As I see it, RD, your post boils down to one core proposition: the Mensheviks would have been better (at constructing liberal democracy) because they would have been better (than the liberal Democrats already in power). And that, my former friend, contradicts your assertion that 'Stalin' could have been miraculously prevented---which was MY original point (only regarding the Bolsheviks, not the Mensheviks).
You defend what the Mensheviks 'would have' done. Your defense is based on nothing but words. Would the Mensheviks have protected the peasants from the predations of the large capitalist class? The continuance of the war (which the Mensheviks supported) didn't inspire much confidence...
I repeat: your argument that Russia HAD to have liberal democracy before socialism will not withstand criticism: Russia ALREADY had liberal democracy (and, with it, the war the capitalists wanted which prolonged the class crisis manifested in rural expropriations and officer executions at the front).
The problem was the capitalists and their losing war. The Mensheviks were just as committed to both as Kerensky. Either way, the Bolsheviks would have happened; the Bolsheviks HAD to happen under those circumstances.
If you cannot see the difference between Lenin and Stalin, then our conversation really isn't going much further than my debates with Doc Cruel ever did...
None.
