Bolsheviks are Leninists. Who were the Bolsheviks and what did they stand for?

Whatever one may say, in change everything starts from the Center. At the same time, in the Eurocentric coordinate system of consciousness, the center is the capital of “Greater Europe” Paris. And in the Sino-centric coordinate system of consciousness, the center is the ancient capital of the “Middle Empire”, the city of Chang’an (the meaning of the name: Endless Calm). It is important that the China-centric model has a Celestial planetary scale, where the yellow man occupies the Navel of the Earth ( zhong), and the remaining peoples make up the outskirts ( wai). While Eurocentrism is a worldview white man, proclaiming the superiority of the civilization of Greece and Rome in the sciences, arts, religious dogmas, and role in world history.

It is especially important that in both the Eurocentric model (standing with feet on the ground in Paris) and in the Sinocentric model (standing with feet in the sky and looking down at the entire celestial world from the Hall of infinite calm), the indigenous Russia of forests and fields - Muscovy - both in the planetary and in the continental model of the world it acts in relation to the Center of the coordinate system of consciousness as the East.

According to the cosmic foundations of the universal Law of Change, at the corresponding phases of different historical cycles with circular polarization: the West overcomes the East, the East overcomes the Center, and the Center overcomes the North. And for heavenly politics, looking from above, from the heavenly spheres, the history of the world is the sum of waves of different periods .

So: on a planetary scale, the liberalism of the West defeated the real socialism of the East, the Westerners defeated the Slavophiles, Byzantium defeated Holy Rus', exact science enlightened Europe (the mind of Japheth) was overcome by the contemplation of the existence of Asia (the heart of Shem). But in the Eurocentric model of the world, the East - Asian Rus' - in patriotic wars always repelled invasions from the Center of Europe: Poles (Pozharsky), Swedes (Peter the Great), French (Kutuzov), Germans (Stalin).

And on the planetary scale of another cycle, the northern Russian principalities submitted to the Horde of Genghis Khan, which came from the Center of Asia. And now the New Liberal Russian Federation has a democratic choice, identifying itself with the North ( polar bear on the emblem of the ruling party) under the pressure of Western sanctions is forced to bow to the Middle State yellow people(to China). And Middle China began to openly talk about “returning to the North.” And all this, according to the Law of Change in cycles, occurs in conjunctions of three forces. Where one active force overcomes two passive ones, but in the confrontation between two active forces, the entire connection turns in favor of a third force, which occupies a passive position as an arbiter over the fight. European political science is linear and dialectical. But she also recognizes the division of the political field into three forces: right, left and center. Heavenly politics knits bundles of three forces in circular polarization, bringing its assessments under the Law of Change.

The alignment of the three forces of current Russian politics

Force is something that moves, has a point of application and a vector. And the direction of movement leads to the image of the result of the application of force. In the very general view, current Russian politics The Eurocentric picture of the world is characterized by such images of the result of the application of force as:

Russia's entry into the Pan-European House or Greater Europe .

Russia's entry into Eurasian Union or Greater Eurasia .

Revival of national dignity or Great Russia .

Project Greater Europe driven by the Liberal Democrats. In the model of Eurocentrism, this political force occupies the Center of the coordinate system of consciousness. If we characterize the source of liberalism, then it is easily found in the heritage of the ancient Jewish sect of the Pharisees. These are rationalists - jurists (the triumph of written law), individualists (personal freedom), formalists and hypocrites; and in feelings it is a reliance on the present, love, including same-sex marriage. In political economy, these are interest holders.

Project Greater Eurasia driven by the Eurasian-new Scythians, who, in the model of Eurocentrism, take the side of the Asian East. The source of Eurasianism is in the spiritual heritage of the ancient Jewish sect of the Essenes - “Chaldean wisdom”. These are materialism, internationalism, collectivism; in feelings there is a stake in capturing the future, hope. In political economy, these are money changers.

Renaissance Great Russia driven by Russian nationalists who identify themselves with the civilization of the North (Hyperborea - “beyond the north wind - Boreas”, Varangians - “Nordic character”, “Black Hundred”). And the spiritual origins lie in the heritage of the Sadducees. This is the unity of will and power, hierarchy, imperialism, conservatism, aristocracy; in feelings it is a reliance on a glorious past and firm faith. In political economy, these are appraisers (who know the price of things based on the material and intangible aspects of wealth).

In the combination of these three forces, the liberal democrats (Center) defeat the Russian nationalists (North), driving the great powers into the position of the biblical “Gog from the North” and exposing them to defeat in the Battle of the End from the heirs of the Caliphate (the South defeats the North). However, with the revolution of the cycle of change, the Eurasians (East) will certainly defeat the liberals (Center) in the foreseeable future.

Who are these Eurasians from the east? What do they look like in modern history? What symbols connect their ideals with the hearts of the broad masses? The answer from the non-politicians is:

The name of this force of the East: "Bolshevik-Leninists" . Leninists are not Trotskyists (Pharisees) and not Stalinists (Sadducees). When a prominent party leader of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Lazar Moiseevich Kaganovich, dictated his memoirs for posterity before his death, he asked to be called a “Bolshevik-Leninist.” And if from the position of non-politics we consider the issue of power in the ternary division: “We ourselves, our enemies and our allies”, then for the Lenians: we ourselves are the ethnic core of Ashkenazi Jews (migrants to Khazaria, countries of Eastern Europe and Germany) with bank money Rothschild group and reliance on mass populism. The enemies will be the Liberal Democrats, the Rockefeller banking group and the entire global oligarchy that holds the power of the US petrodollar. And the allies will be the Stalinists, National Socialists and Zionists, with the money of the banking houses of the Baruchs and Medicis and the support of strong state power.

It was the Bolshevik-Leninists who built the Lenin Mausoleum on Red Square in the form of a ziggurat (Chaldean energy reactor) with a bell (concave angle) to create resonance in the beating of the hearts of the leaders and people. It was they who, despite perestroika and the liberal counter-revolution in Russia, preserved the name of Lenin in the names of avenues and streets, and the image of Lenin in countless monuments in cities and villages, train stations, piers and rural clubs New Russia. It is they who “carry the banner washed in the blood of the people” forward to victory of Lenin’s Testaments: the ideas set out for posterity in the political testament - the last articles and notes of the founder of the Bolshevik party and the Soviet state. In the very last part of his testament - “Less is better” (March 1923) Lenin showed the horizon for the construction of Greater Eurasia: “The outcome of the struggle (for the liberation of labor from the oppression of capital) ultimately depends on the fact that Russia, India, China etc. make up the vast majority of the population. Namely, it is this majority of the population that is drawn with extraordinary speed into last years in the fight for their liberation."

The Bolshevik-Leninists of our day are firmly committed to the destruction of the industrial society of expanded reproduction of capital, the unbridled increase in the consumption of material goods and the debt economy of interest on credit. And they are pursuing a flexible political line to defeat the West (changing the global leader) by creating a natural value economy circuit separate from the USD, relying on the total power of China; pushing metallic gold as a unit of account for wealth (starting with the Islamic State's gold dinar); the deployment of half a dozen currency zones (including the ruble zone); and connecting the New Silk Road with the Eurasian Union.

Kaganovich L.M. Bolsheviks. Poster 1932 The metro bore the name of Kaganovich for 20 years

Russia, India, China and other BRICS countries

Ideas are expressed in the form of words. There are no letters in Chinese writing. Therefore the name international organization made up of the first letters of the names of the countries included in it in Chinese, written in two characters. The meaning of these hieroglyphs is “golden bar” ( Jin Zhuang). Bolshevik-Leninists know for sure that “politics is a concentrated expression of economics.” This is the name of the organization "gold bar" concentratedly expresses the political force that sets in motion processes within and around this organization. After all, bank metal gold is controlled by the Rothschild group of the Financial International. So, differentiating the meanings of the names, we can confidently believe that BRICS is a political instrument of the Bolshevik-Lenists in the Great Game, which is called the Global Financial Crisis.

A Big Game already in the planetary celestial picture of the world, the Bolsheviks-Leninists follow the model of a card game of “bridge” (bridge to the future), where there are three players each time (the fourth is “ blockhead"- plays along with the player who ordered the game). And these are not the binary schemes of the “Great chessboard» US liberal democrats, where “whites start and win” by seizing the initiative. IN card game You can be a winner while being in the red.

06/29/2014 The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), having proclaimed the “World Caliphate”, ordered a game in the current horse of world politics. Pope Francis bitterly called this con Big Games"Third World War" The game has four players: ISIS and playing along with him in pairs Bolshevik-Leninists, who quietly took the passive position of a “blockhead.” The second couple, with the task of disrupting the plans of the “World Caliphate”, is made up of, each playing for himself, the world liberal democracy(Freemasons-Pharisees with an American-style globalization project) and Levites and Kohanim from the “house of Jacob” (bearers of the three thousand-year Plan of Solomon with the project of the Eternal Kingdom of Israel). The game in this horse is played on the trump cards of spiritual values ​​(hearts). ISIS collected its first bribes on the trump card of Sharia norms - traditional morality - which defeat the values ​​of same-sex love and other civil liberties, opening the doors of progress into the abyss of transhumanism.

The Bolshevik-Leninists, under the cover of ISIS activity, took their bribes to the strong cards of the Rothschilds (economics and finance are clubs): they launched a new accounting unit of value on the market - the gold dinar, established the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and pushed the liberal democracy of Greece to default.

Liberal Russia of democratic choice, girded with a nuclear “suicide belt,” plays on the cards of power (diamonds). Took a modest bribe - Crimea. And by rattling sabers (carrying out combat readiness checks) he shows others that the liberals of all countries, led by the US Democrats, have a long suit on their diamonds.

The Levites, playing on the strong cards of “blood and soil” (spades), raised a wave of nationalism, took their bribe in Ukraine, and are now provoking Russia’s democratic choice to actively play against ISIS in the next round of the “hybrid war.”

Concepts and contraceptives

The word “conception” in its original sense means “conception.” "Immaculate Conception" in Latin is " Immaculata conceptio». And contraceptives, accordingly, are “contraceptives”

In the “Book of the Path and Grace” (Tao Te Ching), the sage Lao Tzu teaches: “He who knows is silent, he who speaks does not know.” Philosophers interpret this teaching in the sense that truth is inexpressible. But this interpretation of non-politicians would also be reasonable: “Everyone has their own truth. Therefore, it is useless to prove something and impose it as the ultimate truth.” The appropriation of truth has always been the cause of religious wars. And only the recognition that everyone has their own truth allows us to build the harmony of the world, as a harmonious proportionality of unequal parts, of which there are at least three or more. At the source of truth lie concepts.

Thus, if the planner knows on what codes of existence the conception of certain political projects occurred, then using development models it is possible to anticipate what will grow from what was originally in the conception (concept). And if the imagination of the result of the development of the concept does not please the prospect, then spiritual contraceptives can be used. Sky politicians called this work of development management “incognito technology.”

Publication of the “Opposition Bulletin” on the Internet

The publishing house Iskra-Research is proud to announce a new publication: a complete file of the journal “Bulletin of the Opposition”, the organ of the Russian section of the Fourth International, published from 1929 to 1941 under the general editorship of Leon Trotsky, is ready on our website.

During the years of the Thermidorian reaction against October revolution this modest magazine was the voice of genuine Marxism, the voice of the international proletarian revolution. Articles about Soviet Russia covered the actual course of events inside Soviet Union, exposed the lies and falsifications of the reactionary Stalinist bureaucracy, analyzed the degeneration of the first workers' state. The magazine also published articles analyzing the development of events around the world and providing answers to the most burning questions of the international labor movement: about fascism in Germany, about the Spanish Revolution, about outbreaks of revolution in France and other European countries, which were extinguished thanks to the treacherous policies of the Comintern and the Stalinist bureaucracy.

The magazine gave an honest answer to two main questions that invariably face a revolutionary of any era: What is? And What to do?

When, after years of gradual regime creep and degeneration, Stalin began to physically exterminate his Marxist opponents and all thinking witnesses to the Russian Revolution, the Opposition Bulletin launched a full-throated campaign of refutation of the slanderous Moscow Trials. Articles by Leon Trotsky and his son and editor of the Bulletin Lev Sedov exposed the web of lies and chains of slander, refuted the false testimony of the unfortunate victims of the Kremlin Inquisition, and explained the reasons and background of Stalin’s political genocide against the entire October generation.

The famous Marxist writer Victor Serge, who himself spent a number of years in Stalin's exile colonies and prisons, described the key significance of the Bulletin in his tragic novel Midnight of the Century. A non-partisan engineer on a business trip abroad in Paris in 1932 buys a copy of the Bulletin, reads it and makes notes. The extracts are so significant and deep that even after the engineer, out of a sense of self-preservation, destroys the original journal and his notebook with extracts, even after his arrest and imprisonment in one of the Gulag production sharashkas, this engineer talks about the contents of the article to another prisoner, a conscious oppositionist.

“Photographic memory helped Botkin restore almost word for word what he had secretly read in the West; waiting in polar silence, the contents of his imaginary notebook imperceptibly migrated entirely into Ivanov’s consciousness. The communist chuckled quietly for no apparent reason. It turns out that this is how ideas transcend boundaries!

“Ivanov spent a good half of his days in the glassed-in cabin of the statistical bureau drawing on strips of thin paper one wide, several long postage stamps in letters clearly drawn with a drawing pen, which could only be deciphered with a magnifying glass, to compose messages: one - to Central Asia to the exiles of Semipalatinsk, the other - to Western Siberia exiles of Kansk, the third - to the North, to Chernoe. “Dear comrades, the fate of the revolution is being decided hourly. We think for millions of dumb proletarians...” No one will ever know how these messages were sent, how the camp mail planes worked, what miracles of ingenuity carried them to their destinations. In Semipalatinsk, a city among the sands of Semipalatinsk, they were received on hot days under the hot sun, the station on the Trans-Siberian Railway Kansk was captured by blue frosts, in Cherny this happened on a spring morning, scattering soft golden buds across the meadows" (Midnight of the Century, Chelyabinsk, 1991, p. 73).

This photograph shows a special miniature edition of the Bulletin of the Opposition produced by Lev Sedov for distribution in the Soviet Union.

The existence of the Opposition Bulletin in the 1930s meant that the true voice of the October Revolution was not silenced. The magazine had a significance that reached far beyond Russian-speaking readers abroad and underground in the Soviet Union. As James Cannon, the founder of American Trotskyism, often said, the Russian question was the cornerstone question of human civilization in the twentieth century, the question of how exactly socialism should be built. By its existence, the “Bulletin of the Opposition” proved that the answer to this main question lies not in “Pravda” and in countless other tribunes of international Stalinism, but in the modest but honest publications of the Fourth International.

Revert your thoughts at that time. Supporters of the International Left Opposition in America and Europe could say at workers’ rallies in the 30s that the interests of socialist construction in Soviet Russia do not at all require a “five-year plan in four years,” forced collectivization and a starvation plague of the Ukrainian peasantry, that, on the contrary, real socialism needs a limitation of police rule and bureaucratic privileges, and the conscious participation of the working masses in economic management. In 1932, supporters of the Opposition Bulletin in Germany could appeal to the proletarian masses on behalf of the experience of the Russian Revolution and call for a united front of socialists and communists against the fascist threat. In 1936 and 1937 the Bulletin fought against the disastrous policies of the Popular Fronts in Western Europe, which stopped the development of the proletarian revolution and opened the way for fascism and the Second World War.

In 1938, Stalin's executioners killed the permanent editor of the Bulletin, Lev Sedov. The massive political genocide that exterminated Marxists and leftist activists within the Soviet Union severed the editorial office’s ties with underground readers within the USSR. The Marxist audience within the Soviet Union, with isolated exceptions, was physically destroyed. In the West, the Stalinists practiced a total boycott of Trotskyist literature and ostracism against their wavering members and supporters who wished to read the magazine. All this narrowed the Bulletin's readership base. The outbreak of World War II forced the editors to move to the United States and distribution of the magazine became even more difficult. The murder of Leon Trotsky on August 21, 1940 at the hands of a GPU agent sealed the fate of the magazine. The last issue was published in August 1941 under the heading “For the Defense of the USSR!”

It may have become pointless to publish a periodical organ of the Fourth International in the conditions of war, blockades and devastation. During the war, the American Socialist Workers Party tried to disseminate the documents of the Fourth International, in particular Trotsky's last address to Soviet workers on April 23, 1940. After the war the Fourth International, after short period recovery and growth, suffered a serious political blow. The worldwide post-war rise of capitalism caused a long-term crisis within the revolutionary movement. The Pabloite bias within the Trotskyist movement viewed the Stalinist movement as the only progressive force and called for the self-destruction of the Fourth International. As these false Trotskyists tried to adapt to Stalinism, they sabotaged Trotskyist propaganda in countries where Stalinism ruled. The International Committee of the Fourth International tried to defend a strategic course to build a revolutionary leadership in the working class, but suffered from a lack of strength and constant splits.

Still, it seems to me that the International Committee of the Fourth International made a mistake in not trying to restore post-war period publication of the most important analytical and program materials in Russian. Such popular books in the 1930s as “The History of the Russian Revolution”, “Permanent Revolution” and “The Revolution Betrayed” - the latter was Trotsky’s most important book on the Soviet Union - were not reprinted in Russian and became a bibliographic rarity. This “silence” in the 1960s and 1970s fertilized the ideological soil for reactionary anti-communist criticism of Stalinism, and in the late 1980s paved the way for the destruction of the Soviet Union and the elimination of the social gains of 1917.

The situation has changed somewhat since the mid-1980s. Some collections of Trotsky’s works were published in Russian in the West, then under Gorbachev, even in the USSR. But most of Trotsky's literary heritage continues to remain unknown, and in some ways the situation has even worsened. Instead of an honest publication the most important works Trotsky means mass media they published poisonous libels in the spirit that Trotsky would be even worse than Stalin and inoculated the brains of readers by any means in order to prevent the spread of the ideas of real Marxism. We wrote in another connection about the scandalous situation associated with the absence and distortion of Trotsky’s most important works on the Russian market of ideas. (See the article in No. 7-8 of the magazine “Social Equality”, also published on the page of the publishing house Iskra-Research.) It’s not a scandal, except that most of Leon Trotsky’s publications are supplied with poisonous editorial comments blaspheming the author, and footnotes distorting his ideas ? (See, for example, the books “Literature and Revolution”, “History of the Russian Revolution”, “My Life” in the Panorama edition, “On the History of the Russian Revolution”, etc.).

OK. As said American President Abraham Lincoln, “Until Truth gets out of bed, Falsehood will go around the whole world.” In the end, historical truth will prevail. This happened in 1865, when the North defeated the slave-owning South. This will happen in our time, when the falsifications of Stalinist and bourgeois anti-communism about the blessings of the capitalist market and the delights of the “free world” are destroyed by the facts of the social catastrophe that has engulfed the countries of the former Soviet Union.

In the late 1980s, the ICFI began regular publication in Russian. Eight issues of the “Bulletin of the Fourth International” were published, then a group of ICFI supporters inside Russia began publishing the magazines “Worker-Internationalist” and “Social Equality”.

Today, Trotsky's works and ideas are becoming increasingly widespread both on paper and on the Internet. Various enthusiasts publish his works on paper and in the form of compact discs, and there are entire libraries of his works on the Internet. International Socialist Web Site, organized by International Committee The Fourth International, in a kind of daily world newspaper in a number of languages, including Russian, argues that Marxism is not only an ideology and theory, but also a program for the coming world socialist revolution.

Today's publication of the "Bulletin of the Opposition" will provide an opportunity for revolutionary youth to learn the experience of the struggle for genuine socialism in the twentieth century.

At one time, the RSDLP (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party), formed in 1989 at the Minsk Congress, suffered extremely unpleasant and numerous losses. Production was dying, the crisis completely engulfed the organization, forcing society in 1903 at the Second Congress in Brussels to split into two opposing groups. Lenin and Martov did not agree with the views of the membership management, so they themselves became leaders of associations, which later served as the reason for the formation of the abbreviations in the form of a small letter "b" and "m".

In contact with

The history of the Bolsheviks is still covered in some mysteries and secrets, but today we have the opportunity to at least partially find out what happened during the collapse of the RSDLP.

What caused the discord?

It is impossible to find out in history the exact cause of the events that occurred. Official version split of the RSDLP there was a disagreement between the two sides regarding the solution of important organizational issues that were raised during the fight against the monarchical system of government and foundations. Both Lenin and Martov agreed that internal changes in Russia they demand a network of worldwide proletarian revolutions, especially in well-developed countries. In this case, you can only count on a wave of uprisings both in your native state and in countries that are lower in social level.

Despite the fact that the two sides had the same goal, the disagreement lay in the method of obtaining what was desired. Yuliy Osipovich Martov advocated ideas European countries, based on legal ways of obtaining power and rule. While Vladimir Ilyich argued that only through active actions and terror can one gain influence on the Russian state.

Differences between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks:

• closed organization with strict discipline;
• opposed democratic conditions.

Menshevik differences:

• were guided by the experience of Western rule and supported the democratic foundations of society;
• agrarian reforms.

In the end, Martov won the discussion, calling everyone to an underground and quiet struggle, which served to split the organization. Lenin called his people Bolsheviks, and Yuliy Osipovich made concessions, agreeing to the name “Mensheviks.” Many believe that this was his mistake, since the word Bolsheviks caused people associations with something powerful and huge. While the Mensheviks were not taken seriously because of considerations of something small and hardly so impressive.

It is unlikely that terms like “commercial brand”, “marketing” and “advertising” existed in those years. But only the ingenious name of the group that was invented led to popularity in narrow circles and obtaining the status of a trusted organization. Vladimir Ilyich’s talent, of course, manifested itself in those very moments when, with unpretentious and simple slogans, he was able to offer ordinary people outdated ones since the time of the French Revolution ideas of equality and brotherhood.

People were impressed by the loud words promoted by the Bolsheviks, the symbols that inspired strength and radicalism - the five-pointed star, sickle and hammer with red in the background immediately fell in love with a large number of residents of the Russian state.

Where did the money for the activities of the Bolsheviks come from?

When the organization split into several groups, there was an urgent need to raise additional finances to support their revolution. And the methods of obtaining the necessary money also differed between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The difference between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in this regard was their more radical and illegal actions.

If the Mensheviks came to the idea of ​​a membership fee for the organization, then the Bolsheviks were not limited only to the contribution of participants, they did not disdain bank robberies. For example, in 1907, one of these operations brought the Bolsheviks more than two hundred and fifty thousand rubles, which greatly outraged the Mensheviks. Unfortunately, Lenin regularly carried out a large number of similar crimes.

But the revolution was not the only waste for the Bolshevik party. Vladimir Ilyich was deeply convinced that only people who were completely passionate about their work could bring good results to the revolution. This meant that the Bolshevik staff had to receive a guaranteed salary so that workers could perform their duties all day long. Compensation in the form of monetary incentives supporters of radical views really liked it, so in a short period of time the party’s size increased noticeably, and the wing’s activities noticeably improved in quality.

In addition, significant expenses came from printing brochures and leaflets, which party accomplices tried to spread throughout the state in various cities during strikes and rallies. This also reveals a characteristic difference between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, since their funding was spent on completely different needs.

The ideas of the two parties became so different from each other and even contradictory that Martov’s followers decided not to take part in the Third Party Congress of the RSDLP. It took place in 1905 in England. Despite the fact that some Mensheviks took part in the First Russian Revolution, Martov still did not support armed uprisings.

Bolshevik ideas and principles

It seemed that people with such radical and significantly different views from democratic and liberal views could not have principles. The first time one could notice ideological glimpses and human morality in Lenin was before the outbreak of the First World War. At that time, the party leader lived in Austria and at the next meeting in Bern, he expressed his opinion about the brewing conflict.

Vladimir Ilyich is happy spoke out strongly against the war and everyone who supports it, since in this way they betrayed the proletariat. Therefore, Lenin was very surprised when it turned out that the majority of socialists supported military activity. The party leader tried to prevent a split between people and was very afraid of the Civil War.

Lenin used all his perseverance and self-organization so as not to relax discipline in the party. Another difference can be considered that the Bolsheviks went to their goals by any means. Therefore, sometimes Lenin could renounce his political or moral views for the good of his party. Similar schemes were often used by him to attract new people, especially among the poor layer of citizens. Sweet words about how their lives would improve after the revolution forced people to join the party.

U modern society Naturally, there is a lot of misunderstanding about who the Bolsheviks are. Some people present them as deceivers who were ready to make any sacrifice to achieve their goals. Someone saw them as heroes who worked hard for the prosperity of the Russian state and the creation better conditions life for ordinary people. In any case, the first thing to remember is the organization that wanted remove all ruling officials and put new people in their places.

Under slogans, beautiful brochures and promises that offered ordinary people to completely change the conditions of their lives - their faith in their own strength was so great that they easily received support from citizens.

The Bolsheviks were an organization of communists. In addition, they received part of the funding from German sponsors who benefited from Russia's withdrawal from the war. This significant amount helped the party develop in terms of advertising and PR.

It is worth understanding that in political science it is customary to call some organizations right or left. The left stands for social equality, and the Bolsheviks belonged to them.

Dispute at the Stockholm Congress

In Stockholm in In 1906 there was a congress of the RSDLP, where it was decided by the leaders of the two groups to try to find compromises in their judgments and meet each other halfway. It was clear that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks had many tempting offers for each side, and everyone benefited from this cooperation. At first it seemed that everything was going well, and soon they even planned to celebrate the mutual rapprochement of the two rival parties. However, one issue that was on the agenda created some differences between the leaders and a debate began. The issue that caused Lenin and Martov to argue concerned the possibility of people joining parties and their contribution to the work of the organization.

• Vladimir Ilyich believed that only full-fledged work and a person’s dedication to the cause could produce noticeable and significant results, while the Mensheviks rejected this idea.
• Martov was sure that ideas and consciousness alone were enough for a person to be part of the party.

On the surface this question seems simple. Even without reaching agreement, it is unlikely that it can do much harm. However, behind this formulation one could discern the hidden meaning of the opinion of each of the party leaders. Lenin wanted an organization with a clear structure and hierarchy. He insisted on strict discipline and abandonment, which turned the party into something like an army. Martov lowered everything to the simple intelligentsia. After the vote was held, it was decided that Lenin's proposal would be used. In history, this meant the victory of the Bolsheviks.

The Mensheviks gaining political power and initiative

The February Revolution made the state weak. While all organizations and political parties were moving away from the coup, the Mensheviks were able to quickly find their bearings and direct their energy in the right direction. Thus, after a short period of time, the Mensheviks became the most influential and visible in the state.

It is worth noting that the Bolshevik and Menshevik parties did not take part in this revolution, therefore the uprising was a surprise to them. Of course, both of them assumed such a result in their immediate plans, but when the situation occurred, the leaders showed some confusion and lack of understanding of what to do next. The Mensheviks were able to quickly cope with inaction, and 1917 became the time for them when they were able to register as a separate political force.

And although the Mensheviks experienced their best time Unfortunately, many of Martov's followers decided to go over to Lenin's side. The consignment lost its most prominent figures, finding themselves in the minority before the Bolsheviks.

In October 1917, the Bolsheviks carried out a coup. The Mensheviks extremely condemned such actions, trying in every possible way to achieve their former control over the state, but everything was already useless. The Mensheviks clearly lost. And besides this, some of their organizations and institutions were dissolved by orders of the new government.

When the political situation became more or less calm, the remaining Mensheviks had to join the new government. When the Bolsheviks gained a foothold in government and began to more actively lead the main political places, persecution and struggle against political migrants of the former anti-Leninist wing began. Since 1919 it has been accepted decision to liquidate all former Mensheviks by shooting.

U modern man It is not for nothing that the word “Bolshevik” is associated with the bright symbolism of the proletariat “Hammer and Sickle”, since at one time they bribed a large number of ordinary people. It is now very difficult to answer the question of who the Bolsheviks are - heroes or swindlers. Everyone has their own point of view, and any opinion, whether supporting the policies of Lenin and the Bolsheviks or opposing the militant policies of communism, can be correct. It is worth remembering that this is all the history of our native state. Whether their actions are wrong or reckless, they still need to be known.

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. G.V. Plekhanov played a major 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

The collapse of the political union occurred in 1903, at 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 to overthrow the 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.