Menshevik Two Stage Theory

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

I was recently reading 'The State and the Revolution' and it made me more sympathetic to the Menshevik position of needing a bourgeois democratic revolution to build up Russia and get her running before Marxism could be implemented.

The thing is, I don't think that Lenin and Trotsky's criticism of it have discounted it, the development of capitalism in China kinda shoots down the idea that capitalist powers would stop poor countries from industrialising and setting up a capitalist system.

Am I right or wrong, have you got any oppinions on Two Stage Theory?

[The Idler]

Sounds about right. Anyone ever read The Mensheviks After October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship by Vladimir N. Brovkin?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Anyone ever read The Mensheviks After October: Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship by Vladimir N. Brovkin?

Nope, but I'll look out for it.

[Dave B]

Oh God!, for the thousandth time the stageist theory was not a ‘Menshevik theory’ it was Marxist theory followed and accepted by all mainstream Marxists, including Lenin.


EG from Lenin in 1914;

Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism
Published: Trudovaya Pravda No. 19, June 19, 1914.



The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism.

Pipe-dreaming about a “different” way to socialism other than that which leads, through the further development of capitalism, through large-scale, machine, capitalist production, is, in Russia, characteristic either of the liberal gentlemen, or of the backward, petty proprietors (the petty bourgeoisie). These dreams, which still clog the brains of the Left Narodniks, merely reflect the backwardness (reactionary nature) and feebleness of the petty bourgeoisie.
Class-conscious workers all over the world, Russia included, are becoming more and more convinced of the correctness of Marxism, for life itself is proving to them that only large-scale, machine production rouses the workers, enlightens and organises them, and creates the objective conditions for a mass movement.

When Put Pravdy reaffirmed the well-known Marxist axiom that capitalism is progressive as compared with feudalism, and that the idea of checking the development of capitalism is a utopia, most absurd, reactionary, and harmful to the working people, Mr. N. Rakitnikov, the Left Narodnik (in Smelaya Mysl No. 7), accused Put Pravdy of having undertaken the “not very honourable task of putting a gloss upon the capitalist noose”.

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.

Condemnation means our subjective dissatisfaction. The objective course of feudalism’s evolution into capitalism enables millions of working people—thanks to the growth of cities, railways, large factories and the migration of workers—to escape from a condition of feudal torpor. Capitalism itself rouses and organises them.



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

And when Lenin advocated the introduction of (state) capitalism in Russia in 1918 he did not break with that part of the stageist theory; of capitalism having to follow feudalism.


He consciously and deliberately implemented and applied it.


Apart from the ‘pipe-dreaming’, ‘backward’ and ‘reactionary’ Left Narodniks with their ‘clogged brains’; the only others who disagreed with the stageist theory were Trotsky with his;


………. pseudo-intellectual, and in fact utterly meaningless, arguments about a "permanent revolution", about “introducing” socialism, and other nonsense.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jun/17.htm


And ‘Anarchists’ with their;


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. ………

…………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, not to surpass this level [...] The will, and not the economic conditions, is the foundation of his social revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm


There is virtually no evidence for the argument that Lenin eventually changed his mind on Trotsky’s ‘pseudo-intellectual and ‘utterly meaningless’ permanent revolution theory.

The only ‘evidence’ I know of comes from Trotsky, and it is not exactly convincing; but here it is anyway;

Leon Trotsky My Life CHAPTER XLII THE LAST PERIOD OF STRUGGLE WITHIN THE PARTY


Joffe told me of his conversation with Lenin – it took place in 1919, if I am not mistaken – on the subject of permanent revolution. Lenin said to him: “Yes, Trotsky proved to be right.” Joffe wanted to publish that conversation, but I tried my best to dissuade him. I could visualize the avalanche of baiting that would crash down upon him. Joffe was peculiarly persistent, and under a soft exterior he concealed an inalterable will. At each new outburst of aggressive ignorance and political treachery, he would come to me again, with a drawn and indignant face, and repeat: “I must make it public.” I would argue

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/mylife/ch42.htm

If there is anything else I would be more than pleased to see it.

And from someone else for variety if nothing else.


Otto Rühle From the Bourgeois to the Proletarian Revolution 1924




According to the phaseological pattern of development as formulated and advocated by Marx, after feudal tsarism in Russia there had to come the capitalist bourgeois state, whose creator and representative is the bourgeois class.




From the beginning, the Russian Revolution - in accordance with its historical conditions - could only be a bourgeois revolution. It had to get rid of tsarism, to smooth the way for capitalism, and to help the bourgeoisie in to the saddle politically.


The Bolsheviks carried out the nationalisation of industry, of transport, banks, factories, etc., and thus awoke quite generally the belief that socialist measures were involved here. Nevertheless, nationalisation is not socialisation. Through nationalisation you can arrive at a large-scale, tightly centrally-run state capitalism, which may exhibit various advantages as against private capitalism. Only it is still capitalism.



When ……….(some) , after the victory over tsarism, imagined that a phase of historical development could be skipped and socialism structurally realised, they had forgotten the ABC of Marxist knowledge according to which socialism can only be the outcome of an organic development which has capitalism developed to the limits of its maturity as its indispensable presupposition. They had to pay for this forgetfulness by a wide, troublesome and victim-strewn detour which brings them in a space of time to capitalism.

To institute capitalism and to organise the bourgeois state is the historical function of the bourgeois revolution. The Russian Revolution was and is a bourgeois revolution, no more and no less: the strong socialist admixture changes nothing in this essence.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ruhle/1924/revolution.htm

So what actually happened?

Lenin introduced state capitalism and attempted to build, evolve and reform it towards socialism.

It was Bernstienist reformism under state capitalism but worse than that autocratic state capitalism; at least Bernstien and Kautsky were democrats.

And from the comedian Ted Grant in his;

Against the Theory of State Capitalism
Reply to Comrade Cliff




If Comrade Cliff’s thesis is correct, that state capitalism exists in Russia today, then he cannot avoid the conclusion that state capitalism has been in existence since the Russian Revolution and the function of the revolution itself was to introduce this state capitalist system of society.

Ha Ha Ha!





If Cliff’s argument is correct, one could only conclude that the same thing happened with the Russian as with the French Revolution. Marx was the prophet of the new state capitalism. Lenin and Trotsky were the Robespierres and Carnots of the Russian Revolution. The fact that Lenin and Trotsky had good intentions is beside the point, as were the good intentions of the leaders of the bourgeois revolution. They merely paved the way for the rule of the new state capitalist class.

http://www.tedgrant.org/archive/grant/1949/cliff.htm


.

[OHumanista]

Indeed even Lenin conceded that devolopment would be necessary before achieving the ideal conditions and Trotsky believes one of the main points of the failure of the russian revolution was it's isolation. If the revolution went global(or at least partially) it would have been much easier than the idea of socialism in one country.

As for the idea of preventing development in third-world countries: I think you misunderstood it a bit. On Russia for example the burgeois prefered siding and even conceding points to monarchist reactionaries than following through the full process of liberal reforms. It was not impossible that the burgeois would develop Russia in a capitalist sense but they were prone to compromising with the far right and taking steps back. Some proeminent burgeois politicians of that time for example defended the restoration of the monarchy in Russia.

Another easy example to cite is my own country(Brasil), were the burgeois always prefered to sell the country and side with authoritarian elements(such as the military dictatorship we had) intead of modernising it. As a result until a few decades ago Brazil was still rural and undeveloped.(of course there were other reasons too but this is one of the main reasons)

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Thanks for all the replies.

[Rafiq]

What is this tendency I am seeing on this site for these AntiMarxist stagists? The Menshevik Two stage theory is Bourgeois propaganda.

Russia didn't need Capitalism in order to jump into Socialism, all it needed was the Industrialized countries to achieve revolution.

Russia didn't fail because of some magical order of stages that was disturbed, it failed because it was constantly under siege and attack, it had to spend a shit ton of resources on weapons and the likes, and on top of all that maintained the capitalist mode of production.

Think of it as putting a Lion in a cage without any food or any air to breath. That once, strong, energetic Lion becomes weak, and eventually dies. But if it breaks down the cage and has sex with a bunch of other Lions, and hunts to eat, and then produces cubs, it creates a habitat, and all the Lions eventually evolve into some weird Humanoid space cat after 300000 years.

For the last time:

The October Revolution was almost flawless and obsolete! It was just contained and then destroyed!

[Rooster]

The thing is, Russia did have large scale industries and capitalist mode of production before the revolution, but seeing how socialism is international then the lack of development and productive forces wouldn't have mattered much at all because if socialism was to happen then it would have had to spread. The two stage theory is wrong because the bourgeois revolution would not have been able to move on and do it's historic role of levelling classes and such. To get rid of all of the old social orders and feudalistic remnants required the working class to remove them.

[PolskiLenin]

Thus the theory of Permanent Revolution!

[ZeroNowhere]

Thus the theory of Permanent Revolution!
I can just imagine some Trotskyists just walking around everywhere, listening in on conversations, and then suddenly shouting, "Thus the theory of Permanent Revolution!" But then, I have some experience with the British SWP, so that may be why.

[promethean]

What is this tendency I am seeing on this site for these AntiMarxist stagists? The Menshevik Two stage theory is Bourgeois propaganda. There is no such thing as anti-Marxism. This is just a term used by Stalinists to shut up their opponents. Also, the two stage theory was held by Lenin for a very long time. Trotsky was the one who came to the conclusion in 1906 in his work Results and Prospects that Russia was ready for a workers revolution. He thought that workers could carry out the tasks left undone by capitalism in the form of a permanent revolution. In the meanwhile, Lenin and his fellow Russian social democrats held the theory that Russia first needed a bourgeois-democratic revolution, which workers must aid, but later give up their power to the bourgeoisie. However, Lenin later revised this view of his.


Russia didn't fail because of some magical order of stages that was disturbed, it failed because it was constantly under siege and attack, it had to spend a shit ton of resources on weapons and the likes, and on top of all that maintained the capitalist mode of production.When do you think it maintained the capitalist mode of production? From 1917? The bourgeoisie were expropriated and the power was in the hands of the workers Soviets at that time. So, it could not have had the capitalist mode of production then.


Think of it as putting a Lion in a cage without any food or any air to breath. That once, strong, energetic Lion becomes weak, and eventually dies. But if it breaks down the cage and has sex with a bunch of other Lions, and hunts to eat, and then produces cubs, it creates a habitat, and all the Lions eventually evolve into some weird Humanoid space cat after 300000 years. :thumbup1:



For the last time:

The October Revolution was almost flawless and obsolete! It was just contained and then destroyed!
I would say it was full of flaws, from which there is a lot to be learned. It is a mistake to view this event as something flawless. The October revolution was merely one of the revolutionary events during 1917-23. The central stage of this revolutionary wave was actually in Germany. The ultimately failed German revolution has equal, if not more, relevance today than the Russian one.

[Dave B]

When do you think it maintained the capitalist mode of production? From 1917? The bourgeoisie were expropriated and the power was in the hands of the workers Soviets at that time. So, it could not have had the capitalist mode of production then.



April 1918




What is state capitalism under Soviet power? To achieve state capitalism at the present time means putting into effect the accounting and control that the capitalist classes carried out. We see a sample of state capitalism in Germany. We know that Germany has proved superior to us. But if you reflect even slightly on what it would mean if the foundations of such state capitalism were established in Russia, Soviet Russia, everyone who is not out of his senses and has not stuffed his head with fragments of book learning, would have to say that state capitalism would be our salvation.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/apr/29.htm

and four and a half years later?



……..for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism)





http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm