If the czar had been overthrown in 1905

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Lenin's political programme thus became: let us build a party as much like the SPD as possible under underground conditions so that we can overthrow the tsar and become even more like the SPD. Achieving political freedom was the centre of this programme. Lenin wanted political freedom because he thought it would bring immeasurable benefit to Russia, to the workers, and to Social Democracy. He gave advice on how to build an effective party in the underground, but the reason he wanted an effective party was to be able to leave behind forever the stifling atmosphere of the underground. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)" (Lars Lih, Lenin Rediscovered, p. 557)



If the czar had been overthrown in 1905:

1) Would the Mensheviks become more radical? [Later on they called for the party to be dissolved into a broad Labour congress]
2) Would the prospects for revolution in Europe improve, in accordance with Kautsky's writings during that period?
3) What about the prospects for continental war, on the other hand?

[Tower of Bebel]

Does this hypothesis involve a ruling bourgeoisie or the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Good question, comrade. That would definitely determine, and I apologize for not mentioning this in the OP, whether or not the Russian equivalent of Bernstein would be part of the RSDLP (I believe Lenin said in one of his earlier works that, later on - after the czar was overthrown - guys like Bernstein would be allowed, based on his perception that the SPD's revisionist wing wasn't that strong).

Meanwhile, the hypothesis itself would depend on the make-up of the Constituent Assembly called for at the end of the RSDLP's Erfurtian programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm#v24zz99h-466-GUESS). My take is more or less "neither," given the emphasis on the peasantry.

[Tower of Bebel]

If the czar had been overthrown in 1905:

1) Would the Mensheviks become more radical? [Later on they called for the party to be dissolved into a broad Labour congress]
2) Would the prospects for revolution in Europe improve, in accordance with Kautsky's writings during that period?
3) What about the prospects for continental war, on the other hand?

1. No, because to me it all depends on the organizational aspect, and the Mensheviks weren't really a faction capable of keeping opportunism out. Even the Bolsheviks wouldn't really become SPD-like in times of bourgeois democracy because Lenin was (unconsciously) a far better organizer (against opportunism) than the leading cadres of the SPD.
2. The problem is that by 1900 the imperialist war was already well underway, there is no fundamental change in the situation, so again it all depends on Mr. Kautsky's capabilities to resist the influence of the labour aristocracy.

[Armand Iskra]

Perhaps, if the tsar had been overthrown, maybe the kadets or the populists (like the people's will) would have made attempts to take over the government. But the RSDLP would also make chances of doing the same thing as the former two wanted.

[Revy]

Does Bloody Sunday have anything to do with why you chose the year 1905?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I guess so, but the height of the revolution came much later on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1905


Perhaps, if the tsar had been overthrown, maybe the kadets or the populists (like the people's will) would have made attempts to take over the government. But the RSDLP would also make chances of doing the same thing as the former two wanted.

Were those two parties really that popular at that time?

[ComradeOm]

Were those two parties really that popular at that time?The RSDLP was still a relatively minor party and commanded nowhere near the support it would enjoy a decade later. Which isn't to say that they were not involved in the revolution but they were not a mass party with no real support base to compete with the likes of the liberals or peasants

The People's Will were defunct at this time and been superseded by the Social Revolutionaries. Its hard to gauge the degree of support that they enjoyed (seeing as they boycotted the first Duma) but they, together with the Trudoviks, were probably the second most popular faction in Russian politics at the time. Again though, the SRs were a peasant movement and as disorganised in 1905 as they were to be in 1917

It was the Kadets that formed the real 'party of opposition' in 1905 and they were undoubtedly the largest single faction in the 1906 Duma. Their demands were largely progressive and opposed to Tsarism. Most importantly these policies were genuinely popular with the masses. Unfortunately for them the failures of the Duma (encapsulated in the passive 'Vyborg Manifesto') forever tarnished the appeal of liberalism to the workers and peasants. Plus of course many leading liberals were thoroughly spooked by the ability of the 'mob' to influence politics and quickly aligned themselves with conservatives. In the end it was the Kadets that were best placed to capitalise on the events of 1905 (thus carrying out political revolution before a social one became unavoidable) and the big losers when the Tsar renegaded on his word. Had the dissolution of the first Duma been followed up by a call to arms, instead of the weak Vyborg Manifesto, then the Kadets may well have triumphed instead of ceding the progressive mantle to the socialists

Edit:

Does Bloody Sunday have anything to do with why you chose the year 1905? Has the Russian Revolution of 1905 really become this obscure? Contemporaries considered these events to rank up there with the Paris Commune or Revolutions of 1848. It was a fairly major event