100 years after the Russian Revolution, the official media like to present the main social democratic factions of the time as opposing "democratic" Mensheviks and hardline Bolsheviks under the "dictatorship" of Lenin.

This description, however, does not stand up to criticism, if you just dig deeper. To understand the dynamics and ideological struggles that took place in Russian social democracy, it is necessary to trace the development of the party from its very creation in 1898.

Because of economic backwardness In Russia, it was no coincidence that the Russian Social Democratic Party was formed only in 1898, much later than its “sisters” in the West. Unlike Western Europe, Russian capitalist development delayed, but “jumped” over the period of capital accumulation and development petty bourgeoisie from artisans, as happened in other countries. Instead, villages living almost under serfdom existed side by side with new huge urban factories and relatively modern army. For example, at that time in Russia there were twice as many workers large factories than in Germany.

Russian Social Democrats agreed that the expected Russian revolution should be of a “bourgeois-democratic” character. It was understood, however, that the issues that urgently needed to be resolved for the development of Russia included the elimination of the power of the feudal lords, the implementation of land reform, the solution national question, implying that royal Russia will cease to put pressure on other nations, modernize legislation and the economy, as well as democratize society. After the first failed Russian Revolution in 1905, however, there was great disagreement about HOW such a revolution should take place.

The first split, however, occurred at the party congress in 1903, which was held in London, since many leading party members were forced to leave the country. The split that later led to the emergence of "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks" occurred over issues that were then regarded as insignificant. For example, they argued about who should be considered a party member. Martov proposed the following definition: “Everyone who accepts its program and supports the party, both with material means and through personal assistance in one of the party organizations,” is considered a member of the Russian Social Democratic Party.”

Context

The cruel age of Bolshevism

HlídacíPes.org 01/15/2017

L"Occidentale 02/22/2012

So the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the very idea of ​​God

Il Giornale 11/25/2009
Lenin's definition was distinguished by its emphasis on Active participation in the work of the party, by which he emphasized the importance of party building and expressed dissatisfaction with the intelligentsia, who had great influence on the party, but did not want to be involved in its practical work, since it was risky and carried out underground.

Another political disagreement concerned Lenin's proposal to reduce the editorial committee of the party newspaper Iskra and not re-elect veterans such as Zasulich and Axelrod. In voting on this, Lenin received the support of the majority, after which his group began to be called Bolsheviks, and Martov’s group - Mensheviks. Leon Trotsky, who considered that Lenin was acting “ruthlessly,” took the side of the Mensheviks at the congress in 1904, but already in the same 1904 he broke with them and until the revolution of 1917 he belonged to his own separate faction.

However, the Social Democrats were still one party, and at home, in Russia, this split had less significance and was perceived by many members as a “storm in a teacup.” Even Lenin believed that the differences were insignificant. When the veteran Plekhanov (who spread Marxism in Russia) sided with Martov in the dispute, Lenin wrote: “I will say first of all that the author of the article [Plekhanov] is a thousand times right, in my opinion, when he insists on the need to protect the unity of the party and avoid new splits, especially due to differences that cannot be considered significant. The call for peace, gentleness and compliance is highly commendable on the part of a leader in general and at this moment in particular.” Lenin also advocated opening party publications to different opinions, “to enable these groups to speak out, and for the entire party to decide whether these differences are important or unimportant, and to determine where, how and who is being inconsistent.”

Lenin's response to the 1903 debate is an excellent response to claims that he is a tough leader. Contrary to the image they are trying to create modern media, Lenin criticized the Mensheviks and Martov when they boycotted working together, and wanted to continue the discussion without further division. And Lenin did not have unlimited power in Bolshevik circles. Many times Lenin complained about the actions of the Bolsheviks, without trying to respond to them with any penalties. For example, he criticized the Bolsheviks for not having a positive enough attitude towards the workers' councils formed during the 1905 revolution, in which Trotsky played a leading role.

The Revolution of 1905 meant that the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks would once again stand shoulder to shoulder in the struggle for common demands: the eight-hour working day, amnesty for political prisoners, civil rights and a constituent assembly, and the cause of defending the revolution from the Tsarist bloody counter-revolution. This made the need to unite the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks even more urgent, so in 1906 in Stockholm and in 1907 in London, the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks gathered at “unification” congresses.

Criticisms against Lenin and the Bolshevik party building often refer to "democratic centralism", but the fact is that the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks at the 1906 congress had the same opinion regarding this principle, which implied unity in the final actions of complete freedom during the discussion.

Lenin wrote in 1906: “In our opinion deep conviction, the workers of a social democratic organization must be united, but in these united organizations there must be a wide range of free discussion of party issues, free comradely criticism and assessment of the phenomena of party life. (...) We all agreed on the principle of democratic centralism, on ensuring the rights of every minority and every loyal opposition, on the autonomy of every party organization, on the recognition of the election, accountability and removability of all party officials.”

Already at the general congress of 1906, however, it became clear that the defeat of the revolution had significantly increased the ideological differences in the ranks of the Social Democrats. The Mensheviks concluded that since the tasks of the revolution were bourgeois-democratic, then the working class and its organizations must submit to the “progressive bourgeoisie” and support them on the path to power and against the tsar. “The seizure of power is obligatory for us when we make a proletarian revolution. And since the revolution now facing us can only be petty-bourgeois, we are obliged to refuse to seize power,” said the Menshevik Plekhanov at the 1906 congress.

At the same time, the Bolsheviks studied history and saw how the bourgeoisie often, out of fear of the revolutionary masses, turned against the revolution. This was evident in the German revolution in 1848, and especially in the events since Paris Commune in 1870-71, when the French bourgeoisie even preferred to surrender to the Prussian army rather than allow the people to arm themselves.

Therefore, the Bolsheviks believed that the working class should form independent organization and, with the support of the peasants, become the only force that can lead the movement and achieve the goals of the bourgeois revolution, which in turn can inspire a socialist revolution in the more developed capitalist West. This theory found expression in Lenin's formulation of the “democratic dictatorship of workers and peasants.”

Leon Trotsky, who in 1905 was the leader of the new and powerful Soviet in Petrograd (modern St. Petersburg), shared general provisions Bolsheviks, but approached them more specifically. He emphasized the weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and its dependence on the Tsar, feudalism and Western capitalism. All this made the bourgeoisie completely unable to carry out any reforms that would threaten the tsar, landowners or imperialism.

The only class that was capable of bringing about such changes, Trotsky believed, was the working class, formed and united on the factory floor and capable of enlisting the support of the peasants in the villages and in the army.

But unlike the Bolsheviks, Trotsky made it clear that the working class, after the revolution and the implementation of bourgeois reforms, would not be able to “bring back” the power of the bourgeoisie, but would “be forced” to move on, continuing to “permanently” carry out socialist reforms. For example, the nationalization of large enterprises and banks under the democratic control of working class organizations. Thus, the socialist revolution could take place in less developed country before this happens in the more developed Western capitalist countries. Capitalism "will burst at its core" weak link" This theory of “permanent revolution” would be confirmed with mystical accuracy during the 1917 revolution.

Despite the fact that Trotsky largely agreed with the Bolsheviks regarding the tasks of the socialists and the role of the working class in the coming revolution, there were still many disagreements about party building. Trotsky still hoped (and this was a mistake, as he himself later admitted) that during the new revolutionary period some of the Mensheviks could be convinced, and did everything to keep the party united, even if only formally.

Lenin and his supporters believed that such unity only created unfounded illusions, and that in this difficult period, when socialists were heavily suppressed and constantly sent to prison after the 1905 revolution, the new Marxists should not have entered into discussions with those who had abandoned construction plans independent organizations for the working class.

After several attempts at unification, in 1912 the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks finally split.

But even in 1912, the Bolsheviks were not some kind of “hard” party united under the leadership of Lenin. Lenin's criticism of the Menshevik liquidators (those who refused to develop the party due to the fact that under the dictatorship it had to be done underground) was removed from the Bolshevik newspaper Pravda, and Bolshevik representatives in the Duma spoke out in favor of uniting with the liquidators.

Despite strong resistance from Lenin, in February 1917 the Bolsheviks submitted to the capitalist government, which replaced the Tsar and, among other things, continued the war. Thus, in fact, the Bolsheviks pursued a Menshevik policy.

Only in April, when Lenin returned to Russia and was ready to be in opposition even “one against 110”, thanks to the support of the broad masses, he managed to secure the agreement of most of the Bolsheviks that it was necessary to stop “critical” support for the provisional government.

But even before October uprising The famous Bolsheviks Zinoviev and Kamenev also publicly protested against plans to transfer power to the workers through the Soviets.

Trotsky's group, however, became increasingly close to the Bolsheviks, and when Trotsky returned to Russia in May 1917 after his flight to New York, no political differences no longer existed and the groups merged in July 1917.

When the Russian Revolution broke out in February, it came as a surprise to many revolutionaries how powerful the protests were and how quickly they moved.

In theory, the various lines crystallized after 1905, and with the return of Lenin and the support of Trotsky, the working class had a pole around which to gather.

The events of 1917 justified the ideas of Lenin and Trotsky about the development of the situation and strengthened the Bolsheviks.

All more people realized that their program to seize power by the working class was absolutely necessary to fulfill the revolution's demands for "peace, bread and land."

So when the Bolsheviks found themselves at the head of the October Revolution of 1917, it was not the result of a coup carried out by a brutal Bolshevik party, but the result of the struggle of workers and peasants for a political program, which was formed during the disputes of Russian revolutionaries from the very moment of the dress rehearsal of the revolution.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

The split of the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks occurred at the Second Congress of the RSDLP (July 1903, Brussels - London). Then at the elections central authorities party, supporters of Yu. O. Martov were in the minority, and supporters of V. I. Lenin were in the majority. The Bolsheviks headed for the hegemony of the proletariat in the approaching revolution. Lenin wanted to create a united, militant, clearly organized, disciplined proletarian party, which would be the vanguard of the working class. Thus, the Bolsheviks sought to create a party of professional revolutionaries, while the Mensheviks feared the criminalization of the party. The Martovites stood for a freer association and were oriented towards the liberal bourgeoisie. History has shown that the fears of the Mensheviks were completely justified, for the “avant-garde of the working class” immediately turned into an uncontrollable, cruel caste standing above the state, which alienated itself from the people in general and the proletariat in particular and unleashed unprecedented terror.

Unlike the Bolsheviks, who called themselves that way (officially since 1917) until XIX Congress CPSU, the word “Menshevik” (used by Lenin in articles of 1905) has always been informal - the party has always called itself social democratic. The Mensheviks did not advocate the establishment of a proletarian dictatorship in the upcoming revolution; they are not famous for such historical figures like V.I. Lenin and I.V. Stalin (L.D. Trotsky began to play a major historical role, when he became a Bolshevik, because he was originally a Menshevik, trying to attract more members to the party), but their ideological and theoretical level, as a rule, was higher than the Bolshevik. The Mensheviks believed that the proletariat must act in coalition with the liberal bourgeoisie against the autocracy in Russia.

In 1905-1907, the Mensheviks took an active part in leading the mass labor movement, the Soviets of Workers' Deputies, in the activities of the State Duma, trade unions, and also participated in the armed struggle against the authorities. After the defeat of the 1905 revolution, some of the Mensheviks decided to break with underground work forever, receiving the name “liquidators,” that is, people ready to liquidate the old illegal Social Democratic Party. The “liquidators” were opposed by groups of Mensheviks, called “Menshevik party members,” who demanded to preserve the illegal Social Democratic Party at any cost (Plekhanov became their leader).

On October 25, 1917, the Central Committee of the RSDLP adopted a resolution declaring “the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks through a military conspiracy as violence against the will of democracy and the usurpation of the rights of the people.” The main task of the moment was put forward “the unity of all proletarian and democratic forces to prevent a pogrom of the revolution or the complete triumph of anarchy and to counter the onslaught of counter-revolution.” On October 31, the Central Committee of the RSDLP decided to “take part in an attempt to organize a homogeneous government, including socialist parties from the people's socialists to the Bolsheviks."

In April 1918, the Central Committee of the RSDLP decided: taking into account that at present the party “is the only all-Russian mass social-democratic workers’ party” and that “it is it that more and more embraces all workers’ organizations standing on the basis of social democracy,” call it the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, without additions like “Mensheviks”.

On June 14, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK), accusing the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks of “organizing armed uprisings against workers and peasants in alliance with obvious counter-revolutionaries,” decided to expel them from the Soviets at all levels. Mass arrests of movement participants took place in Petrograd and Moscow. In August 1918, the Central Committee of the RSDLP officially announced the inadmissibility of party members participating in armed protests against Soviet power, as well as in anti-Bolshevik governments. On November 30, 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee canceled its decision of June 14 regarding the Mensheviks, based on the fact that “this party, at least in the person of its leadership center, has now abandoned the alliance (coalition) with bourgeois parties and groups, both Russian and foreign.” But at the end of March 1919, a new wave of arrests of Mensheviks began. A special resolution adopted by the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) in May 1920 put an end to hopes for the resumption of the legal Menshevik press. The following month, the Politburo ordered all people's commissars to send to the provinces Mensheviks "working in commissariats and capable of playing a political role in any way." A month later, the Cheka received instructions to “develop a plan for the resettlement of Menshevik political leaders for their political neutralization.” The occupation of Kyiv by the Red Army led to the trial of members of the Kyiv committee of the RSDLP, who were accused of collaborating with Denikin; after the occupation of Odessa, there was a general arrest of Odessa members of the RSDLP.

A new wave of repression was caused by the successes of the Mensheviks in the elections to the Soviets in 1920 - so almost all members of the Kharkov party organization were arrested. The resolution of the Politburo of the RCP (b) “On the Mensheviks”, adopted in December 1921, prescribed “ political activity prevent them, paying special attention to eradicating their influence in industrial centers. The most active ones should be administratively expelled to non-proletarian centers, depriving them of the right to hold elected positions, and in general positions related to communication with the broad masses.” A month later, returning to this issue, the Politburo decided: “Intensify repressions against the Mensheviks and instruct our courts to strengthen them.”

After the arrests in the second half of 1922, the RSDLP as an all-Russian organization virtually ceased to exist. The surviving organizations were limited to rare and narrowly composed conspiratorial meetings. At a meeting of local organizations of the RSDLP in October 1922, it was decided to go underground. By the end of 1923, Menshevik organizations operated in only eight cities. The last of them were defeated in 1924-1925.

In the spring of 1931, 14 people from the supposedly existing “Union Bureau of the Menshevik Central Committee” were put on trial in Moscow. From March 1 to March 9, 1931, they heard a set of standard accusations: from the collapse of the Soviet economy to the establishment of links with the governments of the imperialist powers. During the “Great Terror” of 1936-1938, many former Mensheviks were shot. Nevertheless, some Mensheviks who officially changed their beliefs managed to survive and even achieve significant positions.

conclusions

Having decisively broken away from the revisionist Social Democrats, the revolutionary Marxists of Russia also dissociated themselves from the moderate Mensheviks, calling themselves “Bolsheviks.” Pluralism was deeply alien to Lenin, Trotsky and their comrades. The promise of “democracy for the vast majority” turned out to be false from the very beginning. The “vanguard of the working class” very quickly turned into a closed caste, where no dissent was tolerated: those who disagreed were expelled and then subjected to repression, even to the point of extermination. Thus, the insane cruelty of the Russian communists appeared immediately after the October Revolution as the basis of their worldview and therefore cannot be explained by “excesses” and “personality cults.”

The difference between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks is simple. (They are all social democrats) Bolsheviks stayed the course for the development of the revolution, for the overthrow of tsarism through an armed uprising, for the hegemony of the working class, for the isolation of the cadet bourgeoisie, for an alliance with the peasantry, for the creation of a provisional revolutionary government from representatives of workers and peasants, for bringing the revolution to a victorious end. Mensheviks-to curtail the revolution. Instead of overthrowing tsarism by uprising, they proposed its reform And "improvement" , instead of the hegemony of the proletariat - hegemony of the liberal bourgeoisie, instead of an alliance with the peasantry - alliance with the cadet bourgeoisie, instead of a provisional revolutionary government - State Duma as the center "revolutionary forces" countries. This center of the country's revolutionary forces is especially striking. It's still a mess in our heads if you believe it. Lenin put forward his theory after 1907. According to this theory, the main thing is the revolution of the union of workers and peasants, in order to avoid capitalism. For its success, there was no need (or even possibility) to wait for capitalism in Russia to exhaust its potential as an engine in the development of productive forces. And most importantly, in the specific historical conditions of Russia, a certain catastrophe threatened the path of liberal-bourgeois statehood. That's why The Bolsheviks set a course for revolution and Soviet power. And isn't Lenin right? Tell me one criterion of the foundation for the development of capitalism in Russia, at least one. Will you name it? You, as adults, understand that capitalism is a derivative of Protestantism and a certain mentality created by Protestantism. This is, if you like, a special view of the world, the role of man in history, faith, collectivism, and...
Let's leave historiosophy alone.
The Bolsheviks generally went so far as to deny patriotism. Here's a populist for you M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky:-“Socialism is a cosmopolitan doctrine, standing above nationalities: for a socialist, the difference between nationalities disappears, there is only the people”. Populist P.L. Lavrov: - “Nationality in itself “is not the enemy of socialism as modern state; this is nothing more than an occasional aid or an occasional hindrance to the activities of socialism.” Narodnik L. N. Tkachev: - "a socialist... on the one hand... must promote everything that is conducive to the removal of barriers dividing peoples, everything that smoothes and weakens national characteristics; on the other hand, he must most energetically oppose everything that strengthens and develops these features. And he cannot do otherwise."
As you can see, cosmopolitanism grew and expanded. This cosmopolitanism developed within the framework of socialism (both foreign and domestic) was not accidental. He was conditioned the idea of ​​the predominance of the social principle. And this idea is constantly heard today - OPPORTUNISM, BY THE WAY! What's a fact? Various community groups V different countries and at different nations same. Everywhere has its own aristocracy, its own merchants, its own hired workers. Differences between them determines national specifics which is protected by the state. It is the state, towering above social groups with their narrow interests, is able to see and express what is common to the aristocrat, the entrepreneur and the worker. This commonality distinguishes them from aristocrats, entrepreneurs and workers who belong to other people. If either society rises above the state ( socialism), or a group of its individuals ( liberalism), then peoples cease to notice the difference between social groups in their own country and abroad. They will inevitably strive for cosmopolitan intermingling. And parties that put forward the idea of ​​​​the predominance of the public or personal principle will inevitably act as cosmopolitan parties. Is the process clear? Is it clear why there is so much resistance from nationalities? And here the very question arises to which the anarchists were looking for an answer - what is the state then?
Group "Liberation of Labor", led by former populist G.V. Plekhanov - the beginning of the RSDLP in Russia. In 1898, the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic workers' party(RSDLP). This is the same Plekhanov who knew Marx and Engels by heart, and yet, no matter how he sought a meeting with his idol, it was all in vain. The theorist is still forgotten today and deservedly so. But he went down in history as the founder of Marxism in the country. And that's enough for him. It was from here that the legs of the future Trotskyism grew - adherents of the present, without cuts, Marxism. The victory of the socialist revolution is possible only after capitalism has completely exhausted its potential and transformed the majority into the proletariat. (An excellent mechanism for protecting capitalism - and when I wrote articles about Marxism, they often answered that it was created precisely for this. I think I refuted such a belief then) Only after this will the proletarian majority quite easily overthrow the bourgeoisie. ( "Right" wing of the RSDLP, "Mensheviks" G. V. Plekhanov, P. B. Akselrod, Yu. O. Martov-The period of development of capitalism must be quite long. Long time power must belong to the bourgeoisie, which will overthrow the autocracy with the help of the working class (the Mensheviks did not consider the peasantry a revolutionary force) and carry out the necessary liberal-democratic transformations)

And there was such a one "centrist"-L. D. Trotsky, who had no hope at all for either the bourgeoisie or the peasantry. He placed his aspirations only on the Western proletariat. It begs the question of the Socialist Revolutionary. There is no way without him. IN 1901-1906 The Socialist Revolutionary Party (AKP) is formed, the leaders are V. M. Chernov, N. D. Avksentyev). Unlike the old populists, the Socialist Revolutionaries recognized that Russia had nevertheless entered the capitalist period of its development. But at the same time they believed that capitalism itself affected Russian society very superficial. This is especially true in villages where the community and small peasant farming, for the most part, are labor-based, are preserved. It is in the agrarian sphere that new socialist relations will be born, which will become possible thanks to the nationalization of land, its equal distribution and subsequent cooperation. Throughout their existence, various leftists and "rights" groups, of which there were many (maximalists, socialist-revolutionary internationalists, popular socialists).
But now I don’t see stories about how the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were much to the left of the Bolsheviks, who, in order to maintain their power, were forced to increase their influence state mechanisms. These same people were in favor of weakening the state in favor of public structures. At the same time, the Socialist-Revolutionaries-Mensheviks even reproached the Bolsheviks for the revival of autocracy and national isolationism (according to them, the movement towards socialism was possible only as a movement of the entire world proletariat, which had yet to be fully formed). So that's not all. Their particular rage was caused by the use in the Red Army of military specialists who began their careers back in tsarist time. In this they "Pertrotsky style" Trotsky himself, who (for reasons of pragmatism) was a supporter of the active involvement of specialists. At the meeting All-Russian Central Executive Committee of April 22, 1918 offer Trotsky on the use of officers and generals old army was met with criticism as "left communists", so "right" Mensheviks. The leaders of the latter, F. Dan and Martov, accused the Bolsheviks of almost forming a bloc with "counter-revolutionary military". A Martov I actually suspected Trotsky is that it clears the way for Kornilov.
Let's open a Menshevik newspaper "Forward" for April 1918. “Alien from the very beginning of a truly proletarian character, the policy of Soviet power in Lately increasingly openly takes the path of agreement with the bourgeoisie and takes on a clearly anti-worker character... This policy threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main gains in economic field and make him a victim of unlimited exploitation by the bourgeoisie.” Oh how!

And now what is Soviet socialism? What really happened in the USSR?...

Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, until a certain point, were considered members of the same party - the RSDLP. The first officially declared their independence shortly before the October Revolution.

But the actual split of the RSDLP began 5 years after its formation.

What is the RSDLP?

Russian Social Democratic Labor Party in 1898 united many supporters of socialism.

It was formed in Minsk at a meeting of previously disparate political circles. Big role G.V. Plekhanov played a role in its creation.

Participants of the disintegrated “Land and Freedom” and “Black Redistribution” entered here. Members of the RSDLP considered their goal to be upholding the interests of workers, democracy, and helping the least affluent segments of the population. The basis of the ideology of this party was Marxism, the fight against tsarism and bureaucracy.

At the beginning of its existence, it was a relatively unified organization, not divided into factions. However, contradictions quickly emerged on many issues among the main leaders and their supporters. Some of the most prominent representatives of the party were V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov, Yu. O. Martov, L. V. Trotsky, P. B. Axelrod. Many of them were on the editorial board of the Iskra newspaper.

RSDLP: the formation of two currents

Decay political unification occurred in 1903, on Second Congress of Delegates. This event happened spontaneously and the reasons for it seemed minor to some, even to the point of disputes over several sentences in the documents.

In fact, the formation of factions was inevitable and had long been brewing due to the ambitions of some members of the RSDLP, especially Lenin, and the deep-seated contradictions within the movement itself.

There were several issues on the agenda of the congress, such as powers of the Bund(associations of Jewish Social Democrats), the composition of the editorial board of Iskra, the establishment of the Party Charter, the agrarian question and others.

Heated discussions took place on many aspects. Those gathered were divided on Lenin's supporters and those who supported Martov. The first were more determined, they promoted revolution, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the distribution of land to the peasants, and strict discipline within the organization. The Martovites were more moderate.

At first this resulted in lengthy discussions about the wording in the Charter, the attitude towards the Bund, towards the bourgeoisie. The congress lasted several weeks, and the discussions were so heated that many moderate Social Democrats left it on principle.

Largely thanks to this, those who supported Lenin found themselves in the majority and their proposals were accepted. Since then, Lenin called his like-minded people at the second congress of the RSDLP Bolsheviks, and the Martovites - Mensheviks.

The name “Bolsheviks” turned out to be successful, it stuck and began to be used in the official abbreviation of the faction. It was also beneficial from a propaganda point of view, since it created the illusion that Leninists were always in the majority, although this was often not true.

The name “Mensheviks” remained unofficial. Martov's supporters are still called themselves the RSDLP.

How do the Bolsheviks differ from the Mensheviks?

The main difference is in the methods of achieving goals. The Bolsheviks were more radical, resorted to terror, considered revolution the only way the overthrow of autocracy and the triumph of socialism. There were also other differences:

1. There was a rigid organization in the Leninist faction. It accepted people who were ready for active struggle, and not just propaganda. Lenin tried to exterminate political competitors.
2. The Bolsheviks sought to seize power, while the Mensheviks were cautious about this - an unsuccessful policy could compromise the party.
3. The Mensheviks were inclined towards an alliance with the bourgeoisie and denied the transfer of all land into state ownership.
4. The Mensheviks promoted changes in society through reforms, not revolution. At the same time, their slogans were not as convincing and understandable to the general population as the Bolsheviks.
5. There were also differences between the two factions in their composition: the majority of the Marchers were skilled workers, petty bourgeois, students, and members of the intelligentsia. The Bolshevik wing largely included the poorest, revolutionary-minded people.

The further fate of the factions

After the Second Congress of the RSDLP, the political programs of the Leninists and the Martovites became increasingly different from each other. Both factions participated in the revolution of 1905, and this event united the Leninists more, and divided the Mensheviks into several more groups.

After the creation of the Duma, a small number of Mensheviks were part of it. But this caused even greater damage to the faction's reputation. These people had little influence on decision-making, but responsibility for their consequences fell on their shoulders.

The Bolsheviks completely separated from the RSDLP in 1917, before the October Revolution. After the coup, the RSDLP opposed them with harsh methods, so persecution began against its members, many of them, for example Martov, went abroad.

Since the mid-20s of the last century, the Menshevik party has practically ceased to exist.

RUSSIAN REVOLUTION: HISTORY LESSONS*

The Rise and Fall of the Mensheviks

Interviewed by Oleg Nazarov

What role did the Mensheviks play in the events of 1917? Why did moderate European-style socialists ultimately lose to their more radical brethren, the Bolsheviks? The deputy director of the Institute told the “Historian” about this Russian history RAS, doctor historical sciences Dmitry PAVLOV.

It would seem that 1917 opened up broad political horizons for the Mensheviks. In days February Revolution they took key positions in the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, and in May they also became part of the Provisional Government. Moreover, if in May 1917 the ranks of the Menshevik Party consisted of at least 50 thousand members, then by August its number increased to 190 thousand people. But then the pendulum went in the opposite direction.

SIAMESE TWINS

– On the eve of the February Revolution, were the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks factions of the united Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) or had they already become independent parties, although they had not formalized a “divorce”?

– The RSDLP with its two factions can be compared to Siamese twins. This two-headed creature was born in 1903 at the Second Party Congress. The separation process turned out to be long, difficult and gradual. In 1912, each faction held its own conference: the Bolsheviks did so in January in Prague, the Mensheviks in Vienna in August. Both there and there were created governing bodies parties. This is how the separation, so to speak, of the “heads” of these conjoined twins. Then the factions of the RSDLP at the top level acted independently, including being represented in State Duma, but the “body” of the party largely continued to remain united. In May 1917, an all-party conference of Mensheviks was held in Petrograd. It was attended by both delegates from 50 thousand members of local Menshevik committees, and representatives from 9 thousand Social Democrats who were members of Bolshevik-Menshevik organizations. As we can see, even by the spring of 1917 there were still quite a lot of such united organizations. The final division of the party “body” occurred in the summer of 1917, but in subsequent years the initial kinship of the factions made itself felt. Veterans of the Social Democratic movement were united by a common revolutionary past, years of exile and prison, many years of friendly and sometimes family ties.

– What fundamentally distinguished the Mensheviks from the Bolsheviks?

– In spirit, in preferences, in the way of action, the Mensheviks were much closer than the Bolsheviks to Western European social democracy. Unlike the Bolsheviks, they considered the party primarily a union of like-minded people. The Mensheviks sought not to replace the proletariat with political arena actions of professional revolutionaries, but to educate the workers themselves, organize, and develop amateur activities. This is where the Mensheviks’ desire for Duma work and participation in the trade union movement stemmed. Cooperatives, health insurance funds, insurance companies, and later Soviets - this is another favorite area of ​​their activity. During the First World War, the Mensheviks were active in military-industrial committees.

THE RSDLP WITH ITS TWO FRACTIONS – BOLSHEVIKS AND MENSHEVIKS – CAN BE COMPARED TO SIAMESE TWINS

– What are the strengths and weaknesses of ideology and practical activities Mensheviks?

“Their strength was that they thought about the moral aspect of political activity. For them, unlike the Bolsheviks, the principle “the end justifies the means” was not characteristic. The Mensheviks did not participate in expropriations and did not consider it possible to accept financial assistance from Russia’s military opponents. During Russo-Japanese War In 1904–1905, they saved the reputation of the entire RSDLP by decisively refusing Japanese subsidies for the revolution, to which the Bolshevik leaders were reaching out. The Bolshevik slogan of the defeat of their government in the imperialist war was unacceptable to them as incompatible with patriotism. The path to socialism, from the point of view of the Mensheviks, ran through democracy. Being “true” Marxists, they were convinced that in Russia a lot of time would have to pass between the bourgeois-democratic and socialist revolutions. This position lay at the heart of their ideology, influencing practical activities.

Their negative side there was dogmatism, sometimes taken to extreme limits. They believed too much in the power of words and slogans, resolutions and theses. In the pre-revolutionary period Alexander Potresov, one of the Menshevik ideologists, addressing representatives of the government camp, said: “We will beat you with the weapon of thought, with the power of our argumentation.”

– What strata of society did the Mensheviks rely on? How did their social support differ from the Bolsheviks?

– Ideology, tactics and social base any party - things are interconnected. To the collective image of a Menshevik in the form of a shabby and nervous intellectual in pince-nez, widely known in Soviet cinema, it is necessary to add the image of a worker. But this is not a worker of the Bolshevik type - a young, illiterate peasant of yesterday. Following the Mensheviks were hereditary and qualified proletarians, the “working intelligentsia,” mature people, of relative age, with families. Small employees also willingly joined them. As a rule, these people had no desire to engage in underground combat work. They were much more interested in production problems, issues of tariffs and prices, the development of cooperatives, trade unions, health insurance funds, generally legal forms of activity, self-education, and finally.

– When members of the formally united RSDLP began agitation in factories and factories, did the workers understand who was in front of them - a Menshevik or a Bolshevik?

– The trouble is that the proletarian rarely leaves memoirs. The workers' memoirs of pre-revolutionary times, written in the 1920s on instructions from the ruling party, are full of abuse against the Mensheviks. If you believe the documents of the tsarist political police, in ordinary life workers rarely distinguished Bolsheviks from Mensheviks. We can say this: the more repressive the policy of the tsarist regime became, the more influence Bolshevism enjoyed among the workers. Conversely, the Mensheviks pushed aside the Bolsheviks and gained popularity in the factories when greater opportunities for legal political activity opened up.

MENSHEVIK LEADERS

Georgy Valentinovich Plekhanov
(1856–1918)

From the small landed nobility. In 1876 he joined the populist circle. In December 1876, after a speech given at a political demonstration in St. Petersburg, he was forced to go underground. He was a member of “Land and Freedom”, after its split he headed the “Black Redistribution” society. In January 1880 he emigrated.

In 1883 he created the “Emancipation of Labor” group in Geneva, becoming a major theoretician of Marxism. In the summer of 1903 he participated in the Second Congress of the RSDLP. After the February Revolution he returned to Russia. He headed the Unity group. He died on May 30, 1918 in a tuberculosis sanatorium in Finland, where he went for treatment.

Alexander Nikolaevich Potresov
(1869–1934)

From the nobles. In the social democratic movement since the early 1890s. He was a member of the St. Petersburg "Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class", together with Vladimir Lenin And Yuliy Martov organized the publication of Iskra. He was arrested several times. After the February Revolution he was one of the editors Menshevik newspaper"Day". After the Bolsheviks came to power, he recognized acceptable methods of armed struggle against them. In 1925, in exchange for Lenin’s letters from Siberian exile that he had preserved, he received permission to travel abroad. He died on July 11, 1934 in Paris.

Nikolai Semenovich Chkheidze
(1864–1926)

From the nobles. In the social democratic movement since the early 1890s. Deputy of the State Duma of the third and fourth convocations. After the February Revolution - Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. From June 1917 - Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the first convocation. October Revolution met with hostility. Since March 1919 - Chairman of the Constituent Assembly of Georgia. After establishment in Georgia Soviet power emigrated. On June 7, 1926, he committed suicide in France.

Irakli Georgievich Tsereteli
(1881–1959)

From the nobility, the son of a writer. Participant revolutionary movement since the 1900s. Chairman of the Social Democratic faction in the State Duma of the second convocation. After its dissolution he was sentenced to hard labor. In March 1917 he returned to Petrograd and became a member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. From May 5 (18) to July 24 (August 6) - Minister of Posts and Telegraphs of the Provisional Government, in July also served as Minister of Internal Affairs. After the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, he left for Georgia. In May 1918 he became one of the organizers of the Georgian Democratic Republic. In 1921 he emigrated. Died on May 20, 1959 in New York.

Fedor Ilyich Dan
(1871–1947)

In the social democratic movement since 1894. He was a member of the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class. He was arrested several times. At the beginning of 1916, he was mobilized and sent as a military doctor to the city of Khojent, Turkestan region. After the February Revolution - member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. Since June 1917 - member of the Presidium of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the first convocation. The October Revolution was met with hostility. In February 1921 he was arrested by the Bolsheviks, and in January 1922 he was deported abroad. Died January 22, 1947 in New York.

Matvey Ivanovich Skobelev
(1885–1938)

In the social democratic movement since 1903. Deputy of the State Duma of the fourth convocation. After the February Revolution - member of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. From June 1917 - Deputy Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the first convocation. From May 5 (18) to September 5 (18) - Minister of Labor of the Provisional Government. He met the October Revolution with hostility and was a member of the Committee for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution. Since 1922 - member of the RCP (b), was in charge economic work. He was arrested at the end of 1937 on charges of participation in terrorist organization. Shot on July 29, 1938 in Moscow.

TRENDS IN MENSHEVISM

– Non-factional Social Democrat Nikolai Sukhanov assured that at the beginning of 1917, the Mensheviks “internal party relations were completely uncertain.” Is it so? What were the Mensheviks like in organizational and personnel terms?

– Nikolai Gimmer(Sukhanov) was typical representative cohorts of publicists who, although they were members of the RSDLP, were more likely to belong to the near-party public. The organizational uncertainty he pointed out is completely true for the Mensheviks. They were opponents of leaderism, did not recognize strict party discipline, and they never had an undisputed leader. Among them, there has always been disagreement and organizational disunity - within one faction, and then within the party.

On the eve of February, several currents were active among the Mensheviks - right, center and left, if we speak relatively speaking. On the right flank was Plekhanov’s Unity group. Georgy Plekhanov and his like-minded people were supporters of war to the bitter end and advocated close cooperation with liberals. Plekhanov believed that Russia was facing a long period of bourgeois-democratic development, therefore the proletariat and the bourgeoisie needed to interact closely in political and economic spheres. Potresov also belonged to the right flank of the Mensheviks. But if in terms of views the groups of Plekhanov and Potresov were close, then in organizational terms they stood apart.

The armored train "General Annenkov", which took part in the battles of the First World War, subsequently ended up on the side of the revolution. In October 1917, it was captured by revolutionary sailors

In the spring and summer of 1917, the course of the Mensheviks was determined by the centrists led by Nikolai Chkheidze, Fyodor Dan, and Irakli Tsereteli. In the Fourth State Duma, Chkheidze led the Menshevik faction, and after the February Revolution he headed the Executive Committee Petrograd Soviet workers' and soldiers' deputies (Petrosovet). With greetings on the overthrow of tsarism, the leaders of the world labor movement addressed him as the leader of the “Russian workers’ party.” As for the question of war, the centrists were revolutionary defencists, advocating peace without annexations and indemnities. Like the right, they welcomed cooperation with liberals.

The leader of the left Social Democratic Mensheviks was the internationalist Yuli Martov. He was opposed to a coalition with liberals and advocated the creation of a homogeneous socialist government - from the people's socialists to the Bolsheviks - based on the Soviets under the slogan “All power to all democracy!”

Russian soldiers on the day Russia left the First World War

IN THE SUMMER OF 1917, RUSSIA NEEDED TO SIGN A SEPARATE PEACE WITH GERMANY, BUT IT WAS A PEACE worthy of a GREAT POWER, AND NOT A SHAMEFUL CAPITULATION, AS LATER IN BREST

– Potresov, who knew Martov since the days of Iskra, characterized his views as “premature, underdeveloped Bolshevism.” Is this assessment fair?

– Martov was mistaken in his hopes that moderate socialists, by criticizing the Bolsheviks, would be able to force them to abandon dictatorial methods. But he was not a Bolshevik, even a “premature” one. What distinguished him from the Bolsheviks was his confidence that the path to socialism was, in principle, impossible without democracy, in addition to it. As you know, the Bolsheviks took the path of forcibly introducing socialism. If we talk about Potresov, he was outraged by Martov’s repeated public condemnation of the methods of armed struggle against Bolshevism. He himself assessed the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks as counter-revolutionary coup, like a huge rollback of Russia. Martov admitted that a considerable part of the workers were following the Bolsheviks. “We, on the praetorian-lumpen side of Bolshevism, do not ignore its roots in the Russian proletariat,” he wrote.

Martov's role changed throughout 1917. At first he became just one of many members of the Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet. In August, at the Menshevik Congress, he was elected to the Central Committee, but the course he proposed did not receive noticeable support from the congress delegates - the centrists again prevailed. The Martovites won the emergency November-December congress of the Mensheviks. And only later, during the Civil War, it was his supporters who determined the course of the Menshevik Party.

WORDS AND DEEDS OF THE MENSHEVIKS

- Let's go back to the spring of 1917. What tasks did the Mensheviks consider to be the main ones and how did they solve them?

– The main task The Mensheviks called the strengthening and development of the bourgeois-democratic system in Russia. Their tactics changed. In March and April, the Mensheviks positioned themselves as a revolutionary opposition to the bourgeois Provisional Government. In May they committed big mistake, agreeing to join it. Thus, the Mensheviks took responsibility for everything that the Provisional Government did and did not do. And even then it began to catastrophically lose popularity. The Mensheviks had to bear responsibility for the government's inaction in the field of social reform, and for the delay in convening the Constituent Assembly, and for the failure of the adventurous summer offensive of the Southwestern Front. The attitude towards the war should also be considered one of the major mistakes of the Menshevik leadership. In a situation where it was necessary to achieve Russia’s speedy exit from the war, it engaged in verbal exercises on the topic of “a democratic peace without annexations and indemnities,” in fact supporting the steps of the Provisional Government to continue the war as part of the Entente.

Political poster from 1920

– In words, the Mensheviks had one thing, but in reality – another?

- Yes. The phraseology and rhetoric of the Menshevik leadership group changed during 1917, but the essence of the policy on the issue of war did not.

– What solution to the land issue did the Mensheviks propose?

– Nothing new has appeared in their program compared to pre-revolutionary times. Back in 1903, they came up with a program for the municipalization of land, which provided for the transfer of confiscated appanage, monastic, cabinet and other state-owned lands to self-government bodies. Initially, the program also included a demand for the confiscation of landowners' lands, but in 1912 the Mensheviks abandoned this demand, citing the successes of Stolypin's agrarian reform.

– With such baggage, fighting for the peasantry was problematic...

- Yes, the Mensheviks did not set themselves the task of winning the sympathy of the village! For them, as a party of the industrial proletariat, the agrarian-peasant issue was of secondary importance, although the Mensheviks understood its significance for Russia. Their program was not popular in the village.

– Knowing this, did the Menshevik leaders try to change something?

– I repeat, for them the agrarian-peasant issue was of secondary importance. From May to October 1917, the Provisional Government remained a coalition government. The Mensheviks deliberately handed over the development of the agrarian-peasant issue to the socialist revolutionaries led by the “rural minister” Viktor Chernov.