MG: Differences usually turn on whether one has greater respect for the power of "agency" or constraint in human affairs, but that's a debate which long predates the socialist movement, one which we're not going to resolve here.
CC: I'm not sure that that debate is (a) resolvable in theory or (b) needs to be resolved in theory. It is continually resolved in practice. This is one of the things that can be learned from reading accounts of mass struggles (whether immediately successful or not) in different times and places. Consider the most (in)famous of such incidents -- the decision of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets to declare itself the government of Russia. Martov was obviously correct, Lenin and Trotsky wrong: the conditions [constraint] were wrong. The objective basis did not exist for building a socialist state. The working class was too weak. International capital too strong. The point was, however, that when revolutionary forces _could_ seize power, they had to, whether or not it was correct under the circumstances. This works in even very trivial ("super"-reformist) circumstances. The theoretical issue of constraint vs agency simply disappears. ------------------ This is well put, and I agree with it, esp. your view of the Bolshevik Revolution. Martov was a Left Menshevik who supported the Revolution despite his misgivings, for the reasons you suggest: he was with the workers, they were moving in that direction, and he couldn't dismiss the possibility the revolution might succeed. I imagine all of us would have felt similar pressure in that period. It's easy to look back in retrospect and see it as a failed "adventure", but at that time it did look to many, including the ruling classes, that a world revolution was starting in Europe, with Russia as the trigger. The historical experience of these revolutions has been such that future generations will be more cautious about embracing socialist solutions if these conditions reappear. But then again historical memories are short, and most people act not on the basis of ideology or what's gone before but what problems they are practically required to solve in the present.
MG