- Jul 2007
With this, I don't agree. The anti-democratic nature of the state that the Bolsheviks set up was abundantly obvious, of course, but the revolution and the aims of many of its participants (eg Mensheviks etc) certainly doesn't appear to have been anti-democratic (and in fact, the Bolsheviks only became so after it became apparent that they could never achieve the support of the majority without wiping out competing communist and leftist groups).I agree that the Communist revolution had NO intention of ever instituting democracy, and of course, it never did.
I think you're conflating Marx and Lenin a bit too much here. Marx never said anything about a one-party state and he was not a vanguardist. Marx's ultimate aim was direct democracy and the abolition of the state. There is nothing to indicate that the transitory 'dictatorship of the proletariat' which Marx referred to implied any sort of vanguard rule, rather a dicatorship of the majority. This certainly is very anti-liberal and anti-republican, but it is not anti-democratic.Lenin and Marx's understanding is that what we call democracy really isn't- and it is hard to argue with that conclusion.
Recessions were already known and by most economists prior to Marx, and one of the central activities of economists was explaining them. Marx certainly wasn't the first to deal with recessions, but he came up with a new theory of why it occurred (to periodically destroy production capital to balance overproduction). For Marx, recessions were actually a stabilizing factor of capitalism. But Marx also predicted a crisis of capitalism, not a normal recessionary event but a cataclysmic failure that would destroy civilization (unless the revolution succeeded).Marx, for example, predicted the "boom-bust" situtation we have now.