Menshevism - What it is, who is applying it

[maoist3]

We have a lot of people putting forward essentially Menshevik positions here. In a way, the best Menshevik is the one who just says there have been no opportunities for revolution these past 100 years in any country. When it's in the open like that it is easier to deal with. It's when Menshevism claims Lenin that life gets complicated.

Today, as we speak, Maoist armed struggles are going on in India, Nepal, the Philippines, Turkey, Peru and many other places. It just so happens that many people not calling themselves Menshevik share the same attitude toward these and all armed struggles going on.

For example, the Progressive Labor Party claims to uphold Stalin, but it just so happens that in the past 30 years, there is not ONE single revolution or revolutionary movement that they support. They are in effect Menshevik idealists saying that the proletariat is feeble and the system too strong to overthrow.

The same goes for Turno, though he calls himself Trotskyist. It hardly matters what they call themselves, the underlying assumption is the same.

[American Kid]

It'd help if you named some names.

Shit-----here comes New Democracy!

Scatter!

-AK

[Mazdak]

Why not ask "menshevik." Quite a few mensheviks even supported WW1(plekhanoc comes to mind). How can one consider these communists or even Social democrats?

[Turnoviseous]

We have a lot of people putting forward essentially Menshevik positions here. In a way, the best Menshevik is the one who just says there have been no opportunities for revolution these past 100 years in any country. When it's in the open like that it is easier to deal with. It's when Menshevism claims Lenin that life gets complicated.

Today, as we speak, Maoist armed struggles are going on in India, Nepal, the Philippines, Turkey, Peru and many other places. It just so happens that many people not calling themselves Menshevik share the same attitude toward these and all armed struggles going on.

For example, the Progressive Labor Party claims to uphold Stalin, but it just so happens that in the past 30 years, there is not ONE single revolution or revolutionary movement that they support. They are in effect Menshevik idealists saying that the proletariat is feeble and the system too strong to overthrow.

The same goes for Turno, though he calls himself Trotskyist. It hardly matters what they call themselves, the underlying assumption is the same.


Menshevism is class-collaborationism!

To really understand the policies of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks we must go back to the times of RSDLP (Russian social democratic labour party). RSDLP was one party until the split in 1912, when Menshevik and Bolshevik parties were formed. All Stalinists want to portray Trotsky as Menshevik, but we will see that that is not correct and made up from Stalin´s bureaucracy. RSDLP had two wings, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, but until 1912 they were actually not argued about anything. At the London Congress of 1903 there was no split between the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks as Stalinists like to say. There was only disagreement on the question of the composition of the central bodies of the Party and on one clause in the Party Rules. This was however the first disagreement between Martov and Lenin, which was not considered as important by Lenin, however Lenin and his supporters considered important only one disagreement for not staying together with Martov and his supporters, that was the class question, later about that.

Let me quote from what Lenin said about »big« disagreements of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks under RSDLP before 1912. »Examinig the behaviour of the Martovites« (Martov was later the key figure of the Menshevik wing when RSDLP broke up) »since the Congress, their refusal to collaborate on the Central Organ..their refusal to work on the Central Commitee, and their propaganda of a boycott-all I can say is that this is an insensate attempt, unworthy of Party members, to disrupt the Party-and why? Only because they dissatisfied with the composition of the central bodies; for speaking objectively, it was only over this that our ways parted..«
And when Plekhanov went over to Martov´s side, Lenin wrote this: »Let me say, first, of all, that I think the author of the article [Plekhanov] is a thousand times right when he insists that it is essential to safeguard the unity of the Party [RSDLP] and avoid new splits-especially over the differences which cannot be considered to be important. To appeal to peaceableness, mildness and readiness to make concessions is highly praiseworthy in leader at all times, and at the present moment particular« Peaceableness, mildness, and readiness were however never the key figures of Stalin by the way.

There were no major disagreements that would be essential for braking up the Party up until 1912 when Bolsheviks and Mensheviks finally broke up. The fact is that Trotsky left the RSDLP in 1904 and staied out of both camps until 1917. The final broke up of RSDLP into two camps happened in 1912, because of one big difference on class question. But let us examine the question that turned out in the split slowly. At that time there were three tendencies, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks and Trotsky on his own. All sides came out with different ideas although as we will see Lenin´s and Trotsky´s ideas were practically the same, just that Trotsky determined something more, which was also confirmed by practice. All three tendencies agreed that incomming revolution will be bourgeois-democratic revolution (revolution produced by contradictions between the developing capitalist economy and the semi-feudal autocratic state of tsarism). But the question that separated all three tendencies was the question about leading class in revolution. The class which will lead the revolution.

First, Mensheviks came out with idea that since revolution will be bourgeois-democratic, the leading class of the revolution will be bourgeois class. They assumed that bourgeois class and its petty-bourgeois democrat allies will lead the revolution from the great bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the past, and that they will be supported by working class, again as in past revolutions.

Lenin was on the other hand arguing against Menshevik idea that they are holding back independent working class movement. He criticised them for currying favour with »progressive« bourgeois. As Marx in 1848 warned that German bourgeois class was unable to play a progressive role in the struggle against feudalism. The bourgeois were frightened of the workers movement and they preffered to make a deal with feudalists and by that the revolution fell in ruins and feudalists had the power once again. Lenin then explained that bourgeois will not side with working class, but will inevitably side with the counter-revolution. Lenin explained: »The bourgeois in the mass will inevitably turn towards the counter-revolution, towards autocracy, against the revolution, and against the people, as soon as its narrow, selfish interests are met, as soon as it ´recoils´ from consistent democrac (and is already recoiling from it!)« (LCW, vol.9, p.98) Lenin´s idea who will lead revolution was : »There remains the people, that is the proletariat and the peasantry. The proletariat alone can be relied to march on to the end, for it goes far beyond the democratic revolution. That is why the proletariat fights in the forefront for a republic and contemptuously rejects stupid and unworthy advice to take into account the possibility of the bourgeois recoiling« (LCW, vol.9, p.98)

Trotsky on the other side also warned: »This results in the fact that the struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now existing strong class in the country, the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political imporatance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.198)
»Arming the revolution, in Russia, means first and foremost arming the workers. Knowing this, and fearing this, the liberals altogether eschew a militia. They even surrender their position to absolutism without a fight just as the bourgeois. Theirs surrendered Paris and France to Bismarck simply to avoid arming the workers.« (Trotsky, Results and Prospects, p.193)

As we see, both Lenin and Trotsky argued against class collaboration of Mensheviks and said that only proletariat with alliance with peasants can carry out the tasks of bourgeois-democratic revolution. So where did ideas of Lenin and Trotsky differ? Lenin was on one side saying that peasants and proletariat must carry out tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, which will turn out in the democratic dictatorship of peasantry and proletariat. Trotsky was however worried about that Lenin did not decisevely said which class would exercise the dictatorship of proletariat. Trotsky warned that peasantry was never able to carry out the tasks of revolution independently and that it could only side with proletariat or with couter-revolution. If the peasantry would side with the forces of reaction, there was only thing that could happen, dictatorship of tsarism. On the other hand there would be dictatorship of proletariat. And that was not all. Lenin was at first saying that for carrying out socialist tasks there would be absolutely needed the socialist revolution in the west.Lenin notes that in this way: »The proletariat is already struggling to preserve the democratic conquests for the sake of the socialist revolution. This struggle would be almost hopeless for the Russian proletariat alone, and its defeat would be inevitable if the European socialist proletariat did not come to help of the Russian proletariat. At that stage the liberal bourgeoise and the well-to-do peasantry plus partly the middle peasantry will organise the counter-revolution. The Russian proletariat plus the European proletariat will organise the revolution. In such conditions the Russian proletariat can win a second victory. The cause is then not lost. The second victory will be the socialist revolution in Europe. The European workers will show us ´how it is done´« (LCW, v.10, p. 92)

On the other side, Trotsky was saying that workers under Marxist banner will not stop just at bourgeois tasks, but will start carrying out socialist tasks and therefore the socialist revolution in Russia would be before the socialist revolution in the west, but he also noted that socialist revolution in Russia will not be enough for victory of socialism.

Menshevism of Stalinists and Moists:

“The arrival of the exiles from Siberia instantly imparted a sharp rightward slant to the political positions taken by the Bolshevik leadership in Petrograd. Up until this time, the local leadership made up of Shlyapnikov, Zalutsky and Molotov, had steered a more radical course. These three leaders stood on the left wing of the party. But the newly arrived Kamenev and Stalin used their seniority to push the party’s line sharply to the right. This was immediately reflected in the pages of the central organ. In an editorial in Pravda on March 14, two days after his return, Kamenev wrote an editorial in which he asked: “What purpose would it serve to speed things up, when things were already taking place at such a rapid pace?”[18] The next day, he wrote another piece commenting on Kerensky’s statement that Russia would “proudly defend its freedoms” and would not “retreat before the bayonets of the aggressors”. Kamenev enthusiastically concurred, in language which completely renounced Lenin’s policy of opposition to the war: “When army faces army, it would be the most insane policy to suggest to one of those armies to lay down its arms and go home. This would not be a policy of peace, but a policy of slavery, which would be rejected with disgust by a free people.”” (E.H. Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, vol. 1, p. 75.)
Stalin held the same position as Kamenev, only more cautiously. He published an article approving the stance of the Soviet in its Manifesto (which Lenin blasted) and said that what was needed was “to bring pressure to bear on the Provisional Government to make it declare its consent to start peace negotiations immediately”. According to Stalin it was “unquestionable” that “the stark slogan ‘Down with the war!’ was absolutely unsuitable as a practical means
“The first All-Russian Conference of the Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies was convened at the end of March 1917. Simultaneously with this, the Bureau of the Bolshevik Central Committee issued a call for the All-Russian Conference of party workers, which opened on March 28. This was the first really representative conference of the party to be held since the overthrow of tsarism. Lenin was still struggling to return from his Swiss exile, and was therefore absent. The political proceedings therefore constitute an accurate reflection of how the Bolshevik leaders in Petrograd viewed the revolution. Among the central issues discussed were the attitude to the war and the Provisional Government, as well as relations to other parties. The report on the attitude to the Provisional Government was delivered by Stalin. The whole thrust of this report, permeated through and through with opportunistic adaptation and conciliationism, is radically opposed to the line advocated insistently by Lenin.
The central idea of Stalin’s speech is that the Bolsheviks should give critical support to the bourgeois Provisional Government, to act as a kind of loyal opposition, which, while remaining outside the government, and with certain reservations, nevertheless supports it: “In so far as the Provisional Government fortifies the steps of the revolution,” he says, “to that extent we must support it; but in so far as it is counter-revolutionary, support to the provisional Government is not permissible.” “ (The History of Bolshevism- Ted Grant and Alan Woods)

“The line of capitulation to middle class “democracy” advocated by Stalin and Kamenev effectively blurred the lines of demarcation between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. So much so, that the March Conference actually considered the question of fusion. Indeed, if the Stalin-Kamenev line were accepted, there would be no serious reason to maintain the existence of two separate parties. In the session of March 30, Kamenev reported on his contacts with the Mensheviks, as the minutes show:
“Kamenev: Reports that he has entered into negotiations with the internationalist SRs and Mensheviks. Inasmuch as it is clear that an absolutely unacceptable resolution of the Executive committee [of the Soviets] will be passed, it is necessary to counterpose to it a joint resolution of the internationalists. The SRs (22) are a national minority. They will not vote against the resolution of the Bolsheviks and will withdraw their resolution. The Mensheviks are seeking to introduce a single resolution and are for uniting on a joint resolution. Should factional discipline be imposed to compel the minority to submit to the majority, the internationalists will come out in favour of our resolution.”
Those speakers on the left of the party who opposed these moves towards unity and who dared to raise the question of the workers taking power were given short shrift. Thus, when Krassikov intervened on these lines, he was stopped in his tracks by the chairman:
“Krassikov: The gist of the matter is not in the amendments and not in a demonstrative presentation of social democratic slogans, but in the current moment. If we recognise the Soviets of Deputies as the organs that express the will of the people, then the question before us is not the consideration of what concrete measures must be taken on this or that issue. If we think that the time has now come to realise the dictatorship of the proletariat, then we ought to pose the question that way. We unquestionably have the physical force for a seizure of power. I believe that we will have sufficient physical force both in Petrograd as well as in other cities. [Commotion in the hall. Shouts: ‘Not true’.] I was present…
“The Chairman (interrupting): The question under discussion involves the practical steps for today. The question of the dictatorship of the proletariat is not under discussion.
“Krassikov (continues): If we do not pose the question that way then ought we to take steps in relation to the Provisional Government which…
“The Chairman deprives him of the floor.”
Although formally Kamenev’s proposal was to link up with the left (internationalist) wing of Menshevism, the real intention was to unite in a single party. Prominent Menshevik leaders like Lieber were present in the Conference, and participated in it. On the session of April 1, a resolution on unity written by the Georgian Menshevik leader Tsereteli was put to the congress. Although representatives of the Bolshevik left wing, including at that time the student Molotov, opposed it, Stalin expressed himself in favourable terms:
“Order of the day: Tsereteli’s proposal for unification.
“Stalin: We ought to go. It is necessary to define our proposals as to the terms of unification. Unification is possible along the lines of Zimmerwald- Kienthal.
“Luganovsky: The Kharkov Committee is carrying on negotiations precisely along these lines.
“Molotov: Tsereteli wants to unite heterogeneous elements. Tsereteli calls himself a Zimmerwaldist and a Kienthalist, and for this reason unification along these lines is incorrect both politically and organisationally. It would be more correct to advance a definite internationalist socialist platform. We will unite a compact minority.
“Luganovsky (in refuting comrade Molotov) says: At the present time we are unaware of any disagreements. The Mensheviks abstained in the Soviet and spoke more strongly than did … the Bolsheviks who came out against. Many disagreements have been outlived. It is out of place to underscore tactical differences. We can have a joint Congress with the Mensheviks, the Zimmerwaldists and Kienthalists.”
In view of the controversy sparked off by this proposal, Stalin once again intervened in the debate to defend unification in unmistakable terms which, despite his habitual caution, faithfully echo his earlier comments, describing the differences between Bolshevism and Menshevism as “a storm in a tea-cup”:
“Stalin: There is no use running ahead and anticipating disagreements. There is no party life without disagreements. We will live down trivial disagreements within the party. But there is one question—it is impossible to unite what cannot be united. We will have a single party with those who agree on Zimmerwald and Kienthal…” (History of Bolshevism)


“The case of Indonesia in 1965 affords an ideal illustration of the bankruptcy and treachery of the “two-stage theory.” [Two stage theory was firstly presented by Mensheviks and put in practice by Stalinists. The first stage of the theory would be so called bourgeois revolution with all ´progressive´ elements in society, and the second one the socialist one on the base of economy. That is what all true Marxists were fighting against.] As class tensions mounted among the workers and the peasantry, and the masses began to rise up against the shaky regime of President Sukarno, the Stalinist leadership in Beijing told the Indonesian masses and their mass organization the Indonesian Communist Party (PKI) to tie their fate to the national bourgeoisie. In October, as many as 1 million workers and peasants were slaughtered in a CIA-organized coup led by General Suharto, which swept aside the Sukarno, crushed the rising mass movements, and installed a brutal military dictatorship.”
“The “two-stage theory” has also propelled the Stalinists into “popular fronts” with so-called“progressive”elements of the bourgeois class to “advance” the first revolutionary stage. Examples include Stalinist support (through the Communist Party, USA) to President Roosevelt 1930s. And, taking this orientation to its logical conclusion, the Communist Party in the United States consistently supports Democratic Party candidates for office, including the presidency. “
“In terms of the organization of a state, Stalinist policies are quite clear: democratic rights threaten the position of the bureaucracy, and hence democracy is incompatible with Stalinism. In basic terms on a world scale, the forces of Stalinism have done everything in their power to prevent socialist revolution.”


I have never said that proletariat is feeble, we had that discussion before. It is you with your class-collaborationist policies, you think that proletariat can not do its job on its won.

I supported revolutions based on peasantry like Cuban, Vietnam, Chinese, (although they were not socialist ones), but they had mass support. Revolutions that are Maoist carrying out today do not have full mass support and are obliged to defeat. If there is no mass support,...

Anyway, even if there will be Maoist revolution in Third World today that will be supported by massese, we all know how it will end. It will end like all Maoist revolutions, in capitalist restoration.

Without socialist programme there will be nothing maoist3.

Socialist revolution must be carried in advanced capitalist countries where there is a lot of proletariat (the only socialist force). And these revolutions that were the most important one, you Stalinists destroyed with your Menshevism!!!


If you are not willing to offer me nothing else than answer you are giving me all the time that "´Trotskysts´ did nothing", you have your answer in thread "Stal. gather and explain...".

[Turnoviseous]

Why not ask "menshevik." Quite a few mensheviks even supported WW1(plekhanoc comes to mind). How can one consider these communists or even Social democrats?

Firstly, it was Plekhanov and not Plekhanoc. Plekhanov was guy who started with Marxism in tsarist Russia, Lenin was enspired right from his works. He was commited Marxist, but when tsarist forces exiled him to Siberia for long time, he became disillusioned by Marxism and went on Menshevik side in RSDLP (Before he was sub-leader on Bolshevik side of RSDLP). When Civil war started, he moved to the tsarist reactionary forces!

[new democracy]

maoist3, from your posts it is sound like the word democracy is a bad thing. and if menshevics and troskists suck because they didn't made any revolution than maoism is not so much better, because they did only one revolution.

[Marxman]

This quotation is from a book called "Bolshevism:the road to revolution." The chapter is called "Bolshevism and Menshevism."

Bolshevism and Menshevism

The other debates served to underline the rightward drift of the Mensheviks. For example, they now opposed the slogan of arming the masses, and got their view adopted by Congress. Irrespective of the question of the appropriateness of armed struggle at the given moment, the Menshevik position clearly represented the abandonment of the revolutionary struggle in favour of reformist parliamentarism and class collaborationist politics, as shown by their position on the agrarian question and attitude to the Cadets. Trotsky later described the change in the attitude of the Mensheviks: “The Mensheviks, who a mere few weeks back had stood for a semi-boycott of the Duma, now transferred their hopes from the revolutionary struggle to constitutional conquests. At the time of the Stockholm Congress, the support of the liberals seemed to them the most important task of the Social Democracy.”[18]

In his report on the Duma, Axelrod admitted that most Menshevik activists in Russia had initially supported boycott, but complained that this was leaving the field open to other parties. It was time to change the line. He undoubtedly had a point. But in politics it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons. At bottom, the Menshevik position amounted to a permanent striving for a deal with the Cadets. By contrast, the Bolsheviks proposed to take advantage of conflict between the Duma and the regime to deepen revolutionary crisis, while at the same time striving to expose the Cadets by implacable criticism and winning over the peasant representatives—the Trudoviks—to “firm them up” and drive a wedge between them and the Cadets. While Lenin, in every article and every speech at this time, waged a relentless war against parliamentary cretinism, the Mensheviks placed all their hopes on the Duma. However, when Lenin spoke, while ridiculing Axelrod for his exaggerated expectations in the Duma, he made no mention of the boycott tactic itself. This is significant. Evidently, he maintained his earlier reservations, but felt constrained by factional ties, from expressing his views openly. It was left to Krassin to put the case for boycott to the delegates. But the Mensheviks used their majority to good use. Finally, the Congress voted to agree to allowing the party to participate in the elections to the Duma.

However, the Bolsheviks had their own problems. They took an incorrect position on the Duma, opposing the setting up of a Social Democratic parliamentary fraction. In this detail we already perceive the ultra-left trend in Bolshevism—anti-parliamentary cretinism—which was really the mirror-image of parliamentary and legalistic illusions of the Mensheviks. Contrary to the accusations usually levelled at Lenin for his alleged “sectarianism” and propensity for splitting, he consistently defended the unity of the party. When in the course of the Congress Lenin was accused of stating that it was impossible for Bolsheviks and Mensheviks to work together in one party, he indignantly rejected the accusation: “It is not true that I ‘supported’ comrade Vorobyov’s statement that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks cannot work together in one party. I did not in any way ‘support’ such an assertion, and do not share that opinion at all.”[19]

In general, it must be said that the Bolsheviks behaved far better as a minority than the Martovites had done at the Second Congress. In contrast to the Martovites in 1903, Lenin loyally accepted the position of minority on the CC, which was completely dominated by Mensheviks. A novel aspect of the new CC was the presence of the representatives of the national Social Democratic organisations for the first time: the Poles, represented by Warski and Dzerzhinsky; the Letts, by Danishevsky; and the Bundists, by Abramovich and Kremer. Thus, albeit temporarily, the Mensheviks scored a victory at this Congress held in conditions of gathering reaction. There were some small victories. On the Party statutes, Lenin’s draft of the first paragraph of the Rules was accepted, and essentially the principles of democratic centralism adopted. This was really not a controversial question, but regarded as self-evident, not only by the Bolsheviks but also by the Mensheviks (who were in the majority!). There were some differences on organisational issues, but they did not lead to any serious problems. The Bolsheviks insisted that the two-centre system (the parallel existence of a central committee and central organ) had outlived its usefulness. But the Mensheviks succeeded in maintaining it, and made sure they had complete control of the editorial board, which was made up exclusively of Mensheviks (Martov, Martynov, Maslov, Dan and Potresov), while graciously allowing the Bolshevik minority three places on the Central Committee.

In some respects, the Fourth Congress did represent a step forward, notably in strengthening the Party with the inclusion of workers’ organisations from other nationalities. In his report back to the Congress, previously mentioned, Lenin states the following: “Summing up the work of the Congress and the effect it has had upon our party, you must draw the following main conclusions. An important practical result of the Congress is the proposed (partly already achieved) amalgamation with the national social democratic parties. This amalgamation will strengthen the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party. It will help to efface the last traces of the old circle habits. It will infuse a new spirit into the work of the party. It will greatly strengthen the proletariat among all the peoples of Russia.” And he added: “An important practical result was the amalgamation of the minority and majority groups. The split has been stopped. The Social Democratic proletariat and its Party must be united. Disagreements on organisation have been almost entirely eliminated.”[20]

The Polish and Lithuanian Social Democrats joined the RSDLP and conditions were drawn up for unity with the Latvian (Lettish) Social Democrats. The conditions for the Bund’s joining the Party were also established, but the congress firmly rejected any idea of organising the working class on national lines. Later in the year (in August) the Bund also voted to join the RSDLP. Lenin commented that “the RSDLP has become, at last, really all-Russian and united. The number of members of our party is now more than 100,000. 31,000 were represented at the Unity Congress, then in addition about 26,000 Polish Social Democrats, about 14,000 Lettish and 33,000 Jewish”. Lenin’s figures were confirmed by the left Cadet newspaper Tovarishch which estimated the total number of members enrolled in the RSDLP at about 70,000 in October 1906. This figure includes both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. To this must be added a further 33,000 for the Bund, plus 28,000 for the Polish Social Democrats and 13,000 for the Letts.[21]

However, the impressive membership figures cited above do not reveal the whole story. The growth in membership tells us something about the advanced layers of the workers and youth, but not the masses. The December defeat was a turning-point for the working class. In reality, although the RSDLP continued to grow, its influence in the masses was beginning to decline. Exhaustion bred moods of apathy and pessimism. Although for a time the movement continued, borne along by its own momentum, Lenin’s hopes for an early recovery of the revolutionary movement did not correspond to the real situation. Trotsky explains: “It [the RSDLP] continued to grow in membership. But its influence on the masses declined. A hundred Social Democrats were no longer able to lead as many workers into the streets as ten Social Democrats had led the year before.”[22]

[Turnoviseous]

On December 23, 1925, the closest friends of Stalin published in the party newspaper Zarya Vostoka the following police report, dating hack to 1903:

"According to the recent information received by me from our agents, Djugashvili [Stalin] was known in the organization under the nicknames S080 and Koba; since 1902, he has been active in the social democratic party organization first as a Menshevik, and then as a Bolshevik, as the propagandist and leader of the first [railway] region." (Zarya Vostoka)

No refutations of this police report on Stalin made public by his partisans have appeared anywhere, so far as we know. It appears from the report that Stalin began his activities as a Menshevik.

[Rob]

"According to the recent information received by me from our agents, Djugashvili [Stalin] was known in the organization under the nicknames S080 and Koba; since 1902, he has been active in the social democratic party organization first as a Menshevik



and to think that Stalin (and his followers) used the exact same fact against Trotsky...kinda like that "social fascist" accusation, eh?

[Menshevik]

Menshevik, Bolshevik . . .cut from the same the cloth.

[maoist3]

Turno, why don't you answer the question here:
what armed struggles in progress today do you support?

[Turnoviseous]

I have answered you on that issue in "Stalinists and Maists gather around and explain" a long time ago.

I support any working class movement for liberating from capitalism. But that does not necessarily mean that I support their leaders (trading with drugs, kidnapping,...). Especially I do not support leaders that are not ready to give power to workers(we were talking about this before)....... I also think that there must be a mass support in that country for the movement (such was in Vietnam and China)...................we were talking about that before..... what´s your problem?

[maoist3]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 4:39 am on Sep. 1, 2002
I have answered you on that issue in "Stalinists and Maists gather around and explain" a long time ago.

I support any working class movement for liberating from capitalism. But that does not necessarily mean that I support their leaders (trading with drugs, kidnapping,...). Especially I do not support leaders that are not ready to give power to workers(we were talking about this before)....... I also think that there must be a mass support in that country for the movement (such was in Vietnam and China)...................we were talking about that before..... what´s your problem?

[email protected] replies:
OK, let me change the subject, are there any specifically Trotskyist or your version of Leninist armed struggles in the world that you support?

And of the remainder of armed struggles that you claim to support that are not led by your ideology, are there ANY that acknowledge you as a supporter instead of wrecking force?

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from maoist3 on 4:44 am on Sep. 1, 2002

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 4:39 am on Sep. 1, 2002
I have answered you on that issue in "Stalinists and Maists gather around and explain" a long time ago.

I support any working class movement for liberating from capitalism. But that does not necessarily mean that I support their leaders (trading with drugs, kidnapping,...). Especially I do not support leaders that are not ready to give power to workers(we were talking about this before)....... I also think that there must be a mass support in that country for the movement (such was in Vietnam and China)...................we were talking about that before..... what´s your problem?

[email protected] replies:
OK, let me change the subject, are there any specifically Trotskyist or your version of Leninist armed struggles in the world that you support?

And of the remainder of armed struggles that you claim to support that are not led by your ideology, are there ANY that acknowledge you as a supporter instead of wrecking force?


What is armed struggle for you, maoist3? If you have in mind armed struggle when one man with gun runs in front of parliament I do not support that.

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 4:57 am on Sep. 1, 2002)

[maoist3]

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 4:56 am on Sep. 1, 2002

Quote: from maoist3 on 4:44 am on Sep. 1, 2002

Quote: from Turnoviseous on 4:39 am on Sep. 1, 2002
I have answered you on that issue in "Stalinists and Maists gather around and explain" a long time ago.

I support any working class movement for liberating from capitalism. But that does not necessarily mean that I support their leaders (trading with drugs, kidnapping,...). Especially I do not support leaders that are not ready to give power to workers(we were talking about this before)....... I also think that there must be a mass support in that country for the movement (such was in Vietnam and China)...................we were talking about that before..... what´s your problem?

[email protected] replies:
OK, let me change the subject, are there any specifically Trotskyist or your version of Leninist armed struggles in the world that you support?

And of the remainder of armed struggles that you claim to support that are not led by your ideology, are there ANY that acknowledge you as a supporter instead of wrecking force?


What is armed struggle for you, maoist3? If you have in mind armed struggle when one man with gun runs in front of parliament I do not support that.

(Edited by Turnoviseous at 4:57 am on Sep. 1, 2002)


maoist3 replies for MIM:
The questions above were what organized armed struggles YOU supported. There is no reason to ask me about definitions to play more word games. Use your own definitions.

[Mazdak]

I don't remember who posted this but someone said that Stalin was a menshevik. It wasnt until, i cant remember.... i think 1903 that Bolsheviks and Mensheviks broke their unity. Trotsky stayed with the mensheviks as they were the majority while the Bolsheviks were the minority.

[Marxman]

No, you're totally wrong. 1903 was the year that Russian Social Democracy was established. In 1912 the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks went apart. Russian Social Democracy transformed into RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party) which consisted of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Trotsky went out from the Bolsheviks in 1912 but still participated in articles that he was written, which had the programme of Bolshevism. Bolsheviks got their name because they were a majority and Mensheviks a minority. Of course, that was the end result as the members' ammount fluctuated from time to time. In September of 1917 in Moscow Bolsheviks won with 51 percent of votes and Mensheviks only 4 percent. But before that in June Bolsheviks only got 12 percent and Mensheviks 12 percent too. Trotsky was never with the Mensheviks, even his writings were Bolshevik. The only thing that he had with the Mensheviks is that he tried to put the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks together because Mensheviks still had same left-wing tendency before 1912. After 1912 the Mensheviks officially became counter-revolutionary. They (including Stalin who was with the Bolsheviks unfortunately at that time) always said that the time was not right for a revolution, even though 9/10 had been done already. Luckily Lenin did not listen to these punks. Stalin, of course, joined the majority, the Bolsheviks as he knew that they will be victorious but his contribution to the success of the revolution is ZERO. Most of the work was done by Lenin and Trotsky.

[Guest]

Quote: from Marxman on 6:47 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
Stalin, of course, joined the majority, the Bolsheviks as he knew that they will be victorious but his contribution to the success of the revolution is ZERO. Most of the work was done by Lenin and Trotsky.

maoist3 replies for MIM:
"Most of the work" was done by the MASSES of exploited toilers. Sheesh, such bourgeois idealism.

[maoist3]

maoist3 for MIM:
Turno has started a whole new thread to avoid the discussion here:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=913 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=913)

He calls it "Why we should not support Maoist struggles."

The basic point of the thread is to dodge the question of what revolutionary armed struggles in the world today he DOES support. In other words, what is the difference between him and an ultra-Menshevik.
His refusal to answer strongly indicates that he believes there are no revolutionary armed struggles to support.

I suggest that to hear such an opinion I did not need to hear from a Trotskyist calling himself a Leninist. I only had to ask the most right-wing faction of the Mensheviks. There is no need to create another faction, the Trotskyist-Leninist faction to say what's already been said by the Mensheviks.

(Edited by maoist3 at 9:02 pm on Sep. 1, 2002)

[Turnoviseous]

Quote: from maoist3 on 8:59 pm on Sep. 1, 2002
maoist3 for MIM:
Turno has started a whole new thread to avoid the discussion here:
http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=22&topic=913 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=913)

He calls it "Why we should not support Maoist struggles."

The basic point of the thread is to dodge the question of what revolutionary armed struggles in the world today he DOES support. In other words, what is the difference between him and an ultra-Menshevik.
His refusal to answer strongly indicates that he believes there are no revolutionary armed struggles to support.

I suggest that to hear such an opinion I did not need to hear from a Trotskyist calling himself a Leninist. I only had to ask the most right-wing faction of the Mensheviks. There is no need to create another faction, the Trotskyist-Leninist faction to say what's already been said by the Mensheviks.

(Edited by maoist3 at 9:02 pm on Sep. 1, 2002)


Maoist3, I think that I answered clear enough about how much Maoist armed struggles I support. And what I said is not ultra-Menshevism. Did I say something about class-collaboration? Did I say that people should ally with bourgeoisie, no.