true meaning of marxism?

[Paula Marx]

Depends who you ask, in my opinion no there isn't any difference between Lenin or Marx. Leninism is just the advancement of what Lenin brought to the ideas of Marxism, in the age of imperialism. The Bolsheviks at times were a bit brutal and did probably do more than what was needed. But let me ask you, what Civil War hasn't been brutal? The Whites were just as brutal if not worse, are you saying we should give up the cause, because if the Bolsheviks weren't so "brutal" they wouldn't have won the Civil War and many more people wound have died. You have to realize the situation they had, 21 foreign countries invading along with Czarist forces knocking on your door. If you aren't willing to put up the fight, then why bother fighting for socialism? Also look at the history of capitalism and you think that what the Bolsheviks did can even compare to that?

Of course they can! Everything can compare with anything.
I didn't say WE should give up. I don't know what neomarxism has to do with the USSR and October Revolution. Bolsheviks did almost everything wrongly, but they made something we could repair if we realize that. Bolsheviks couldn't be real communists - simply because there was no Capitalism to beat. I don't say Czarism is better, but I guess Bolsheviks haven't chosen the right time for their revolution(s) and they weren't ready for the war. Bolshevism killed communism - with tearing apart from Mensheviks. That's why they has to kill millions of people. Also, there was no ideology in the beginning of the Red Army. They were just mercenaries - proletarians, poor people who went to fight only because leaders of Bolshevism promised them a loaf of bread.

[Jimi4444]

Of course they can! Everything can compare with anything.
I didn't say WE should give up. I don't know what neomarxism has to do with the USSR and October Revolution. Bolsheviks did almost everything wrongly, but they made something we could repair if we realize that. Bolsheviks couldn't be real communists - simply because there was no Capitalism to beat. I don't say Czarism is better, but I guess Bolsheviks haven't chosen the right time for their revolution(s) and they weren't ready for the war. Bolshevism killed communism - with tearing apart from Mensheviks. That's why they has to kill millions of people. Also, there was no ideology in the beginning of the Red Army. They were just mercenaries - proletarians, poor people who went to fight only because leaders of Bolshevism promised them a loaf of bread.
[/quote]

You can't just say "the Bolsheviks" did everything wrong, without having anything concrete to base it on. Revolution was brewing in a lot of other countries, you had the Soviets in Bayern and Limerick. You had the brief Soviet Republic in Hungary, the general strike in England. Even if the revolution would have succeeded in one of these countries, it would hav altered things quite dramatically. The Bolsheviks did everything in their power to hold out for the revolution to spread. NEP was an example of a retreat which was needed at the time. Mensheviks weren't communists, they exposed themselves when they went over to the Whites in the Civil War. Stalin killed a lot of people true (many of which were actual communists, which represented a threat to the new caste), but to say that under Lenin they killed "millions" is completely wrong. I also find it rather disgusting how you portray the people who fought bravely in the Red Army. "mercenaries" how? These people, workers and peasants went to the front lines to defend the Revolution and socialism and you have nothing but contempt for them?

[Christopher Hill]

You can't just say "the Bolsheviks" did everything wrong, without having anything concrete to base it on. Revolution was brewing in a lot of other countries, you had the Soviets in Bayern and Limerick. You had the brief Soviet Republic in Hungary, the general strike in England. Even if the revolution would have succeeded in one of these countries, it would hav altered things quite dramatically. The Bolsheviks did everything in their power to hold out for the revolution to spread. NEP was an example of a retreat which was needed at the time. Mensheviks weren't communists, they exposed themselves when they went over to the Whites in the Civil War. Stalin killed a lot of people true (many of which were actual communists, which represented a threat to the new caste), but to say that under Lenin they killed "millions" is completely wrong. I also find it rather disgusting how you portray the people who fought bravely in the Red Army. "mercenaries" how? These people, workers and peasants went to the front lines to defend the Revolution and socialism and you have nothing but contempt for them?

Actually the Mensheviks were a diverse group with both a Left and a Right wing,in the end I believe the faction was split about 50/50 between the Reds and Whites with the actual Communists later joining the Bolsheviks and the Bourgeois Leftists joining the Whites.

[Jimi4444]

Mensheviks had basically the same idea as Stalinist and Maoist have. The theory that we need a "democratic" revolution first and worry about the socialist revolution later. Thing is the democratic demands like this for third world countries is impossible, because the capitalists are tied to much to foreign and domestic capital. So the only way that the only way the democratic demands of the third world (ie developing the productive forces up to the likes of developed countries) is through the socialist revolution.

Lenin goes into length in exposing the Mensheviks, in his book the "State and Revolution" which does a brilliant job of smashing the Menshevik/Stalinist/Maoist arguments of "two-staged theory". Though when I say the Mensheviks I don't mean the rank and file, but the leadership of the organization. Really every group in the end showed they represent the interests of the capitalists, and the workers either joined the Bolsheviks or the followed the leaders to the Whites.

[Christopher Hill]

Mensheviks had basically the same idea as Stalinist and Maoist have. The theory that we need a "democratic" revolution first and worry about the socialist revolution later. Thing is the democratic demands like this for third world countries is impossible, because the capitalists are tied to much to foreign and domestic capital. So the only way that the only way the democratic demands of the third world (ie developing the productive forces up to the likes of developed countries) is through the socialist revolution.

Lenin goes into length in exposing the Mensheviks, in his book the "State and Revolution" which does a brilliant job of smashing the Menshevik/Stalinist/Maoist arguments of "two-staged theory". Though when I say the Mensheviks I don't mean the rank and file, but the leadership of the organization. Really every group in the end showed they represent the interests of the capitalists, and the workers either joined the Bolsheviks or the followed the leaders to the Whites.

I think things really must be put in context, the faction really contained all sorts of people ranging from "Left Communists" to Democratic Socialists and even Liberals, Martov's position on party membership was arguably even more radical than Lenin's, the issue I believe was mainly that the pragmatists in the faction dragged everyone else to a common denominator of "Collaboration" with the bourgeoisie which along with many other small problems in their ideology led to their downfall, but you must remember that both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were originally for a Bourgeois revolution in Russia.

[Jimi4444]

[/quote]
I think things really must be put in context, the faction really contained all sorts of people ranging from "Left Communists" to Democratic Socialists and even Liberals, Martov's position on party membership was arguably even more radical than Lenin's, the issue I believe was mainly that the pragmatists in the faction dragged everyone else to a common denominator of "Collaboration" with the bourgeoisie which along with many other small problems in their ideology led to their downfall, but you must remember that both the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were originally for a Bourgeois revolution in Russia.
[/quote]

Mensheviks contained all these types because they let almost anyone in who was sympathetic in one way or another. Down to the core the Menshevik leadership was reformists, for reasons I've already stated. Don't think think radical is the right term for their position on party membership, maybe some clarification? Think it's a bit simplistic to say that the Bolsheviks were originally for the Bourgeois revolution, because Lenin wasn't quite sure about the balance of forces (there were others who were different like Stalin, Kamenev and etc).

[Paula Marx]

Of course they can! Everything can compare with anything.
I didn't say WE should give up. I don't know what neomarxism has to do with the USSR and October Revolution. Bolsheviks did almost everything wrongly, but they made something we could repair if we realize that. Bolsheviks couldn't be real communists - simply because there was no Capitalism to beat. I don't say Czarism is better, but I guess Bolsheviks haven't chosen the right time for their revolution(s) and they weren't ready for the war. Bolshevism killed communism - with tearing apart from Mensheviks. That's why they has to kill millions of people. Also, there was no ideology in the beginning of the Red Army. They were just mercenaries - proletarians, poor people who went to fight only because leaders of Bolshevism promised them a loaf of bread.

You can't just say "the Bolsheviks" did everything wrong, without having anything concrete to base it on. Revolution was brewing in a lot of other countries, you had the Soviets in Bayern and Limerick. You had the brief Soviet Republic in Hungary, the general strike in England. Even if the revolution would have succeeded in one of these countries, it would hav altered things quite dramatically. The Bolsheviks did everything in their power to hold out for the revolution to spread. NEP was an example of a retreat which was needed at the time. Mensheviks weren't communists, they exposed themselves when they went over to the Whites in the Civil War. Stalin killed a lot of people true (many of which were actual communists, which represented a threat to the new caste), but to say that under Lenin they killed "millions" is completely wrong. I also find it rather disgusting how you portray the people who fought bravely in the Red Army. "mercenaries" how? These people, workers and peasants went to the front lines to defend the Revolution and socialism and you have nothing but contempt for them?
[/quote]

You want something concrete? Ask millions of victims killed in their gulags! Mensheviks couldn't be Whites simply because Bolsheviks made them to become Reds or killed them. They were only real communists, but Bolsheviks didn't like the real ideology. Bolshevism is only the politics!
I don't have nothing against soldiers from the Red Army, but I just say most of them weren't really communists. They were proletarians who came from poor Asian villages and their only "ideology" was survival for their families. You can't deny that, my comrade. Only army that had ideology was, of course - Partisan Army, but they became Bolsheviks after World War II. Yugoslavian Partisans have made a genocide on all Germans.

[Jimi4444]

Under Stalinism a lot of people died, but that didn't happen till the 1930s most notably the great purges of 1936/1937. If you can show me some facts about Lenin and Trotsky sending millions to the gulags, I'm all ears. I've already stated that the policies of the Mensheviks were NOT communist. The leaders were for the most part reformists and in the end supporters of capitalism. Actually most of the Red Army was filled with the most class conscious elements of the working class, and revolutionary peasants. Most saw hope in the October revolution and fought bravely to defend it. Lenin clearly tried to work with the other groups after the revolution, which shows when Lenin adopted the SRs policy for land distribution for the peasants.

[Paula Marx]

I've watched lots of documentaries saying Lenin invented gulags. You can't deny that, my comrade xP
How can you say only real communists weren't communists? I thought aim of communism is a little different from killing everyone who thinks differently? Oh, I forgot Bolsheviks call themselves "communists". They killed communism by killing us Critical-Utopian communists - well-known as Mensheviks. Mensheviks were never capitalists, they were just wealthy people who defended the Citizenship from aggressive Bolsheviks who were hiding their evil behind the proletarian mask.

[Jimi4444]

I've watched lots of documentaries saying Lenin invented gulags. You can't deny that, my comrade xP
How can you say only real communists weren't communists? I thought aim of communism is a little different from killing everyone who thinks differently? Oh, I forgot Bolsheviks call themselves "communists". They killed communism by killing us Critical-Utopian communists - well-known as Mensheviks. Mensheviks were never capitalists, they were just wealthy people who defended the Citizenship from aggressive Bolsheviks who were hiding their evil behind the proletarian mask.

I'm sorry but "I've watched lots of documentaries" isn't good enough to back your claim up. Actually Lenin DID NOT invent gulag, don't buy into the whole "Lenin would have became Stalin if he had more time argument" it does nothing but help Capitalism. "Critical-Utopian communists" is how you describe the Mensheviks, so are you admitting that they aren't Marxists? Because Marxism is in no way Utopian, there is a reason they call it "Scientific Socialism". If you actually read about the situation after the revolution, the other so called "socialists" and "communists" left the revolution and joined the counter-revolution. It was clear that the leadership was really representing the interests of the capitalism, and were only socialist in rhetoric. Rank and File socialists and revolutionaries ended up defending the Revolution and socialism, while your so called "real communists" actually joined the forces of the Czar and imperialism. "

"They were wealthy people who defended the Citizenship from aggressive Bolsheviks who were hiding their evil behind the proletarian mask", don't see how this represents communism at all. Wealthy people for the most part defend their economic interests and mask it so as not to seem like oppressors. You fail to take into account that there was a Civil War going on and if needed you'll have to use force to defend the revolution. Look at the history of the American Civil War, do you defend the forces used to end Slavery? I don't see what is so hard about understanding why the Bolsheviks had to do what they did, it amazes me.

[Joshua Purcell]

How can you say only real communists weren't communists?

Mensheviks were never capitalists, they were just wealthy people who defended the Citizenship

You contradict yourself as well as what the reality of the class struggle and democracy is, while showing limited or possibly no understanding of Marxism. This would all be fine if you weren't attempting to act like to you know what you are talking about... all the while being adamant that those who for the most part have pointed out your failings in a much more civil tone than you have tried unsuccessfully to do to them up to this point are in fact not Marxist or communist. All this while being a self-described Utopian.

What is your purpose here, anyway? Because I can't imagine it is for any constructive purpose.

[Paula Marx]

Comrade, do you have any idea who Plehanov was? Oh, I forgot I'm talking to a Bolshevik -.-
He founded Russian Social-Democratic Party, in 19th century known as Marxist organization and he was the leader of Mensheviks. So Mensheviks, as intellectual communists, are founders of almost every idea in the communism. Bolsheviks, a broad mass, couldn't fight for an ideology. That cheap vulgarism which ruined our saint communistic thoughts is still active today. Why? Because people are naive. Broad masses are not made from professors and philosophers. They believe everything they hear of. We neocommunists won't be successful in anything you want to fight for if we don't get the broad masses on our side. Bolsheviks knew that, but they totally deformed communism. Today's Marxists can't realize that - except us, Critical-Utopian communists - that communism is becoming almost terrorism in the modern world.

Oh come on, comrade, you know you deny to accept that you have no more arguments to defend your Bolshevism. =) I am not like you. Communism will never be a communism if neo-Marxists act so. All Socialists should respect each other, don't you think so? We avoid of unnecessary wars and arguments. 

[Jimi4444]

Comrade, do you have any idea who Plehanov was? Oh, I forgot I'm talking to a Bolshevik -.-
He founded Russian Social-Democratic Party, in 19th century known as Marxist organization and he was the leader of Mensheviks. So Mensheviks, as intellectual communists, are founders of almost every idea in the communism. Bolsheviks, a broad mass, couldn't fight for an ideology. That cheap vulgarism which ruined our saint communistic thoughts is still active today. Why? Because people are naive. Broad masses are not made from professors and philosophers. They believe everything they hear of. We neocommunists won't be successful in anything you want to fight for if we don't get the broad masses on our side. Bolsheviks knew that, but they totally deformed communism. Today's Marxists can't realize that - except us, Critical-Utopian communists - that communism is becoming almost terrorism in the modern world.

Oh come on, comrade, you know you deny to accept that you have no more arguments to defend your Bolshevism. =) I am not like you. Communism will never be a communism if neo-Marxists act so. All Socialists should respect each other, don't you think so? We avoid of unnecessary wars and arguments. 

Honestly what are you talking about? Plekhanov should be celebrated for his earlier work (which the Bolsheviks did), but towards the end of his life he capitulated to reformism. He followed the likes of Kautsky and other social democrats. You take a total disregard for theory, which shows for a lot of the failures of other "traitors to socialism" as Lenin put it. You also expose yourself as rejecting the working class by calling them "naive", you clearly don't understand anything that Marx said (which was the opposite). Workers are plenty interested and I've found a lot more knowledgeable than the these so called "intellectual" professors.

I agree, that unnecessary wars should be avoided, but AGAIN you fail to realize that if needed we have to fight. Without theory, socialist revolution is impossible. The reason that the Bolsheviks were able to take power at the head of the working class, was because they had a solid cadre who could fill the vacuum of Kerensky. With this comes theory and the right tactics (which I'm sorry to say you have plenty of). You call yourself a Utopian, which I totally agree with 100 percent. Clearly you've learned politics from bad sources and it has lead you to false conclusions on what Marxism really is. You criticize the Bolsheviks, but if you think we were wrong why were we the only ones to succeed? Everywhere the reformists (Menshsheviks of the world) failed and either sat on the sidelines or joined the Bolsheviks. Your ideas are Utopian, because they won't work, which is the what Utopianism really is.

[Paula Marx]

Isn't Utopianism nicer than Marxism? We shoudn't be as our worst enemies. Real communism is not possible to practice, but it's really beautiful to believe in it. I don't want to get off the right way and become a Bolshevik. I don't believe in unity of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, but at least we should seek peace. I just don't want to fight with other communists. We are not supposed to be apart, are we? Our aim is peace and liberty - some of us believe in communism as politics and some of us believe in the ideology. That's the main difference.
You can say you succeeded, but on what? Only on being brutal? Or something more? You can't say the USSR was a real socialistic state - Marx himself said communism has two stages - dictatorship of proletariat and state of no authority and no classes. Bolsheviks never reached that 2nd level.

And thank you for asking, but I know what am I talking about -.-

[Christopher Hill]

Isn't Utopianism nicer than Marxism? We shoudn't be as our worst enemies. Real communism is not possible to practice, but it's really beautiful to believe in it. I don't want to get off the right way and become a Bolshevik. I don't believe in unity of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks, but at least we should seek peace. I just don't want to fight with other communists. We are not supposed to be apart, are we? Our aim is peace and liberty - some of us believe in communism as politics and some of us believe in the ideology. That's the main difference.
You can say you succeeded, but on what? Only on being brutal? Or something more? You can't say the USSR was a real socialistic state - Marx himself said communism has two stages - dictatorship of proletariat and state of no authority and no classes. Bolsheviks never reached that 2nd level.

And thank you for asking, but I know what am I talking about -.-

You seem to show just how "informed" you are by your comments here, you essentially said that Communism is impossible, at the same time you say what we have already said..that the USSR was not Socialist, or did not remain Socialist except you justify it with completely incorrect reasoning (The lesser stage of communism is Socialism, while the upper stage is communism) My advice, actually read up a bit, or go back to reading your Neo-Fascist garbage.