Lenin called his faction The Majority because he won a vote on a policy position. Once. His rival Martov thought this was funny and silly and started calling his own (read- the rest of the Party) The Minority instead, even though they were the larger of the two. Martov was the classic "nice guy with no political sense".
@@pompom8315 Initially. He broke with Lenin shortly after the Bolsheviks were formed, within a couple of years in fact. The size of both factions fluctuated, but the crucial policy difference which split them was precisely that the Bolsheviks wanted a more tight-knit, exclusive membership of full-time revolutionaries while the Mensheviks were more flexible.
Lenin wrote a shit ton of books himself. Even though it's a propaganda, it's a very good source, you can read how he grabbed the power during complete anarchy after WW1.
I walk in there holding a lewis gun, with a 1897 trench gun on my back, and a c96 mauser for a sidearm. I approach the door guards “excuse sir i heard there was a revolution going on right now. Where is it?” And the guards like : “its down the hall to the left. Just like the course of politics here.”
A point regarding the July demonstration which led to the crackdown against the Bolsheviks: this was an armed demonstration started by parts of the garrison demanding that the Sowjet, which was then led by the Mensheviks, take power as the legitimate government. The Bolshevik leadership tried to prevent this demonstration as they did not feel it had adequate support, but it was impossible and so the Bolsheviks reluctantly joined. However, all they ever did was camp out in front of the Sowjet building for half a day or so. I think this is an important consideration in that the Bolsheviks weren‘t in direct control of the Revolutionary elements in the working class, but that those elements arose and grew independently of them, but increasingly turning to the Bolsheviks as it became obvious that not relief was coming from the other parties. It is also notable that in this situation, it was the Bolsheviks essentially calling for the Mensheviks to take power, and the Mensheviks not only turning them down but labeling them as terrorists and enemies of the state for their trouble. Remember, all they did was join in a demonstration and raise demands. This also shows what an impossible situation the Mensheviks put themselves in, as they were essentially opposed to the Soviets as a form of government, and yet their own power was wholly based on the Soviets and quickly evaporated once they lost control of them, while in the meantime, the Soviet even under Menshevik leadership was constantly acquiring government functions despite attempting to pass all authority on to the Provisional government.
very reminiscent of the SPD being bellicose towards the KPD in the interwar era and in the time of rising fascism in Germany. social democrats are always such fools
Also, Leon Trotsky was at first a menshevik until 1917 until he realized they weren’t gonna win out and joined the Bolsheviks. Basically Trotsky pulled an Italy and switched sides.
@@now-semen-up No, no it didn't. The people who made the decision to switch sides were part of Mussolini's government. They kicked out Mussolini, but the power struggle was internal and the resulting government consisted of mostly the same people.
@@davemojarra2666 I mean it was stalin's 5 year plans that massively increased production of steel oil and coal and made massive heavy industries in the USSR. when lenin was in power he implemented a new economic policy but that was designed more to save the russian economy because it was shot after the civil war.
Video ideas : -why do we clap our hands to show appreciation?who invented it? -the great northern war -when did the romans acknowledge christianity and why? -how did the allies react when indonesia got invaded by the dutch shortly after the end of WWII?
About Romans accepting the Christianity: It was a long process, but one of biggest milestones here was year 313, when discrimination of Christianity was officially banned. As time was progressing, Emperors were more and more Christian, and so it became Christian.
"Which must have been quite awkward given that the coming revolution was just down the hall to the left." This is one of the greatest lines I have ever heard in my life.
The issue with the Mensheviks is they were a bit too entranced by orthodox marxism, which meant they were convinced the natural march of history was on their side, which made them excessively passive. Feel bad for them though, they were basically nice people - you can see their fundamental niceness even very early on the initial split in the Bolsheviks.
At least the Mensheviks were a tad smarter and more patient and cooperative than the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks are litterally the main reason why communism is seen as a symbole of evil today like Nazism or fascism.
@@casparvoncampenhausen5249 I mean, if communism is truly the next step for humanity, it'll happen that way. Feudalism didn't ended because some capitalists woke up one day and said "Oh hey, let's have workers instead of serfs". It takes time and a lot of factors to come into fruition. The bolsheviks basically wanted to make a speedrun.
@Holly B. I mean, the theory would have been to follow the menshevik Path. We've never tried so even you think it's unlikely(admittedly i have my doubts too) it's still possible It could've worked.
Sad but very, very true. In 1932 socialists and communists could have formed a governement together in germany by election results - but they could not agree on it, which gave hitler the opportunity to ally with royalists and burgouis parties and become cancellor.
@@gyuhff I have a vague idea where you´re coming from, but thats bullshit - let me give a history lesson: They had "socialist" in their parties name, and in the beginning there was a wing of the party that used revolutionary rethoric and argued some socialist policies - or rather social programs (food programs, family support ect) That changed fast, though, and at the latest after the dismantling of the SA, nothing "left" was left. They practiced rigid hirachy, strong centralized leadership, where allied with super-rich of the owner class, rabidly anticommunist, anti-union and nationalistic, focused on military heroization, police state ect. All strong right-wing policy practices. Left wing policies are defined by power distribution, emancipation of supressed groups, internationalism, redistribution of wealth from up to down, communalization of the means of production ect. Nothing of which the nazis did. (also Stalin by the way, which is why most leftists do not consider the UDSSR a leftist regime, no matter what they called themselves) Not to mention that by now theyve become the very posterchild of an extreme right-wing party that went far, far too far. Either you have no idea in the slightest of history and political theory - and are confused by the word "socialist" they used. Or you simpla are a bad-faith a****ole trying to rewrite history and hang that whole tragedy on "the left". You pick.
Lenin is Goliath and Goliath demolished his opponents. Better organized, and much more aggressive and stayed on message. There can be no non communists sort of like Islam there can be no non converts but the ottomans did have a openness for skilled labor of Christians and Judaism. If you had a skill, you had a place to live in prosperity a little unknown fact of ottoman empire. Lenin followed that same thought abought enforcing communism the minority did not feel this way. Lenin Trotsky jumped over reds and Stalin created quite the triumvirate. A leader military genius and an enforcer.
The initial Kronstadt sailors had, for the most part, long since spread out through the bulk of the red army, so let's not mix the two time periods of 1917 and 1921 up. Given that there was still a danger of a naval invasion by the french near petrograd that would have led to a massacre there even if it didn't hold the city, and that several of the demands of the rebellion weren't sustainable given how constantly near collapse the new USSR was; there wasn't a huge amount of choice in suppressing the mutiny.
@@jadapinkett1656 there is no such thing as right-anarchism. Anarchism means opposition to all hierarchy, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, there is no capitalism without owners and bosses who can give orders to workers.
Oh also the SRs never had 50% in the duma. They had 37%. And they also split with many joining the Bolsheviks which wasn’t accounted for in the election.
It’s important to note that the bolsheviks also supported a state capitalist stage (Lenin’s nep obviously) to get to the necessary conditions for socialism- the difference was having the idea of only the proletariat at the helm vs working with the capitalist class
@@Yo-ps2pf what are you talking about? It’s weird to acknowledge that as a major difference when the nep literally existed. That’s all I’m saying, it’s a bit of a simplification
If by communism you mean, the society with no state, no classes, no markets, no money, no wage labor, No private property that Marx advocated or predicted After the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, clearly it was not communism. The NEP had all of those things. Lenin’s idea was that they would operate under the control of the state, so that exploitation would not get out of hand and a ruling class would not emerge from market operations and political corruption. They could run their own farms for their own small profits, selling all their produce to the USSR Government. This was to give farmers incentive to grow more food (and to ease the bureaucratic burden on the USSR).
The SR were the major faction in number until the bolsheviks dissolved the constitutional assembly and dissolved the party gradually through 18-21. It played a major role, often dismissed by everybody, organizing the revolution in the countryside. The bolsheviks and mensheviks disputed urban areas and were far more organized as parties, but the sheer numbers were with the SRP
Video ideas: How did China split up into regional states in the 20th century? How did Poland - Lithuania decline? The great depression How did Liberia escape colonialism?
If anything Liberia didnt really escape imperialism/colonialism. Originally they were colonized by the USA(I may be wrong on this one, but many African Americans did travel to Liberia if I am not wrong.) and they were considered to be a part of the USA for the longest time. There weren't any cards Liberia played to remain independent, it was just the colonial powers believing Liberia was still apart of the USA. Pretty simple I suppose.
Liberia didn't escape colonialism at all, it was a colony, just a very particular kind of colony designed to send American blacks back to Africa. Now, it is a well known fact that the decline of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was due to their particular form of government, because it made the country vulnerable to foreign interference while their neighbors had strong rulers. So no great misery there, but could be interesting regardless. And the great depression is a bit too broad, but maybe something specific about the great depression might be interesting.
The only people that are free are the ones that own the means of production. We can not let the capitalists own us and earn from our labour for the sake of peace.
Keep in mind that the Kronstadt anarchists WERE left wing, they didn't just have left wing sympathies, the anarchist ideology of the rebellion was in itself an inherently leftist one.
@@Chocolatnave123 that's blatantly false - there are right wing anarchists, but most anarchists are left wing. If you actually look at anarchist ideology it is left wing, and most political philosophers would agree
Actually Anarchiest can't be left or right in the classic sense. Left and right are different ideologies that boil down to 'what the governement should do for whoom'. Anarchism on the other hand is literally the posotion that there should be NO governement at all. And when you are of the opinion that governement should never, under any circusmtance, exist, then you can't have an opinion of what that nonexistant government should do. The main problem with both Modern and Historical Anarchist Groups/Movements is that they were technically mislabeled as Anarchist, with most of them beeing some variation of Libertarian/Minimalist that wanted the governement to do a few specific things and otherwise be as small as possible.
@@larrian3846 While I am not a true expert at the detail level, the basic definition of anarchism, left and right as used for politics are clear enought and fast to look up. As said before, left and right used in the political sense reference various ideas/directions that people want the governement to act. The basis of anarchism on the other hand is literally the idea to abolish all government. Although admitedly there has been an absolutely enormous amount of misuse of the term to this day. Plus the fact that oftentimes two things get mixed together, namely what people want and what they realisticialy hope to achieve. A.k.A a person might wish for anarchy, but sets some other e.g. left-wing political goal as a 'if we can't have anarchy, lets at least get this' It's a bit like the difference between e.g. Christians, Bhuddist etc. and Atheists. The first are various different religions, while the last is the absence of ALL religion. And while there are plenty of cases of either simple mislabeling, throwing together non-governmental stuff with anarchism (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, combining the absence of government with unregulated capitalism), or different levels of goals as described before, any actuall anarchist idea/goal can never be 'inherently left/right/center'. Or any other flavour of governmental direction/basis. TL;DR: look up the basic definition of anarchism, then be annoyed to reallize that it's almost as openly misused in comon and even professional use as socialism is the USA
Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast emphasized the two side's conflict over personal morality. The Mensheviks thought that Lenin was utterly craven and amoral in his interpersonal dealings.
@@HodgePodgeVids1 NO NO NO only eat the people who are currently rich when I come to power after taking power dont eat me. Communism in a nutshell replaces greedy capitalists with greedy communist politicians.
The Majority in Bolshevik refers to the majority of important issues that Lenin's faction stood for and won through voting during 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party to decide on the party program, policy, etc. The actual faction membership was roughly even.
@@davidwalker8581 ბევჯერ ჰქონია რუკები არასწორად, უბრალოდ სადმე საქართველო თუ ჰქონდა 10იდან 9 შემთხვევაში მთლიანი იყო და ახლა რატო დადო ასეთი ძაან გამიკვირდა
@@MrHat. Can you tell me how can a country transform into communism when there's so many countries and corporations wanna destroy their socialism and make their workers wage slaves?
"What are you doing, i thought i was the one under attack?" "Well, remember when we ousted you from power? Well it turns out we're not revolutionary enough for the revolution anymore!"
This episode is was great but abkhazia and south Ossetia are shown as not a part of georgia and southern territory still isn't shown as Georgian that was the only mistake I noticed
Fun fact: back in 1918-1921 georgian mensheviks were quite popular in Georgia, despite the fact that influential bolshevik (Stalin) was georgian. Menshevik goverment even collaborated with georgian nationalists and distanced the country from both reds and whites. After Georgia was ilegally occupied ("sovetized") in 1921 former government fled in France. Majority of the population, who were "liberated" by the bolsheviks (according to their propaganda) actually hated the new goverment which was basically a puppet of the kremlin. Once when Stalin himself visited railroad workers in Tbilisi the "liberated" workers allegedly started shouting, interrupting and calling him out for being a traitor. He was eventually forced to leave the event and punished some of his political rivals for "allowing the spread of anti-bolshevik agenda". Eventually, during and after the great purge of the 1930s speaking about georgian independence and the exiled goverment became a taboo and in the 1940s after the defeat of the nazis Stalin managed to build his personality cult.
His personality cult still somewhat exists there to this day. I spent some time there in 2013-14 doing humanitarian work and there was a distinct low-key support for Stalin and the USSR amongst the eldest population with his birthplace of Gori being an almost pilgrim site for some of them to pay respects to the Man of Steel. Unfortunately the museum to Stalin in Gori tried overcharging our group of 30 for entry tickets (roughly $45 per person when it was originally only $15 or so) so we missed the opportunity to tour it. However the little wooden shack of a house he was born in was kept preserved out front for all to see. Was a very odd experience.
Damn that's sad. I know many soviet union people at first invited nazi as they're tired of communist government. I have also heard how Ukraine, Poland and now Georgia wanted independence from Bolshevik
Mensheviks collaborating with national bourgeoisie? Of course, because they weren't actually interested in building socialism, just opportunist liberals looking to cash in for their betrayal. "illegally occupied" you say, who gives a fuck about the bourgeois law codified to paint a false veneer of justification for their ruthless exploitation?
@@mexicanhalloween I said "illegally occupied" because the occupation was illegall. In spring of 1920 bolshevik Russia tried to stage a coup, however without any support neither from the military or the common people the coup failed. Then russians used the failed coup attempt to invade Georgia, but georgians managed to defeat the attackers. This resulted in the peace treaty on may 7, 1920. According to the treaty, bolshevik Russia officially, de-jure recognized Georgia as a sovereign, independent nation and menshevik goverment as legitimate. They also promised to respect Georgian borders and neutrality. In exchange, Georgia gave Sochi district to soviet russia, promised to not grant asylum to any foreign military force hostile to the bolsheviks and legalized bolshevik movement in Georgia (which untill then was officially a terrorist organisation). However, few months later, in early 1921 seeing that georgian bolshevik movement had no chance to ignite major popular uprising (because majority of the people saw them as radical terrorists and did not support them) soviet Russia invaded and occupied Georgia again to "liberate the opressed people" (according to their own propaganda). So bolsheviks ignored and broke the treaty they themselves signed and promised to respect. How can this be legal or legitimate?
I don't think the question on party dsicipline could be accurately assessed as a "small issue". The split was over the issue of whether or not just anyone could have become a member. One route opens the door to party infiltrators and revisionism (particularly while their movement was underground during Tsarist times), the other to a tightly regulated political party that maintains a strict, centralised line over it's programme and tactics. One of these could stand on their own and carry off a revolution, the other splintered into various factions, with some of the most extreme vacillators even siding with monarchists against their former comrades in the end.
United forever, in friendship and labour. Our mighty republics, will ever endure! The Great Soviet Union will live through the ages. The dream of a people, their fortress secure
@history matters Next time tick to generate the sub when you upload video onto UA-cam, it's helps greatly, especially for those non native English speakers.
How can you lose if your party is literally named "the majority"? [insert black guy tapping his forehead meme here] WARNING: GUYS BELOW HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR, YOU'RE SCROLLING DOWN AT YOUR OWN RISK
Seems like the type of party to say what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable. Hints what always happens with communism no one wants to give anything up INCLUDING THE GOUVERNMENT so you just replace greedy capitalists with greedy politicians.
Here's the thing about that: Lenin called his splinter group the "Majority" because a lot of the undecided delegates at the 2nd Party Congress had left because Lenin, like him or hate him, debated/argued like an ASSHOLE. So with the moderates, which mostly surrounded Martov (but Trotsky was also over there too), effectively losing their voting bloc, Lenin rammed stuff through until the moderate delegates returned to retake their majority. It was clever political branding by Lenin in all honesty
Most power struggles, battles and wars are not necessarily won by the more powerful side, but by the side that doesn't fuck up as much. This is how time after time the underdog wins.
It would be intresting to see own video about SR's. Like how after october revolution Bolsheviks formed coalition goverment with the left SR's and then they did failed revolution attempt half year later.
“The coming revolution was down the hall on the *left*”
Nice touch
"You know you could have just sent an email instead of all these red guards into my office?"
Ironically the leftists used to sit on the left.
@@JonatasAdoM Ironically?! What's ironic about it? It's the *origin* of the terms Left and Right for political orientation.
@John Doe mine! no, yours! no, mine, but in a mirror!
Lenin had good PR sense. Calling his smaller group majority made it sound more important.
Lenin called his faction The Majority because he won a vote on a policy position. Once.
His rival Martov thought this was funny and silly and started calling his own (read- the rest of the Party) The Minority instead, even though they were the larger of the two.
Martov was the classic "nice guy with no political sense".
Is this serious? I'd like to read more about it
Probably would have been a better person to lead then Lenin
@@leonardofranzinribeiro4220 Try "Lenin: The Dictator" by Victor Sebestyen. It's the most recent Lenin biography I read.
And yes, this is serious.
@@pompom8315 Initially. He broke with Lenin shortly after the Bolsheviks were formed, within a couple of years in fact.
The size of both factions fluctuated, but the crucial policy difference which split them was precisely that the Bolsheviks wanted a more tight-knit, exclusive membership of full-time revolutionaries while the Mensheviks were more flexible.
Lenin wrote a shit ton of books himself. Even though it's a propaganda, it's a very good source, you can read how he grabbed the power during complete anarchy after WW1.
“Hi I’m here for the revolution?”
“Down the hall to the left”
“Thank you :D”
*I understand that reference*
comrade trump
Crucifixion?
I walk in there holding a lewis gun, with a 1897 trench gun on my back, and a c96 mauser for a sidearm. I approach the door guards “excuse sir i heard there was a revolution going on right now. Where is it?” And the guards like : “its down the hall to the left. Just like the course of politics here.”
"DOWN WITH THE GOVERNMENT!" "No no that's down the hall to the left, I have to tell you their flying some new flag. That's a big red flag"
Because the Bolsheviks had the financial backing of James Bissonnette.
muh conspiracy
Lol
He is luckiest man in history (matters)
@Dai Nguyen the guy who outspent the Soviet Union during the Cold War leading to it's collapse in 1991.
Dai Nguyen the donor that History Matters gives a shoutout to at the end of every video
An often overlooked aspect of the Russian Revolution. Thanks for covering.
I enjoy your videos mate.
🔯 often overlooked 🔯 aspect of 🔯 Bolshevik Revolution 🔯
@@hello-cn5nh ((()))
@@hello-cn5nh what? The Jews haven't nothing to do with October Revolution. The rise to Power by the Bolsheviks was supported by Kaiser Wilhelm ll
"Why did Lavrenty Beria lose the post Stalin Power Struggle?" would be a good topic to cover I think.
I don’t even know what that is
Death of Stalin, fans, hooray!
He molested young girls and was extremely unliked
Didn’t have Jason isaacs on his side, duh
Coz the only choice they had was his death or his revenge
Am I the only one who watches these vids, just to see animated representations of historical figures prancing through fields of flowers? I love it!
"The War should continue" - Mensheviks (1903 - 1921)
Best tombstone ever.
02:46 The Mesheviks went down to Georgia, they were looking for a soul to steal.
The map was wrong though
Nice reference.
@@davidwalker8581 yes it's missing Sochi samachablo abkhazia adjara Tao klarjeti lore and hereti
@@sababugs1125any video that is related to georgia, I always see you in the comments
wrong map bruh
They lost because, in the end, the Mensheviks were merely Boysheviks.
Bruh
Ha! Gottem!
where girlsheviks
what about the gentleshviks?
Femmesheviks
I like how he usually draws stalin with an angry look. It just fits him.
I don't know why, but History Matters's depiction of Stalin looks kinda like Freddy Mercury to me.
What a great channel! Audio information along with visual comedy. It's like a spoonful of humor helps the history go down.
A point regarding the July demonstration which led to the crackdown against the Bolsheviks: this was an armed demonstration started by parts of the garrison demanding that the Sowjet, which was then led by the Mensheviks, take power as the legitimate government.
The Bolshevik leadership tried to prevent this demonstration as they did not feel it had adequate support, but it was impossible and so the Bolsheviks reluctantly joined. However, all they ever did was camp out in front of the Sowjet building for half a day or so. I think this is an important consideration in that the Bolsheviks weren‘t in direct control of the Revolutionary elements in the working class, but that those elements arose and grew independently of them, but increasingly turning to the Bolsheviks as it became obvious that not relief was coming from the other parties.
It is also notable that in this situation, it was the Bolsheviks essentially calling for the Mensheviks to take power, and the Mensheviks not only turning them down but labeling them as terrorists and enemies of the state for their trouble. Remember, all they did was join in a demonstration and raise demands.
This also shows what an impossible situation the Mensheviks put themselves in, as they were essentially opposed to the Soviets as a form of government, and yet their own power was wholly based on the Soviets and quickly evaporated once they lost control of them, while in the meantime, the Soviet even under Menshevik leadership was constantly acquiring government functions despite attempting to pass all authority on to the Provisional government.
very reminiscent of the SPD being bellicose towards the KPD in the interwar era and in the time of rising fascism in Germany. social democrats are always such fools
Who else watches these videos to make sure that James Bissonnette is still alive
a fellow James Bissonnette stan
Amazing comment
Im willing to bet money that he's only watching these videos just to make sure he's at the top
Comment of the decade.
james bisonette cannot die
Also, Leon Trotsky was at first a menshevik until 1917 until he realized they weren’t gonna win out and joined the Bolsheviks. Basically Trotsky pulled an Italy and switched sides.
italy had a revolution, it never switched sides
@@now-semen-up you must be fun at parties
@@k0mentator507 dont care, its another dumb ass reddit meme
@@now-semen-up corrct me if im wrong but there was no revolution in 1915 when they switched.
@@now-semen-up No, no it didn't. The people who made the decision to switch sides were part of Mussolini's government. They kicked out Mussolini, but the power struggle was internal and the resulting government consisted of mostly the same people.
Mensheviks: We must industrialize first
Stalin: *EXCELSIOR*
Lenin, actually.
More like
Mensheviks: we should support the capitalist class
Lenin: no compromise
@@davemojarra2666 I mean it was stalin's 5 year plans that massively increased production of steel oil and coal and made massive heavy industries in the USSR. when lenin was in power he implemented a new economic policy but that was designed more to save the russian economy because it was shot after the civil war.
Stalin isn't form the Empire State or even _the State of_ Georgia, the *Empire State of the South!*
@@bartoszmolenda331 And what about agriculture?
Fun Fact: The reason they broke up is that the Bolsheviks believed that cereal is a soup while the Mensheviks didn’t.
If only the founding fathers would’ve resolved that bit.
@@jasonduhela9597 dude.................................. VERY COOL!
This enraged his father who punished him severely
Joshua Joe Is that true?
And a taco is just a sandwich...
*"The Minority in the Majority and the Majority in the Minority"*
Makes sence to me
Confused confusing confusion
Very Orwellian
Oversimplified fans will know
Russia is a funny place like that.
Video ideas :
-why do we clap our hands to show appreciation?who invented it?
-the great northern war
-when did the romans acknowledge christianity and why?
-how did the allies react when indonesia got invaded by the dutch shortly after the end of WWII?
I like them ideas!
First question was addressed by vsauce
About Romans accepting the Christianity:
It was a long process, but one of biggest milestones here was year 313, when discrimination of Christianity was officially banned. As time was progressing, Emperors were more and more Christian, and so it became Christian.
I'd really like a video on the great Northern war!
@@casparvoncampenhausen5249 Extra History did a good series on it a while back
"Which must have been quite awkward given that the coming revolution was just down the hall to the left."
This is one of the greatest lines I have ever heard in my life.
Wow! I had NO IDEA about this. Thank you History Matters!!
Ah yes, housing two completely different governments in the same building. What could go wrong?
Hasn't that been the case in the US Capitol for years with only brief interruptions?
Kerensky: Why can't you be normal?!
Lenin: *Screaming in socialism*
Keep seeing you.
"Eat the rich" this is why i love this channel so much
Sounds like the US right now...
I feel happy everytime this channel uploads
A video on the The League of Nations and why it failed would be interesting.
I was gonna have exam about Russian revolution and now History matters has uploaded this. Thank you History matters!
The issue with the Mensheviks is they were a bit too entranced by orthodox marxism, which meant they were convinced the natural march of history was on their side, which made them excessively passive. Feel bad for them though, they were basically nice people - you can see their fundamental niceness even very early on the initial split in the Bolsheviks.
Considering that the Bolsheviks failed to build a lasting communist state the Mensheviks might have been onto something
@@Some_Average_Joe yeah, I mean let's wait and slowly transition towards communism, that actually sounds like a plan that could work
At least the Mensheviks were a tad smarter and more patient and cooperative than the Bolsheviks.
The Bolsheviks are litterally the main reason why communism is seen as a symbole of evil today like Nazism or fascism.
@@casparvoncampenhausen5249 I mean, if communism is truly the next step for humanity, it'll happen that way. Feudalism didn't ended because some capitalists woke up one day and said "Oh hey, let's have workers instead of serfs". It takes time and a lot of factors to come into fruition. The bolsheviks basically wanted to make a speedrun.
@Holly B. I mean, the theory would have been to follow the menshevik Path. We've never tried so even you think it's unlikely(admittedly i have my doubts too) it's still possible It could've worked.
"Your mother" - Lenin, probably
Normie
"Your collective mothers"- Stalin, probably
"My theory of collective owmership is like your mother."
Whoa leftists groups splitting due to ideology? No way
Sad but very, very true.
In 1932 socialists and communists could have formed a governement together in germany by election results - but they could not agree on it, which gave hitler the opportunity to ally with royalists and burgouis parties and become cancellor.
Bruh
"I'm standing in the way of leftist unity."
@@nilesbutler8638 the Nazis were a leftist group dude.
@@gyuhff I have a vague idea where you´re coming from, but thats bullshit - let me give a history lesson:
They had "socialist" in their parties name, and in the beginning there was a wing of the party that used revolutionary rethoric and argued some socialist policies - or rather social programs (food programs, family support ect)
That changed fast, though, and at the latest after the dismantling of the SA, nothing "left" was left.
They practiced rigid hirachy, strong centralized leadership, where allied with super-rich of the owner class, rabidly anticommunist, anti-union and nationalistic, focused on military heroization, police state ect.
All strong right-wing policy practices.
Left wing policies are defined by power distribution, emancipation of supressed groups, internationalism, redistribution of wealth from up to down, communalization of the means of production ect. Nothing of which the nazis did. (also Stalin by the way, which is why most leftists do not consider the UDSSR a leftist regime, no matter what they called themselves)
Not to mention that by now theyve become the very posterchild of an extreme right-wing party that went far, far too far.
Either you have no idea in the slightest of history and political theory - and are confused by the word "socialist" they used. Or you simpla are a bad-faith a****ole trying to rewrite history and hang that whole tragedy on "the left".
You pick.
I had no idea this happened. As always, thanks for the info.
At first these were history lessons,
3:02
now they are a survival guide
The way your models gaze into my soul sucks me further into the content displayed. They're so damn funny ! Especially with their little signs 🤪
I've never heard of the Mensheviks before. Thanks for this video!
"Why did the Mensheviks Lose to the Bolsheviks?" Because who doesn't like a David and Goliath situation where the names are switched.
why do I already picture Goliath clubbing David to death instead of Goliath originally being noscoped in the forehead with a rock
Lenin is Goliath and Goliath demolished his opponents. Better organized, and much more aggressive and stayed on message. There can be no non communists sort of like Islam there can be no non converts but the ottomans did have a openness for skilled labor of Christians and Judaism. If you had a skill, you had a place to live in prosperity a little unknown fact of ottoman empire. Lenin followed that same thought abought enforcing communism the minority did not feel this way. Lenin Trotsky jumped over reds and Stalin created quite the triumvirate. A leader military genius and an enforcer.
"Some left wing sympathies" meaning the Kronstadt sailors were generally known as the most ardently leftist sailors in the entire Russian navy
Yeah, like, what? "They were anarchists, but some had leftist sympathies"? That's complete nonsense. Anarchism is the most left of all ideologies.
The initial Kronstadt sailors had, for the most part, long since spread out through the bulk of the red army, so let's not mix the two time periods of 1917 and 1921 up. Given that there was still a danger of a naval invasion by the french near petrograd that would have led to a massacre there even if it didn't hold the city, and that several of the demands of the rebellion weren't sustainable given how constantly near collapse the new USSR was; there wasn't a huge amount of choice in suppressing the mutiny.
@@icedragon769 No. Anarchism isn't left-wing. It has variations of both left and right.
@@jadapinkett1656 there is no such thing as right-anarchism. Anarchism means opposition to all hierarchy, capitalism is inherently hierarchical, there is no capitalism without owners and bosses who can give orders to workers.
@@icedragon769 “mother Anarchy loves her sons”. Intensifies
Trotsky maneuvering around the background and switching sides is a nice little Easter egg
and he was killed in the end by someone even more slimy and corrupt.
and besides, Trotsky's idea of a global socialist revolution was so stupid.
@@LevisH21 how could stalin be corrupt if he killed all of his high rank generals and so on because they were trotskyst
Does anyone else fall helplessly into laughter when you see the sign “soon”? 🤣😂😂
This question has tormented my studies of this event for so long. Thanks for anwsering it.
Fun fact in 1917 SRs had one million members and 50% of the seats in the State Duma.
Yup and the Left SRs split and joined the Bolsheviks, who had 800,000 members by october 1917 and 23% in the duma, spurring the revolution
Oh also the SRs never had 50% in the duma. They had 37%. And they also split with many joining the Bolsheviks which wasn’t accounted for in the election.
It’s important to note that the bolsheviks also supported a state capitalist stage (Lenin’s nep obviously) to get to the necessary conditions for socialism- the difference was having the idea of only the proletariat at the helm vs working with the capitalist class
everything you said made no sense, read more about war communism
@@Yo-ps2pf what are you talking about? It’s weird to acknowledge that as a major difference when the nep literally existed. That’s all I’m saying, it’s a bit of a simplification
If by communism you mean, the society with no state, no classes, no markets, no money, no wage labor, No private property that Marx advocated or predicted After the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, clearly it was not communism. The NEP had all of those things. Lenin’s idea was that they would operate under the control of the state, so that exploitation would not get out of hand and a ruling class would not emerge from market operations and political corruption.
They could run their own farms for their own small profits, selling all their produce to the USSR Government. This was to give farmers incentive to grow more food (and to ease the bureaucratic burden on the USSR).
i always think Trotsky’s little soul patch is an open mouth and he has an always shocked expression
The SR were the major faction in number until the bolsheviks dissolved the constitutional assembly and dissolved the party gradually through 18-21. It played a major role, often dismissed by everybody, organizing the revolution in the countryside. The bolsheviks and mensheviks disputed urban areas and were far more organized as parties, but the sheer numbers were with the SRP
@1:56 LMAO
That sign!!!!!
Video ideas: How did China split up into regional states in the 20th century?
How did Poland - Lithuania decline?
The great depression
How did Liberia escape colonialism?
Liberia did not escape colonialism because it was an American colony
Good ones. I would also like to add: Why does the US have territories? and Why does Panama exist?
If anything Liberia didnt really escape imperialism/colonialism. Originally they were colonized by the USA(I may be wrong on this one, but many African Americans did travel to Liberia if I am not wrong.) and they were considered to be a part of the USA for the longest time. There weren't any cards Liberia played to remain independent, it was just the colonial powers believing Liberia was still apart of the USA. Pretty simple I suppose.
Liberia didn't escape colonialism at all, it was a colony, just a very particular kind of colony designed to send American blacks back to Africa.
Now, it is a well known fact that the decline of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth was due to their particular form of government, because it made the country vulnerable to foreign interference while their neighbors had strong rulers. So no great misery there, but could be interesting regardless.
And the great depression is a bit too broad, but maybe something specific about the great depression might be interesting.
@@christianweibrecht6555 i know but it is complicated that way and thats why it is an interesting topic
Great explanation.
Well done piece.
Thanks for making good high quality videos
you should do one about why Ireland was able to split from the UK, but neither Scotland nor Wales have been able to repeat that.
0:06 the guy on the left looks suspiciously like Penn Jilette
2:48 that is one trollish map of Georgia ;)
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!!!!
Very interesting, thanks!
Why did the Bolsheviks win?
0:35 The first, led by Vladimir Lenin, was the Bolsheviks meaning majority.
Rolls credits
Mensheviks: Lets keep it calm
Bolsheviks: Seize the means of Production!!!
The only people that are free are the ones that own the means of production.
We can not let the capitalists own us and earn from our labour for the sake of peace.
@@ClayandPapyrus "Insert Chicken knocks down the door video" here.
Bolsheviks: Lets keep it calm...
and cut off their balls...
Bolsheviks: ,,Our Red Army is invincible!"
Poland: *Are you sure about that?*
Bolsheviks: Our Red Army is invincible!
Poland: Are you sure about that?
Bolsheviks (post WWII): What did you say biatch?
1:49 lmao ‘silly man’😂
All the little signs in the background during the video are a joy.
I just love your Videos man. Exactly would i would prefer after a nightshift. Please keep it up.
I'd love one on the Kronstadt Uprising. It's a great story.
Another question which I never thought about but got curious instantly upon hearing it
I love how this channel's weird art style makes the regular Mosin rifles look like fucked up chopped down obrez guns
I love this channel so much
Nicely explained.
Keep in mind that the Kronstadt anarchists WERE left wing, they didn't just have left wing sympathies, the anarchist ideology of the rebellion was in itself an inherently leftist one.
pretty sure anarchy is on the right side of the spectrum, not left
@@Chocolatnave123 that's blatantly false - there are right wing anarchists, but most anarchists are left wing. If you actually look at anarchist ideology it is left wing, and most political philosophers would agree
Actually Anarchiest can't be left or right in the classic sense. Left and right are different ideologies that boil down to 'what the governement should do for whoom'. Anarchism on the other hand is literally the posotion that there should be NO governement at all. And when you are of the opinion that governement should never, under any circusmtance, exist, then you can't have an opinion of what that nonexistant government should do.
The main problem with both Modern and Historical Anarchist Groups/Movements is that they were technically mislabeled as Anarchist, with most of them beeing some variation of Libertarian/Minimalist that wanted the governement to do a few specific things and otherwise be as small as possible.
@@reappermen sorry you clearly don't understand political science at all lmao
@@larrian3846 While I am not a true expert at the detail level, the basic definition of anarchism, left and right as used for politics are clear enought and fast to look up.
As said before, left and right used in the political sense reference various ideas/directions that people want the governement to act. The basis of anarchism on the other hand is literally the idea to abolish all government. Although admitedly there has been an absolutely enormous amount of misuse of the term to this day. Plus the fact that oftentimes two things get mixed together, namely what people want and what they realisticialy hope to achieve. A.k.A a person might wish for anarchy, but sets some other e.g. left-wing political goal as a 'if we can't have anarchy, lets at least get this'
It's a bit like the difference between e.g. Christians, Bhuddist etc. and Atheists. The first are various different religions, while the last is the absence of ALL religion.
And while there are plenty of cases of either simple mislabeling, throwing together non-governmental stuff with anarchism (e.g. anarcho-capitalism, combining the absence of government with unregulated capitalism), or different levels of goals as described before, any actuall anarchist idea/goal can never be 'inherently left/right/center'. Or any other flavour of governmental direction/basis.
TL;DR: look up the basic definition of anarchism, then be annoyed to reallize that it's almost as openly misused in comon and even professional use as socialism is the USA
"Down the hall to the left"- Funny on two levels 😂😂😂
Thanks, The Pastry Section, Spinning 3 Plates, Sky Chapelle, and the rest! Oh, yeah, that first guy, too.
perfect timing, i am taking a college course on this!
Mike Duncan's Revolutions podcast emphasized the two side's conflict over personal morality. The Mensheviks thought that Lenin was utterly craven and amoral in his interpersonal dealings.
Someone:Complains
Lenin: *YOUR MOTHER*
0:30 Drunk party Marx is beautiful.
"Eat the rich"
Sums up communism
Yeet the rich
Already done
The dutch already did it
@@HodgePodgeVids1 NO NO NO only eat the people who are currently rich when I come to power after taking power dont eat me.
Communism in a nutshell replaces greedy capitalists with greedy communist politicians.
0:29 I was half asleep and was not ready for that
2:46 this map of Georgia is incorrect.
Fun fact, trotsky was a menshivik up until the second revolution and in the Civil war was a bolshevik war leader
2:14 finally an army of more than 2 soldiers!
3:16
Sam. Just Sam.
You don't fuck with Sam.
I wasn't expecting a decent, historically accurate description of those events on a random UA-cam history channel. Thanks for the entertaining video
This is a great animation 👍
I saw this when I got home from school and I thought “ Finally, I’m gonna learn something today”
This is so
then pay attention in class lmao
"Mostly anarchist but there were some left wing sympathies" umm, what?
What ?
?
What's wrong?
Anarchists are left wing lol
@@crechum oh yeah i forgot about those one's
Fun fact: the majority were often in the minority and the majority in the minority
Oversimplify reference
Naming themselves the Bolsheviks and their foes the Mensheviks was a crafty manoeuvre as well.
The Majority in Bolshevik refers to the majority of important issues that Lenin's faction stood for and won through voting during 2nd Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party to decide on the party program, policy, etc. The actual faction membership was roughly even.
Also great video, it's just you have Georgia without its 20% officially recognized territory
+lands that Georgia controlled before soviets gave it out. შიგ აქვთ, საქართველოს ეგეთს რა პონტში აჩვენებს.
@@davidwalker8581 ბევჯერ ჰქონია რუკები არასწორად, უბრალოდ სადმე საქართველო თუ ჰქონდა 10იდან 9 შემთხვევაში მთლიანი იყო და ახლა რატო დადო ასეთი ძაან გამიკვირდა
@@davidwalker8581 შეცდომაა უბრალოდ დიდი ალბათობით
yes Georgia even controlled sochi in by that time...
@@kowalskidageorgian1897 even parts of today's azerbaijan, armenia and turkey
“which must have been quite awkward as the coming revolution was down the hall and to the left” lmao, love your little jokes
1:31 leap to socialism*, just a minor correction
Yes, but both parties only wanted Socialism to achieve communism.
@@MrHat. Uhm, yeah, obviously.
@@MrHat. Can you tell me how can a country transform into communism when there's so many countries and corporations wanna destroy their socialism and make their workers wage slaves?
@@cantutmez8854 revolution
@@MrHat.?????
I am glad Rashid Ali is still around ❤️
You should make a video about the anarchists in the russian revolutions, Makhnovia.
Whenever I play Sid Meier's pirates I always name my guy James Bissonnette.
"What are you doing, i thought i was the one under attack?"
"Well, remember when we ousted you from power? Well it turns out we're not revolutionary enough for the revolution anymore!"
This episode is was great but abkhazia and south Ossetia are shown as not a part of georgia and southern territory still isn't shown as Georgian that was the only mistake I noticed
Its always so funny seeing the guys running through the grass lol
First content producer that I've had to use the lowered playback speed; it makes you sound drunk. lol There's already a drunk history channel! ;)
Fun fact: back in 1918-1921 georgian mensheviks were quite popular in Georgia, despite the fact that influential bolshevik (Stalin) was georgian. Menshevik goverment even collaborated with georgian nationalists and distanced the country from both reds and whites. After Georgia was ilegally occupied ("sovetized") in 1921 former government fled in France. Majority of the population, who were "liberated" by the bolsheviks (according to their propaganda) actually hated the new goverment which was basically a puppet of the kremlin. Once when Stalin himself visited railroad workers in Tbilisi the "liberated" workers allegedly started shouting, interrupting and calling him out for being a traitor. He was eventually forced to leave the event and punished some of his political rivals for "allowing the spread of anti-bolshevik agenda".
Eventually, during and after the great purge of the 1930s speaking about georgian independence and the exiled goverment became a taboo and in the 1940s after the defeat of the nazis Stalin managed to build his personality cult.
His personality cult still somewhat exists there to this day. I spent some time there in 2013-14 doing humanitarian work and there was a distinct low-key support for Stalin and the USSR amongst the eldest population with his birthplace of Gori being an almost pilgrim site for some of them to pay respects to the Man of Steel. Unfortunately the museum to Stalin in Gori tried overcharging our group of 30 for entry tickets (roughly $45 per person when it was originally only $15 or so) so we missed the opportunity to tour it. However the little wooden shack of a house he was born in was kept preserved out front for all to see. Was a very odd experience.
Damn that's sad. I know many soviet union people at first invited nazi as they're tired of communist government. I have also heard how Ukraine, Poland and now Georgia wanted independence from Bolshevik
Mensheviks collaborating with national bourgeoisie? Of course, because they weren't actually interested in building socialism, just opportunist liberals looking to cash in for their betrayal. "illegally occupied" you say, who gives a fuck about the bourgeois law codified to paint a false veneer of justification for their ruthless exploitation?
@@mexicanhalloween I said "illegally occupied" because the occupation was illegall. In spring of 1920 bolshevik Russia tried to stage a coup, however without any support neither from the military or the common people the coup failed. Then russians used the failed coup attempt to invade Georgia, but georgians managed to defeat the attackers. This resulted in the peace treaty on may 7, 1920. According to the treaty, bolshevik Russia officially, de-jure recognized Georgia as a sovereign, independent nation and menshevik goverment as legitimate. They also promised to respect Georgian borders and neutrality. In exchange, Georgia gave Sochi district to soviet russia, promised to not grant asylum to any foreign military force hostile to the bolsheviks and legalized bolshevik movement in Georgia (which untill then was officially a terrorist organisation). However, few months later, in early 1921 seeing that georgian bolshevik movement had no chance to ignite major popular uprising (because majority of the people saw them as radical terrorists and did not support them) soviet Russia invaded and occupied Georgia again to "liberate the opressed people" (according to their own propaganda). So bolsheviks ignored and broke the treaty they themselves signed and promised to respect. How can this be legal or legitimate?
^^^^
I don't think the question on party dsicipline could be accurately assessed as a "small issue". The split was over the issue of whether or not just anyone could have become a member. One route opens the door to party infiltrators and revisionism (particularly while their movement was underground during Tsarist times), the other to a tightly regulated political party that maintains a strict, centralised line over it's programme and tactics. One of these could stand on their own and carry off a revolution, the other splintered into various factions, with some of the most extreme vacillators even siding with monarchists against their former comrades in the end.
United forever, in friendship and labour. Our mighty republics, will ever endure! The Great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
The dream of a people, their fortress secure
I've memorized all your patreon's names 😂😂😂
@history matters Next time tick to generate the sub when you upload video onto UA-cam, it's helps greatly, especially for those non native English speakers.
auto generated subtitles are trash and can be misleading, but bilingual people could submit their translations for the channel to add manually
@@gggggggggggggggggg161 u have no idea how helpful the autosub, ofc if we appreciate it if someone takes effort to put all he say into sub.
Regards.
As a German I see how equal the Russian Revolution was to the early Weimar Republic
"As you'll know"
Me who didn't know: 😶
How can you lose if your party is literally named "the majority"?
[insert black guy tapping his forehead meme here]
WARNING: GUYS BELOW HAVE NO SENSE OF HUMOR, YOU'RE SCROLLING DOWN AT YOUR OWN RISK
Very Orwellian
@@glep4879 relax it's a joke because it's ironic name don't take it seriously bruh
Seems like the type of party to say what is mine is mine and what is yours is negotiable.
Hints what always happens with communism no one wants to give anything up INCLUDING THE GOUVERNMENT so you just replace greedy capitalists with greedy politicians.
You guys must be fun at parties
Here's the thing about that:
Lenin called his splinter group the "Majority" because a lot of the undecided delegates at the 2nd Party Congress had left because Lenin, like him or hate him, debated/argued like an ASSHOLE.
So with the moderates, which mostly surrounded Martov (but Trotsky was also over there too), effectively losing their voting bloc, Lenin rammed stuff through until the moderate delegates returned to retake their majority.
It was clever political branding by Lenin in all honesty
Most power struggles, battles and wars are not necessarily won by the more powerful side, but by the side that doesn't fuck up as much. This is how time after time the underdog wins.
It would be intresting to see own video about SR's. Like how after october revolution Bolsheviks formed coalition goverment with the left SR's and then they did failed revolution attempt half year later.