|
|
|
|
|
|
by UncleOxidant
484 days ago
|
|
|
Yeah, Lenin's complete takeover of the socialist/communist movement was not a given. Kerensky was much more of a moderate (and IIRC was running the Provisional Government from about July 1917 till about September, up until that point the Bolsheviks were in the minority). Had he succeeded and Lenin been unsuccessful in taking over the revolution it seems possible that Russia now might look more like a northern European democracy. Lenin wasn't the brightest and he wasn't the best orator, but he did have the work ethic - he essentially outworked his rivals and took advantage of every opportunity to make them look weak. |
|
|
Probably not. Kerensky and most other moderates were still reactionary imperialists by modern standards and wanted to keep the empire together.
And the divergence between Russia and Norther European countries occurred hundreds of years prior to the revolution. Overwhelming majority of Russians were very poor and illiterate peasants. It would be near impossible to build a progressive/democratic society in such a place without massive economic and social changes (which wouldn't just happened on their own).
> he essentially outworked
He was also an extreme liar and a hypocrite. The Bolsheviks did and said anything to get into power and then reneged on most of their promises. Main issues at the time were land reform and ending the war, the Bolsheviks pretty much just stole the Socialist land reform plan and pretended they'll implement it when they get into power (which likely resulted in much less direct opposition to them in the early stages than would have been the case otherwise). Yet they obviously nationalized most of the land as soon as they secured their position. They also tried invading Poland/Ukraine/Baltics/etc. as soon as the German army withdrew.