If we analyze the events described in the previous chapter and add to them the current state Russian Federation then we can highlight the following consequences of one-party politics:
- * Destroy enemies within the party
- * Complete merging of the party and state apparatuses
- * Elimination of the system of separation of powers
- *Destruction of civil liberties
- * Creation of mass public organizations
- * Spread of the cult of personality
- * Mass repression
- * large human losses, often the best representatives of various social groups
- * technical, economic and selectively scientific lag behind the developed democratic countries of the West and East
- * ideological confusion in the heads, lack of initiative, slave psychology among many Russians and residents of some other republics of the former USSR at present
one-party political state regime
Controversies
The question of the fate of various political parties before the October Revolution was not raised even theoretically. Moreover, from Marxist theory classes, the thesis about the preservation of a multi-party system in a society divided into classes, even after the victory of socialism, naturally followed. However, practice Soviet power came into striking contradiction with this theory.
Repressions against non-Bolshevik parties began immediately after the victory of the October Revolution and did not stop until their complete disappearance, which allowed us to draw the first conclusion: the conclusion about the decisive role of violence in establishing one-party rule. Another approach to this problem was based on the fact that most of the leaders of these parties emigrated, which made it possible to draw a different conclusion - about their separation from the country and the remaining membership mass in it. However, the cessation of the activities of the CPSU in August 1991 gave us a new historical experience of the death of the party, where repression or emigration did not play any role. Thus, there is now sufficient empirical material to consider the cycle of evolution of a political party in Russia until its collapse and determine its causes. In my opinion, they are rooted in the contradictions inherent in the party as a historical phenomenon. Single-party politics facilitates this analysis by ensuring unity of subject matter.
The dividing line between a multi-party system and a single-party system lies not in the number of parties existing in the country, but in their real impact on its politics. At the same time, it is not so important whether the parties are in the government or the opposition: what is important is that their voice is heard, they are taken into account, and state policy is formed with their participation. From this point of view, the existence in the People's Republic of Belarus, East Germany, North Korea, China, Poland, Czechoslovakia in the second half of the 40s - early 80s. several parties, and in the USSR, NRA, or Hungarian People's Republic - only one party does not play a role, because the “allied parties” did not have their own political line and were entirely subordinate to the leadership of the communists. It is no coincidence that they hastened to distance themselves from the ruling party as soon as the crisis of the 80s began.
Therefore, we can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918.
Because the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Councils of all levels, the leadership of the People's Commissariats and the Cheka, with their noticeable participation the first Constitution of the RSFSR and the most important laws of Soviet power were created ( especially the Basic Law on the Socialization of the Land). Some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets at that time.
In the early 20s. a phenomenon called the “dictatorship of the party” is emerging. This term was first put into circulation by G.E. Zinoviev at the XII Congress of the RCP(b) and was included in the resolution of the congress. J.V. Stalin hastened to dissociate himself from it, however, in my opinion, this term reflected the real picture: since October 1917, all state decisions were previously made by the leading institutions of the Communist Party, which, having a majority in the Soviets, carried them out through its members and formalized in the form of decisions of Soviet bodies. In a number of cases this procedure was not followed: a number of decisions national importance existed only in the form of party resolutions, some - joint resolutions of the party and the government. Through communist factions (since 1934 - party groups), the party led the Soviets and public associations, through the system of political bodies - power structures and sectors of the economy that became “bottlenecks” (transport, agriculture). Almost all “top officials” in government bodies, public organizations, enterprises, and cultural institutions were members of the party. This leadership was reinforced by a nomenclature system for the appointment and approval of managers and responsible employees.
The theoretical justification for the right of the Communist Party to lead was a unique interpretation of the idea of classes, put forward, as is known, even before Karl Marx by French historians during the Restoration. Its Leninist interpretation consisted of a consistent narrowing of concentric circles: the carriers of progress, the most important part of the people, are only the working people, among them the working class stands out, behind which stands the future. Within it, the leading role belongs to the factory proletariat, and within it, to the workers of large enterprises. The most conscious and organized part, constituting a minority of the proletariat, unites into a communist party, led by a narrow group of leaders, to whom the right to leadership is given “not by the power of power, but by the power of authority, the power of energy, greater experience, greater versatility, greater talent.”
In conditions of one-party the last part the formulas did not correspond to reality. Having all the completeness state power, ruling elite maintained its leadership position precisely by the “power of power”, with the help of repressive bodies. But this meant for the party the loss of one of the essential signs of party membership - the voluntariness of unification. Everyone striving for political activity understood that there was no other way into politics except belonging to a single party. Exclusion from it meant political (and in the 30-40s, often physical) death, voluntary withdrawal from it, condemnation of its policies, and therefore disloyalty to the existing state, at least the threat of repression.
Political pluralism, which presupposed the rivalry of different parties representing the multiple interests of social groups, the struggle of parties for influence on the masses and the possibility of one of them losing its ruling status, was the opposite of this system. Its presumption was a tacit assertion that the leaders knew their interests and needs better than the masses, but only the Bolsheviks possessed this all-vision. The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. By the decree “On the arrest of the leaders of the civil war against the revolution” of November 28, 1917, one party was banned - the Cadets. This was hardly justified by practical considerations: the Cadets were never represented in the Soviets; in the elections to the Constituent Assembly they managed to get only 17 deputies into it, and some of them were recalled by decision of the Soviets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, connections with commercial, industrial and military circles, and support from the allies. But it was precisely this ban on the party that could not be undermined; most likely, it was an act of revenge against the once most influential enemy. The repressions only further weakened the prestige of the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the intelligentsia and raised the authority of the Cadets.
The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were, first of all, the anarchists who stood to the left of them. Their strengthening on the eve of the October Uprising was indicated at an expanded meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) on October 16, 1917. They adopted Active participation in establishing and consolidating Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. The strength of the anarchists was that they expressed the spontaneous protest of the peasantry and urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists who occupied 26 mansions in the center of Moscow were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists, without exception, bandits. Some anarchists went underground, others joined the Bolshevik Party.
On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of more moderate layers of workers and peasants who longed for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their financial situation. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, relied on further deployment class struggle, moving it to the village, which further widened the gap between them and the Left Social Revolutionaries that formed in connection with the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace. It is characteristic that both the Bolsheviks and their political opponents and even former allies did not think about legal competition on the basis of the existing regime. Soviet power was firmly identified with the power of the Bolsheviks, and the only method of resolving political contradictions was the armed way. As a result, in June the Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries, and after July, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries were expelled from the Soviets. There were still maximalist Socialist-Revolutionaries in them, but due to their small numbers they did not play a significant role.
During the years of foreign military intervention and the civil war, depending on changes in the policy of the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties in relation to the power of the Soviets, they were either allowed or prohibited again, moving to a semi-legal position. Attempts from both sides to achieve conditional cooperation did not gain momentum.
New, much more solid hopes for the establishment of a multi-party system were associated with the introduction of the NEP, when the allowed multi-structure economy seemed to be able to be naturally continued and consolidated in political pluralism. And first impressions confirmed this.
At the X Congress of the RCP(b) in March 1921, when discussing the issue of replacing surplus appropriation with a tax in kind, when People's Commissar of Food A.D. Tsyurupa spoke out against the revival of free cooperation due to the predominance of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries there; the rapporteur V.I. Lenin objected to him in a broader sense: “Of course, any separation of the kulaks and the development of petty-bourgeois relations give rise to corresponding political parties, which took decades to form in Russia and which we well known. Here we have to choose not between whether to give or not give way to these parties - they are inevitably generated by petty-bourgeois economic relations - but we need to choose, and then only to a certain extent, only between forms of concentration, unification of the actions of these parties.”
However, just a year later, in the Final Remark on the Political Report of the Central Committee to the XI Congress of the RCP(b), Lenin said the exact opposite: “Of course, we allow capitalism, but within the limits that are necessary for the peasantry. It is necessary! Without this, the peasant cannot live and farm. And without Socialist Revolutionary and Menshevik propaganda he, the Russian peasant, we assert, can live. And whoever claims the opposite, then we say to him that it would be better for us all to perish, every single one, but we will not yield to you! And our courts must understand all this." What happened this year for the Bolsheviks to diametrically change their approach to the issue of political pluralism?
In my opinion, the decisive role here was played by two different, but deeply interconnected events: Kronstadt and the “Smenovekhovtvo”.
The rebels in Kronstadt, like the Left Social Revolutionaries earlier, did not set the task of overthrowing Soviet power, as the Bolsheviks accused them of. Among their slogans were: “Power to the Soviets, not to the parties!” and “Soviets without communists!” We can talk about the slyness of P.N. Milyukova and V.M. Chernov, who suggested these slogans to the Kronstadters, but they themselves obviously believed in them. The implementation of these slogans meant not only the elimination of the monopoly of the RCP(b) on power or its removal from power, but, taking into account the experience of the just ended civil war, the prohibition of the RCP(b), repression not only against the leaders, but also the mass of members, and non-party Soviet activists. The “Russian revolt, senseless and merciless” never knew the generosity of the victors. For the Bolsheviks it was literally a matter of life and death.
Peaceful “change of leadership” approached this problem from a different angle. Having posed the fundamental question: “What is the NEP - is it tactics or evolution?”, its leaders gave an answer in the second sense. In their opinion, the NEP meant the beginning of the evolution of Soviet society towards the restoration of capitalism. From here the next step of the Bolsheviks should logically follow: adding a multi-structured economy “ political NEP» - the assumption of pluralism in politics. This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did not want to do, rightly fearing that free elections voters, recalling the “Red Terror”, surplus appropriation, etc., will refuse to support them, handing over power to other parties. Moreover, such a vote had an important advantage over an armed rebellion - legitimacy. It seems that this is why “smenovekhism” frightened Lenin more than the Kronstadt uprising. In any case, he repeatedly spoke about the warning against the “Change of Milestones” in 1921-1922.
Course for eradication political pluralism and the prohibition of a multi-party system was confirmed by the resolution of the XII All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) in August 1922 “On anti-Soviet parties and movements,” which declared all anti-Bolshevik forces anti-Soviet, i.e. anti-state, although in reality most of them encroached not on the power of the Soviets, but on the power of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets. First of all, measures of ideological struggle had to be directed against them. Repression was not excluded, but officially had to play a subordinate role.
The process of the Combat Organization of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, organized in the summer of 1922, was intended to play, first of all, a propaganda role. Conducted in the Column Hall of the House of Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large public, foreign observers and defenders, and widely covered in the press, the trial was intended to present the Socialist Revolutionaries as ruthless terrorists. After this, the Extraordinary Congress of ordinary members of the AKP passed easily, announcing the self-dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. In recent literature, facts about the role of the RCP(b) and the OGPU in the preparation and conduct of these congresses have been made public.
Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. the cross was finally put up. It seems that from this time we can date the completion of the process of forming a one-party system, the decisive step towards which was taken in 1918.
By defending their monopoly on power, the Bolshevik leadership defended its life. And this could not help but distort the system political relations, in which there was no place for traditional means of political resolution of the conflict: compromise, blocs, concessions. Confrontation became the only law of politics. And a whole generation of politicians was brought up in the belief that this was inevitable.
Political pluralism threatened to break through in Soviet Russia in another way - through factionalism in the RCP(b) itself.
Having become the only legal party in the country, it could not help but reflect, albeit in an indirect form, the diversity of interests, which intensified even more with the introduction of the NEP. The fact that factions really serve as the basis for the formation of new parties is evidenced by the experience of both the beginning and the end of the 20th century. But it seems that the leadership of the RCP(b) was no longer concerned about this, but about the threat of a “shift of power” first to the faction closest to the ruling group, and then to the forces of open restoration. It was precisely the fear that the internal party struggle would so weaken the leading narrow layer of the party that “the decision will no longer depend on it,” and were dictated by the harsh measures against platforms, discussions, factions and groupings contained in the resolutions of the Tenth Congress of the RCP (b) “On Unity party." For decades, there was no worse crime in the Bolshevik Party than factionalism.
Fear of factionalism led to a deformation of the ideological life of the party. Traditional discussions among the Bolsheviks began to be seen as undermining ideological unity. First, in 1922, the activities of party discussion clubs, where high-ranking party members had the courage to share doubts in their circles, were curtailed. Then, in 1927, the opening of a general party discussion was surrounded by difficult conditions: the absence of a strong majority in the Central Committee on the most important issues of party policy, the desire of the Central Committee itself to verify its correctness by polling party members or, if several provincial-level organizations demanded it. However, in all these cases, the discussion could begin only by decision of the Central Committee, which actually meant the cessation of any discussions.
The former struggle of opinions by the end of the 20s. was replaced by external unanimity. The Secretary General became the only theoretician, and the stages of ideological life were his speeches. This led to the fact that the party, which was proud of the scientific validity of its policies, began to call the last instruction of the leaders, whose intellectual level was increasingly declining, a theory. Marxism-Leninism began to be called a set of dogmas and platitudes, which was united with it only by an ornament in the form of Marxist terms. Thus, the Communist Party has lost another essential attribute of party membership - its own ideology. It could not develop in the absence of discussions both within its own environment and with ideological opponents.
On the contrary, a number of new parties in the early 90s (Democratic, Republican, Social Democrats, etc.) arose in the depths of party discussion clubs that spontaneously arose in the CPSU in the late 80s. However, the general decline in the level of ideological life in the country also affected them. One of the main difficulties of most modern Russian parties: developing a clear ideological line that would be understandable to the people and could claim their support.
The one-party system simplified the problem of political leadership to the limit, reducing it to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which did not know its political rivals. At its service were the repressive apparatus of the state and the means of mass influence on the people. An all-powerful, all-penetrating vertical was created, working in a one-way mode - from the center to the masses, devoid of feedback. Therefore, the processes taking place within the party acquired self-sufficient significance. The source of its development was the contradictions inherent in the party. In my opinion, they are characteristic of a political party in general, but they occurred in our country in a specific form, due to the one-party system.
The first contradiction is between the personal freedom of a party member, his own beliefs and activities, and belonging to the party whose program, regulations and political decisions limit this freedom. This contradiction is inherent in any public association, but is especially acute in a political party, where everyone is required to act together with other members.
The generic feature of Bolshevism was the subordination of the party member to all its decisions. “After the decision of the competent authorities, all of us, party members, act as one person,” emphasized V.I. Lenin. True, he stipulated that this should be preceded by a collective discussion, after which the decision would be made democratically. However, in practice this became increasingly formal.
The iron discipline that the Bolsheviks were proud of ensured the unity of their actions at turning points in history, in combat situations. However, this created a tradition of prioritizing coercion over conscious submission. The majority always turned out to be right, and the individual was initially wrong in front of the collective.
This was expressed very clearly by L.D. Trotsky, in his well-known repentance at the XIII Congress of the RCP(b) in May 1924: “Comrades, none of us wants and can be right against our party. The party, in the final analysis, is always right, because the party is the only historical instrument given to the proletariat to resolve its main tasks... I know that it is impossible to be right against the party. You can only be right with the party and through the party, because history has not provided any other ways to realize rightness. The British have a historical proverb: right or wrong, this is my country. With much greater historical right, we can say: right or wrong in certain private specific issues, in certain moments, but this is my party.” Such open conformism gave I.V. Stalin the opportunity to condescendingly object: “The Party is often mistaken. Ilyich taught us to teach the party leadership from its own mistakes. If the party had no mistakes, then there would be nothing to teach the party from.” In fact, he himself adhered to the thesis of the infallibility of the party, which was identified with the infallibility of its leadership, and more precisely, with his own infallibility. Mistakes were always the fault of others.
Already in the early 20s. A system of strict regulation of the spiritual, social and personal life of a communist developed. All of it was placed under the supervision of cells and control commissions. Created in September 1920 in connection with the raising of the question of the growing gap between the “tops” and “bottoms” of the party and the latter’s demand to revive party equality, the Central and then local control commissions from the very beginning turned into party courts with all their attributes : “Party investigators”, “Party assessors” and “Party troikas”.
General purges and partial checks of party personnel played a special role in instilling conformity in the party. First of all, they hit the party intelligentsia, who could be blamed not only for their non-proletarian origin, but also for their social activity, which did not fit into the framework prescribed from above. “Hesitations in pursuing the general line of the party,” speeches during discussions that were still ongoing, simply doubts were sufficient grounds for exclusion from the party. Another accusation was brought against the workers, who were officially considered the main support and core of the party: “passivity,” which meant non-participation in numerous meetings, the inability to speak out with approval of decisions issued from above. The peasants were accused of “economic fouling” and “connections with class alien elements,” i.e. exactly what naturally followed from the NEP. Purges and checks kept all categories of the party “lower classes” in constant tension, threatening exclusion from political life, and from the beginning of the 30s. - repressions.
But the “tops” did not at all enjoy freedom. Charges of factionalism were brought against them. At the same time, as it turned out, the main danger to the unity of the party ranks came not from factions that had platforms and group discipline, which to a certain extent imposed restrictions on their supporters, but from unprincipled blocs, of which Stalin was such a master. At first it was the “troika” of Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin against Trotsky, then the bloc of Stalin with Bukharin against the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc and, finally, the majority in the Central Committee that Stalin had been gathering for a long time against Bukharin and his “right deviation.” The signs of factionalism defined by the resolution of the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) “On the unity of the party” did not apply to them. But then reprisals began against members of the majority, the main accusation against whom was connections with factionalists, real or imaginary. It was enough to ever work with one of the convicts. Even personal participation in the repressions was not considered as proof of loyalty to the Stalinist leadership; on the contrary, it made it possible to shift the blame for them from the organizers to the perpetrators.
Thus, throughout the 20-30s. a mechanism has been formed artificial selection conformists and careerists. The latter, moving up the career ladder, competed in performance. Intelligence, knowledge, and popularity served more as an obstacle than as an aid to advancement, because they threatened the authorities, who possessed less and less of these qualities. It was mediocrity that had the greatest chance of promotion. (Trotsky once called Stalin a “genius of mediocrity”). Once at the top, the mediocre leader was held on by the forces of the repressive apparatus. It was impossible to replace him through a democratic election procedure.
However, it was impossible for the Stalinist leadership to abandon intra-party democracy, even in words: the democratic tradition was too strong, and an open rejection of democracy would have destroyed the propaganda image of “the most democratic society.” But he managed to reduce election and turnover to a pure formality: at each election, starting with the district committee and rising higher, the number of candidates exactly corresponded to the availability of seats in the elected body, and the secretaries of party committees were selected in advance by the higher body. In moments of crisis, this election was replaced by co-optation based on recommendations from above. This was the case during the civil war, at the beginning of the New Economic Policy and in the mid-30s.
The accumulation of mediocrity in management ultimately led to a new quality: the inability of managers either to adequately assess the situation themselves or to listen to competent opinion from the outside. This, in my opinion, explains many of the obvious mistakes of the 20s and 30s. and later times.
Due to the lack of feedback within the party, its members did not have any influence on policy. They became hostages of anti-democratic intra-party relations. Moreover, non-party people were removed from decision-making and control over their implementation. The second contradiction of a political party is between the desire for sustainability and the need for renewal in connection with changes in society.
This, first of all, manifested itself in ideology, as mentioned above. The result of the frozen ideology was a growing gap between the official point of view and reality: persistent references to the kulak threat contradicted the fact of its insignificant share in the country's economy. Likewise, in the size of the rural population, the elimination of antagonistic classes was contradicted by the thesis about the intensification of the class struggle as we move towards socialism, growing social differentiation and the growth of interethnic contradictions - the thesis about the solution national question, achieving social homogeneity of Soviet society and the emergence of a new historical community - the Soviet people.
In the economic field, the desire to remain faithful to old dogmas led to repeated economic and political crises. In domestic politics, the growing diversity and strengthening of the economic base and local power were contradicted by traditional centralism. This led to the expansion of the executive apparatus and the growth of bureaucracy on the one hand, and the strengthening of local separatism on the other. In foreign policy, the original class approach prevailed over healthy pragmatism. An obsession with the old policy was especially dangerous at turning points: the establishment of a new government, the transition to civil war, its end in the mid-20s, on the verge of the 20s and 30s. etc.
The result of the persistent desire for stability was the inertia of thinking of both leaders and led, misunderstanding of new trends and processes and, ultimately, the loss of the ability to lead the development of society.
The third contradiction is between the integrity of the association and its connection with the society of which it is a part. In the party, it finds resolution in the definition of membership, rules of admission, openness of internal party life to non-party members, methods of party leadership and relations with the masses. public organizations. Here, too, the matter increasingly came down to the administrative method of solving the problems facing the party: regulating admission to the party from above, establishing quotas for the admission of people from different social categories, command of non-party organizations, party instructions to writers, journalists, artists, musicians, actors. In the absence of feedback, this subsequently led to the collapse of the CPSU and the loss of its ability to influence society, as soon as the usual administrative methods of pressure began to fail.
These are the main contradictions of the one-party system, inherent both to the party itself and to Soviet society as a whole. Accumulated and not resolved, they manifested themselves in numerous crises of the 20s and 30s, but were restrained by the hoops of the administrative influence of the authorities. The experience of the one-party system in our country has proven the dead end of the development of society under conditions of a monopoly on power. Only political methods in an environment of free competition of doctrines, strategic and tactical guidelines, rivalry between leaders in full view of voters could help the party gain and maintain strength, develop as a free community of people united by unity of beliefs and actions.
1) Establishment of Soviet power in Russia
From late October 1917 to February 1918, Soviet power established itself (mostly peacefully) over most of the territory of the former Russian Empire.
At the end of 1917 - beginning of 1918, simultaneously with the liquidation of the old government bodies, a new state apparatus was being created. The Congress of Soviets became the highest legislative body. In the intervals between congresses, these functions were performed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). The highest executive body was the Council of People's Commissars (government) headed by V.I. Lenin.
After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918, which at its first meeting refused to support the October Revolution, the Third Congress of Soviets was held. At this congress, Russia was declared the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).
The new organization of power was enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted at the V Congress of Soviets in 1918.
The Left Socialist Revolutionaries were the only party that entered into a government bloc with the Bolsheviks. However, already in March 1918, the bloc collapsed: the Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the government in protest against the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty.
After the exclusion of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and local Soviets (June 1918), we can talk about the actual establishment of a one-party system in the Soviet Republic.
One of the key issues of the young Soviet government was the issue related to the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, over which even a large internal party struggle unfolded.
Having embarked on a grandiose transformation of Russia, the Bolsheviks were in dire need of calm on the external borders. Continued World War. The Entente countries ignored the Bolshevik Peace Decree. It was obvious that the Russian army was not able to fight, and mass desertion began.
I had to negotiate a separate peace with Germany. They took place in Brest-Litovsk. The conditions proposed by the enemy were humiliating: Germany demanded the separation of Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Estland and Livonia from Russia. Trotsky disrupted the negotiations. On February 18, 1918, the Germans resumed hostilities. On February 23 (the birthday of the Soviet Army), the Germans present even more difficult peace conditions, according to which Finland, Ukraine and some regions of Transcaucasia are torn away from Russia. Finally, on March 3, 1918, the agreement was signed.
It must be said that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was still a forced measure; it was necessary for the young Soviet Republic to keep the Bolsheviks in power.
2) Formation of a one-party system
We can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918, because the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Councils of all levels, the leadership of the People's Commissariats and the Cheka , with their significant participation, the first Constitution of the RSFSR and the most important laws of Soviet power were created. Some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets at that time.
The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. By the decree “On the arrest of the leaders of the civil war against the revolution” of November 28, 1917, one party was banned - the Cadets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, connections with commercial, industrial and military circles, and support from the allies. But it was precisely this ban on the party that could not be undermined; most likely it was an act of revenge against the once most influential enemy.
The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were the anarchists. They took an active part in establishing and consolidating Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. They expressed the spontaneous protest of the peasantry and urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists, without exception, bandits. Some anarchists went underground, others joined the Bolshevik Party.
On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of more moderate layers of workers and peasants who longed for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their financial situation. The Bolsheviks relied on the further development of the class struggle, transferring it to the countryside, which further widened the gap between them and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries that formed in connection with the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace. As a result, in June the Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries, and after July, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries were expelled from the Soviets. There were still maximalist Socialist-Revolutionaries in them, but due to their small numbers they did not play a significant role.
During the years of foreign military intervention and the civil war, depending on changes in the policy of the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties in relation to the power of the Soviets, they were either allowed or prohibited again, moving to a semi-legal position. Attempts from both sides to achieve conditional cooperation did not gain momentum.
The course towards eradicating political pluralism and preventing a multi-party system was confirmed by the resolution of the XII All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) in August 1922 “On anti-Soviet parties and movements”, which declared all anti-Bolshevik forces anti-Soviet, i.e. anti-state, although in reality most of them encroached not on the power of the Soviets, but on the power of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets. First of all, measures of ideological struggle had to be directed against them. Repression was not excluded, but officially had to play a subordinate role.
The process of the Combat Organization of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, organized in the summer of 1922, was intended to play primarily a propaganda role. Conducted in the Column Hall of the House of Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large public, foreign observers and defenders, and widely covered in the press, the trial was intended to present the Socialist Revolutionaries as ruthless terrorists. After this, the Extraordinary Congress of ordinary members of the AKP passed easily, announcing the self-dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. In recent literature, facts about the role of the RCP(b) and the OGPU in the preparation and conduct of these congresses have been made public.
Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. the cross was finally put up. It seems that from this time we can date the completion of the process of forming a one-party system, the decisive step towards which was taken in 1918.
21. Civil war in Russia: causes, stages, results, consequences.
After the October Uprising, a tense socio-political situation developed in the country, which led to the Civil War. Causes of the Civil War: the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks; internal politics of the Bolshevik leadership; the desire of the overthrown classes to preserve private property and their privileges; refusal of the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists to cooperate with the Soviet regime. The uniqueness of the Civil War in Russia lay in its close intertwining with foreign intervention. Germany, France, England, the USA, Japan, Poland and others took part in the intervention. They supplied the anti-Bolshevik forces with weapons and provided financial and military-political support. The policy of the interventionists was determined by the desire to put an end to the Bolshevik regime and prevent the “spreading” of the revolution, to return the lost property of foreign citizens and to gain new territories and spheres of influence at Russia’s expense. In 1918, the main centers of the anti-Bolshevik movement were formed in Moscow and Petrograd, uniting the Cadets, Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. A strong anti-Bolshevik movement developed among the Cossacks. On the Don and Kuban they were led by General P.N. Krasnov, in the Southern Urals - Ataman P.I. Dutov. basis white movement in the south of Russia and the North Caucasus became the Volunteer Army of General L.S. Kornilov. In the spring of 1918, foreign intervention began. German troops occupied Ukraine, Crimea and part of the North Caucasus, Romania captured Bessarabia. In March, an English corps landed in Murmansk. In April, Vladivostok was occupied by a Japanese landing. In May 1918, soldiers of the Czechoslovak corps who were held captive in Russia rebelled. The uprising led to the overthrow of Soviet power in the Volga region and Siberia. At the beginning of September 1918, troops Eastern Front under the command of I.I. Vatsetis went on the offensive and during October-November drove the enemy beyond the Urals. The restoration of Soviet power in the Urals and Volga region ended the first stage of the civil war. At the end of 1918 - 1919. The white movement reached its maximum extent. In 1919, a plan was created for a simultaneous attack on Soviet power: from the east (A.V. Kolchak), south (A.I. Denikin) and west (N.N. Yudenich). However, the combined performance failed. Troops of S.S. Kamenev and M.V. Frunze stopped the advance of A.V. Kolchak and pushed him out to Siberia. Two offensives by N.N. Yudenich's attack on Petrograd ended in defeat. In July 1919 A.I. Denikin captured Ukraine and launched an attack on Moscow. The Southern Front was formed under the command of A.I. Egorova. In December 1919 - early 1920, the troops of A.I. Denikin was defeated. Soviet power was restored in southern Russia, Ukraine and the North Caucasus. In 1919, the interventionists were forced to withdraw their troops. This was facilitated by the revolutionary ferment in the occupation units and the social movement in Europe and the USA under the slogan “Hands off Soviet Russia!” The main events of the final stage of the Civil War in 1920 were the Soviet-Polish war and the fight against P.N. Wrangel. In May 1920, Polish troops invaded Belarus and Ukraine. The Red Army under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky and P.I. Egorova defeated the Polish group in May 1920 and launched an attack on Warsaw, which soon fizzled out. In March 1921, a peace treaty was signed, according to which Poland received the lands of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. General P.N. Wrangel, elected “ruler of the south of Russia,” formed the “Russian Army” in Crimea and launched an attack on the Donbass. At the end of October 1920, the Red Army troops under the command of M.V. Frunze defeated the army of P.N. Wrangel in Northern Tavria and pushed its remnants into the Crimea. Defeat of P.N. Wrangel marked the end of the civil war. The Bolsheviks won the civil war and repelled foreign intervention. This victory was due to a number of reasons. The Bolsheviks managed to mobilize all the country's resources, turn it into a single military camp; international solidarity and the help of the proletariat of Europe and the USA were of great importance. The policies of the White Guards - the abolition of the Decree on Land, the return of land to the previous owners, reluctance to cooperate with liberal and socialist parties, punitive expeditions, pogroms, mass executions of prisoners - all this caused discontent among the population, even to the point of armed resistance. During the civil war, opponents of the Bolsheviks failed to agree on a single program and a single leader of the movement. There was a civil war terrible tragedy For Russia. Material damage amounted to more than 50 billion rubles. gold. Industrial production decreased by 7 times. In battles, from hunger, disease and terror, 8 million people died, 2 million people were forced to emigrate.
Definition 1
An important component of the mechanism of power is the party system, which represents the process of development of the political process itself, its formation in dynamics.
Characterizing the specifics of the party system, it can be noted that the process of its formation takes place under the influence of the most various factors. This could be one or another feature. national composition population, influence of religion or historical traditions, relationships political forces and much more.
In order to determine the character political system It is worth paying attention to the degree of real participation of political parties in the life of the state. Important point is that the decisive role is always played not by the total number of parties, but by the direction and number of parties actually participating in the life of the country. Based on the above, the following types of party systems can be distinguished:
- one-party;
- bipartisan;
- multi-party.
One-party system of the USSR
Special attention should be paid to the one-party political system. This system is considered non-adversarial. Its name already suggests that it is based on only one party. Such a system leads to the emasculation of the institution of elections, since there is no possibility of an alternative choice. The center for making certain decisions goes entirely to the party leadership. One way or another, but gradually such a system leads to the establishment of a dictatorial regime and total control. An example of states with this type of system is the USSR in the period from 1917 to 1922.
The key event that influenced the emergence of a one-party system in the USSR was the events of February 1917, when the monarchy was replaced by an indecisive and weak provisional government, which was subsequently overthrown by the Social Democratic Party.
The one-party government was headed by V.I. Lenin. The time has come to “eliminate” all non-Bolshevik parties. The first of the conclusions characterizing the one-party system of the Soviet period is the decisive role of violence in the formation of one-party system. However, there was another approach to the goal - the emigration of party leaders, their separation from the country.
Note 1
It is worth noting that the Bolshevik methods of struggle were not peaceful. Quite often boycotts and obstructions were used: speeches were interrupted, mocking remarks were often heard from the audience, and booing was heard. In cases where it was not possible to achieve victory, the Bolsheviks resorted to forming a similar body in the necessary body, recognizing it as the only legitimate one. There is an opinion that this method of fighting was personally invented by V.I. Lenin.
Stages of approval of the one-party system of the USSR
There are several stages in the approval of a one-party system:
- Establishment of Soviet power. This stage took place in two directions. It is characterized by both the peaceful transfer of control into the hands of the Soviet and a number of resistances by anti-Bolshevik forces.
- Elections of the Constituent Assembly. Following the path of forming a one-party system, unequal conditions were created for liberal parties. Thus, the election results indicate the inevitable development of the country along the socialist path.
- Formation of a coalition government by uniting the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. However, such an alliance was not destined to last long. Not supporting the Brest Peace Treaty and the Bolshevik policy, the Socialist Revolutionaries left the coalition union, which led to their subsequent expulsion from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
- The process of redistribution of powers becomes obvious; the power of the councils is transferred to party committees, as well as emergency authorities. The stage of the final banning of all democratic parties is coming. There is only one party left - the Bolshevik.
Figure 1. The formation of the one-party system of the USSR. Author24 - online exchange of student works
1923 is characterized by the collapse of the Menshevik Party. The political opposition ceases to exist outside the Bolshevik Party. A one-party political system is finally established in the country. Undivided power passes into the hands of the RCP(b). By this time, as noted above, the transition of small parties, especially those that did not have any political perspective, had long ended. They came in full force under the leadership of the main party. Individuals did the same.
Results of the one-party system of the USSR
The one-party system of the USSR greatly simplified all the problems of political leadership. It was reduced to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which knew no rivals. The entire repressive state apparatus and influence on the people through the media were presented at its service. The created all-pervasive vertical carried out its activities exclusively unilaterally towards the public, without accepting any feedback.
Development occurred due to contradictions characteristic of political parties in general, but in our country they had a specific form, dictated by the one-party system. Thanks to the party system, it became obvious that our society is not capable of development under conditions of monopoly power. In order for a party to gain the necessary strength, and at the same time maintain it, to develop in line with a free commonwealth, the unity of which is based on the unity of not only beliefs, but also actions, it is necessary to have the possibility of free competition of doctrines, strategies, struggle of party representatives in front of by voters.
Today the political system of Russia is multi-party.
Within six months in Germany, the Nazis established a one-party dictatorship of the Nazi Party. At the first stage, the Nazis, with the support of conservatives, carried out the forcible liquidation of left-wing parties. The activities of the German Communist Party were not formally prohibited. However, from February 28, 1933, it became illegal. The Social Democratic Party was banned in June 1933. Then, at the end of June - beginning of July 1933, under pressure from the Nazis, the remaining political parties - liberals, the Catholic Center Party, conservative nationalists - announced their self-dissolution.
On July 14, 1933, the Reichstag passed a law “against the formation” of new parties.” He declared the National Socialist Party to be the only legal political party, and participation in any other political parties a criminal offense.
In May 1933, the Nazis crushed the trade unions. Trade union buildings were seized by stormtroopers. Their leaders were arrested. Trade union property was confiscated. Instead of independent trade unions, the Nazis created the German Labor Front.
In November 1933, new elections to the Reichstag were held. At them, the overwhelming majority of voters (92%) voted for the only list of candidates from the Nazi Party - the Fuhrer's list. On December 1, 1933, the new Nazi Reichstag adopted the law “On ensuring the unity of the party and the state.” He declared the National Socialist Party “the bearer of state thought and inextricably linked with the state.” The party was declared not to be the bearer of state power, but only of the “state idea”, that is, the party did not receive any power functions under this law.
Law on the Supreme Head of the German Empire of August 1, 1934
After the death of the elderly President Hindenburg on August 1, 1934, the government passed the law on the Supreme Head of the German Empire. According to this law, the positions of chancellor and president were combined in the person of the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor Hitler. The post of president was abolished. His powers passed to Hitler. The rights of head of state were assigned to Hitler for life. At the same time, Hitler, as a monarch, was given the right to appoint a successor. Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces. Officers and officials took the oath of allegiance in unconditional obedience to Hitler personally.
Due to its special significance, this law was approved by popular vote and thereby acquired the highest constitutional force. This law to give Hitler unlimited power was approved by the overwhelming majority of Germans: 90% or more than 38 million voters voted in favor, only four million two hundred and fifty thousand voted against. The result of the referendum on support for the Fuhrer does not raise any particular doubts about their general more or less correspondence with reality. Hitler's policies thereby received the support of all sections of the Germans. The Third Reich arose through the free expression of mass will.
Lecture No. 7. The state mechanism of the Nazi dictatorship. The essence of a totalitarian political regime
- Specialty of the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation07.00.02
- Number of pages 189
CHAPTER I Reasons and prerequisites for the formation of a one-party political system (February 1917 - January 1918).
§ 1 Political parties and their positions before and during
February bourgeois-democratic revolution.
§ 2 Political parties between February and October 1917
§ 3 Inter-party struggle in Russia in October-December 1917
§ 4 Political parties and the Constituent Assembly.
CHAPTER II Political parties during the civil war.
§ 1 Political parties in 1918
§ 2 Changes in the political situation in Russia during the civil war.
CHAPTER III Completion of the process of forming a one-party political system in 1921
§ 1 Political parties after the end of the civil war.
§ 2 The Soviet one-party political system at the end of 1921
Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic "Formation of a one-party political system in Soviet Russia: 1917 - 1921."
In a wide range of problems that require attention from modern historical science, a special place belongs to the study of the process of formation of a one-party political system in our country in the period from February 1917 to December 1921. This issue is raised by many historians, political scientists, and social scientists, not only in Russia, but also beyond its borders. The relevance of studying this problem has increased in the light of known historical events the last 10-15 years ( August putsch 1991; the collapse of the USSR in December 1991; the departure from the social and political life of the state of the CPSU, which was the leading party in the USSR for 70 years, and its revival in a new form in the person of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation; political crisis of the 90s. and etc.). Reflecting on the fate of Russia at the beginning of the century and at the end of the century, one can see the undeniable similarity of political processes in Soviet Russia in the early 20s and in the 90s. Here we can name the economic, political, social crisis in Russian society during the years of revolution and civil war and in the 90s; many parties that fought and are fighting for political leadership; a large number of other political forces (movements, organizations) operating in the country, influencing its development. When analyzing the problems listed above, it arises whole line questions that do not have clear answers.
The relevance of the chosen topic is determined by the need to revise already known assessments of the historical events of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War in the context of analyzing the process of formation of a one-party political system; critical analysis of existing historical literature and sources from modern positions; The relevance of such a study lies in the fact that it should help answer some questions that concern modern researchers, politicians, social scientists and citizens of Russia. What prevented the development of a multi-party system in Russia after the February Revolution of 1917? Why was it curtailed and replaced by the dictatorship of one ruling party in the early 20s? Was there an alternative to establishing the dominance of one political party in Soviet Russia - the RCP(b)? The content of the dissertation attempts to answer these pressing questions of the modern history of the Russian state.
The chronological scope of the study covers the period from February 1917 to the end of 1921. This is understandable. It was during the February bourgeois-democratic revolution. The Great October Socialist Revolution, the Civil War, and in the first months of the New Economic Policy, the process of forming a one-party political system in our country took place. After the October armed uprising, the formed Soviet government - the Council of People's Commissars - became one-party, but in December 1917, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries joined the Council of People's Commissars (SNK), thus forming a two-party government. During the years of the civil war (May 1918 - November 1920), a one-party political system took shape in the country. The Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties, which went over to the side of the counter-revolutionary forces, lost the support of the people and found themselves in 1920-1921. in a deep crisis, which led them to political bankruptcy and subsequent collapse. During the Civil War, the Bolshevik Party, which stood at the head of the fight against internal counter-revolution, was the guarantor of the integrity of society and its progressive development, the guarantor of a way out of the economic and political crisis that gripped Russian society after 1917. At the end of 1920 - beginning of 1921, representatives of the Menshevik parties and the Socialist Revolutionaries disappear from the Soviets, the members of these parties are isolated and their mass emigration occurs. At the end of 1921, the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties ceased to be massive political organizations. In the Republic of Soviets, by the end of 1921, there was only one organization left that had the right to be called a party - the Russian 4 There was one organization that had the right to be called a party - the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, anarchists continued to exist in Soviet Russia after 1921, however, the absence of their representatives in the Government and Soviets after 1921 allows us to conclude that the political system became one-party. The period directly related to the final departure of the parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Anarchists, and Cadets from the political life of Soviet Russia is not studied, since, in our opinion, it is the subject of independent scientific research.
The dissertation is based on a wide source base. The author attracted and introduced into scientific circulation documents previously unpublished, located in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI): funds of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (f. 274, f. 564), fund of the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party (f. 275 ), fund of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) (f. 17). Important material is contained in the fund of the State Archive of the Russian Federation (G ARF), in particular in the fund of the All-Russian Democratic Conference of September 14-22, 1917 (f. 1798). Published documents of political parties and materials of party congresses were widely used: Constitutional Democratic Party. VII Congress. Verbatim minutes of the meeting (Pg., 1917), IX Congress of the People's Freedom Party. Verbatim report (Pg., 1917), III Congress of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. May 25 - June 4, 1917 (M., 1917), First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies (M., 1930), Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies (M.-L., 1928).
The Fund of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party RGASPI (f. 274) contains materials from the minutes of meetings of the Socialist Revolutionary faction of the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies from July 12, 1917 to May 18, 1918. Material from it is drawn important to expand on the topic. Fund 564 RGASPI contains documents of the IV Congress of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party, as well as material adopted at meetings of the Central Committee of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party in November-December 1918. The author used documents from the fund of the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party, stored in RGASPI (f. 275). The materials of the Menshevik funds were analyzed (f. 275): Report by L.A. Martov “The Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Democracy” at the party meeting at the Central Committee of the RSDLP on March 12-13, 1920 (f. 275) and the report of F.I. Dana "O" the current moment and the tasks of the party at the April meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Mensheviks)" on April 16, 1920 (f. 275).
The materials of the Center for Documentation of Contemporary History of the Voronezh Region (CDNI VO) were analyzed: correspondence with provincial organizations of the parties of the left Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists about the composition and activities (f. 1), correspondence with the Central Committee of the RCP (b) about the prohibition of holding a congress of left Socialist Revolutionaries in Voronezh. January 31 - September 14, 1920 (f. 1). The author believes that the involvement and introduction into scientific circulation of the above-mentioned archival sources is quite justified in the work on the issue under study.
Of particular importance in understanding the political situation in Russia in September-October 1917 are the resolutions of the meetings of the Bolshevik Party, adopted at conferences and congresses of the party, since they reveal the essence of the main issues and tasks facing the party, as well as the first decrees of Soviet power. One Among them, the “Decree on Peace” and the “Decree on Land” occupy significant places, reflecting the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the new state of the Soviets.
Party program documents occupy an important place among the sources. For example, the program of the RSDLP(b), developed in the fall of 1917, in its main features met the expectations of people tired of war, hunger, and devastation. Documents of the Bolshevik Party during the revolution yes" Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) of September 21 and 23, 1917: on the Democratic Conference, on the Pre-Parliament, on Zinoviev, on the party meeting, on the list of candidates of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) for the Constituent Assembly. RGASPI F. 17. Op. 1. D. 27. 14 pages; Minutes of the meetings of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) on September 15, 1917 on the issue of V.I.’s letters “The Bolsheviks must take power!” uprising". RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 1a. D. 25. 14 pages. This is the key to understanding its popularity in 1917, to revealing the reasons for this popularity.
Of course, documents of other political parties are of interest, such as, for example, the program document of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, adopted by the Fourth Congress of the AKP (November 26 - December 5, 1917) and enshrined in the report of the Fourth Congress, as well as the works of Menshevik leaders, Socialist Revolutionaries, Cadets, anarchists, such as the program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party developed by V.M. Chernov, the program document of P.N. Milyukov, the leader of the Cadet Party L.
The progress of the formation of a one-party state in Russia can be traced from the documents of the Bolshevik, Menshevik, and Socialist Revolutionary parties of 1917-1920. So for understanding political situation in Russia after the February Revolution known value have rulings Russian party- cadets, accepted in March 1917. The fact that the cadets
II "-" II "-" became the government party, that they went to the left, is proven by the documents of the VII Congress of the Cadet Party, held on March 25-28"*.
Of particular importance are the materials of the IX Congress of the Cadet Party (July 23-28, 1917), where they broke with the socialists, when the Cadets did not accept a compromise with those for whom “the international and class are dearer than the homeland and the nation.”l.
Of interest are the documents of the leading socialist party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, dating back to the spring-summer of 1917. Here it is necessary to turn to the documents of the Third Congress of the Socialist Revolutionaries, which took place on May 25 - June 4, 1917 gL l A brief report on the work of the Fourth Congress of the Social Revolutionary Party. November 26 - December 5, 1917 - Pg., 1918. - P. 9-12, 14-35, 40-45, 50, etc. l Milyukov P.N. Memories. - M., 1991. - T. 1. - 445 p.; Miliukov P.N. History of the second Russian revolution. - Kyiv, 1919; Chernov V.M. Before the storm. - M., 1993. - 408 p.
Constitutional Democratic Party. VII Congress. Verbatim minutes of the meeting. - Pg., 1917. - P. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 26, etc. l IX Congress of the People's Freedom Party. Verbatim report. - Pg., 1917. - P. 27. l 3rd Congress of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. May 25 - June 4, 1917 - M., 1917. - P.5, 7, 16, 25, 27, 30, 45, 86, 94, 112.
An important source on the problem under consideration are the materials of the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, held in June 1917, when the idea of a coalition of a socialist party and the priority of “nationwide tasks” was voiced by L.
Among the sources, it should be noted the materials of the State Conference on August 12-14, 1917, where an attempt was made to defend the course of the coalition government of A.F. Kerensky, as well as the protocols of the unification congress of the Mensheviks, which took place on August 19-25, 1917 in Petrograd.
Analyzing the source base on this problem, it is necessary to point out the decisions of the All-Russian Democratic Conference on September 14-22, 1917, which aimed at the formation of the Provisional Council of the Russian Republic, which was done.
Of course, the decrees of the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets on October 25-26, 1917, which approved the composition of the first Soviet government, where it was announced that power would be transferred to the hands of the Soviets, are of great importance for revealing the topic of the work."
The breakdown of democratic traditions, the curtailment of the multi-party system, the withdrawal of parties from social and political life, the replacement of old government personnel with new ones, all this can be clearly seen in the documents that will be discussed below. One of the first things to note here is pain.
12 Shevite Decree on Press (November 1917), when, at the behest of the Bolsheviks, the newspapers “Our Common Cause” were closed and editor V. Burtsev was arrested; behind
First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. T. 1. - P. 5467, 89-95, etc. l State meeting. - M.-L., 1930. - P. 24. l Uniting Congress of the RSDLP August 19-25, 1917. Verbatim report // Mensheviks in 1917. T. 2. - pp. 336-337. ll All-Russian Democratic Conference September 14-22, 1917 GARF. F. 1798. Op. 1. D. 1-4. L. 4-7.42.
Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. - M.-L.: Gosizdat, 1928.-S. 107, 162.
Decrees of the Soviet government. T. 1. - M., 1958. - 626 p. 8 Menshevik and cadet newspapers are covered. The Decree on the Press formed the basis for the destruction of freedom of the press in Russia.
1917, giving a brief description of the political situation in St. Petersburg and Moscow at the end of 1917""*.
Subsequent decrees of the Bolsheviks 1918-1920. clearly demonstrate how representatives of other parties were expelled from government bodies and old government bodies were destroyed. The first in this series is the Decree on the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on January 7, 1918. How the Bolsheviks fought with other political parties on the issue of the Constituent Assembly can be seen from the documents of December 1917. Among them, the minutes of the meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party on December 26 and 27, 1917 are of particular interest. The meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party on December 26 and 27, 1917 were devoted to the issue of attitude towards the Constituent Assembly. The following decisions were made at them: to launch agitation for the Constituent Assembly on the eve of its opening; organize rallies and demonstrations on January 5. Documents of the Social Revolutionary Party of the end of 1917 - the beginning.
1918 allow us to trace the course and dynamics of the development of internal party discussions of this time on the issue of attitude towards the Constituent Assembly and the Bolsheviks.
An important place among the historical sources considered on the issue of the formation of a one-party system in Soviet Russia are the decrees of 1918, which clearly demonstrate the methods by which the Bolsheviks fought with representatives of other parties in government. For example, Dec
Decrees of the Soviet government. T. 1. - M., 1958. - 626 p. ll News of the Petrograd Cheka. - Pg., 1917. - P. 2-9, 9-11, 11-17, etc.
Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 1-2, 4-6, etc. June 14, 1918 marked the beginning of the departure of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries from the Soviets and the Supreme Economic Council.
The first act that contained a platform for uniting the forces fighting against Soviet power was the “Political Declaration”, developed in December 1917 by members of the “Don Civil Council” in Novocherkassk and, according to General A.I. Denikin, who intended to become the “first Russian anti-Bolshevik government” l. This document marked the official beginning of the confrontation of non-proletarian parties with the Bolsheviks by force.
During the years of the Civil War, printed organs of various parties began to appear, representing important source materials on the issue under consideration. Here it is worth noting the collection “Socialist-Revolutionary”, the main printed organ of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, materials of the VIII Council of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, located in the RGASPI.
Of interest in the study of the problem is the Menshevik program developed by V.A. Groman and L.N. Khinchuk at the end of 1918 - beginning of 1919. This program attempted to develop positive reforms, the social meaning of which was to strengthen the political power of the working people, and the political meaning was to create a union of all socialist parties on the basis of compromise^.
Among the program documents of the Russian Social Democratic parties, it seems important to note the program “What is to be done?”, which aimed to ensure the normal development of the revolution, to radically change " political conditions in which we live"ll.
Decrees of the Soviet government. - M,: Gospolitizdat, 1958. - 626 p.
Denikin A.I. Essays on Russian Troubles. - M., 1991. - P. 189.
Minutes of resolutions of meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, correspondence of the faction of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 6-12.
Defense of the revolution and social democracy. - M.-L., 1920. - P. 3-4, 6-7, 9-12, etc.
Collection of resolutions and theses of the Central Committee of the RSDLP and party meetings. - Kharkov, 1920. - P. 37-39.
Interesting from the point of view of reviewing the relationship of the Bolsheviks with the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks at the beginning of 1920 are the materials of two meetings of the Central Committee of the RSDLP in March and April 1920, where the fact was stated that the dictatorship of the proletariat was replaced by the dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party, and theses addressed to all were adopted socialist parties, as a basis for unification.
Significant sources on this issue are the materials of the Eighth. All-Russian Congress of Soviets, held at the end of December 1920. The verbatim report of the Eighth Congress of Soviets gives an idea of the last attempt of non-proletarian parties to revive multi-party system in Soviet Russia^.
Among the materials on the history of the October Revolution and the Civil War, the documents of the Cheka of 1918-1920 stand out. First of all, it should be noted that print media are widely published in major cities, such as “Moscow News of the Cheka”, “Tsaritsyn News of the Cheka”, which give some figures on the number of exterminated members of other parties. These and other documents indicate new methods of the Bolsheviks’ struggle against political opponents: terror, expulsion, physical destruction of dissidents.
A special place among historical sources of 1920-1921. occupy
U 1 U and 1 gr materials of party conferences, decisions of party forums. So, of course, of interest is the plan developed in June 1921 for the elimination of political opposition in the person of parties and movements, which was later reflected in the resolution of the XII All-Union Party Conference (August 1922) - “On anti-Soviet parties and movements”, which follows
Protocols, resolutions, abstracts of reports and the report of L. Martov “Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Democracy” at the party meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Mensheviks) on March 12-13, 1920. RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 69. L. 6-8, 12, 13-15, etc.
Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Verbatim report. - M., 1921. -S. 41-43, 197-201, 202-203.
Tsaritsyn Izv. C.I.K. - 1921. - No. 5; Tsaritsyn Izv. Ch.K. - 1921. - No. 1.
11 go into more detail.
The resolution “On Anti-Soviet Parties and Currents,” adopted in early August 1922, was a document aimed at strengthening the struggle in the new conditions against bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties and movements. It said that anti-Soviet parties and movements “are trying to use Soviet legality in their counter-revolutionary interests.”
II II ^ sakh and are heading towards growing into the Soviet regime, which they hope to change in the spirit of bourgeois democracy. After the approval of this resolution in August 1922, the open suppression of the opposition in the person of the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, and anarchists began. After the XII All-Russian Party Conference, representatives of other political parties began to be expelled abroad, arrests of party members began, and subsequent repressions began against prominent leaders of the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, and anarchists. With the adoption on August 7, 1922 of the resolution “On anti-Soviet parties and movements” in Soviet Russia, the history of the legal existence of political parties, except for the ruling one - the RCP (b), ends.
Resolutions of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, adopted between August 22 and September 9, 1922 on the registration of societies and unions, according to which any association was subject to ban if its activities contradicted the Constitution or laws Soviet republic, brought the legal basis for the ban of all parties except the communist one. The existence of any opposition to the ruling party was completely excluded.
Big interest and the works of the leaders of political parties V.I. Lenina, G.V. Plekhanov, V.M. Chernova, P.P. Milyukova; archival documents and materials of the early 20s. In work on this topic, circular letters of 1917-1919, resolutions of congresses of various political parties, as well as materials from
CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee. Part 1, ed. 9. T. 2.- M., 1983.-S. 587.
Ibid.-S. 588. secret conferenceill.
The works of V.I. have a certain significance in the study of the political situation in Russia from February to October 1917. Lenin "Letters from Afar", "On Dual Power", "Three Crises", "Marxism and Uprising", "The Crisis is Overdue". A special place in this series is occupied by the articles “The Bolsheviks must
OT to take power" and "Marxism and uprising", where the leader of the Bolsheviks named the main reasons for the need for the party to come to power.
The degree of knowledge of the problem. Starting to analyze the development of this problem within the framework of domestic and foreign historiography, we can distinguish four stages in studying the problem:
The problem of the struggle of political parties and movements in Russia in 1917-1921. for the various paths of development of the revolution received coverage in the scientific literature in the 20s - 50s. Among the first authors who turned to the study of this problem were M.N. Pokrovsky, M.Ya. Latsis, I.I. Vardinll. Let us highlight the work of I.I. Vardin “Political Parties and the Russian Revolution” (Moscow, 1922), which marked the beginning of a detailed study of the activities of political parties. In the 20s Only the emerging Soviet historiography of the history of the struggle of political parties during the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War is becoming one of the means of ideological opposition to the bourgeois historiography of historical
Constitutional Democratic Party. VII Congress. Verbatim minutes of meetings. Pg., 1917. - S. 2, 9, 16, 17, 22, 30, 46; Resolutions of the VIII Congress of the People's Freedom Party on May 9-12, 1917 Petrograd, 1917. - pp. 3, 7, 9, 16, 22, 25, 27; Draft resolutions and resolutions of the Uniting Congress of the Mensheviks January 19-26, 1917 Russian State Archives socio-political history (RGASPI). F. 275. Op. 1. D. 40. 21 sheets; Collection of documents "Issues of program and tactics". RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 40. 21 sheets; Collection of documents "Issues of program and tactics". Resolutions of the Central Committee of the RSDLP. RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 74. 56 sheets; Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party November 2 - December 15, 1917 RGASPI. F. 564. Op. 1. D. 7. 174 l. Lenin V.I. Poli. collection op. - T-34. - P.239-247.
Pokrovsky M.N. The Soviet chapter of our history // Bolshevik. - 1924. - No. 14. -S. 2-26; Latsis M.Ya. Two years of struggle on the internal front. - M., 1920; Vardin I.I. Political parties and the Russian Revolution. - M., 1922.
13 political parties. EAT. Yaroslavsky, M.N. Pokrovsky, V.A. Byst-ryansky in their works revealed the inconsistency and anti-Soviet orientation of the works of I.G. Tsereteli, P.N. Miliukov, defending the Leninist concept of the history of socialist revolution. In general, the struggle of political parties for various paths of development of the revolution in the 20s was considered within the framework of the struggle of the Bolshevik Party against the counter-revolution. Period 30-50 became a time of studying the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the Civil War from a completely different perspective than in the 20s, which was associated with the publication of the book “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks). A Short Course” (Moscow, 1938), strictly edited by I. .IN. Stalin. Subjectivism in historical science of the late 30s - early 50s. had a negative impact on research work scientists of this period.
The first serious studies on the history of the activities of political parties in Russia appeared in the late 50s - early 60s. The founder in the field of studying the history of parties in Russia was N.F. Slavin, who in the late 50s - early 60s. published several articles on the history of the main political opponent of the Bolsheviks - the Kadetovll Party. In the late 50's - early 60's. The first doctoral dissertation of A.M. appeared in the USSR. Malkov, dedicated to the problems of the history of political parties." In the mid-60s, the first monograph by V.V. Komin, "Bankruptcy of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties of Russia during the preparation and victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution" was published.
History of the CPSU(b). Volume 4. Ed. EAT. Yaroslavsky. - M.-L., 1929; Pokrovsky M.N. The Soviet chapter of our history // Bolshevik. - 1924. - No. 14; Bystryansky V.A. Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries in the Russian Revolution. - Pg., 1921. l ° Slavin N.F. From the history of the July political crisis of 1917 // History of the USSR. - 1957. - No. 2. - P. 10-18; aka. The crisis of power in September 1917 and the formation of the Provisional Council of the Republic (Pre-Parliament) // Historical notes. - 1957. - № 61.
Malkov A.M. The defeat of the Kadet counter-revolution by the Bolsheviks in 1917 (February-October). Dr. diss. -M., 1959.
M., 1965), dedicated to the history of the political bankruptcy of the Cadets, Mensheviks, and Socialist Revolutionaries in 1917. Soviet historians in the 50s - early 60s. conducted some scientific research into history political struggle parties during the Great October Socialist Revolution and citizens
U U U TL 1-1 U of the war and their role in the political life of Russia. New factual material was introduced into scientific circulation. To the fore in the early 60s. the task of a comprehensive study of the struggle of the Bolsheviks against the counter-revolution in the person of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties is put forward. This problem was solved to a certain extent in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 70s;
The problem of the formation of a one-party state was addressed by Soviet researchers in the second half of the 60s - the first half of the 70s. and was considered in the monograph by Kh.M. Astrakhan “Bolsheviks and their political opponents in 1917” (L., 1977), L.M. Spirin “The collapse of the landowner and bourgeois parties in Russia (beginning of the 20th century - 1920)” (Moscow, 1977) and “Classes and parties in the civil war in Russia (1917-1920)” (Moscow, 1968), V.V. Komin “History of landowner, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois political parties in Russia” (Kalinin, 1970), A.M. Malashko “On the issue of establishing a one-party system in the USSR” (Minsk, 1969); In the 60s - early 70s. saw the light of the monograph by K.V. Gusev “The Collapse of Petty-Bourgeois Parties in the USSR” (Moscow, 1966) and “The History of the “Democratic Counter-Revolution” in Russia” (Moscow, 1973). Serious voluminous works by Professor V.V. have appeared. Komin “Bankruptcy of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties of Russia during the preparation and victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution” (Moscow, 1965) and “The history of landowners, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois political parties in Russia” (Kalinin, 1970). In the first half of the 70s. in the Soviet Union the works of K.V. were published. Gusev “The Socialist Revolutionary Party: from petty-bourgeois revolutionism to counter-revolution (M., 1975), monographs by V.V. Garmiza about the Socialist Revolutionaries, articles by Kh.M. Astrakhan, P.A. Golub and other authors. These articles and monographs are distinguished by an abundance of facts and documents on the history of political parties, at the same time, an ideological approach to the history of the revolution does not make it possible to objectively approach the solution of pressing problems in the history of the revolution and civil war;
In the second half of the 70s - early 80s. serious studies have been published on the activities of the RCP(b) and other political parties: monograph by I.A. Adamova “Issues of internal party life of the RSDLP (b) in the first years of the proletarian revolution” (Moscow, 1982); research by K.V. Gusev and V.A. Polushkina “Strategy and tactics of the Bolsheviks in relation to non-proletarian parties” (Moscow, 1983); as well as research by V.V. Shelokhaeva, S.N. Ka-neva, M.E. Solovyova, P.A. Podbolotova, M.T. Likhacheva, E.Ya. Andreenko and othersL"*; in the second half of the 70s - early 80s, a series of publications appeared on the history of political parties in Soviet Russia. At this time, such prominent specialists as L.M. Spirin, K.V. Gusev continued their research , I.A. Adamov. In addition to these monographs, the works of Kh. M. Astrakhan “Bolsheviks and their political opponents in 1917” (L., 1977), V.V. Anikeev “Documents of the Great October Revolution” (M., 1977), M.I. Stishova “The history of the ideological and political bankruptcy and organizational collapse of petty-bourgeois parties in the USSR (1917-1930s) (M., 1981), collective collections “The Struggle of the CPSU against the petty-bourgeois.”
GarmizaV.V. The collapse of the Socialist Revolutionary governments. - M., 1970.
Astrakhan H.M. History of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia in 1917 in the latest Soviet literature // Questions of history. - 1975. - No. 2; Golub P.A. On the bloc of Bolsheviks with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries during the preparation and victory of October // Questions of the history of the CPSU - 1971.- No. 9.
Adamova I.A. Issues of internal party life of the RSDLP (b) - CPSU (b) in the first years of the proletarian revolution. - M., 1982; The collapse of the landowner and bourgeois parties in Russia. - M., 1977; Gusev K.V. The Socialist Revolutionary Party from petty-bourgeois revolutionism to counter-revolution. - M., 1975; Kanev S.N. The party's struggle against anarcho-syndicalist deviation. -M., 1979; Podbolotov P.A. The collapse of the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik counter-revolution. - M., 1975; Likhachev M.T. The bankruptcy of bourgeois reformism in Russia. - M., 1979; Dumo-va N.G. Cadet counter-revolution and its defeat. - M., 1982. bourgeois ideology and anti-party movements (1896-1932)" (Kalinin, 1979), "The struggle of the Leninist party against petty-bourgeois groups and movements (1896-1932)" (M., 1981).
In the first half of the 80s, the problem of the formation of the political system in Soviet Russia during the years of revolution and civil war was dealt with by I.A. Adamova, K.V. Gusev, V.A. Polushkina, M.E. Soloviev, Yu.A. Shchetinov, A.I. Shmelev, Yu.V. Mukhachevll In 1983-1984. The work of Yu.V. was published in the USSR. Mukhacheva “The Struggle of the Communist Party against the Ideology of Bourgeois Restorationism” (Moscow, 1983), monograph by Yu.A. Shchetinova "The Collapse of the Petty-Bourgeois Counter-Revolution in Soviet Russia (late 1920-1921)" (M., 1984), book by A.I. Shmelev " Historical experience the struggle of the Leninist party against Trotskyism for the construction of socialism in the USSR (1923-1927)" (L., 1984), in which the authors reveal the reasons for the victory of the RCP (b) in its struggle with non-proletarian parties, as well as the course of this struggle;
The topic of the formation of a one-party political system aroused particular interest among historians in the second half of the 80s - 90s, when a number of scientific articles and monographs were published in Russia, both by domestic authors and Western researchers, dedicated to the history of political parties in the Soviet Union. Russia during the formation of the one-party system. Among the most famous are the works of A.Ya. Avrekha "Non-proletarian parties of Russia in three Russian revolutions"(M., 1989), N.V. Orlova "Political parties of Russia: pages of history" (M., 1994), articles by N.V. Romanovsky, V.M. Ustinov, A. Rabinovich and other historians. In the articles and monographs published in the second half of the 90s, is carried out
Adamova I.A. Issues of internal party life of the RSDLP (b) - CPSU (b) in the first years of the proletarian revolution. - M., 1982; Gusev K.V., Polushkina V.A. Bolshevik strategy and tactics in relation to non-proletarian parties. - M., 1983; Soloviev M.E. Bolsheviks and February Revolution. - M., 1980; Shchetinov Yu.A. The collapse of the petty-bourgeois counter-revolution in Soviet Russia (late 1920-1921) - M., 1984; Shmelev A.I. Historical experience of the struggle of the Leninist party against Trotskyism for the construction of socialism in the USSR (1923-1927) - L., 1984. study of complex theoretical issues relations between political parties in the period from 1917 to 1922-23, an assessment of the ruling party is given Soviet Union- RCP(b) - VKP(b) - CPSU.
The mid-80s marked the beginning of a new stage in the study of the history of political parties in connection with changes in Soviet society, the beginning of perestroika, and glasnost. At this time, collective scientific collections on this issue were published, “Non-proletarian parties of Russia. Lessons from history” (Moscow, 1984); "Bolsheviks in the fight against non-proletarian parties, groups and movements. Conference materials" (Moscow, 1984). A monograph by Yu.G. is published abroad. Felshtinsky "Bolsheviks and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries: October 1917 - July 1918. On the way to a one-party dictatorship." (Paris, 1985). These works examine the position of non-proletarian parties in Russia during the revolution and civil war, and also analyze the strategy and tactics of the ruling Bolshevik party in relation to other political parties, the main reasons for the popularity of the Bolsheviks in 1917 and in subsequent years.
At the end of the 80s, a whole series of scientific monographs about political parties in Russia at the beginning of the century was published in the USSR. Collective works "Political parties in Russia. Pages of history" (M., 1990), "Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd" (M., 1989), monographs by N.G. Dumova about the Cadet Party "The Cadet Party during the First World War and the February Revolution" (M., 1988) and "Your time is over." (M., 1990), A. Rabinovich’s book “The Bolsheviks Come to Power” (M., 1989), monographs by P. A. Podbolotov on the MensheviksLL, A.Ya. Avrekha “Non-proletarian parties of Russia in three Russian revolutions” (M., 1989), B.N. Yuzbashev's "Parties in bourgeois legal doctrines" (Moscow, 1990) give a new interpretation of events in Russia during the years of the revolution and civil war; in them, the authors make an attempt to more objectively reflect the activities of various political parties in 1917-1921. Singing
Podbolotov P.A., Spirin L.M. The collapse of Menshevism in Soviet Russia. - D., 1988.
18 curled in the second half of the 80s. new approaches to the study of the activities of the Communist Party and non-proletarian parties were associated with those political processes that began at the April 1985 Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee. Perestroika required fundamentally new decisions in the study of the history of our state, in the study of the formation of a multi-party system, its heyday in 1917, its subsequent collapse and replacement by a one-party political system that lasted 70 years.
At the turn of the 80s - 90s. in the USSR and abroad, a number of publications appear on the issue of the formation, development and collapse of a multi-party system and the establishment of a one-party system; This is the research of A.Ya. Avreha, B.V. Levina, N.V. Romanovsky, V.M. Ustinova, Yu.P. Sharapov, which have a completely different character and meaning than previous works on this topic. Based on materials from party archives in Moscow and St. Petersburg, these historians approach the problem of the history of political parties in Soviet Russia in a fundamentally different way than their predecessors.
At the turn of two decades, the work of leaders of other political parties saw the light of day. P. N. Milyukov, leader of the cadets; V. M. Chernov, leader of the Socialist Revolutionaries; G.V. Plekhanov, I.G. Tsereteli, leaders of the Menshevik party. Memoirs of the leaders of non-proletarian parties allow us to better understand political situation in Russia during the revolution and civil war.
Beginning and first half of the 90s. noted by a number of studies on the history of the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War. Here it makes sense to name the three-volume work of the historian Richard Pipes, who examined Yu.P. Sharapov in mono. From the history of the ideological struggle during the transition to the NEP. - M., 1990; Avrekh A.Ya. Non-proletarian parties in three Russian revolutions. - M., 1989; Romanovsky N.V., Levin B.V. Classes and political parties during the October Revolution // Questions of the history of the CPSU. - 1990. - No. 11. - P. 134-147; Ustinov V.M. The warring party // Questions of the history of the CPSU. - 1990. - No. 1. - P. 82-97.
Tsereteli I.G. Crisis of power. - M., 1992; Miliukov P.N. Memories. - M., 1991; Chernov V.M. Before the storm. - M., 1993; Plekhanov G.V. Buki, Azg-Ba // Dialogue, - 1990. - No. P.-S. 30. Counts "Russian Revolution" (in two volumes) and "Russia under the Bolsheviks" l examines one of the most dramatic pages of Russian history - the period from 1917 to 1924. The American researcher outlines the events of the revolution, civil war and NEP, shows the role of political parties, the role of the people in these events. The first work of R. Pipes "Russian Revolution" (Moscow, 1994) gives an idea of the reasons, objectives, driving forces and the results of the February and Great October Socialist Revolution. The second monograph, “Russia under the Bolsheviks” (Moscow, 1997), presents the historical events of the civil war and post-war years. R. Pipes analyzes the course of formation of the one-party system, explores the influence of the one-party system that emerged after the war on the further course political development USSR, but in principle the work on the Russian revolution is subjective in nature; not all of the author’s provisions can be agreed with.
In the first half of the 90s. works of domestic authors about political parties have been published. Among the most significant are the monographs of V.A. Artemova and V.A. Tonkikh "Political Parties" (M., 1992), N.V. Orlova "Political parties of Russia: pages of history" (M., 1994), A.B. Medvedev “Neo-populism and Bolshevism in Russia during the Civil War” (Nizhny Novgorod, 1993), N. Valentinova “NEP and the crisis of the party. Memoirs” (New York, 1991). Collective works "History of political parties in Russia" (M., 1994), "Political parties in Russia. Pages of history" (M., 1990), "Political parties of Russia" (Bryansk, 1993), "Political history of Russia in parties and faces" (M., 1993), "February, October, NEP" (Voronezh, 1992), "Civil War in Russia: a crossroads of opinions" (M., 1994), "Anatomy of a revolution: 1917 in Russia: masses, parties , power" (St. Petersburg, 1994) reveal the complex and dynamic process of historical events of revolution and civil war, the role of political parties in these events.
Pipes Richard. Russian Revolution, - M., 1994; Pipes Richard. Russia under the Bolsheviks. - M., 1997.
Of course, there is a certain interest for researchers of the activities of political parties in 1917-1921. present materials from scientific and practical conferences dedicated to the period of revolution, civil war, and NEP. Here it is worth noting the materials of the scientific-practical conference on November 5, 1994 “October 1917 and the Bolshevik experiment in Russia”, December 5, 1994 “Bolsheviks and non-proletarian parties”, which examined the problems of the emergence of Soviet system, the main mechanisms of existence of the Bolshevik Party, the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks in 1917, the stages of the formation of a one-party state.
In the second half of the 90s. documents of the Cadets and Socialist Revolutionary parties were published. It is worth mentioning here those released in 1996-97. "Protocols of foreign groups of the constitutional democratic party" (in 6 vols.), "Protocols of the Socialist Revolutionary Party" (in 6 vols.) ""°, which present almost all the documents of the Socialist Revolutionary and Kadet parties from their inception to last days existence. At the end of the 90s. a review monograph "Political parties of Russia. The end of the 19th - the first third of the 20th century" was published (Moscow, 1996), a collective work "History" political thought"(M., 1997), which presents key issues in the history of political parties in Russia in the first two decades of the twentieth century.
Analyzing the works of major Soviet, Russian and Western historians on the issue of the formation of a one-party system in the Soviet state, it should be noted that they are to a certain extent a product of their time, which always leaves its mark on the name, in particular, historical, and, of course, on the development history of non-proletarian parties and the struggle of the Bolsheviks against them. All works were written in the period before 1985, and were published in the second half of the 80s - early 90s, when the criteria increased and approaches to assessing the past changed. Therefore, it is necessary. , in detail, using available sources and information in special literature
Minutes of foreign groups of the constitutional democratic party in 6 vols. -M., 1996; Protocols of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in 6 vols. - M., 1997.
21st round to consider this topical issue modern history of Russia, especially since the latest works on the topic of the formation of a one-party system in the Soviet state were published in the 60-70s (works by E.G. Gimpelson, A.M. Malashko, P.N. Sobolev) "*" and at the present time , they can no longer be called relevant and modern. Therefore, the topic of the formation of a one-party system raised in the study requires different approaches, serious revision and detailed analysis in connection with changes in the approach to solving various problems not only in historical science, but also in political science, philosophy and other sciences related to history.
Based on the above provisions, the purpose and objectives of this work are as follows.
The purpose and objectives of the work. The purpose of the dissertation research is to study based on documents, sources, scientific literature the reasons and prerequisites, the course and results of the formation of the one-party system in Soviet Russia during the period of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Civil War, the NEP (February 1917-1921). This goal, in turn, requires the formulation and resolution of the following tasks:
Determination of the reasons and prerequisites for the formation of a one-party political system in 1917;
Study of inter-party struggle in Soviet Russia after the Great October Socialist Revolution;
Analysis of the process of formation of a one-party political system during the civil war (1918-1920);
Study of the final stage of the formation of a one-party political system after the end of the civil war;
Malashko A.M. On the issue of establishing a one-party system in the USSR. -Minsk, 1969; Sobolev P.N. On the issue of the emergence of the one-party system in the USSR // Questions of the history of the CPSU. - 1968. - No. 8. - P. 21-32; Gimpelson E.G. From the history of the formation of the one-party system in the USSR // Questions of the history of the CPSU. -1965. -No. 11. - P. 16-31.
Analysis of the existing political system in Soviet Russia at the end of 1921.
During the study, a hypothesis was formed consisting of the following provisions:
The formation of a one-party political system was a natural phenomenon in the historical conditions of 1917, with the complete destruction of the tsarist system of government that existed before February 1917;
The multi-party political system, the post-February republic, and the multi-party Provisional Government turned out to be incapable of effectively governing a country in crisis and building a new democratic state, which led to its liquidation.
The object of the study was the historical and political process during the years of revolution and civil war in Soviet Russia.
The subject of the study is the struggle of the Bolshevik Party with opposition parties and their subsequent elimination.
The scientific novelty of the research can be formulated in the following theses:
1. First of all, an attempt is made to highlight the course of the formation of a one-party political system in Soviet Russia during the revolution and civil war, outlining the reasons and prerequisites, results and significance of the existing political system for the development of the Soviet state.
2. In the context of serious changes in historical science at the end of the 20th century, using source materials and existing literature, a historical analysis of the phenomenon of the success of the Bolshevik Party during the period under study is carried out.
3. A study of the problem is carried out related to a comparative analysis of the socio-political development of Soviet Russia in 1917-1921. and the internal situation of the country in the late 90s.
4. In general, the issue of the formation of a one-party political system is considered as a natural process in the history of Soviet Russia in the early 20s of the twentieth century.
Theoretical and practical significance of the research:
The theoretical significance lies in the development, based on the data obtained, of a fundamentally new approach to the study of the process of formation of a one-party political system, which was a natural stage in the development of the country during the October Revolution and the Civil War;
Practical significance is determined by the use of the obtained data in further work on studying the history of political parties and movements in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic "Domestic History", Meganov, Sergei Alexandrovich
In conclusion, it is necessary to draw the main conclusions from this work:
1. Historical analysis problem allowed us to interpret the main theories, united by the above problem, that existed in Soviet and then Russian historical science. Critical revision
172 of some provisions that existed in science, allowed us to conclude that the reasons for the creation of a one-party political system should be sought in the socio-economic situation in Russia in 1917, when the country was in a deep economic and political crisis, primarily due to participation in the imperialist war , then the February bourgeois-democratic revolution and the Great October Socialist Revolution. Among the many parties operating in Russia in 1917, only the Bolsheviks succeeded through agitation propaganda, developing a program focused on resolving priority issues (about exit from the war, about peace, about land, about workers’ self-government, etc.), implementing course to gain political power, gain the support of the people and begin reforms in the country. In the conditions of the inability of the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik Provisional Government for eight months (from March to October 1917) to carry out an effective socio-economic policy, the coming to power of the Bolshevik Party on October 26, 1917 was natural and was the implementation of the choice of the people of Russia.
2у-\ 1 and and and and The establishment of a one-party system during the Civil War (1918-1920s) and in the early years of the New Economic Policy required many measures, both constructive and destructive. Basically, this process ended in Soviet Russia in 1921. It was the result of an inter-party struggle, during which the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, having taken the side of the counter-revolution during the civil war, discredited themselves, losing the trust and support of the masses, incorrectly assessing the historical situation and thereby determined their fate: first a deep crisis within the party, and then collapse. The Bolsheviks turned out to be capable of pursuing a flexible policy towards the Socialist Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and other parties, which resulted in their tactical victory over them at the end of the civil war.
3. The process of forming a one-party system, which was completed mainly in the first years of the New Economic Policy, confirmed the fact that during the period of revolutionary transformations they can win and retain political power only those revolutionary forces that choose a strategy and tactics of activity that is supported by the majority of the population, and that use all means on the way to power. Such a force during the civil war was Bolshevik party, which has become the main guarantor of the integrity of society and its progressive development.
4. At present, as in 1917-1921, parties still remain one of the main subjects of the political process in Russia. The possibility of observing democratic procedures in relations between authorities and the Russian multi-party system (elections of 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999) proves that the democratization of Russian socio-political life is a necessary condition, on the basis of which Russians expect to change their lives and determine their future. Let's hope that the Federal Law “On Political Parties” will play a role in solving these problems.
List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Meganov, Sergey Alexandrovich, 2002
1. Work plan of the Cheka for the 2nd half of 1921 and the 1st half of 1922. Russian Academy of Sciences. F. 3. He. 58. D. 281. L. 6-12.
2. Minutes of meetings of the All-Russian Democratic Conference. September 14-22, 1917 GARF. F. 1798. He. 1. D. 5. L. 17-18.
3. Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) dated August 15, 1917. RGASPI. F. 17. He. 1. D. 25. L. 1,2, 10.
4. Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) dated September 23, 1917 on the Democratic Conference. RGASPI, F. 17. Op. 1. D. 27. L. 1.
5. The first day of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly January 5-6, 1918. Verbatim report. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 50. L. 3, 98.
6. Minutes of meetings of the faction and bureau of the Socialist Revolutionary faction of members of the Constituent Assembly. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 45. L. 299.
7. Minutes of the meetings of the Eighth Council of the Socialist Revolutionary Party on May 1-18, 1918. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 6, 9-12, 17.
8. Resolution of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) of July 8, 1918 on accelerating the liquidation of the case of those detained in Bolshoi Theater Left Socialist Revolutionaries and a list of members of the Central Committee of the West who voted for and against the peace treaty. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 1. D. 58. L. 8.
9. Minutes of meetings of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party from July 12, 1917 to May 18, 1919. RGASPI. F. 274. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 56.
10. Report by L. Martov “Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Democracy” at the party meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Mensheviks) on March 12-13, 1920. RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 69. L. 7-8.
11. Abstracts on the report by F.I. Given “On the current situation and tasks of the party” at the April meeting of the Mensheviks with amendments adopted at the meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Mensheviks) on April 16, 1920 RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 72. L. 3.
12. Review of the section of Russian anti-Soviet parties. Information Department
13. TsKKI. RGASPI. F. 5. Op. 3. D. 505. 115 l.13. minutes of the evening meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDDRShchb) dated February 18, 1918 on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. RGASPI. F. 17. Op. 1. D. 54. L. 10-14.
14. Appeal of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (Mensheviks) “What next?”, adopted on April 19, 1921 at a meeting of the April party conference. RGASPI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 79. L. 11.
15. Work plan of the Cheka for the 2nd half of 1921 and the first half of 1922. AP RF. F. 3. Op. 58 D. 281. L. 6-12.
16. Minutes of the evening meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDDRShchb) dated February 18, 1918 on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. TsGAOR. F. 1235. Op. 18. D. 8. L. 22-23.
17. Minutes of the evening meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDDRShchb) dated February 24, 1918 on the issue of concluding peace with Germany. TsGAOR. F. 275. Op. 18. D. 8. L. 22-23.
18. Report by V.I. Lenin on February 24, 1918. Minutes of the evening meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDRSchb) dated February 24, 1918. TsGAOR. F. 1235. Op. 18. D. 8. L. 2021,22-24.
19. Report of the investigative commission of the Voronezh Judicial District to the provincial department of justice on the abuse of a group of former Socialist Revolutionaries as part of the Voronezh workers' combat squad. CDNI VO. F. 1. Op. 1. D. 75. L. 1.
20. Correspondence with provincial organizations of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party and anarchists about their composition and activities. CDNI VO. F. 1. Op. 1. D. 160. 2 l.
21. Extract from the minutes of the meeting of the Politburo of the Central Committee of May 11, 1920, Central Children's Research Institute of Military Sciences. F. 1. Op. 1, D. 161. L. 6-9.
22. Correspondence with the Central Committee of the RCP (b) about the prohibition of holding a congress of left Socialist Revolutionaries in Voronezh. January 31 September 14, 1920 Central Children's Research Institute of Military District. F. 1. Op. 1, D. 164. L. 3.
23. Directive of Gubchek Voronezh May 31, 1921 Central Children's Research Institute of Voronezh. F. 1. Op. 1. D. 306.1. Published sources
24. Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Verbatim report. -M., 1921. S. 41-43,197-201, 202-203, 205.
25. All-Russian Constituent Assembly. The first and only day of his classes (January 5-6, 1918). Odessa, 1918. - pp. 26-27.
26. Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. -M.-L.: Gospolitizdat, 1928. 628 p.
27. Ninth Congress of the People's Freedom Party. Verbatim report. -M., 1917.-S. 27.30-32.
28. Constitutional Democratic Party. VII Congress. Verbatim minutes of meetings. Pg, 1917. - P. 2, 6-7.
29. Unity Congress of the RSDLP August 19-25, 1917. Verbatim report // Mensheviks in 1917. T. 2. - pp. 336-337, 412-413, 452-453, 456 etc. d.
30. Socialist Revolutionary Party. Documents and materials. -M.: ROSSPEN, 1996. 682 p.
31. First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. (Transcript report). T. 1, M., 1930. - P. 54-67, 89-95, 96-111, 7783, etc.
32. Resolution of the plenipotentiary commission of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee regarding citizens of the Tambov and Voronezh provinces dated June 1, 1921 // For the people. -1921. -No. 1.-S. 1-5.
33. Protocols of foreign groups of the constitutional democratic party. May 1920 June 1921 - M.: ROSSPEN, 1996. - T. 4. - 543 p.
34. Protocols of foreign groups of the constitutional democratic party. June-December 1921 M.; ROSSPEN, 1997. - T. 5. - 550 p.
35. Collection of resolutions and theses Central Committee RSDLP and party meetings. Kharkov, 1920. - P. 1-4, 12-14.
36. Seventh All-Russian Congress of Workers, Peasants, Red Army and Cossack Deputies. M., 1920. - pp. 60-63.
37. Sixth Congress of the RSDRSchb). Protocol M.: Gospolitizdat, 1958. - 487 p. 1771. Bibliography
38. Avrekh A.Ya. Non-proletarian parties in three Russian revolutions. -M.: Nauka, 1989.-245 p.
40. Adamova I. A. Issues of internal party life of the RSDRSchb) All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) in the first years of the proletarian revolution. - M.: Publishing house. Moscow State University, 1982. - 127 p.
41. Alekseeva G.D. Criticism of the Socialist Revolutionary concept of the October Revolution. M.: Nauka, 1989. - 313 p.
42. Anatomy of a revolution: 1917 in Russia: masses, parties, power. -SPb.: Glagol, 1994.-443 p.
43. Andreenko E.Ya. The Bolshevik Party and the Soviets in the first months of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Rostov-on-Don: Publishing house. Rost, Univ., 1975. - 166 p.
44. Anikeev V.V. Documents of the Great October Revolution. M.: Politizdat, 1977. -239 p.
45. Arapov A. S. Lenin and the ideological struggle against Menshevism. Saratov: Publishing house. Sarat. University, 1987. - 174 p.
46. Archive of the Russian Revolution. M.: Terra, Politizdat, 1991. - T. 8.181 p.
47. Astrakhan Kh.M. Bolsheviks and their political opponents in 1917. L.: Lenizdat, 1973. - 456 p.
48. Astrakhan Kh.M. History of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia in 1917 in the latest Soviet literature // Questions of history. -1975.-No. 2.
49. Barikhnovsky G.F. The ideological and political crisis of the white emigration and the defeat of the internal counter-revolution (1921-1924). L.: Leningrad State University, 1978. - 160 p.
50. Basmanov M.I., Gusev K.V., Podushkina V.A. Cooperation and struggle. M.: Politizdat, 1988. - 382 p.
51. Batrachenko S., Pavlenko P.E. Voronezh organization of the CPSU in 178 years of civil war and foreign intervention. Voronezh: Book. ed., 1958.-44 p.
52. White emigrants about the Bolsheviks and the proletarian revolution. Book 1. - Perm: JV "Inter-OMNIS": MP "Company "Akvarel", 1991. 261 p.
53. Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. M.: Nauka, 1990.-220 p.
54. Bolsheviks in the fight against non-proletarian parties, groups and movements. Conference materials. M.: Scientific Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1983. -239 p.
55. Bolshevik experience of working with non-proletarian parties. L.: LGPI, 1986.- 151 p.
56. The struggle for Soviet power in the Voronezh province. 1917-1918 - Voronezh: Book. ed., 1957. 457 p.
57. The struggle of the Communist Party against non-proletarian parties, groups and movements. L.: Leningrad State University, 1982. - 207 p.
58. The struggle of the CPSU against petty-bourgeois, bourgeois ideology and anti-party movements (1895-1932). Kalinin: KSU, 1979. - 146 p.
59. The struggle of the Leninist Party against petty-bourgeois groups and movements. M.: Higher. school, 1981. - 255 p.
60. The struggle of political forces in Russia for different ways of developing the revolution. Victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Voronezh: VSPI, 1990. - 86 p.
61. Bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties of Russia in the October Revolution and the Civil War: Conference materials. M., Kalinin: KSU, 1980. - 155 p.
62. Valentinov P. NEP and the crisis of the party. Memories. New York: Telex, 1991.-257 pp.
63. Varshavsky B.S. Genealogy of Bolshevism. Paris: VMGA-PRESS, 1982.-209 p.
64. The Great October Revolution and the collapse of non-proletarian parties in Russia. Kalinin-.KSU, 1989.- 151 p.
65. The Great October Revolution and non-proletarian parties. Kalinin: KSU, 1982. -255 p.
66. The Great October Revolution and the problems of building socialism in the USSR. L.: Leningrad State University, 1987.-271 p.
67. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. Biochronicle. T. 4. - pp. 401-402.
68. Voronezh in documents and materials. Voronezh; Central-Chernozem, book. ed., 1987. - 269 p.
69. Voronezh organization of the CPSU in numbers (1917-1989). Voronezh, 1990.
70. Voronkov I.G. Voronezh Bolsheviks during the preparation and conduct of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Voronezh: Book. ed., 1957.
71. Galili Ziva. Menshevik leaders in the Russian revolution. M.: Republic, 1993.-429 p.
72. Garvey P. Bonapartism or democracy? // Socialist Bulletin. 1922. - No. 23-24. - P. 3-5,8-10, etc.
73. GarmizaV.V. The collapse of the Socialist Revolutionary governments. M.: Mysl, 1970.-294 p.
74. Gimpelson E.G. The influence of the civil war on the formation of the Soviet political system // History of the USSR. 1989. - No. 5. - P. 9.
75. Gimpelson E.G. From the history of the formation of the one-party system in the USSR // Questions of the history of the CPSU - 1965.-No. 11.-S. 16-31.
76. Gimpelson E.G. The path to a one-party dictatorship // Domestic history. 1994. - No. 4-5. - pp. 94-108.
77. Goland Yu. Politics and economics // Banner. 1990. - No. 3. - P. 116-152.
78. Golub P.A. About the bloc of Bolsheviks with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries during the preparation and victory of October // Questions of the history of the CPSU. 1971. - No. 9.
79. State meeting. Small Soviet Encyclopedia. M.: Third ed., 1960. - T. 3. - P. 38.
80. Civil war in Russia: crossroads of opinions. M.: Nauka, 1994.-376 p.
81. Gusev K.V. The history of the "democratic counter-revolution" in Russia. -M.: Knowledge, 1973.
82. Gusev K.V. The collapse of petty-bourgeois parties in the USSR. M.: Knowledge, 1966.-64 p.
83. Gusev K.V. Socialist Revolutionary Party: from petty-bourgeois revolutionism to counter-revolution. M.: Mysl, 1975. - 383 p.
84. Gusev K.V. Podushkina V.A. Bolshevik strategy and tactics in relation to non-proletarian parties. M.: Politizdat, 1983. - 80 p.
85. Dan F. Two years of wandering (1919-1921). Berlin, 1922. - pp. 8-16, 8492, 89.
86. Dan F.I. On the history of the last days of the Provisional Government // October Revolution. Memoirs. -M., 1991. S. 116,118,120, 122, 125.
88. Denikin A.I. Essays on Russian Troubles. Paris, 1925. - T. 2. - P. 8.
89. Dolgorukov P.D. Great devastation. Paris, 1927.
90. Dumova N.G. Cadet counter-revolution and its defeat. (October 1917-1920). -M.: Nauka, 1982. 416 p.
91. Dumova N.G. The Cadet Party during the First World War and the February Revolution. M.: Nauka, 1988. - 244 p.
92. Dumova N.G. Your time is up. M.: Politizdat, 1990.334 p.
93. Yermansky O. A. From what he experienced (1887-1921). M.-L., 1927. - P. 151.
94. Zinoviev G.E. Leninism. L., 1926. - P. 370-371.
95. Zlobina V.M. The struggle of the Bolshevik Party against petty bourgeois influence on the working class in the first years of the NEP (1921-1925). M.: MSU, 1975.- 168 p.
96. Zlokazov G.I. The Menshevik-SR All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets in 1917. -M.: Nauka, 1997. 335 p.
97. Znamensky O.N. All-Russian Constituent Assembly. The story of convocation and political collapse. L.: Nauka, 1976. - 364 p.
98. History of political parties in Russia / Ed. A.I. Zeveleva. -M.: Higher. school, 1994. 446 p.
99. History of Russia. (Russia in world civilization). M.: Center, 1997.-343 p.
100. History of the USSR. -M.: Higher. desk, school, 1961. P. 451.
101. Kamenev L. B. and Zinoviev G. E. Letter dated October 11, 1917 “To the current moment” // Domestic History. 1993. - No. 2. - P. 145-148.
102. Kanev SP. The party’s struggle against the anarcho-syndicalist deviation. - M.: Politizdat, 1979. 80 p.
103. Kanev S.N. How the party overcame the anarcho-syndicalist deviation. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1958. 32 p.
104. Kerensky A.F. Russia is at a historical turning point. Memoirs. M.: Republic, 1993. - 383 p.
105. Kozlov V., BordyugovG. From “emergency” to “totalitarianism” // Dialogue.-1991.-No.6.-P. 85-92.
106. KominV.V. The bankruptcy of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties of Russia during the preparation and victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. M.: "Moscow Worker", 1965. - 644 p.
107. Komin V.V. History of landowners, bourgeois and petty-bourgeois political parties in Russia. Kalinin: Kalininsk. state honey. Institute, 1970. -275 p.
108. CPSU during the February Revolution. October Revolution and in the first years of Soviet power. Ryazan, 1975. - 154 p.
109. CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, Part 1, ed. 7. -M.: Gospolitizdat, 1954. 692 p.
110. CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, T. 2. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1970. - 543 p.
111. CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums
112. Central Committee, vol. 2. Part 1, ed. 9. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1981. - 588 p.
113. CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums of the Central Committee, T. 2.4. 1, ed. 9. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1983. - 606 p.
114. Kronstadt, 1921. M.: Mezhdunar. Democracy Foundation, 1997.428 p.
115. Kronstadt-1921 //Red Archive. 1931. No. 1. - P. 5, 12, 17.
116. Kuvshinov V.A., Kozachenko E.V. The struggle of the Bolsheviks against the bourgeois parties in the period from February to October. Historiography. M.: MSU, 1990.- 133 p.
117. Kuzin V.V. The struggle of the Communist Party against the anarcho-syndicalist deviation in 1920-1921. M.: Knowledge, 1958. - 48 p.
118. Lenin V.I. The crisis is ripe. // Poly. collection op. -T. 34. pp. 272-283.
119. Lenin V.I. X Congress of the RCP(b) March 8-16, 1921. Report and final word on the report on replacing the allocation with a tax in kind on March 15 // Poly. collection op. - T. 43. - P. 57-84, 102.
120. Lenin V.I. The Bolsheviks must take power // Poly. collection op. -T. 34.-S. 239-241.
121. Lenin V.I. Appeal to the soldiers of all warring countries // Poli, collection. op. T. 31. - pp. 293-296.
122. Lenin V.I. Declaration of the RSDLP(b) faction, announced at the meeting of the Constituent Assembly on January 5(18), 1918 // Poly. collection op. T. 35. - pp. 227-228.
123. Lenin V.I. Report and closing remarks at the Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets // Poly. collection op. T. 36. - pp. 510-512.
124. Lenin V.I. Report at the Seventh All-Russian Congress of Soviets // Poly. collection op. T. 39. - P. 407.
125. Lenin V.I. Report at the Third Congress of the Comintern on the tactics of the RCP(b) // Poly. collection op. T. 44. - P. 53.
126. Lenin V.I. To the citizens of Russia! // Poly. collection op. T. 35. - pp. 1-3.
127. Lenin V.I. To the slogans //Poly. collection op. T. 34. - P. 10-17.183
128. Lenin V.I. Marxism and rebellion. Letter from the Central Committee of the RSDLP(b) // Poli, collected. op. T. 34. - pp. 243-247.
129. Lenin V.I. On the tasks of the proletariat in this revolution // Poli, collection. op.-T. 3 1.-S. 113-118.
130. Lenin V.I. Letters from Afar // Poly. collection op. T. 31. - P. 9-57.
131. Lenin V.I. Letter to members of the Central Committee // Poly. collection op. T. 34. - pp. 435-436.
132. Lenin V.I. Political situation// Poly. collection op. T. 34. - pp. 1-5.
133. Lenin V.I. Poly. collection op. T. 45. - P. 189.
134. Lenin V.I. To workers, soldiers and peasants! // Poly. collection op. -T. 3 5.-S. 3-11.
135. Lenin V.I. Seventh (April All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b): Report on the current situation on April 24 (May 7); Closing speech at the closing of the conference on April 29 (May 12) // Pol. collected works - Vol. 3 1.-P. 342 -360, 453.
136. Lenin V.I. Advice from an outsider // Poly. collection op. T. 34. -S. 382-384.
137. Lomov G.V. In the days of storm and stress // Proletarian Revolution. -1927. -No. 10(69).
138. Malashko A.M. On the issue of establishing a one-party system in the USSR. Minsk: Publishing house. BSU, 1969. - 322 p.
140. Medvedev A.B. Neo-populism and Bolshevism in Russia during the Civil War. Nizhny Novgorod: Publishing house. Nizhny Novgorod University, 1993. -144 p.
141. Melgunov SP. Red terror in Russia. M.: JV "PUICO", "P.S.", 1990.-208 p.
142. Milyukov P.N. Memories. M.: Sovremennik, 1990. - T. 1.445 p.
143. Milyukov P.N. Memories. M.: Sovremennik, 1990. - T. 2.445 p.
144. Miliukov P.N. History of the second Russian revolution. Kyiv: Chronicle, 1919. - 128 p.
145. Milyukov P.N. Russia is at a turning point. Paris, 1927. - T. 1. - P. 45.
146. Minin A.A. The spirit of destruction in the Russian revolution // Year of the Russian revolution. Sat. Art.: M.: Earth and Freedom, 1918. - P. 30.
147. Mints I.I. History of the Great October Revolution. M.: Nauka, 1977. - T. 2. - 1008 p.
148. Morozov B.M. Generalization of the experience of the leadership of the party in Soviet construction in the first years of the dictatorship of the proletariat // Questions of the history of the CPSU. - 1966.- No. 4.
149. Mukhachev Yu.V. The struggle of the Communist Party against the ideology of bourgeois restorationism. M.: Knowledge, 1983. - 64 p.
150. Non-proletarian parties and organizations of national revolutionaries in Russia in the October Revolution and the Civil War. -M.: Scientific Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1980. 275 p.
151. Non-proletarian parties of Russia in three revolutions. M.: Nauka, 1989.-245 p.
152. Non-proletarian parties of Russia. History lessons. M., 1984.566 p.
153. Nikitin V. Lenin and Martov: failed dialogue about a new economic policy// Dialogue. -1991. -No. 10. P. 79.
154. Appeal from the Central Organizing Bureau of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party to party members on June 23, 1921 // Revolutionary Russia.-1921.-No. 10.-S. 31.
155. October 1917 and the Bolshevik experiment in Russia. Scientific and practical conference November 5, 1994. M.: Yuridich. literature, 1995.- 109 p.
156. Orlov B.S. The birth of Soviet democracy. M.: Mysl, 1987. -269 p.
157. Orlova N.V. Political parties of Russia: pages of history.1. M.: Lawyer, 1994.-78 p.
158. PipesR. Russia under the Bolsheviks. M.: ROSSPEN, 1997.670 p.
159. Pipes R. Russian Revolution. M.: ROSSPEN, 1994. - 583 p.
160. The Bolshevik Party in the February Revolution of 1917. M.: Politizdat, 1971. -254 p.
161. Party of the October Revolution. M.; Politizdat, 1987. - 239 p.
162. First World Imperialist War. February bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. Voronezh, 1990. - P. 30.
163. Plekhanov G.V. Buki, Az-Ba // Dialogue. 1990. - No. 11. - P. 30.
164. Plekhanov G.V. About Lenin’s theses and why nonsense is sometimes interesting // Plekhanov G.V. A year in the homeland. T. 1. Paris, 1921.
165. Podbolotov P.A. The collapse of the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik counter-revolution. -L.: Leningrad State University, 1975.- 120 p.
166. Podbolotov P.A., Spirin L.M. The collapse of Menshevism in Soviet Russia. L.: Lenizdat, 1988. - 246 p.
167. Pokrovsky M.N. The Soviet chapter of our history // Bolshevik. -1924.-No.14.-S. 16.
168. Political history of Russia in parties and persons. M.: Terra, 1993. -363 p.
169. Political parties and movements of Russia. Directory. M.: Business press, 1999. -437 p.
170. Political parties of Russia in the context of its history. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998. - 512 p.
171. Political parties of Russia. End of the 19th, first third of the 20th century. Encyclopedia. - M.: ROSSPEN, 1996. - 800 p.
172. Political parties of Russia. Directory. Bryansk: Grani, 1993. - 151 p.
173. Political confrontation during the years of the civil war and intervention // Questions of the history of the CPSU. -1991. No. 2.186
174. Polyakov Yu.A. Soviet country after the end of the civil war. M.: Nauka, 1986. - 270 p.
175. Notes by V.I. Lenin on the book by A.I. Denikin “Essays on Russian Troubles” // Questions of the history of the CPSU. -1990. No. 1. - pp. 29-38.
176. Why did the Bolsheviks win? M.: Mysl, 1987. - 302 p. 139. Is it true. March 28. - 1918.140. Is it true. July 6-7. - 1918.141. True, March 3rd. - 1921.142. Is it true. March 4th. -1921.
177. Fifth All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Small Soviet Encyclopedia. M.: Third ed., 1960. - T. 7. - P. 748.
178. Rabinovich A. Bolsheviks come to power. M.: Progress, 1989.-416 p.
179. Rabinovich A. Attempts to form a multi-party democratic socialist government in 1917 in Russia // History of the USSR. 1990.-No. 6.
181. Decisions of the Tenth Council of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. August 1921 //Revolutionary Russia. -1921. No. 11. - pp. 4-5.
182. Romanovsky N.V., Levin B.V. Classes and political parties during the October Revolution // Questions of the history of the CPSU. 1990. - No. 11. -S. 134-147.
183. Russia in the World War of 1914-1918 (in numbers). M.: Gosizdat, 1925.-S. 20.
184. Russia and the world. M.: Vlados, 1994. - 494 p.
185. Russia is on the path of transformation and reform. Voronezh: VSU, 1994. -305 p.
186. Sivokhina T.A. The collapse of the petty-bourgeois opposition. M.: Politizdat, 1973.-232 p.
187. Sobolev P.N. On the issue of the emergence of the one-party system in the USSR // Questions of the history of the CPSU. 1968. - No. 8. - P. 21-32.
188. Solovyov M. E. Bolsheviks and the February Revolution. M.: Higher. school, 1980. - 183 p.
189. Socialist Bulletin. -1921. No. 4. - pp. 1-3.
190. Socialist Bulletin. -1921. No. 5. - pp. 4-6.
191. Spirin L.M. The collapse of the landowner and bourgeois parties in Russia. M.: Mysl, 1977. - 366 p.
192. Spirin L.M. Classes and parties in the Russian Civil War. ~ M.: Mysl, 1968.-438 p.
193. Spirin L.M. The collapse of one adventure. (Revolt of the Left Social Revolutionaries in Moscow July 6-7, 1918). -M.: Politizdat, 1971.
194. Spirin L.M. Russia 1917: from the history of the struggle of political parties. M. Mysl, 1987. - 333 p.
195. Stalin I.V. Essays. M., 1947. - T. 5. - P. 71.
196. Stishov M.I. History of ideological and political bankruptcy and organizational collapse of petty-bourgeois parties in the USSR (1917-1930s). - M.: Moscow State University, 1981. - 208 p.
197. Stishov M.I. The collapse of petty-bourgeois parties in Soviet Russia // Questions of history. -1968. No. 2. - pp. 58-74.
198. Sukhanov P.P. Notes on the revolution. T. 1. - Book. 1-2. - M.: Politizdat, 1991.-P. 131, 135.
199. Trotsky L.D. History of the Russian Revolution. T. 2. - Part 1. - Berlin, 1933.- P. 40-41.
200. Trotsky L. D. History of the Russian Revolution. M.: Terra, 1997.397 p.
201. Trukan G.A. Was October inevitable? // Story. 1991. - X2 12.-64 p.
202. Ustinov V.M. The warring party // Questions of the history of the CPSU. -1990.-No. 1. pp. 82-97.
205. Felshtinsky Yu.G. Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries: October 1917 - July 1918. On the way to a one-party dictatorship. Paris: YMCA-PRESS, 1985.-289 p.
206. Felshtinsky Yu.G., Ovrutsky L., Dispersal A. Sixth of July 1918. Two versions of one event // Domestic history. 1992. - No. 3. - P. 212.
207. Formation of the administrative-command system, 20-30s. M.: Nauka, 1992.-236 p.
208. Tsereteli I.G. Crisis of power. M.: Luch, 1992. - 269 p.
209. Chernov V.M. Before the storm. M.: International. relations, 1993. A08 p.
210. Chernyak E.I. Socialist Revolutionary organizations in Siberia in 1917 early 1918 - Tomsk: Publishing house. Tomsk, Univ., 1987. - 162 p.
211. Sharapov Yu.P. From the history of the ideological struggle during the transition to NEP. M.: Nauka, 1990. - 188 p.
212. Shmelev A.I. Historical experience of the struggle of the Leninist party against Trotskyism for the construction of socialism in the USSR (1923-1927). L.: Leningrad State University, 1984.-249 p.
213. Navigator D. The dead grab the living. Reading Lenin, Bukharin, Trotsky. London, 1982. - P. 56.180. 1Tsetinov Yu.A. The collapse of the petty-bourgeois counter-revolution in Soviet Russia (late 1920-1921). M.: MSU, 1984.- 148 p.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes and were obtained through recognition original texts dissertations (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
"pros" and "cons" of democracy
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer