you don’t have to read shakespeare to experience it’s influence.
The issue, from the wealth of nations to das kapital is that neither smith or marx undrstood humans as monkeys. They assume rationality and intelligent beings capable of understanding the world around them. That is clearly not the case, and won’t be the case for a very long time.
But neither Marx nor Smith take that position.
The Manifesto at bare minimum. It’s short, sweet, and accessible!
Dude, if this is short, I’m very worried about the rest.
If you only read part 1 of the manifesto you’d be pretty set. Part 2 is good and def worth reading. I love part 3 but if you didn’t get to it that would be ok
I think we focus a lot on how much we’ve read. But I think its more important to read something well. That can’t be measured by page numbers.
If this is not short, I’m worried for you.
It’s shorter than a book. But not a short read.
Literally the length of a short story
It’s like 10,000 words. It’s the equivalent of reading the Sunday news.
This is the case with many groups that claim to represent or spread their “founder’s” teachings. They never read them and just believe in whatever they were told or heard. You also have a bunch of people that base their entire being on a single book the selectively quote but have never read in its entirety. Kinda pathetic.
ah, I see you have heard of every organised religion ever.
And if primary sources aren’t your thing, there’s also summaries, podcasts and online courses. Like these: https://davidharvey.org/
If the thing for you aren’t primary sources,
there’s also summaries, podcasts and online courses.Love your rhyming
As long as leftist theory doesn’t explain how for example stalin came to power and offers a theoretical way to prevent left projects immediately turning into dictatorships, it’s just slavery with extra steps.
Leftist theory does explain it. At great length, in a thousand different ways.
Trotsky meticulously described every step of Stalin’s rise, and devoted the last 20 years of his life opposing him, until Stalin had him assassinated like so many other Bolsheviks.
Just because you haven’t yet learned something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly explored, and its kind of a wild assertion to make. It implies that leftists lack critical thinking skills. We don’t.
We prevent it by uncovering the reality of our conditions, just as Marx described in Theses on Feuerbach: center peoples lived experiences at every step of our analysis.
There are no proscriptions, because Marxism isn’t about the future its about the present. The Bolsheviks were at their best when they were with the workers. But the civil war, a series of invasions by several countries after their oct revolution in 1917 destroyed all of the industry in Russia, and all that was left was the bureaucracy. No more industry, no more working class. They def made other mistakes like banning factions and the horrific tragedy of Kronstadt (which Trotsky led so as not to lionize.)
How 1917 went from the hope of historical progress to the oppressive bureaucracy in 5 horrific years is not a topic untouched by theory. But you can’t just flatten all that history of the USSR into Stalin. He was created by the bureaucracy not the other way around. It persists long after his death, and I’ll admit is a serious problem in left movements.
But you’re seriously mischaracterizing the situation. Exactly what you say doesn’t exist is a 100 year old debate that has been fought endlessly. If anything we need to stop focusing on it so much as it is hurting our ability to deal with the present.
If you want a theory for how it is prevented, read Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Fred Hampton once said, “everything we do has to start with education. Without education is how colonialism becomes neo-colonialism.”
Leftist theory does explain it. At great length, in a thousand different ways. Just because you haven’t yet learned something doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly explored
Yes. Ok, fine, but then leftists should talk about and recommend those and not “the communist manifesto”.
We prevent it by uncovering the reality of our conditions, just as Marx described in Theses on Feuerbach
But that was the original point, something about this obviously didn’t work?!
Pedagogy of the Oppressed
I mean, you tell me if the synopsis on wikipedia is broadly accurate or not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedagogy_of_the_Oppressed#Synopsis
It seems he’s assuming that he is essentially facing zero opposition in his attempt at education. That’s unrealistic. This concept would never work on a group of fanatics that refuse to engage with new information. Which should sound familiar.
is a 100 year old debate […] If anything we need to stop focusing on it so much
I understand that point, but you should understand, that if your theory, predictably, inevitably, leads to dictatorship within 5-10 years in any country where it is tried, you don’t have a “social” theory. You have an entrapment scheme.
Feel free to link more sources that attempt to explain that though, I would like to believe.
I think you should reevaluate your approach to some of these problems. But often people, even other Marxists, tend to mischaracterize PotO out of hand. Tbh the wiki isn’t very good.
To (poorly) demonstrate the method, I’ll pose a problem. How do you solve a specific problem without a general understanding?
Would having me fill in the middle work, between the very general and very specific, convince you of my methods? You already seem very skeptical, which is good, but it can make poor soil to grow understanding. Skepticism isn’t criticism, bit its IMO a good quality to have to be a critical thinker. Another, is curiosity or a self directed desire for finding truth.
I don’t believe I can (or even attempt to) deposit the info into you in a couple Lemmy comments. I am willing to demonstrate my own understanding honestly, if you are willing/able to to be critical of not just my ideas but your own as well. I absolutely try and do this at every step, in fact I would say that learning to be critical of my own ideas was a prerequisite for understanding Marxism, rather than just adopting this or that belief system.
My one major criticism so far is that you don’t seem to have a theory of mind or change when referring to leftists. Its gonna be hard to good faith work together if you have like prejudged me. And vice versa! Which is why I ask for clarity. Honestly, there’s a lot of this prejudgement baked into general discourse, so its def not all on you or me.
Leftists fall into it as well. But that’s why I like PotO so much, its demanding. The method itself is completely against the very concept of just memorizing rote statements, or delivering them to be memorized. Friere literally defines this kind of teaching as oppression, and criticizes the left for adopting it often. To Friere, “authority must always be on the side of freedom,” which conceptually, handles the “Stalin factor.”
I can recommend many books, for example I think that Socialism: Utopian and Scientific is a better “beginner” text for your purposes. The manifesto is great but it doesn’t speak to me the way it speaks to others. I def needed to get some other understanding, theoretical and historic, before coming back to the manifesto and really seeing why it was such an important doc at the time
I understand that point, but you should understand, that if your theory, predictably, inevitably, leads to dictatorship within 5-10 years in any country where it is tried, you don’t have a “social” theory. You have an entrapment scheme.
In what country did non-ML socialism lead to a dictatorship, without being conquered by outside forces?
That’s literally part of anarchist theory since Mikhail Bakunin (Marx’s contemporary).
Considering that Marx never advocated for an anti-democratic vanguard party of the like the Bolsheviks established, and many contemporary leftists objected to the Bolshevik system, I don’t really think that it’s particularly relevant.
I think it’s worthy of note that it was Marx who steered the workers’ movements away from workplace organization and syndicalism onto party politics: https://www.anarchistfaq.org/afaq/sectionH.html#sech11
This behavior is my point. You point to a part of theory, that part alone has historically failed to be sufficient, and when those obvious failures are pointed out, you pretend the failures aren’t relevant and everyone is left with no solution?
Doesn’t make sense.
This behavior is my point. You point to a part of theory, that part alone has historically failed to be sufficient, and when those obvious failures are pointed out, you pretend the failures aren’t relevant and everyone is left with no solution?
… that’s just the point. The Bolsheviks did not adhere to the leftist theory we’re discussing, instead opting for a theory of oligarchic control.
It seems extremely questionable to demand an answer from people who follow one political theory for the failures of their theory’s explicit enemies to achieve the theory’s goals.
Like deliberately modifying a recipe only to leave a bad review when it tastes like shit
It seems extremely questionable to demand an answer from people who follow one political theory for the failures of their theory’s explicit enemies to achieve the theory’s goals.
No, and I’m not doing that. (But you would be correct if I did.)
The left theory and world model need to have an answer ready for how to deal with any kind opposition, including fragmentation or internal opposition or corruption. Or whatever you want to call those “explicit enemies”.
I’m not blaming Marx or his contemporaries for not foreseeing a problem that arose 50 years after they did their writing. But I very much am blaming people for pointing to Marx as “the solution”, because we do have hindsight and those problems did arise and the theory did not and still doesn’t cover how to deal with them.
I don’t except you personally to have an answer either, it’s just really annoying me how “read the theory” people don’t even want to acknowledge that there is a problem with that theory.
The left theory and world model need to have an answer ready for how to deal with any kind opposition, including fragmentation or internal opposition or corruption. Or whatever you want to call those “explicit enemies”.
The answer is the same answer as it is for any democratic polity. The issue of oligarchs pulling off a coup is not exactly a problem unique to socialism; thus, I fail to see why socialist theory, uniquely, must have a novel answer to the question.
I’m not blaming Marx or his contemporaries for not foreseeing a problem that arose 50 years after they did their writing. But I very much am blaming people for pointing to Marx as “the solution”, because we do have hindsight and those problems did arise and the theory did not and still doesn’t cover how to deal with them.
There are plenty of problems with Marx, but the Bolsheviks doing the literal opposite of what he suggested is really not something that can be laid on his theory, even in a “Marx didn’t account for this, we need to figure something out.”
It would be like saying someone is teaching incorrectly because a student who expressed explicit disinterest in following the teacher’s advice went and did the exact opposite.
I don’t except you personally to have an answer either, it’s just really annoying me how “read the theory” people don’t even want to acknowledge that there is a problem with that theory.
But again - the theory we’re discussing is not some gospel that is expected to solve all of mankind’s problems. It’s a question of organizing and economics; expecting it to have an answer to a problem as old as mankind and exists independently from any conception of socialism is asking it for answers that it does not pretend to provide.
I fail to see why socialist theory, uniquely, must have a novel answer to the question.
Because people who claim that socialist theory is superior, kind of have show that it is, in fact, superior.
If it’s the same “but you have to have good people running the system for the system to work”, it’s just as bad as any other. You can have a “benevolent dictator” that is better than even an average democracy. That’s not the point when we talk about dicatorships being bad.
That kind of addresses the
is not some gospel that is expected to solve all of mankind’s problems. It’s a question of organizing and economics;
as well. Other systems also have answers that are not objectively better or worse than socialism, if “good people” run the system. The advantage of a political system needs to be built into the system on a theoretical level, otherwise it’s pointless.
But I think we’ve reached an understanding of each other’s positions, thanks for the exchange!
Because people who claim that socialist theory is superior, kind of have show that it is, in fact, superior.
If I say a hammer is superior to a screwdriver for pushing in nails, and you say that I’ve failed to prove that a hammer can save someone from a heart-attack, which of us is arguing from an absurd position?
If it’s the same “but you have to have good people running the system for the system to work”, it’s just as bad as any other. You can have a “benevolent dictator” that is better than even an average democracy. That’s not the point when we talk about dicatorships being bad.
It’s not about “good people” or “bad people” running the system. Fuck, that kind of ‘great man theory’ is explicitly rejected by Marx.
Other systems also have answers that are not objectively better or worse than socialism, if “good people” run the system. The advantage of a political system needs to be built into the system on a theoretical level, otherwise it’s pointless.
You really are just not getting what socialism is, are you?
But I think we’ve reached an understanding of each other’s positions, thanks for the exchange!
Clearly not, since you continue to argue about socialist theory as being in some way deficient in preventing dictatorship when compared to other theories of political governance, when the core function of socialist theory is about a democratic system.
theoretical way to prevent left projects immediately turning into dictatorships, it’s just slavery with extra steps.
I mean, it’s really simple: Don’t support people whose entire program is running a one-party dictatorship. Like, the Bolsheviks’ intentions weren’t exactly well-hidden. The Bolsheviks came to power because all non-Bolshevik leftwing parties sucked major ass, not due to any theoretical reason.
The Bolsheviks came to power because all non-Bolshevik leftwing parties sucked major ass, not due to any theoretical reason.
I mean, I’d argue that the Mensheviks were considerably better (if still not fantastic), and the SRs were put in an immensely shitty position. The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
The Bolsheviks came to power because they were well-organized - in part because of their insistence on the party line - and well-positioned, especially with regards to being able to seize the centers of power. We can do without the ‘party line’ nonsense, but learning the power of organization and positioning is something we should certainly focus on as leftists.
I mean, I’d argue that the Mensheviks were considerably better (if still not fantastic), and the SRs were put in an immensely shitty position.
They would’ve probably (though not certainly) been better for Russia in hindsight, but their party lines made them socialists in name only. There’s an at least understandable argument for reformism if the bourgeoisie are firmly in power and able to suppress a worker’s revolution, but in Russia the workers’ revolution had already succeeded; the SRs and Mensheviks wanted to give powers from the workers to the bourgeoisie in order to follow Marx’s doctrine of two revolutions, which is like what? Then you had nonsense like sticking by the increasingly unpopular provisional government, supporting the war and delaying constituent assembly elections and any socialist with half a brain was going to back the Bolsheviks or get into anarchism. When your response to “all power to the soviets” is “no” you’ve frankly already failed as a socialist. Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were calling for immensely popular stuff like giving power to the soviets, ending the war, land reform, etc. The Bolsheviks organizational strengthes are secondary to the fundamental fact that they were the only party not running on glorified bourgeoisie collaborationism. The SRs (edit: or Mensheviks, though that was a much less believable prospect) getting into power would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, and the only reason this is even a contest is because the Bolsheviks getting into power was an unmitigated disaster.
TLDR: Bolsheviks were for revolution now, everyone else was for revolution when it’s sunny outside, Saturn is in retrograde and the bourgeoisie are firmly in power.
The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia. The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
They would’ve probably (though not certainly) been better for Russia in hindsight, but their party lines made them socialists in name only. There’s an at least understandable argument for reformism if the bourgeoisie are firmly in power and able to suppress a worker’s revolution, but in Russia the workers’ revolution had already succeeded; the SRs and Mensheviks wanted to give powers from the workers to the bourgeoisie in order to follow Marx’s doctrine of two revolutions, which is like what?
Even the Right-SRs were not trying to revert the gains of the February Revolution. How were the SRs, who were in favor of radical land redistribution from the start, practicing reformism, or, for that matter, trying to give power from the workers to the bourgeoisie? The SR program was overwhelmingly about taking step towards a greater empowerment of the workers.
Furthermore, as Lenin’s NEP and Stalin’s Five Year Plans both showed, Russia had not completed a bourgeois revolution or a workers’ revolution. That’s the whole point of historical materialism (which has its weaknesses, but remains very useful in analysis). Without changing the material conditions of Russia first, in a sustainable way, Russia simply reverted to a form of despotic feudalism with a coat of red paint.
When your response to “all power to the soviets” is “no” you’ve frankly already failed as a socialist.
“Failing as a socialist” is “wanting to hold national elections”?
Meanwhile the Bolsheviks were calling for immensely unpopular stuff like giving power to the soviets, ending the war, land reform, etc. The Bolsheviks organizational strengthes are secondary to the fundamental fact that they were the only party not running on glorified bourgeoisie collaborationism.
The Bolsheviks were literally opposed to land reform of the kind the SRs espoused up until they were in power, at which point they generously permitted ‘temporary equal use’ of the land on the terms of the peasantry. I suppose the fact that the SRs had and continued to run on land reform makes them “glorified bourgeoisie collaborationists”?
Furthermore, are their organizational advantages really secondary if their support was still far numerically inferior to the ‘glorified bourgeoisie collaborators’?
The SRs getting into power would’ve been an unmitigated disaster, and the only reason this is even a contest is because the Bolsheviks getting into power was an unmitigated disaster.
What policies of the SRs, other than continuing the war, are, in your opinion, so disastrous?
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia.
Or perhaps the Bolsheviks openly espousing a line that was deeply unpopular with the vast majority of the peasantry harmed them?
The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
“Swept” is a funny word for “Achieved a thin majority in most, but far from all, Russian cities”
Hell, even in Moscow, a Bolshevik stronghold, they didn’t achieve an outright majority of the vote.
The Bolsheviks seized power as a minority with ~25% of the popular vote, and did so by force. Arguing that this distinct minority is proof of their popularity over the SRs is bizarre.
Inhales.
The SR program was overwhelmingly about taking step towards a greater empowerment of the workers.
They effectively (through the Petrograd/All-Russian Soviet) had power for eight months and did fuck-all to make good on their program. In practice, they unconditionally backed the bourgeoi provisional government despite the latter never doing anything even remotely socialist. That was handing power from the workers to the bourgeoisie. In short, their stagism doomed the revolution in Russia. “Later” tends to be a synonym for “never.”
Furthermore, as Lenin’s NEP and Stalin’s Five Year Plans both showed, Russia had not completed a bourgeois revolution or a workers’ revolution.
How is the workers taking political power not a workers’ revolution? What the Bolsheviks did was counterrevolution; it doesn’t negate the fact that a revolution took place.
Without changing the material conditions of Russia first, in a sustainable way, Russia simply reverted to a form of despotic feudalism with a coat of red paint.
And the SRs did not, in fact, change the material conditions of Russia; if anything they made them worse by sitting on their asses and backing the provisional government and the disastrous war effort.
“Failing as a socialist” is “wanting to hold national elections”?
“All power to the soviets” was about deposing the provisional government, not canceling elections. Not even the Bolsheviks would be calling for canceling elections until they actually did it.
The Bolsheviks were literally opposed to land reform of the kind the SRs espoused up until they were in power,
The Bolsheviks were opposed to most of the things they ran on, but they cynically adopted a platform that would help them expand their ranks.
I suppose the fact that the SRs had and continued to run on land reform makes them “glorified bourgeoisie collaborationists”?
No, not actually implementing the damn land reform, among a host of other mistakes, made them glorified bourgeoi collaborationists.
Furthermore, are their organizational advantages really secondary if their support was still far numerically inferior to the ‘glorified bourgeoisie collaborators’?
Yes? Again, the Bolsheviks had no real presence in most of rural/non-ethnic Russian Russia, but in the centers of political power they had pluralities and majorities. That’s more than enough to explain their seizure of power.
Or perhaps the Bolsheviks openly espousing a line that was deeply unpopular with the vast majority of the peasantry harmed them?
Uh… no?
The agrarian programmes of the SR and Bolshevik parties were largely similar, but the peasantry were more familiar with the SRs. The Bolsheviks lacked an organizational presence in many rural areas. In areas where the Bolshevik electoral campaign had been active (for example, near to towns or garrisons) the peasant vote was somewhat evenly divided between SRs and Bolsheviks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1917_Russian_Constituent_Assembly_election
What policies of the SRs, other than continuing the war, are, in your opinion, so disastrous?
It’s more of a philosophy than a policy, but stagism. The results of this philosophy were, well, everything they did and didn’t do from February to November 1917. Now they weren’t acting maliciously, but sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from malice and the SRs (specifically the Right SRs) easily cleared the bar. It was SR and Menshevik stupidity that got the Bolsheviks from a fringe minority party to the dominant socialist force in urban Russia, and absent Bolshevism it would’ve taken Russia from social democracy to fascism like the SDP did in Germany. A bourgeoi democracy of the kind the SRs were trying to build was only ever going to self-destruct, and while Bolshevism was bad it was not the worst thing that could’ve come from such a collapse.
Arguing that this distinct minority is proof of their popularity over the SRs is bizarre.
I didn’t, though; I only said that they were popular in places where they had an organizational presence, so their total number of votes doesn’t necessarily reflect the unpopularity of their platform (half of which was a bunch of lies, but that’s neither here nor there).
They effectively (through the Petrograd/All-Russian Soviet) had power for eight months and did fuck-all to make good on their program. In practice, they unconditionally backed the bourgeoi provisional government despite the latter never doing anything even remotely socialist. That was handing power from the workers to the bourgeoisie. In short, their stagism doomed the revolution in Russia. “Later” tends to be a synonym for “never.”
The core issue of the SR ‘stagism’ was that they wanted to hold elections for the provisional government before executing their program. You can argue that that was a strategic mistake, but I regard the argument that that was ‘stagism’ or ‘bourgois collaborationism’ to be absurd.
How is the workers taking political power not a workers’ revolution? What the Bolsheviks did was counterrevolution; it doesn’t negate the fact that a revolution took place.
When did the workers take political power? When did the workers actually hold political power?
And the SRs did not, in fact, change the material conditions of Russia; if anything they made them worse by sitting on their asses and backing the provisional government and the disastrous war effort.
You questioned the wisdom of arguing for a completion of a bourgeois revolution before moving on to a workers’ revolution; I pointed out that a workers’ revolution without the material conditions of a bourgeois revolution is ultimately in an unsustainable position.
Furthermore, in what fucking reality is under a year wherein the main reason for ‘stalling’ is the organization of elections a reasonable amount of time to effect one’s program?
“All power to the soviets” was about deposing the provisional government, not canceling elections. Not even the Bolsheviks would be calling for canceling elections until they actually did it.
You said that failing to hand power over to the Soviets was proof that the SRs had ‘failed as socialists’; I pointed out that the reason the SRs didn’t hand over power to the Soviets was that the SRs were attempting to hold national elections, which hardly strikes me as a failure of socialism.
The Bolsheviks were opposed to most of the things they ran on, but they cynically adopted a platform that would help them expand their ranks.
Except the issue I’m specifically pointing is that they didn’t change their position on land reform until after they had seized power.
Yes? Again, the Bolsheviks had no real presence in most of rural/non-ethnic Russian Russia,
So they were a minority.
but in the centers of political power they had pluralities and majorities. That’s more than enough to explain their seizure of power.
… so their success was explained by… organization and positioning.
Like I originally said.
It’s more of a philosophy than a policy, but stagism. The results of this philosophy were, well, everything they did and didn’t do from February to November 1917. Now they weren’t acting maliciously, but sufficient stupidity is indistinguishable from malice and the SRs (specifically the Right SRs) easily cleared the bar. It was SR and Menshevik stupidity that got the Bolsheviks from a fringe minority party to the dominant socialist force in urban Russia,
Here, there’s no fundamental disagreement, though I could quibble over details.
absent Bolshevism it would’ve taken Russia from social democracy to fascism like the SDP did in Germany. A bourgeoi democracy of the kind the SRs were trying to build was only ever going to self-destruct, and while Bolshevism was bad it was not the worst thing that could’ve come from such a collapse.
… but here, I don’t even know where to fucking begin. The idea that bourgeois democracies inherently self-destruct into fascist states is not much more itself than an endorsement of the ML position of absolute opposition to bourgeois democracies, and reflects an utter lack of understanding of Marx.
I didn’t, though;
This you?
The Bolsheviks ultimately came to power as an extreme minority, even with this.
That’s because they had little presence in rural areas and so weren’t in a position to recruit from the vast majority of the population of Russia. The Mensheviks would be an apples to apples comparison, and predictably the Bolsheviks pushed the Mensheviks to near-irrelevancy by the end of 1917. There’s no “even with this;” the Bolsheviks swept Russian cities.
I only said that they were popular in places where they had an organizational presence, so their total number of votes doesn’t necessarily reflect the unpopularity of their platform (half of which was a bunch of lies, but that’s neither here nor there).
Your own cited wiki source says, in the literal next line of the one that you quoted earlier in your comment, that SRs lacked organizational presence amongst the peasants as well, so that’s really insufficient as an explanation.
You can argue that that was a strategic mistake, but I regard the argument that that was ‘stagism’ or ‘bourgois collaborationism’ to be absurd.
Okay I actually can’t find anything on the SRs’ motivations for not immediately implementing their program, but I’m going to take an “if it quacks like a duck” approach to this. From their attitude towards the provisional government (which they didn’t even participate in at first), they were clearly opposed to worker political control.
When did the workers actually hold political power?
What do you think the Soviets were?
I pointed out that a workers’ revolution without the material conditions of a bourgeois revolution is ultimately in an unsustainable position.
Being a grossly underdeveloped nation is an unsustainable situation regardless of who is in charge; giving power to rich pricks doesn’t change that. If anything, the bourgeoisie’s track record when it comes to industrialization outside the imperial core is horrible.
Furthermore, in what fucking reality is under a year wherein the main reason for ‘stalling’ is the organization of elections a reasonable amount of time to effect one’s program?
Russian peasants were perfectly willing to seize and redistribute land themselves; they just needed a government that wouldn’t stop them from doing so. “No socialism until I say it’s okay” isn’t how I expect a socialist party to act; they could’ve just done the damn thing while also organizing elections. One of the first things the Bolsheviks did upon taking power was announcing the Decree on Land, so clearly it wasn’t that hard.
Except the issue I’m specifically pointing is that they didn’t change their position on land reform until after they had seized power.
Except they did.
The agrarian programmes of the SR and Bolshevik parties were largely similar,
So they were a minority.
Yes, my point is: They weren’t a minority because their (espoused) ideas were unpopular, but because they lacked organizational presence in most of the country. Them being a minority can’t be used to evaluate the strength of their program. This is like modern liberal parties attributing the electoral success of leftists to messaging rather than the popularity of leftwing politics.
The idea that bourgeois democracies inherently self-destruct into fascist states is not much more itself than an endorsement of the ML position of absolute opposition to bourgeois democracies, and reflects an utter lack of understanding of Marx.
I thought I was clear, but I’m talking about underdeveloped bourgeois (I can’t believe I kept misspelling that) democracies lacking a strong proletariat that can advocate for its interests, which, yes, those do tend to self-destruct into authoritarian states. Now this doesn’t have to be fascism, but given the historical context if it wasn’t Bolshevik-style socialism it was going to be the next-strongest idea in Russia: fascism. I mean, it’s no coincidence that the Russian Civil War was fought between communists and fascists; absent strong libertarian socialist leadership it was going to be one or the other. For another example of this in action, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_revolution_of_1952#Kingdom_of_Egypt. It’s the capitalism in crisis dynamic, except the crisis is created by the bourgeoisie’s refusal to remedy the grotesque wealth inequality that propelled them into power. Again, this doesn’t mean bourgeois democracy will collapse into fascism period, but the social and economic conditions underlying the Russian Revolution and similar revolutions need extensive wealth redistribution that the liberal bourgeoisie wouldn’t let happen over their dead bodies.
This you?
Yes?
Your own cited wiki source says, in the literal next line of the one that you quoted earlier in your comment, that SRs lacked organizational presence amongst the peasants as well, so that’s really insufficient as an explanation.
In the next sentence, though, it says
The party was highly dependent on peasant union, zemstvos, cooperatives and soviets.
The SRs lacked a direct organizational presence and were dependent on local organizations, but that’s not the same as Bolsheviks not even having local organizations to back their campaigns. Again, in places where the Bolsheviks actually campaigned, they got as much support as the SRs; it’s just that in most places they couldn’t campaign period.
Here, there’s no fundamental disagreement, though I could quibble over details.
Great, now the question becomes: Was that stupidity going to suddenly disappear, or were the Mensheviks and SRs going to remain incompetent and feckless until they were overthrown by whatever brand of authoritarianism happened to be in style? I believe the latter was much more likely, given that even much more robust democracies were swept away by fascism.
