What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Differences
Georgi Valentinovich Plekhanov was a Russian revolutionary and a Marxist theoretician. Although he supported the Bolshevik faction at the 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, Plekhanov soon rejected the idea of democratic centralism, and became one of Lenin and Trotsky's principal antagonists in the 1905 St. Petersburg Soviet. He also opposed the Soviet regime which came to power in the autumn of 1917. He died the following year. Despite his vigorous and outspoken opposition to Lenin's political party in 1917, Plekhanov was held in high esteem by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union following his death as a founding father of Russian Marxism and a philosophical thinker.
Here we present, for the first in a digital version, his big critique of anarchism, social democrats, centralism and of course of imperialism and capitalism. A must read for anyone interested in political theory and history! This e-book contains an active table of contents, a short note from the publisher and a photo. See a couple of selected quotes from the
We have already said that the basic premises of Tkachov’s programme are borrowed from the same source that the Russian anarchists derived their political wisdom from. Bakuninist theories lay at the basis of both groups’ teachings. But we know that Bakunin’s influence did not end there. He had pupils in the “West” too, i.e., in the very countries which he so readily contrasted with Russia. And it is remarkable that the Western followers of the author of Statehood and Anarchy attribute to the state the same overwhelming role in the history of the relations of their “West European” classes as Messrs. Tkachov and Tikhomirov ascribe to it in Russia alone, “as distinct”, so to speak, from other countries. “Suppress government dictatorship”, says Arthur Arnoult to the French workers, “and there will be facing one another only men of the same kind, only economic forces whose balance would be immediately established by a simple law of statics ... It is, therefore, the state, and the state alone, that is the cause of your weakness and your misery, just as it is the cause of the strength and the impertinent presumption of the others.” In this case the Western anarchists reason with greater courage and logic than the Russian Bakuninists and Tkachovists. In the history of every country without exception they reduce to nil the significance of the economic factor which their Russian “partners” hold to be condemned to inactivity only in Russia. The distinctive feature of Russian exceptionalism is thus turned into a cosmopolitan spectre of anarchist ignorance.
-
As Marx notes, all facts of great importance in world history occur, as it were, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. The history of the French Jacobins is a majestic tragedy, lull of burning interest. But the history of the conspiratorial plans of the modern Blanquists (Russian and foreign) despite the heroism of individuals remains a farce whose tragi-comicality lies in the complete inability of the cast to understand the meaning and character of the impending working-class revolution.
-
From the standpoint of the Social-Democrat a true revolutionary movement at the present time is possible only among the working class; from the standpoint of the Blanquist the revolution relies only partly upon the workers, who have an “important” but not the main significance in it. The former assumes that the revolution is of “particular importance” for the workers, while in the opinion of the latter the workers, as we know, are of particular importance for the revolution. The Social-Democrat wants the worker himself to make his revolution; the Blanquist demands that the worker should support the revolution which has been begun and led for him and in his name by others, for instance by officers if we imagine something in the nature of the Decembrists’ conspiracy...
theory, revolutionary, Stalin, Labor, Unions, s
Here we present, for the first in a digital version, his big critique of anarchism, social democrats, centralism and of course of imperialism and capitalism. A must read for anyone interested in political theory and history! This e-book contains an active table of contents, a short note from the publisher and a photo. See a couple of selected quotes from the
We have already said that the basic premises of Tkachov’s programme are borrowed from the same source that the Russian anarchists derived their political wisdom from. Bakuninist theories lay at the basis of both groups’ teachings. But we know that Bakunin’s influence did not end there. He had pupils in the “West” too, i.e., in the very countries which he so readily contrasted with Russia. And it is remarkable that the Western followers of the author of Statehood and Anarchy attribute to the state the same overwhelming role in the history of the relations of their “West European” classes as Messrs. Tkachov and Tikhomirov ascribe to it in Russia alone, “as distinct”, so to speak, from other countries. “Suppress government dictatorship”, says Arthur Arnoult to the French workers, “and there will be facing one another only men of the same kind, only economic forces whose balance would be immediately established by a simple law of statics ... It is, therefore, the state, and the state alone, that is the cause of your weakness and your misery, just as it is the cause of the strength and the impertinent presumption of the others.” In this case the Western anarchists reason with greater courage and logic than the Russian Bakuninists and Tkachovists. In the history of every country without exception they reduce to nil the significance of the economic factor which their Russian “partners” hold to be condemned to inactivity only in Russia. The distinctive feature of Russian exceptionalism is thus turned into a cosmopolitan spectre of anarchist ignorance.
-
As Marx notes, all facts of great importance in world history occur, as it were, the first time as tragedy, the second as farce. The history of the French Jacobins is a majestic tragedy, lull of burning interest. But the history of the conspiratorial plans of the modern Blanquists (Russian and foreign) despite the heroism of individuals remains a farce whose tragi-comicality lies in the complete inability of the cast to understand the meaning and character of the impending working-class revolution.
-
From the standpoint of the Social-Democrat a true revolutionary movement at the present time is possible only among the working class; from the standpoint of the Blanquist the revolution relies only partly upon the workers, who have an “important” but not the main significance in it. The former assumes that the revolution is of “particular importance” for the workers, while in the opinion of the latter the workers, as we know, are of particular importance for the revolution. The Social-Democrat wants the worker himself to make his revolution; the Blanquist demands that the worker should support the revolution which has been begun and led for him and in his name by others, for instance by officers if we imagine something in the nature of the Decembrists’ conspiracy...
theory, revolutionary, Stalin, Labor, Unions, s
361 pages, Kindle Edition
Published July 9, 2016
1 person is currently reading
30 people want to read
About the author
Georgi Plekhanov
132 books67 followersGeorgi Valentinovich Plekhanov (Russian: Георгий Валентинович Плеханов) was a Russian revolutionary and a Marxist theoretician. He was a founder of the Social-Democratic movement in Russia and was one of the first Russians to identify himself as "Marxist." Facing political persecution, Plekhanov emigrated to Switzerland in 1880, where he continued in his political activity attempting to overthrow the Tsarist regime in Russia. During World War I Plekhanov rallied to the cause of the Entente powers against Germany and he returned home to Russia following the 1917 February Revolution. Plekhanov was hostile to the Bolshevik party headed by Vladimir Lenin, however, and was an opponent of the Soviet regime which came to power in the autumn of 1917. He died the following year. Despite his vigorous and outspoken opposition to Lenin's political party in 1917, Plekhanov was held in high esteem by the Russian Communist Party following his death as a founding father of Russian Marxism and a philosophical thinker.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
June 12, 2021
A interesting work, a classic polemic against the Narodniks from a Marxist perspective.
The last parts of Chapter I, and the whole of Chapters II and III, could be read as a proper preface or work-up to reading Lenin's "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." Some of Plekhanov's Menshevism is exposed in the 1905 edition footnotes, such as one where he accuses Lenin of being an eclectic follower of J. B. Say in the aforementioned work, a baseless accusation.
The political parts of the work are similar to anything you would read from Lenin or other Russian Marxists of the period, namely advocating for the formation of a proletarian party independent of the bourgeoisie, making cause with the bourgeoisie in opposing absolutism, preparing the proletariat for resistance against capitalism, and promoting revolutionary propaganda within the proletariat and peasantry.
Critically important for any study of the development of the Marxist movement in Russia or the Narodnik-Marxist controversies, etc.
The last parts of Chapter I, and the whole of Chapters II and III, could be read as a proper preface or work-up to reading Lenin's "The Development of Capitalism in Russia." Some of Plekhanov's Menshevism is exposed in the 1905 edition footnotes, such as one where he accuses Lenin of being an eclectic follower of J. B. Say in the aforementioned work, a baseless accusation.
The political parts of the work are similar to anything you would read from Lenin or other Russian Marxists of the period, namely advocating for the formation of a proletarian party independent of the bourgeoisie, making cause with the bourgeoisie in opposing absolutism, preparing the proletariat for resistance against capitalism, and promoting revolutionary propaganda within the proletariat and peasantry.
Critically important for any study of the development of the Marxist movement in Russia or the Narodnik-Marxist controversies, etc.
Displaying 1 of 1 review