68
Yeah I don't know, mensheviks and other left socialists also have their appeal. But sure historical relevancy won the postcard.
this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2025
68 points (97.2% liked)
Socialism
5694 readers
81 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
lmfao menshiviks were not socialists 🤣
Ok, in that case bolsheviks were just overt capitalists. On serious side, Lenin was a right deviation from marxist movement. Some of his texts like state and revolution are indeed marxist. Mensheviks were the ones who historically organized the soviets and were more prominent and useful to the movement in the beginnigng. On the other hand when bolsheviks took over they immediately weakened the soviet commities and tried to institute more centrally controlled hierarchy. Now I dont want to be dismissive of bolsheviks, their rightist approach to socialism set an ideological precedent. I just prefer different branch of socialism, the more marxist one.
Your word salad exposes the fact that you have absolutely no clue regarding the subject you're attempting to debate.
Ok, I havent considered that argument. How to even respond to such ad hominem?
If you state absurdities then don't expect people to engage with that nonsense seriously. What you're doing is just trolling which wastes everyone's time. If you don't want to have a serious discussion then move along.
Ad hominem is not absurd?
At least learn what ad hominem means if you're going to keep using it to try and make yourself sound smart. Ad hominem would be me dismissing your argument by attacking your personality. I'm dismissing your argument because the argument itself is nonsensical drivel as I've explain in detail in another reply in this thread.
It generally means an attack on the speaker, instead of showing fallacy in the argument. As you may have noticed I made no claim of ad hominem in the other reply chain. Just here.
What it actually means is to attempt to discredit the argument by attacking the speaker instead of the argument.
What a bizzare claim. It was a socialist party of Marxist socialists.
True socialism, in Marxist terms, requires the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. The Mensheviks argued that Russia must first undergo a bourgeois-democratic revolution to develop capitalism, create an industrial proletariat, and only later pursue socialism. Furthermore, The Mensheviks allied with liberal bourgeois parties like the Kadets during the 1905 and 1917 revolutions.
They advocated for parliamentary democracy, gradual reforms, and legal trade unionism within capitalist frameworks. Their approach was fundamentally opportunist and it perpetuated capitalist exploitation. Genuine socialism requires abolition of the bourgeois state, not participation in it.
Their faith in bourgeois democracy and the notion of gradual reform ignores the very core of Marx’s materialist analysis. Capitalism cannot be reformed into socialism because its state exists to protect private property and class rule.
To sum up, their embrace of liberal democracy and refusal to pursue proletarian revolution disqualified them as socialists. Their platform prioritized preservation of capitalist property relations over economic emancipation, the very system socialism seeks to abolish.
This is true, there was a consensus among marxists that a country which is not industrialized will have tremendous trouble if it became socialist. But it misrepresents the mensheviks to assume that they would cooperate with the bourgeois society, they organized the proletariat through unionization. Not to say that proletariat is typically meant in an industrialized society, where there are capitalists. Under your logic people like Rosa Luxemberg would also not be socialist.
That's pure nonsense I'm afraid. Menshiviks were basically what social democrats are in modern capitalist societies. They were not a revolutionary party. Meanwhile, Luxemberg was a principled revolutionary.
Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?
The Luxemburg point was about the preindustrialised consensus. The point that only industrialized country should become socialist. She was also against the bolshevik centralized power structure. Like the mensheviks
Social democrats are organizing commities like the soviets and unions? Where?
Social democrats are reformists just as menshiviks are. The approach demonstrably does not work, and what it accomplishes in practice is perpetuation of capitalism.
Meanwhile, Luxemburg was very much not against centralized structure. You make blatantly false statements either because you're ignorant or because you're intentionally trying to misrepresent things.
Luxemburg and Lenin shared core Marxist commitments to revolution and socialism, but their views on centralization and the vanguard reflected nuanced disagreements within revolutionary strategy. Here’s how Luxemburg's ideas aligned with, and diverged from, those of Lenin.
First thing to state is that Luxemburg supported revolutionary centralism. She believed that a centralized party was necessary to coordinate class struggle, but it must emerge organically from the self-activity of the masses. What she warned against was top-down power, advocating for internal democracy and constant dialogue between the party and the working class.
Both Luxemburg and Lenin saw centralized organization as essential to overthrow capitalism. In fact, she praised the revolutionary discipline of the Bolsheviks in 1917, writing:
Luxemburg diverged with Lenin arguing that while a vanguard was necessary, it should not be an elite cadre but a theoretically advanced section of the working class itself, emerging through struggle. However, both agreed the working class needed political leadership to avoid reformist pitfalls. Luxemburg’s Social Democracy and Communism stressed the party’s role in clarifying revolutionary goals.
Despite tactical some disagreements, Luxemburg and Lenin shared strategic unity and were in a fundamental agreement. Both rejected parliamentary reformism, insisting capitalism could only be overthrown through class struggle and proletarian dictatorship.
Yes it was blatantly false, so false in fact that you proceed to argue pretty much the point that in Luxemburgs view the role of the party is to organise the spontaneous strikes or workers into eventually general strikes, unlike Lenins idea where the party leaders whip the population into doing what they want. Simply put again Luxemburg and mensheviks argued for gradual revolution. Difference being that menshevisk also thought that russia needed to industrialize before that. both were far more democratic than lenin and bolshevism
Simply put, Luxemburg fundamentally agreed with Lenin, but her approach proved to be unworkable while Lenin's tactics succeeded. BOTH ADVOCATED FOR REVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Meanwhile, menshiviks were reformists akin to modern social democrats. The fact that you continue to misrepresent history here only further highlights that you're not interested in a good faith discussion.
Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable? She was abandonded by the reformists who abandoned the movement as a whole. That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned. Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not. Furthermore a bolshevik may consider a menshevik to be reformist, bolsheviks wanted the revolution before the industrialization. I dont understand why you believe that mensheviks opposed socialism after the industrialization.
edit: I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.
Well this is just ahistorical, what do you mean by proved to be unworkable?
Remind me how it worked out in the end.
That does not mean that she was somehow wrong, she was abandoned.
Her approach failed, that's the actual history.
Mensheviks were marxists, social democrats today are not
Marxism is revolutionary. Again, either you don't understand what Marxism is, or you're just trolling.
I should also point out how deeply marxist, in the sense that it was idea of marx, is the point that bourgeois revolution is necessary before the socialist one. Pure historical materialism.
You should let Vietnam and China know asap. Marxism isn't dogmatic, which is evidently another thing you fail to understand. Maybe spend your time actually studying Marxism instead of arguing out of ignorance in public forums.
So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.
Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.
Yes they advocated for bourgeois revolution before the socialist one.
Vietnam and Korea are good counter examples. The commities and democratic organization of the communists was very cool and developed during colonial periods. That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist. The contradictions which arise in a capitalist society between the classes give rise to the revolution.
So just so I understand if there was any succesful organised revolution based on general strikes she would be right? It would have worked? Same stupid argument which you made could be made about anything that ended.
We have a century of history now to look back at and see what types of organization succeed and what don't. The history has very clearly proven Lenin to be right.
Her approach failed, so did bolshevism. I dont actually mean this, I want to show the stupidity of the claim.
All you're showing here, once again, is that you just like to make absurd statements in place of having an actual reasoned argument.
That does not mean that the idea of historical materialism is not deeply marxist.
Nice straw man there, I never said anything of the sort. What I actually said, is that taking the writings of Marx dogmatically is contrary to Marxism which is a dialectical process.
ok sure, that does again not mean that Luxemburg was wrong.
See i tried to show that the historical argument that something ended, does not really mean much.
Yes I continued from the point of how deeply marxist the menshevik point was. It was direct historical materialism. Thats also why most marxists agreed with them on this. Also if you consider this a strawman then the cases of China and Vietnam which you mentioned hold no water since we agree on the necessity of contradictions arising in capitalism which are part of historical materialism.
ok sure, that does again not mean that Luxemburg was wrong.
To sum up. Both Lenin and Luxemburg AGREED on the goals and general approach of the necessity of a revolution and the vanguard. They disagreed on the tactics of how to accomplish this goal that they agreed on. We now have over a century of history to look back at and decide which approach was correct by looking which approach has successfully accomplished these goals historically. Lenin was proven right and Luxemburg was proven wrong.
This is not a slight against Luxemburg because nobody knew what the correct way to organize would be when it was being done for the first time. However, there is no excuse for people who are unable to examine history and analyze it critically today.
Yes I continued from the point of how deeply marxist the menshevik point was.
And I've explained in detail why menshiviks were not in fact Marxists.
Also if you consider this a strawman then the cases of China and Vietnam which you mentioned hold no water since we agree on the necessity of contradictions arising in capitalism which are part of historical materialism.
Incorrect
Yeah she cared far more for the democratic organization. The bolshevik model tried to justify itself as only transitional and so directing the mass of proletariat which is too stupid to understand its own needs was sold as somehow getting closer to the model where they own means of their production and all of a sudden know exactly what they need.
Again the historical argument is so weird. Literally the countries like Vietnam and Korea had solid democratic organisation by commities not dissimilar to initial soviets. They only moved to centralization after being attacked by us. They were not like bolsheviks before.
If lenins goal was to have workers who own their means of production, in the marxist sense, he failed. The vanguard party never went away, ideal was not accomplished. In this same sense that you use Stalin was proved right, Khruschev, Brezhnev Gorbachev just because during their administration bolshevism existed. Luxemburg being proved wrong I also dont understand, how is it that if the party cowardly abandons its cause it somehow disproves that cause?
This also makes it seem like you actually want some level of dogmatism. Assuming that Lenins idea of revolution is the correct one.
yes you said that mensheviks are not revolutionary, and the only argument is that they want first a bourgeois revolution to happen before a socialist one.
so we dont agree that historical materialism necessitates contradictions of capitalist society to give rise to socialist revolution?
Yeah she cared far more for the democratic organization. The bolshevik model tried to justify itself as only transitional and so directing the mass of proletariat which is too stupid to understand its own needs was sold as somehow getting closer to the model where they own means of their production and all of a sudden know exactly what they need.
It's the height of absurdity to claim that Bolsheviks didn't care about democratic organization.
Again the historical argument is so weird. Literally the countries like Vietnam and Korea had solid democratic organisation by commities not dissimilar to initial soviets. They only moved to centralization after being attacked by us. They were not like bolsheviks before.
On which principles did they organize, Lenin's or Luxemburg's. You're making my point for me here.
If lenins goal was to have workers who own their means of production, in the marxist sense, he failed. The vanguard party never went away, ideal was not accomplished.
That's an absurdly infantile argument. The reality is that the USSR existed under threat from the overarching capitalist world throughout its whole existence and was not allowed to develop peacefully. It was invaded by western powers in 1918, then plunged into WW2 a couple of decades later, and then into Cold War. Claiming that it did not live up to Platonic ideals of communism under these conditions is inane to say the least.
Luxemburg being proved wrong I also dont understand, how is it that if the party cowardly abandons its cause it somehow disproves that cause?
Meanwhile, Luxemburg's idealism gave us the nazis in the end. Had the German communists followed Russian example, then the history may have turned out completely differently. There may not have been a WW2, Europe would've become communist, and the US would've remained an isolated regional power which would've likely turned communist as well to follow the rest of the world.
This also makes it seem like you actually want some level of dogmatism. Assuming that Lenins idea of revolution is the correct one.
Looking at what has worked historically is the opposite of dogmatism.
yes you said that mensheviks are not revolutionary, and the only argument is that they want first a bourgeois revolution to happen before a socialist one
The fact that you don't understand the absurdity of the sentence you wrote is incredible.
so we dont agree that historical materialism necessitates contradictions of capitalist society to give rise to socialist revolution?
I've already addressed this in an earlier reply. You can feel free to reread it.
When compared to most other marxist they were far less democratic. I cannot speak to their hidden cares. But they very much upheld the idea of stupid mass of workers that needs to be told what to do.
The point is that the commities only became centralized after they were attacked. I dont know how else to say this. They were not like the bolsheviks initially.
Well I have only adopted your methods. Its almost as insane as trying to argue that its was a failure of Luxemburgs ideas and not the abandonment of the party which caused the failure of revolution. That would be absurdly infantile.
Again this is just crazy. It was the party that failed not Luxemburg. If the party adopted her methods who knows what would have happened. Thats like saying that trotsky or bukharin failed because their ideas were just worse than stalins. Pure insanity.
Ok but if we then try to say that ones method was correct simply because thats what prevailed then this gives no extra value, we dont know what the system would look like if the party would not abandon Luxemburg, or if bukharin replaced stalin. By the same argument germans were correct because thats what happened.
again with mensheviks you seem to maybe not know their ideology. A communist which revolts against a capitalist system is still revolutionary. It doesnt need to be against a tzarist one.
alright then we shall disagree on this, i do believe that its a capitalist society which gives rise to the necessary contradictions.
When compared to most other marxist they were far less democratic. I cannot speak to their hidden cares. But they very much upheld the idea of stupid mass of workers that needs to be told what to do.
I don't see any point comparing real world societies to fictional ones.
Well I have only adopted your methods. Its almost as insane as trying to argue that its was a failure of Luxemburgs ideas and not the abandonment of the party which caused the failure of revolution. That would be absurdly infantile.
Nah, you've stuck to your own methods of making nonsensical statements that fail to address the points I'm making. Why did the part abandon Luxemburg, why were German communists unable to organize the way Bolsheviks did. Have you considered that lack of party discipline was precisely the problem there?
Ok but if we then try to say that ones method was correct simply because thats what prevailed then this gives no extra value, we dont know what the system would look like if the party would not abandon Luxemburg, or if bukharin replaced stalin. By the same argument germans were correct because thats what happened.
Nobody is saying that methods are correct simply by virtue of prevailing. What's being said is that methods that consistently fail to achieve desired results are definitely not correct.
again with mensheviks you seem to maybe not know their ideology. A communist which revolts against a capitalist system is still revolutionary. It doesnt need to be against a tzarist one.
I know their ideology quite well that's precisely how I know that you're blowing smoke here. The fact that you're trying to argue that a party trying to do a capitalist revolution is socialist without a hint of irony is really incredible.
alright then we shall disagree on this, i do believe that its a capitalist society which gives rise to the necessary contradictions.
Yet, history proves you wrong. Thanks for confirming that you are not in fact a Marxist and you refuse to do material analysis of history.
We speak of systems not societies. Unless you meant to say that its fiction to think that russians perhaps were able to govern themselves. That in reality the proletariat was so stupid that such thing is only fiction. Very marxist of you.
They abandoned her because they were reformists. She was not. Not her fault. Also mensheviks were the initial organizers not bolsheviks.
yeah and they "failed" in one case, very consistent. By this method trotskys and bukharis also failed
no it was not them doing that part though, thats not even the argument
yeah i suppose i just agree too much with marx and majority of marxists. You know he seems to think that capitalism is necessary to centralise capital and the extreme exploitation of labor at that point gives rise to some socialist movement. See bolsheviks somewhat implicitly agreed and intended to use quite capitalist policies to transform the society into one thats more centralized. Thats in part why they were a rightist deviation from the marxist movement. The way in which stalin then proceeded with the collectivization was not whay was popular between bolsheviks during lenin.
We speak of systems not societies. Unless you meant to say that its fiction to think that russians perhaps were able to govern themselves. That in reality the proletariat was so stupid that such thing is only fiction. Very marxist of you.
Systems are sets of rules upon which societies are built. These things are inseparable. A Marxist would understand that theory cannot be divorced from practice.
They abandoned her because they were reformists. She was not. Not her fault. Also mensheviks were the initial organizers not bolsheviks.
The reformist wing won precisely because the revolutionary wing failed to organize effectively. Meanwhile, who the initial organizers were is utterly irrelevant. It's what purpose they were organizing for that matters.
You know he seems to think that capitalism is necessary to centralise capital and the extreme exploitation of labor at that point gives rise to some socialist movement.
No, he did not think capitalism was a necessity. However, what Marx definitely did think is that you have to analyze actual material history and base your theories on the material reality. And the reality proves that this assertion is incorrect.
See bolsheviks somewhat implicitly agreed and intended to use quite capitalist policies to transform the society into one thats more centralized.
Seems like you're making a false equivalence between capitalism and centralization here.
The way in which stalin then proceeded with the collectivization was not whay was popular between bolsheviks during lenin.
Yet, that's precisely what allowed USSR to survive the nazi invasion, which proves Stalin correct.
I agree and the fictional system of Lenin would be dysfunctional when mensheviks were predominant by your logic. If we want to use the historical argument we can also claim that stalin completely disregarded main bolshevik ideas during his collectivization. Does this mean that Lenin failed? Because his theory was abandoned in this case?
indeed we partially agree. It is a failure of the movement not the ideas of the individual which from certain point were disregarded. Who the organizers doesnt matter in the exact way you use, their idea which leads the organizing matters. I agree.
he as a hegelian did believe that the contradictions would arise in a capitalist society, socialism would be a reaction to it. The timing of the formation of such movement he did put at the moment when the capitalists lost their purpose. In his words it was something like the capital is increasingly centralized, one capitalist exploits the other. Then he goes on to describe how when the sole purpose of centralization of capital was met, capitalism can die. The collectivization is simply not something put forward by marx. Neither was it a particulalry bolshevist policy. They liked policies like NEP, bukharin was even more capitalist. But I agree that stalins policy was different, it was also different from typical bolshevism.
Well yeah i base this equivalence on marxs capital where he sees centralization of capital as the sole purpose of capitalism as a whole. and no when regarding bolsheviks i do mean capitalist like nep for example. Now i get that the policies are still better than pure capitalism, but they are not marxist.
the argument about stalin is a common one. The first 2 5 year plans indeed brought great successes and benefits to the population. And collectivization like stalins was never a bolshevik policy. Bukharin was far more liked in the party and seen as likely to lead after lenin. I dont know what to say about stalins policies. There are undeniable benefits, costs and we simply dont know what would bukharin bring. Probably not the purges, since his policies would be market bases probably some economic benefits. Sorry for long reply.
I agree and the fictional system of Lenin would be dysfunctional when mensheviks were predominant by your logic. If we want to use the historical argument we can also claim that stalin completely disregarded main bolshevik ideas during his collectivization. Does this mean that Lenin failed? Because his theory was abandoned in this case?
A Marxist would apply dialectical view to this question, and look at how each group resolved the contradictions that were present, and who was able to navigate these contradictions successfully. Again, Marxism isn't a dogma, it's a framework for interpreting the world and making decisions. Treating Marx as an oracle is the very antithesis of Marxism.
Marx was theorizing based on what was known at the time, and many developments have happened since the days of Marx. Modern Marxists must account for the way history actually developed in their analysis. Marxist theory is living and constantly evoilving, it's not a set of commandments that Marx handed down.
Well yeah i base this equivalence on marxs capital where he sees centralization of capital as the sole purpose of capitalism as a whole. and no when regarding bolsheviks i do mean capitalist like nep for example. Now i get that the policies are still better than pure capitalism, but they are not marxist.
The policies USSR produced were created in direct response to the material conditions it found itself in. They were the products of the existing contradictions. You appear to think that you can just apply the policies you want while disregarding the material conditions.
I dont know what to say about stalins policies. There are undeniable benefits, costs and we simply dont know what would bukharin bring. Probably not the purges, since his policies would be market bases probably some economic benefits.
It is clear that rapid industrialization that was key to USSR prevailing in WW2 would not have been possible had Stalin's policies not been pursued. This is the simple fact of the situation. Stalin, being an actual Marxist, understood that policy has to be derived from the material conditions.
Ok I think i mostly agree. We have deviated from initial topic. When marxists account for history of bolshevism, I still believe that its a certain proof of concept, and some inspiration, but I simply have big issues with how the workers are treated as stupid, i think that grassroot organization is more resilient.
Yeah but the conditions are not an excuse, there were successes and there were terrible policies. Pretending that one is without fault or not open to alternative interpretation is wrong. Mensheviks had issues so did bolsheviks.
Yes that being said its simply weird to call someome paraphrasing marx not marxist.
Well this cuts both ways, both mensheviks and bolsheviks and later stalin were responding to the conditions. Im arguing for a certain specific branch of that response.
no it is absolutely not clear, bukharin very much had plans for the industrialization and his were more consistent with bolsheviks. Stalin definetly called himself marxist. His reign was probably the lowest point of soviet communism. From eliminating any marxist dissent within the party and throrought the society, many times dissent was not even needed for elimination, to the catastrophic effects of the collectivization, which have no equally disastrous soviet policy and lets not forget how the working class, which was the one which threatened world capitalism initially, was completely brought to its knees, being oppressed in the literal sense more than even during the last tzar. True cautionary tale and most of the marxist movements today, at least that i know of, luckily for future of the working class interpret is as such.
That being said we have departed far from the topic of menshevism.
I disagree with the characterization of workers being treated as stupid by the Bolsheviks. In fact, Bolsheviks spent a lot of time on educating the workers and helping them develop politically. Bolshevik organization was fundamentally grassroots driven with party cells self organizing across Russia. What the Bolsheviks recognized however is that not everyone has the time to invest in developing deep understanding of politics, and that's why you need professional revolutionaries who make this their job.
Nobody is arguing that USSR was some utopia, and the reality is that any human society will have bad policies and other kinds of problems. What matters is the overall direction of travel and whether the society is able to learn from its mistakes.
I'm arguing that menshivisks wanted to create capitalist relations instead of a proletarian revolution. Claiming that Marx originally thought that capitalism would forge a proletariat that would turn against capitalism as the basis for introducing capitalism is nonsensical. Russian existing conditions already produced a proletariat that was revolutionary as was evidenced by the revolution that Bolsheviks carried out. Meanwhile, more advanced capitalist societies in the west failed to produce revolutionary proletariat of their own. The history shows that Marx was not correct in his initial assessment.
While there certainly were problematic aspects of Stalin's policies, they were clearly correct in the broad sense. The notion that the working class was more oppressed under Stalin than during tsarist times is absurd beyond belief.
The mensheviks were far more foundational to the soviets. After the revolution the bolsheviks immediately went to centralize the hierarchy and weaken the autonomy of soviets. But yeah even bolsheviks are marxists, so there is a level of respect for the worker. I simply dont believe that they would in future actually push for the policy of workers owning their means of production and being able to be autonomous.
Well with mensheviks they did not want to be the bourgeois though. I dont know how you mean that they would create the capitalist relations. I think they simply saw capitalism as a necessary middle step and opposed bolsheviks in thinking that industrialization should be carried out after the socialist revolution.
In the marxs case capitalism does forge the proletariat through exploitation. The function of capitalist is to produce workers separated from their means of production. He also attributes inevitable centralization to capitalism and, because hes humanist, he goes to imply that when the majority of exploited workers becomes large enough, the system must undergo a revolution. His argument in my view makes sense precisely as a critique of capitalism.
i still disagree with the broad correctness. Here i side with the bolsheviks, because i still prefer their ideas on industrialization to those of stalin. Yeah i take back the comparison to tsar, sorry. I could nitpick about how in specific locations in specific periods I would be right, but overall i still would be wrong. I take that back.
Well with mensheviks they did not want to be the bourgeois though. I dont know how you mean that they would create the capitalist relations. I think they simply saw capitalism as a necessary middle step and opposed bolsheviks in thinking that industrialization should be carried out after the socialist revolution.
While you don't believe that Bolsheviks would push for workers owning the means of production, you have no problem believing that capitalism would magically turn into communism. Despite a century of evidence to the contrary.
His argument in my view makes sense precisely as a critique of capitalism.
That is the only way his argument make sense, and that's precisely why it's no logical for Marxists to pursue capitalism. However, now that we have more historical evidence, it's clear that Marx vastly underestimated the resilience of the capitalist system, and the levels of exploitation the workers will put with under it.
Not magically i think unionization is paramount to the revolution. The evidence could be interpreted as you do. The european nations are indeed good counterexample to marx. Germany before nazis, france in the 1968, partially greece, but there us just invaded. That being said this does not discourage democratic unionization and strikes. They are still effective we just have to adapt so that they remain effective. I think that as the exploitation will increase like now in the us, workers will feel the class struggle and recognize that they cannot remain idle. The organizers then I would prefer to be revolutionary marxists instead of just revolutionaries. Maybe we use the word differently, by marxists here i mean that workers owning the means of prod. is their main goal.
Nobody is arguing against unionization and strikes though. What's being said is that these things alone are demonstrably insufficient to overthrow capitalism. The only approach that has been shown to work reliably is the one Bolsheviks pursued. By Marxists, I mean people who have genuine understanding of material dialectics and are able to apply this understanding to the current material conditions to produce the desired results. Marxism is a framework for understanding the world.
So you regard the situation in russia after 1905 or maybe even before as comparable to what either today capitalism is, or back then was? I think that first of all since russia back then was not even industrialized for any future revolutions we are essentially forced to accept marxs framework. We are not overthrowing monarchy. Also russia back then was so incredibly disorganized and non resilient that modern comparison in developed countries is very difficult. And when you say that bolshevism proved itself as good at overthrowing capitalism, my point is partially also that it wasnt exactly much capitalist like, what russia was back then. Otherwise there would be barely any difference between mensheviks and bolsheviks, since the bourgeois revolution wouldbt be needed.
Korea and vietnam would be simmilar, china as far as industrialization goes.
i dont think that we are going to be overthrowing weak poorly managed monarchies. I think that the revolution against capitalism in future will be more simmilar to marxs writing. But i also think that after that the framework of material conditions will be understood even by regular workers.
So you regard the situation in russia after 1905 or maybe even before as comparable to what either today capitalism is, or back then was?
I'm pointing out the historical fact that the labor in Russia was sufficiently class conscious to carry out the revolution which disproves your thesis that further capitalist development was necessary.
And when you say that bolshevism proved itself as good at overthrowing capitalism, my point is partially also that it wasnt exactly much capitalist like, what russia was back then.
I don't even know what point you're attempting to make here. What stage of capitalist development Russia was at is utterly irrelevant. The actual problem was that the means of production were privately owned, and the goal of a socialist revolution is to put the ownership in the hands of the working majority. That's precisely what Bolsheviks did.
i dont think that we are going to be overthrowing weak poorly managed monarchies. I think that the revolution against capitalism in future will be more simmilar to marxs writing. But i also think that after that the framework of material conditions will be understood even by regular workers.
The workers in the west are far more educated today than they were a century ago. The levels of literacy are far high, access to information is much more readily available, and so on. Yet, despite that, the revolutionary potential in the west is entirely absent. It's quite clear that the framework for understanding material conditions doesn't just spontaneously appear among the workers. As Bolsheviks correctly understood, a socialist revolution requires a professional vanguard of revolutionaries to organize the workers.
Yes it was a revolution against a preindustrial and mostly feudal monarchy. It baffles me how you want to infer something about how this would work against a late capitalist industrialized system.
The point of capitalist development is relevant to a historical materialist. I hope that we will agree that the hierarchy of owbership is radically different under feudal monarchy and developed industrialized capitalism. The means of production were in the hands of the state controlled by the party, controlled by the central committee or politburo. I would prefer if they were not only in the hands of the workers, but also in their control. I dont think that the workers appreciated under stalins decision for example that they had to give out more grain than they produced. Means of production were truly only in their hands, not control.
Well lets not forget western history. A materialist may expect this consciousness during crises and unions to rise in numbers. 1960s for example. In the us very large part of the population simply democratically and actively opposed in no small part their current material conditions and chose to not adhere to the capitalist line. Yes the fbi crushed many of these movements, but they very much emerged democrstically, from the material conditions. Assault the workforce, you will get dissent.
I partially agree, but this is common to all marxists, that this dissent needs to be organized, but in my view theres little need for the specific form of a vanguard party.
Yes it was a revolution against a preindustrial and mostly feudal monarchy. It baffles me how you want to infer something about how this would work against a late capitalist industrialized system.
It baffles me how you can't understand how the exact same principles apply to a late stage capitalist system.
I hope that we will agree that the hierarchy of owbership is radically different under feudal monarchy and developed industrialized capitalism.
Do elaborate on that because what people are realizing is the exact opposite, hence people like Varoufakis now using terms such as technofeudalism.
The means of production were in the hands of the state controlled by the party, controlled by the central committee or politburo.
The party represents the working majority, and it's clear primitive organization simply does not scale. It is not possible for large numbers of people to coordinate effectively without central planning organs. There's a reason these structures evolve in every human society as it scale. Not only that, but we see the same thing happening in nature as well with complex organisms evolving things like the nervous system and the brain. It's an efficient solution to the problem of coordination.
I dont think that the workers appreciated under stalins decision for example that they had to give out more grain than they produced. Means of production were truly only in their hands, not control.
I don't think you appreciate that redistribution of resources at scale avoided local hoarding and prevented famines. In fact, the famine in the 30s was in large parts caused by kulaks hoarding cattle and grain.
Well lets not forget western history. A materialist may expect this consciousness during crises and unions to rise in numbers. 1960s for example. In the us very large part of the population simply democratically and actively opposed in no small part their current material conditions and chose to not adhere to the capitalist line. Yes the fbi crushed many of these movements, but they very much emerged democrstically, from the material conditions. Assault the workforce, you will get dissent.
And the movement FBI had to crush were very much organized along Bolshevik principles which proves my point. Black Panthers were explicitly a Marxist Leninist movement.
I partially agree, but this is common to all marxists, that this dissent needs to be organized, but in my view theres little need for the specific form of a vanguard party.
And this sort of view is precisely where there are no serious movements in the west.
Well again you provide no historical proof against a industrialized capitalist system. Trying to argue that it will work the same is the opposite of mhistorical materialism.
Ok here I dont know where to begin. Well lets beginwoth capitalism. Why was the bourgeois revolution so violent precisely against feudal lords. If the structure is the same why were their estates privatized in sich a manner? Why did feudalist system not develop industries? Why is marxs critique not applied to feudalism also, when they could be used interchangebly. You use some wording that yannis has used and try to claim that pretty much all marxists and even most economists dont understand what they talk about.
i agree with the scaling argument. Thats why the soviets and factory committees were founded, so that they could be what controlls the production as informed and effective as possible. Yes these hierarchies evolve in ant colonies for example. You know the workers do what they must and will die if the colony chooses so. I must admit that i fail to see the relevancy. A worst social darwinist could use such an argument.
Yet weirdly enough, despite the scapegoat of kulaks, the worst year of the famine coincided with the worst yield. And the famine was most pronounced in the argricultural regions. Note that this would not have happened if the regional soviets were in control, because they would know the yield. Centralization is effective, just not when it comes to knowing information that is decentralized. Then it becomes incredibly uninformed. Again note that this has nothing to do with workers controlling their production. Giving away more grain than you produce was an example of how marxist these policies and organization were.
Some were, many werent. Actually the most populous ones, the largest ones, were definitely not.
Again without proof. Counterexamples: during the 1930s crisis the unions in us were incredibly strong, 1960s and i guess crises in general.
Well again you provide no historical proof against a industrialized capitalist system. Trying to argue that it will work the same is the opposite of mhistorical materialism.
The historical proof is that industrial capitalism transitions into financial capitalism as we see happening in the west.
If the structure is the same why were their estates privatized in sich a manner? Why did feudalist system not develop industries?
See, this is why you need to spend a bit of time to actually understand what dialectical materialism is before debating it. Capitalism arose from the technological advancements that occurred under feudalism. Capitalism stemmed from changing dynamics within society that shifted power into the hands of the merchant class.
You use some wording that yannis has used and try to claim that pretty much all marxists and even most economists dont understand what they talk about.
No, I actually understand how capitalism evolved and the material conditions that drove it. I also understand how capitalism itself evolves and why the industrial stage transitioned into financialized stage. These are things any Marxist should be able to comprehend.
Yes these hierarchies evolve in ant colonies for example. You know the workers do what they must and will die if the colony chooses so. I must admit that i fail to see the relevancy. A worst social darwinist could use such an argument.
You fail to see the relevancy because you're once again failing to apply dialectical thinking to the problem. Hierarchies are a tool for solving the problem of coordination. Similar problems occur both in societies and in nature, and similar solutions evolve in both contexts. Furthermore, hierarchies do not imply that workers don't have no power or that there is strict top down management. The brain doesn't micromanage how your body functions, it sets the general goals and delegates their execution. Similarly, we can look at China as a modern example where there is bottom up organization at the local level that works in harmony with large scale planning at high level.
Yet weirdly enough, despite the scapegoat of kulaks, the worst year of the famine coincided with the worst yield. And the famine was most pronounced in the argricultural regions. Note that this would not have happened if the regional soviets were in control, because they would know the yield.
No that's pure nonsense. What would've happened was that the famine would've been worse in other regions. We can look at actual research on the subjet here. The reality is that during the 1932 Famine, the USSR sent aid to affected regions in an attempt to alleviate the famine. According to Mark Tauger in his article, The 1932 Harvest and the Famine of 1933:
While the leadership did not stop exports, they did try to alleviate the famine. A 25 February 1933 Central Committee decree allotted seed loans of 320,000 tons to Ukraine and 240,000 tons to the northern Caucasus. Seed loans were also made to the Lower Volga and may have been made to other regions as well. Kul'chyts'kyy cites Ukrainian party archives showing that total aid to Ukraine by April 1933 actually exceeded 560,000 tons, including more than 80,000 tons of food
Some bring up massive grain exports during the famine to show that the Soviet Union exported food while Ukraine starved. This is fallacious for a number of reasons, but most importantly of all the amount of aid that was sent to Ukraine alone actually exceeded the amount that was exported at the time.
Aid to Ukraine alone was 60 percent greater than the amount exported during the same period. Total aid to famine regions was more than double exports for the first half of 1933.
According to Tauger, the reason why more aid was not provided was because of the low harvest
It appears to have been another consequence of the low 1932 harvest that more aid was not provided: After the low 1931, 1934, and 1936 harvests procured grain was transferred back to peasants at the expense of exports.
Tauger is not a communist, and yet even he is forced to admit that the Soviets really did try to alleviate the famine as best as they could.
The proof was referring to trying to apply same means of revolution to a different system. Revolution agains preindustrialized feudalism doesnt prove the methods success agains developed capitalism.
The history of capitalism was not attacked by me though, i pointed out hoe insane drawing equality between the hierarchies and organization of production between feudalism and caputalism is.
yes and again capitalisn is not feudalism.
I agree the nature tells us lots of different things. And when one starts to pick seemingly related concepts he will find whatever he wants. Did you know that fascist believe that they are just intepreting biology? Same with colonialists. Thats why they are not a serious argument. Unless we talk of something innate to humans that would prevent certain specific behavior.
Yeah no. Basic logic here. When was the other famine there? After tsar before stalin? Any proof? There have been years with bad yields, but because the feudal system was still not completely destroyed, it was quite adapted to the conditions. This one is on the collectivization. Yeah i know about the aid. Im not implying thay they wanted people to starve. im showing how efficient central planning can be. I also found taugers work and debate. The aid is pragmatic, and is unrelated to the point of efficiency of central planing vs decentralized system. Im not just talking about ukraine, also volga region for example.
The proof was referring to trying to apply same means of revolution to a different system. Revolution agains preindustrialized feudalism doesnt prove the methods success agains developed capitalism.
Yet, you're unable to put in concrete terms how these differences matter in terms of organizing a revolution. You're just making hand wavy statements that lack substance here.
I agree the nature tells us lots of different things. And when one starts to pick seemingly related concepts he will find whatever he wants. Did you know that fascist believe that they are just intepreting biology? Same with colonialists. Thats why they are not a serious argument. Unless we talk of something innate to humans that would prevent certain specific behavior.
This addresses nothing of what I actually said.
Yeah no. Basic logic here. When was the other famine there? After tsar before stalin? Any proof?
Yeah there's plenty of proof, and maybe go spend a bit of time learning about the subject instead of wasting other people's time with inane claims. This whole discussion started with me pointing out that you're speaking out of ignorance here, and everything you've said in this thread has further reinforced that fact. You keep acting like things you're attempting to debate are just abstract ideas while there is very clear history and facts at play here.
In any case, it's pretty clear that this discussion isn't going anywhere. We're obviously not going to agree on anything or convince each other of anything. So, I'm going to stop here and let you have the last word.
The fuck they weren't. Lenin's formulation required the party member to be a member of one of the Party's organizations Martov's only stated that he should work under the guidance of a Party organization.
I haven't seen any capitalists in Britain bemoaning Menshevikism, so I'm not sure its worth refuting.