The central point of contention between Vladimir Lenin and Eduard Bernstein revolved around the fundamental nature of capitalism and the strategy for achieving socialism. Bernstein, a proponent of evolutionary socialism (also known as revisionism), argued that capitalism was evolving and becoming more equitable. He posited that through gradual reforms, such as labor legislation and expanded suffrage, workers could achieve socialism peacefully within the existing capitalist framework. He believed that class conflict was diminishing and that the need for a revolutionary overthrow of the state was becoming obsolete.
Lenin, adhering to orthodox Marxism, vehemently opposed this revisionist view. He maintained that capitalism was inherently exploitative and prone to crises. He argued that reforms, while potentially beneficial to workers in the short term, could not fundamentally alter the exploitative nature of the system. Moreover, he asserted that the state, even in democratic societies, was ultimately an instrument of class rule, serving the interests of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, peaceful, gradual change was an illusion; a revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat was essential for establishing a socialist society. This disagreement highlighted the conflicting interpretations of Marxist theory and the divergent paths envisioned for achieving a socialist future.
These contrasting perspectives led to significant disagreements regarding the role of the state, the necessity of revolution, and the nature of class struggle. Lenin’s emphasis on revolutionary action and the dictatorship of the proletariat stood in stark contrast to Bernstein’s focus on parliamentary democracy and gradual reform. This fundamental difference in ideological outlook shaped their respective political strategies and had a profound impact on the development of socialist movements in the 20th century.
1. Revolution versus reform
The dichotomy between revolution and reform constitutes a core element in understanding the ideological chasm separating Lenin and Bernstein. Bernstein advocated for a gradual, reformist approach to socialism, believing that capitalism possessed the capacity for self-improvement and could evolve into a socialist system through incremental changes enacted via parliamentary means. This perspective directly challenged the Marxist orthodoxy espoused by Lenin. For Lenin, revolution was not merely a possibility but a necessity. He viewed capitalism as inherently exploitative and incapable of fundamental reform. He argued that the state, regardless of its outward democratic appearance, served the interests of the bourgeoisie and would never willingly concede power. Therefore, a revolutionary seizure of power by the proletariat was deemed the only viable path to establishing a socialist society. Bernstein’s focus on reform directly contradicted Lenin’s conviction that only a violent overthrow of the existing order could bring about genuine societal transformation.
The Russian context further solidified Lenin’s revolutionary stance. Unlike Western Europe, where Bernstein observed some signs of capitalist reform and the growth of a strong labor movement capable of exerting pressure through parliamentary channels, Russia was characterized by an autocratic regime and a largely agrarian society. The Tsarist government was resistant to reform, and the working class was relatively small and lacked significant political power. Consequently, Lenin saw little prospect for achieving socialism through gradual, reformist means in Russia. The 1905 Revolution, though ultimately unsuccessful, reinforced his belief in the necessity of revolutionary action. In contrast, Bernstein’s perspective, formulated in the context of Western European societies, was seen by Lenin as a betrayal of Marxist principles and a dangerous form of opportunism that could lead to the co-option of the working class by the capitalist system. Bernstein’s ideas were viewed as dangerous to true social change.
In summation, the fundamental disagreement centered on the means of achieving socialism: gradual reform versus revolutionary overthrow. This divergence stemmed from differing analyses of capitalism’s inherent nature and the role of the state. Lenins rejection of Bernstein’s reformist approach was rooted in his conviction that only a revolutionary seizure of power could dismantle the capitalist system and pave the way for a socialist society. He believed reformist attempts were futile and served to prolong the suffering of the working class by providing the illusion of progress without addressing the fundamental power imbalances inherent in capitalism. The preference for revolution over reform reveals the core of Lenins theoretical and practical opposition to Bernsteins revisionist socialism.
2. Capitalism’s inherent nature
The differing perceptions of capitalism’s intrinsic characteristics were a pivotal factor in the ideological clash between Lenin and Bernstein. Their assessments of its nature and potential directly influenced their respective strategies for achieving socialism.
-
Exploitation and Surplus Value
Lenin, adhering to Marxist theory, viewed capitalism as inherently exploitative. He emphasized the concept of surplus value, arguing that capitalists extract profit by paying workers less than the full value of their labor. This exploitation, in Lenin’s view, was not an accidental feature of capitalism but a fundamental necessity for its survival and expansion. Therefore, attempts to mitigate exploitation through reforms within the capitalist system were deemed futile. Bernstein, while acknowledging the existence of exploitation, believed that it could be gradually reduced through state intervention, labor legislation, and collective bargaining. He argued that the increasing power of labor unions and the expansion of social welfare programs demonstrated capitalism’s capacity to ameliorate its exploitative tendencies. This divergence in assessing exploitation underscored their disagreement regarding the potential for reform within the capitalist framework.
-
The Tendency Towards Crisis
Lenin maintained that capitalism was prone to cyclical crises of overproduction and economic instability. He argued that these crises were not anomalies but rather inherent features of the system, arising from the contradiction between the socialized nature of production and the private ownership of the means of production. Crises, in Lenin’s view, would inevitably lead to increased class conflict and ultimately create the conditions for revolution. Bernstein, conversely, argued that capitalism had demonstrated a capacity to overcome its inherent instability through technological innovation, financial regulation, and the expansion of global markets. He believed that crises could be managed and mitigated, preventing them from escalating into revolutionary situations. This difference in perspective regarding capitalism’s stability shaped their contrasting views on the urgency and necessity of revolutionary action.
-
Concentration of Capital and Imperialism
Lenin argued that capitalism inevitably leads to the concentration of capital in the hands of a few large monopolies and financial institutions. This concentration, he believed, intensified exploitation and exacerbated class inequality. Furthermore, Lenin linked the concentration of capital to imperialism, arguing that capitalist states were driven to expand their empires in search of new markets, resources, and investment opportunities. Imperialism, in Lenin’s view, heightened international tensions and increased the risk of war. Bernstein, while acknowledging the trend toward concentration, did not see it as an insurmountable obstacle to social progress. He argued that the state could regulate monopolies and promote competition. He also downplayed the link between capitalism and imperialism, suggesting that international cooperation and free trade could mitigate the potential for conflict. Their differing assessments of the dynamics of capital concentration and imperialism contributed to their divergent political strategies.
In conclusion, the fundamental disagreement regarding capitalism’s inherent nature whether it was inherently exploitative, crisis-prone, and prone to concentration formed a crucial basis for Lenin’s opposition to Bernstein’s revisionist socialism. Lenin’s belief in these negative intrinsic qualities of capitalism reinforced his conviction that only a revolutionary overthrow of the system could achieve genuine social change, while Bernstein’s more optimistic assessment led him to advocate for a gradual, reformist approach. These opposing views highlighted the deep ideological divisions within the socialist movement at the turn of the 20th century and had a lasting impact on the course of political history.
3. Role of the state
The divergent understanding of the state’s role constituted a critical fault line in the disagreement between Lenin and Bernstein. Their perspectives on its nature, function, and potential for transformation deeply impacted their strategic approaches to achieving socialism. For Lenin, the state, regardless of its apparent democratic features, fundamentally functioned as an instrument of class rule. He adhered to the Marxist conception of the state as a tool used by the dominant class (the bourgeoisie in capitalist societies) to maintain its power and suppress opposing classes (primarily the proletariat). The state’s institutions, including the legal system, the police, and the military, were viewed as designed to protect capitalist property relations and enforce the existing social order. Consequently, Lenin dismissed the possibility of using the existing state apparatus to gradually transition to socialism, arguing that it was inherently biased towards the capitalist class and would actively resist any attempt to undermine its power. This perspective formed a cornerstone of Lenin’s advocacy for revolutionary action aimed at seizing state power and establishing a new proletarian state, the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” to suppress the resistance of the overthrown bourgeoisie and initiate socialist construction.
Bernstein, in contrast, held a more optimistic view of the state’s potential for reform. He argued that the state could be gradually transformed into an instrument of social justice through democratic means, such as expanded suffrage, labor legislation, and social welfare programs. He believed that the working class could exert influence on the state through parliamentary politics and collective bargaining, thereby shaping its policies in a way that served the interests of the majority. Bernstein acknowledged that the state was not a neutral arbiter but maintained that it could be progressively democratized and used to mitigate the inequalities inherent in capitalism. This perspective led him to advocate for a gradual, reformist approach to socialism, focusing on achieving incremental improvements within the existing political and economic framework. The example of social democratic parties in Western Europe, which achieved significant gains for workers through parliamentary means, served as a testament to Bernstein’s view of the state as a potential agent of positive change.
In summary, the core of Lenin’s disagreement with Bernstein regarding the state lay in their opposing assessments of its class character and potential for transformation. Lenin saw the state as an inherently oppressive instrument of class rule, necessitating revolutionary overthrow, while Bernstein viewed it as a potentially democratizable institution capable of achieving social justice through gradual reforms. This divergence shaped their contrasting strategies for achieving socialism and underscored the fundamental ideological divide between revolutionary Marxism and revisionist socialism. The practical significance of this understanding is apparent in the divergent paths taken by socialist movements throughout the 20th century, with some embracing Lenin’s revolutionary approach and others pursuing Bernstein’s reformist strategy, each yielding different outcomes in various historical contexts.
4. Class struggle’s intensity
The perceived intensity of class conflict served as a crucial differentiator in the ideological divergence between Lenin and Bernstein. Their contrasting evaluations of this intensity significantly influenced their respective approaches to achieving socialism. Lenin, a staunch advocate of orthodox Marxism, firmly believed that class struggle was an inherent and irreducible feature of capitalist society. He viewed capitalism as a system characterized by fundamental antagonism between the bourgeoisie (the owners of capital) and the proletariat (the working class), an antagonism that would inevitably intensify over time. This intensification, according to Lenin, arose from the inherent dynamics of capitalist accumulation, leading to increased exploitation, economic crises, and heightened class consciousness among the proletariat. He saw no prospect of class harmony or reconciliation within the capitalist framework. He believed the class struggle would necessitate and culminate in a violent revolution, leading to the overthrow of the capitalist state and the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship.
Bernstein, conversely, argued that class struggle was becoming less intense in advanced capitalist societies. He observed a growing middle class, improved living standards for workers, and the emergence of strong labor unions capable of negotiating better wages and working conditions. He believed these developments indicated that capitalism was evolving towards a more equitable and harmonious system, mitigating the intensity of class conflict. Bernstein pointed to the expansion of social welfare programs and the increasing influence of socialist parties within parliamentary democracies as evidence of capitalism’s capacity for self-reform and the potential for achieving socialism through gradual, peaceful means. He argued that focusing solely on class struggle risked alienating potential allies and hindering the progress of social reform. A practical example can be found in the differing approaches taken by socialist movements. Lenin’s perspective fueled the Russian Revolution, emphasizing violent upheaval. Bernstein’s views influenced the development of social democratic parties in Western Europe, which pursued reform through parliamentary action, demonstrating the practical significance of this fundamental disagreement. He deemed that class struggle was not a permanent aspect.
In summary, the perceived intensity of class struggle was a central point of contention. Lenin maintained that class struggle was intensifying and revolution was unavoidable. Bernstein argued that it was diminishing, allowing for peaceful progress. This core difference explains why Lenin rejected Bernstein’s revisionist socialism, viewing it as a dangerous underestimation of the inherent contradictions of capitalism and a betrayal of the revolutionary goals of Marxism. The opposing views on the nature and trajectory of class struggle shaped their divergent political strategies and ultimately contributed to the profound schism within the socialist movement, with each faction’s actions influenced by if the other side minimized or maximized class struggle.
5. Proletariat’s dictatorship
The concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is inextricably linked to the core reasons for the disagreement between Lenin and Bernstein. Lenin viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat, a state in which the working class holds political power, as an essential transitional phase between capitalism and communism. He argued that after a successful revolution, the proletariat must establish its own state to suppress the inevitable resistance from the overthrown bourgeoisie, dismantle the capitalist state apparatus, and build a socialist society. This necessitated a period of centralized control and, if necessary, the use of force to defend the revolution’s gains and prevent counter-revolution. Without this, Lenin argued, the bourgeoisie would inevitably regain power, reversing any progress made towards socialism. This element was seen as crucial for any true socialist state.
Bernstein, however, fundamentally rejected the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He argued that it was incompatible with democratic principles and that socialism could be achieved through gradual reforms within a democratic framework. He believed that the working class could gain political power through parliamentary elections and use the state to enact social and economic reforms without resorting to authoritarian measures. He viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as a dangerous and unnecessary concept that could lead to tyranny and the suppression of individual liberties. The differing views of a post-revolutionary state represent a central tenet. Examples of this difference are visible in the historical development of socialist movements. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, guided by Lenin’s principles, established a one-party state and employed repressive measures against perceived enemies of the revolution. Conversely, social democratic parties in Western Europe, influenced by Bernstein’s ideas, pursued reforms through democratic means and without establishing a dictatorship.
The rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat was central to Bernstein’s revision of Marxist theory. His perspective emphasized the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism through democratic processes, a stark contrast to Lenin’s insistence on revolutionary violence and centralized control. This fundamental disagreement reflects contrasting beliefs about the nature of the state, the intensity of class struggle, and the appropriate means for achieving a socialist society. The legacy of this divergence continues to shape debates about the role of the state and the path to social justice today. The disagreement over the necessity and nature of this political formation is a key component in understanding the division between Lenin and Bernstein.
6. Evolutionary socialism rejection
The rejection of evolutionary socialism by Vladimir Lenin constitutes a fundamental element in comprehending the basis of his disagreement with Eduard Bernstein. Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism proposed that capitalism could gradually evolve into socialism through incremental reforms achieved within the existing political and economic framework. This premise was vehemently opposed by Lenin, who adhered to a revolutionary interpretation of Marxist theory.
-
Capitalism’s Transformability
Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism posited that capitalism possessed the capacity for self-reform. He argued that state intervention, labor legislation, and collective bargaining could mitigate the system’s inherent inequalities and exploitative tendencies. Lenin, however, viewed capitalism as fundamentally unreformable. He maintained that the state, regardless of its democratic faade, served the interests of the bourgeoisie and would actively resist any attempt to undermine its power. Consequently, Lenin rejected the notion that gradual reforms could fundamentally alter the nature of capitalism or pave the way for socialism. Lenin believed that capitalism was not capable of being reformed and needed to be eliminated and not adjusted.
-
Necessity of Revolution
A core tenet of Lenin’s ideology was the necessity of a revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist state. He believed that the bourgeoisie would never willingly relinquish power and that only a violent revolution could dismantle the capitalist system and establish a socialist society. Bernstein’s evolutionary socialism, with its emphasis on gradual reform, directly challenged this revolutionary imperative. By advocating for a peaceful transition to socialism, Bernstein implicitly denied the necessity of revolutionary action and, in Lenin’s view, undermined the fundamental principles of Marxism. Lenin argued that Bernstein’s ideas were a dangerous deviation from the path of true socialism.
-
Class Struggle’s Significance
Lenin perceived class struggle as an intrinsic and intensifying feature of capitalist society. He viewed capitalism as a system characterized by fundamental antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, an antagonism that would inevitably lead to revolution. Bernstein, conversely, argued that class struggle was becoming less intense as capitalism evolved, with the rise of a middle class and improved living standards for workers. Lenin considered Bernstein’s underestimation of class struggle as a betrayal of Marxist principles, arguing that it obscured the inherent contradictions of capitalism and weakened the resolve of the working class to fight for its liberation. A key element was the constant pressure of classes that were in conflict.
-
Role of the State
Lenin viewed the state as an instrument of class rule, serving the interests of the dominant class. He rejected the notion that the existing state apparatus could be used to gradually transition to socialism. Bernstein, however, believed that the state could be gradually transformed into an instrument of social justice through democratic means. Lenin saw this as a dangerous illusion, arguing that the state would always remain a tool of oppression in the hands of the bourgeoisie. He emphasized that only a proletarian state, established through revolution, could truly serve the interests of the working class and build a socialist society. Lenin believed the state could never act as a true neutral party.
In conclusion, Lenin’s rejection of evolutionary socialism was rooted in his fundamental disagreement with Bernstein regarding the nature of capitalism, the necessity of revolution, the significance of class struggle, and the role of the state. Lenin viewed Bernstein’s ideas as a dangerous form of revisionism that threatened to undermine the revolutionary goals of Marxism and perpetuate the exploitation of the working class. This ideological chasm ultimately shaped the divergent paths taken by socialist movements throughout the 20th century, with some embracing Lenin’s revolutionary approach and others pursuing Bernstein’s reformist strategy. The disagreement about evolutionary change and if it was viable was a large point of contention between them.
7. Orthodox Marxism adherence
Vladimir Lenin’s unwavering adherence to orthodox Marxism served as a primary catalyst for his profound disagreement with Eduard Bernstein. This fidelity to core Marxist tenets informed Lenin’s critique of Bernstein’s revisionist interpretations and shaped his revolutionary approach to achieving socialism. Orthodox Marxism, as understood by Lenin, provided a framework for analyzing capitalism’s inherent contradictions and prescribing a specific course of action for its overthrow.
-
Materialist Conception of History
Lenin’s adherence to the materialist conception of history, a cornerstone of orthodox Marxism, led him to view societal development as primarily driven by economic forces and class struggles. This perspective contrasted sharply with Bernstein’s more nuanced view, which acknowledged the role of ethical considerations and the potential for gradual progress within the capitalist system. Lenin believed that capitalism’s inherent contradictions, arising from its material base, would inevitably lead to its collapse, necessitating a revolutionary transformation. Bernstein, in contrast, saw the potential for capitalism to evolve and mitigate its negative consequences, reducing the intensity of class conflict. Lenin, believing in the materialist conception of history, did not think society would evolve past the current stage.
-
Theory of Surplus Value and Exploitation
Lenin’s unwavering acceptance of Marx’s theory of surplus value and exploitation reinforced his conviction that capitalism was fundamentally unjust and irredeemable. He viewed the capitalist system as inherently exploitative, with capitalists extracting surplus value from the labor of the proletariat. This exploitation, in Lenin’s view, could not be eliminated through gradual reforms but required a revolutionary transformation of the economic system. Bernstein, while acknowledging the existence of exploitation, believed that it could be reduced through state intervention, labor legislation, and collective bargaining. His more moderate approach to exploitation was seen as a key point of disagreement.
-
The Inevitability of Class Struggle and Revolution
Orthodox Marxism, as interpreted by Lenin, emphasized the inevitability of class struggle and revolution as the driving forces of historical change. Lenin believed that the inherent contradictions of capitalism would inevitably lead to intensified class conflict and ultimately result in a proletarian revolution. Bernstein, however, argued that class struggle was becoming less intense in advanced capitalist societies and that socialism could be achieved through gradual, peaceful means. Lenin viewed Bernstein’s rejection of revolutionary inevitability as a betrayal of Marxist principles and a dangerous form of opportunism. It was seen as imperative for there to be a revolution to transform the economic system.
-
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Lenin’s commitment to the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a state in which the working class holds political power, further fueled his disagreement with Bernstein. Lenin viewed the dictatorship of the proletariat as an essential transitional phase between capitalism and communism, necessary to suppress the resistance of the overthrown bourgeoisie and build a socialist society. Bernstein, however, rejected the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as incompatible with democratic principles and advocated for a gradual transition to socialism through democratic means. This difference reflected fundamental disagreements regarding the nature of the state, the intensity of class struggle, and the appropriate means for achieving a socialist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat was seen as an absolute essential step that Lenin refused to part with.
In conclusion, Lenin’s adherence to orthodox Marxism provided the ideological framework for his critique of Bernstein’s revisionist socialism. His unwavering belief in the materialist conception of history, the theory of surplus value, the inevitability of class struggle, and the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat shaped his revolutionary approach and fueled his profound disagreement with Bernstein’s more gradual and reformist vision. This adherence to orthodox Marxism cemented Lenin’s place as a revolutionary figure, distinct from Bernstein’s more evolutionary approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the ideological divergence between Vladimir Lenin and Eduard Bernstein, focusing on the fundamental reasons for their disagreement.
Question 1: What were the core tenets of Bernstein’s revisionism that Lenin opposed?
Bernstein advocated for evolutionary socialism, suggesting capitalism could evolve into socialism through gradual reforms. He dismissed the necessity of violent revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, tenets Lenin vehemently defended.
Question 2: How did Lenin’s view of capitalism differ from Bernstein’s?
Lenin saw capitalism as inherently exploitative and crisis-prone, requiring revolutionary overthrow. Bernstein believed capitalism could be reformed and made more equitable through state intervention and labor movements.
Question 3: Why did Lenin insist on the necessity of revolution?
Lenin believed the state, even in democratic societies, was an instrument of class rule serving the bourgeoisie. He argued peaceful reforms were insufficient to dismantle capitalism and establish socialism, necessitating a revolutionary seizure of power.
Question 4: What role did the concept of class struggle play in their disagreement?
Lenin viewed class struggle as an intensifying and fundamental aspect of capitalism, inevitably leading to revolution. Bernstein argued that class struggle was diminishing, allowing for gradual progress through parliamentary means.
Question 5: What was Lenin’s perspective on the dictatorship of the proletariat?
Lenin considered the dictatorship of the proletariat a crucial transitional phase after revolution, necessary to suppress the overthrown bourgeoisie and build a socialist society. Bernstein rejected this concept as incompatible with democratic principles.
Question 6: How did their differing views impact socialist movements?
Their disagreement led to a schism within the socialist movement. Some embraced Lenin’s revolutionary approach, while others pursued Bernstein’s reformist strategy, resulting in divergent paths and outcomes in various historical contexts.
The fundamental divergence between Lenin and Bernstein stemmed from contrasting interpretations of Marxism, assessments of capitalism, and strategies for achieving socialism. These differences shaped the trajectory of socialist movements and continue to be relevant in contemporary political discourse.
This concludes the frequently asked questions section. The following section will delve deeper into the historical implications of this disagreement.
Examining Lenin’s Disagreement with Bernstein
Comprehending the dispute between Lenin and Bernstein requires careful examination of several key factors that illuminate the ideological chasm separating these two figures.
Tip 1: Analyze Differing Interpretations of Marxism: Explore how Lenin and Bernstein interpreted core Marxist concepts like historical materialism, surplus value, and the inevitability of revolution. Understanding these divergent interpretations is fundamental to grasping the root of their disagreement.
Tip 2: Assess Contrasting Views on Capitalism: Investigate Lenin’s perception of capitalism as inherently exploitative and crisis-prone, in contrast to Bernstein’s belief that capitalism could evolve and become more equitable through reforms. This difference in assessing the fundamental nature of capitalism is crucial.
Tip 3: Scrutinize Positions on the State’s Role: Evaluate Lenin’s view of the state as an instrument of class rule, necessitating revolutionary overthrow, against Bernstein’s belief in the state’s potential for democratic transformation. This divergence on the state’s role reveals a key ideological fault line.
Tip 4: Investigate Class Struggle Evaluations: Contrast Lenin’s emphasis on intensifying class struggle as a driving force of history with Bernstein’s argument that class struggle was diminishing, allowing for gradual progress. Assessing their different takes on class struggle’s intensity is important.
Tip 5: Understand Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Analyze Lenin’s insistence on the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a transitional phase, versus Bernstein’s rejection of this concept as incompatible with democracy. The disagreement here is of core importance.
Tip 6: Recognize Evolutionary Socialism and its Meaning: Comprehend what is Evolutionary Socialism. What part did it play on both ideologies. The importance of the historical analysis of the topic is critical to the topic.
By carefully considering these factors, a comprehensive understanding of the reasons for Lenin’s disagreement with Bernstein can be achieved. The contrasting viewpoints shed light on the complexities of socialist thought and the divergent paths pursued by socialist movements in the 20th century.
These insights provide a solid foundation for further exploration of the historical and theoretical implications of this fundamental disagreement.
Conclusion
The exploration of why did Lenin disagree with Bernstein reveals a fundamental divergence in ideological outlook and strategic approach. The disagreement centered on differing interpretations of Marxist theory, assessments of capitalism’s inherent nature, and the appropriate path toward achieving socialism. Lenin, adhering to orthodox Marxism, viewed capitalism as inherently exploitative and crisis-prone, necessitating revolutionary overthrow. He emphasized the importance of class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Bernstein, advocating for evolutionary socialism, believed capitalism could be reformed and that socialism could be achieved through gradual, democratic means.
The historical significance of why did Lenin disagree with Bernstein lies in the profound schism it created within the socialist movement. The debate shaped the trajectory of socialist movements throughout the 20th century, influencing the course of revolutions and the development of social democratic parties. Understanding this disagreement is crucial for comprehending the complexities of socialist thought and the diverse strategies employed in the pursuit of social justice. Its importance should not be understated.
