What was the core difference between the Bolsheviks and the Menchoviks?

What was the core difference between the Bolsheviks and the Menchoviks?

What is the core of Leninisim?

Attached: 6.jpg (400x582, 90K)

Mensheviks were acting in the favour of peasants and were less revolutionary than the Bolsheviks, who were more pro-worker orintated. Anyway, better discuss it on

Mmm yeah I posted on the wrong board actually. Waiting on the timer.

But can you elaborate?

Mensheviks wanted to keep peace in Russia and just improve the lives of the peasants (aka 75% of Imperial Russia's population) and the Bolsheviks wanted to makea rapid industrialisation and through it turn Russia into a country of proletariat, plus they had a better manifesto and more charismatic leader, so they basically were more marxistic than the Menshs

You up to date on the chronology? Because my understanding is that there were mass demonstrations and strikes and then The Tsar was forced to implement a parliament. The Menchoviks took control of the parliament.

At what point were the Romanovs killed?

The Mensheviks were more doctrinaire Marxists than the Bolshies, so they supported the bourgeois Kadets and right SRs instead of a socialist regime. They were not really that important; few understood their abstract theories and they tended to get lumped in with the unpopular pro-landowner and pro-Entente forces on the right

The events you are talking about are thec1905's year revolution wich took place on the 22 of January (or 9th by the old style) and it was a result of so-called "Bloody Sunday" caused by the Tsar's order to shoot the peaceful workers' demonstration in Pyetrograd (modern St. Petersburg). The majority of the weaponised uprises were created by the another radical left Russian party - the SRs, there also were some national uprises in Poland by that time. Revolution has ended, short to cut, in a declaring Russian Empire a constitutional monarchy, instead of the absoulute one. And what's about murdering of the Tsar, noone knows for sure it's purpuse and if was directly ordered by Lenin, but the most common theory is that the Bolsheviks feared the Tsar to be an icon of the White movement and the Intervention who what gain larger support after proclaiming him the ruler, thus they ordered to murder him and his family

Also, don't forget that the Tsar rejected to the ruler of Russia after the Februry revolution, wich had lead to the creating of liberal Provisional goverment that was later overthrown by the Bolshies during the October revolution

Do people today mourn death of Tsar and his family? Do they lament that monarchy fell?

Is it Tsar or Tzar?

Only some orthodoxal fanatics and monarchists like Poklonskaya, the majority of people here likes only tsars that ruled before Nicholas
>Is it Tsar or Tzar?
I am not sure, but as far as I know "Tzar" is Bulgarian pronounication and "Tsar" is the Russian one

Sorry for my English lads, I've been typing really fast

What was Nicholas actually doing besides Rasputin?

Pretty much nothing. He has lost a humilating war with Japan in 1905 (it was one of the reasons because of wich the Revoulution of 1905 has accured), tried to do some industrial and economic reforms but miserably failed, then everything seemed to be guite good after Stolipin's Land reform, but then the Tsar drugged Russia into the completely irrelevant WWI and after it the question of falling of the Russian Empire was only about time, however, Russian orthodox church canonised him after his death

>Leninism

Marx only saw two divisions. Owners and workers.

Lenin saw owners and workers within countries too. But also "owners" and "workers" between countries - seeing the globe as a "country" with a dual dichotomy.

WWI was mandatory though. It was all a part of the Great Game. Global politics was all about the balance of power at the time and Russia was a part of that

Weren't his reforms backwards in nature though? So there were some reforms for progress but he inherently didn't want to end serfdom. Something like that

Can you explain this and perhaps give a source?

>WWI was mandatory though
I have never denied that. But there were less reasons for Russia to join the war
than for any another state, especially on the Entente's side

If you believe Fischer. If you don't then it was avoidable. Letting the Habsburgs take care of Serbia would have even been good for Russia most likely; it would have created more headaches for Vienna than Moscow and allowed Russia more time to develop its rail infrastructure and raise its literacy.

>Weren't his reforms backwards in nature though? So there were some reforms for progress but he inherently didn't want to end serfdom. Something like that
Yep, that is quite accurate. Stolipin's reforms were something like a fresh breath to Russia, but they weren't supposed to be the final. It's a shame he died so early

*supposed to be the finish

Once the die was cast it was going to happen.

Have the reason that Austria-Hungary was so useless in the war was because of the rising nationalism in the Balkans and so a major part of their counted manpower were unwilling to fight.

Its ironic I guess because you could say that it was because of the falling sense of duty to a foreign monarch and yet the Commonwealth troops were scrappy as fuck because "not for self but empire" So arguably less for King and country but for the Empire itself

Anywhere I can get the broad stokes with a bit of finer detail on Leninisim? desu I have to write a 1000 word speech "to the Bolshevik party on why we should or should not take up arms"

Attached: 1520207606114.jpg (324x454, 21K)

In some ways Stolypin's reforms went too far. He wanted to create a class of small private landowners with an investment in the existing social order, but most of the peasants weren't interested in giving up the protection of the village commune. It's ironic, but they went over to the left because they *didn't* want a social transformation; they just wanted their old lives but with the nobles' land
They did find against Italy. Even Italian-speaking soldiers in the Austro-Hungarian army fought well on the Isonzo. It's just excuse-making for the abysmal performance of their underfunded and poorly-led military on the Eastern Front. Though you could blame ethnic division before the war for that

Austria was just in general decline anyway. Look at the Silesian war. Just got fucking roflstomped by Prussia

Literally 2 generations of military technology behind

Try Les Origines intellectuelles du léninisme by Alain Besançon if there is that publication in English, otherwise I would recommend Leninism Under Lenin by Marcel Liebman, and if you are more into history than phylosophy, try Fischer or even Stalin

Well its for a history subject.

Bluntly my approach is probably going to be that the revolution has been corrupted and we have the means to take it back by force

>In some ways Stolypin's reforms went too far
Not really. The circumstances of living in Russia in that time so miserable, that his reforms were very-very needable to get out of the feudalism. Though I agree they were too right-winged

Then read Stalin and say the reverse version of what you would have read

This is something that's rarely talked about actually. That there was a difference between being a Serf in the West and in the East.

It was amazingly brutal in the East.

The life of a Villain in England was actually pretty comfy.

t. Descended from English peasants who basically just sat around watching a mill hammer wool

It was so mostly thanks to the industrualisation, Russia by that time was a very agricultural backwarded shithole (lol deja vu)
t. descended from Russian city workers

The biggest problem wasn't that they were too right-wing, but that he failed to create a constituency for them. The nobles weren't interested in changing anything, the peasants only wanted to change who owned the estates, the urban workers didn't understand that higher agricultural productivity would raise their real wages by lowering the price of bread, the middle class was more interested in constitutional reforms that the Tsar was unwilling to accept. Only the direct beneficiaries had any stake in Stolypinism and they didn't have the numbers or the political influence to make a difference.

Agreed mate