This piece of ideology led to one of the defining policies for the Bolsheviks from 1905–1914. This new theory established by Lenin showed that the Bolsheviks had learned lessons from the 1905 revolution, and this vital lesson was to affect many aspects of the Bolshevik policy in the years up until 1914. In this respect the fact the Bolsheviks learned lessons is a large achievement in itself as other political opposition parties did not make this vital step. Due to the bourgeoisies weakness Lenin was not prepared to work with them, mainly because they would be abolished in a revolution soon after they took power. This led Lenin and the Bolsheviks to be uncooperative with the Duma which was introduced in 1906 and particularly middle class parties. This was due both to Lenin’s ideological scorn of the middle classes and also to the fact that Lenin believed the path to power was through a small, professional, revolutionary party which would be hard for the Okhrana to infiltrate, and would also be completely dedicated to revolution. One of the Bolsheviks aims in this period was therefore to build up the party cadres which would therefore enable them to be well positioned to exploit any future opportunity which presented itself in Russia. Lenin argued that this was a much more practical, and achievable task than attempting to win widespread support among the working class. The Bolsheviks felt they would be the vanguard to the proletariat in the event of revolution and so therefore building up their party structure so they could best achieve this was more important to them than winning the support of the working class. This again was an achievement by the Bolsheviks as it gave them a strictly ordered and organised party, and they didn’t waste time and resources on a seemingly unachievable task of getting the widespread support of the working class. That is not to say the Bolsheviks did not have plans for gaining their support. Lenin admired the Soviets and saw their potential over that of the Trade Unions since he felt they could combine legislative and executive functions and act as a channel by which ordinary workers could join in debate and government. Soviet historians were quick to praise the Bolsheviks for this ideological breakthrough and this development of Marxism. Western historians were not without praise either. Many argue that despite the many failures of Bolshevism the ability to learn lessons following the 1905 revolution was a large achievement.
Lenin constantly criticised the Mensheviks for their involvement in ‘reformism’, involvement in the Duma and association with the regime. Lenin viewed this as a betrayal of Marxism. Attempts to reunite the Social Democrat Party in 1906 and 1907 ultimately ended in failure as Lenin was unprepared to accept any compromise on the matter of strategy. The split was made final in the Prague conference in 1912. While the Bolsheviks wanted a small dedicated party isolated from others, the Mensheviks wanted a party which would cooperate with other parties to bring down the Tsar. This is a fundamental difference between the two Marxist parties. The Mensheviks concentrated on the overthrow of the Tsar and their tactics were arguably the more likely to be successful as a large support base would be needed to overthrow the regime. This is why the Mensheviks became increasingly cooperative with the Constitutional Democrats following 1905. The Bolsheviks however was a party organised to take advantage of revolutionary situations and overthrow regimes as quickly as possible, such as the overthrow of a capitalist regime. Their aim was ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, of which the short term aim was the overthrow of Tsarism. Their small, dedicated party structure and refusal to work with other opposition groups alienated them from the other opposition parties making it difficult for them to overthrow the Tsar alone, but extremely able to take advantage of a situation should it already have become destabilised. This is recognised as a huge gamble by many Western historians and is also a platform for criticism. Western historians argue that by alienating their party they were unable to help in the overthrow of the Tsar in this period and are viewed as weak and ineffective. However Soviet historians would view this as a great success and piece of brilliance by the Bolsheviks. In their view this dedicated party structure and clear tactics by refusing to merge with the Mensheviks allowed them to take advantage of the destabilised situation during the Great War.
This tactic did not however endear Lenin to many of his colleagues who disagreed with his various methods. This led to a lot of bitter Party in-fighting for which Lenin is famous for causing and manipulating among Western historians. Lenin is famed for thriving on confrontation. This however was claimed by Lenin and Soviet historians not to have been petty squabbles between Bolsheviks, but a way of purifying the party so that all members were focused with the same objective of bringing about revolution. This way Lenin argued the party would be more efficient when the revolution arrived and so more capable of taking power. Once again achieving a dedicated and united (at least ideologically) party was an achievement and in the Bolshevik eyes vital in achieving power.
In terms of organisation therefore the Bolshevik party was fairly well placed to take advantage of a destabilised situation. However in terms of causing this destabilisation and bringing about a bourgeois revolution the Bolsheviks achieved little. Lenin published a lot of literature in this period, such as Materialism and Empiro Criticism and a new Bolshevik party newspaper The Workers Newspaper. However the Bolsheviks lacked the fuel to attack the tsar and cause mass outrage and a new revolution. The reforms of Stolypin had on the whole made some improvements meaning there was relatively little unrest for the Bolsheviks to manipulate. Strikes in the Lena goldfields were seized upon by Lenin and many articles were produced in the party newspaper Pravda criticising the Tsar and other political parties. However the Bolsheviks despite Soviet claims did not affect the strikes in this region, which were too sporadic to control or organise. Western historians are quick to point out this lack of Bolshevik revolutionary activity in this period, interpreting it as a sign of a weak, disorganised leaderless party. They claim the Bolsheviks lacked support and with their leaders in exile they lacked the ability to cause problems for the Tsar. They claim the war was vital for the Bolsheviks coming to power because it provided opportunities that the Bolsheviks exploited, more by luck than skill.
Therefore the Bolshevik party from 1905 to 1914 achieved little practically. Western historians view it as a sign of ineffectiveness whereas Soviet historians claim a period of ‘patient consolidation’. By 1914 the Tsar was still in power and the Bolsheviks realistically did not seem likely to take power. However the Bolsheviks achieved much in terms of party organisation. The party cadre was consolidated and lessons learned from the 1905 revolution affected new theories. The party resisted merging with the Mensheviks and remained dedicated to forming a small professional revolutionary party to avoid infiltration by the Okhrana and accelerate Marxism by achieving quick breakthroughs. The bitter fighting of the Bolsheviks weeded out those whose views differed to that of the official party, leaving a revolutionary party focused to the man on the same targets, which left them in good stead to exploit the situation in 1917.
