Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Russo Japanese War Revolution Of 1905 - 9,869 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Mensheviks Critique of Bolshevism and the Bolshevik State I often remember a funny conversation which was, however, significant for meshes I was taking [university] courses, I talked witha classmate who condemned the members of the Peoples Will for murdering people. I didnt know her very well, so I had to be cautious, and I said, Of course, killing is bad, but it ultimately depends on your point of view. And she said so sadly, Thats the whole problem, howto get that point of view. ' Lydia Dan, quoted in The Making of Three Russian Revolutionaries Introduction There are two primary questions with which study of the Mensheviks struggle against the Bolsheviks must begin. First: Which of the Bolsheviks policies did the Mensheviks oppose? Second: On what ideological grounds did this opposition depend? The second questions particularly crucial if one wishes to demonstrate that the Mensheviks offered their contemporaries a viable alternative to both the czarist monarchy and the Bolshevik dictatorship.

It is also important to examine this question if one wishes to show that the Mensheviks have valuable lessons for modern Russia. Answering the first question tells about historical fact, about what did happen; answering the second question allows us to extrapolate our knowledge of the Mensheviks to counterfactual and hypothetical cases, to what could have happened in the past or what might happen in the future. From a different perspective: a universal claim such as: The Mensheviks would have established a democratic society and respected civil liberties, cannot rest upon a particular claim such as: In 1918, the Mensheviks opposed the suppression of dissident newspapers. The particular claim is consistent with a wide body of principles in conflict with the universal claim. For example: Dissidents should not be suppressed in 1918, but in some years it is quite admirable to do so.

Instead, it is necessary to study the ideological foundation of the Mensheviks opposition to the Bolsheviks policies, and see how they deduced their practices from their theories. Only with this full context in mind will it be possible to judge the possibilities that the Menshevik movement had and the lessons that it offers to the present. With these standards in mind, it will be argued that the disputes between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, both in theory and in practice, were dwarfed by their shared devotion to orthodox Marxism. Their disagreements can be best explained as differences in attitude and emphasis rather than basic principles. Both factions accepted the establishment of Marxian socialism as an ideal goal, and both rejected individualist political theories that demanded toleration of dissent and pluralist democracy as a matter of principle. Instead, the Mensheviksrested their opposition to repressive Bolshevik policies on secondary theorems in the Marxian system, and would have supported dictatorial policies under different circumstances.

Many Mensheviks demonstrated a surprising tolerance of Bolshevik policies. In fact, some were so in sympathy with the Bolsheviks that they voted with their feet and joined the Bolsheviks just as Lenin's authoritarianism was becoming most obvious. The major theme of this essay, then, is that the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks have been overrated. Their differences may be better explained as variations upon shared Marxist themes than major differences. The magnitude of their philosophic disagreement, not the emotional intensity of their internecine disputes, is the proper yardstick for comparing and contrasting each movements likely effects upon a society under its sway. In the context of the full range of political ideologies, this magnitude is a small one, and the effects of both movements if one came to dominate a society would have been similar.

Brief Review of Relevant Marxist Concepts Both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks described themselves as orthodox Marxists, so it seems important to have a basic understanding of their shared Marxist theories. Then it will be possible to understand how theta factions could disagree with each other yet share a common reverence for Marx. Four themes that recur throughout the debates ofthe Russian Marxists are: the economic interpretation of history, the stage theory of social development, the class struggle, and their positive as opposed to negative or bourgeois view of human freedom. Let us briefly elaborate upon each. The economic interpretation of history argues that economic or technological changes, changes in the means of production, are the ultimate determinants of a society's condition. Ideas, philosophy, religion, and sociology are not independent variables, but must betrayed back to changes in the methods of production.

Quoting Marx: The social relations are intimately attached to the productive forces. In acquiring new productive forces men change their mode of production, and in changing their mode of production, their manner of gaining a living, they change all their social relations. The windmill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist. 1 In Marx's view, therefore, social change must ultimately be explained by changes in the means of production, not by individual action orders. And, because technological progress follows a predictable course, history should also be predictable, governed by scientific laws. According to Marx, these laws state that history is divided into different periods or stages, feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and communism being the four final stages. And, since capitalism comes between feudalism and socialism, it is quite impossible to jump from one to theater.

Instead, a society must pass through each in due time. 2 Until humanity reaches the communist stage, Marx believed, each historical period would be characterized by what he termed class struggle. Different social groups have incompatible interests, while members ofthe same social groups have similar interests, so the natural tendency is for classes with conflicting interests to strive to thwart and exploit one another. Each stage of history ends when a previously subordinate class attains power and becomes the new exploiting class. And, because it is an historical law that ruling classes do not give up their power voluntarily, one should expect changes in power relations to be accompanied by violence, by some sort of class war. Thus, when socialism replaces capitalism: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands ofthe state, i. e. , of the proletariat organized as the ruling class 3 A final element in Marx's system that tends to derail analysis of the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks is Marx's theory of freedom.

He clearly does not accept the individualist, bourgeois, theory of freedom that anderson is free if he is left alone, if he is not aggressed against. As Marx states: And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeoisie, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at. By freedom is meant, under present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying. But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also.

This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other brave words our bourgeoisie about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself. 4 The implications of this viewpoint are quite interesting. First, buying and selling free exchange among consenting adults is not an aspect of freedom, but an obstacle to it. True freedom exists when such exchanges are abolished, presumably with violence. Second, freedom does not include the freedom to be a member of the bourgeoisie. Instead, Marx's freedom appears when the bourgeoisie is abolished. Once again, this appears to imply violence, since the bourgeoisie could hardly be expected to abolish itself voluntarily.

Insert, the Marxist view of freedom, rather than assuring protection for those who do not fit into the Marxist pattern, sanctions their suppression. The Early Menshevik-Bolshevik Debates and the 1903 Schism Given this admittedly oversimplified background, we may now jump tothe early stages of the Russian Marxist movement. The first major attempt to unite Russian Marxists occurred in 1898, when a congress Russian socialists met in Minsk and announced the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). This fell apart whether czarist police captured the members of the partys Central Committee a few weeks later. 5 The next important step came in 1900 and 1901 when Lenin, Martov, Plekhanov, Axelrod, and other revolutionary socialists began publishing two Marxist periodicals: Iskra, a popular weekly, and Zaria, a more theoretical journal. 6 This phase is interesting because the future Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were acting jointly.

Lenin and Martov, among others, vigorously attacked various deviationist factions, such as Economists and Revisionists, and revealed a shared tendency to equate ideological disagreement with intellectual dishonesty. Thus, Martov wrote, The struggle between the critics and orthodox Marxists is really the first chapter of a struggle for political hegemony between the proletariat and bourgeois democracy. In the uprising of the bourgeois intelligentsia against proletarian hegemony, we see, hidden under an ideological mask, the class struggle of the advanced section of bourgeois society against the revolutionary proletariat. Compare this Lenin: Hence, to belittle socialist ideology in any way, to deviate from it in the slightest degree, means the strengthening of bourgeois ideology. 7 Martov and Lenin also voiced similar views about the spontaneously emerging labor movement, stating that it would shift the workers attention from changing the social system to changing their relative position within the existing system.

Some form of authoritarian paternalism would, under such circumstances, be justified. As Haimson describes Martov's view: In the face of the treachery and violence of the reactionaries, it was their [Social Democrats] duty to temporarily organize the movement from the top down so as to insure the careful selection and training of its members. ' 8 The first obvious break in the ranks of the avowedly orthodox Marxists occurred during the second congress of the RSDLP in July 1903, when a debate between Lenin and Martovprecipitated a full-fledged schism. Interestingly, the debate was noreen over the proper aims of the party. Plekhanov wrote the following program of ultimate demands, which, according to Landauer, was approved without controversy: By replacing the private ownership ofthe means of production with public ownership and by introducing a planned organization of the processes of production in order to safeguard the welfare and the many-sided development of all the members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will put and to the division of society into classes and thus will liberate all the oppressed humanity as well as end all forms of exploitation of one martov society by another. An essential condition for this social revolution is the dictatorship ofthe proletariat, i. e. , the conquest by the proletariat of such political power as will enable it to quell all opposition by the exploiters. 9 Instead of arguing about these propositions, quite authoritarian in their concrete implications (Who will plan the processes of production?

How can the proletariat simultaneously quell all opposition by exploiters and end all forms of exploitation by one part of society by another? ), the debate broke out over the proper method of achieving these goals. Even the differences over the proper means were not particularly great. As Getzler explains, both [Lenin and Martov]wanted a centralized party. But as soon as they turned to consider how completely the party should be centralized, how its centralism should be organized, and above all who should man and control its centre, they turned by degrees from partners to opponents. 10 What were these two different conceptions of the party?

Lenin expressed his views in his famous essay What is to be Done? In his opinion, the party should consist exclusively of full-time revolutionaries. These professional activists would necessarily be under strict control of the central committee of the party, which would make every effort to maintain the orthodoxy and ideological purity of Social Democracy. Important decisions would be made by the central committee. On theater hand, Martov believed that the party should include politically interested workers, peasants, and intellectuals as well as full-time revolutionaries. And, given this broader definition of a party member, discipline and orthodoxy would be less strict than under Leninssystem.

The actual schism came about when Lenin exploited the voting system at the congress to achieve a formal approval for his plans. Following debate and disagreement between Martov and Lenin on the party membership question, minority factions of the RSDLP walked out of the congress. This walk-out left a disproportionately large group hards, i. e. , adherents of the Leninist conception of the party. There were twenty Leninist delegates with a total of twenty-four votes. This gave his faction a majority.

Lenin's forces then barred Martov and Potresov from addressing the congress, expelled Axelrod, Zasulich, and Potresov from the editorial board, and elected a Central Committee of Leninist's. Martov refused to serve on the new editorial board. 11 The second congress adjourned on August 23, 1903, with allah important aspects of Lenin's program in place. Since Leninsfaction held a majority of the votes for a brief moment, they quickly dubbed themselves Bolsheviks, or Majority ites. Their opponents were called Mensheviks, or Minority ites. The question that now faced the the Mensheviks was: How do we differ from the Bolsheviks? To split solely on organizational grounds would seem trivial indeed.

Haimson aptly summarizes this curious dilemma: Already, theMartovites were searching for some doctrinal grounds upon which tobago their opposition, and at first this search was difficult, not so much because such differences were absent, but because they were still so subtle and had been buried and evaded for so long. 12 Eventually Menshevik writers came to justify their break on the grounds that Lenins conception would make the party a mechanistic centralist one. It would exclude revolutionary elements of the proletariat who unfortunately were not fully enlightened. It would also stifle political initiative. Hence, the Mensheviks spurned Lenin's belated peace offerings.

Next, Plekhanov, who originally sided with Lenin, tried to reunite the divided factions of the party. He had not changed his mind, but believed that the issue was not worth splitting over. Lenin, now firmly dedicated to wiping out the Menshevik deviation, proceeded to break with Plekhanov, stating, I am now fighting for the CC [Central Committee] which the Martovites also want to seize, brazened by Plekhanovs cowardly betrayal. 13 Over time, the Mensheviks came tore-define their doctrinal differences in a more sophisticated and technical way. Martov and Akselrod discovered a full-fledged contradiction in Lenin's system. As Martov and Axelrod explained it, the subjective goal of Social Democracy was to advance the political maturity and independence of the proletariat. Lenin's objective method, however, was to create a class of revolutionary intelligentsia to dominate the proletariat.

Lenin's means, then, was incompatible with his end, because his method of advancing the proletariat actually wound up by ruling it. Naturally, Lenin counterattacked. He repeated his earlier arguments, then denounced the anarchistic, individualistic character of the Mensheviks opposition to ultra-centrism. The spontaneous flailing of the masses, unguided by a sound and sturdy Marxist vanguard could never represent the march of history. In short, without the Leninist party, the workers would, at best, develop mere trade-union consciousness and would never work to attain true socialism. Plekhanov, the senior member of the Iskra board, rebuked Lenin.

Infact, Marx claimed exactly the opposite of what Lenin was claiming: not only were the masses capable of achieving proletarian consciousness all by themselves, but they would do so inevitably, since economic forces are the ultimate determinants of ideas addictions. 14 By November of 1903, Plekhanov turned against Lenin, and invited Martov, Akselrod, and other Mensheviks back to Iskrasboard. Lenin resigned but was not expelled from the party. Now, under Plekhanovs leadership, the Mensheviks rejoined the moderate Bolsheviks to form a single party. 15 Analysis of the Debates and Schism The early debates between the future factions of the Russian Marxists and their subsequent schism illustrate their similarity nicely. At no point did any faction openly challenge any of the basic postulates of Marx.

Indeed, they considered Marx to be an authoritative guide to the truth. Both factions of the party willingly and freely voted for Plekhanov's statement of the ultimate demands of Social Democracy cited above. Both factions favored some form of centralized party: Lenin leaned towards one-man rule, while Martov felt more comfortable with some kind of collective leadership. Lenin wanted a carefully regulated party membership, while Martov wigmore tolerant, more concerned with admitting enlightened members ofthe masses. There were other differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks that surfaced at this time. For example, Getzler states that Martov reproved Plekhanov for his cynical rejection of democratic principles at the party congress and told him that he should at least have added that so tragic a situation was unthinkable as one in which the proletariat to consolidate its victory would have to violate such political rights as, e.

g. , the freedom of the press. ' Also, the Mensheviks opposition to Lenin's ultra-centralism reveals some concern for free voting and pluralism that could obviously not exist in a Leninist party. Still, this dispute over the status of civil liberties and free voting could no stretch of the imagination be transformed into the heart of the Menshevik-Bolshevik dispute. There was no important argument over Plekhanovs statement of principles, which are staggeringly authoritarian in their implications. If one studies Plekhanovsstatement (cited above), one can see that it was not a watered-down body of vague generalizations that anyone could agree with. Instead, it stated explicitly that the RSDLP intended to abolish private ownership of the means of production with planning of the productive processes. Such planning necessarily implies the existence of planners who do the planning; in short, of some kind hegemonic system that would impose its views upon the entire society.

Similarly, Plekhanov's program stated plainly that a dictatorship of the proletariat would have to seize control of the state and quell all opposition. This was not controversial among the delegates to the congress, who ratified it quickly and turned to other matters. If the issue of civil liberties and competitive voting were truly important to the Mensheviks, why did they fail to demand a prominent and explicit affirmation of their values in Plekhanov's statement? A reasonable hypothesis is that Martov and his fellow Mensheviks were not concerned about civil liberties and democracy in a serious way. While they thought that civil liberties and democracy were good in theory, didnt want to argue about it.

In fact, they were quite willing to cooperate with other Marxists who openly scorned these values. Further support for this interpretation comes from the remainder of the debates. At no point did Martov or any other Menshevik demand that Leninsfaction guarantee their support for political freedom. The proper structure of the party was the issue that dominated the debates. The Mensheviks conception of the party was more sympathetic to civil liberties and democracy than Lenin's, but it was hardly the thrust of the Mensheviks argument. Instead, they favored their kind of party because it would advance the cause of Social Democracy, as enunciated by Plekhanov, more efficiently than Lenin's system (which would alienate almost everyone).

As Martov put it, the wider the title party member is spread, the better. We could but rejoice is every striker or demonstrator, when called to account for his actions could declare himself a party member. 16 Lenin denounced Menshevikconceptions of the party as anarchistic and individualistic, but this was mainly name-calling rather than serious criticism. Martov and Akselrod, for example, did not concentrate on the dictatorial character Lenin's party. Instead, they made technical philosophical arguments. They argued that there was a contradiction between the subjective goal of enlightening the proletariat and the objective means of ultra-centralization. Plekhanov, likewise, chastised Lenin for implicitly denying the inevitability of the proletarian revolution.

Since the proletariat, driven by the laws of history, was destined to overthrow capitalism and establish Marxian socialism, it was incorrect for Lenin argue that an elitist revolutionary party was necessary to groom the proletariat before it could attain this goal. If the Mensheviks were advocates of civil liberties and democracy, their behavior up to the schism reveals that they were among the most anemic and apathetic advocates of political freedom in history. They belonged to a party of which a major faction had open contempt forsyth concerns. While in that party, they did not make a big issue out their differences. They cooperated freely with avowed authoritarians to achieve social change. They were able to endorse Plekhanovsstatement of principles without a large debate.

Their most vigorous argument against Lenin's theory of the party was that it was an inefficient means for achieving socialism. In sum, while some Mensheviks voiced minor interest in political freedom, it was near the bottom of their agenda. We shall see how much that agenda changes the Menshevik movement matured. Bolshevik-Menshevik Conflict to the February Revolution Wartime reveals interesting facts about the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks.

Under critical and intense circumstances such as those provided by war, one can observe the similarities and differences of their respective positions and the reasons behind those positions. As history would have it, both factions of Russian Marxism were alive and active during both the Revolution of 1905 and World War I. It is these phases of Menshevik-Bolshevik debate that we will now turn. The Revolution of 1905 was preceded by the outbreak of thee Russo-Japanese War.

Martov was particularly vocal in denouncing this war, and hoped that it would end with a negotiated peace. He supported neither government, saying, We are international socialists, and therefore any political alliance of the socialists of our country with any class state whatever, we regard as betrayal of the cause of revolution. His slogan was peace at any price. Getzler remarks that, there was also an element of humanitarian pacifism in him even if he would not explicitly admit it. 17 Perhaps, but the thrust of Martovsargument against the war was that it was a conflict between ruling classes and as such contrary to the interests of the proletariat of both nations. The position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was similar.

The Revolution of 1905 followed the Russo-Japanese War. This revolution was not led by the RSDLP, but both factions were intensely interested in it. Both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks generally agreed with Marxs view that in a country such as Russia, still ruled by an absolute monarch and without a large proletariat, the revolution would not be socialist in character. Instead, at this stage of historical development, it was necessary for the bourgeoisie to seize power from the czar and establish a liberal democratic regime favorable to their own interests. The proletariat would gain somewhat from this shift, but the main beneficiaries would be the bourgeoisie itself. Once the bourgeois were firmly in command, they would clear the road for the impending transition to socialism. 18 There were many variations and differences within this paradigm.

Potresov looked upon a government of, for, and the bourgeoisie with satisfaction. He was confident that the bourgeoisie would allow political freedom and sweep away the remnants of czarist feudalism. Plekhanov was less enthusiastic. He agreed that it was historically necessary for the bourgeoisie to hold therein's of power for a while, but disliked it nevertheless. Still, he believed that the bourgeoisie would grant everyone political freedom long as they were not frightened by radical movements. Martov wigmore hostile to the bourgeoisie, arguing that they were timid and conservative and therefore interested in a compromise with the czar.

All these factions basically agreed that the proletariat could best advance its interests by throwing its support behind the bourgeoisie and refraining from any attempt to establish socialism before its time. Lenin and his fellow Bolsheviks were ambivalent. They agreed that the bourgeoisie was a progressive force in society, then appended that socialists should only support the bourgeoisie until it developed ison political program and organizations. Then, the duty of socialists changed: socialists should advance the more radical program of socialism rather than the half-hearted program of liberal democracy. 19 Most of the Russian Marxists were unwilling to participate in the democratic government that the revolution temporarily established. Getzler explains this position succinctly: To govern in coalition with liberals and democrats would be to renounce their class opposition tothe existing order, to accept responsibility for bourgeois policies, andersen to find themselves in conflict with the masses of the proletariat. 20 Moreover, both Martov and Lenin believed that the times not yet ripe for socialist parties to seize power for themselves. They must limit themselves to assisting the bourgeoisie against the autocracy.

There was an important exception to this rule. If the bourgeoisie proved too timid and weak to seize power, then the socialist parties would have to do so in their place. Given that most Marxists agreed that the Russian bourgeoisie had a history of timidity and weakness, this exception is more important than it seems. Once the 1905 Revolution created parliamentary organizations, the Mensheviks tended to favor improving the workers position by changing the laws democratically; the Bolsheviks were less friendly towards such means. Some of the demands that the Mensheviks made in 1906 included the creation of unemployment insurance, the eight-hour day, and municipal ization of land. The Mensheviks were afraid of the full-fledged nationalization of land; this measure would surely strengthen state power, and, as Martov put it, so long as the capitalist mode of production prevails, state power will always be bourgeois. 21 By opposing the nationalization of land, the Mensheviks differed with both the Bolsheviks and non-Marxistsocialists such as the Social Revolutionaries.

Concurrently, inter-party disputes gradually led to an official split between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks. At the fifth congress ofthe RSDLP in 1907, the division between the two wings was obvious. The Mensheviks opposed revolutionary activity because it would endanger parliamentary institutions under which the proletariat hudson impressive gains. Trade unions were legal, and the new government respected the freedom of the press and the right of assembly. Some Mensheviks wished to make Social Democracy an umbrella party which would include labor unions, socialists, and cooperatives of all types. The Bolsheviks took a very different position: Social Democrats should try to inflame the masses by denouncing the moderation and weakness of the Duma. 22 Between the 1907 conference and the final schism of 1912, three distinct factions appeared amongst the RSDLP: the moderate Mensheviks, the revolutionary Mensheviks, and the Bolsheviks.

The moderates devoted themselves to peaceful reforms and cooperation with the labor movement. They favored the abolition of the illegal portions of the party apparatus. The revolutionary Mensheviks included Plekhanov, Martov, Dan, and Trotsky. They liked the legal gains that socialism had made but also wanted to preserve the illegal party structure. Lenin and the Bolsheviks denounced the reformist trend running through Mensheviks and repeated their demands for the centralized and revolutionary party described by Lenin in his What is to be Done? These factions were able cooperate successfully until 1912, when the party congress invited some deviationist factions to attend the London conference in order to unify the party.

Lenin was particularly outraged by this compromise. Through skillful political maneuvering, Lenin split off his faction fromthe rest of the RSDLP, then proclaimed his faction to be the complete true RSDLP. Trotsky tried to bring Lenin back into the fold and failed. World War Is sudden beginning overshadowed the drive to reunite Russian Marxism. 23 World War I challenged the world-view of orthodox Marxists. They were internationalists, who believed that struggle between nations distracted workers from the real struggle between classes.

Yet most socialists in Europe chose to support the irrespective national governments. Naturally, this seemed like a great betrayal. And, as a corollary, any faction that remained internationalist demonstrated the genuineness of its orthodoxy and virtue. Most of the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks remained devotees of internationalism; as a consequence, they grew together during their. Three distinct positions sprang up in their ranks. The first was are-Russia position called revolutionary defensists.

These came from Plekhanov's section of Menshevik camp. At the other extreme was Lenin, who advocated revolutionary defeatism, i. e. the defeat ohio native government by the Germans. Martov favored a position between these extremes: immediate negotiated peace without annexations or indemnities. Lenin respected Martov's opinion but denounced the defensists vigorously.

Martov, while theoretically sympathetic to Lenin, distrusted him as a person; at the same time, Martov refused to condemn pro-war socialists without reservation. He disagreed with them but forgave them because he thought that they were mistakenly obeying the will of the masses. 24 Let us compare and contrast the positions of Lenin and Martov. Lenin believed that the war was an expression of capitalist imperialism. It was a struggle between ruling classes and therefore opposed to the interests of the masses. Lenin hated the czarist government so much that he said that he would prefer a German victory to a Russian victory. Yet he didnt condemn the war for its massive destruction of innocent life; to hissing, the true revolutionary was not in any sense a pacifist or humanitarian.

He sought to use the war to destroy capitalism and improve his factions position vis-a-vis other socialist organizations. Lenin explained the pro-war nationalist stance of other socialists as a deliberate betrayal of the masses. Hence, he refused to deal withdefensists on any terms. Martov agreed with Lenin that the war was an expression of capitalist imperialism, a struggle between ruling classes and contrary to the interests of the masses.

Unlike Lenin, Martov believed that since allegations were partially in the wrong it was incorrect to desire the victory or defeat of any combatant. He was morally appalled at the horrors offer. Therefore he favored, the speediest possible termination of their and the most radical steps in the direction of disarmament. Given this, he obviously did not plan to use the war to advance the cause of socialism; he wanted to end it at once. Martov believed that pro-war socialists had been swayed by the patriotic masses, and yearned to persuade his fellow socialists that they were wrong. 25 Martov wanted socialists to take an active part in the peace negotiations. As he wrote with Lapinsky, Only in the event that peace is conquered through the pressure of the popular masses, and is not the result of a new conspiracy of predatory diplomacy and reactionary cliques after universal exhaustion, only then will socialism and democracy be sure assert their influence on the peace settlement and the future order Europe.

He believed that a reunited international socialist movement, standing up in favor of a negotiated peace, could lead the post-war struggle of the proletariat for political power. The proletariatsstruggle for power would begin in the most advanced capitalist countries. Backward areas like his native Russia would still need topics through their bourgeois democratic phase before they would bread for socialism. 26 Analysis of the Conflict to the February Revolution Since the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks only emerged as distinct parties after 1903, it might be unreasonable to expect sharp differences between them before that break. Perhaps only after tiebreak did they develop their distinctive ideologies and political programs. In this case, the student of the Mensheviks could chart their evolution and argue that their initial differences with the Bolshevikswere the first step on a long road of intellectual growth. The crucial question then becomes: Did Mensheviks develop a distinct identity as ideology and a movement after 1903?

The correct answer is a qualified No. Almost all of their post- 1903 battles with the Bolshevikswere either foreshadowed by earlier debates or minor arguments over tactics. Both factions continued to religiously interpret all events and strategies through the categories invented by Marx in his philosophical writings. Both continued to uphold Marxian socialism as an ideal goal.

For all the emotion of their arguments and frantic inter-party political maneuvering, their initial differences were minor and did not grow appreciably over time. Most Bolsheviks and Mensheviks shared the same theories about ward social development. In both the Russo-Japanese War and World War I, most of them agreed that socialists should not support any government in international disputes, because wars are conflicts between ruling classes, all of whose interests are opposed to theproletariat's. The real war was being waged internally in each national the exploiting classes against the exploited classes. On this issue, both factions agree with Marx that workingmen have no country.

The main difference between the anti-war Marxists is that Martov andes followers added a humanitarian pacifist element to the above Marxist criticism, while Lenin did not. Martov, then, was convinced that war was bad as such, so he wanted to end it immediately with victory for none. Lenin believed that war could be a catalyst for revolutionary change, so he hoped for the defeat of his own government by there historically advanced nation of Germany. Both factions also agreed that all social development must follow these route. It was impossible, in their opinion, to leap from czarist autocracy straight to socialism. Instead, it was absolutely necessary that Russia pass through an intermediate stage of bourgeois democracy.

Most of them were not enthusiastic about this, but viewed it as a necessary step forward. The Mensheviks stressed that bourgeois democracy would bring political liberty. This might be ago argument that they differed from the Bolsheviks except that the Bolsheviks made exactly the same argument! Quoting Lenin, The democratic revolution is a bourgeois revolution. But we Marxists must know that there is not, nor can there be, any other path to real freedom for the proletariat and the peasantry than the path of bourgeois freedom and bourgeois progress. We must not forget thatcher is not, nor can there be at the present time, any other means of bringing socialism nearer than by complete political liberty, a democratic republic, a revolutionary- democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. 27 The fact is that Marxists believed that socialism could only develop under bourgeois capitalism with the civil liberties and political freedom that accompanied it.

This is not good evidence for the claim that the Mensheviks or Bolsheviks valued civil liberties on principle. One could argue, in a similar way, that these Marxists really favored capitalism just because they admitted that the existence of capitalism was a necessary precondition for the existence of socialism. Of course, there were variations upon this world-view. Mensheviks generally thought that the proletariat should avoid frightening the bourgeoisie by making radical socialist demands; Lenin took the opposite view. Mensheviks had more hope for improving workers well-being through parliamentary democracy than Bolsheviks did.

Butboth agreed that a violent revolution would eventually be necessary. Consider the final break between the two factions in 1912. What happened here is that the Mensheviks tried to open up the RSDLP by inviting minor factions to attend the party congress. The Bolsheviksretaliated by breaking away from the Mensheviks. Lenin then proclaimed his followers the real RSDLP and re-organized the party Leninist principles. The Mensheviks tried to heal this split.

They failed. The 1912 schism, in short, resembles the 1903 schism very closely. The Mensheviks, in both cases, leaned toward a broader membership; the Bolsheviks did not. The Mensheviks wanted a less centralized party; the Bolsheviks wanted a Leninist ultra-centralist party. In both cases the issue was the proper way to organize a party to advance the cause of Marxian socialism. They split into rival factions on the basis this derivative issue that seems unimportant (or at best a red herring) to non-Marxists.

Ergo, their differences were slight in both 1903 and 1912, and the grounds for both breaks were nearly identical. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks were alike in most respects whether one examines them at a particular party congress or over the course of a decade. Theory Becomes Practice: February Revolution to 1922 Crackdown When the February Revolution started, Marxists had to determine hotkey would deal with the new government. The Mensheviks voted toxin the provisional government, over the protest of Martov. 28 The majority of Bolsheviks, too, looked at new government with pleasure. Only after Lenin announced his bitter opposition to the new regiment struggled to rally his followers behind him did Bolshevik opinion turn against the provisional authorities. 29 During the reign of the provisional government, defensists Mensheviks backed the governments plan to prolong the war. Martov took the opposite view -Russia should give up the war effort and strive for a general peace settlement.

Lenin disagreed with both groups: in his analysis, it was futile to ask the bourgeois government of Russia to conclude a peace; instead, Russia should make a separate peace by overthrowing the current government. In the interim between the February and the October Revolutions, the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks tried to reunite. Martov sent a concilatoryletter to the Bolsheviks when the government cracked down upon them. Even though Martov criticized the Bolsheviks for their extreme methods, they accepted his letter with warmth. Martov thought that apart that included a wide range of social democrats, including Bolsheviks, would be a good idea. He was, in fact, mainly afraid of a reactionary coup that would destroy the provisional government.

Only later did he see that the Bolsheviks were dangerous enemies of the democracy. During this time, the Bolsheviks were expanding in numbers, partially at the expense of the Mensheviks. Martov and other Menshevik leaders did not give full-fledged support to the new government; they were also unwilling to oppose it. The reason for this is clear: as orthodox Marxists, they believed that a period of bourgeois democracy must precede the socialist revolution, hence their support. But, as Marxists, they were enemies of bourgeois democracy and identified that social system as an enemy of the proletariat, hence their unwillingness to participate in it.

The Lenin and his Bolsheviks looked at the situation otherwise. They went directly to the masses with solutions to their major problems and asked for the power to carry outre solutions. The Bolshevik approach proved more persuasive. 30 But persuasion was hardly the essence of the Bolshevik strategy. In November of 1917, they managed to disband the pre parliament and arrest many of its leaders.

Next they began their assault upon the remnants of the provisional government. In Petrograd, they built the nucleus of the new Soviet state. The Mensheviks were displeased by this but hardly outraged. Instead, they thought that their task was to moderate the policies ofthe Bolsheviks. Also, they wanted to persuade Lenin to admit other parties into the new government. Some Mensheviks backed the new government; others did not.

Both groups weighed what were, as they saw it, the relative benefits and costs of collaboration versus opposition. If they collaborated, they would be supporting an extremist faction bent upon thrusting Marxism upon an unprepared nation. However, they would also be supporting a party intent upon a socialist transformation of society, which, however poorly timed, seemed admirable. If they opposed the Bolsheviks, they would lend strength to reactionaries who surely had plans for a counter-revolution. Yet if they did not oppose them, democracy might disappear. Since socialism would inevitably fail unless preceded by area of bourgeois democracy, the masses feelings towards socialism might permanently sour. 31 Most Mensheviks took a middle ground -they would try to persuade their fellow Marxists to adopt a more sane course of action. 32 Two important factions existed amongst the Mensheviks.

The larger was that of Martov. Here is Brovkinssummary of his position: The partys historic role at this stage of the revolution, as Martov saw it, lay, on the one hand, in opposing Bolshevik extremist, destructive, anarcho-syndicalist, and dictatorial policies, and on the other, in preventing the organization by the Right Socialists of armed struggle against the Bolsheviks. The smaller faction, a coalition of the supporters of Potresov, Liber, and Dan, was openly hostile to Bolshevism: To the Defensists, the Bolsheviks were destructive force, an irresponsible, adventurist ic, extremist clique of party activists who had deceived the workers and betrayed Russian Democracy. The Defensists portrayed the Menshevik party as the party of the conscious proletariat, opposed to the destruction of the forces of production. Consequently, the Mensheviks should seek alliances with other democratic forces and not with the Bolsheviks. 33 The final vote at the Extraordinary Congress where the Mensheviksdebated was (out of 120): Martov, 50; Dan, 26; Liber, 13; and Potresov, 10. Brovkin notes that even if all of the opponents of Martovs position had united, they would still have been defeated.

Lenin's early policy was to Seize the bourgeoisie by the throat! aside Bolshevik slogan went. He did not like the results, so he changed his program. Now he favored what he called state capitalism. This was never rigorously defined, but it seemed to mean that private enterprise would permitted but heavily regulated by the state. Mensheviks of all persuasions looked upon this favorably.

Potresov attacked it as insufficiently capitalist; Martov and Dan were pleased by Leninschange of mind, and rejected Potresov's more laissez-faire view. Ofcourse, as Marxists, their opinions were explicitly based upon their theory of historical development which precluded a jump from their present state to socialism. Lenin's Socialism now policy was naive init's disregard of historical law. 34 Once Lenin revealed the concrete meaning of state capitalism, the Mensheviks were critical. Lenin advocated full government control of the economy; Mensheviks wanted a partnership between government, organized labor, and industrialists. Lenin wanted trade unions that would serve the government, whereas Mensheviks wanted independent trade unions. Both groups favored state regulation of industry, but the Mensheviks opposed the Bolsheviks extreme centralization of this regulation.

The Mensheviks favored partial denationalization of the banks and wanted the fixed food prices raised to encourage more food production; the Bolsheviks rejected these revisions. 35 Let us turn to the Mensheviks position on civil liberties. They certainly criticized the Bolsheviks persecution of people on account of their opinions, whether written or spoken. In fact, the Mensheviks were often on the receiving end of this repression. However, it appears that they mainly criticized the Bolsheviks for their attacks upon the non-Bolshevik socialist press. The Mensheviks did not favor silencing the bourgeoisie and czarists. Neither did they condemn the Bolsheviks on principle for punishing people for their opinions.

This would be the acid test of their commitment to civil liberties. As in the 1903 debates, the Mensheviks gave only tertiary attention to this issue. 36 By July 1919, in their Whatis to be Done? , most of the Mensheviks had switched to what amounts, more or less, to a sanction of repression: they favored civil liberties for all parties of the toiling masses and asked only that such repression as did exist be carried out by a judiciary rather than the Cheka. 37 As the Bolsheviks became more violent and dictatorial india- 1918, the two distinct factions in Mensheviks polarized and finally split. The larger section, guided by Martov, decided to accept the October Revolution as historically necessary and support the Reason the civil war against the Whites. They criticized uninhibited dictatorship by Lenin because of its psychological effects upon the masses: while proletarians needed to develop political consciousness to prepare for socialism, the dictatorship bred the opposite. This faction decided that, for all its faults, Bolshevism was superior to a White victory, and therefore condemned the other faction of Menshevism. 38 These people, the Right Mensheviks, favored a complete boycott of Bolshevik institutions. Mensheviks should not legitimize the Bolsheviks by becoming their junior partners.

The Rights argued for parliamentary democracy, not a soviet democracy, as animal goal. Interestingly, the latter plank, asserted by Liber, was apparently the position of all Mensheviks just a year earlier. 39 Getzlerindicates that the Menshevik majority's compromise was in part motivated by the defection of many Mensheviks to the Bolsheviks. 40 As the civil war intensified the Bolsheviks became progressively more brutal and totalitarian. This change was not mere pragmatism in thence of war; instead, Bolshevik theoreticians defended their behavior righteously. Trotsky did so publicly with writings such as The Defense Terrorism. In My Life Trotsky justified his liberal use of the death penalty upon uncooperative conscripts with these words: An army cannot be built without reprisals. Masses of men cannot be led to death unless the army command has the death penalty in its arsenal.

So long as those malicious tailless apes that are so proud of their technical achievements the animals that we call men will build armies and wage wars, the command will always be obliged to place the soldiers between the possible death in the front and the probable one in the rear. 41 There is no small irony in the writings of Trotsky during and about the civil war. In tone, they resemble a debate overtime fine points of Marxist dogma; in content they concern life and death for millions of human beings. It is in this cultural context that Martov, in 1919 and 1920, advanced anew position towards Bolshevism that he termed semi-loyal, semi-irreconcilable. He admitted to his fellow Mensheviks that the dictatorship had allowed a thick layer of careerists, speculators, new bureaucrats, and plain scoundrels to grow. The Bolshevik state had ceased to be a state of peasants and workers, but it was still possible (though unlikely) for the Bolshevik state to regenerate because of the idealists present among those in power. In the final analysis, the Bolsheviks were bad but a successful counter-revolution was worse.

The militant enemies of Bolshevism among the Mensheviks denounced Martov's position; indeed, even moderates found parts of it hard to swallow. Martov's reply was simple and clear: We reject the Bolshevik way of posing the question victory first, reforms after because the absence of reforms makes for defeat andnot for victory. But we also reject your way of putting it reforms first and a revolutionary assault on counter-revolution after because italy happen that nothing survives to be removed if counter-revolution gains a decisive victory. 42 Since mid- 1918, radicals amongst the Bolsheviks had frankly advocated killing off the Mensheviks along with other socialist opposition whether Martov's semi-loyal brand or there vociferous sort of Potresov. In July of 1918, the BolshevikLashevich stated this explicitly: The Right SRs and Mensheviks anymore dangerous enemies of soviet power than the bourgeoisie. Yet these enemies still have not been shot and are enjoying freedom. The proletariat must finally get down to business.

The Mensheviks and the SRs must be finished off once and for all! 43 This began as a minority position and spread as the Bolsheviks entrenched themselves. The efforts of Mensheviks like Martov to become a legal opposition party crumbled. The Bolshevik leaders intensified their attacks upon dissenters gradually but consistently. The truces made during the civil war were pure pragmatism; they were broken when the Bolsheviks felt secure.

By 1922 legal opposition all but disappeared. Mild dissent wassily officially legal, but the Cheka arrested anyone who tried to exercise his rights. There was no place for Mensheviks in this kind of a society: the Mensheviks either fled abroad, were arrested or shot, or joined the Bolsheviks. Their history as an active movement had come to and. 44 Analysis from the February Revolution to the 1922 Crackdown The Revolution of February 1917 immediately changed the focus of Russian Marxists from the European war to the internal situation inter native country. This revolution led to a string of events that altered the very nature of their fratricidal quarrels. Before, these quarrels were theoretical disputes about the fine points of Marxist ideology.

Now they had a practical aspect as well. The Bolsheviks, at turned out, were able to seize and hold center stage for themselves. The Mensheviks mainly reacted to what the Bolsheviks did. Yet the urgency and the need for swift action did not prevent the two factions from engaging in a wealth of philosophical dialogues.

These controversies proceeded dialectically; that is, abstract theses about the proper paths were advanced, and when these paths led to practical difficulties, the theses were challenged with antitheses, different policies designed to cope with the problems of the original theses. With the Bolsheviks, the final synthesis was full-fledged totalitarianism that embraced slavery, execution for contrary political beliefs, government ownership of virtually all productive organizations, and one-party rule. With the Mensheviks, the final synthesis (with honorable exceptions) was appeasement, half-hearted criticism, and amazing double-standard that led them to believe that, in some sense, Lenin's dictatorship was better than old-style authoritarianism. For example, at first the Mensheviks supported the provisional government and denounced the Bolsheviks for a host of reasons.

When the Bolsheviks ousted the Kerensky government with violence, the majority of Mensheviks shortly quieted down and tried to offer constructive criticism to those in power. When the civil war began, most Mensheviks backed the Bolsheviks, deeming a counter-revolution even worse. They did so when the governments reign of terror was in full swing and while Trotsky wrote official defenses format murder and slavery. Surely the Mensheviks, who shared withthe Bolsheviks a genuine desire to see their philosophic ideals material, could understand that the Bolsheviks meant every word. The issue of civil liberties is another instructive instance of the Mensheviks dialectical critique of Bolshevism.

At first, the Bolsheviks mainly suppressed non-socialist expression. The Mensheviks were, in principle, opposed to this, but failed to come forth and defend the rights of their class enemies. Then, the Bolsheviks turned on their fellow socialists; to this, the Mensheviks response with anger. Within year, however, majority Menshevik opinion accepted the suppression of non-socialists and asked merely that sedition charges be handled by the judiciary instead of the Cheka. At no point did the Mensheviks denounce censorship unequivocally.

Landauer is especially perceptive when he analyzes the dilemma ofthe activist who translates Marxist theories into reality: If it was permissible and even necessary to throw ones country for so long aperiodic into the horrors of civil war and dictatorship, was it then not illogical to balk at the use of deceit, torture, provocation in fact of any means that would speed up the revolution? . As long as the dictatorship of the proletariat was a matter of theoretical speculation, its unnecessary to draw this conclusion. But when Marxists had acquired the power to be ruthless, they had to answer the question ofthe extent to which this power ought to be used. For a real dialectician, only one answer was possible: Everything must be done that is in the interests of the revolution.

If Lenin did things that would have horrified Marx or even Sorel, it was not because of any deviation from Marxism; rather, it was, first, because he had made his choice between two conflicting tendencies in Marxism, and, second, because men oration have to make decisions from which philosophers can escape. 45 Lenin's choice was totalitarianism. The Mensheviks did not this far, but were willing to make a series of concessions to Lenin that they would not have considered if he had not been a fellow Marxist. Their attacks upon him, though sometimes angry and sincere, were half-hearted. After all, they considered him better than a counter-revolution, and could not paint him as a heartless monster since has the lesser of evils. The Right Mensheviks, it should be mentioned, were an important exception to these generalizations. They were militant in their criticism and refused to compromise with a government that sanctioned terrors an official policy.

Even as early as June of 1918, the Right Menshevik Martov wrote prophetically: the workers are many times more helpless and powerless than in the era of capitalism. Having proclaimed the dictatorship of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry, the Bolshevik regime has in fact turned into a dictatorship over the proletariat. 46 Some of these Mensheviks, such as Potresov, even opposed Lenin's state capitalism on the grounds that it was insufficiently capitalist. To these thinkers, a period of free-market capitalism, as opposed to state capitalism, was an essential precondition for the creation of a socialist society. The main weakness in their analysis was that, as Marxists, Mensheviks had to concede that many of Lenin's current policies would eventually be necessary, perhaps in a modified form. But if these policies led to dictatorship and economic collapse under Lenin, how could they possibly avoid identical results if they were tried later?

Like Marx, the Right Mensheviks never held the reins of the state and were therefore able to avoid answering this difficult question. Recapitulation and Reply to Criticism From its origins to its final elimination, Mensheviks remained aspects of orthodox Marxism, with all that it implies. The differences between the Mensheviks and their Bolshevik cousins existed, but have been overrated. Their similarities dominate any comparative study of the two movements.

In 1903, both factions accepted Plekhanovs statement of principles, and split only over two moderately different conceptions of the revolutionary socialist party. This split, moreover, was not primarily motivated by the Mensheviksabhorrence of autocracy, but by their conviction that it would alienate large segments of potential allies in the quest for socialism. The Bolsheviks were obviously authoritarian from the start; the Mensheviks occasionally criticized them for this, but were still willing to cooperate with them in a single party. If civil liberties were a main concern of the Mensheviks, why didnt they choose allies who shared this concern?

The most compelling answer is that they did not care enough to spurn alliances with those who disagreed. The second and final split was very similar to the first; indeed, it showed little evidence for the view that the Mensheviks had evolved toa less authoritarian point of view. The break came because the Mensheviks tried to start better relations with other socialist parties, and the Bolsheviks opposed broadening of this kind. During the war, the debates amongst the Mensheviks were at least as virulent as their debates with the Bolsheviks.

When the February Revolution created the provisional government, most Mensheviks and Bolsheviks initially supported it. Only after Lenin revealed that he wanted to smash thinner government did a tactical chasm erupt among the Russian Marxists. Their difference was not based upon a principled opposition socialist coups. Instead, the argument that the Mensheviks repeated without end was that a bourgeois capitalist phase was historically necessary for socialism to appear. Ultimately, they were accusing the Bolsheviks more of poor timing than anything else. Once the Bolsheviks were in power, the Mensheviks split into two distinct camps.

The majority did not like what the Bolsheviks we redoing, but feared counter-revolution even more. They hoped to become a loyal opposition party. The minority, the Right Mensheviks, was more radical, and eventually endorsed a violent overthrow of Bolshevism. They saw that the dictatorship of Lenin was more oppressive than the czarist autocracy had ever been. It is safe to say that both sorts of Mensheviks did not approve of the unflinching brutality of the Bolsheviks and would have done things differently. It isas safe to say that most of them were willing to tolerate it and that all them would have endorsed some sort of dictatorship once it became historically necessary.

There are many possible objections to this thesis. In an attempt to answer them, I shall emphasize first oral what this thesis does not argue. It does not claim that there was no difference between the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks, or that the Mensheviks leanings towards what moderns would call social democracy did not exist. It does not claim that the Mensheviks would have been totalitarians if they ever held the reins of power.

It does not claim that the Mensheviks were not sincerely opposed to the Bolsheviks more extreme policies. With this in mind let us consider two major counter-claims. The first istat the Mensheviks, in time, would have become full-fledged social democrats who opposed violent revolution and would have tolerated opposition. It is never impossible for anyone to change his or herein, but there is not much evidence for this view in the Mensheviks history. They never had passionate and lengthy debates with anyone over the virtues of civil liberties and parliamentary democracy. Instead, their debates were over technical issues in Marxist ideology, such aside proper party structure and the correct time for revolution.

They never showed great enthusiasm for tolerating non-socialist parties. The real acid test of a groups commitment to liberal values is when they extend tolerance to their enemies as well as their friends. The Mensheviks did not, and it is difficult to see how tolerance of this kind could be derived from Marxist philosophy. Scholars of the history of socialist thought have noted that, at least in modernized countries, there is a tendency for orthodox Marxistsocialists to gradually mellow: from Bernsteinism and revisionism to Marxist democratic socialism to middle-of-the-road non- Marxist social democracy. 47 Perhaps the Mensheviks would eventually have developed in the same manner if they had not been largely destroyed or co-opted by the Bolsheviks. Some facts support the claim that such trend exists. Still, it is far from a perfect induction: witness the cases the French and Italian Communist parties which have remained orthodox at least until recently.

Even if this trend in the history of socialism correlated perfectly with the facts, it would remain a mere historical truth (such as the law that American presidents elected infers ending in a 0 invariably die in office incidentally refuted by these of Ronald Reagan) until justified by a cogent theory. This takes outside the scope of this paper, so we will leave it an open question. The second major counter-claim is: the Mensheviks would not have used terror and would have only pursued policies that the bulk of the population endorsed. This seems more reasonable than the first claim.

If by terror one means mass shootings and general arrest of people for their opinions, one might be correct. Even this is arguable: when the time was right, they surely would have favored repression against the bourgeoisie. Or suppose that the population was unwilling to go along with the pattern that Marx said was historically necessary? Wouldnt the Mensheviks have to admit that the revolution is above mere bourgeois morality and gone ahead whether the masses wanted to or not? In any case, this objection is not inconsistent with the argument of this paper. The Mensheviks certainly showed apprehension at the use of terror and wanted the masses to participate in the political process.

They also embraced values that could conflict with these scruples. Who can say what they would have done if they held power? We must answer, with Landauer, that philosophers can escape the responsibility to decide between conflicting ends while men of power cannot. Still, how complimentary is it to say of a political party that, They probably wouldnt have resorted to mass murder and totalitarianism? The implication is thatcher possibly would have. Menshevism's Critique of Bolshevism: Its Current Relevance Most historians who have studied Mensheviks, including Getzler, Brovkin, and perhaps Haimson, think that the Mensheviks had positive lessons for their country and the world.

In his concluding tribute to Martov, Getzler states: He


Free research essays on topics related to: revolution of 1905, russo japanese war, civil liberties, ruling classes, violent revolution

Research essay sample on Russo Japanese War Revolution Of 1905

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com