point was simply that the mere fact a political party enjoyed overwhelming proletarian support does not make it a proletarian party. This was the case with the Bolsheviks. But it is you , let me remind you ,who kept wittering on about the Bolshies being a proletarian party because it was supported by proletarians. I merely called your bluff with the example of MaggieThatcher so now you are backpeddling desparately trying to evade the implications of your own argument. You say what would make Thatcher's rise to power "socialist" is if she campaigned for socialism. So you now concede that it is not the fact that a party is supported by workers that makes it a proletarian party as opposed to a capitalist party.

As for the claim that Margaret Thatcher would be a socialist if she had campaigned on a revolutionary platform that included crushing the bourgeoisie, transferring all power to worker councils, wide ranging land reform, there is nothing in this, that suggests that it would be socialism. Socialism is a classless society for starters which means that there would not be a working a class or a capitalist class. It is illogical to suggest that the bourgeoisie can be crushed - eliminated as a class - while the working class remain and as is implied in your notion of workers councils. The one implies the existence of the other. The existence of a working class in your version of "socialism" implies the existence of a capitalist class - heavily camouflaged ,no doubt, by the usual leninist bullshit about it being the so called vanguard of the proletariat




That's all I wanted. You are in agreement with the Mensheviks on this issue

Well thats rich. First you accuse me of beleiving that the "best course of action in 1917 was the Menshevik position of supporting the Provisional Government". Then when I pointed out I said no such thing you said you were merely "seeking clarification". And now you say I agree with the Mensheviks on this issuethis. But this still does not that I believe "the best course of action in 1917 was the Menshevik position of supporting the Provisional Government" does it now. I suppose it is too much to ask for a retraction of your earlier comment.



You insolent bastard. Did you just write off the entire soviet movement on the basis that the Russian proletariat had no understanding of their material circumstances and were incapable of taking independent action?

You are telling me, and this is not a question, that the entire soviet movement - one that saw the establishment of a network of worker councils across Russia, the election of factory and military committees, the articulation of revolutionary demands by a militant proletariat - did not indicate the development of a "mass socialist conciousness". Instead the poor Russian workers were to be duped by the cunning Bolsheviks and their simple promise of "Peace, Bread, and Land"

Aside from your complete lack of any historical knowledge (no doubt your long forgotten school lessons did not cover "All Power to the Soviets") and extremely tenuous grasp of Marxism ('false conciousness' is more than a buzzword to be used to dismiss movements you do not approve of) your position is... well fuck it. If someone else wants to shovel this shit then let them. Personally I'm done with you robbo203, your Marxist pretensions, and your anti-worker attitude. I'm no longer going to waste my time on someone who actually takes pride in his ignorance

OK lets look at this. Your arguments have knocked down one by one. You have more egg on your face than a battery of hens at Bernard Matthews could possibly provide. So you feel pretty miffed. Understandable. So you lash out in out in a little temper tantrum. "you insolent bastard". Water off a ducks back, mate. I couldnt care a toss about your shovelling shit simile either. You are obviously pretty familiar with the stuff anyway. My concern is not with your all too obvious penchant for the odd little petulant outburst when you gigantic ego has been pricked, but with the arguments you present such as they are

I just happen to think your whole outlook is profoundly mistaken and false. Do I think the Bolshevik revolution was based on mass socialist conscionsess? No I emphatically do not. Anyone who seriously thinks so must have their head buried in the sand. Even among the small Russian working class this was the case as Lenin himself pointed out. In an addresss to the trade unions in 1918 he said "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). There are several other quotes to the same effect. And of course the proletariat was only a small fraction of the total population who were overwhelming peasant and overwhelmingly had no real understanding of or desire for socialism. The support that the Bolsheviks attacted was clearly not for socialism as such but essentially for its reformist programme. The slogan "Peace Land and Bread" was a far bigger motivating factor than ever genuine socialism was,

Does that mean there was no awareness of socialism at all in the ranks of the Bolshevik Party. Of course not. There were Bolsheviks who clearly understood that socialism would entail the end of commodity production for example. I think it was Bukharin who wrote the ABC of Marxism which correctly described socialism as a society without money, classes, markets and the state. Some of these individuals came into conflict with Lenin who was pushing for the development of state capitalism.

The fact of the matter is - and try and argue against this as you might but you cannot get round it - Russia was nowhere near ready for a socialist revolution. The mass understanding was not there and when I say mass understanding I am not referring to the "understanding of their material circumstances" ; I am referring to the understanding of what socialism is about and the desire to establish it. Not only was this absent but so too were the material conditions - the technological potential - to support a socialist society. If you deny this then I challenge you to substantiate your claim that there was a a "mass socialist conciousness" in existence at the time of the Bolshevik Revolutuion

You all too ready to arrogantlyt dismiss others for there supposed "lack of any historical knowledge". Well now Mr Know-It-All, how about you demonstrating for once that you possess such a knowlege by rising to my challenge I have issued. Somehow I have the feeling that it aint gonna happen.

[robbo203]

You are telling me, and this is not a question, that the entire soviet movement - one that saw the establishment of a network of worker councils across Russia, the election of factory and military committees, the articulation of revolutionary demands by a militant proletariat - did not indicate the development of a "mass socialist conciousness". Instead the poor Russian workers were to be duped by the cunning Bolsheviks and their simple promise of "Peace, Bread, and Land"

For a more reasoned and factually accurate of the extent of socialist consciousness in Russia in 1917 and the role of the soviets than the essentially romanticised and completely misleading picture presented here have a look at the following:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/rrbdandltv.html

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/once/iwg.html

http://libcom.org/library/kronstadt-bolshevik-propaganda

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2419/lensta


The soviets were not all that democratic but were typically organised in top-down fashion. The Bolsheviks merely continued with and indeed consolidated this top-down tradition. There were exceptions of course like the Krondstadt soviet which was ruthlessly crushed by the Bolsheviks (on the patently false pretext that it was linked with a White uprising) as part of the general trend towards the complete subordination and emasculation of the the soviets to the Bolshevik one-party state capitalist dictatorship. The workers carried out a revolution,certainly, but not with a view to establishing genuine socialism in the main. It is clearly a delusion to think otherwise. At most you might call it a radicalised rejection of capitalist forms of oppresion or a desire to bring capitalism under the control of workers, not really to get rid of the wages system (aka capitalism)as such. More positively, it was motivated by the slogan "Peace Land and Bread". The Bolsheviks capitalised on the workers ferment and bit by bit subordinated it to their goal: the establishment of a state capitalist system of society. To that extent, yes, the workers were objectively duped by the Bolsheviks. But it is not as simple as that. The Bolsheviks themselves were duped by their own ideas which have plainly been falsified by history

[ZeroNowhere]

Look, I have no problem with debating this subject, but please keep the personal attacks to PMs. If you can't, then perhaps you should try debating something less demanding, like whether Stalin had a moustache.


In an addresss to the trade unions in 1918 he said "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). There are several other quotes to the same effect.
Perhaps more directly:
"What we see in the Ukraine and in Finland may serve as an example: the incredible atrocities and the seas of blood in which the bourgeoisie and its supporters, from the Constitutional-Democrats to the Socialist-Revolutionaries, are drowning the towns they conquer with the aid of their allies. All this goes to show what awaits the proletariat in the future if it does not fulfil its historic task. We know how small is the section of advanced and politically conscious workers in Russia. We also know the plight of the people and know that the broad masses are certain to realise that we cannot get out of the situation by half-measures, that there will have to be a proletarian revolution. We live at a time when countries are being ruined and millions of people are doomed to perish or subjected to military slavery. Hence, the revolution that history has forced on us, not by the evil will of individuals, but because the entire capitalist system is breaking up, because its foundations are cracking." (from 1918, here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/23.htm))

[ComradeOm]

Comrades --

This discussion is getting carried away, and not serving a terribly useful purpose. If this was a historical society I could see the point in it. But you're arguing over factional issues that divided the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party over 90 years ago . . . Chill out! Factionalism always has been the poison of the Left. I happen to think that each faction serves its purpose -- and ways need to be found to establish common ground and goals. We have enough factional problems today, without borrowing from a century ago. The lesson I draw from the Bolshevik-Menshevik split is that not long after to October Revolution its only relevance was to historians.The great crime of the Mensheviks was not the relatively minor organisational disputes with Lenin (although one could argue that they did stem from that) but that when the most impressive workers' revolution of the 20th C (or indeed any century!) took place in 1917 they consciously allied themselves with counter-revolutionary Tsarist officers and set themselves against the Russian proletariat. Now some of this is no doubt due to historical issues but their own theoretical orientation must also be blamed for the Mensheviks' growing disconnection from the proletariat. The grossly deterministic belief that a socialist revolution was impossible in Russia led the Mensheviks into an uneasy alliance with the Provisional Government and later war with the proletariat

Its unfortunate but this theoretical error is continually still made today by those who have no faith in the working class and remain isolated from it. Historical materialism is not an exact science ("a guide to study, not a lever for construction", to quote Engels) and it is vulgar Marxism of the worst degree to ignore actual material conditions and assign roles based on predetermined political expectations or 'historical necessity'. I call this 'academic Marxism' as Marxism removed from the working class is nothing but an intellectual exercise. This perversity, Marxist in name but anti-worker in reality, evidently still exists today and it must be made clear that there is absolutely no room for it within the workers' movement

To use one of my favourite Marx quotes:
"History does nothing, possesses no enormous wealth, fights no battles. It is rather man, the real, living man, who does everything, possesses, fights. It is not History, as if she were a person apart, who uses men as a means to work out her purposes, but history itself is nothing but the activity of men pursuing their purposes."