“Menshevism Reconsidered: Is Globalization a Stepping Stone to International Socialism?

and the Speech,

“Space Exploration: A Uniting Force for All of Humanity”

Aaron Scott Robertson

 About the Author

Aaron Robertson is currently in his senior year at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, WI.

He majors in Political Science and minors in both Sociology and Philosophy. It is his hope to

teach someday at the college level and write works of political, social, and economic thought. He

lives in Muskego, WI.

2
To my parents, Tim and Marilyn, and to all of my friends at Cardinal Stritch University, who

have encouraged me over the years to follow my dreams, no matter how big they may seem.

3
Copyright 2005 by Aaron Scott Robertson. Nothing in this book may be duplicated without the
expressed written consent of the author, except in the case of brief excerpts used in critical
reviews.

Self-published by the author and printed at Cardinal Stritch University in Milwaukee, WI. This is
one in 500 copies produced in February 2005.

For further information, write:

Aaron Robertson
Cardinal Stritch University
6801 North Yates Road, Box 246
Milwaukee, WI 53217

4
 Table of Contents:

Menshevism Reconsidered: Is Globalization a Stepping Stone to International

Socialism?…………………………………………………………………………………..……..6

Preface……………………………………………………………………………………………..7

Chapter I: “Introduction”………………………………………………………………………….8

Chapter II: “Socialism’s Dependence on Capitalism”…………………………………………...10

Chapter III: “The Russian Revolution”…………………………………………………………..11

Chapter IV: “Free Trade Theory”………………………………………………………………..13

Chapter V: “The Influence of Menshevism”…………………………………………………….14

Chapter VI: “Stalinism and Trotskyism and Their Roles in this New Look on

Globalization”……………………………………………………………………………………17

Chapter VII: “A Possible Defect in Lenin’s Thought”…………………………………………..18

Chapter VIII: “The Four Stages of Globalization”………………………………………………21

Chapter IX: “Where Does the Soul of Socialism Lie Today?”………………………………….23

Chapter X: “Conclusions”……………………………………………………………………….24

“Space Travel: A Uniting Force for All of Humanity”………………………………………….26

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...30

5
 Menshevism Reconsidered: Is Globalization a Stepping Stone to International Socialism?

Aaron Scott Robertson

January 20031

1
This is the fourth version of this paper, the July 2004 revision. The first three versions were:
January 2003, March 2004, and June 2004. The first version won at the school level of a national
writing contest in January 2004. The prize included $30 and recognition in the campus bulletin.
The second version was presented at the 18th Annual Student Conference of the Wisconsin
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, April 16, 2004.

6
 Preface

Having wrote a research paper for my high school English Composition class entitled “A

Brief History of the Soviet Union,” my senior year, led me to become interested in exploring

Marxist political and economic theory. That paper sparked a number of brief papers during my

freshman year of college on various aspects of Marxism. My “A Brief History of the Soviet

Union” has become for me an ongoing project, as I enjoy adding to it when time allows for it. I

wrote the following paper, “Menshevism Reconsidered” in January of 2003 while on winter

break. This paper has also become an ongoing project. Following is the entire work as it

currently stands. It examines historical events, current trends, and theory to project what may be

in store for Earth’s political and economic future. I hope that you will find it interesting.

Author.

Milwaukee, October 2003.

7
 I: Introduction

In the mid-1800’s, Karl Marx predicted that capitalism was doomed.2 He observed that

there were simply too many contradictions built into the capitalist economic order that would

eventually bring it to its fate. Many critics proclaimed socialism’s death when the Soviet Union

collapsed.3 But is socialism really dead? Today, we find ourselves bearing witness to an

economic phenomenon: the process of globalization. With this, I pose a question: If all of the

world’s nations tear down their protective devices such as tariffs and quotas, and embrace the

free trade model, will it serve as a stepping stone to socialism on an international scale?

A lot of people may be skeptical about such a theory, but let us consider this: the theory

of socialism was always an internationalist concept. However, those countries that adopted

socialism were not able to adequately spread socialism throughout the world. The result was that

socialism had to be adapted in order to fit a nationalist context. This nationalistic socialism is

artificial, the result of socialism’s failure to spread on a worldwide scale. So, socialism could not

achieve internationalism on its own. Globalization, on the other hand, is a natural development,

not an artificial one. Therefore, if classical Marxian theory “marries” globalization, then the end

result could be true, international socialism. It is clear then that this theory relies more upon the

Economic Internationalist perspective than on the classic Structuralist perspective advanced by

Marx.

For Marx to make such a powerful statement (that capitalism is doomed), it can be

theorized that besides speaking about revolution to solve the problem of capitalism, he may have

2
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, (New York: International
Publishers, 1998 [1848]).
3
Vladimir Volkov, “Trotsky’s struggle against Stalin and the tragic fate of the Soviet Union,”
speech commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination of Leon Trotsky, October
27, 2000. Published by the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI),
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/volk-o27.shtml.

8
been thinking of an evolution. Marx seemed very confident in his prediction, too confident to

rely on revolution alone, whose results are unpredictable and determined by chance. As we have

observed since Marx’s time, world revolution has failed to gain momentum. The Bolsheviks,

who were victorious with their 1917 Russian Revolution, were themselves relying on revolution

to occur in some Western European nations, but were disappointed when they learned that these

revolutions either failed to gain momentum or were defeated by reactionary forces. On the other

hand, it could also be theorized that Marx was not thinking of this evolution at all. It could be

that he did not see capitalism continuing for this long.

My theory is strongly influenced by Menshevism, that line of thought coming from the

old Russian Social Democratic Labor Party that will be described shortly. In order to help

develop this theory, I will examine various topics including: socialism’s dependence on

capitalism, the Russian Revolution, newer developments such as the European Union and

NAFTA, free market theory, and the differences between Stalinism and Trotskyism and their

roles in this theory. I wish to make clear at this point that Stalin’s crimes will not be examined

here. Only his political and economic strategies will be addressed. Besides looking into these

topics, I have theorized four economic-political stages that will guide the world through to the

completed process of globalization. I will explain which phase the world is currently in, and how

the world will advance into the next phases of this development as I see it. I will then close by

attempting to answer the question, “Where does the soul of socialism lie today?”

This research offers a bold hypothesis as to the future of the world’s political and

economic order. The research relies heavily upon the past, with both its achievements and its

downfalls, in order to explain what may happen in the future. The intention here is simply to

provide theorizing by applying Menshevik doctrine to current trends through the citing of

9
historical events and current observations. Ernesto Che Guevara, describing the role of a

revolutionary party, once wrote, “It is logical that this is a class party. A Marxist-Leninist party

could not call itself so if it were not a class party, for its mission is to find the shortest route to

achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat.”4 This theory strongly contests Guevara’s statement,

as it sees no possible shortcut.

II: Socialism’s Dependence on Capitalism

In order for socialism to succeed, certain material conditions must be met. Capitalism

provides such conditions by building the roads necessary for the transportation of goods, through

competition, has produced the finest products at the greatest possible efficiency; those producers

who cannot compete fade out, and therefore, only the best quality and greatest efficiency are left

standing. Capitalism, and the notion of efficiency, has created the drive to progress in the area of

technology, constantly searching for new and innovative ideas to improve human life and

industry. If a country lacks these vital elements, socialism is simply not possible. How can

socialization occur from nothing? The necessary conditions are not just confined to industry and

technology however. Culture and intellectual property are also needed. These should however,

develop automatically with industry and technology.

Dinesh D’Souza, author of Letters to a Young Conservative, talked about his book at the

Bancroft School in Worcester, Massachusetts, and offered these examples of how capitalism has

come closer to closing the gap between the rich and poor over the last 100 years:

1) A century ago, the wealthy traveled by horse and carriage while the poor walked. Today,
the wealthy may drive Mercedes and the poor Honda Civics, but as we see, the gap is
much smaller.

4
Rolando E. Bonachea and Nelson P. Valdes (eds.), Che: Selected Works of Ernesto Guevara,
(Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969), 104.

10
 2) The expected life span between the two groups is now nearly leveled off. While the
wealthy may still be able to afford better healthcare, technology in general has greatly
improved over the last century, making possible better care for everyone.5

Another, more interesting example to point out here concerns space travel. On June 21, 2004,

the very first privately funded space ship launched into sub orbit from Mojave, California. Called

SpaceShipOne, the ship was designed by Burt Rutan, who also designed the NASA ship

Voyageur, which became the first ship to circle around the world without refueling in 1986. The

co-founder of Microsoft, Paul Allen, funded the project and Michael Melvill, aged 62 at the time

of the launch, piloted the vessel. The team behind SpaceShipOne is competing for the $10

million X Prize, awarded by the X Prize Foundation of St. Louis to the first team that can

successfully build a space ship that can reach 62.5 miles above the planet, and then repeat that

feat within two weeks.6 This serves as a remarkable example of how much capitalism is needed.

By a private foundation offering such a large prize, it spurs the effort and creativity needed to

drive progress. It is the hope of the SpaceShipOne team and many others throughout the world

that space travel can one day be affordable and accessible to all.

III: The Russian Revolution

The Russian Revolution of 1917, led by the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social

Democratic Labor Party, attempted to establish the world’s first socialist state. Despite the

revolution, some socialists never considered the Soviet Union to be socialist. It is an intellectual

debate that has been going on ever since the revolution. In any case, there was a major obstacle

standing in the way; Russia was caught in a time warp, the middle ages to be more specific. The

majority of people were poor peasants, and the Tsar was the last of the major monarchs left in

the world to hold onto absolute authority. A solid middle-class did not exist, and industry was

5
Dinesh D’ Souza, Book Talk, C-SPAN2, October 8, 2002.
6
Traci Watson, “Private craft to head for space,” USA Today, June 21, 2004.

11
very weak. The material conditions were not present to easily advance to socialism, the second

stage of political and economic development in the eyes of Marx and Engels. Also, the other

socialist revolutions being carried out around this time-Germany, Hungary, Italy, etc., were all

defeated, thus placing Russia in total isolation. If the revolutions elsewhere had succeeded, the

new governments would have been able to aid Russia tremendously but they failed. Lenin knew

of the extreme importance of the world revolution and stated:

It was clear to us that without aid from the international world revolution, a victory of the
proletarian revolution [in Russia] is impossible. Even prior to the Bolshevik revolution,
as well as after it, we thought that the revolution would also occur either immediately or
at least very soon in other backward countries and in the more highly developed capitalist
countries. Otherwise we would perish.7

This isolation and the lack of development gave rise to Stalin and his elite bureaucratic

class, and hence, a horrible and distorted meaning of the very words “socialism” and

“communism” came about. So, in essence, the revolution was a failure from the beginning, and

the only thing that kept it dragging on for 70+ years was the dedication of party hardliners and

Stalin’s police force trying to hold on and work with what they had. Lenin even attempted, a year

before his death, to have Stalin removed from his position of power as General Secretary because

he knew the consequences of “bureaucratization not only in the Soviet institutions but also in the

party.”8 In the document that came to be known as “The Testament of Lenin,” he wrote on

December 25, 1922: “Comrade Stalin, having become General Secretary, has concentrated an

enormous amount of power in his hands; and I am not sure that he always knows how to use that

7
Irving Howe (ed.), The Basic Writings of Trotsky, (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 22.
8
Attributed to Lenin. From the Forward to Lenin’s Testament. Author unknown.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1926/1926-len.htm.

12
power with sufficient caution.”9 A few days later, on January 4, 1923, he added a postscript to

the original document. In it he elaborated on his views regarding Stalin, taking aim at his

character:

Stalin is too rude, and this fault, entirely supportable in relations among us Communists,
becomes insupportable in the office of General Secretary. Therefore, I propose to the
comrades to find a way to remove Stalin from that position and appoint to it another man
who in all respects differs from Stalin only in superiority—namely, more patient, more
loyal, more polite, and more attentive to comrades, less capricious, etc.10

Whereas I was once hesitant of Marx’s prediction, I am now considering it an open

question. I believe that his prediction has credibility-It is just perhaps that the Bolsheviks acted

much too early when they should have focused on building up society under capitalism and

working on a political democracy, something which was totally unheard of in the old Tsarist

days. They prevented a natural historical process from playing out, just as protectionists today,

both on the liberal and the conservative side of the spectrum, may be the leading factor in the

delaying of socialism. Conditions were not ripe in 1917 anywhere throughout the world, and they

still are not quite ripe.

IV: Free Trade Theory

Free trade, following the ideas laid out in Adam Smith’s 1776 work The Wealth of

Nations, in theory is supposed to increase production, which in turn creates more abundance of

goods.11 The reason for this is that with a protectionist economy, the state sets quotas, tariffs, and

the like. These mechanisms severely limit production. If we apply Menshevik-style principles

9
Vladimir Lenin, “The Testament of Lenin,”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1926/1926-len.htm, December 25, 1922 and
January 4, 1923.
10
Ibid.
11
Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776.

13
and tactics to free trade, we see that the future goal, which is socialism, depends on free trade to

create the necessary material conditions to generously support all the world’s people.

V: The Influence of Menshevism

All attempts made in the past to get workers to see the common plight they share with

fellow workers from other nations have failed. National pride has always won out. However, the

process of globalization will change this by integrating the world. We are already seeing signs of

this through the various alliances that have been made over the decades such as the United

Nations, the European Union, NAFTA, and countless other trading blocks, not to mention

security alliances like NATO. President Vicente Fox of Mexico and President Bush of the United

States have begun talks to consider allowing Mexican citizens to cross the border to work in the

U.S. So we see, this integration has already gotten under way, though slow. Similarly, American

companies are appealing to Congress to allow foreigners that are trained in the United States to

remain here to work due to what they see as a growing shortage of American-born workers with

engineering and physics degrees.12

The problem faced right now is that there are quite a number of these alliances, both large

and small. After full globalization has been achieved though, all of these groups will fade away

in theory in favor of one united world. The world will become so integrated that no nation will

wish to declare war on another because all will be too dependent on one another. Workers of all

nations, who make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population, now united through

this process, will see eye to eye. National barriers will come crumbling down, though a

governing apparatus will still be necessary for purposes of communication and trade, not to

mention maintaining law and order.

12
Judy Holland, “High-tech companies lobbying to let more educated foreigners stay here,”
Hearst Newspapers as reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 21, 2004.

14
 Let us now briefly discuss Menshevism. The term may not be familiar to many people

today, so it is imperative to define it, as my theory, is heavily influenced by it. The Mensheviks

became a faction of the RSDLP after the party split in two between them and the Bolsheviks at

the party’s congress in 1903. John Reed, an American journalist and himself a Communist,

described both factions in an excellent manner in his famous 1919 book 10 Days That Shook The

World, an eyewitness account of the Russian Revolution. He states, “The Bolsheviki proposed

immediate proletarian insurrection, and seizure of the reins of Government, in order to hasten the

coming of Socialism by forcibly taking over industry, land, natural resources, and financial

institutions.”13 The Mensheviks had a different approach to arriving at socialism. Reed described

them as including, “all shades of Socialists who believe that society must progress by natural

evolution toward Socialism, and that the working-class must conquer political power first.”14

The Bolsheviks of course, led by Lenin and Trotsky (who himself for a long time shifted

back and forth between the two camps), were victorious in the 1917 Revolution and became the

Communist Party, the only legal party in Russia. The Menshevik faction completely faded from

public eye in Russia by 1921. Many either went underground or left Russia for Western Europe

and the United States, where they made contributions of political thought to Western socialist

parties. The Mensheviks favored political revolution in order to establish democracy, but

believed that the time for social revolution was a long way off. The members of this group were

often called “moderate” socialists or even “conservative” socialists. They were willing to

collaborate with likeminded members of the petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie, while the

Bolsheviks refused to do such a thing.

13
John Reed, 10 Days That Shook The World, (New York: International Publishers, 1974
[1919]), xli.
14
Ibid.

15
 Another major difference between the two groups was that the Bolsheviks favored a party

based on limited membership composed only of professional revolutionaries, while the

Mensheviks favored a mass party that would include anyone who wished to join. Since the

Bolsheviks were victorious in the Russian Revolution of 1917, and because of their beliefs in

closed membership, upon taking over the seat of government, they were able to substitute

themselves for the working class, who according to Marx was destined to run the state directly

and democratically. This is where the major dispute comes into play over whether or not the

Soviet Union was actually a socialist society. Many mainstream socialist parties in Europe and

elsewhere have Menshevik tendencies; instead of advocating for immediate social revolution,

they work through the current political system. They are “parliamentarians.” The Bolsheviks of

course, demanded immediate revolution, both political and social at once.

Let us examine for a moment, the Communist Party of China. This party, which claimed

to follow a highly orthodox Leninist ideology under Mao, and was thus purely revolutionary,

now appears to be reconsidering the ideas of Menshevism, consciously or unconsciously. For

example, the Party has taken steps to allow wealthy business owners and leaders to become

members. “People who were denounced 25 years ago as “running dogs of Western imperialists”

are now held up as role models who generate wealth for themselves and the nation. A few

tycoons may even be tapped into the ranks of the party’s all-powerful Central Committee on

Thursday.”15 The reason why this seemingly absurd notion of capitalists joining the Party may be

occurring, is because the Party realizes that it needs to work in conjunction with these capitalists

to build up industry (and society in general) further. The revolution, which had come at a

premature time, did not “work” as intended. So, this is highly Menshevik in tactics because the

15
Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, “China rolls out red carpet for millionaires to join party,” Boston
Globe as reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 13, 2002.

16
Party is engaging in class-collaborationism and is acknowledging that capitalism still has much

use in a society that eliminated capitalist development before it reached its fullest and the

necessary material conditions were present.

There is more. Recently, the Communist Party of China amended its constitution to

formally protect the right to private property. The amendment reads, “Private property obtained

legally shall not be violated.”16 Besides the amendment, the Party also reaffirmed its

commitment to helping the poor and farmers throughout the vast country. The National People’s

Congress chairman, Wu Bangguo, commented, “We should unite all the people of China in

focusing on construction and development in order to build a better future,” while Premier Wen

Jiabao stated, “What I am most concerned about are the issues most pivotal to our people. These

can be solved by reform, innovations and pushing forward despite difficulties.”17 The key words

in the statements of these two powerful men are construction, development, reform, and

innovations. Clearly, the rigid Bolshevik-style ideology of Mao is on its way out, in favor of a

Menshevik-style program.

VI: Stalinism and Trotskyism and Their Roles in this New Look on Globalization

With the Soviet Union still in isolation after the death of Lenin in 1924, Stalin, upon

assuming power, went against the Bolshevik principle of world revolution. Instead, he focused

on his theory of “socialism in one country.” He did not care about world-wide revolution, but

instead focused his energy on maintaining stability and his power in the Soviet Union itself and,

as the theory implies, building socialism at home and only at home. Leon Trotsky dismissed this

theory as illogical. He argued that in order for socialism to function properly, there must be other

socialist states, hence the need for worldwide socialist revolution. These states would then be

16
Alexa Olesen, “China Agrees to Amend Its Constitution,” Associated Press, March 14, 2004.
17
Ibid.

17
able to aid the Soviet Union and each other. According to Trotsky, no one country alone has the

necessary material conditions to support a socialist system for its people. Therefore, with other

socialist states in existence, there would be aid and support.

The Soviet Union certainly did not have in its possession all of the necessities that

socialism demands by itself. As Lenin noted, Stalin defied Lenin and Bolshevism as a whole on

the question of international revolution, even though he always referred to himself as “The Great

Marxist-Leninist.” Stalin’s lack of dedication to the world revolution may also have been the

reason why the Soviet Union resorted to expansionism through force a number of times

throughout its history—forcibly conquering lands when the U.S.S.R. was in need of more

resources because revolution by the workers of these lands was not occurring.

Relating to this theory, both Stalin’s quest for stability at home and Trotsky’s insistence

on world revolution will find themselves to be welcome. After this vision of globalization is

completed, each nation must still have a state apparatus in order to communicate and trade with

other nations and in order to maintain law and order at home. Hence, each nation will still have a

stable and orderly government, controlled by true workers’ representatives of course. At the

same time, Trotsky’s dream that socialism will succeed on the international level will also have

been attained.

VII: A Possible Defect in Lenin’s Thought

All Marxian socialists share the same agenda. The Mensheviks and Bolsheviks are no

different. Both groups sought the end of capitalism and the creation of “a workers’ paradise.”

However, as was established earlier, the two groups differed on the question of tactics. I will not

touch upon that again since a lot of time has already been devoted to that area. However, one

18
interesting note to mention here is that it appears that Lenin agreed with his Menshevik

counterparts on the question of working through capitalism. He wrote:

In countries like Russia, the working class suffers not so much from capitalism as from
the insufficient development of capitalism. The working class is therefore decidedly
interested in the broadest, freest, and most rapid development of capitalism…that is why
a bourgeois revolution is in the highest degree advantageous to the proletariat. A
bourgeois revolution is absolutely necessary in the interests of the proletariat. The more
complete and determined, the more consistent the bourgeois revolution, the more assured
will be the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie for Socialism.18

Karl Marx himself, the father of modern scientific socialism, addressing the issue of free trade,
once said in a speech:

Is that to say that we are against Free Trade? No, we are for Free Trade, because by Free
Trade all economical laws, with their most astounding contradictions, will act upon a
larger scale, upon a greater extent of territory, upon the territory of the whole earth; and
because from the uniting of all these contradictions into a single group, where they stand
face to face, will result the struggle which will itself eventuate in the emancipation of the
proletarians.19

As we can see, Lenin and Marx knew that capitalism was important for the attainment of

socialism. So what went wrong with the Bolshevik revolution and all of the following

revolutions—China, North Korea, Cuba, etc? Their leaders must have known that their

respective countries lacked economic development. I offer a theory: A “genetic defect” has

occurred in the “Marxist bloodline.” Lenin appears to have agreed with the Mensheviks on the

question of capitalism. However, for one reason or another, he and the other Bolsheviks pressed

for the socialist revolution to occur right away. Because Russia was the only socialist country in

existence for quite a while, all of the world’s communist (and many of the world’s socialist)

parties looked to the Bolsheviks for guidance. This makes sense. They were triumphant in their

revolution and hence the only Marxist party in the world to control a seat of government, so why

18
Vladimir Lenin, Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Chapter Six,
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm, June-July 1905.
19
Karl Marx, “Speech of Dr. Marx on Protection, Free Trade, and the Working Classes,”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/30.htm, 1847.

19
shouldn’t the world’s other Marxist parties look to them as an example? Well, because this did in

fact occur, these parties began to adopt the tactics, theories, and program of the Russian party.

However, as history has taught us, it was not a good thing that the world’s Marxist parties

looked to the Russian example. I say this because each country is at a different level of economic

development. It follows accordingly then that the party (ies) of each country should adapt tactics,

theories, and a program to fit their country’s unique situation, while still staying within the realm

of Marxist thought. Luckily for many of the communist governments that followed throughout

the world, the Soviet Union managed to rise up to become a major economic force in the world,

largely due to Stalin’s aggressive plan to build up industry. So the Soviets were able to send

generous amounts of aid to these countries. If the Soviet Union had not achieved such economic

clout, where then would these dependent governments receive such aid? Certainly not from their

own countries because industry does not exist.

So, in essence, Lenin passed down a “genetic defect” to many of the world’s Marxists

who came after him. Since the Bolsheviks pressed for revolution right away, succeeded, and

slowly began to build industry up in a backwards land, it created an illusion that any communist

or socialist party could do the same anywhere in the world; bypass capitalist development and

head right for the “workers’ paradise.” Ernesto Che Guevara thought this to be possible and the

reason why he thought it so is because he was a student of Lenin, having read Lenin’s major

works and writing extensively on them. Lenin passed this illusion, this “defect” down to

Guevara, and to many more followers both before and after him. What this thought ended up

doing however was to prevent development from occurring at all. From 1949 to the late 1970s,

China was still an economically backwards land. North Korea and Vietnam still are practically

undeveloped and it is 40-50 years since their revolutions occurred.

20
 Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the communist governments left in the world have

come to realize that the rigid Bolshevik way of thinking has cost their countries severely in terms

of economic progress. That is why we see these governments embracing capitalism now, because

they realize that capitalist development is a must. That is why they are adopting the tenets of

Menshevism.

VIII: The Four Stages of Globalization

I theorize four main stages of globalization in relation to Menshevik-style principles.

Following is a definition of each stage in order. The first stage does not apply to all nations. Most

nations are in the very early phase of stage two, while some must still go through stage one. The

stages are:

1) Conquering of political power. This stage only applies to those nations that are

undemocratic. A political revolution must occur in these nations by the masses. It is

important that all of those nations that are already democratic not interfere in these

revolutions. True democracy can only be established by the people who are inhabitants of

the nation undergoing the struggle.

2) Beginning the integration process. At this stage, all of the world’s nations begin

bringing down all of their protective mechanisms, so that the world can become truly

unified. Later on in this stage, all of the alliances previously mentioned, such as the

United Nations and NATO (to name only two), will begin to dissolve in favor of one

unified world. Capital is still in private hands at this stage.

3) The socialist revolution. As the world is integrating, a political party, or a number of

parties collaborating in each of the world’s nations, are leading the way for a socialist

revolution in their respected nations. Now, when we mention the term “socialist

21
 revolution” here, it does not have to imply violence. The socialist revolution can be a

non-violent “ballot box revolution” in which people ultimately embrace logic and reason

and see that it is better if the world worked together. However, the political revolution

described in the first stage for undemocratic nations may be violent, all depending on

how the undemocratic regime reacts. When the integration of the world appears to be at

its climax, the worldwide socialist revolution will take place, with all of the participating

parties throughout the world acting at the same time, or close to the same time. After the

revolution, socialist societies will be constructed throughout the world. All of the major

industries and resources will be placed in the hands of the state and democratically

administered. Petty-capitalism, that is, capitalism on a micro scale, may still continue. All

of the world’s participating parties will establish working relationships and aid one

another in developing socialism throughout the world.

4) The new government. Because the world will be so integrated, war is not likely to occur

again. All of the world’s nations, thanks to the process of globalization, will be too

dependent on one another. The role of the government will be to maintain law and order

(as any government would do now), serve as the moderator for communication and trade

between nations (as is the case now), and hold in trust the major industries and resources

of their respected nation. Trade will flow freely throughout the world. Whatever a

particular nation produces will be distributed to all of the others. All of the governments

throughout the world will be democratic and will work together to establish peace and

prosperity throughout the world. Even though all governments will be democratic, they

may not all be run in the same fashion. The people of every country will determine how

their government is to be run. Even though the world will be closely integrated, the

22
 culture and identity of each nation will not be sacrificed. There can still be a national

identity and pride. However, there is a difference between having a deep respect for one’s

own birth land, and going too far to the point that a fascist attitude has been attained-

viewing one’s own nation and/or people as superior over all others.

IX: Where Does the Soul of Socialism Lie Today?

So far, I have established that the world can still gain a lot from capitalism. In response to the

title of this chapter, “Where does the soul of socialism lie today?” I would have to conclude that

it lies within the liberal capitalist parties of the world, for example, the Democratic Party in the

United States, or the Labor Party in Britain. Now, I know that socialists will not hesitate to

disagree with that statement, and so I will apply the greatest care and detail in my defense of this

argument.

The reason why the soul of today’s socialist movement lies within the liberal capitalist

parties of the world is because the various socialist and communist parties of the world believe

that capitalism should come to an immediate halt, that it is no longer needed. In my justification

of Menshevism however, I have made clear that capitalism is still needed, and since it is the

world’s liberal capitalist parties (as opposed to the various socialist and communist parties) who

would maintain the capitalist economic order, it is logical then that the heart of socialism should

be found in these parties.

Both liberal and conservative capitalist parties (for instance the Democratic and Republican

parties in the United States) wish to maintain the capitalist order. However, the two parties differ

in that the liberals tend to demand, and create if they are in power, strong socio-economic

policies and institutions. However, as we have seen in recent years, we find that in many

countries, the liberals are shifting to the right so that they can maintain their elect-ability. So, it

23
should be the duty of every member of these liberal capitalist parties to help return their parties

to their classical roles in society and fight to maintain the policies and institutions that they have

created or led to the creation of, while at the same time maintaining capitalism until it is no

longer needed. We will know when it is no longer needed when all the countries of the world

have become truly dependent upon one another.

X: Conclusions

I conclude this new look at globalization by restating the main points of this theory. By

applying Menshevik-style principles to globalization, it is acknowledged that while socialism is

the final goal, there are gradual stages that society must pass through in order to achieve that

goal. The Bolsheviks in Russia acted much too quickly. Even the Chinese Communist Party has

come to realize that capitalism still has much use. Conservatives will like the theory because it

acknowledges that capitalism, and free trade in particular, is necessary. Those on the liberal to

left side of the political spectrum will like the theory because it sees socialism as the final goal.

Finally, those near the middle of the political spectrum will like the theory because it calls for

gradual steps. Nothing extreme will “occur out of the blue” as we say, either left wing or right

wing in nature.

So, this could be the main contradiction in the capitalist economic order that will cause

capitalism to fall: The capitalists’ very greed that creates the drive to constantly discover new

markets will lead them to cause the world to become so interconnected that war is likely never to

occur again. Capitalism will have reached its highest pinnacle, meaning that only the finest

goods will be produced and the best technologies in use. All the while, the workers of the world,

with their allies in the upper-classes, will be preparing for that ripe moment to come about that

will allow them to transfer the industries and resources of the world into their hands. Socialist

24
internationalism will have claimed victory, and a new era in human history will have been

ushered in. Socialism, if this theory holds true, is not artificial, but natural, to societal

development, a next step in our evolution—and because it is a natural evolutionary step, violence

does not have to be a pre-requisite, a concept that would have been totally contrary to the

socialism of Lenin, Mao, and others.

25
“Space Exploration: A Uniting Force for All of Humanity”
Speech delivered by Aaron Robertson
16 April 2004
Wisconsin Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies
18th Annual Student Conference

26
Ladies and Gentlemen:

First, I would like to take a moment to thank you for your attendance and I would like to thank
the Wisconsin Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies for allowing me to speak before you today.

What I would like to focus on this afternoon is the topic of space exploration and my theory that
space exploration can be a force that unites all of humanity in ways never before imagined. Let
us explore further. Before we do however, allow me to point out that while space exploration is
going to be the specific topic of my delivery this afternoon, I am also talking about science as a
whole.

First, it is important to take a few moments to discuss briefly the history of space travel.
Hopefully, all of us present here are at least somewhat knowledgeable with what that history all
entails, so I shall not bore you with it all over again. You are present here today to hear what I
have to proclaim concerning space exploration’s future and why it can unite humanity.

I will not attempt to hide from you the fact that I am an Idealist. Some of my friends say that I
can be very cynical at times, and they are right. But when I am having one of those cynical days,
I am reminded of the words of Leon Trotsky, who, in 1901, composed a brief yet beautiful work
combating the pessimism that many entered the 20th century with. He wrote:

Death to Utopia! Death to faith! Death to love! Death to hope! thunders the twentieth
century in salvos of fire and in the rumbling of guns. Surrender, you pathetic dreamer.
Here I am, your long awaited twentieth century, your ‘future.’ No, replies the unhumbled
optimist. You are only the present.20

When I am having one of those cynical days, I am reminded of the incredible vision and work of
Gene Roddenberry, the creator of the 60’s television show Star Trek, now a franchise consisting
of nine feature films, a number of spin-off television shows, books, soundtracks, action figures,
props, and so on. But let us now proceed to that history lesson.

In October of 1957, the Soviet Union launched the satellite Sputnik. Many Americans were
shocked to learn that the Soviets had beaten them to space. However, before 1957, many
Americans did not pay much attention to their nation’s space program, which at that time was
very primitive and overseen by the Navy. NASA would not come into existence until the
following year.21

In a way, it was great, I think, that the Soviet Union beat us into space, and allow me to explain
why. Had the Soviet Union not launched Sputnik, then perhaps the United States would not have
poured vigorous energy into her space program as early as it did. We can take what we are
talking about here, and put it into the perspective of economics. Capitalism is needed in order to

1
Leon Trotsky, “On Optimism and Pessimism; on the 20th Century and on Many Other Issues,”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1901/1901a.htm.
2
Thomas H. Maugh II, “Longtime JPL Director Put U.S. in Space Race,” Los Angeles Times,
March 17, 2004.

27
provide for healthy competition between businesses. When competition exists, each competitor
strives to create the best possible product. In this case, the United States and the Soviet Union are
businesses, and the products are tools to explore space. The Soviet Union, by getting the jump-
start on space technology, forced the United States to come back with a stronger product. And
hence, we have the space race. If the Soviet Union had not lit the spark that created what is
called the space race, then the United States may not have had the incentive to get its space
program rolling.

During this time period, we can clearly see that space exploration, and science in general, are
being treated as national commodities. We have two major powers competing for domination of
science. Today however, we see that barriers are slowly but surely coming down. The United
Nations has added many more member states since 1957, and its reputation in the international
community is growing. While member states are certainly not obligated to obey the U.N., many
members, because the U.N. has gained so much respect in the global community, do tend to seek
its approval in matters. There are many more political and economic alliances between states.
Another popular example is the European Union. On a smaller scale, I should say fairly smaller,
corporations throughout the world sometimes collaborate on research. And on a smaller, more
personal basis, we find individual scientists and researchers throughout the world collaborating
on projects together. I believe that globalization is the reason for this dismantling of science as a
national commodity. Sure, we still have the classic question of state sovereignty to deal with, but
for the most part, I do believe that we are seeing great amounts of cooperation throughout the
world, and it can only improve with time and more scientific discoveries.

In the realm of space exploration specifically, we see that there exists the European Space
Agency, which is, as the name implies, an agency composed of European states joined together
for the purpose of space discovery.

We see that there exists an International Space Station. U.S. President Ronald Reagan
commissioned the initial proposal for this station in 1984. NASA of course, would take up the
lead, leading nine of the E.S.A.’s member states, plus Canada and Japan, in this great endeavor.
That was a little after a year of the space station’s creation. Today, sixteen countries, eleven of
them being E.S.A. members, are a part of this collaborative force. Two of the goals that the
International Space Station has established, which fit the topic of this delivery today very well,
are: to “Find solutions to crucial problems in medicine, ecology and other areas of science” and
to “Foster world peace through high-profile, long-term international cooperation in space.”22

Then there is the latest fascination with Mars, a fascination that produced two NASA rovers,
Spirit and Opportunity, and a never before seen view of this amazing planet. And now evidence
suggests that water may have once existed on Mars.

Now, many people wonder, “Space exploration is great, but why don’t we focus more on our
own planet and its many problems first? Why are we spending so much money on space

3
“International Space Station: Background,” http://www.boeing.com/defense-
space/space/spacestation/overview/background_goals.html.

28
exploration when it can be used here on Earth to combat poverty?” And those are valid points to
consider, and I wish to address them.

Over the years, many scientists have speculated that many of the minerals found on other planets
in our solar system, including our moon, that are not found normally on Earth, may be used to
cure many ailments. If there is even a possibility that this holds true, then in my judgment, space
exploration is certainly a noble cause. Also, everyone has some interest in space. All of us are
curious about what is out there. So, through collaboration in space exploration, we are not only
promoting peace between governments, but we are also bringing together everyone, everyone,
throughout the world. That curiosity that each and every one of us possesses can be used to unite
us.

So, in closing, I would like to restate my position that space exploration can surely unite
humanity in unprecedented ways. The search for cures, the fascination with space that all of us
possess, consciously or unconsciously, and the peace that exploration promotes by causing
national governments to work together in search of those cures and in search of answers to the
questions that our fascination produces, make space exploration a necessary part of Earth’s
future. Yes, let us be citizens of the United States, of Italy, of France, of Russia, of Mexico; but
let us also be citizens of the world, united through science and reason, united through our goal of
aiding the whole of humanity! Thank you.

29
 Works Cited

Bonachea, Rolando E. and Valdes, Nelson P. (eds.) Che: Selected Works of Ernesto Guevara.
Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1969.
D’Souza, Dinesh. Book Talk. C-SPAN2: October 8, 2002.

Holland, Judy. “High-tech companies lobbying to let more educated foreigners stay here.”
Hearst Newspapers as reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 21, 2004.

Howe, Irving (ed.). The Basic Writings of Trotsky. New York: Vintage Books, 1965.

“International Space Station: Background.” http://www.boeing.com/defense-

space/space/spacestation/overview/background_goals.html.

Lakshmanan, Indira A.R. “China rolls out red carpet for millionaires to join party.” Boston Globe
as reprinted in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, November 13, 2002.

Lenin, Vladimir. “The Testament of Lenin.”

http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1926/1926-len.htm. December 25, 1922 and
January 4, 1923.

Lenin, Vladimir. Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch06.htm. June-July 1905.

Marx, Karl. “Speech of Dr. Marx on Protection, Free Trade, and the Working Classes.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/09/30.htm. 1847.

Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. The Communist Manifesto. New York: International
Publishers, 1998 [1848].

Maugh, Thomas H. II. “Longtime JPL Director Put U.S. in Space Race.” Los Angeles Times,
March 17, 2004.

Olesen, Alexa. “China Agrees to Amend Its Constitution.” Associated Press, March 14, 2004.

Reed, John. 10 Days That Shook the World. New York: International Publishers, 1974 [1919].

Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. 1776.

Trotsky, Leon. “On Optimism and Pessimism; on the 20th Century and on Many Other Issues.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1901/1901a.htm.

Volkov, Vladimir. “Trotsky’s struggle against Stalin and the tragic fate of the Soviet Union,”
speech commemorating the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination of Leon Trotsky.
International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI), October 27, 2000.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/oct2000/volk-o27.shtml.

30
Watson, Traci. “Private craft to head for space.” USA Today, June 21, 2004.

31