From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Bolshevik)
Jump to: navigation, search


Although the word "cult" does actually have a neutral meaning, I think its meaning is somewhat weighted in todays usage. For the purpose of objectivity i think that this line " . . and in addition the cult of Lenin as a heroic leader." should be made to have a less slanted, how do you say, flavor. perhapse " .. .and in addition the adoption of Lenin as great leader."

I think the intention of the original writer was to allude to the cult of personality phenomenon. I don't know whether this truthfully applies to the Bolshevik era that is the subject of the article, though. Hephaestos 19:16 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Anti-semitic vandalism[edit]


Actually, the Bolsheviks murdered more than a hundred million people.
Cautious, please be aware that (contributions) is systematically going through Communist and Bolshevik-related pages adding anti-semitic rants about the supposed "Jewish-Communist World Empire". It's already listed on the Vandalism in progress page. -- ChrisO 12:22, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I hope that you don't find communism and Jews sunject as taboo. Simply let'S make it NPOV Cautious 13:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
No, but I do find incoherent, badly spelled and anti-semitic additions objectionable. Leaving aside the politics, it's very badly written and doesn't conform with the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. I've copied it below so that anyone who really feels like bothering can work out a better form of words. -- ChrisO 15:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Do you find the discrimination and racism against Arabs in Israel as objectionable? Recently on Channel One of Israeli TV Israeli public figures openly discussed how to reduce the numbers of Arabs. I thought that was sick. -- 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My daddy said to me that goddamn bolsheviks murdered not fifty million but fifty milliards people.-- (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


Since the Jews in Russia were discriminated, many of them were atracted by the non-nationalist vision of Russia after socialist revolution. Both fractions of the party had big shared of Jewish memebers. This lead to oficially anti-Semitism as the way of fight of Tsars police Okhrana against those underground organisations.

This led to the characterization of the Communist Revolution as a vengeful Jewish conquest of Russia in view of the murder of the royal family and the annihilation of tens of millions of ethnic Russians and Ukranians in the 1920's and 1930's.

The view of the communism as the Communist-Jewish ambitions were also popular in other countries especially after the communist revolution, as achieved in Hungary, under the Jew Bela Kuhn.

This dualistic view ( fashism or communism ) contributed to the rise of National Socialists (Nazis) in Germany, and lead to defeat European democracy.

Can anyone suggest a NPOV version of the above? -- ChrisO 14:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I don't think the above could have NPOV version at all :-). I don't think it's worth mentioning here, because it was on little significance for the October Revolution. Drbug 15:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
What is POV here? OK, I will try. Pro 16:20, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Let's resume things that are worth adding to main article:
  1. When Bolsheviks became Communist party (1936)
  2. Why extreme ideas were attractive to minorities, particulary to Jews?
  3. National composition of avarage members of Bolshevik fraction (over time)
  4. National composition of the prominent members of Bolshevik fraction (over time)
  5. In what way anti-Semitism was used by enemies of Bolsheviks: Okhrana, Nazis
  6. The historical process, that led to devils alternative of 1930-ties: communism or Nazism.

Anybody oppose? Cautious 16:38, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What's the point of asking if anyone's opposed if you're just going to revert without any discussion (within 15 minutes of you posting this)? Pro has already said s/he will try to come up with another version and I'll see what I can do as well. I suggest that we work here on a new version that we can all agree with. In the meantime, please don't try to revert the article again. The page will end up being locked if this continues. -- ChrisO 17:12, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
OK, looks like Pro and I have been able to come up with an alternative. See what you think... -- ChrisO 18:27, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It's a bit incorrect way to put material into the article. Sorry, but your position is biased. The level of antisemitism in Tsarist Russia is exaggerated. It was not major problem and it was not pumping the revolution. Despite your points are possible correct, and it might be a good theory for the in-depth analysis, they are not of that significance. Maybe they could belong to the "Antisemitism Influence Theory" section, but not to the main body of the article. It's just a theory, nothing more. Drbug 19:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I have to agree. I think it would be better placed in the article on History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union, which already has a section about the Bolshevik Revolution that alludes to Jewish participation. -- ChrisO 21:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the Jewish-Communist link, I've noted that the Soviet government itself tacitly or explicitly participated in a number of pogroms over the years; not exactly something they would do if they were controlled by Zionists. Also, there was the Jewish Autonomous Republic, billed as a homeland for Jews within the Soviet framework.

In a larger sense, I think that the scope of this article is in danger of spiralling out of control. It's supposed to be about the Bolshevik faction of the RSDLP, not about the History of the Soviet Union or the History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union. Kwertii 09:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • In the agreement with the previous remark (but without even seeing it:-), the piece below was cut out of the article as irrelevant to the topic and more than adequately replaced by the link to History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union.
<-- and the Soviet Union adopted policies of assimilation, Russification and (by the 1950s) anti-Zionism, often colored by traditional Russian anti-Semitism (most visibly during the last years of Stalin's rule). Indeed, the Soviet government participated in a number of pogroms over the years, where police and troops either tacitly allowed or actively participated in the destruction of Jewish communities. -->
Mikkalai 18:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • ...not to say that the last sentense is a total bullshit:
    • Before Stalin there was mostly Russian Civil War, during which there were pogroms indeed, but by White Army, which perceived the Russian Revolution as "Jewish-Bolshevik plot" (Hitler was way far from being original in this respect).
    • Stalin, on the other hand, was demonstratively pro-semitic for quite a long time. His assassination of Jewish "Old Bolsheviks" was only accidental to the word "Jewish" and completely determined by the word "Old". Stalin performed horrible purges of a number of other small nations, but it seems that Jews were down his list. It is argued that he planned something for them: his last days are notable by the preparation of the trial of Doctors' plot, so Stalin's death may be rightfully added to the list of Jewish national holidays as a narrow escape.

I'm thinking we should cut out all of the history section on actions taken by the Bolsheviks, limit the article to the stuff on the formation of the Bolshevik faction, and put a See also: History of the Soviet Union. There is no point in having a bunch of redundant information in here that's already better dealt with over there. Opinions? Kwertii 09:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think that we should give some historical background to underline why most of people looked at the bolsheviks as monsters. Actually, they were bad guys for public opinion until replaced by Nazis. WolfgangPeters 10:16, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The same people who are allowing all the anglo and NATO countries to become de facto dictatorships right now? How many millions have the NATO bourgeoisies murdered since 1917 I wonder? Personally, I'm more worried about the monsters in the Whitehouse and the Pentagon. And the postwar Nazi love-fest that is the Bundesrepublik for that matter.
Point is: with twisted attitudes like this being expressed by writers to this article, it'll be a year of Sundays before anything like a NPOV will be achieved here.
Pazouzou 11:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following piece, since it is related to a later period, massive resettlement of Kulaks by Stalin.

<-- and resettlement of the 19th century which had been established to deal with political dissidents and common criminals without executing them.-->

(After a second thought I simply moved it down, with more comment.) Mikkalai 18:41, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Politics / religion[edit]

why the hell is it important if there were jews ? there were christians too, as well as atheists. it simply makes no point to mention the religion of its members, while describing a political non-religious party, as the bolsheviks.

if, on the other hand, it regards to jews as a tribe or a race, then the entry in itself is rascist....Sedan 17:43, 16 Mar 2004

I thought over this issue many times on different occasions and when editing different articles. In case you didn't notice, quite a few major countries has subsections or full articles specifically devote to jews, see e.g., List of Jewish history topics . It could seem annoying at first. But if you think that Jews lived two millenia in diaspora, without a country on which they could "concentrate" the articles of their long history, you'll understand that to cover the history of Jews, you must make branches of many and many articles. This has nothing to do neither with zionism nor with anti-Semitism. Mikkalai 16:58, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The Jewish Bolshevik stuff is really a side issue and belongs in the article on the history of Jews in the Soviet Union. It does not merit this much space. I can think of no encyclopedia article on Bolsehvism I've seen that gives so much space to the question except maybe the Jewish Encyclopedia AndyL 01:35, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Have moved the section on Jews to History of the Jews in Russia and Soviet Union AndyL 01:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article discuss 1917 just a wee bit???AndyL

One would think. john 06:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Post 1918 info moved to Communist Party of the Soviet Union since the Bolsheviks were known as Communists after 1918.

AndyL you have done a lot of good work here. Do you think we should have more discussion of what was at stake, tactically and ideologically, in the division between Menshiviks and Bolsheviks? I also wonder if we need to say something about the relationship (and competition) between the Party and the Soviets during the revolution -- that is, if we want to identify Bolshevism with "Marxism-Leninism." What do you and others think? Slrubenstein

I don't really have time right now. Perhaps someone else could?AndyL 16:57, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Last moves[edit]

There was no such thing "Bolshevik Party". There were a factions of bolsheviks and mensheviks. Mikkalai 15:52, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True enough. I think Bolsheviks would make more sense thoughAndyL 16:56, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yep. But it is easier to create links from singular (you can bracket both [bolshevik] and [bolshevik]s). Also, Wikipedia:naming conventions advises usage of sungular, unless it is really unusable. Mikkalai 17:00, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

May I sugest that Jews were a very important migrating group at the Rise of Lenin. It was even just as important as in the rise of Hitler! Being a party that supports Communistic or Nationalistic is not just only believing in expansionism or 'One Pure race' as it was the case in hitlers Third Reich. You have to look not only at political situation in a country, but also its economical situation. It is known that in Germany, Jews were taking an important roll in economical positions: small street marketing was the most important factor that helped the country to overcome its economical difficulities. It was the case that most of these shops were owned by the Jews.

Almost the same situation was noticed in Soviet Union, where street marketing was in fact the core of survival. It was only later, when the industrialisation led by Lenin started, the small marketers were sort to say pushed out of the busness. These small marketers, or at least the bigger part of it were in fact Jews.

So you can see that Jew played a big roll in these two countries at the time when Communism and Nationalism existed (also was felt in other countries). Dependence on these groups was a very big headacke to the extremist parites which were ment to be straong and maintaining the situation, so there was no room for dependence, and thats why the small marketing problem was braught up... which is of course connected to the Jews who owned the small markets!

July days[edit]

"On July 19, the Kerensky government ordered the arrest of the Bolshevik leadership. Lenin escaped capture, went into hiding, and wrote State and Revolution, which outlined his ideas for a socialist government."

This section is missing any context of the arrests. On July 3rd/4th there were militant demonstrations by the Petrograd working class aimed at overthrowing the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik leadership opposed it as premature, but many rank and file Bolsheviks were anxious for a revolution and fully supported it. The Bolshevik leadership ended up at the head of the demonstations trying to ensure they were non-violent. Troops loyal to the Provisional Government suppressed the demronstations violently, followed by the crackdown alluded to in the article. I propose chaning the article to this;

"In early July widespread discontent in Petrograd led to militant demonstrations calling for the overthrow of the Provisional Government. The Bolshevik leadership opposed this as premature but ended up leading the demonstrations, hoping to prevent any bloodshed. They felt compeled to do this to win the trust of the workers and also in recognition of the fact that many of the Bolshevik rank and file were already organising and supporting the demonstrations. Troops loyal to the Provisional Government suppressed the demronstations violently. The following crackdown resulted in the Kerensky government ordering the arrest of the Bolshevik leadership on July 19th. Lenin escaped capture, went into hiding, and wrote State and Revolution, which outlined his ideas for a socialist government."

Any objections to this change? TheInquisitor 20:11, 30 Sep 2005

Top picture & RS-DRP[edit]

Does anyone feel this picture is wholly innappropriate and unnecessary? Sure, it shows some Bolsheviks but it's an awful picture and isn't even Russian!

Secondly, both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks spelt the name of the party Social-Democratic or RS-DRP. If you look at any publications or posters by either you'll see the hyphen. We use the hyphen for Socialist-Revolutionaries so why not Social-Democrats?

--Kristallstadt 14:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

On the plus side, the picture shows the most popular/famous Bolshevik leaders circa 1920. On the minus side, its highly stylized, which makes it esthetically interesting, but probably not as informative as one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. A decent photo of some Comintern or Soviet/Party Congress presidium would be certainly preferable if we could find one.
Re: "RS-DLP", it is true that both Menshevik and Bolshevik leaders sometimes used the hyphen in their letters as you can see in Lenin's collected works. However, the English translation is just "RSDLP". If you go to and search for "RS-DLP" and then "RSDLP", you will find 4 books (all of them Lenin's works) that use the hyphen and 81 books that don't. Ahasuerus 15:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Speaking of pictures, the one of the Bolshevik "Central Committee" on the right is anything but :) The number of women in the picture suggests that it's most likely a group of Kremlin secretaries, which is not exactly on topic here. I will remove it unless we can establish the picture's origins and relevance. Ahasuerus 23:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the American picture of the Bolsheviks is a good one. A good example would be a picture of the Central Committee in 1917 (which would also be a reminder of how many of them survived Stalin). Flag of Ireland.svgCamillusFlag of Scotland.svg (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


Right, i don't know who wrote that but i've just finished editing it. The use of English was so poor it could only have been by someone who either learnt English as a second language or was just an idiot.

That aside, should it even be that long?! I propose that everything from "Bolsheviks had an extreme internationalist outlook" to (before) "Shortly after seizing power..." be removed. It's useless information that's explained in the article anyway and most of it doesn't even make any sense.

--Kristallstadt 23:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Calendar question[edit]

Can someone clarify in the article whether the dates given are OS or NS?

Trotsky wasn't a Bolshevik[edit]

Trotsky wasn't a Bolshevik before and during the February Revolution. Sentence "Before the revolution of February, 1917, main Bolsheviks (Zinoviev, Trotsky, Lenin) lived and worked in Western Europe, receiving financial support from the European social democrats." is false. To make it true name of Trotsky should be removed from the sentence. [OygSimurg]


Anyone else think the "Jewish Bolshevism" section is trying too hard to prove the Bolsheviks were not very much Jew-based? It seems like a big childish "nah uh" with unconvincing evidence. 13:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's babyish, but it does seem to be trying to prove a point, rather than being an NPOV discussion of the subject. Obviously Jews were disproportionately prominent at high levels in the Bolshevik movement, especially as compared to the Tsarist regime that preceded it. The fact that the party membership as a whole was not that Jewish should be mentioned, but isn't really to the point. john k 14:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, sure, the current version of the section is highly POV and angenda-driven. "Jews and radicalism" in general and "Jews and Bolshevism" in particular is a well researched and somewhat complicated question (see, e.g., Essential Papers on Jews and the Left, ed. Ezra Mendelsohn, New York University Press, 1997, ISBN 0814755712), but it would take some time to do it justice. One of these days... Ahasuerus 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The term[edit]

The term Bolshevik cannot be derived from Bolsheviki because it is just plural for Bolshevik.--Nixer 15:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Nixer keeps removing the following phrase: "the Stalinist regime which existed in the Soviet Union, and the millions of deaths for which it was responsible" and replacing it with "Stalin's rule which existed in the Soviet Union". What is non-NPOV about the former? It is accurate and verifiable, and the deaths are precisely what is associated with it. 07:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

First the term "regime" is not neutral. Second, the phrase is not relevant here. For example, would you any notion of Bush provide with notion of children he killed in Iraq? Third, why not say that the regime saved tens of millions people during WWII? Why only say the people were killed? And fourth, among killed were those who were responsible themself for their death, dont you think so?--Nixer 07:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing non-neutral about the term "regime", which merely denotes a governmental system or system of control and administration. Any negative connotation applies solely to governments with authoritarian characteristics, which the Stalinist Soviet Union can not be said to lack, but the term itself does not necessitate this.
This is obviously non-neutral term.--Nixer 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
This article does not concern Bush or political arguments about his policies; please address those concerns at the appropriate article.
The point is thios is not relevant to mention "bloody Stalis's crimes" in any phrase about Stalin Please dont behave as a child.--Nixer 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As for your example of WWII, the article is here discussing what is and has been associated with Bolshevism, and it is true that the negative aspects of the USSR, including the political murders and so forth, are part of this (and they are verifiable facts). On the other hand, the idea that the USSR "saved tens of millions" is counterfactual conjecture and therefore is inherently unverifiable; as well, it does not have any bearing on the sentence in question.
This is a fact, not contrafactual conjecture. Even if you dont like this.--Nixer 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As for your last question, I am not sure I understand it.
For example, a criminal making his crimes is responsible for followed execution of him, not the governmenrt.--Nixer 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Also, please refrain from breaking WP:3RR. It appears that it is quickly coming to that. Thanks. 08:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I will not allow you put propaganda here.--Nixer 09:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you've now demonstrated yourself to be incapable of rationality on this matter. 00:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Lenin was 1/4 Jewish[edit]

- The Federaton of Jewish Communities of Former Soviet Union, supported by Chabad, states on its website: "Many well-known people, such as Decembrist Hirsh Peretz, doctor Israel Blank (Lenin's grandfather) and many others once lived in Perm."

- Furthermore, Wikipedia's article on Lenin states that he had Jewish roots: "The family was of mixed ethnic ancestry. "Lenin's antecedents were Russian, Kalmyk, Jewish, German and Swedish, and possibly others". Lenin was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church."

Brother against brother. This topic is joke, no bloodline has nothing to do whit your political orientation. This is vain in any case, think about some family things when is need for freedom from current exiting power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lenin had not Jewish origins[edit]

Lenin had not Jewish origins, this is a myth.--Nixer 18:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Read some books. Also you are welcome to dispute this where it belongs: in the Vladimir Lenin article. `'mikka (t) 18:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Look here: [1]. This is historical mistification.--Nixer 20:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Once more: You are welcome to discuss this topic where it belongs: in Vladimir Lenin article instead of going hysterical in revert war basing on a quote from an obscure webpage against books. `'mikka (t) 20:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Lenin WAS jewish - I am from Estonia, one of many countrys wish suffered greatly from bolsheviks regime. Allmost 1/3 our people where killed or sent to Siberia 1939/40 and 1945/47. My grandfather/mother was executed in front of my 10months old father and father himself was sent to Siberia. He was able only after 1991 to reestablish is family line (it was deep in KGB arhives). So everyone new in 1918-1939 in Estonia about origin of Lenin Stalin and the rest of bolsheviks guerillas "family line" and countrys of origin - it was not a secret those days. They where ample amount of proofs about they "blood" they real names (most of bolsheviks had at least 2 names before revolution of 1917 and after) and the countrys they came from most of bolsheviks wasent even a russians they hade difficultis to speek russian. When bolseviks conquer Estonia in 1939 those books where burned and people have them sent to Siberia (but YOU cant burn all books and information about them). So when You Nixer starting pushing some info please be so kind and learn the truth - unless its you intension to hide truth. Wikipedias policy about neutrality is good but only this far if its backed up by TRUTH. Makruss - contributing to Estonian Wiki more then a year.

Who of bolsheviks had difficulties speaking Russian? Only Stalin had Georgian accent. And all of them of course came from Tsarist Russia (not any other country). I see your ancestors obviously learned well the German propaganda and those burned Nazi books.--Nixer 08:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

it was not in 1920s any German propaganda. but unfortunally we hav lots of other kind of propaganda now like this Wiki article last year in wiki I have discovered lots of this kind of propaganda and Wikipedias trustworthiness is all time low. I feel sorry for You because You but first propaganda and not historical facts. I will not return in this articel becouse I do not have any illusions wiki can redeem itself - so I hope when you journey is over in this Earth You can leave peacfully ....

It might be surprizing for you, but German propaganda existed even in 1914 and in 1917, and there were German bookletes describing aryan supemacy theory back by 1917. And many other sources of anti-semitic literature existed in the white-occupied territory, in Poland and in the Baltic states.--Nixer 10:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Lenin was certainly not Jewish, but it was my understanding that it recently was demonstrated that he had a Jewish ancestor somewhere along the line. At any rate, I don't see why this should be mentioned in this article. john k 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


It would be really useful to have some pronounciation of the key words (for the linguistically untalented like myself). And thanks to those who put the content together, it was useful.

_____ Due to the Commemoration Day of the Victims of Persecution I started to read some articles about persecution and couldn't but notice the following things:

The article of Informs the following: - Even though many of the Old Bolsheviks were ethnically Jewish... this is something I have never known... This seems to mean that some Jews gave up their family background and became communists??? and socialists!!!! already before and in times of the Russian revolution???

According to this could someone, who really knows, write an article about how some - and who - Jews became Bolsheviks. The sentence hints that this has not been some single case, but more like some kind of phenomenon among the Jews to give up their own background and become communist and socialists. In some book I have also red that the combination of having Jewish roots and being a socialist has been somehow more problematic and complicated. If this has been the case, please, could somebody through some light into this.

And there seems to be people in our times who have had these two facts: having at least some Jewish roots and being a socialist/communist and maybe in addition to that even had some somewhat "upperclass" (even higher) roots. Didn't Mr. Olof Palme belong to this group - murdered later and even Mr. Dominique Stauss-Kahn seems to have some similar kind??? - and he has been caught into a sextrap. So, attacked both! In a way - if these things about those persons are correct - they could have been regarded as some kind of traitors of their own class also.

Maybe my points are just only crazy, but at least it would be good, if somebody throw some light on the problem being a Jew and communist / socialist!

And is it for sure this matter doesn't even have something to do with the persecution of the German speaking population e g in Estonia area? The article says: In other cases (e.g. in the case of the formerly large German-speaking populations of Russia, Estonia, or the Transylvanian (Siebenbürgen) German minority in Rumania and the Balkans) such persecution was a crime committed against innocent communities who had played no part in the Third Reich.

Wikipedia in Finnish, Stalins persecution of misellanous people = ????

What a mess to me? I know a case where some Russian emigrants / emigres with their background in German speaking circles in St. Petersburg and "Estonian area" before that are said to have been asked by Hitler if they were Jews. To be able to show any documents about your background had not been possible for all people with mixellaneus backgound those days after the Second World War.

There seems to be something in these things that at least I would like to know, but I cannot even tell more exact what the problem is / problems are - however, these seems to be something that has not been told the people of today really! Maybe the group of people concerned has been too small and already disappearing if not yet disappeared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Irmeli Grunau (talkcontribs) 08:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Citation 3[edit]

Citation 3 is more of an asterisk than a citation. I think it needs to be fixed.


For those who forgot the year 1920. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Socialism and the Bolshevik Party[edit]

I have noticed two omissions on the Bolshevik page. One is that the “political philosophy” (if that is the correct term to use here) of the Bolsheviks was Marxist socialism. Moreover, the objective of the Bolshevik Party was socialist revolution. None of this is mentioned here. In fact, the page does not absolutely establish connection whatsoever between Bolshevism and Marxist socialism. One only needs to look at the Draft Program of the RSDLP written by Lenin in 1902 to confirm my observation.

The Bolshevik Party was in fact the RSDLP(B), but the acronym was only a formal name. Lenin and all the Bolsheviks always referred to the RSDLP(B) as the Bolshevik Party until he proposed to change this name to Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in 1918. Also of importance to the Bolshevik page is the fact that before Lenin proposed the change of the party name to RCP, it was Angelica Balabanoff (leader of the Zimmerwald Movement) who made the original critical observation to Lenin. These are facts and I have the sources. I can make the changes if there is no objection. Reinaldo Contreras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reinaldo Contreras (talkcontribs) 00:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins of the name[edit]

The article states that "the terminology changed to "Bolsheviks" and "Mensheviks", from the Russian "bolshinstvo" (majority) and "menshinstvo" (minority), based on the fact that Lenin's supporters narrowly defeated Martov's supporters on the question of party membership."

This is incorrect. It was in actual fact Lenin who at the 1903 conference suffered a narrow defeat on the question of party membership, with 28 of the delegates voting against his proposals and only 22 voting for. However following the voting for the editorial board of the party newspaper Iskra, Lenin and Plekhanov (both future "Bolsheviks" outnumbered Martov (the leader of the Menshevik faction). It was from this that Lenin took the name Bolshevik to describe his group and insulted Martov by labelling his side the "Mensheviks" because on Iskra, Lenin was in the majority and Martov the minority. This is correctly described in the article on the wider Russian Social Democratic Labour Party which the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks both (for a time) belonged to. However in both this article and the article on the Mensheviks, the origins of the respective names are misattributed to the vote on party membership.

The idea that the name came from Lenin winning the issue on Party membership is incorrect, especially as Lenin didn't win that vote at the 1903 conference. Now, I'm new to the editing of Wikipedia articles, and feel a sense of trepidation at the idea of correcting a major article, but I wanted to highlight the issue and will gladly look for source's from the works of Orlando Figes and Leonard Schapiro.

So, thoughts? --Magus213 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Plekhanov was, I thought, a Menshevik. john k (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bolsheviks WERE NOT the Majority, they took the name to insult democracy[edit]

As explained above by Magus213 this article is fundamentally wrong and misrepresents the whole concept of Bolshevism. The Bolsheviks lost the vote but declared themselves winners, showing a finger at the concept of democracy. This technique termed Doublespeak in George Orwells 1984 is fundamental to the concept of Bolshevism. This mistake has been here for at least 4 years, can someone please edit it?


For what I know of Russian language, the word "bolshe" does not mean "more", but "much" (the translation for "more" should be все еще. Please, verify. Truman (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Do you think there were no native Russian speakers who edited this page? - Altenmann >t 16:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Communism sidebar? Help me[edit]


Shouldn't this article display the Communism sidebar?

--Aboudaqn (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Polish Propaganda Poster[edit]

The caption on the Propaganda Poster "act of Leon Trotsky" makes no sense. It's probably a mistranslation of the polish "akt" meaning "nude". I changed it to "nude caricature of Leon Trotsky", but that was reverted. If there's any problem with this description please let me know. I don't see why anyone would object. (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of these posters, there's a buttload of anti-Bolshevik and pro-Bolshevik posters out there, for example [2]. So why are Polish-language posters, some of which were actually printed by Germans in clumsy Polish, singled out for special attention here? Seems like somebody's axe grinding or something, some kind of POV pushing with WP:UNDUE. Removing until balance/appropriate justification can be provided.VolunteerMarek 16:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I see, this was only recently added by a particular editor.VolunteerMarek 16:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

table of membership development[edit]

I've removed the following material. It was anonymously added in a section where it didn't fit in. The numbers seem implausible; I wonder whether the number for January 1917 was incorrectly copied and should be 100,000? If someone with access to the specified source could check this, the material could perhaps be used in the article. (In a second edit, the same IP added this further reference in the middle of an image tag, corrupting it: <ref>Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy, pp 180, 300</ref>.) Joriki (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

By 1917, the average Bolshevik had spent 4 years in prison (5 years for Mensheviks.<ref>Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy, page 124.</ref>

Year Bolshevik membership
1905 10,000
November 1906 40,000
January 1917 10,000
July 1917 200,000
November 1917 350,000

Bolshevik hunter[edit]

Bolshevik hunter refers to organizations who hunt Bolsheviks.(See: "The Goose Step a Study of American Education p. 413-418") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petey Parrot (talkcontribs) 23:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

List of alleged Bolshevik war criminals living in Canada[edit]

List of alleged Bolshevik war criminals living in Canada refers to a collection of named individuals who committed crimes against humanity under the Bolshevik regime in Russia. They later immigrated to Canada where they presently reside or have in recent history.

Petey Parrot (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Bogdanov split[edit]

The material here expresses a common misapprehension of what happened. Please see Vpered for more material. Some of this is relevant here.Leutha (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Frontpage Magazine[edit]

Two editors have repeatredly added a questionable assertion, sourced to Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually describe Bolshevism as "a theology"; rather that it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist (Steven Plaut). Additionally, Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on the reliable sources noticeboard, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"[3]; " FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"[4]; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would reccomend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people."[5]. So we have here an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim. The edit has been removed by two editors; I have now removed it three times, so would run foul of 3RR if I did so again. I hope another editor will review this, and agree that the edit is unsupportable and should be removed. RolandR (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No concluding consensus has been reached on the reliability of the FrontPage Magazine. I have changed the statement so that the source does support it. Nataev (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
P.s. You yourself are a self-declared polemicist: a marxist in the 21st century. As if you are familiar with communism. Nataev (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have raised this issue at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where I hope that we can arrive at a consensus on whether this source is reliable, and whether this assertion can be included in the article. In any case, this should not be in the lead unless it is more fully discussed elsewhere in the article: "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. RolandR (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Anna Geifman, a leading Historian of Russia, has a whole chapter in her book Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia about how Marxism is actually a pagan theology. I will cite the book after I find it in my university's library. Nataev (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope you understand that claims of such kind are useless for encyclopedic purposes without presenting arguments that support these claims. Especially bearing in mind that religion without deities is defined in such a vague way that even mathematics may be classified as religion. Therefore if someone polemically blurbed that "communism is religion and marx is god of bolsheviks" then it is bullshitting on par with "russians live with bears". On the other hand, there indeed exists a polemic line of thought which compares various ideologies with religions, and if someone can write some serious text (i.e. summarizing the arguments for such parallels, not just a coatrack of quotes from anticommunists), it will be useful. - Altenmann >t 18:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That said, I reviewed the FM article in its merits. I find it basicall correct with one problem: it is a polemic piece and the author's choice of words is rather liberal (pun intended). In particular, the article does compare bolshevism with theology, but a careful reading shows that in fact it is a mere criticism of dogmatism (btw no good article on the concept) of bolsheviks, their uncritical attitudes to "holy scriptures" of marx, and later lenin. While dogmatism is an attribute of religion, it is a logical blunder to label every dogma as religion. Therefore at the time being I removed the phrase from the intro. Still, like I wrote above, this guy is far from being first in comparing uncritical and brutally enforced dogmatism of bolsheviks and cpsu with religion, and a section to this end would be nice (beware OR, however; bashing something is usually fun and quickly runs out of control of logic, as the discussed FM article shows; eg it says "Marx and Engels <...> basically had no understanding whatsoever of economics." Sure, smartass.). - Altenmann >t 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You called Professor Plaut a "smartass". That makes you a dumbass. Professor Plaut has a PhD in economics from Princeton. Nataev (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
PhD makes a person smartass quite often. Ans I would suggest you to avoid personal attacks of fellow wikipedians. If you want to start a discussion tha Marx did not understand economics, you are welcome. Yes professor Plaut is a smartass who probably a smart person, but he abuses his smartness to achieve his political goals. Here is a glaring example of his demagogy. He writes "The Russian economy imploded under their rule. Output of Russian factories and mines in 1921 was only a seventh of what it had been under the Czar in 1913". Only a dedicated liar or a complete ignorant will compare economies of a country in its height (1913) and a country at the end of a devastating civil war. Even if the overall comparicon is correct, it is thorougly unscientific. So belief in his PhD is kinda religion too. - Altenmann >t 18:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
As long as devout commies keep fighting to make Bolsheviks look good, we are not going to have an unbiased article. I will look for books to support the claim if I have time. Actually I don't give a flying fuck about Bolsheviks. Fortunately they're a thing of the past. Nataev (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Second notice. If you want to be taken with respect, please discuss article merits, not wikipedian's merits. Please also read carefully what I wrote. (It is a good habit to read what your opponent wrote and answer their arguments). I am not objecting comparison of bolshevism with religion. I am suggesting this must be done in a proper way. In particular, paying attention to the distinction of religion and dogmatism. Now, are you ready to discuss the actual topic, rather than these commies and other stinking liberals who infiltrate dominate wikipedia?<irony> - Altenmann >t 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
You do have a point, but I don't have much time right now. (I happen to be doing an MA in econ.) I'll try to find more reliable sources to compare Bolshevism with religion/dogmatism in a proper manner. Nataev (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
There is a plenty of sources which compare Bolsheviks with a religious order. This is because of their fanaticism and organizational discipline ("Party is always right", etc.). Did they believe in God? No, this is something they denounced. Did they believe in Party and Communist Idea to kill for? Yes, they did. My very best wishes (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
A more serious problem is the definition of "religion" in wikipedia: "Religion is a collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values". In this way any worldview may be defined as "religion". "Spirituality" my ass. Brainless, circular definition. - Altenmann >t 20:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

BolshevikBolsheviks – Why is this not plural, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this a page about the definition of word, it's an encyclopedic page about the Russian revolutionary movement. Charles Essie (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Support per reasoning of proposer. --Huh39291 (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Support per standard practice at Wikipedia for such entities (WP:PLURAL's "groups or classes of specific things"). —  AjaxSmack  02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Support reasonable nom --Երևանցի talk 21:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Shouldn't there be a separate article for "Bolshevism", it's a very widely used term used both as an ideology, a philosophy, a mindset and a Red Scare term. Charles Essie (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Massive deletion[edit]

Massive deletion of reasonable text is against spirit of wikipedia. If you challenge some statements, you have to tag them,to give people time to provide citations. Immediate deletion is only for patent nonsense. Also, it may be helpful to explain why you think these statement are challenged. - Altenmann >t 04:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The material I removed had been tagged since 2012 and 2011. El Chivo 2 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • FYI, I've requested that the article protection be reduced so that we can work out getting sourcing for the other material or delete it. El Chivo 2 (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: that request has been declined. The decliner asked that we reach agreement before the protection is reduced (or it will be reduced March 5 regardless).
  1. Do you have any sources to support "The Mensheviks ("The minority") (1906–1907)" subsection?
  2. Do you have any sources to support that Lenin, Grigory Zinoviev, and Lev Kamenev argued for participating in the Third Duma, while Alexander Bogdanov, Anatoly Lunacharsky, and Mikhail Pokrovsky argued for the social democratic faction to be recalled from it? --El Chivo 2 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand why you are edit-warring about such non-contentious and well-attested facts. They can be easily verified in almost any history of the period. For instance, for point 1, I could cite Edmund Wilson, To the Finland Station, Fontana, London 1977, p 402; for point 2, Bertram D Wolfe, Three Who Made a Revolution, Penguin, London 1966, p 410. But there are countless other sources which will confirm this. RolandR (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a discussion, not an edit war.
Please submit an edit request using the protection template on the article page to add these sources. El Chivo 2 (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to interrupt this one-to-one discussion and feel that you would do better to move it to one of your talk pages. This page is for the whole community to discuss how to proceed, however I shall wait until the page is unfrozen before making a further contribution.Leutha (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to disagree with your uncalled-for advice, which is against well-established wikipedia traditions: article content is strongly advised to discuss in article talk pages. El Chivo 2, while being in haste with text deletion, has valid requests: "well-attested facts" surely must have easy to find references, and one should not perceive requests for refs as personal attacks (or personal chat). If you need some longer time to find them, just say so; other wikipedians understand that you have "real life" as well. - Altenmann >t 15:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have chosen to dismiss my contribution as "uncalled-for advice" as I have frequently been asked to contribute towards Wikipedia, and so hence it has been called-for. In particular I have made a contribution to this page. I am familiar with the long-standing consensus that content issues should be discussed on talk pages, however when that discussion becomes simply a discussion between two editors, I think you agree it starts to become unsatisfactory. I hope you do not consider a reasonable request to open out the discussion a personal attack. If you have sufficient interest, you can readily confirm for yourself that I was the editor who requested a citation for the Otzovists back in 2011. I would also point out that the situation which gave rise to my intervention was the fact that the page has been frozen, not that I was seeking more time to assemble sources. I hope this clarifies any misunderstanding.Leutha (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

  • The discussion becomes "simply a discussion between two editors" when other editors don't give a shit for the subject, which, sadly, happens more and more often in wikipedia. Only a broader community may establish a consensus on the article content. That said, if you think that "Otzovists" issue is dubious and the opponents do not pledge to provide a citation without reasonable (even personal) excuse, just say so, and we all agree to delete it. If it is a "well-attested fact" then it is a well-known fact, and somebody with fact at hand will eventually re-add it in a proper way. As we joked back in soviet times, "it is not an issue of the fate of World Revolution to die for". - Altenmann >t 16:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
  • In what way was this "a discussion between two editors"? One editor started a new section, another responded four times, and I responded once, giving the references requested. This is perfectly normal and acceptable talk page procedure, and does not at all meet your characterisation. RolandR (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Section on initial split -- POV?[edit]

I think the section on the initial split of the RSDLP is POV. Admittedly, this article is by its very nature one of the most difficult Wikis to make neutral. But the article goes too far when it tries to explain the split with extended reference to Lenin's personal egoism:

"A main source of the factions could be directly attributed to Lenin’s steadfast opinion and unwillingness to "bear opinions which were contrary to his own".[9] It was obvious at early stages in Lenin’s revolutionary practices that he would not be willing to concede on any party policy that conflicted with his own predetermined ideas. It was the loyalty that he had to his own self-envisioned utopia that caused the party split. He was seen even by fellow party members as being so narrow minded that he believed that there were types of people “Friend and enemy-those who followed him, and all the rest.”"

Regardless of whether this is an accurate assessment of Lenin's character or not, there were obviously serious and basic differences of political orientation between the two factions, as discussed in the paragraph preceding this one, and in Lenin's What Is To Be Done? and many writings of Martov. As is well known, these differences included the nature of the revolutionary party, economism and the possibility of socialism in a semi-feudal country, the attitude to bourgeois democracy, and many other deep seated political issues. So I don't think we need to resort to speculation about the personal character of the actors involved to explain the split. The split was an inevitable consequence of irreconcilable outlooks. (JohnL)

Unattributed quotes[edit]

We've got a couple of unattributed quotes that should be fixed, per WP:QUOTE. One is sourced to Shub, the other to Pipes, so I'm guessing they said these things?

  • "bear opinions which were contrary to his own"
  • "Friend and enemy — those who followed him, and all the rest."

Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)




Ok Roland explain to me your definition of unnecessary to include the LEADER of the military arm of the bolsheviks THE RED ARMY. Now it is evident that your are undoing edits based on your agenda as opposed to FACTS AND RESOURCES.

Is not the purpose of wiki to give people all facts or are we trying to withhold information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00danbr (talkcontribs) 01:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC) By your definition you should remove Marx from the page as well then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00danbr (talkcontribs) 01:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to add text to an article, the onus is on you to explain why it should be added, not on other editors to explain why it should not. As it happens, the text that you added is badly phrased and creates an extremely clumsy and inelegant sentence. The lead should reflect the content of the article, not introduce new material. Nobody is questioning the role of Trotsky in establishing the Red Army, but this is really not the right place to add this. So I am once again removing this redundant and misplaced content; please establish a consensus before attempting to add it again. I have no idea what you mean by my "agenda", but in any case this is irrelevant; please do not comment on other editors' perceived views, but on the content of their edits. And please stop shouting in your comments and summaries. RolandR (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok let me quote your words "The lead should reflect the content of the article, not introduce new material." NEW material? Trotsky founded the Red Army in 1918! FOUNDED he was the first chairman and led them in the important battles they had to take power of Russia. How is it "not the right place to add this" if its written there that Lenin and Bogdanov were the founders of the party as well? You are saying its not right to add who the founders? The Russian Civil war was EXTREMELY crucial to them taking power of Russia. ASIDE from all of this you proudly strut on your profile that you are a Marxist and Fan of Trotsky so it would seem you want to defend his reputation?!00danbr (talk) 18:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing Robert Wilton[edit]

I see a load of additions citing him as a source have been removed. Correctly: the man was an early propagator of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which the London Times initially treated as believable. --GwydionM (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


The section that discusses membership I think either has a typo or very subtle vandalism. Citation 18 covers a sentence that says "By 1910, both factions together had fewer than 10,000 members." This seems to be extremely wrong since the previous sentence talks about both factions being close to 40,000.--WillC 10:50, 18 June 2017 (UTC)