What if the Mensheviks won, and why did they not?

[Herbert West]

I know, I know, the dreaded "what if". Anyway.


I have often wondered what would have happened to the Soviet Revolution, the notion and ideology of Communism, and the USSR as a whole, if winning party of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split would have been the Mensheviks (which would then make them the bolsheviks, but I digress).

Would, and could, Russia have developed into a social democratic state (either under them, or under them and the SR)?
Would revolutionary communism be thrown to the dustheap of failed ideas?
Would there even have been a second revolution?
Etc, etc.


As a died-in-the-wool SocDem/DemSoc, I always preferred Mensheviks and SRs, but most books/stuff I read on the Russian Revolutions either treat the Menshi/Bolshi break as a given, or have such an obvious "internet marxist" bend to them that they are worthless for this exercise.

 

[Semper Victor]

I know, I know, the dreaded "what if". Anyway.


I have often wondered what would have happened to the Soviet Revolution, the notion and ideology of Communism, and the USSR as a whole, if winning party of the Bolshevik-Menshevik split would have been the Mensheviks (which would then make them the bolsheviks, but I digress).

Would, and could, Russia have developed into a social democratic state (either under them, or under them and the SR)?
Would revolutionary communism be thrown to the dustheap of failed ideas?
Would there even have been a second revolution?
Etc, etc.


As a died-in-the-wool SocDem/DemSoc, I always preferred Mensheviks and SRs, but most books/stuff I read on the Russian Revolutions either treat the Menshi/Bolshi break as a given, or have such an obvious "internet marxist" bend to them that they are worthless for this exercise.

Some historical questions require very complex answers, but this one doesn't. They lost power because they did not pull Russia out of the war, as simple as that. That was the absolutely needed prerequisite for achieving anything else.

As for what would have happened otherwise, I'm quite skeptical they would have achieved anything. They were trying to keep together an govern a state that was a multi-national empire that considerable nationalist movements were intent on breaking up, and the great mass of the "Great Russian" population demanded immediate and radical agrarian reform. On top of that, inflation was rampant, the Russian government was bankrupt and the revenue system of the state was underdeveloped, at a level barely above that of France in 1789. Had the Bolsheviks not taken power, then Russia would have disintegrated (or been divided between the main imperialist powers) or more probably the army would have launched a coup and set up a reactionary government of some sort (as if the Whites had won the Civil War).

With the benefit of hindsight, I think it's safe to say that the possibility for a "peaceful" reform was gone forever after July 1914. And even then, there was the monumental obstacle of Nicholas II himself and his absolute ineptitude; with him on the throne, it's hard to imagine that Russia could've evolved into a "constitutional monarchy" comparable at least to Germany or Austria-Hungary.

 

[Henry IX]

I would say there was a window of opportunity in 1917 for cooperation between Kornilov and Kerensky to produce an army backed Duma. If the June 1917 offensive had not been tried (it was not militarily necessary) and instead more effort had been put into stiffening the army and making progress on internal reforms it is possible that the Provisional government might have hung on long enough for elections and a government with an electoral mandate to be formed.

Once the failed offensive simultaneously demonstrated the demoralisation of the army, the collapse of control by the officer corps, the ongoing inability for leaders to end the carnage and finally caused heavy casualties on the remaining reliable formations that could have helped to hold the government together, the provisional government was doomed.

 

[loup99]

A situation of complete collapse with such a desperate situation requires radical solutions. The Bolsheviks and the White terror could both provide that, one in a way that defended the interest of workers and peasants, the other in a way which defended the existing nobility and economic elite. The Mensheviks could not, they were stuck in the Russia from before the war.

Would, and could, Russia have developed into a social democratic state (either under them, or under them and the SR)?

No, absolutely not, the only viable path for them at that point was even more repression, leading to a sanguinary military dictatorship continuing the war, with presumably a far worse death toll than the October Revolution and what followed. This path is clearly a bloodbath.

Would revolutionary communism be thrown to the dustheap of failed ideas?

No, not at all, the Menshevik government would have been defeated militarily, meaning Russia would have been invaded and occupied until peace had been concluded. After a humiliating defeat whatever government remains resigns, and is either replaced by white terror or another revolution, probably successful.

Would there even have been a second revolution?

Yes, there would most likely have been a second revolution, given the situation in which Russia was the Menshevik path was completely illusory. Without peace and a radical agrarian reform it is absolutely impossible to satisfy the demands of the population, and the elite concentrates far too much power for a moderate middle of the road reform.

As a died-in-the-wool SocDem/DemSoc, I always preferred Mensheviks and SRs

Although you are clearly a liberal (your views correspond to the cadets).

 

[Kovax]

Interestingly, at least to me, Kerensky's family fled to the US, and settled in the vicinity of Martin's Creek, a small town in eastern PA only a few miles from where I used to live.

As said, the Mensheviks were unable (and unwilling) to fully meet the demands of either the rural poor or the entrenched elite, and there was no easy point of compromise between the two extremes. It would probably have been a better course in the long run, but even if it could have made moderate reforms despite strong opposition from the elites, it could not have survived the pressure from both ends ("all" versus "nothing") until those reforms paid any dividends and improved the lot of the working class. There was simply too much built up hatred and frustration for that to work, and no more patience.

 

[loup99]

As said, the Mensheviks were unable (and unwilling) to fully meet the demands of either the rural poor or the entrenched elite, and there was no easy point of compromise between the two extremes. It would probably have been a better course in the long run, but even if it could have made moderate reforms despite strong opposition from the elites, it could not have survived the pressure from both ends ("all" versus "nothing") until those reforms paid any dividends and improved the lot of the working class. There was simply too much built up hatred and frustration for that to work, and no more patience.

I disagree with your value statement about a better course. Meeting the demands of the rural poor at the expense of the aristocracy and the upper classes in general was the desirable path. I honestly don't see why one should strive to strike a compromise in this scenario. What gain is there in keeping some privilege for the aristocrats? Your approach is clearly paternalistic "I know what is better for the working class, they should listen a bit to the bourgeoisie to find a compromise". The Bolsheviks on this specific part of policy had realised what was at stake and pursuing radical reforms in favour of the working class was necessary.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I disagree with your value statement about a better course. Meeting the demands of the rural poor at the expense of the aristocracy and the upper classes in general was the desirable path. I honestly don't see why one should strive to strike a compromise in this scenario. What gain is there in keeping some privilege for the aristocrats? Your approach is clearly paternalistic "I know what is better for the working class, they should listen a bit to the bourgeoisie to find a compromise". The Bolsheviks on this specific part of policy had realised what was at stake and pursuing radical reforms in favour of the working class was necessary.

Whenever there's a class conflict the choices are usually obvious

You can give in to the demands of the poor and be left with a state of self sufficient peasants, who pay no tax, and "redistribute" all the available commercial capital leaving you with happy peasants and a very poor state.

Redistribution of property is a powerful tool. The French revolutionary republic was turbocharged into a (for the time) scarily powerful state because they took the church's estates and sold (!) them off to rich (!) bourgeois. The revenue for the state was amazing, it allowed the republic to raise humongous armies and undertake all kinds of civic and military feats.

The Russian bolsheviks let the peasants seize the lands of church and nobility and got nothing from it. (Aside from a bit of temporary support in the countryside that eroded away in a short time) Before the span of two years was over, the bolshevik movement had lost again most of the support it might have had with the peasants and was back to requisitioning grain and food at gun point. And after that, to mass executions of land owning peasants (the kulaks) and extermination by hunger of millions more of peasants because of the cities needed to be fed and the damned peasants had the temerity of asking to be paid for their produce.

Of course there's a point to be made that taking from the rich and giving to the poor has ethical reasons why one should prefer to do that.

But from a practical point of view, taking wealth and redistributing it to paupers who pay no tax and do not partake in the economy beyond selling the little food they do not eat, is not helping any sort of state that needs an economy and needs funds to raise armies and buy weapons to defend itself. A state needs a tax base and a state needs services from its citizens. The Russian bourgeois Republic would definitely have needed a system of requiring extensive services on lieu of payments from the peasants on exchange for land grants via land reform. The nobility might not have had that much cash on hand either and they were a very parasitic class but at least the possessions of the nobility could be pawned and mortgaged and this way the nobles could raise money and equip armies. A republic that gives away all the land to pauper peasants has nothing at all to call on.

 

[Yakman]

Russia would not have disintegrated. It was strong enough to kill hill turks and plain turks and forest turks, even in its 1918->disarray.

again, the great failure of the SD revolution was that they did not seek an armistice with Germany and withdraw from the war. that was the fatal blow.

 

[Yakman]

Whenever there's a class conflict the choices are usually obvious

You can give in to the demands of the poor and be left with a state of self sufficient peasants, who pay no tax, and "redistribute" all the available commercial capital leaving you with happy peasants and a very poor state.

Redistribution of property is a powerful tool. The French revolutionary republic was turbocharged into a (for the time) scarily powerful state because they took the church's estates and sold (!) them off to rich (!) bourgeois. The revenue for the state was amazing, it allowed the republic to raise humongous armies and undertake all kinds of civic and military feats.

The Russian bolsheviks let the peasants seize the lands of church and nobility and got nothing from it. (Aside from a bit of temporary support in the countryside that eroded away in a short time) Before the span of two years was over, the bolshevik movement had lost again most of the support it might have had with the peasants and was back to requisitioning grain and food at gun point. And after that, to mass executions of land owning peasants (the kulaks) and extermination by hunger of millions more of peasants because of the cities needed to be fed and the damned peasants had the temerity of asking to be paid for their produce.

Of course there's a point to be made that taking from the rich and giving to the poor has ethical reasons why one should prefer to do that.

But from a practical point of view, taking wealth and redistributing it to paupers who pay no tax and do not partake in the economy beyond selling the little food they do not eat, is not helping any sort of state that needs an economy and needs funds to raise armies and buy weapons to defend itself. A state needs a tax base and a state needs services from its citizens. The Russian bourgeois Republic would definitely have needed a system of requiring extensive services on lieu of payments from the peasants on exchange for land grants via land reform. The nobility might not have had that much cash on hand either and they were a very parasitic class but at least the possessions of the nobility could be pawned and mortgaged and this way the nobles could raise money and equip armies. A republic that gives away all the land to pauper peasants has nothing at all to call on.

this is plainly not the case.

were the peasants so upset about what the bolsheviks had done, in a country in total disarray which is 90 % peasants, the bolsheviks would have lost.

instead, they won, and handily.

 

[bz249]

this is plainly not the case.

were the peasants so upset about what the bolsheviks had done, in a country in total disarray which is 90 % peasants, the bolsheviks would have lost.

instead, they won, and handily.

We are talking about a where a corps sized formation of Czech PoW-s was an important player.
The capabilities of the Red Army was clearly demonstrated by Faustenschlag.

They were just the least worst organized from a bunch of badly organized gangs.

 

[Kupr]

I do not see difference between Menshi and Bolshe. They were all romantic revolutionaries. They had to became realistic rulers due civil war and foreign intervation.

For example, in the beginning of ruling communists released own enemy general Krasnov for promise do not fight against them.

27 years later in 1945 general Krasnov was killed by communists as enemy.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I do not see difference between Menshi and Bolshe. They were all romantic revolutionaries. They had to became realistic rulers due civil war and foreign intervation.

For example, in the beginning of ruling communists released own enemy general Krasnov for promise do not fight against them.

27 years later in 1945 general Krasnov was killed by communists as enemy.

The bolshies were led by robbers, murderers and thugs that's the difference.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Russia would not have disintegrated. It was strong enough to kill hill turks and plain turks and forest turks, even in its 1918->disarray.

What does that even mean. Russia was a gigantic mess, they certainly didn't beat any Turks after the bolsheviks came to power.

 

[Yakman]

What does that even mean. Russia was a gigantic mess, they certainly didn't beat any Turks after the bolsheviks came to power.

and someone hasn't read their Russian history lesson...

 

[JodelDiplom]

and someone hasn't read their Russian history lesson...

Do you get your Russian history lessons from playing Kaiserreich Hoi4? I got mine from history books and they certainly didn't feature fantasy "turks" involved in the Russian civil war

 

[Yakman]

Do you get your Russian history lessons from playing Kaiserreich Hoi4? I got mine from history books and they certainly didn't feature fantasy "turks" involved in the Russian civil war

... i just can't.

 

[Semper Victor]

We are talking about a where a corps sized formation of Czech PoW-s was an important player.
The capabilities of the Red Army was clearly demonstrated by Faustenschlag.

They were just the least worst organized from a bunch of badly organized gangs.

They learnt quickly though: by 1920 they almost overran Poland and fought the Japanese expeditionary corps in the Far East to a standstill. Also, if they had not been a credible fighting force, the British and French forces that had occupied former Russian territory in Central Asia and the Russian Far North wouldn't have chosen to retreat rather than fight them.

 

[bz249]

They learnt quickly though: by 1920 they almost overran Poland and fought the Japanese expeditionary corps in the Far East to a standstill. Also, if they had not been a credible fighting force, the British and French forces that had occupied former Russian territory in Central Asia and the Russian Far North wouldn't have chosen to retreat rather than fight them.

Sure as soon as they consolidated their power they jumped to the next level. However at that point the Civil War part was pretty much over.

 

[Yakman]

They learnt quickly though: by 1920 they almost overran Poland and fought the Japanese expeditionary corps in the Far East to a standstill. Also, if they had not been a credible fighting force, the British and French forces that had occupied former Russian territory in Central Asia and the Russian Far North wouldn't have chosen to retreat rather than fight them.

They were credible vis a vis the resources which the Great Powers were willing to use in those distant lands. It is not like Dunsterforce was going to take Moscow.

 

[Semper Victor]

They were credible vis a vis the resources which the Great Powers were willing to use in those distant lands. It is not like Dunsterforce was going to take Moscow.

That was enough in those circumstances. The Great Powers (with the exception of Japan and the USA) had been also left exhausted by the Great War.