> Sam, you may be right that the division between the mensheviks and the
> bolsheviks is one of means. but it is important to note also that the
> split cemented itself in the heat of WW1 and the ease with which the social
> democrats sided with 'their governments', the geopolitical 'interests' of
> 'their nation-states'.
Well, bolshevik vs. menshevik is really only of historical interest today. The Bolshies split into 3 camps over WW1; Pacifist/defeatist (Lenin), ultra-revolutionary "neither war nor peace" (Trotsky) and "revolutionary" invasion of Germany (the left communists e.g. Radek). Revolution vs. reformism was not abstract thinking but accurate description of the choices the left faced in Russia at the time.
>
>
> a more important distinction I think would be to note that social democracy
> was always a set of strategies available only to a small set of countries
> running either (or both) big trade surpluses or a 'labour shortage';
We differ in the meaning of social democracy. If you take it to mean what Lenin and Bernstein meant by it, socialism, then it is the debate, very much relevant today, whether socialism can be built in economically backward countries. By economically backward, I mean predomnantly monoculture economies that rely on maybe 2-3 exports. Social democracy a la Sweden, Canada or Australia was tried in many countries but it took different forms. In the southern hemisphere it took the form of import-substitution and economic nationalism or populism as it is sometimes called. The gains from socdem were real, so were its failures in the third world.
> that
> it presupposes a national framework that is no longer available.
That is the globalization argument. I'm not going to rehash all the evidence and arguments against it that have been presented in Monthly Review and elsewhere. If you or others want another round on globalization I will reluctantly join in.
> Australian
> social democracy was built on the basis of the 'white australia policy',
> which is perhaps where it is returning to: in the face of (the threat of)
> capital flight, social democracy's national outlook can do little more than
> entail the continuing regulation of labour (movements).
>
> the redistributive aims of social democracy are blown out of the water not
> by a decision of the treacherous leadership to betray 'founding principles'
> but by the international character of capital.
The redistribution aspect of socdem was and is a product of class struggle. Redistribution in social democracies has been rolled back because the capitalist class is winning the class struggle.
>
>
> I am not so much interested in the distinction 'reform or revolution',
> since I think it was put abstractly then and barely makes any sense today.
No. Lenin and especially Trotsky thought that if the peasants and workers in a given country were in a position to overthrow the government, they should do it. The reformists thought revolution should not be undertaken but the goals of revolution pursued piecemeal through parliament.
> there are reforms which open up the possibilities, and reforms which close
> them off - that's a more important distinction to make as I see it; as well
> as noting that revolutions are not reducible armed struggles, since armed
> struggles are not necessarily revolutionary in either character or aim.
> so, this is not the distinction I was making.
Right. Revolution need not be violent, but probably will be. I don't see how Steve Martin will part with his art collection peacefully.
Sam Pawlett