:rosa-shining:
Unity! :liberalism:
Join isis and :vote:
TBF, didn’t Lenin need to be persuaded by Bukharin to abandon reformism?
i dont think so .Lenin was never reformist. What is to be done was what, 1900 ? and its explicitely anti-reformist, while Bukharin met Leninin 1912 when the Bolsheviks were clearly the openly anti-reformist wing just about to form a seperate party because the conditions had matured to openly focus on revolutionary organizing and completely seperate themselves from the greater social democratic (then socialist) movement and party
For some reason I’m reminded of this passage out of the the article from Politsturm on the history of the Leninist model of party organization Please don’t :bonk: me for sectarianism, I’m just quoting the article.
The point is that so-called Social Democracy has historically been disunited. Even in the lifetime of Marx and Engels, the international labor movement, represented by the First International, did not just reflect the interests of workers. Even then, within an emerging Social Democracy, petty-bourgeois and bourgeois trends prevailed: Bakunism, Lassalleans, Proudhonism, Fabianism, etc. Marx and Engels waged a tireless struggle against these anti-proletarian deviations, which ended with the collapse of the First International, largely due to the subversive activities of the anarchists.
After the establishment of the Second International in 1889, a renewed struggle flared up between Marxism and the clearly anti-proletarian tendencies: thus, by 1893, anarchists of various stripes were forced to leave this international organization. One by one, non-Marxist interpretations of socialism were broken down.
Let us note that in the first years of its existence, the Second International ultimately stood on a revolutionary (Marxist) point of view. For the most part, this was the result of the titanic endeavors of Friedrich Engels, who made big efforts to ensure that Marxism became a guiding star for the social democratic parties of that period.
However, after the death of Engels in 1895, the Second International gradually began to slide into reformism and adaptation to the capitalist order.
The reason for this was that Social Democracy, as it was, remained a loose bloc of proletarian and non-proletarian elements, and the latter, after the triumphant victory of Marxism over other socialist theories, masked their essential character with a Marxist disguise.
The need arose for a decisive disengagement from the old Social Democracy, which perfectly suited the proletariat at a certain stage of political development – the stage of accumulation of forces – but was completely useless and even harmful in the approaching era of proletarian revolutions.
