Where the Mensheviks right?

[StoneFrog]

Were they right with their view that Russia needed a full capitalist revolution before a proletariat one? Just looking at how the USSR ended up like may be seen as a reason for.

EDIT:
... misspelling in thread name makes me look awesome =/ were not where =/

[S.Artesian]

No. Russia did not have a full capitalist revolution until after the proletarian one.

[Tjis]

No. capitalism is not a required stage before socialism. What is required is the conditions that capitalism produces: a developed industry and a geographically concentrated proletariat.
Capitalism has produced these conditions because of the profit motive. More people working together with increasingly advanced production methods means more commodities can be produced for less, which means more profit for the capitalist. So there's a constant pressure in capitalism to improve on production processes and to concentrate the proletariat more and more.
But that doesn't mean that ONLY capitalism can produce these conditions. This is just how it happened in much of the industrialized world. As you probably know in the Soviet Union this industrialization happened extremely quickly under control of the state instead of the bourgeoisie. Had the proletariat launched another revolution after this industrialization they could have built a different socialism, with genuine workers control, without the strong centralization and top-down structure of the SU. Unfortunately this never happened, but then again it hasn't ever happened in any of the capitalist industrialized nations either.

[StoneFrog]

Did the SU not just delay the inevitability of a full capitalist revolution?

[RED DAVE]

Did the SU not just delay the inevitability of a full capitalist revolution?Good question, and the answer is no.

The bourgeoisie is no longer capable of full-fledged revolution in its own name under its own leadership. It must enlist primarily the proletariat, sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and the peasantry. The system that results is state capitalism, with more or less or a private capitalism mix.

Then, when these classes have made the revolution, under the banner of some kind of revolutionary ideology, usually Maoism, then the bourgeoisie, after a period of heavy exploitation connived with by the so-called revolutionary leadership, establishes private capitalism. We have seen this pattern in the USSR, China, Vietnam and, as we write, Nepal.

The key element here is class collaboration and a debased revolutionary group willing to justify this. In the USSR, it was Stalinism.

Getting back to Russia, it is precisely what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not do. They did not jump in bed with the bourgeoisie to make the bourgeois revolution, and had they not had to fight a terrible civil war and the revolutions not failed in the West, we would have world socialism now.

RED DAVE

[Tjis]

Did the SU not just delay the inevitability of a full capitalist revolution?

No, because there's nothing inevitable about this. History is not preordained.

In many of the capitalist countries, the bourgeoisie developed under feudalism. At the end of the feudal period in Europe there was already a growing industry under control of the bourgeoisie. Under feudalism though this growth was severely limited, since much of the control over society was in the hands of aristocrats who really didn't care about industrial growth as long as they got their share in taxes and harvest. This conflict between the aristocrats and the bourgeoisie was the reason for the bourgeois revolutions.

In other words, it were the specific material conditions that were present at the end of the feudal period that allowed capitalism to start. If the conditions supportive of capitalism had not been present, capitalism would have simply not come to be.

Back to Russia. In 1917 Russia there was also a bourgeoisie, but they never got the chance to develop capitalism because in the October revolution the proletariat (or at least a fraction of it) took control, outlawed private property and started the industrialization process. The conditions required for the development of capitalism were taken away.
It was only later that the SU started on their path towards capitalism. This happened when social mobility became severely limited, roughly dividing society in workers and party bureaucrats. At that point state property essentially became the property of a small class. When the SU fell in 1991 some of these people grabbed what state property they could and became the new bourgeoisie.
So the conditions that gave rise to the new bourgeoisie in Russia were not the same as the conditions that gave rise to the bourgeoisie in Europe. It wasn't simply a matter of capitalism 'catching up', it was an entirely different kind of development.

[Tommy4ever]

Its obvious that Russia was at a severe disadvantage in attempting to build socialism from its earlier stage of development.

Its underdeveloped nature meant that it was basically forced to go through the painful process of rapid industrialisation and pushed the country towards the mindset that would eventually destroy any vestige of socialism - that the Soviet Union's pupose was development rather than working class power.

The vast Russian peasantry were also a very problamatic group in the country's early years.

I certainly don't think socialist revolution is impossible in pre-capitalist societies (or societies which are severely underdeveloped) but it makes it much, much harder.

But at the same time, countries in the earliest stages of capitalism, or in pre-capitalist modes of production tend to have both a weaker state structure (making the overthrow of existing conditions easier) and much harsher conditions for working people (making many more people willing to take the jump towards revolution). There has never been a successful socialist revolution (or atleast seizure of power) in a developed country and the moments when this could have possibly happened have been rather sparing.

[StoneFrog]

But with the revolution in Russia, layers of the bourgeoisie held positions in the soviets. Since the proletariat were not educated to the level in which they could take control of such positions. The Bolsheviks did in a sense accept class collaboration, and didn't remove the capitalist class which became apart of the bureaucracy.
Capitalism as well as creates industry creates an educated proletariat to work these ever advancing systems, from these will the industry and social system of the socialist era will be based. With no wide spread educated proletariat how is there to be built viable conditions; it is doomed to fall based on the compromises which gave the power to the bourgeoisie to become stronger.

When has a bourgeoisie revolution happened when they did not enlist other classes to fight on their behalf?

[Tjis]

But with the revolution in Russia, layers of the bourgeoisie held positions in the soviets. Since the proletariat were not educated to the level in which they could take control of such positions. The Bolsheviks did in a sense accept class collaboration, and didn't remove the capitalist class which became apart of the bureaucracy.

What you describe is members of the former bourgeoisie becoming part of the new state apparatus. If what you say is indeed true (I've never studied the history of the Soviet Union in-depth) then essentially these people changed class, much like how in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, many aristocrats started capitalist enterprises, thus joining the bourgeoisie.
This is not the same as class collaboration. Class collaboration with the bourgeoisie means keeping capitalism around in some form, so as not to lose the support of the bourgeoisie. It means that they can still own private property and use it to gain profit. This was not the case. at least not initially. Lenin later on introduced the NEP which allowed some small privately owned shops and such, but big industry always remained under control of the state.



Capitalism as well as creates industry creates an educated proletariat to work these ever advancing systems, from these will the industry and social system of the socialist era will be based. With no wide spread educated proletariat how is there to be built viable conditions;

Capitalism does not create an educated proletariat, at least not in any way that is meaningful for a socialist revolution. If anything, there's a constant pressure in capitalism to keep workers uneducated and to leave as much of the work as possible to machines which in the long run are far cheaper and less prone to making mistakes. Only when this is impossible will capitalists show any interest in education. Even then, this education will be geared to the interests of the bourgeoisie and doesn't empower the proletariat in any way.

It is true that a successful proletarian revolution requires an educated proletariat, but that's just as true under bureaucratic rule as it is under capitalism. There is nothing special about capitalism that makes it the only possible kind of societal organization which'd allow this.
Whatever system is in place, proletarian education must be the work of the proletariat itself. No ruling class is ever going to educate the proletariat in a way that will empower them, because no ruling class wants to lose power.


it is doomed to fall based on the compromises which gave the power to the bourgeoisie to become stronger.

Assuming you're still talking about Russia, no, it didn't. The bourgeoisie didn't become strong in the soviet union. The bureaucrats did. This was a different class with different relations to the means of production, and different intentions. Though they certainly made sure that they lived in very comfortable conditions themselves, they did not own the means of production and they weren't trying to endlessly accumulate profit through extracting surplus-value.

The proletariat might not have actually been in charge during much of the SU's history, but that doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie was.


When has a bourgeoisie revolution happened when they did not enlist other classes to fight on their behalf?
They can't do that. They're too small. A bourgeois revolution means enlisting the peasantry and the proletariat to fight for bourgeois interest. It is essentially asking them to fight for their own exploitation, which is only going to happen if they don't realize they are fighting for their own exploitation.

But what does that have to do with what happened in Russia?
Edit: nevermind, you were replying to red dave.

[A Marxist Historian]

Good question, and the answer is no.

The bourgeoisie is no longer capable of full-fledged revolution in its own name under its own leadership. It must enlist primarily the proletariat, sections of the petit-bourgeoisie and the peasantry. The system that results is state capitalism, with more or less or a private capitalism mix.

Then, when these classes have made the revolution, under the banner of some kind of revolutionary ideology, usually Maoism, then the bourgeoisie, after a period of heavy exploitation connived with by the so-called revolutionary leadership, establishes private capitalism. We have seen this pattern in the USSR, China, Vietnam and, as we write, Nepal.

The key element here is class collaboration and a debased revolutionary group willing to justify this. In the USSR, it was Stalinism.

Getting back to Russia, it is precisely what Lenin and the Bolsheviks did not do. They did not jump in bed with the bourgeoisie to make the bourgeois revolution, and had they not had to fight a terrible civil war and the revolutions not failed in the West, we would have world socialism now.

RED DAVE

In China and Vietnam, and Cuba which for some reason you are leaving out, you think the bourgeoisie enlisted the lower classes to make a revolution for state capitalism? Bizarro! Earth to Red Dave... That's about like thinking the earth is flat.

Capitalists were conspicuous by its absence in all three of these countries until recent years, and certainly played absolutely *no* role in what was going on in the country.

Nepal is a horse of a very different color. Though some of the verbiage is slighly different, the Nepalese Maoists are, quite simply, Mensheviks in Mao suits, making the same old Menshevik arguments that you have to a capitalist revolution first to establish capitalism, workers revolution later. You can say to their credit however that this makes some sense in Nepal, which has very little of a working class when you get right down to it, unlike China or Cuba or even Vietnam for that matter.

-jh-

[S.Artesian]

Uneven and combined development comrades: the "backwardness" underdevelopment of any individual country is part of, integrated into, combined with the advanced capitalism of the "developed" area, as well as part of enclaves of advanced capitalism production within the "backward" countries themselves.

[Dave B]

First of all we need to accept that the stageist theory, even as it particularly affected Russia, was Marxist theory and in fact Marxist theory was stageist theory as it particularly affected Russia; everything else being Bakuninism and Narodism.

With perhaps the subtle exception of the ‘utterly meaningless’ and ‘pseudo intellectual’ permanent revolution theory of Trotsky.

Anyway, almost every Marxist, including the Mensheviks, up until the beginning of 1917 was on board with the following;



From the standpoint of theory, this idea disregards the elementary propositions of Marxism concerning the inevitability of capitalist development where commodity production exists. Marxism teaches that a society which is based on commodity production, and which has commercial intercourse with civilized capitalist nations, at a certain stage of its development, itself, inevitably takes the road of capitalism. Marxism has irrevocably broken with the ravings of the Narodniks and the anarchists to the effect that Russia, for instance, can avoid capitalist development, jump out of capitalism, or skip over it and proceed along some path other than the path of the class struggle on the basis and within the framework of this same capitalism.


http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6



Anyone interested in Marxism and in the experience of the international working-class movement would do well to pander over this! One rarely meets with such amazing ignorance of Marxism as that displayed by Mr. N. Rakitnikov and the Left Narodniks, except perhaps among bourgeois economists.

Can it be that Mr. Rakitnikov has not read Capital, or The Poverty of Philosophy, or The Communist Manifesto? If he has not, then it is pointless to talk about socialism. That will be a ridiculous waste of time.
If he has read them, then he ought to know that the fundamental idea running through all Marx’s works, an idea which since Marx has been confirmed in all countries, is that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism. It is in this sense that Marx and all Marxists “put a gloss” (to use Rakitnikov’s clumsy and stupid expression) “upon the capitalist noose”!

Only anarchists or petty-bourgeois, who do not under stand the conditions of historical development, can say: a feudal noose or a capitalist one—it makes no difference, for both are nooses! That means confining oneself to condemnation, and failing to understand the objective course of economic development


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/jun/19.htm



and that Russia must pass through capitalism in order to attain socialism and that also Russia must in this respect pass along the same road as had Western Europe. Here as there socialism must grow out of the great industry and the industrial proletariat is the only revolutionary class which is capable of leading a continuous and independent revolutionary battle against absolutism.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1905/xx/rsdlp.htm



Schoolboy stupidity! A radical social revolution depends on certain definite historical conditions of economic development as its precondition. It is also only possible where with capitalist production the industrial proletariat occupies at least an important position among the mass of the people. And if it is to have any chance of victory, it must be able to do immediately as much for the peasants as the French bourgeoisie, mutatis mutandis, did in its revolution for the French peasants of that time. A fine idea, that the rule of labour involves the subjugation of land labour! But here Mr Bakunin's innermost thoughts emerge. He understands absolutely nothing about the social revolution, only its political phrases. Its economic conditions do not exist for him. As all hitherto existing economic forms, developed or undeveloped, involve the enslavement of the worker (whether in the form of wage-labourer, peasant etc.), he believes that a radical revolution is possible in all such forms alike. Still more! He wants the European social revolution, premised on the economic basis of capitalist production, to take place at the level of the Russian or Slavic agricultural and pastoral peoples
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm


If you want you can say that Kautsky and Lenin were talking a load of bollocks and didn’t understand Marx.

Or that Marx was talking a load of bollocks.

Or that times had moved on and that Karl’s theories were no longer valid.

Or some combination thereof.

Well fair enough.


The alternative theory, put by others apart from myself, is that everything went according to Marxist theory.

Feudalism was overthrown.

(State) capitalism replaced it with a state capitalist class otherwise known as a ‘bureaucratic caste’.

The Bolsheviks acted out, supplanted and played out the historical role of the capitalist class.

Marxist historical materialism doesn’t have to come with all the historical actors entering stage with ‘(state) capitalist’ or ‘working class’ tattooed on their foreheads.

They are what the do.

[S.Artesian]

More horseshit from Dave B.

Time had moved on and Marxist theories were still valid in that Marx's work is the analysis of the immanent conflicts of capital, the conflict between means and relations of production, and the resolution of that conflict in the abolition of capital.

Who was right? The soviets were right, when they organized the defense of Petrograd against Kornilov, when they disarmed the Kadets, and the cadets.

[Labor Shall Rule]

No, they were not.


The idea that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were actually unconsciously acting as bourgeois revolutionaries is based on the "theory of productive forces" promoted by revisionists, who follow a reading of Marx that sees capitalism as a revolutionary force that builds onto industry and technology to make socialism possible in the future. Mensheviks saw a growth in the productive forces coming only through capitalist development, and as it was a protracted period of capitalist policies that they called for it put off the question of socialist revolution altogether.

A cursory understanding of the background events of Tsarism, World War One, and the tumult in the countryside over land showed that there was no other option but to have a worker and peasant led government as soon as possible.