Nope. It was a majority faction ("bolshevik" literally means "member of majority" as opposite to "menshevik", "member of minority") in the Russian Social-Democratic Worker Party (РСДРП). They took power during the October Revolution. Soon after the revolution the party was renamed into Russian Communist Party (of Bolsheviks). A year later the Communist International (Commintern) was created by Lenin's order and its first congress in 1919 was attended by delegates from 21 different countries.

So, it seems to me, it was not a minor faction in a single country but a member of the international Communist movement.

I'm still not sure how the OP knew any Bolsheviks, was anyone calling themselves that in 1970?

The former were all about a minority controlling the majority, while the latter is about the majority being in control (although that does not work out all that well always either).

Note that the it is almost impossible to discuss this due to overloaded terms like liberalism which means the opposite depending on who you ask. I define leftism like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

It's just that I've never seen it in (historical) contexts outside of describing the pre 1920s revolutionaries.

They used "bolshevik" as a term of endearment especially in reference to the old party members.

don't worry most of the left repackaged the old communism into moral relativism and is no longer trying to win that unwinnable battle to keep communism as an ideology detached from all communist implementations.

it's mostly the older guards that still try that line.

It was a relatively small group of men that ended up dominating Russia, partially due to how ruthless they were willing to be.

You mean like every other successful revolutionary party? Revolutionaries that aren't willing to be ruthless end up in prison or on the scaffold. To quote Ben Franklin as he was preparing to sign the Declaration of Independence, 'We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.'

In September 1918, Sovnarkom passed a decree that inaugurated the Red Terror, a system of repression orchestrated by the Cheka.[256] Although sometimes described as an attempt to eliminate the entire bourgeoisie,[257] Lenin did not want to exterminate all members of this class, merely those who sought to reinstate their rule.[258] The majority of the Terror's victims were well-to-do citizens or former members of the Tsarist administration;[259] others were non-bourgeois anti-Bolsheviks and perceived social undesirables such as prostitutes.[260] The Cheka claimed the right to both sentence and execute anyone whom it deemed to be an enemy of the government, without recourse to the Revolutionary Tribunals.[261] Accordingly, throughout Soviet Russia the Cheka carried out killings, often in large numbers.[262] For example, the Petrograd Cheka executed 512 people in a few days.[263] There are no surviving records to provide an accurate figure of how many perished in the Red Terror;[264] later estimates of historians have ranged between 10,000 and 15,000,[265] and 50,000 to 140,000.[266]

What did Ben Franklin do that was comparable to that?

For Lenin at least, yes, absolutely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Democratic_Front_(Kerala)

Interesting connection - Putins father was a cook for both Lenin and Stalin.

No. They were the largest left faction, and the word bolshevik translates to 'majority', while menshevik means 'minority' - so named because the Bolsheviks pursued a majority-rule policy while the Mensheviks wanted a more parliamentarian system that preserved the rights of minority parties. There were two communist revolutions in 1917; the first, in February, toppled the Tsar but the provisional government led by Kerensky didn't deliver on its promise of pulling Russia out of the war and made so many compromises with the conservative and militarist interests that eventually it lost the confidence of the working class, and the Bolsheviks were able to take power in an almost bloodless second revolution in October.

Lenin was in hiding at the time, having been accused of sedition (I think, I forget the exact charge) against the provisional government, and Trotsky's execution of the takeover went so smoothly that when Lenin turned up at the Bolsheviks' HQ a couple of days alter he demanded of Trotsky to know why they weren't fighting and was astonished to learn that they had already won. Having seized power, the Bolshevik's first task was to get Russia out of the war, and they sent Trotsky off to negotiate the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This didn't go as well as they hoped, and to get Russia out of the war they had to make huge compromises, but they succeeded in signing a peace treaty thereby fulfilling their primary objective.

The Russian civil war began after the exit from WW1, but the Bolsheviks were legitimately in power before it began and remained in power the whole time. Civil wars in any country are bitter and destructive, partly because many of the issues are personal and partly because both sides know the territory well and are able to wage war more intimately and effectively than a foreign invader, who is more constrained by logistical and infrastructural considerations.

I think the Bolsheviks and the left revolutionaries in general were quite justified in seizing power; Tsarism was dreadful and World War 1 was a horrific waste of life and treasure which the Bolsheviks were quite right to oppose (and which many socialist parties around europe cynically sold out the working class to promote). Having achieved victory and pulled russia out of the war, I don't know why you'd expect them not to defend the government they'd just established against its White Army challengers.

The Tsarists weren't much better, sure. Much of that history is covered here:

https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Revolution-New-History/dp/046...

Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.

People seem to forget that ~18 million people died and >20 million people were wounded in that conflict - understandably since we have far more footage of WW2 and subsequent conflicts compared to a rather hazy conception of trench warfare and primitive tanks for WW1. Compared to this the Russian revolutions of 1917 were near-bloodless affairs. High estimates for the Red Terror in the lead up to the Russian Civil War are about 200,000 (100k is more common), a small number in that historical context, but worse because of the number and nature of the atrocities committed.

On the other hand, the White Terror to which it was a response claimed some 300,000 lives but nobody seems to care about that, which is a pretty weird double standard if you ask me. Perhaps this is because people conflate the Red Terror with the later events of the Stalinist period rather than looking at it in its contemporary context.

Unfortunately, Putin is back to praising Stalinism. A free, democratic Russia would be really interesting.

On this I completely agree, but I have to note that the West's response to the emergence of a somewhat free and democratic Russia after the collapse of the USSR was to set it up with a rudimentary market economy and milk it for profit, while keeping defense budgets in the West at about the same levels (until the early 2000s, when they almost doubled). I think Putin's rise is a direct result of our failure to invest in helping Russia to build democratic institutions.

Tambov uprising alone had 11 thousands people directly dead, many more indirectly due to hunger, etc. And that's just a tiny episode.

My point is not to downplay it but to say it should be considered in the context of everything else that was going on at that time. By all means question the historical estimates if you disagree with them, but I think you should be equally concerned by the death attributable to the anti-communist forces, no?

unfortunately, Russians who could see past that little trick were either exterminated or emigrated long ago.

Nobody has a problem with it though since the government is eager to listen to the West so it's a proper "democracy" and things are fine.

Reasons your text is a poor attempt:

Kremlin propaganda about "democracy = subjugation" predates Ukrainian situation by at least a few decades if not a century; and then Ukraine is not the only "young democracy" Russians could check out as an example, so why do you even bring it out here? especially since attacking Ukraine themselves definitely taints "the analysis of the benefits of democracy".

Even if we take a bait with "Ukraine is a reason why Russians don't want democracy":

Ukrainian history in your post is (on purpose?) not told exactly right and some important elephants in the room (like Crimea and Russian military involvement) are conveniently ignored; subjective statement about corruption levels is thrown, what's your measurement methodology?

again, other "young democracies" might have a better situation with everything, why Russians don't look at those?

I indeed believe that you are sincere and find that because Ukraine is failing and still labeled a democracy then Russia is never going to be democratic, but it's tragic that such a shaky views are just blindly adopted by Russians.

Because it's easy to verify. Btw, I am not sure what are you even arguing here, my point and the point to the post you replied to is that "Russia will never be considered a democracy by the West" not the strawman you are so eager to burn here.

Russia can and will be labeled free and democratic by outside organizations when it's not ruled by a dictator. The US did not chose Putin, though Putin might like to choose who leads the US.