I suppose were supposed to also believe the Mensheviks were totally the opposite of the Bolsheviks on every issue simply because they fought each other for the same power?
One could say that the ideology of the Mensheviks was far less pathological than that of the Bolsheviks, because they believed that there first had to be a bourgeois, democratic revolution. So they were not interested in immediately seizing power and imposing a totalitarian dictatorship, as opposed to the Bolsheviks who believed that they could 'telescope' history.
But is this theory, or reality? Well, in Georgia, the Mensheviks took power, and they instituted a democratic system and did not abolish capitalism in three years before the Red Army ended that experiment.
the Mensheviks took power, and they instituted a democratic system and did not abolish capitalism in three years before the Red Army ended that experiment.
By sharing a party with the Bolsheviks, they made the Bolshies more palatable.
They are guilty.
The dispute originated at the Second Congress of the RSDLP, ostensibly over minor issues of party organization... The split proved to be long-standing and had to do both with pragmatic issues based in history, such as the failed revolution of 1905, and theoretical issues of class leadership, class alliances, and interpretations of historical materialism. While both factions believed that a "bourgeois democratic" revolution was necessary, the Mensheviks generally tended to be more moderate and were more positive towards the liberal opposition and the dominant peasant-based Socialist Revolutionary party.
By sharing a party with the Bolsheviks, they made the Bolshies more palatable.
I am not sure they did, I think everyone was able to distinguish between the two. Under the mid-Kerensky government (pre Kornilov), the Bolsheviks were outlawed, but (IIRC) there were two Menshevik ministers, or at least the Mensheviks supported the government.
They are guilty.
Of what? That they - along with the Kadets and many other forces, including the tsar - can be blamed for the rise of the Bolsheviks is absolutely true.
One could say that the ideology of the Mensheviks was far less pathological than that of the Bolsheviks, because they believed that there first had to be a bourgeois, democratic revolution. So they were not interested in immediately seizing power and imposing a totalitarian dictatorship, as opposed to the Bolsheviks who believed that they could 'telescope' history.
But is this theory, or reality? Well, in Georgia, the Mensheviks took power, and they instituted a democratic system and did not abolish capitalism in three years before the Red Army ended that experiment.
By sharing a party with the Bolsheviks, they made the Bolshies more palatable.
They are guilty.
I am not sure they did, I think everyone was able to distinguish between the two. Under the mid-Kerensky government (pre Kornilov), the Bolsheviks were outlawed, but (IIRC) there were two Menshevik ministers, or at least the Mensheviks supported the government.
Of what? That they - along with the Kadets and many other forces, including the tsar - can be blamed for the rise of the Bolsheviks is absolutely true.