The Official Position of the Mensheviks

[RedSunsZenith]

I've been reading a lot on Bolshevism lately, and have found, particularly from Lenin, a heavy criticism of the Mensheviks. However, Lenin never really explains the position of this group. Can someone explain it to me?

[thesadmafioso]

It swayed and altered quite a bit, making it rather hard to affix any solid policy to their politics, but Trotsky provided a rather good assessment of their general leanings when he termed them as the 'soft' branch of the Russian Social Democratic Party.

They were often hampered by tendencies towards social democracy as opposed to revolution, and in 1917 the party even went so far as to post ministers to the bourgeois provisional government. This following their trend of participation in bourgeois government which goes back to 1905 when they immediately participated in the Duma elections. They also maintained an image of the party as a rather inclusive and loosely ordered political organization with a vague intent, as compared to Lenin's decisive goal of creating a vanguard party of disciplined and committed revolutionaries set on revolutionary agitation.

[Dave B]

It has been done on the history thread where from post 17; I provide historical facts, from a selection of historical witness statements from Bolsheviks, as opposed to froth and unsubstantiated garbage gleaned from modern lying Leninist historians, who out do the bourgeois ones.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolsheviks-and-mensheviks-t159756/index.html


The ‘appointment’ of Menshevik ministers by the party is at the very least a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The Menshevik centre and its ‘leaders’ who were still making their way back to Russia, eg Martov, were opposed to the idea of entering the provisional revolutionary government as they always had been.

It was Bolshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

It was against Menshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

The Mensheviks had opposed the Bolsheviks because of their longstanding policy of entering the provisional revolutionary government.

In fact that always been one of their principle points of disagreement ie how to react during the anticipated bourgeois democratic revolution.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the Bolsheviks who were in Russia in February/March/April eg Stalin backed the first PRG which was more egregious in make up than the later one(s).

The reason the Bolsheviks were not invited to participate in the later provisional revolutionary government(s) was because they were believed at the time to be being financed and bankrolled from Berlin, true as it turned out.

And that they had ambitions to seize power in a military coup and usurp the constituent assembly, which they did in October- January 1917-18.

[A Marxist Historian]

It has been done on the history thread where from post 17; I provide historical facts, from a selection of historical witness statements from Bolsheviks, as opposed to froth and unsubstantiated garbage gleaned from modern lying Leninist historians, who out do the bourgeois ones.


http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolsheviks-and-mensheviks-t159756/index.html


The ‘appointment’ of Menshevik ministers by the party is at the very least a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The Menshevik centre and its ‘leaders’ who were still making their way back to Russia, eg Martov, were opposed to the idea of entering the provisional revolutionary government as they always had been.

It was Bolshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

It was against Menshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

The Mensheviks had opposed the Bolsheviks because of their longstanding policy of entering the provisional revolutionary government.

In fact that always been one of their principle points of disagreement ie how to react during the anticipated bourgeois democratic revolution.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the Bolsheviks who were in Russia in February/March/April eg Stalin backed the first PRG which was more egregious in make up than the later one(s).

The reason the Bolsheviks were not invited to participate in the later provisional revolutionary government(s) was because they were believed at the time to be being financed and bankrolled from Berlin, true as it turned out.

And that they had ambitions to seize power in a military coup and usurp the constituent assembly, which they did in October- January 1917-18.

Dave B. is, quite simply, lying like a rug, and echoing the classic counterrevolutionary lying capitalist slander against the Bolsheviks as "German spies."

Martov led the minority within the Mensheviks which opposed the Menshevik policy of joining and supporting Kerensky's provisional government. He split out and formed a separate organization called the Menshevik-Internationalists, the name because he also opposed the war. The Menshevik majority supported the war.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, the Mensheviks moved a bit to the left, and Martov rejoined and became their leader again. He, unlike the right wing of his party, did not support Menshevik participation in White counterrevolutionary governments slaughtering the workers and carrying out mass pogroms against Jews. He was Jewish himself after all.

He did however support the most important wing of the Mensheviks, the Georgian Mensheviks. In Georgia, unlike anywhere else, the Mensheviks had the support of the masses and formed a thoroughly bourgeois capitalist Menshevik government, which conducted massacres against revolting peasants and minority nationalities.

Notably the Abkhazians and South Ossetians, who resent the Georgians to this day because of bourgeois nationalist Menshevik atrocities, preferring Putin to Washington's Georgia puppet regime.

On the theoretical plane, the basic difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks is simple and obvious.

The Mensheviks did not believe that Russia was ready for socialism, so they opposed the idea of a workers revolution in Russia and a workers government. Rather they wanted to see the overthrow of the Tsar and a democratic capitalist government that would conduct democratic capitalist reforms, to which they would be an opposition party.

That was the theory of Martov. When the majority of Mensheviks abandoned that policy and joined the Kerensky government, he dissented.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

In addition to what MH said above, there were more Menshevik positions, depending on the period. For example, Martov was a party liquidator while Plekhanov wasn't during the final Bolshevik-Menshevik split.

[S.Artesian]

It has been done on the history thread where from post 17; I provide historical facts, from a selection of historical witness statements from Bolsheviks, as opposed to froth and unsubstantiated garbage gleaned from modern lying Leninist historians, who out do the bourgeois ones.

Horseshit. What you do is avoid engaging with the real history of the Mensheviks; the real posting of Menshevik ministers to the Provisional Gov; the real support of maintaining participation in WW1 by the Mensheviks in the PG; the real demands of the Mensheviks that the soviets desist from exercising power and cede control to the Constituent Assembly which was dominated by Kadets, Right SRs, royalists, etc.



The ‘appointment’ of Menshevik ministers by the party is at the very least a gross misrepresentation of the facts.



Horseshit again: On May 1, after the resignation of Guchkov, the Mensheviks and SRs in the soviet executive committee decided to participate in a coalition government, in the PG. In the new coalition PG, the Mensheviks were awarded the ministry of labor [Skobelev], and the ministry of the post and telegraph [Tsereteli].

And you talk about "lying Leninists"? For the record I'm no Leninist.



The Menshevik centre and its ‘leaders’ who were still making their way back to Russia, eg Martov, were opposed to the idea of entering the provisional revolutionary government as they always had been.




It was Bolshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.


Lie. Never was it a policy of the Bolsheviks to enter the 1917 PG. Prior to Lenin's return, the party newspaper took an ambiguous position of the soviet cooperating with the PG. After Lenin's return, that ambiguity was resolved and replaced by opposition to the PG.


It was against Menshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

Another lie. See above. The Mensheviks entered the PG in 1917.


In fact that always been one of their principle points of disagreement ie how to react during the anticipated bourgeois democratic revolution.


Except the revolution that did occur was not a bourgeois revolution, and so the Mensheviks wound up opposing the power of the soviets and supporting the power of the Constituent Assembly, and the PG against the soviets.



In fact, if I remember correctly, the Bolsheviks who were in Russia in February/March/April eg Stalin backed the first PRG which was more egregious in make up than the later one(s).


You don't. The position was ambiguous, see above. As for which PG was more egregious-- the first coalition issued Order #1, effectively giving soldiers the right to participate in soviets and challenge their officers. Subsequent coalitions struggled to undue that, and even reintroduced capital punishment in the military.


The reason the Bolsheviks were not invited to participate in the later provisional revolutionary government(s) was because they were believed at the time to be being financed and bankrolled from Berlin, true as it turned out.


Really, that's why? The Bolsheviks were never invited because by April 1917, the Bolsheviks were already leading demonstrations calling for "Down with the bourgeois government, down with the bourgeois ministers," and "All Power to the Soviets."

In fact the Mensheviks in the soviets insisted that a coalition government was essential as no party was ready to take on the responsibility of governing, singlehandedly. Lenin stood up and announced that his party, the Bolsheviks were ready to do exactly that, which caused no little laughter among the Mensheviks and SRs. Well we all know about laughing last, don't we.

And the Berlin part? Reference please that the Bolsheviks were bankrolled from Berlin. What gutter did you drag that smear from? You're the liar here, Dave.

[QUOTE]And that they had ambitions to seize power in a military coup and usurp the constituent assembly, which they did in October- January 1917-18.

It was not a military coup. The military revolutionary committee was authorized by the soviet; the MRC organized the actions of the armed workers and soldiers. That is qualitatively different than a military coup.

[D-MITCH777]

Not that i want to join or anything, but is there any parties or organisations today who follow the ideology of the Mensheviks.

[ComradeOm]

The Menshevik centre and its ‘leaders’ who were still making their way back to Russia, eg Martov, were opposed to the idea of entering the provisional revolutionary government as they always had been.

It was Bolshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

It was against Menshevik policy to enter the provisional revolutionary government.

The Mensheviks had opposed the Bolsheviks because of their longstanding policy of entering the provisional revolutionary government.You truly have disappeared into your own little delusional rabbit hole. Dave should be an object lesson to every last person on this site: read only what you agree with and eventually your mind stagnates. The saddest part is that I have no doubt that he has honestly convinced himself that the above statements are true

But then let's have a look at them:

The Bolshevik position on the PG varied somewhat throughout 1917 but it's not too simplistic to divide it between pre- and post-April. The turning point of course been Lenin's return from exile on the 15/16 April. Prior to this the party's position, as put by Stalin and Kamenev, was cautious support of the PG. It was not Bolshevik policy in 1917 "to enter the PG" and the Bolsheviks never made any moves to do so. If only of course because, whatever about his pre-war theories, by 1917 Lenin was hostile to the very notion. Even his pre-April Letters from Afar were disparaging of the PG, for this reason Pravda only ever published the first. By the time the party leadership had fully assembled, Lenin had clearly won the majority over to an explicitly anti-PG position and the Bolsheviks were firmly placed in the opposition

(Incidentally, this is why no one even considered to ask the Bolsheviks to join the PG: by the time of the Second Coalition the party had adopted a strong anti-government line. That and the fact that they enjoyed no position of authority at the time, unlike the Mensheviks and SRs who headed the CEC of the Petrograd Soviet)

Now we come to the Mensheviks. There shouldn't really be much discussion on this point: on 9 May 1917 the All-Russian Conference of Mensheviks voted, by 44 to 11, to support the entry of two of its members into the PG and, I quote, to "give full and unqualified support to the new government... and [the Mensheviks] appeal to the working class and party organisations for active and systematic work in strengthening the power of the new revolutionary government". So yeah, the Menshevik leadership did strongly support the PG (including its 'bourgeois' ministers) and those Mensheviks who took their seats in it

Unlike the Bolsheviks of course, the Mensheviks were at least consistent in this support for a bourgeois government. Obviously entering government, and thus committing the sin of 'Millerandism', was a difficult step but at no point before or after this did the Menshevik party, as a whole, seriously suggest replacing the PG with Soviet power. Hells, even after walking out of the Second Congress of the Soviets much of the leadership joined Krasnov and the 'Committee for the Salvation of the Country and the Revolution' in attempting to forcefully restore/defend the PG

But hey, none of this matters when Dave can produce the odd quote from 1905 or 1909. Although it is a pity that for someone who's read a lot, he's somehow managed to learn nothing at all about 1917. It really does take a special mind to argue that it was the Bolsheviks who were pro-government and the Mensheviks who were anti-government. Not just the right mind either but a sort of forceful determination to ignore everything (and there's a lot of 'everything' in this case) that points to the opposite. Like, say, the fact that it was the Mensheviks who actually sat in government...

[ComradeOm]

[Double post]

[Die Neue Zeit]

Prior to this the party's position, as put by Stalin and Kamenev, was cautious support of the PG. It was not Bolshevik policy in 1917 "to enter the PG" and the Bolsheviks never made any moves to do so.

According to independent historian Lars Lih, Stalin and Kamenev themselves were in fact opposed to the PG:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004181


Their concept of a revolutionary provisional government was not that of the actual Provisional government which arose in 1917, and the Bolsheviks knew this straightaway. Stalin says that explicitly in March: “the Provisional government is certainly not the revolutionary provisional government”. However, that phrase does change in meaning. But it was accepted that it would be temporary - lasting years maybe. Such a bourgeois republic could only last as long as the workers could work with the peasants, who on the whole were not socialists.

[...]

There is also the question of Stalin, Kamenev and others who had showed up in the February revolution and essentially ran things while Lenin was in exile until his return in April. The usual picture painted is that these leaders wanted to control things in one way, content to let the Provisional government rule, with the Bolsheviks keeping an eye on things and making sure the government did what it was ‘supposed’ to, until Lenin returned and overturned all this.

What I think happened is rather different. One thing is clear - Stalin, Kamenev et al knew the Provisional government was counterrevolutionary; they assumed that it would be replaced by a soviet government in a matter of months. So it is not that they were pro-Provisional government. (There were in fact those in the Bolsheviks who did advocate support for the government, believing it would carry out extensive reforms. These people promptly left, making their point in March - for example, Wladimir Woytinsky, who later wrote some interesting memoirs about the Russian Revolution.)

[S.Artesian]

The historian James D. White in The Russian Revolution 1917-1921; A Short History disagrees with Lars T. Lih.

The amnesty which the Provisional Government granted brought back to Petrograd and other Russian towns many of the political leaders who had been in exile in Siberia. Among them were Stalin, M.K. Muranov and Kamenev, who arrived in Petrograd on 12 March, taking over the leadership of the Bolshevik Party from Shliapnikov and his associates. The newcomers were extremely critical of the policies which had been adopted hitherto by the party newspaper Pravda on the question of the war and the Provisional Government. Stalin, Muranov and Kamenev favoured a policy of monitoring the Provisional Government rather than opposition to it. They advocated the formula of supporting the Provisional Government 'in so far as' its actions were in the interest of the working class. With regard to the war, the attitude of the these returned Bolshevik leaders was one indistinguishable from defensism: they believed agitation against the war disorganized the army [nice to see here that Dave B. and Kamenev share something in common]. In the issue of Pravda for 15 March Kamenev published an article condemning the slogan 'Down with the war!" and declaring that the Russian people would 'hold firmly to its posts and answer a bullet with a bullet and a shell with a shell.'

The new direction of Pravda caused an outcry by Shliapnikov and the Petrograd Bolsheviks. Meetings were held with the returnees at which the dissatisfaction was expressed, and Muranov and Stalin felt compelled to dissociate themselves from Kamenev's views on the question of the war. Following these discussion the former editorial board of Pravda was reconstituted with the addition of the newcomers, and the newspaper's policy returned to its former anti-war stance. .


Lars T. Lih has shown pretty clearly that Lenin's WITBD was no break with Kautsky [which probably explains DNZ's affection for both Lars and Lenin], something that always seemed painfully clear to me. Very little in Lenins' organizational writings, or his theoretical writings, IMO represents a break with Kautsky. I even found the much exalted vol 38 of Lenin's works, the examination of Hegel to be......ummh.......let's say "mechanical."

It was in realm of class struggle, of social combat that Lenin broke with Kautsky, and it is for that that Lenin is, and should be, respected and acknowledged.

But as far as Kamenev "knowing" that the PG was "counterrevolutionary," I guess that shows the irrelevance of a theory of knowledge, of epistemology, to Marxism, because "knowing" has nothing whatsoever to do with what Kamenev's, and Stalin's, initial responses to the PG were.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The historian James D. White in The Russian Revolution 1917-1921; A Short History disagrees with Lars T. Lih.

That book was written in 1994 and is part of "the usual picture painted."
.

Lars T. Lih has shown pretty clearly that Lenin's WITBD was no break with Kautsky [which probably explains DNZ's affection for both Lars and Lenin], something that always seemed painfully clear to me. Very little in Lenins' organizational writings, or his theoretical writings, IMO represents a break with Kautsky. I even found the much exalted vol 38 of Lenin's works, the examination of Hegel to be......ummh.......let's say "mechanical."

It was in realm of class struggle, of social combat that Lenin broke with Kautsky, and it is for that that Lenin is, and should be, respected and acknowledged.

Actually, it was in this very realm also that there was no break (such as "the merger of socialism and the worker movement"), only that one person betrayed earlier positions (those elaborated on in The Road to Power):

http://www.kriso.ee/Lenin/db/9781861897930.html


Another Way
The Merger of Socialism and the Worker Movement
A People's Revolution
Three Train Rides
Beyond the `Textbook a la Kautsky'

And that last part had nothing to do with "class struggle and social combat."


I even found the much exalted vol 38 of Lenin's works, the examination of Hegel to be......ummh.......let's say "mechanical."

That's because your philosophical line of thinking echoes that of "Hegelian" Marxism in the Second International as opposed to Orthodox Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/luexmbourgism-t160748/index.html?p=2225388).

[S.Artesian]

That book was written in 1994 and is part of "the usual picture painted."

So what? What about the historical facts, those little nagging things that you find so trivial, irrelevant, to your main goal of anointing yourself as Kautsky v 2.0? What about Kamenv's statement? What about the change in editorial policy when the exiles returned from Siberia? Real history is such a drag for you, isn't it?



Actually, it was in this very realm also that there was no break (such as "the merger of socialism and the worker movement"), only that one person betrayed earlier positions (those elaborated on in The Road to Power):

http://www.kriso.ee/Lenin/db/9781861897930.html


Again, you really can't see beyond expressions, or through appearances to content. Lenin, to his credit, articulated "All power to the soviets." He articulated, "Down with the bourgeois ministers, down with the bourgeois government." He articulated "Down with the war," and was only too proud to be accused of "disorganizing the army." That of course was his goal. Class action, rather than language is what distinguished Lenin in circumstances of emerging class combat.






That's because your philosophical line of thinking echoes that of "Hegelian" Marxism in the Second International as opposed to Orthodox Marxism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/luexmbourgism-t160748/index.html?p=2225388).


Yet another example of DNZ talking through his ass certain that because he can't see his intended audience nobody in the audience will notice the source of the noise.

You don't know what my "philosophical line" is. You couldn't possibly know, since I have no philosophical line. Marxism is the end to philosophy, just as it is the end to political economy.

You think there is such a thing as "Hegelian Marxism" and such a thing as "Orthodox Marxism." Orthodoxy is a quality of religious belief, of cant, rote, anti-critique. The more profound you pretend you are, the more ignorant you prove yourself to be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what? What about the historical facts, those little nagging things that you find so trivial, irrelevant, to your main goal of anointing yourself as Kautsky v 2.0? What about Kamenv's statement? What about the change in editorial policy when the exiles returned from Siberia? Real history is such a drag for you, isn't it?

Kamenev made many statements, such as (again, from Lih's Weekly Worker article):

“When I ask for the government to publish secret treaties, people will say to me: excuse me, you’re demanding something impossible. But the demands I make are not founded on the expectation that [Paul] Miliukov will respond to me and publish the treaties. The policy of making demands that I am advocating is an agitational device for the development of the masses, a method of exposure of the fact that Guchkov and Miliukov cannot do this, that they do not want the publication of the secret treaties that they are against the policy of peace. It is a device for showing the masses that if they really want to create a revolutionary policy on an international level, then the vlast must be transferred into the hands of the soviet”.


Lenin, to his credit, articulated "All power to the soviets."

Much to the chagrin of the Bolsheviks later on (hello, 1918 coups). :glare:

Sticking to the slogan of a revolutionary provisional government, and emphasizing SPD-style party-building during such a period and afterwards, would have made more sense.


You think there is such a thing as "Hegelian Marxism" and such a thing as "Orthodox Marxism." Orthodoxy is a quality of religious belief, of cant, rote, anti-critique. The more profound you pretend you are, the more ignorant you prove yourself to be.

So says someone with near-religious fervour (ahem, "fetish") for the soviet form.

[S.Artesian]

“When I ask for the government to publish secret treaties, people will say to me: excuse me, you’re demanding something impossible. But the demands I make are not founded on the expectation that [Paul] Miliukov will respond to me and publish the treaties. The policy of making demands that I am advocating is an agitational device for the development of the masses, a method of exposure of the fact that Guchkov and Miliukov cannot do this, that they do not want the publication of the secret treaties that they are against the policy of peace. It is a device for showing the masses that if they really want to create a revolutionary policy on an international level, then the vlast must be transferred into the hands of the soviet”.

See, now that's funny, since of course Guchkov and Miliukov's policies didn't even have the support of Kerensky.

Such a statement is completely compatible with defensism.

[ComradeOm]

According to independent historian Lars Lih, Stalin and Kamenev themselves were in fact opposed to the PGLih is, IMO, wrong. In his memoirs/history Sukhanov records a frank conversation with Kamenev almost immediately after the latter arrived in Petrograd. I don't have the text on hand but Sukhanov came away with the strong impression that Kamenev shared a relatively benign attitude towards the PG. This was, according to all histories that I've read, borne out by Pravda's subsequently 'mild' line on the government

If nothing else, Lenin's arrival would not have caused such a stir - and he did have to actively campaign within the party to overcome the moderate position - had Kamenev et al essentially shared his analysis of the need for Soviet power

[Die Neue Zeit]

See, now that's funny, since of course Guchkov and Miliukov's policies didn't even have the support of Kerensky.

Such a statement is completely compatible with defensism.

"Peace without annexations or indemnifications," the main Zimmerwald line, isn't "defencist" (and there's reactionary defencism / social patriotism / social chauvinism, class-strugglist defencism a la Engels, and of course DOTP defencism).


Lih is, IMO, wrong. In his memoirs/history Sukhanov records a frank conversation with Kamenev almost immediately after the latter arrived in Petrograd. I don't have the text on hand but Sukhanov came away with the strong impression that Kamenev shared a relatively benign attitude towards the PG. This was, according to all histories that I've read, borne out by Pravda's subsequently 'mild' line on the government

If nothing else, Lenin's arrival would not have caused such a stir - and he did have to actively campaign within the party to overcome the moderate position - had Kamenev et al essentially shared his analysis of the need for Soviet power

According to Lih's article, Lenin's arrival caused a stir among the other Old Bolsheviks for more reasons other than the Provisional Government situation:


So in April 1917 Kamenev said the bourgeois democratic revolution was not finished and Lenin said it was. Later on Lenin says that actually it was not finished in April 1917. Therefore, Lenin changes his mind and de facto admits that Kamenev was right. His argument in April 1917 is one of the things we forget because it did not pan out.

Although I think Lenin was mistaken in April 1917, I praise him for his later flexibility. I think he was wrong about this issue, which was the source of controversy in April 1917, but he adjusted his views - he did not force his attitude upon the party. The strategy he was advocating for building exclusive poor peasant soviets was never carried out or even attempted, and there is nothing in the records showing that Lenin insisting that it be carried out.

To sum up, it is quite strange that Lenin, who did more than anybody else in formulating the strategy of old Bolshevism, was the one saying at this point that they need to move beyond it. In response, the ‘old Bolsheviks’ he comes up against constantly stress that it should not be moved beyond because it is an excellent strategy. And they were right. It was an excellent strategy - a strategy that won them power.

What I have said so far is the negative aspect of this discussion. I think the idea that Lenin won the party around to a new strategy in April 1917 is seriously deficient - firstly because they did not need to be turned around on the issue of the Provisional government, and secondly because, on the issue that they were most divided on, it was Lenin who backed down, not the other leading Bolsheviks, such as Kamenev.

[S.Artesian]

"Peace without annexations or indemnifications," the main Zimmerwald line, isn't "defencist" (and there's reactionary defencism / social patriotism / social chauvinism, class-strugglist defencism a la Engels, and of course DOTP defencism).

You are pathetic. The Zimmerwald wasn't what Kamenev was flogging. You don't even try to make your comments even close to what is being discussed. Do you make this shit up, or does someone else make it up for you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

You brought up the subject of defencism, not me. :glare:

My main point was to demonstrate that Kamenev was of the position that "the vlast must be transferred into the hands of the soviet":


What Kamenev was not saying was that, since the bourgeois democratic revolution was incomplete, we should therefore support the Provisional government. Rather that the government was doomed, but we still have a long way to go to replace it.

[S.Artesian]

Lih is wrong and so are you. It's just that simple.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We all have our political biases. That's all I'll say on the matter.