search for some books
March 2023 › Forums › General discussion › search for some books
- This topic has 18 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by LBird.
April 12, 2020 at 6:31 pm #198430a2722059165Participant
hello comrades.I found the menshevik and Austria marxism books these day.but I cannot find more about that such as Russian social action .
I know the austria marxism is some socile nationalism but I wnat find their book to study.April 12, 2020 at 8:04 pm #198444AnonymousInactive
The best books written by a Menshevik is Julius Martus, he swept the floor with Vladimir LeninApril 12, 2020 at 8:12 pm #198447a2722059165Participant
please give me website or pdf about it.April 12, 2020 at 11:36 pm #198483alanjjohnstoneKeymaster
This is an insightful articleApril 13, 2020 at 6:35 am #198509AnonymousInactiveApril 13, 2020 at 8:37 am #198510
There is an extract from the Austrian Social Democrat Otto Bauer’s book on the national question here:
He was a reformist and German nationalist.April 14, 2020 at 4:08 pm #198677Dave BParticipant
Just gone to the Menshevik pile of books that I have read although sometime ago.
I think the best that are not anti Menshevik are
The Mensheviks After October by Brovkin.
He keeps writing good books on the Russian revolution.
The Soviet Revolution by the left Menshevik Raphael Abramovitch
Which is mostly a criticism of the Bolshevik revolution by a Menshevik
Half of it is an attack on Stalinism and thus not that interesting.
An important book if not a easy read is.
The Origins of Bolshevism by Theodore Dan
He became the “Leader” of the exiled
Mensheviks by the 1930’s
There was ;
From the Other Shore by Andre Liebich
Just found a book review from New York Times !
”From the Other Shore” raises the question of what would have happened if the Mensheviks had prevailed in 1917. Would they have gone the route of the Bolsheviks, laying the groundwork for the repressive totalitarianism to follow? Or would they have found another path — committing themselves to a radical transformation of Russian society while at the same time respecting (as far as possible in difficult circumstances) the political liberties of their opponents? If we could answer that question, we would be better able to untangle Marxism from Leninism, Leninism from Stalinism, and assign to or absolve each of its share of responsibility for the gulag.
Although Liebich identifies closely with Martov’s group, he avoids the temptation of reading back into its history an early and absolute division from the Bolsheviks. Rather, he sees a ”broad continuum” linking the two factions until the Revolution, nothwithstanding their disputes. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were, after all, at least technically members of the same party until 1912. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks alike were intimately acquainted with the inside of the Czar’s prisons and penal camps (and nothing works quite as effectively as a common enemy to encourage unity). In 1914 Menshevik and Bolshevik delegates to the Duma, the Russian parliament, stood together in opposing the war — a courageous decision, and something that distinguished both groups from most of their western European comrades. It was thus not surprising that factional lines proved permeable. Trotsky was not the only Bolshevik leader with a Menshevik past, and some Menshevik leaders were former Bolsheviks.
Faced after November 1917 with the stark choice of supporting the new Soviet Government or siding with the counterrevolutionaries, the Mensheviks chose the role of loyal opposition. The Bolsheviks had no use for opposition, loyal or otherwise, but their crackdown on the Mensheviks over the next few years was gradual and inconsistent. All the important Menshevik leaders except Martov were eventually imprisoned, but, as Liebich notes, they were treated quite leniently by later standards: they maintained their political organization within prison and ”guards were told to go away when they intruded on a Menshevik meeting.” By 1922, however, most of the Menshevik leaders had been forced to leave Russia. Martov died abroad in 1923, but others kept the Menshevik cause alive in exile — in Germany until the rise of Hitler, then in France until the Nazi occupation and finally in New York.
In time, the dimensions of the totalitarian terror in their former homeland became apparent. Although information from within the Soviet Union was quite limited, the Mensheviks had the advantage of knowing many of the principal actors personally. (Andrei Vyshinsky, the chief prosecutor during the Moscow show trials in the 1930’s, was a former Menshevik; there were grim jokes in exile circles that his persecution of the old Bolsheviks represented the Mensheviks’ revenge on those who had driven them from Russia.) Some of the Mensheviks, like David Dallin, eventually secured reputations among the leading Kremlinologists of their generation. Ironically, the last surviving Menshevik, Boris Sapir, died in December 1989, on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Liebich asks us to see the Mensheviks as something more than political losers. They stand, he writes, ”at the very heart of the crisis of Marxism.” Our judgment of them as political actors and thinkers — as a possible alternative leadership for a revolutionary Russia — can help determine whether Marxism has any legitimate claim as a serious and honorable political tradition or deserves nothing better than its current consignment to the dustbin of history.
The Mensheviks Edited; Leopold Haimson
Includes stuff written by old post 1930 mensheviks.
Apparently there is loads of stuff in German
I can discuss it,April 14, 2020 at 11:14 pm #198699
There is also this that we said in 1932:
The Programme of the Russian Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries
Speculation about what the Mensheviks would have done if they, not the Bolsheviks, had ruled Russia is pretty idle as they had even less support amongst the general population than did the Bolsheviks and unlike the Bolsheviks were not prepared to be a minority dictatorship. If the results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly in 1918 were anything to go by, if the Bolsheviks hadn’t seized power (and the White Russians hadn’t restored the Tsar or established a military dictatorship) Russian parliamentary politics and government would have been dominated by various parties representing the peasants. The biggest party to emerge from those elections was the non-Marxist Socialist Revolutionary Party.April 14, 2020 at 11:32 pm #198705alanjjohnstoneKeymaster
Another focus for speculation could be if Nationalist Ukraine and Menshevik Georgia had retained their independenceApril 15, 2020 at 4:44 am #198720AnonymousInactive
The Populists did not have any support within the peasant population, but the Socialist Revolutionary Party in some way they were similar to the populists because they were agrarian socialistsApril 15, 2020 at 4:48 am #198721AnonymousInactive
As we can see Lenin became famous due to the Russian revolution because the aptest one within the Bolshevik was Nikolai Bukharin, several concepts propagated by the Bolsheviks and Lenin were elaborated by Nikolai BukharinApril 15, 2020 at 4:59 am #198723AnonymousInactive
Joseph Stalin was from Georgia and still, many Georgians worship himApril 15, 2020 at 6:36 am #198725LBirdParticipant
The Bolshevik thinker who came closest to Marx’s ideas was Bogdanov, both politically and philosophically.
Most of the rest were much the same as Lenin, including Stalin, Trotsky and Bukharin. Perhaps Lunacharsky was similar to Bogdanov.April 15, 2020 at 7:22 am #198726
More on Bogdanov here:April 15, 2020 at 7:35 am #198727LBirdParticipant
Some more recent books by/about Bogdanov:
The Philosophy of Living Experience: Popular Outlines Alexander Bogdanov (ed. D. G. Rowley). Brill (2016)
Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene McKenzie Wark. Verso (2016)
Red Hamlet: The Life and Ideas of Alexander Bogdanov James D. White. Brill (2018)
- This reply was modified 2 years, 11 months ago by LBird.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.