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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
lmfao menshiviks were not socialists 🤣
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.
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 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.
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.