Yeah I don’t know, mensheviks and other left socialists also have their appeal. But sure historical relevancy won the postcard.
I haven’t seen any capitalists in Britain bemoaning Menshevikism, so I’m not sure its worth refuting.
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.
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
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.
