Bolshevism vs. Menshevism

[angus_mor]

The dissagreement of party structure and membership of the communist party gave rise to the Bolsheviks. The Menshevik weren't out numbered, but when the question arrived on that fateful day in London of 1903, seven delegates stormed out in anger. As Im sure you all know, the Bolsheviks restrict party membership to a small group of dedicated revolutionaries, whereas the Mensheviks let anyone who believes in the revolution join.

I have a Menshevik philosophy, and there are many of you who are Bolshevik, let us debate this difference and discuss why we choose either, or neither.

[Clarksist]

I, personally, choose neither. The Mensheviks never worked up any action, the action that the Bolsheviks brought was devastating to human rights.

I just know I'm gonna get a "Blame Stalin for everything because Lenin obviously was perfect."

But guess what?

All Lenin ended up doing was setting up a controlled economic environment, but a capitalist economy none the less.

The Mensheviks, however, were reformists. So I don't really align with either.

BTW, 500th post. w00t!

[angus_mor]

Condradulations on your 500th post, comrade!

I meant the philosophy of party membership, not if you believed in either of the revolutionary groups.

So I ask you, comrade, do you believe that party membership should be reserved for 'dedicated revolutionaries', or extended to anyone that takes heed?

[redstar2000]

Historically speaking, I think it could be shown that the Mensheviks were "nearly as tight" as the Bolsheviks -- both groups were working underground in Russia under conditions of severe illegality...meaning that they had to do a lot of the same things.

As I understand it, the real difference was that you couldn't "be" a Bolshevik unless you were part of a Bolshevik collective; the Mensheviks allowed for the possibility of "at-large" membership in which you didn't necessarily have to be a member of a particular Menshevik collective.

On the whole, I think the Mensheviks were "better Marxists" than the Bolsheviks. But it must be acknowledged that the Bolsheviks were much more active in their political work...they really did win an enormous number of workers to their politics in the summer and fall of 1917.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

Angus_mor, for a defence of Bolshevism read Lenin's What is to be Done (if you havent already).


On the whole, I think the Mensheviks were "better Marxists" than the Bolsheviks.

Entirely untrue.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 02:16 PM
Entirely untrue.
State your reasonings at least.

I mean, to be fair, all the Bolsheviks did was set up a controlled capitalist environment, and not a socialist one.

Please, discuss... don't just say "Liar, liar, pants on fire."

[cormacobear]

Many of the disagreements arose as a result of their skeiwed representation. The bulsheviks had far greater support with industrial workers, and urban populations, while the menshevik consisted mainly of peasants and agrarian workers.

Lenin was a ruthless political opponent many men he spoke hioghly of were pushed out with masterfull technique by Lenin as soon as they chanced to disagree with him. I think Lenin and Trotsky should have tried harder to negotiate a compromise with the Mensheviks. But hard times, breed unbendable men.

[Vanguard1917]

It's untrue because the Mensheviks wanted to delay the revolution at a time when there was worker upheavel throughout Europe. The Bolsheviks, on the other hand, defended the movement in Russia for the same reason.

Read this preface to the Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto (especially the bits that I have put in bold), written in 1882 by Marx and Engels, and you will clearly see the Marxist position on the issue from horses' mouth.

"The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?

The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development."


I mean, to be fair, all the Bolsheviks did was set up a controlled capitalist environment, and not a socialist one.

Having read the quotation above, the Marxist reply would be to say that, due to the failure of revolution in Europe, the Russian Revolution could not be successful. The NEP was introduced as a means to "buy time". It was never intended by the Lenin leadership to be a long-term solution. Only under Stalin did it become a long-term policy: hence 'socialism in one country'. The Bolsheviks had their eyes on revolution in the West; the Stalinists, in their counter-revolution, did not.

[redstar2000]

Marx was not being "a good Marxist" here...there was no chance for communal peasant property to survive capitalist development in Russia -- no matter what happened in Europe.

The reason that the Mensheviks were "better Marxists" is that they understood, far more clearly than the Bolsheviks, that a proletarian revolution in Russia would only "clear the way" for the bourgeoisie.

And that's what happened...though not, perhaps, in a way that the Mensheviks anticipated.

I do not defend the political behavior of the Mensheviks, of course...their opportunism culminated in supporting the "White" reactionaries. They were an unsavory bunch altogether.

But they were right about what would happen to the USSR.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Vanguard1917]

there was no chance for communal peasant property to survive capitalist development in Russia -- no matter what happened in Europe.

Whats your reasonning when you say "no matter what happened in Europe"?

[redstar2000]

Meaning that even in the unlikely event that there had been proletarian revolutions throughout Europe within an hour of the time Marx wrote his letter, that would not have served to save peasant communal farming in Russia.

Nothing would have saved it.

And, by the way, it wasn't really "communal" in the modern sense of that word. From what I've read, a group of senior oligarchs allotted land for plowing to each peasant family every spring...based loosely on the size of the family and their ability to do the actual work. A peasant's willingness to kiss the ass of the elders probably also played a substantial role in the size of his seasonal allotment.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[angus_mor]

I understand that niether group was what they claimed to be, but I was talking of your personal ideals on party membership. So if you could please answer this question; do you think party membership should be restricted, a privelage, or to be distributed evenly, a right? I, for one, think that it is a human right and duty to be a party member.

[redstar2000]

It depends on "what kind" of "party" you want to have.

The more "discipline" you want to enforce, the "tighter" your membership requirements have to be.

The problem doesn't arise for me because I don't like "parties" at all. I think what is needed is a revolutionary movement...which would be pretty open to new members.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 07:34 PM
The problem doesn't arise for me because I don't like "parties" at all. I think what is needed is a revolutionary movement...which would be pretty open to new members.
Ahh, but movements have their way of getting "sidetracked."

Either way a party with little restrictions on members would serve just as well as a movement.

But an "unorganized" movement often is taken off course by people joining it for the fad of it.

Take the Yippies and Hippies. Both had numerous people just dressing in the attire, going to the parties, and doing the drugs. But few actually benefited the movement.

Would a party be any different... I just don't know.

[Vanguard1917]

So if you could please answer this question; do you think party membership should be restricted, a privelage, or to be distributed evenly, a right?

Let's just have a look at some key parts of Lenin's argument for restricted party membership, that may be relevant for us today.

According to Lenin, consciousness among the working class in capitalist society is uneven. Some workers have advanced levels of class consciousness while many others do not. Party membership cannot, therefore, be "distributed evenly" due to the fact that the consciousness of the working class is "uneven".

If the party wants to be a revolutionary party, it must only have revolutionary elements within it. Party membership must therefore only be open to the most class conscious workers. Openning up membership to all workers, regardless of their ideological standpoints, will only introduce capitalist elements into the party. In order for the working class to fight the capitalists on its own terms, we cannot have the party diluted with capitalist elements.

In times of class struggle, the working class has to be able to put up a strong political struggle against the political forces of the bourgeoisie. To paraphrase Marx and Engels, capitalism creates divisions within the working class itself - therefore EVERY CLASS STRUGGLE IS A POLITICAL STRUGGLE. From my understanding, Lenin believed that only a most politically advanced working class is able to put up such a struggle.

I believe that the mass political involvement of the working class must be an aim in itself. But this is something that has to be fought for. I dont believe that it will come about "naturally". Capitalism divides workers on all imaginable levels. The aim of the vanguard of the working class is to fight against the conditions that create such divisions - on all levels, all fronts - by confronting the ideas of the ruling class and, at the same time, winning the mass of the working class to revolutionary ideas. Only then can a revolutionary vanguard party be transformed into a revolutionary mass party.

No knee-jerk reactions please. Lets have a serious theoretical debate on this.

[angus_mor]

While Im sure that you're worried that 'menshevik' party membership is compromising to its purpose, so is 'bolshevik' membership. In the communist states of today, virtually anything is under the control of the communist party. I have read many sources, did the math, and have found that the average states' party membership is around 5%. In this way, it creates an aristocracy, a ruling class, if you dont believe me, than take the USSR for example, as put best by George Orwell. In Animal Farm, the bolsheviks are pigs, he did this to demonstrate the growing divide that occured between the bolsheviks, and the people. (I dont like to quote this guy but) Like Mao said, "The US holds no threat because its system is divorced from the people." It is obvious that in order for society to succeed, it must be vested into every person.

[Vanguard1917]

While Im sure that you're worried that 'menshevik' party membership is compromising to its purpose, so is 'bolshevik' membership. In the communist states of today, virtually anything is under the control of the communist party.

How is this at all relevant to the dispute between the mensheviks and the bolsheviks? There is no link between the ideas of Lenin and the practices of Stalinists. It is not part of a "logical progression", as the bourgeois historians ignorantly claim.


In this way, it creates an aristocracy, a ruling class, if you dont believe me, than take the USSR for example, as put best by George Orwell. In Animal Farm, the bolsheviks are pigs, he did this to demonstrate the growing divide that occured between the bolsheviks, and the people.

Animal Farm is all good, but if you want something more challenging, I would suggest Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed.

I agree that we need the political engagement of the mass of the working class. This is vital for the successful transition to socialism.

But we believe that, in times of class struggle, large sections of the working class are yet to be won over to socialist class consciousness. We believe that allowing the political involvement of such workers in the political decisions of the party will necessarily introduce capitalist elements into the party. This is why a strong vanguard of class consciousness workers is necessary to lead the movement. This vanguard, in my view, will expand as the section of class conscious workers expands. If the party gave into the demands of non-class conscious workers (or petty-bourgeois "radicals", for that matter), it will be giving in to the bourgeoisie by allowing non-revolutionary elements into the party. Remember: we are Marxists, not populists.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 09:39 PM
Meaning that even in the unlikely event that there had been proletarian revolutions throughout Europe within an hour of the time Marx wrote his letter, that would not have served to save peasant communal farming in Russia.

Nothing would have saved it.
"What ifs" are unknowable by their nature. So you can't possibly know that...unless you have a direct line to God.

Human social development does not always follow a single pathway. It hasn't throughout human history.

Marx may have been a "bad Marxist" in your conception by deparing from your oversimplified, schematic conception of Marxism as involving a set, unvarying, set of stages of social development....

But he was a "good Marxist" here as usual, in that he applied the method of thought we call Marxist. Flexibly, that is dialectically (horrors!), and based on a detailed study of the material facts of Russia's economic development.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 07:09 PM
The dissagreement of party structure and membership of the communist party gave rise to the Bolsheviks. The Menshevik weren't out numbered, but when the question arrived on that fateful day in London of 1903, seven delegates stormed out in anger. As Im sure you all know, the Bolsheviks restrict party membership to a small group of dedicated revolutionaries, whereas the Mensheviks let anyone who believes in the revolution join.

I have a Menshevik philosophy, and there are many of you who are Bolshevik, let us debate this difference and discuss why we choose either, or neither.
The difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks wasn't really apparent at that Congress. Hadn't really developed yet, even.

It fully developed and became clear in the years of reaction following the defeat of the 1905 revolution.

The main difference was:

The Mensheviks advocated the working class should ally with, and follow, the liberal bourgeoisie. Parties like the Cadets and the Octobrists. Since under the objective conditions of Russia, a bourgeois-democratic revolution was needed.

The Bosheviks advocated the working class should ally with, and lead, the peasants. Since in the modern world, the capitalists were not inclined to lead revolutions even for their own bourgeois-democratic goals. They were too scared that the working class would get out of hand following such a revolution.

Certainly the experience of the February Revolution and the Provisional Government supported the Bolsheviks' theory, not the Mensheviks', on this point.

So, the Bolsheviks argued, the workers and peasants had to take power themselves to smash tsarism and the semi-feudal system on the land...

And they did. More thoroughly than any bourgeois-democratic revolution ever did.

(As Lenin explained on the 4th anniversary of the Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/oct/14.htm)
That article should at least serve to make clear what are the main issues in dispute between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks.)

And they gave a tremendous push to workers' and peasants' struggles throughout the world. Socialism became a truly world movement for the first time thanks to the Russian Revolution...as Lenin once said, the Second International had in practice been "an international of the white race."

Our whole world is marked by that revolution. Despite the counterrevolution in the USSR in the 1920s and everything else, the world's a better place thanks to the Russian Revolution. The bosses are weaker and the workers are stronger.

It is especially ironic that anyone would seek to justify Menshevism by reference to the Stalinist counterrevolution. They both represented similar petty-bourgeois class interests. They both advocated the "two-stage" theory of a bourgeois-led revolution to be followed by a prolonged period of capitalist development. And a amazing number of ex-Mensheviks, who joined the Bolshevik Party only after it was in power, helped staff Stalin's regime....including some of the prosecutors at the Moscow Trials, for example.

[cormacobear]

We live in a very different world than Russia under the tsars, we watched human rights abuses by the 'Vangaurd', or 'party'. While we may have gotten the economics wrong in the west Or national human rights records show, the benefits of wide political inclusion, are we willing to gamble human rights protected through democracy by handing them over to any sort of exclusive decision making group. It's an awfull big gamble hoping they will really return the decision making for both the economy, and the governance, back to the people. Any potential success for the left in the west must be inclusive due to the limited democracy we've achieved, and should be fought for as hard as the democratizion of the markets.

While their are nations whose conditions very much resemble those of early russia, and likely a similiar situation to the Bulsheviks have greater chances of success in such countries. The events must suit the scenario. Admittedly the fact that the acheivements of the 1905 revolution were swept aside so easily, is too strong an argument to believe the mensheviks could have freed themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Vanguard1917+--> (Vanguard1917)There is no link between the ideas of Lenin and the practices of Stalinists.[/b]

Lenin didn't form the initial version of the "people's secret police" (or whatever the fuck he called it)? He didn't use it to bust up anarchist groups? He didn't begin the formation and use of "labor camps"?

Stalin was just as "good" a Leninist as Trotsky (and Bukharin was likely better than both).


...but if you want something more challenging, I would suggest Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed..

As if the title alone doesn't reveal the analysis.

PERFIDY! TREASON! BETRAYAL!

If you don't have a materialist analysis, what can you fall back on besides moral turpitude?

The "devil theory" of history.


Originally posted by [email protected]
"What ifs" are unknowable by their nature. So you can't possibly know that...unless you have a direct line to God.

What is Trotskyism other than an entire paradigm consisting of "what if's"? Beginning with "what if Lenin had lived longer?" and "what if he had used his prestige to remove Stalin and install Trotsky as the General Secretary?" and "what if Stalin had been sent to run a tractor factory in Kiev?", blah, blah, blah.

"God" hardly ever returns my calls...the Trotskyists have a permanent connection.


Human social development does not always follow a single pathway. It hasn't throughout human history.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody knows that. So what?


Marx may have been a "bad Marxist" in your conception by departing from your oversimplified, schematic conception of Marxism as involving a set, unvarying, set of stages of social development....

Nah. I think he was trying to be as diplomatic as he could be with a Russian fan.

The young Lenin, 20 years later, got it right: Russia is on the path to capitalism. And no nonsense about preserving primitive peasant "communes".


Our whole world is marked by that revolution. Despite the counterrevolution in the USSR in the 1920s and everything else, the world's a better place thanks to the Russian Revolution. The bosses are weaker and the workers are stronger.

Here is an invitation to everyone not bedazzled by the myths of Lenin and Trotsky to indulge in a veritable orgy of "what if's".

What if the Mensheviks had won and retained a solid majority in the soviets? Had introduced their own "NEP", forged their own alliance with the Kulaks? Had taken Russia straightway onto the paths of modern capitalism?

Would the imperialists have still intervened or would the Russians have skipped the civil war? Would the Nazis have become significant at all (much less come to power) without the "Bolshevik devil" to threaten people with?

How would anarchism in Spain have fared without being stabbed in the back by the Muscovites?

And what would be our own position today without the grim shadows of Lenin and his heirs hanging over us?

"What if", indeed! :lol:


cormacobear
Any potential success for the left in the west must be inclusive due to the limited democracy we've achieved, and should be fought for as hard as the democratization of the markets.

The "limited democracy" that "we've achieved" is an empty and meaningless show.

As "democratization of the market" is a meaningless phrase.

The market is always "democratic" -- the more units of currency at your disposal, the more votes you get.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

As Lenin puts it, "there can be no genuine revolutionary movement without a revolutionary party of the proletariat."

The Bolsheviks never have considered membership in the party as a privilege only to those few elite individuals among the proletariat. It is, in fact, a responsibility to be a member of the party. Marx stated in the Communist Manifesto that "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." Marx further said "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat." Because of the above, it is necessary for all the communist to form themselves a party to accomplish such goals as stated in the Communist Manifesto.

The Bolsheviks' restriction, if that may be the word, is not a show of elitism or privilege only to the communists. It is to show the immense responsibility bestowed upon all communists. It is, therefore, necessary to form a communists party to centralize the leadership of the proletariat, not only on their struggle, but also of that with the struggle of all other oppressed classes in their societies.

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Jul 26 2005, 06:34 PM--> (redstar2000 @ Jul 26 2005, 06:34 PM) Lenin didn't form the initial version of the "people's secret police" (or whatever the fuck he called it)? [/b]
Yes, most governments have political police agencies, etc. That's a pretty superficial look at the question.

Lenin headed a dictatorship of the proletariat. Stalin headed a dictatorship over and agaist the proletariat.

Your attempt to identify the two is just another element of your ongoing allegiance to Stalinism....you've openly rejected Leninism (which you never practiced) without ceasing to practice Stalinism.




...but if you want something more challenging, I would suggest Trotsky's Revolution Betrayed..

As if the title alone doesn't reveal the analysis.

PERFIDY! TREASON! BETRAYAL!

If you don't have a materialist analysis, what can you fall back on besides moral turpitude?

Even more superficial. Don't judge a book by its title.

As I've told you before, Trotsky in fact explained A) that Stalin was not an evil individual, but the chief representative of a privileged bureaucratic caste and B) the material roots of the rise of that caste, in Soviet Russia's economic and educational backwardness, and its besieged isolation in a capitalist world. He even explained the material roots of the rise of one individual to supreme power within the bureaucracy, how that served the bureaucracy's interests.



Severian
"What ifs" are unknowable by their nature. So you can't possibly know that...unless you have a direct line to God.

What is Trotskyism other than an entire paradigm consisting of "what if's"? Beginning with "what if Lenin had lived longer?" and "what if he had used his prestige to remove Stalin and install Trotsky as the General Secretary?" and "what if Stalin had been sent to run a tractor factory in Kiev?", blah, blah, blah.

No, not at all. See above. If there's a "what if", it's "what if the 1919 German Revolution had won?" We can't know, of course. So I don't assume that the Stalinist counterrevolution was inevitable from the start.



Human social development does not always follow a single pathway. It hasn't throughout human history.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Everybody knows that. So what?

You know that? Coulda fooled me. You seem to assume every country must have a bourgeois revolution, then a prolonged stage of economic development, then a proletarian revolution.

Ever consider that a country's path of social development might be affected by its world context?


Nah. I think he was trying to be as diplomatic as he could be with a Russian fan.

Which says more about you than about Marx.

Marx was not in the habit of taking positions for such frivolous reasons...and if you bothered to examine his and Engels' writings on the subject, you'd know there was a careful analysis behind his conclusions.


The young Lenin, 20 years later, got it right: Russia is on the path to capitalism. And no nonsense about preserving primitive peasant "communes".

Yes, by then it was. Actually Engels drew that conclusion by the end of his life.

That doesn't prove Marx was wrong in considering the other outcome possible...because we can't know the "what ifs."


What if the Mensheviks had won and retained a solid majority in the soviets? Had introduced their own "NEP", forged their own alliance with the Kulaks? Had taken Russia straightway onto the paths of modern capitalism?

Sorry to bring you back to the real world...but did they?

The Menshevik-SR alliance held the real power for 9 months...did they take even the first step to, for example, give the peasants the land and end their semifeudal bondage? No. They didn't even abolish the monarchy. They dithered and delayed until the workers and peasants lost patience with them.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:34 PM






The "limited democracy" that "we've achieved" is an empty and meaningless show.

For this overdramatic statement of yours to be true you would have to deny every social advance we've achieved democratically in the last 200 years.The U.S. is the only Country in the world without at least some degree of socialized medicine, we no longer work 18 hour days these may have been given as concessions to prevent a revolution, but they were achieved democratically, and there is no reason we have to stop there.


As "democratization of the market" is a meaningless phrase.


How else do you describe socialism if not the popular controll of the economy?



The market is always "democratic" -- the more units of currency at your disposal, the more votes you get.

Don't be a moron that's not democracy and you know it. if the distribution of wealth were even then the markets would be democratic One vote per citizen with representation by population with the widest distribution of power, what you're describing is an oligarchy like you have in the United states. Our markets are currently an Oligarchy
<_<

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian+--> (Severian)Ever consider that a country&#39;s path of social development might be affected by its world context?[/b]

Banal.

Trotskyists think everything "would have been different" if only there had been a German revolution.

I don&#39;t buy it. By 1919, Germany was suffering severe food shortages. In principle, a revolutionary Germany could have bartered machinery for food with the USSR...except that the USSR was also suffering food shortages as a consequence of the civil war -- in fact, they ended up having an actual famine.

The only benefit that a German revolution would have had for the Russians is that of "sacrificial lamb". The British and French (possibly the Americans as well) would have withdrawn troops and supplies from Russia to concentrate on occupying Germany and crushing the revolution there. The civil war in Russia would have ended a year or so earlier than it did...and the USSR would have benefited materially from that. And maybe there would have been no famine.

Politically, I doubt if it would have made any difference at all.


cormacobear
These may have been given as concessions to prevent a revolution, but they were achieved democratically, and there is no reason we have to stop there.

You have already been "stopped" and you are presently being "rolled back". The era of "great reforms" under capitalism is over.

And the reforms you speak of were not "achieved democratically" but were rather the product of mass movements of the 1930s and 1940s in the workplaces and in the streets.

That&#39;s all gone now...and it&#39;s not coming back. When serious new mass movements arise in this century, they will become, inevitably, revolutionary.

The capitalist class has taken reforms "off the agenda".


How else do you describe socialism if not the popular control of the economy?

Socialism is a form of class society that retains market mechanisms (among other things).

I am a communist, not a socialist. My goal is to abolish the market, not make it "democratic".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif