What is Bolshevism?

Maybe a good idea to explain it for people who are new to it.
I don't have time to write a response for it right now, but maybe some others can answer this as well.

The way a communist party works. A small group of active "professional" revolutions that work under democratic centralism. In short.

No thats not it at all, the bolsheviks simply were working class militants who organized on a mass basis for the purpose of revolution. the party's structure of democratic centralism relied on having the revolutionary working class as the only kind of person in the party, which didn't work after Stalin let in the petit bourgeois and peasantry in the 1920s.

Bolshevism involves many things, such as the conception of a vanguard party to organize the most revolutionary sections of society into one group. It upholds the history of the October Revolution and the rule of Lenin as the true dictatorship of the proletariat. Examples of different Bolsheviks includes Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Kollontai, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Myasnikov and many others. Many of the Bolsheviks argued that the party be based on "democratic centralism" which involved "freedom of discussion, unity of action". It seeks the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat, a transition stage where the proletariat holds state power.

I think Bolshevism is a hard term to define, and there certainly isn't any definition on which all of us would agree. Nonetheless, I think democratic centralism and vanguardism are two very important characteristics of Bolshevism that should be included in any proposed definition of the term.

I think a proper definition of Bolshevism would also include the belief that the stage of bourgeois political power could, contrary to the claims of the Mensheviks, be "skipped" in Russia, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat would manifest itself as a joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

I think a proper definition of Bolshevism would also include the belief that the stage of bourgeois political power could, contrary to the claims of the Mensheviks, be "skipped" in Russia, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat would manifest itself as a joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

^Yeah, I second this.

Well, even in the definition you gave, Brodiga, some, such as the M-Ls, in this group would object to your inclusion of permanent revolution. The Trotskyists, on the other hand, would probably regard permanent revolution as something central to Bolshevism.

the party's structure of democratic centralism relied on having the revolutionary working class as the only kind of person in the party, which didn't work after Stalin let in the petit bourgeois and peasantry in the 1920s.

That's why Kalinin was selected by Lenin to be the Soviet head of state, because he totally wasn't known for being from a peasant background, right?

Anyway, as Lenin and Stalin pointed out, Bolshevism was not a purely Russian phenomenon. To define "Bolshevism" means to define Marxism-Leninism.

And why is that? I don't recall Lenin ever calling anything of Stalin's "absurdly left" as he called Trotsky's permanent revolution views. I don't recall Lenin saying that anything of Stalin's contained "fundamental theoretical errors" as he accused Trotsky of committing during the trade union debates, not to mention some other post-1917 disputes between Lenin and Trotsky.

The fact is that Lenin could point to the "non-Bolshevism" of Trotsky before 1917, the near-treacherous activities of Zinoviev and Kamenev in that year, Bukharin who was not "fully Marxist," etc. whereas the worst thing he could say about Stalin was that he was "rude." In his last months Stalin visited Lenin more than any other Bolshevik; Lenin at one point requested that Stalin give him cyanide, which Stalin refused to do.

It's an objective fact that perminant revolution was central to the bolsheviks actions in october, it simply can't be denied because if you know the definition of PR, the bolsheviks went through with establishing soviet power. Lenin was wrong when he included the peasantry in his list of revolutionary classes who could organize themselves independently, after februrary they were firmly supporters of the bourgeois SRs.

Btw ismail you're forgetting about Stalin's actions in Georgia regarding russian cheuvanism, and his general russophile character which made autonomous national soviets impossible. Trotsky also had this wrong, and i'll admit that he was late in fighting the bureaucracy. I'm not talking about class background, lenin came from petit bourgeois, but he was firmly a working class intellectual by 1900. Stalin let peasants and non workers join in hordes, which goes against vanguardism and only worked to dissolve the revolutionary elements influence.

Btw ismail you're forgetting about Stalin's actions in Georgia regarding russian cheuvanism, and his general russophile character which made autonomous national soviets impossible.

Except as Erik Van Ree ("Lenin's Last Struggle Revisited," which you can google) has noted, Stalin was fulfilling Lenin's orders in Georgia; Lenin initially sided with Stalin in the dispute. Stalin's conception of federalism was the same as Lenin's until it was Lenin himself who began to think differently, and in some cases Lenin was actually more centralistic than Stalin.

See also "The Georgian Deviation" section of this work: http://ml-review.ca/aml/CommunistLeague/TESTAMENT.HTM

It is a fact that not once did Lenin ever publicly come out in support of Trotsky's permanent revolution theory. You'd think if he adhered to it he would mention it somewhere. Lenin had already said as early as 1905 that he stood for uninterrupted revolution, that the Bolsheviks do not stop halfway from the bourgeois-democratic to the socialist revolution, etc.

So basically what you are saying is that Lenin and Trotsky agreed? While I am not very familiar with the term uninterrupted revolution, if it is to be taken a face value, then is sounds similar to permanent revolution.

My point is that Lenin and Trotsky could make somewhat similar analyses without Lenin being an adherent to or being "won over" by permanent revolution. The viewpoint that Lenin from 1903-1917 was wrong and then realized Trotsky was right and led the Great October Socialist Revolution = not supported by the facts. In early 1917 he made it clear that he was opposed to skipping over stages.

Also after the February revolution, Stalin (along with many others) were calling for support for the provisional government and supported the two stage theory along with the mensheviks.

Stalin of course later noted that this was a mistaken position, but for instance Kamenev openly called for a continuation of the imperialist war. Zinoviev of course jeopardized the security of the whole party later on in the year by revealing that the Bolsheviks intended to launch a revolution.

Lenin, in his April Theses, demonstrated that he had a profound grasp of the objective and subjective conditions in Russia at the time. There's no evidence that Trotsky or his Parvus-linked theory had anything to do with it.

"Trotsky long ago said that unification is impossible. Trotsky understood this and from that time on there has been no better Bolshevik." - Lenin.

Both Trotsky and Stalin tended to support Lenin consistently in the year 1917. If Stalin's error was that he followed the vast majority of Bolsheviks early on, then Trotsky at the same time was saying of his Mezhraiontsy group that "we cannot be demanded to recognise Bolshevism."

Dude trotsky's theory of overthrowing a bourgeois government being an inevitability to establish a democratic revolution as well as a socialist one was, and it is impossible to dispute this, exactly what Lenin went through with in Russia, to the protest of Stalin, who basically withdrew from political activity once the call for revolution came from Lenin, Trotsky, and the soviets. Stalin was although through the revolution a great commander and in line with Lenin, although so were bukharin, zinoviev, and Kamanev. However he publicly went against Lenin after the april thesis.

Dude trotsky's theory of overthrowing a bourgeois government being an inevitability to establish a democratic revolution as well as a socialist one was, and it is impossible to dispute this, exactly what Lenin went through with in Russia,

And Lenin had held the view beforehand that a bourgeois-democratic revolution would be transformed into a socialist one. In his April Theses he emphasized this. There's no evidence Trotsky had anything to do with this considering that in February 1917 he was still criticizing Trotsky.

to the protest of Stalin, who basically withdrew from political activity once the call for revolution came from Lenin, Trotsky, and the soviets.

Care to provide a source for that?

Stalin was although through the revolution a great commander and in line with Lenin, although so were bukharin, zinoviev, and Kamanev. However he publicly went against Lenin after the april thesis.

He or the persons you mentioned?

As editor of Pravda, he held a position telling the workers to support the provisional government, along with before mentioned, however Lenin had to kick him out of that position because of that stance he held. And none of pre 1917 matters for Lenin, because he was wrong on many subjects, including thinking that the revolution would happen first in first world countries. He didn't hold a stagist dogma as Stalin did, he thought that a peasants and workers government would inevitably happen, and it would make way for socialism, however that proved impossible as the peasantry couldn't organize itself a revolutionary party as the working class did. As you know they supported overwhelmingly the SR party, which lasted untill the bolsheviks adopted a land reform platform, at which point the peasantry was more or less bought. However Lenin destroyed the government which the peasantry supported, the bourgeois government, thus proving perminant revolution to be correct, and stagism/menshevism in conflict w/ dotp.

As editor of Pravda, he held a position telling the workers to support the provisional government, along with before mentioned, however Lenin had to kick him out of that position because of that stance he held.

I've never heard anywhere that Stalin was "kicked out" of Pravda.

Lenin openly said in his April Theses that the revolution was moving from the bourgeois-democratic to the proletarian stage. He said that very same month that skipping stages was harmful. In March he criticized Trotsky and warned against the Party uniting with his group. The fact that he saw Trotsky as such a figure as late as that time makes it pretty obvious that he didn't suddenly go over to Trotskyism.

Since people are talking about Pravda, an interesting factoid is that Trotsky founded the original Pravda, and then Stalin plagiarized the name(with Lenin's consent) and founded an opposing Pravda.

There does seem to be some credence to the idea that Lenin changed his opinions and started back tracking on his decision to support Stalin. He even described Stalin's politics in regards to the treatment of minorities within the Soviet Union as "quasi-imperialist". In response, Stalin made the symbolic gesture of admitting that he was incorrect, but never actually did anything about it.

I think a proper definition of Bolshevism would also include the belief that the stage of bourgeois political power could, contrary to the claims of the Mensheviks, be "skipped" in Russia, and that the dictatorship of the proletariat would manifest itself as a joint dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

This is an inaccurate depiction of Menshevik politics.

They believed specifically that capitalist development could not be skipped, not just the bourgeoisie's rise to political power. This is what distinguishes them from the Stalinist two-stage theory.

He said that the bourgeois democratic revolution was moving to a proletarian stage, but skipping stages was harmful? That doesn't even make sense Ismail; skipping a stage is exactly what they attempted to do.

No they didn't. They moved from the bourgeois-democratic stage, which had been carried out by a proletariat not yet able to take power (owing mainly to its reactionary Menshevik-SR leadership in the soviets), and marched forward with the socialist revolution. As Lenin said, also in April: "But are we not in danger of falling into subjectivism, of wanting to arrive at the socialist revolution by 'skipping' the bourgeois-democratic revolution—which is not yet completed and has not yet exhausted the peasant movement? I might be incurring this danger if I said: 'No Tsar, but a workers' government.' But I did not say that, I said something else."

"No Tsar, but a workers' government" was a slogan attributed to Trotsky.

In march he warned against uniting with Trotsky, but then changed him mind; so what was the point in even mentioning that, he clearly realized he was wrong.

The issue is if Lenin was influenced by Trotsky's permanent revolution views. Evidently he wasn't if a month hadn't even passed between him warning against unity with Trotsky and him writing his April Theses.

Well Trotsky wasn't a bolshevik untill 1917, he was won over to lenin's side, as well as Lenin agreeing with PR. Before Lenin agreed with PR he was flat wrong, as wrong as Kamanev and Zinoviev, and before Trotsky was a Bolshevik, he was wrong in terms of his views on parties. Taking everything Lenin says for dogma is unhealthy, he was a human after all. his theory of joint dictatorship was impossible since as you said earlier, the peasantry was supporting the SR Bourgeoisie. Lenin's theories were good enough to win a majority in the soviets as well, so the working class of Russia thought that the bourgeois rule had to be gotten rid of, which influenced Lenin as well as Trotsky (Trotsky realized this post 1905).

Then how do you explain that Lenin obviously changed his mind on Trotsky; since we all know that he joined up with the Bolsheviks?

Basically what I am getting from you, is that the only mistake I have seen you admit Lenin made, is uniting with Trotsky.

He joined thanks to Stalin though.

At the sixth Congress of the Bolshevik party, it was here on Stalin's proposal, obviously with the approval of Lenin, that Leon Trotsky was admitted to the party.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 101

When Stalin proposed that Trotsky and his colleagues be admitted to the party he was little concerned about the personal relations between Trotsky and himself.
Here was the issue which was to form the great divide in the Bolshevik ranks. Could Russia advance to socialism without a revolution in the West?
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 102

From 1898, when Trotsky was 19, to 1917, he had hardly been in Russia; and until, on Stalin's proposal, he and his group were accepted into the Bolshevik party in July, 1917, he had fought the Bolsheviks with voice and pen.
Murphy, John Thomas. Stalin, London, John Lane, 1945, p. 124

And while Stalin was only the executor of the union [with the left wing--the Internationalists], it is one of the many ironies of the revolution that under his guidance Trotsky was admitted into the Bolshevist sanctum, and elected for the first time a member of the new Central Committee, where he stayed until Stalin, in a different role, expelled him.
Levine, Isaac Don. Stalin. New York: Cosmopolitan Book Corporation, c1931, p. 130

Probably his biggest mistake.

How Lenin's party became (bolshevik) and Bolshevism and revolutionary social-democracy are a nice historical overview on the diverse meanings of the term "bolshevik". I recommend it.