Socialism

The burden of proof lies with the claim. Why would a movement work if presented with different material conditions? If we depart on the claim that bolsheviks faced different material conditions than movements today and back then in germany for example, which is what i think, then we disagree on premise.

it addresses the comparison to brain, which in any sense of an argument is very weak.

"go find the proof" is not an argument. The famines of tsar were not repeated by bolshevik policies until stalin took over. Theres my proof.

we agreed on many matters. We deviated from the topic which i would sum up as: you do not see mensheviks as marxists because they wanted bourgeois revolution before a socialist one. I have no issue with that, since i see it as making them even more marxist.