mensheviks

[Red Scare]

I am not necessarily against the mensheviks but I do not support their ideology, and I was wondering what people thought about them. i am not sure if there are any groups still around who follow what was the menshevik ideology

[Random Precision]

For anyone unfamiliar with them:

The Mensheviks were the faction of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party who opposed Lenin's proposals for the building of the revolutionary party. They split with the party after it was banned in the wake of the failed 1905 revolution, mostly to join legal oppositional organizations that opposed a violent revolution. Many of them supported World War I in the name of national defense, which caused a further split in their ranks. This was a policy they continued after the Tsar was overthrown, in the name of defending the revolution. After the February Revolution, they supported the provisional government and saw the way forward as a bourgeois democracy in which they would participate. During the Civil War, many of them fought on the White side directly, while those that supported the Bolsheviks refused to split with the other faction. For this and other reasons, they were justifiably suppressed after the Kronstadt uprising, although they maintained a stronghold in the republic of Georgia for several months.

As to your questions: I think of them in the same light that I think of most reformist parties. In a revolutionary situation, they showed their true colors as right-wing opportunists and sided against the revolution, similar to the German Social Democrats. Their legacy is to show us the true face of reformism: while they may say that they stand for socialism and have all the same goals as we do, when it comes time to actually build it they switch to the capitalist side and become some of the most eager persecutors of the revolution.

I have nothing but contempt for them for that reason. If you're looking for parties that follow their ideology, look up the social democratic parties in whatever country you're from.

To tell you the truth, I cannot imagine why any self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist would not oppose the Mensheviks and what they stood for.

[chimx]

The Mensheviks were the ones that originally organized the Soviets in 1905, despite what a lot of Bolshevik-lovers might say.

They thought that Russia was not ripe for communism, given its feudal background with a very small urban population, and that any socialist undertakings would ultimately fail because of this. History has proven them correct.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 11:08 pm
They thought that Russia was not ripe for communism, given its feudal background with a very small urban population, and that any socialist undertakings would ultimately fail because of this. History has proven them correct.
It's easy to say "they thought" without talking about what "they did".

Actually the Mensheviks tied the workingclass to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, because in their opinion workers were not ready to take power. They stood against the revolution, and supported the building of Capitalism by advocating that the workingclass should simply be a "radical wing" of the "progressive bourgeoisie".

They were the forerunners of the Stalinist theory of "two stages", which chimx supports.

[RNK]

The NDP in Canada, the leftist tendency of the Democrats in the US... those who agree with socialism in theory, but oppose it in practice, as to them, socialism is merely a progressive form of bourgeois democracy and isn't really "socialism" at all.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:08 am
The Mensheviks were the ones that originally organized the Soviets in 1905, despite what a lot of Bolshevik-lovers might say.

They thought that Russia was not ripe for communism, given its feudal background with a very small urban population, and that any socialist undertakings would ultimately fail because of this. History has proven them correct.
And Russia was neither ripe for a bourgeois democracy. They found out they needed a strong leadership, someone who was able to keep the masses under control. This would either be a general/king or a social-democrat.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 08:38 am
The Mensheviks were the ones that originally organized the Soviets in 1905, despite what a lot of Bolshevik-lovers might say.


Where have anyone said that it was Bolsheviks anyway ? (I mean in this forum).

But Trotsky became Bolshevik anyway.



They thought that Russia was not ripe for communism, given its feudal background with a very small urban population, and that any socialist undertakings would ultimately fail because of this. History has proven them correct.

Sure Kerensky/Kornilov would have really brought up purely democratic system in Russia without killing a single worker or a peasant. ;)

[syndicat]

There are some misconceptions about the Mensheviks stated here. To begin with, the Mensheviks were split on the question of support for the Provisional Government in October 1917. The provisional government had become discredited. The Right Mensheviks and the official leadership of the SR party still supported the provisional government. But the Left Mensheviks and Left SRs did not. At the the Soviet Congress meeting in October 1917, the Right Mensheviks and the official ("Right") SRs walked out in protest against the Bolshevik proposal to get the Congress to put them in power thru the formation of the Council of People's Commissars. However, the Left Mensheviks and Left SRs did not walk out.

at the party congress in Nov 1917, the supporters of the Left Mensheviks had over 60% of the delegates. The working class base of the Menshevik party had gone over to the Left Mensheviks by that time.

It is not true that the Menshevik party supported or engaged in armed attacks against the Soviet government nor did they support the "Whites". in 1918 the Right Mensheviks did support an armed rebellion against the Soviet government and the Left Menshevik majority expelled them for that reason. by that time the Right Mensheviks were a minority faction in the party.

The Mensheviks continued as a democratic opposition within the soviets and trade unions and workplaces. The position of the Left Mensheviks at the time of the October Revolution was that they would support the soviet power but they wanted the soviet government to protect the Constituent Assembly and move eventually towards a western-style parliamentary republic.

During 1918 the Left Mensheviks gained support against the Bolsheviks and won soviet majorities in 19 cities in European Russia in the spring of 1918. But their position was contradictory. Because the workers supported the soviets but wanted them run democratically and not autocratically, that is why they voted for the Mensheviks, even tho the Menshevik program was officially in favor ordinary city councils not goverment by local soviets. Despite the fact that the Left Mensheviks pursued a non-violent policy of democratic opposition, they were eventually suppressed by the Bolsheviks.

Chimx is mistaken when he says the Mensheviks organized the soviets of 1905. None of the political parties had much to do with the formation of the soviets of 1905. Trotsky just happened to be involved in the St. Petersburg soviet but the Mensheviks were not a significant force in that soviet at the time. The soviets of 1905 were very different than the soviets of 1917. The soviets of 1905 were grassroots strike committees, formed by the workers themselves during the massive national general strike in Russia in 1905. the 1917 soviets on the other hand were not formed directly by the workers in the major cities, but were initiated by party leaders. the St. Petersburg Soviet of 1917 was formed by three members of the Russian parliament, including two Menshevik leaders and Alexander Kerensky (a member of the Popular Socialist Party).

You can find much of this information in "The Mensheviks After October" by Vladimir Brovkin and also in "Before Stalinism" by Sam Farber.

[Tovarish]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+August 29, 2007 10:16 pm--> (Che y Marijuana @ August 29, 2007 10:16 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 11:08 pm
They thought that Russia was not ripe for communism, given its feudal background with a very small urban population, and that any socialist undertakings would ultimately fail because of this. History has proven them correct.
It's easy to say "they thought" without talking about what "they did".

Actually the Mensheviks tied the workingclass to the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, because in their opinion workers were not ready to take power. They stood against the revolution, and supported the building of Capitalism by advocating that the workingclass should simply be a "radical wing" of the "progressive bourgeoisie".

They were the forerunners of the Stalinist theory of "two stages", which chimx supports.[/b]
Howdy,

I am a noob here, cheered by the handle chosen by my first pass of a local admin :)

Anyway, this comment you make is quite interesting to me in that I know very little about the progression of thinking that led to Stalinism. In fact, I can say that all I know is what you mention above. Can you point to some other threads that may describe this two stages theory, perhaps one where chimx is engaged in discussing these ideas.

I can only say that the 'two stages' view of the state of revolutionary Russia holds some currency with me; seems to me that despite various vangardist interventions the long run of the last 150 years demonstrates that capitalism will be done.

I posit a certain inevitability to communism. The ferment we have seen around the world over the course of the last century is tantalizing circumstantial evidence, no? And yet, I also am rather inclined to see a lot of my socialist acquaintances take view not far removed from that of the eschatology-obsessed Christian, i.e. that we're just right on the edge, or that socialism coulda remained in place there were it not for just a tiny tipping point of some human or material frailty or another.

Rather, I see this few chapters in Russian history - what are there, maybe five or six discreet periods in the last 150 years? - as a case of the inevitable march of history, circuitous as it may have been, to a necessary state of capitalist development in an increasingly globalized world.

I have a lot to learn in both theory and history as I am -generally- a noob and not merely a RevLeft one. But it seems to me that 150 years is a one act play, not a long march of history. How long was communalism on the historical scene? Feudalism?

And by way of comparison, how long for Global Capitalism (assuming it is yet even authoritative to presume the current state of affairs is in fact global)?

Long and short of it, whether the Mensheviks were 'proven right,' they were indeed vangardists. IMO, even today we must really, really remain mindful as students and activists that it will be plain people who do this. A lack of faith in the plain people is, deciphered, decoded and materially stated, an admission that it is not time yet.

As globalization becomes un fait accompli the experience of those living under it will so too become homogenized. And with that will be a shared experience of oppression leading to a more uniform and cohesive effort by the people to stand in opposition. That, in two sentences is my view of the way it all goes, this dialectic materialism that I am surprised to see some here rejecting. I'm interested in reading more on those folks' opinions.

So, by way of that birds' eye view of my way of thinking on the topic at hand, along with admission of relatively thin knowledge of both history and theory, it is indeed most interesting to connect these dots between the Mensheviks and subsequent economic policies under Stalin. Do point the way to some other revleft content on that.

Thanks-

[Philosophical Materialist]

They were a party of bourgeois socialism, a platform of guaranteers of Anglo-French capital interests in a post-feudal Russia whilst forwarding some trinkets onto the urban proletariat, and peasantry. They worked for bourgeois republicanism and reformism, and were only prepared to take a revolutionary stance to help the bourgeoisie obtain power, but nothing further.

[chimx]

Originally posted by syndicat
Chimx is mistaken when he says the Mensheviks organized the soviets of 1905. None of the political parties had much to do with the formation of the soviets of 1905. Trotsky just happened to be involved in the St. Petersburg soviet but the Mensheviks were not a significant force in that soviet at the time. The soviets of 1905 were very different than the soviets of 1917. The soviets of 1905 were grassroots strike committees, formed by the workers themselves during the massive national general strike in Russia in 1905. the 1917 soviets on the other hand were not formed directly by the workers in the major cities, but were initiated by party leaders. the St. Petersburg Soviet of 1917 was formed by three members of the Russian parliament, including two Menshevik leaders and Alexander Kerensky (a member of the Popular Socialist Party).

I would be interested to hear where the information in the books you cited comes from. There are historical allegations that the Bolsheviks later falsified the birth of the soviets in 1905 to emphasize Trotsky's participation in them during the later fall months. On the other hand, the anarchist Volin claims that the soviet began during the late winter/spring months of 1905 and was heavily influenced by Menshevism -- while Bolshevik currents were always an extreme minority in the 1905 soviet.

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll have to remember to pick those up!


They were the forerunners of the Stalinist theory of "two stages", which chimx supports.

Having a proto-capitalist economy with a negligible industrial basis inevitably creates an economy of scarcity which is entirely antithetical to the material conditions required by communism. I don't disagree that one can advance these material conditions under the guise of socialism, but history has shown us the dire consequences of such a development model.

I would love for you to elaborate on why you write this off. I understand that Marx was certainly critical of individuals that took his theories too rigidly -- to go so far as to support a bourgeois republic within a feudal landscape, but considering how socialism has unfolded over the past century, I can't help but scratch my head and wonder about the Menshevik program.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

...history has shown us the dire consequences of such a development model.

Yeah, a jump in life expectancy never before seen in human history, rapid industrialization without the horrors that came with in the capitalist countries, full employment, decent housing, socialized universal healthcare and education.... really 'dire' stuff.

[chimx]

That has occurred in almost every country that has seen an economic shift from feudalism to capitalism. Please don't derail the conversation.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

By responding to your ridiculous claims?

Yeah, I guess 'feeding the trolls' can have that effect..

Still.. when you say things like "That has occurred in almost every country that has seen an economic shift from feudalism to capitalism" you've gotta expect someone to call bullshit.

The jump in life expectancy that occurred in the USSR, and the even greater one that occurred later in China have never been seen anywhere on earth before or since. Similarly, the fall in life expectancy in the USSR since the counterrevolution there has brought about an unprecedented fall in life expectancy.

And no, the type of industrialization that occurred in the USSR, with the speed and general lack of the horrific conditions, wasn't seen in any of the capitalist countries that saw 'an economic shift [sic] from feudalism to capitalism'.

And of course, universal healthcare doesn't exist in the U.S., and full employment and completely free, socialized education doesn't exist in any of the capitalist countries.

[chimx]

By responding to your ridiculous claims?

Yeah, I guess 'feeding the trolls' can have that effect..

If you want to derail the thread, then I suggest you at least split this discussion so that we can continue to talk about the history of Menshevism without this thread getting weighed down by your insipid banality.


The jump in life expectancy that occurred in the USSR, and the even greater one that occurred later in China have never been seen anywhere on earth before or since.

This was due to the adoption of a planned economy that was able to funnel exploited surplus values into industrialization that would help fund medical programs. But of course, exploitation still existed and working people felt oppressed. Food shortages were common place in the Soviet Union, as was waiting in line for hours to receive toilet paper. This is because that despite all of the industrialization that had occurred, the Soviet's planned economy was still one of scarcity and not surplus. By the time of Glasnost, public outrage led to severe criticisms of the Soviet Union, its corruption, its nepotism, and its utter political bankruptcy.

When I say "dire consequences" I specifically mean that the revolution failed. The regime collapsed, workers remained alienated, and exploitation persisted.


Similarly, the fall in life expectancy in the USSR since the counterrevolution there has brought about an unprecedented fall in life expectancy.

Please don't purposefully confuse correlation with causality. After the collapse of the Soviet Union inflation soared and the consequences were that people were incapable of obtaining medical help during a period of recession.


And no, the type of industrialization that occurred in the USSR, with the speed and general lack of the horrific conditions, wasn't seen in any of the capitalist countries that saw 'an economic shift [sic] from feudalism to capitalism'.

I can't think of why you would place a sicut in my quotation. Shift is not misspelled. I can only assume you are unfamiliar with the proper usage of the sicut.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Actually, it is you who seems to be confused about the uses of a sicut. It's not only for misspellings, but also incorrect terminology.

An 'economic shift' is not the proper way to describe a revolution that transforms property relations.


This was due to the adoption of a planned economy that was able to funnel exploited surplus values into industrialization that would help fund medical programs... etc., etc., etc.

Why are you going off in another direction now?

I talked about "a jump in life expectancy never before seen in human history, rapid industrialization without the horrors that came with in the capitalist countries, full employment, decent housing, socialized universal healthcare and education" .. features of the USSR, to which you responded, "That has occurred in almost every country that has seen an economic shift from feudalism to capitalism."

The question was never why these features emerged, but--based on your own assertion--if these features were unique or just par for the course in capitalist development.

Now you want to change the subject. I wonder why. Is it because "that" hasn't "occurred in almost every country that has seen an economic shift from feudalism to capitalism"?


When I say "dire consequences" I specifically mean that the revolution failed.

You should have said that.. if that was actually what you meant.

Your meaning was not obvious.

Usually when people use that sort of terminology they're talking about the supposed horror of living under the evil totalitarian "Iron Curtain."


The regime collapsed, workers remained alienated, and exploitation persisted.

Even if one was to agree with all of that nonsense, they'd still have to admit that living under such a regime is 1,000 times better than living under the capitalist wasteland that is today's Russia.

And that's really an issue that so many miss.. As Parenti said, those who claim socialism failed ignore the reality that it (in all its forms, even the deranged ones) worked for millions and millions of people.. much more so than capitalism ever has or will.

[gilhyle]

I agree with Syndicat that its important to be more balanced about the Mensheviks.

Only the immanence of viable revolution made the mensheviks reactionary. Even then, the suppression of the left mensheviks in 1922-24 was a very debateable action on the part of the regime.

its important to recall that their method was the method of Marx and Engels. It was Lenin who innovated and who innovated on the basis of trying to use the 'weakest link' (Russia) to overturn capitalism, a vast speculative leap that might have worked...but didnt.

It is not surprising that the Stalinist tradition turned to Menshevism, having rejected Trotskyism and 'third period' sectarianism (still found in some forms of Maoism).

Lenin's actions are only defensible, despite the defeat of his effort, because it was a reasonable gamble. But it is of Kautsky in his three main books on the USSR (articulating views very close to those of the Mensheviks) that it can be said that he was proven right.

Of course, to be right is easy if your a pessimist and defeat happens. The real question is what can be learnt from menshivism in terms of political method. But since few Menshevik works available - besides the Nicholaevsky Marx biography - the better question is what can still be learnt from Kautsky.

However, Martov is certainly worth a read before people pass judgement:

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

[Tower of Bebel]

So you're saying the "gamble" wasn't worth it?

[gilhyle]

the concept 'worth it' doesnt apply. The gamble was justified, since the alternative was to abandon the Russian masses to the prevarications and confusions of the provisional government - my point is that the method of the mensheviks was the method of the Second International and - effectively - the method of the Communist parties in Europe from 1935 - 90. It was the realistic, disciplined, restrained method which reflected the what Marx and Engels aimed to teach the socialist movement when they fought against utopianism and ultra-leftism. We always need to be clear that what justified the seizure of power was not that it could be done, but that it could be used to topple capitalism internationally. that test remains relevant today. And if its not met, the politics of the Mensheviks become, again, relevant.

[catch]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 04, 2007 04:51 am

...history has shown us the dire consequences of such a development model.

Yeah, a jump in life expectancy never before seen in human history, rapid industrialization without the horrors that came with in the capitalist countries, full employment, decent housing, socialized universal healthcare and education.... really 'dire' stuff.
Massacres, gulags, nothing dire at all.

You should look at the Bolshevik suppression of strikes in 1918 (http://libcom.org/library/russian-labour-bolshevik-power-william-rosenberg) (that article also covers the left SR and Menshevik electoral success around that time). PS the Russian Revolution tag has more Rosenberg articles, alongside Brovkin who Syndicat recommended and others who've done serious research into this period beyond the usual stuff around Kronstadt or Trot/Stalinist rubbish.

A bit later on, there was the strikes in the Ivanovo Industrial Region in 1932 (http://libcom.org/history/1932-vichuga-uprising), which were due to massive reductions in rations, and high unemployment from around the time of the First Five Year Plan.

Or for that matter the Novercherkassk massacre (http://libcom.org/library/1962-novocherkassk-tragedy), let alone the Bolsheviks' suppression of strikes and factory committees from late 1917 onwards (before the Civil War started), Vorkuta, Kengir, East Germany, Poland and Hungary '56.

[Herman]

I remember vaguely something Plekhanov. the father of Russian marxism, said after left the soviet congress... what was it...?

Ah yes:

"The bolshevik bandits are a revolting mixture of utopian idealists, imbeciles, traitors and anarchist provocateurs... we must not only master but crush this vermin, drown it in blood. That is the price of Russia's safety."

[gilhyle]

The problem with tryig to reassess the Menshevik tradition, is the company it puts you in.

[Hit The North]

Talking of Julius Martov:

Julius Martov & the Sexy Mistakes (http://www.myspace.com/thesexymistakes)

:D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:31 am
Lenin's actions are only defensible, despite the defeat of his effort, because it was a reasonable gamble. But it is of Kautsky in his three main books on the USSR (articulating views very close to those of the Mensheviks) that it can be said that he was proven right.

Of course, to be right is easy if your a pessimist and defeat happens. The real question is what can be learnt from menshivism in terms of political method. But since few Menshevik works available - besides the Nicholaevsky Marx biography - the better question is what can still be learnt from Kautsky.

However, Martov is certainly worth a read before people pass judgement:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/index.htm
The problem with Menshevism for me is its slow approach in regards to capitalist development. Some orthodox Marxists here (like ComradeRed) have stated that the Bolshevik gamble was the quickest route to capitalist development in Russia.

Considering that the Russian bourgeoisie just after the liberal overthrow started to backtrack, I would've preferred accelerated Stalinist stamocap development over those turtle hacks and their "prevarications and confusions" any day of the week (note that I did say "state monopoly capitalist").

As for Martov, wasn't he a left-Menshevik? According to some bio accounts, it is said that Lenin even funded Martov's work during the latter's last days in exile.



Now, in regards to Kautsky (since you brought him up here, and since I brought him up elsewhere in the past), wasn't his theoretical position more of a left-Menshevik position? I mean, he didn't go ballistically reactionary like that "founder of Russian Marxism" (Plekhanov) did.


I remember vaguely something Plekhanov. the father of Russian marxism, said after left the soviet congress... what was it...?

Ah yes:

"The bolshevik bandits are a revolting mixture of utopian idealists, imbeciles, traitors and anarchist provocateurs... we must not only master but crush this vermin, drown it in blood. That is the price of Russia's safety."

Honestly, I NEVER thought he went THAT far. I read "Trotsky for Beginners" back in high school ("This isn't Marxism! [Blah blah blah]"), but I NEVER thought that Plekhanov would sound a wee bit like Churchill.

[black magick hustla]

Even if one was to agree with all of that nonsense, they'd still have to admit that living under such a regime is 1,000 times better than living under the capitalist wasteland that is today's Russia.

Comrade, that argument is not really intellectually honest.

In any radical transition, it is expected for there to be a chaotic period. It would be like arguing that socialism was the cause of the devastation of the early USSR, while in reality, it was the harsh transition that the country experienced.

[Leo]

As for Martov, wasn't he a left-Menshevik?

He was. Lenin was always personally quite fond of Martov for some reason. Even in his death bed, Lenin is quoted saying "what a wonderful comrade he was" about Martov. I don't think Martov felt the same way about Lenin though.

[Marsella]

A good explanation of what Julius Martov stood for and a critique of Leninism:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/archive/martov(1940).pdf

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 05, 2007 12:42 am

As for Martov, wasn't he a left-Menshevik?

He was. Lenin was always personally quite fond of Martov for some reason. Even in his death bed, Lenin is quoted saying "what a wonderful comrade he was" about Martov. I don't think Martov felt the same way about Lenin though.
Considering how Martov may have gotten a bit of $$$ from Lenin to continue his newspaper work, you're probably right on Martov's public front only. Who knows how he really felt?

I don't think Martov would've stooped as emotionally low as the "Churchillian" Plekhanov did.

[redarmyfaction38]

wow!
the historical facts are; there were countless armies of intervention in the russian civil war. their only mission was to destroy the embryonic workers state. before that intervention, the "whites" were a tiny minority, they were defeated and largely irrelevant. whether "right wing mensheviks" supported them or not.
the mission of the armiies of intervention was "to bury the workers state in its own blood".
despite the physical "victory" of the "workers state", the ideology was defeated, "war communism" led to party dictatorship and the rise of stalin.
all those that had a vested interest in the workers state, either died fighting for it or were executed by stalin after the event.
the most telling criticism of the consequences of the destruction of the tiny russian working class, was trotskys answer to the question of why he didn't use the "red army" to seize power.
this isn't a direct quote, but it goes something like this; having fought dictatorship for a lifetime, to seize power using those same methods as the enemy we sought to defeat, would have been the worst kind of contradiction and deprived the working class of its historical role in history.
now, me, i'm not sure trotsky was right on that score, but i can see where he was coming from.
lets all remember, firstly, the russian working class at that time was tiny, the peasant class was massive, any hope of revolution had to be based on the aspirations of a mainly rural "working class" and their industrial relatives.
lets also remember, despite the crimes of the "stalinist" regime, the ussr, rose from an impoverished empire, to be the worlds second greatest world power on the basis of a planned economy that benefitted, in general. the soviet working class.
the consequent destruction of the soviet union has led not to economic freedom or even political freedom but to the destruction of all structures that served, however poorly, the interests of our class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now that I've done a bit of thinking (and while I'm still OK with supporting the forthcoming concept), wasn't Lenin's concept of the RDDOTPP also "two-stageist"? I guess the real difference is in the action and the policies. You can't skip capitalism (contrary to what permanent revolution is all about), but you can significantly compress its duration (comprised of pre-monopoly capitalism, monopoly capitalism, and reactionary stamocap in my "Revolutionary Stamocap as the DOTP" thread).

The Mensheviks wanted a slow development of capitalism, and that is made them reactionary (along with the bourgeois folks who didn't want to further advance their own revolution).



In all, I guess this is where some recent talk regarding Beria comes into play. Some recent authors say he was Russia's Deng back in the 50s. Basically, Stalin's death presented a three-way crossroad for the Russian workers: socialist revolution, capitalist transformation, or bureaucratic confusion (which Malenkov, Khrushchev, and THEIR successors really presented).