Martov on Lenin

[Misodoctakleidist]

Julius Martov;

Already in 1899, in his well-known Principles of Socialism, Eduard Bernstein observed that in the Civil War Marx appears to have taken a step toward Proudhon. “In spite of all points of difference that existed between Marx and the ‘petty bourgeois’ Proudhon, it is nevertheless true that on this question their currents of thought resemble each other as closely as possible.” Bernstein’s words throw Lenin into a great fit of anger. “Monstrous! Ridiculous! Renegade!” screams Lenin at Bernstein, and he takes the opportunity to revile Plekhanov and Kautsky for not correcting “this pervision of Marx by Bernstein” in their polemics against Bernstein’s book. Of course, Lenin, too, wrote a great deal on the subject of Eduard Bernstein’s book, without taking the trouble of correcting that “perversion.”

I think this sums up Lenin quite well.

[Bianconero]

“In spite of all points of difference that existed between Marx and the ‘petty bourgeois’ Proudhon, it is nevertheless true that on this question their currents of thought resemble each other as closely as possible.”

'on this question'

Which 'question' is Bernstein referring to anyway? You should admit that your accusation is pointless, an useless.

You can, by the way, really understand which role Julij Martov wanted to play when examining what the Mensheviks did (or did not) after the February revolution of 1917.

Playing game with the bourgeoisie, Martov sure was an enemy of the proletariat and it's leader Lenin.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Sorry, that was earlier in the text which i didn't quote.

It was on the question of how a post capitalist society should be organised.

[redstar2000]

It would be kind of useful if, when bringing in quotes like this, you (and others) could tell us when they were written, what work they came from, etc.

You see, some of us are familiar enough with Lenin's own writings to recognize quotes and their historical context.

Almost no one quotes Mensheviks any more -- indeed, I've never seen a Menshevik book or pamphlet.

My "wild guess" is that Martov is replying to State and Revolution...but who knows?

By the way, I would encourage people to bring up Menshevik theories if they come across them.

We may all "know" that they were "no fucking good"...but it would be nice to be able to base that on something more than eight decades of hearsay.

For example, it's kind of interesting to see the "father of revisionism" accusing Marx of an "anarchist deviation"...since I get accused of that all the time! :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Misodoctakleidist]

It was from 'Decomposition or Conquest of the State' (1921/23).

[Bianconero]

I still fail to see what the point of your argument is, 'Misodoctakleidist.'

Even if your assertion (that Marx agrees with a petty-bourgeois on such a delicate question) was right (which it is not, but go on, try to prove it), the point you want to make is that Lenin had a 'rude' (!?) behaviour? I can tell that Lenin sure did his part in examining the flaws in Bernstein's 'theories.'

'State and Revolution' as well as 'What Is To Be Done' (among others) being solid examples.

[The Feral Underclass]

From what I can get from the quote, what is actually being brought into issue is Marx and the role of the state. It appears Lenin did not like the notion that in fact Marx had thought, or was on the verge of rejecting the concept of a state. Marx even admitted that the Paris commune had made him re think his ideas. Regardless, his [Marx] writing on the state was so vague that it is suprising how Lenin managed to be so "solid" in his practical development of Marxsm in the first place.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 11:46 AM
I still fail to see what the point of your argument is, 'Misodoctakleidist.'
I'm not making an argument, i never said i agreed with bernstein, only that Martov sums up Lenin's attitude quite weel in this paragraph.

Every page of 'state and revolution' contained a distortian of marx's writing and some slagging off of Kautsky and Plekhanov.

[Bianconero]

Anarchist, Marx and Lenin both said that the state will be destroyed during the revolution, then replaced with something different.

Friedrich Engels even said that this replacement, this new state, should not be called 'state' anymore. He used another word, 'Gemeinwesen.' (I do only know the German word)

He said that during and after the revolution the bourgeoisie and the state (because the state is a tool of the reactionary class and is very well connected with the old ruling class) would be destroyed untill something new, the 'new state', the 'Gemeinwesen' would be set up to defend the revolution and the people.


Marx even admitted that the Paris commune had made him re think his ideas.

What did he 're think', Anarchist? You should definately explain your weird thoughts. Or try, at least.


Every page of 'state and revolution' contained a distortian of marx's writing and some slagging off of Kautsky and Plekhanov.

Every page of 'State and Revolution' brings Marxism to a new level, every page is a document of Lenin's extensive researches and of his wisdom. 'State and Revolution' is Marxism.

Kautsky and Plekhanov were enemies of people's socialism. How could anyone possibly defend someone like Kautsky, who was 'pro-war' more or less, or at least accepted those within the party who were. Plekhanov laughed at the proletariat in 1905, after the failed revolution.

'Man hätte nicht zu den Waffen greifen sollen.' Plekhanov

Plekhanov, that arrogant little prick did indeed say that the workers shouldn't have taken up their arms in 1905. (!)

And you blame Lenin for examining these people?

[BOZG]

Misodoctakleidist,

Seeing as your so adamant that Lenin manipulates everything Marx says, could you give us some examples.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:35 PM
He used another word, 'Gemeinwesen.' (I do only know the German word)
The direct translation is community being?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 02:35 PM
Friedrich Engels even said that this replacement, this new state, should not be called 'state' anymore. He used another word, 'Gemeinwesen.' (I do only know the German word)
You fail to recognise that Marx and Engles didn't actualy share the same mind, this is the same mistake which Lenin fell foul of.


What did he 're think', Anarchist? You should definately explain your weird thoughts. Or try, at least.

This was adressed to TAT but i'll answer it; Marx's re-though the structure of a communist society and the way in which it would be achieved. Even Lenin asmitted that Marx learned something from the Paris Commune although he then tries to combine it with Marx's earlier theory becuase of course it was impossible that he could have changed his mind.


Every page of 'State and Revolution' brings Marxism to a new level, every page is a document of Lenin's extensive researches and of his wisdom. 'State and Revolution' is Marxism.

:lol: Leninism has little to do with Marxism, he took most of his inspiration from blanqi and the anarcho-sydicalists.

BOZG, i'll find some examples for you and post them later.

[Bianconero]

Anarchist Tension, 'community being' could be the term, but I'm not sure about the 'being.' 'Wesen' is something different, actually.

My dictionary says 'community' or 'polity.' Never heard about the latter.


You fail to recognise that Marx and Engles didn't actualy share the same mind, this is the same mistake which Lenin fell foul of.

This I do not tolerate. Either you prove what you are saying or you remain silent. It is not that difficult, I hope. If you want to discuss, change your attitute, if you are simply looking for confrontation, I will have to change mine.


Marx's re-though the structure of a communist society and the way in which it would be achieved.

After the Paris Commune failed, both Marx and Engels re-thought their earlier thesis that the revolution could simply take over the old state and use it for their needs. This they said when the Communist Manifesto was re-printed in 1872 and in their writing 'The Civil War in France.'

As I stated before, any revolution will have to destroy the old state that is connected with the old reactionary class. After destroying the state, the revolution will set up something new, the community being or Gemeinwesen.

I prefer the German word.


Even Lenin asmitted that Marx learned something from the Paris Commune although he then tries to combine it with Marx's earlier theory becuase of course it was impossible that he could have changed his mind.

Again, back up what you are saying or don't say it at all.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:17 PM
This I do not tolerate.
Spoken like a true Leninist, do i really need to prove that Marx and Engles were different people?


Again, back up what you are saying or don't say it at all.

That woul be the bit you just said about taking over the existing state apperatus.

[redstar2000]

At some point, we should have a serious thread on Menshevism.

Here are three short works by Julius Martov (who was evidently a "left"-Menshevik)...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/index.htm

I read through them very quickly and noted some good points and some that were pretty bad...but see for yourself.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2004, 06:17 PM
Anarchist Tension, 'community being' could be the term, but I'm not sure about the 'being.' 'Wesen' is something different, actually.
In my dictioanry it says

Wesen

Lebe Being, creature
Skern essence
Natur nature, charactor

Community Creature, I like that one... :lol: The Paris Community Creature

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 03:20 AM
At some point, we should have a serious thread on Menshevism.

Here are three short works by Julius Martov (who was evidently a "left"-Menshevik)...

http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/index.htm

I read through them very quickly and noted some good points and some that were pretty bad...but see for yourself.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas
This is the page where i got the quote from. Martov does make some good points, particularly in his analysis of Leninism.

[Bianconero]

poken like a true Leninist, do i really need to prove that Marx and Engles were different people?

They sure were different people, but I still wait for you to put forward some facts instead of just being so smart. Prove to me that Marx would not agree with Engels on this.


Friedrich Engels even said that this replacement, this new state, should not be called 'state' anymore. He used another word, 'Gemeinwesen.' (I do only know the German word)

I have actually never heard about Marx argueing against Engels in public, or the other way round. They worked together and solved their disagreements before making their writings public.

You did, by the way, not adress everything I said before. Just a reminder.

Martov was a class-traitor.

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:03 PM
Martov was a class-traitor.
I presume by this you mean, he left one class to support another, is this such a bad thing?

Both Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara were class-traitors

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 05:03 PM
They sure were different people, but I still wait for you to put forward some facts instead of just being so smart. Prove to me that Marx would not agree with Engels on this.
I never claimed they disagrees, although i'm sure they did on at least some issues. My point was that Lenin just assumes that Marx and Engles had exactly the same opinions on everything and talkes about them as if they are the same person.


Martov was a class-traitor.

You just wouldn't be a Leninist if didn't include slander in your posts.

[Bianconero]

I never claimed they disagrees, although i'm sure they did on at least some issues. My point was that Lenin just assumes that Marx and Engles had exactly the same opinions on everything and talkes about them as if they are the same person.

You are nothing special mate, I have dealt with people like you for a long time. Instead of talking without getting to the point you should definately not talk at all. It is a waste of time. And we both know this is truth, so don't act like you are confused now.

I explain Marxism and the state (and I consider Engels a Marxist), you claim that Marx and Engels are 'not the same person.' Sure thing, I guess you could get the Nobel-prize for that, mate. I never claimed that Marx and Engels are the 'same person', I never denied they were two different people with different thoughts on some issues. I merely said they both agreed on the state and it's role.


I presume by this you mean, he left one class to support another, is this such a bad thing?

Both Fidel Castro and Ernesto Guevara were class-traitors

Martov betrayed the proletariat. Castro and Guevara served the people.

That difficult?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 06:35 PM
You are nothing special mate, I have dealt with people like you for a long time. Instead of talking without getting to the point you should definately not talk at all. It is a waste of time. And we both know this is truth, so don't act like you are confused now.

Don't patronise me, you're the one who's confused. I said that Lenin treats Engles writing as evidence of what Marx thought, they are not the same person and shouldn't be treated as such. You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, i wasn't trying to prove that Marx disagreed with Engles on the matter of the state.


you claim that Marx and Engels are 'not the same person.' Sure thing, I guess you could get the Nobel-prize for that, mate

I wasn't advancing this as some kind of inspired revelation just pointing out that quoting Engles doesn't suffice as proof of Marx's opinions, as i'm sure you agree so i don't see why you keep making me repeat myself.


Martov betrayed the proletariat. Castro and Guevara served the people.

That difficult?

So then Castro and Guevara were class traitors, they betrayed the bougoisie. This goes to show that your comment on Martov was pure slander.

What Toastedmonkey said was correct so stop being such a condescending twat, it really makes you look stupid when what you're saying is wrong.

[Bianconero]

Don't patronise me, you're the one who's confused. I said that Lenin treats Engles writing as evidence of what Marx thought, they are not the same person and shouldn't be treated as such. You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, i wasn't trying to prove that Marx disagreed with Engles on the matter of the state.

I wasn't advancing this as some kind of inspired revelation just pointing out that quoting Engles doesn't suffice as proof of Marx's opinions, as i'm sure you agree so i don't see why you keep making me repeat myself.


They (Marx and Engels) worked together and solved their disagreements before making their writings public.

Case closed.


So then Castro and Guevara were class traitors, they betrayed the bougoisie. This goes to show that your comment on Martov was pure slander.

What Toastedmonkey said was correct so stop being such a condescending twat, it really makes you look stupid when what you're saying is wrong.

It is not necessarily bad if you are a class traitor, but betraying the progressive class is bad. Study the Menshevik policy after the February revolution. Martov betrayed the progressive class. .

Do I need to explain everything in detail? It should be rather easy to understand that I wouldn't attack anyone for betraying the bourgeois class.

Yes, my comment on Martov was pure slander. So what? I never denied that, did I?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Bianconero,


Marx and Lenin both said that the state will be destroyed during the revolution, then replaced with something different.

Friedrich Engels even said that this replacement, this new state, should not be called 'state' anymore. He used another word, 'Gemeinwesen.' (I do only know the German word)


This is how we started this discussion; you clearly imply that Engles opinion on 'Gemeinwesen' was also Marx's, this may well be true but you can't just assume that it is.


Yes, my comment on Martov was pure slander. So what? I never denied that, did I?

You argued with toastedmonkey who criticised you for it. Slander isn't a form of debate, you were trying to discredit Martov's point without making a real argument.

[toastedmonkey]

Thank you Miso, at least someone understood my point