5 ms·
To understand why the Bolsheviks failed achieve their idealistic goals, you need to look at the larger history of Marxism. To start, in the mid-19th century Ma
by woodandsteel 9y ago
To understand why the Bolsheviks failed achieve their idealistic goals, you need to look at the larger history of Marxism.
To start, in the mid-19th century Marx believed that capitalism has inherent contradictions that would lead to its weakening and being overthrown through violent workers revolution and replaced by communism, a utopia in which everyone would work together and the state would disappear. And he thought this would happen within a few decades.
But then decades went by and capitalism instead continued to grow, and this lead to a crisis in the Marxist movement. One faction, lead by Eduard Bernstein, decided revolution would never occur and decided to instead promote socialism through democratic elections and gradual reform. This group joined up with socialist democratic parties throughout Europe.
The other group, lead by Lenin, decided to double down on revolution. They thought the workers had been brainwashed and needed to be lead by a tight group of disciplined revolutionaries, a doctrine known as "vanguardism"
Lenin also believed that capitalism had escaped the consequences of its alleged internal contradictions by expanding to overseas markets through European imperialism. But he thought that this process had reached its limit and the result would be a world war, after which Europe would be ripe for communist revolution.
Finally, Lenin believed, contrary to conventional Marxism, that the peasants in agrarian, pre-industrial, pre-capitalist societies like Russia were naturally communal, and so it would be possible to go directly from feudalism to communism without having to pass through a capitalist phase.
Based on all these beliefs, Lenin lead the Bolsheviks in a successful takeover of Russia. The problem was that the communist revolutions in the rest of Europe never occurred, and so Russia found itself all alone and very vulnerable to its Western industrialized neighbors.
There followed a debate as to whether Russia should become a liberal capitalist and industrialize the traditional way,and eventually become socialist or push ahead with a dictatorial form of socialist industrialization. Stalin was initially for the first option, but after gaining power he switched to the second, with enormous brutality.
Then followed WWII, where the Soviet Union basically rescued the world from Fascism, and then Stalin's death, and a very dreary dictatorship that dragged on for decades until communism finally collapsed under Gorbachev.
In the meantime, a great many pre-industrialized countries, starting with China, were inspired by Marxism and the Soviet Union and also tried to move directly to socialism and then communism, and also failed. Even many nations that did not label themselves as communist, like much of the Middle East and Africa, still were inspired to follow authoritarian, semi-socialist paths. And all failed to achieve their goals.
Leftists say none of this matters because none of the nations were true communism. But in dozens of cases a group of smart and apparently sincere communists took power, and in every instance what they produced was not true communism, so the conclusion seems to be that true communism simply is not possible.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> To start, in the mid-19th century Marx believed that capitalism has inherent contradictions that would lead to its weakening and being overthrown through violent workers revolution and replaced by communism, a utopia in which everyone would work together and the state would disappear. Wrong, he thought that capitalism would be replaced by socialism, which would itself transition over time to communism; Marx’s socialism is not a utopian state, and Marx did not see workers revolutions replacing capitlaism directly with utopian communism. > Leftists say none of this matters because none of the nations were true communism No, non-Leninist Leftists say none of this is relevant to non-Leninist communism and the broader non-Leninist Left, because all these systems were Leninist vanguardism, and non-Leninists on the Left reject vanguardism and generally also the Leninist deviation from classical Marxism in bypassing capitalist democracy as a necessary part of the path.
- woodandsteel 9y ago>Wrong, he thought that capitalism would be replaced by socialism, which would itself transition over time to communism. You are correct that Marx predicted a brief transition period between capitalism and true communism, which of course is not what ever happened. >Marx’s socialism is not a utopian state. But his communism is supposed to be a utopia, which is what I said. Let me add that the vocabulary is not consistent here. Sometimes leftists refer to communism as a form of socialism, sometimes they are spoken of as two different systems. >No, non-Leninist Leftists say none of this is relevant to non-Leninist communism and the broader non-Leninist Left, because all these systems were Leninist vanguardism, and non-Leninists on the Left reject vanguardism and generally also the Leninist deviation from classical Marxism in bypassing capitalist democracy as a necessary part of the path. True, but non-Leninist communists have never come to power in a state, and as far as I can tell there is no particular reason to think they ever will. And even if they somehow did, there still remains the question of how good a society they would actually produce. Leftists have attained power (ie Labour in the UK), but have not done so well over the long term. By the way, what are you? A non-Leninist communist or a non-Leninist socialist or what? Also, I am going into this because when leftists say "but that wasn't true communism" they seem to be implying that it could have been if the leaders had done things right. However, when you look at the circumstances in Russia/USSR, it simply was not possible, much less for any of the other communist countries. More generally, I went into this whole history because I think everyone should know it, but very few do. Do you agree?