Having finished this work, I now have some sort of understanding of what it is that he is trying to say, although Lenin insists that no one who is a member of the Bourgeois is capable of gaining such an understanding. Of course Lenin himself came from the Bourgeois classes, as did all the other communist leaders, but we must let this bit of cognitive dissonance pass or we won't get through things.
Much of the thesis that Lenin is putting forward is that the Mensheviks want to have a democratic assembly and work with the liberal democrats (i.e. capitalists), and Lenin sees a hidden hypocritical agenda in this: The Mensheviks will necessarily be coopted and assimilated into the Czarist/Bourgeois agenda, and the proletariat will be cheated out of their revolution.
Then there are the anarchist who see revolution as the end, and that action must always be from the lowest levels. This Lenin sees as problematic. The revolution isn't the end. The revolution is the means to the end. The end must have unlimited power to reform, thus, it must end in dictatorship. The end must also have complete legitimacy, hence, it must be a democracy, never mind that democracy and dictatorship are mutually exclusive. Lenin tries to merge these two by noting that dictatorship need not be that of an individual, and by extension proves that the dictatorship can include everyone, provided they are all empowered. Finally, it must specifically enumerate who the dictatorship is allegedly for, and who it is not for. Thus, it is for the factory workers and the peasants. Only. Don't ask any more questions. Period.
Some of this discussion reminds me of America's persistent problem with RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). They seem to have a somewhat opposite mentality to what Lenin claims will happen with the Mensheviks in that the RINO's routinely compromise with the Socialists, although Lenin honors the Mensheviks more by implying that they would need to be coopted first, whereas the RINO's don't even need that as an incentive. The parallel breaks down if you go any further, because Lenin and the Anarchists are for completely overthrowing the legal framework, whereas America's Tea Party is for restoring the legal framework.
Another thing I sense from these writings is that the socialist in various groups have been brooding over power for a very long time, and this has caused them to carefully study history and generate a vocabulary for themselves. The French Revolution figures very high on this, as well as the Paris Commune and the German Revolution of 1848. Thus, to really put their thinking into perspective will require a more careful study of these events, along with the writings of Marx and Engels.
A final note is that there is not one reference to Christianity or the church in all these writings, which if I recall correctly was true to Trotsky's "From October to Brest-Litovsk" also. This contrasts strongly with Leo Tolstoy's hatred for Christianity in his religious writings that were done towards this period. Where was the church?