Talk:Bolsheviks

Utopian vs Scientific Socialism

Marxism is called "Scientific Socialism", whether you agree that its scientific or not, that term is used to distinguish it from the utopian socialism of robert owen and other pre-marxist socialists. I'm not sure why I even need consensus here but what the hell.

Heres Friedrich Engles's piece on this, written over a hundred years ago

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why I even need consensus here but what the hell." - You do need consensus to remove sourced material, especially large sections. You also need to observe WP:CIVIL.

If you're objection is to the use of the word "utopian" you should suggest changing the phrase from "but in his utopian society", to "but in his vision of society". I'm reasonably sure you would be able to achieve a consensus for that change. Lenin did have a utopian vision of a society, which is completely different from saying he was a utopian socialist. Making the change would help keep people from confusing means and end.

  // Timothy :: talk  23:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

'Utopian' has a specific meaning for Marxists, and Lenin would have objected. And saw the immediate aim of Socialism as realisable. Communism to come later by stages. --GwydionM (talk) 08:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. My objection was to removing an entire paragraph and reference over a word/phrase. I suggested a change above.

I don't know who put in the word "utopian", the choice words was questionable, but they weren't trying to say Lenin was a utopian socialist. Lenin did have a "utopian" vision of society (the "workers' paradise"), but this is completely different from saying he was a utopian socialist. But again the change above would eliminate any confusion   // Timothy :: talk  09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GwydionM, I think the edit Davide King made resolves this nicely. Hope all is well with you.   // Timothy :: talk  18:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes to make the text less wordy, but I don't think I changed the meaning substantially. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I find the passage quite unsettling largely because it is more reflective of Richard Pipes' ideology (see Criticism of Pipes' approach) than of the evolution of Bolshevism, the topic of the article. John Eric Marot, in https://www.jstor.org/stable/130152?seq=7#metadata_info_tab_contents, makes a distinction between Lenin's view at this time and how his ideas developed after that. I aim to dig out some material on this to work towards a more suitable approach.Leutha (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Derogatory use

I moved the section on derogatory use to the end of the article. The subsection on other parties who used the term "Bolshevik" was previously at the end, but that's not derogatory, and it was a subsection under derogatory use. Roches (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Demographics

In "Demographics" the following display appears incorrect to me: "By 1905, 62% of the members were industrial workers (...) Twenty-two percent of Bolsheviks were gentry (...) and 38% were uprooted peasants" - which adds up to 122%. A little too much, I think. Unless these are not disctinct groups, but multiple affiliations possible. Who can help/correct? Spin1970 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

It could be that there is considerable overlap among those classed as "industrial workers" and "uprooted peasants", whose uprootedness may have led to their becoming industrial workers. Dhtwiki (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bolshevik Page

Um, the part about Lenin being narrow-minded...that is not true. Even his political opponents recognized that he fully believed in his cause and that Communism really would make Russia a better place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.59.168.201 (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This post was made by me before I registered for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leninist4283 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Difference between meaning of the whole information here in different languages.

You can use your own translator and you’ll understand the problem. 46.200.234.51 (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Scope of this article

This article is currently somewhat of a mess. It doesn't know whether it's about the original Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, the history of the pre-Revolution Bolsheviks up until 1918, or the entire history of the use of the Bolshevik name until the party was renamed the CPSU in 1952.

If I were to redo this article, I would make it so it only covers the history of the original Bolshevik faction. Otherwise, there's an argument to be made that it should cover the entire history of the CPSU until it's dissolution in 1991. The only time there was a clear organisational split was in 1912. You can't end the article in 1918 because the party didn't cease to exist upon forming government. You can't end the article in 1952 because a simple name change doesn't mean the party underwent some sort of complete transformation. You could end the article in 1991, but then it would look almost identical to the CPSU article.

It only makes sense for this article to cover the history of the Bolshevik faction, up until it formed it's own party. That's when there was a clear transformation in the group's organisational structure; enough of a transformation to warrant separate articles. Loytra (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. There is already a Bolshevism article. And it was the same entity before and after becoming officially a separate party.--GwydionM (talk) 08:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

So then where should the scope of this article end? If the Bolsheviks were the same entity before and after becoming a separate party, then they were also the same entity up until the dissolution of their party in 1991. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Loytra (talk) 03:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd have ended it with the adoption of the name Communist. But where it does end is entirely logical. --GwydionM (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In what way is it logical? An organisation doesn't cease to exist because of a name change. I'm really not sure how you can argue that "it was the same entity before and after becoming officially a separate party", but that it became a separate entity after a name change. It doesn't feel like you're engaging with the actual substance of my argument, to be completely honest. I addressed all of these points in my original paragraph and you aren't providing any further explanation. Loytra (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)