This week, we dealt with what social upheaval meant for politics in Europe at the time, specifically with the rise in success of the Socialist parties and more specifically with their role in Russia. The spectrum of political leanings in Russia was wide, but eventually it was the far left that won out. The discussion seemed to become less about whether to have a revolution but when and how, and it turned into Mensheviks versus Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks, with the future on their side, won the debate in both classes. The organizational skill and urgency of revolution that the Bolsheviks had, as well as fortuitous circumstances, made them able to push out the Mensheviks, even if their position might have made more sense, as Jonathan posits. I agree with David's comment about the Octobrists, that reform from within is much more stable than a complete overthrow. It resembles a benevolent dictatorship, yes, but there is less bloodshed. However, the loss of respect and love for the tsar made this approach difficult: Without the strong authority figure the Octobrists needed, the reforms would have been harder to push through. The further destabilization of the country during World War I opened the way for revolutionaries, not reformists.