<<
>>

4.2. History studying levonarodnicheskih parties and the organisations

Left-wing socialist narodnicheskie parties and the organisations operating in Russia in the first quarter of XX century, became again object of steadfast attention of the Soviet historians in 1956 1957th, and special interest has been shown to Party of the left socialists-revolutionaries-internationalists and occurrence of its representatives in the governmental block with Bolsheviks.
The reasons of the reference of historians to the given problematics consisted in the political changes occurring in the USSR after XX congress of the CPSU when the course on multiple ways of transition to socialism has been sounded. Basically the new course of a political management of the USSR has been connected with search of allies and fellow travellers of revolutionary changes. The foreign policy situation, problem of mutual relations from the Peoples Republic of China, the countries in the Eastern Europe also have served «national democracy» as the original catalyst of scientific interest to history of political union RSDRP () - RKP () and PLSR. It is necessary to consider and such factor, as «cold war» and propaganda activities of anti-Soviet mass-media which adjusted public opinion not only the West countries, but also socialist camp on perception of socialism as exclusively totalitarian on character and an essence of a variant of a social system. In turn, presence in countries of Eastern Europe of modes of "national democracy», meaning two - and multi-party variants of the state model, was represented by the worthy answer bourgeois «to slanderers and falsifiers». Thereupon ideologically timely there was a working out of a question of scientific reconstruction of primary multi-party system of the Soviet state system. In a domestic historical science this problem traditionally communicated with mutual relations of Bolsheviks and PLSR, standing in 1917-1918 on the Soviet positions. Besides, PLSR among all spectrum partijnopoliticheskih forces of those years was one of the organisations close to Bolsheviks under the program requirements. Therefore in the conditions of fierce ideological confrontation 1950-1960 h studying of history of this party, its representation in legislative and executive powers of the power of the Soviet state, the truth, the short period, became really actual. Main objective authors - developers of a theme P.N.Hmylov, D.F.Zhidkov, I.J.Trifonov, M.V.Spiridonov, P.I.Soboleva, K.V.Gusev, R.M.Iljuhina336 saw in disclosing of the reasons of formation of an one-party state system The USSR. This purpose can achieve, they considered, taking for a basis The relation of communist party and broad masses to the left eseram at various stages of development of revolution. The Soviet historians have formulated a number of the concrete Problems: the reasons of occurrence PLSR; the reasons of formation and Disintegration bolynevistsko - levoeserovskogo the block; features The agrarian program of the left socialists-revolutionaries and Some other. In K.V.Guseva and R.M.Iljuhinoj's works, along with disclosing Struggle and contradictions in the block, a considerable place It was taken away also to display and the positive moments joint Actions on a number of concrete questions, the aspiration was marked Parts left eserov «to sincere cooperation with Bolsheviks »337. P.N.Hmylov opposite asserted, that the left esery were the latent, disguised enemy Soviet The authorities.
«In the course of struggle against them Bolsheviks even have gone on Cooperation with the enemies to give to weights gradually To be convinced of their essence »338.« Bolsheviks, - opposed it L.M.Spirin - have gone on the similar agreement with enemies The Soviet power. They also could not go on such agreements Because left esery, recognising October revolution, in that 1 ^0 The period were for the Soviet power ». L.M.Spirin also has disagreed with R.M.Iljuhinoj who has expressed opinion, that in the summer of 1917 left esery have supported rupture with right and 153 Recognised proletariat dictatorship. New and, in our opinion, scientifically more fruitful approach to a block problem has affirmed basically in the works published the next decade. At comparison of tactics left eserov with tactics right and the centre the majority of historians has estimated a position left as more preferable, having specified thus on inherent in it inconsistency and fluctuations. Mutual interest in the block and its advantage for revolution development while left esery observed conditions was marked also соглашения339. At discussion of the book of K.V.Guseva «Crash of party left eserov» opinions of supporters and opponents of new and old approaches to an estimation of the block of Bolsheviks and left eserov have faced. Supporters of the new approach specified, that the block promoted strengthening of the union of workers and peasants, has expanded possibilities of Bolshevist influence on village, has led to isolation right eserov and has helped to win peasants on the party Soviet власти340. At the same time JI.М.Спирин has subjected to criticism a number of conclusions of K.V.Guseva in the historiographic article published in «Questions of history of the CPSU» (1964. №4.). It has disagreed with Treatment of a social base left eserov, an estimation of class forces in village in the summer of 1918 and the Moscow mutiny left eserov, the thesis about  destruction PLSR to autumn of 1918. Despite a number of the important remarks stated by predecessors, the greatest success in studying of party left eserov, in our opinion, was, undoubtedly, will reach in K.V.Guseva and V.N.Gineva's works. The reasons which have induced Bolsheviks to search the union with group levoradikalno adjusted eserov, are full enough revealed in V.N.Gineva's work «the Agrarian question and petty-bourgeois parties in Russia in 1917» (L, 1977). Bolsheviks, according to the author, went on the block with left eserami «not for the sake of left eserov as those, and because of that influence which the program» 341 had on peasants eserovskaja. However it is represented, that business was not in program influence, and in levoeserovskih the party workers who had, unlike Bolsheviks, access to village. J.M.Sverdlov in March 1918 Year recognised, that before revolution Bolsheviks «among peasantry at all were not engaged in work» 342. Moreover, in a number of documents it was fairly underlined, that «it was not possible to create to Bolsheviks by the moment of October revolution of the country organisation in village which could occupy 158 Place of socialists-revolutionaries ». The left wing for the present uniform eserovskoj the parties, defending principles of the Soviet power and internationalism, was necessary in this sense as it is impossible кстати343. As characterised K.V.Gusev's that time,« Objectively requirements left eserov coincided with all-democratic requirements of Bolsheviks and though left esery remained opponents of Marxism, adhering levonarodnicheskih the sights, their performances for a delegation of power to Councils and rupture of a coalition with bourgeois parties »344 were defining. Interest in the block at all was not unilateral, only from Bolsheviks, - marked V.N.Ginev. The block with Bolsheviks required also left esery as it allowed to them real possibility to carry out the agrarian program of socialisation of the earth. V.N.Gineva's basic merit, according to the author of the dissertation, consists that the researcher, probably, itself not wishing that, has shown unpopularity of the Bolshevist agrarian program of nationalisation of the earth! Bolsheviks in 1917, on the one hand, have offered To peasantry immediately to pass to liquidation of landowner landed property, to destroy all legal certificates on the earth and wood grounds, with another - having promulgated the program of "nationalisation" of the earth - have faced private-ownership country interests and have been compelled to correct the slogans. V.N.Gineva's conclusion - «officially after 1906 an agrarian question has been put on the agenda only at the All-Russia party conference in April, 1917. The resolution accepted on it also became the agrarian party program» 345 - has appeared not on an empty place. The Bolshevist publicist V.Meshcherjakov in work «Marxism and earth socialisation», published in "Truth" in January, 1918, wrote: «How to arrive with The nationalised, socialised state earth? The program of nationalisation at Bolsheviks at all did not give the answer to this question, postponing it for a while after capture of the earths, after a revolution victory, after nationalisation.... In the project of the nationalisation offered by Bolsheviks To the Stockholm congress of a workers' party (1906), in the program The nationalisation accepted at conference of party in April 1917 Year, in the extensive literature on this question - never anybody From supporters of nationalisation in марксистов environment did not mention 162 This question, did not offer decisions ». Specificity of a theme assumes to stop more in detail on an agrarian policy of Bolsheviks as one of the reasons of their block with left eserami. It first of all is connected by that V.N.Ginev has drawn absolutely other conclusion from the research - «The Soviet historians have convincingly proved, that original representatives of peasants were not petty-bourgeois parties, and working class party, Bolshevik party» Really, till April, 1917 V.I.Lenin and the Bolshevik party did not incur obligations on an agrarian question. But since April, 1917 the leader of Bolsheviks has clearly expressed necessity of correction of the sights: « To repeat now that we spoke in 1905, and not to speak about struggle of classes in village - there is a change to proletarian business... It is necessary to connect requirements to take the earth now to propagation of Councils of farm-labourer's deputies »346. After I All-Russia congress of country deputies Bolsheviks take on arms eserovskuju the program of socialisation of the earth. On all country Bolshevist propaganda has been developed. V.I.Lenin demanded it« to reconstruct so that to find out full hopelessness of reception of the earth peasants, yet svergnuta the power... Are not exposed yet and are not deprived national trust of party eserov and menshevikov »347. In the end of August V.I.Lenin assures peasants, that only the Bolshevik party« can execute in practice that program of the country poor which is stated in 242 orders »348. Thus, V.I.Lenin allocates unlike eserov three confronting camps: landowners, peasants - owners and farm laborers. The last, Bolsheviks should support and only against them lean. For performance of the problem: «Together with peasants - owners against landowners and the landowner state, together with urban proletariat against all peasants-owners. Here the slogan of the conscious rural 167 The proletarian ». With a view of penetration into village it was necessary to draw a part of active figures of country Councils and the country Unions which majority have been presented eserami on the party. The union with the left wing eserovskoj parties also was an outstanding tactical move of Bolsheviks. Later, proclaiming «the Decree about the earth», V.I.Lenin underlined value of that has given the union with left eserami: «We have won because have accepted not our agrarian program, and eserovskuju... Our victory also consisted in that.... That is why this victory was so is easy». As to degree of influence left eserov on peasantry - there were various points of view, however itself vljjanie admitted all historians. After all the block for this purpose also consisted to use levoeserovskie communications in village and their influence on country съездах349. The majority of researchers believed, that the average and partly small peasantry was a basis of a social base of the left socialists-revolutionaries. Thus one group of historians - K.V.Gusev, V.P.Naumov, P.A.Golub - considered, that the social base left eserov varied depending on their policy at various stages of revolution, up to inclusion in it kulatskih elements. Other researchers - L.M.Spirin, А.X.Бурганов - believed, that the policy left eserov fluctuated not from changes in their social base, and from the width of base - «from the poor to prosperous serednjakov and rich peasants» 350. According to V.N.Gineva, «left esery These categories of peasants had the mass base mainly on the average and the small peasantry, yet not lost economic independence, not understanding features and subtleties eserovskogo socialism, saw in left eserah defenders small 171 at Economy ». Interesting in this plan there was a conclusion A.M.Malashko: «Though between both parties also there were serious ideological disagreements, but at that concrete stage of class struggle of their point of view on practical questions on realisation of the first Soviet decrees basically coincided, and in local links rank-and-file members of both parties amicably worked on strengthening of the Soviet power» 351. Thus, the general conclusion on a problem sounded so: despite fluctuations left eserov, the block has played a positive role revolution histories. However it was there and then added: the block has facilitated struggle against eserovskoj counterrevolutions and has helped Bolsheviks to contact peasantry organizational. It was noticed also, that the union could not be strong because of the contradictions, dividing both parties. Union crash in a transcription of the Soviet historians was predetermined and inevitable. A number of historians, first of all A.M.Malashko, believed, that Bolsheviks dealt with made out party narodnicheskogo socialism, «to petty bourgeoisie applying for an equal role and working class in the government and aspiring to give to the formed power petty-bourgeois character. Deep disagreements with left eserami concerned the class maintenance of the Soviet power and 1 TH Positions in it of working class and its party ». The opinion of the historian that« left esery as party could not become faithful allies to Bolsheviks », 352 has caused objections 175 V.N.Gineva who has supported K.V.Guseva that «Bolsheviks went on the block with left eserami, at all not assuming, that it will be short-term, and recognising that they can become allies of working class and its party». As a whole K.V.Guseva's arguments have got the big support of the domestic historians considering, that the concrete historic fact of disintegration of the block yet does not mean its predetermined недолговечность353. Events on July, 6-7th, 1918 when PLSR has lifted "mutiny" became one of the important questions, all researchers who have drawn attention of a problem, and has ceased to exist. It is necessary to pay attention that historians at that time could not use such authoritative collection of documents as «Red book VCHK» which first edition left in 1920 and it has been immediately withdrawn by bodies VCHK. Its copies in special storehouses of two-three библиотек354 have escaped some. K.V.Guseva's reference to the report of session of Central Committee PLSR from the June, 24th, 1918 published in «Red book VCHK» where the decision to kill Mirbaha was ostensibly accepted is In that case wrongful. If K.V.Gusev had possibility to familiarise with typewritten copy of the book stored on a microfilm it had been admitted falsification as direct instructions on intentions left eserov to kill Mirbaha in the report from June, 24th is not present. Hence, the report in itself does not prove participation PLSR in murder of the ambassador. Moreover, in the report it is specified, that time of carrying out of acts of terrorism will be defined at following session of Central Committee PLSR. But till July, 6th, as is known from reports, such session was not. From the report text, on the contrary, follows, that left esery were afraid to undergo to defeat from the party большевиков355. Such statement obviously did not keep within the author's concept assigning all fault on left eserov, differently «counterrevolutionary, anti-Soviet mutiny» would be not counterrevolutionary, not anti-Soviet, moreover, "mutiny" would not become mjatezhom. It is necessary to pay attention to the judgement stated by A.Rabinovichem also: «the Analysis of this report, one of the most important certificates used by the Soviet authorities as the proof of plot left eserov against the Soviet power in July 1918г., leads me to a conclusion, that it has been fabricated after the come true fact. However that the Central Party committee left eserov has made the preliminary decision concerning the beginning of the program of terror against high official German figures on June, 24th, proves to be true such quantity of many other sources, that this fact is conclusive» 356. It is necessary to notice, that K.V.Guseva's work about party left eserov is written with attraction of a wide range of sources, favourably differing from works of predecessors by use of set of documents (reports, inquiries on number of the organisations). High degree informativnosti, good style of giving of a material did the book interesting to different groups of readers. Known lacks inherent in it - zadannost conclusions, smoothing of the acute problems, the certain reticence were called and earlier. At the same time K.V.Guseva's monography could not full and shine objectively all aspects of activity PLSR, being not only "product" of that epoch, but also actually the first scientific work on a theme in the USSR. The certain contribution to illumination of events on July, 6-7th, 1918 in Moscow memoirs of the former commandant Moscow kremlja have brought P.D.Malkova. Written to 1955-1960th with participation A.J.Sverdlova, they "have gone through" three editions, having reflected in 1 JAP To certain measure the different requirements shown by censorship. Left esery, according to P.D.Malkova, «not only prepared plot, not only planned counter-revolutionary coup. They have opposed the Soviet government, have lifted 1 ABOUT 1 Armed rebellion ». Known statements about intentions to arrest V.I.Lenina, J.M.Sverdlova and other members of the Central Committee of Bolshevist party Further followed. P.D.Malkov as the eyewitness of events at V All-Russia congress of Councils, ascertained, that« esery behaved as real rural bawlers on rural descents. They so shouted, knocked, raged, that at times it seemed, that their majority... Their powerless rage on force and influence of Bolsheviks poured out At times in the form of rough petty tricks. Tov. Sverdlov time and again 182 Asked them to express the feelings articulately ». 180 On the basis of Central Committee VKP decisions (), published in "Truth" on April, 4th 1925г. And on February, 12th 1927г., memoirs on Lenin before the publication should be vised by several instances, including IML at Central Committee VKP (). A fragment about F.Kaplan's execution and destruction of its body, published in the first edition of memoirs of P.D.Malkova (M, 1959. С.160.), in the third edition was absent. (M, 1967. С.149.). 181 Malkov P. D. Notes of the commandant of the Kremlin. M, 1967. S.202-203. 182 In the same place. С.204. Events are stated on July, 6-7th, 1918 P.D.Malkovym in the is negative-ironic form. Having strengthened by order of V.I.Lenina and J.M.Sverdlova protection of the Kremlin, P.D.Malkov has arrested levoeserovskuju fraction of V All-Russia congress of Councils. In the evening on July, 7th, 1918 he has reported on V.I.Leninu on results of operation. P.D.Malkov recollected: «He has listened to my report attentively, but is somehow quiet, without special interest. It was obvious, that to it levoeserovsky mutiny - already last, the passed stage, that all its thoughts, thoughts are directed forward, 1 O '! In tomorrow ». Events in Moscow have drawn on July, 6-7th, 1918 D.L.Golinkova's attention. The historian wrote about attempts left eserov to develop active work on places and to grasp executive committees of local authorities. He noticed, that Central Committee PLSR «was going to resort to the armed defence of the occupied 1 POISON. Positions ». The main thing of mutiny, according to the author, vice-president VCHK V.A.Aleksandrovich became accused. It not only has organised mutiny, but has prepared murder Mirbaha, and also has stolen 544 thousand rbl. from cash desk VCHK. According to D.L.Golinkova, B.D.Kamkov, M.A.Spiridonova and P.P.Proshjan have appeared hostages« pseudorevolutionary, Adventurous »politicians V.A.Aleksandrovicha. Shining events on July, 10th 1918г. In Simbirsk, D.L.Golinkov the conspirator M.A.Muravev, addressing to active meeting levoeserovskoj wrote, that the organisations, continued to confirm about the adherence of the Soviet power. The historian has noted: «Ants has suggested to form Volga region Soviet republic, the head of the government to select B.D.Kamkova, members of the government of M.A.Spiridonovu, V.A.Karelina and others...» 357. Thus, he was difficult for accusing of the anti-Soviet Plot but to try to incriminate it adventurism, certainly, it was possible. Under the statement of D.L.Golinkova, Provocative adventure levoeserovskih leaders was Unexpected party for many local organisations left эсеров358. The part from them declared itself party «populists - of communists», others - «party of revolutionary communism». The third continued to be called as Party of the left socialists - of revolutionaries and to conduct "counterrevolutionary" activity. After a number of amnesties and permanent arrests, wrote D.L.Golinkov, levoeserovskaja party has descended from a political scene, having buried itself. In a number of collections of articles, such as «Struggle Communist party of Soviet Union against Opportunism and nationalism »(L, 1978),« Great October and historical achievements of the Soviet people »(L, 1980), «Bolshevist experience of struggle with neproletarskimi» (L, 1986), etc. the problems connected with history Left-wing socialist narodnicheskih of the organisations have been considered. It is necessary to notice also, that in Leningrad even problem council about studying «experience of struggle of the CPSU with opportunism» has been created. Among authors of the collection, representatives of the Leningrad higher school, it is necessary to name P.A.Podbolotova, E.P.Alekseeva, G.T.Kosyh, A.N.Skazetskogo, and also Pskov historian A.F.Zhukova359. In works of historians-leningradtsev a number of the problem questions connected with struggle of Bolsheviks against eserov - extremists, left eserov has been put. Researchers traditionally gave reason for an urgency of the theme «necessity of creative development of the theory of revolutionary struggle against bourgeois ideology and a revisionism», probably, sincerely believing, that these "vestiges" are available in the Soviet society. The devoted histories of eserov-extremists are indicative in this plan of work of A.F.Zhukova. Unlike others neonarodnicheskih movements extremists named the organisation the union, instead of party, believing, that the charter of any party holds down revolutionary creativity and the initiative of weights, promotes bjurokratizatsii emancipating movement. According to A.F.Zhukova, during the summer period of 1917 when radical socialists objectively cultivated destructive antistate tendencies, esery - extremists, along with the left wing of the party of socialists-revolutionaries and Bolsheviks operated in one direction. Estimating maximal tactics, the historian wrote: «after the July Events when the diarchy has ended also the power has completely passed to Provisional government, extremists more and more came nearer to Bolsheviks in the critic Time 188 The government and compromisers ». At the same time, according to A.F.Zhukova, extremists up to the end did not understand «an imperialistic essence» Provisional government and dispersed from Bolsheviks on program questions. They have shown inconsistency and limitation, calling to "reconciliation" with right eserami and menshevikami. Developing the sights, A.F.Zhukov wrote: «having supported Bolsheviks in their struggle against "compromisers" for power transition in hands of Councils on places: in Izhevsk, Kronstadt, Kursk, Samara etc., extremists, owing to the melkoburzhuaznosti opposed proletariat dictatorships, were opponents of centralisation of management of economy, combated 189 Against the conclusion of the Brest world ». Transition of extremists to opposition to the Soviet power, in its opinion, was expressed in the anti-Soviet armed performances in Izhevsk in April and Samara in May, 1918. After mutiny suppression new elections in the Izhevsk Council which have brought a victory menshevikam, right eseram and parts of non-parties have taken place. At the same time the Bolshevist organisation has actually collapsed. This fact has given A.F.Zhukovu basis to assign all fault on eserov-extremists. The historian wrote: «After acceptance of administrative measures in relation to extremists the Bolshevist organisation was cleared of the stuck bourgeois element, and it has left nearby 1300 persons» 360. At the same time A.F.Zhukova's contemporaries named absolutely other reasons of falling of number of Izhevsk organisation RKP (). L. M.Spirin explained this phenomenon change in 1918 of the party program, the party name, signing Brest договора361, that is has specified in the internal reasons of crisis. Though extremists have taken of a dual position in an estimation of events on July, 6-7th, 1918 in Moscow and as a matter of fact have not supported left eserov, they have been expelled by Bolsheviks from Councils. Thereupon A.F.Zhukova's statement about "slander" of extremists to Bolsheviks, "unreasonable" reprisals and party intolerance последних362 funny sounds. In formation of young Soviet statehood extremists with the "anarhistsko-democratic" sights obviously were not entered in frameworks of dictatorship of proletariat. As principal causes of "crash" of extremists of A.F.Zhukov considered their internal disorganisation, propensity to revolutionary demagogy and frazerstvu, an inconsistency of the theoretical Sights and refusal of cooperation with the Soviet power. In detail enough having stopped on the description of liquidation of extremists in Izhevsk and Samara, A.F.Zhukov has made Absolutely opposite conclusion. He wrote: "Crash" of the Union of eserov-extremists »as political organisation was It is caused not by its prohibition, not reprisals from Bolsheviks, and lozhnostju ideologically-theoretical sights and 193 Tactical installations of extremists ». Separate aspects of activity of eserov-extremists, mutual relations with them Bolsheviks were considered in the works devoted RKP () in formation and hardening -> 194 p The Soviet local authorities. First of all regions of researches of a steel of territory on which esery-extremists in 1917-1918 have been presented by the powerful organisations - the Volga region and Udmurtiya. On an example of creativity of A.F.Zhukova we managed to track, as spent Soviet historiography was necessary to write to the historian. Change of names of its publications reminded a known funny thing with the Parisian newspaper «Moniteur» during time of "Hundred days» Napoleon I. In 1970 A.F.Zhukov named article «Exposure by Bolsheviks of petty-bourgeois sights eserov - extremists...» 363, in 1978 - «Criticism Bolsheviks esero - maximalism...» 364. In 1980 the next article of the historian was called «About mutual relations of Bolsheviks with eserami - Extremists... »365. And, at last, in 1990 -« About cooperation Bolsheviks with the left elements of petty-bourgeois parties in October armed revolt »366. To history left eserov Siberia addressed I.M.Razgon, E.I.Chernjak and A.A.Bondarenko 367. In E.I.Chernjaka's works dynamics of increase of split in Siberian organisations PSR was traced, formation process levoeserovskih structures was shown. Object of special research Questions on degree of influence Siberian left eserov on weights, their number, geography of the party organisations in Siberia became A.A.Bondarenko368. The author had been lifted and opened such problems, as left esery Siberia and the Brest world, the block of Bolsheviks and the left socialists-revolutionaries. According to the historian the First World War has led to split Siberian eserov on oborontsev and internationalists. A.A.Bondarenko has noticed, that occurrence of the first formally organised levoeserovskoj groups has occurred only after July events 1917г. In Krasnoyarsk. In the autumn of 1917 the contradiction between the left and right wing Siberian eserov was showed already everywhere. The historian has established, that levoeserovskie the organisations of Siberia were mainly city, their aggregate number by the spring 1918г. Has reached 2 thousand persons. By the moment of Czechoslovak performance of the organisation still were in a formation stage that has in many respects caused their relative small number and weak organisation. According to the researcher, left esery no Siberia had enough strong communications with the Central Committee and on variety of questions took more radical positions, than odnopartijny in the Central Russia, their cooperation with Bolsheviks in Siberia had stronger character. The majority left eserov with the weapon in hands has opposed Czechoslovaks. Together with Bolsheviks operating in a guerrilla underground, they have brought the considerable contribution to defeat of army of A.V.Kolchaka. During Civil war, marked A.A.Bondarenko, the most part left eserov has passed in numbers RKP (), smaller has departed from political activity. In its opinion, to summer of 1920 in Siberia remains to one organisation PLSR. The reasons for this A.A.Bondarenko saw in the logician of revolutionary struggle, in general for left eserov and Bolsheviks the opponent - kolchakovskoj dictatorship, a general crisis "levonarodnicheskoj" theories. Complex studying has begun with the beginning of 1970th levoeserovskih the organisations in the North Caucasus, Kuban and Terek. Historians tactics interested mainly Bolsheviks in relation to "petty-bourgeois" parties in 1917 - 1918, as directed on creation of wide front antikaledinskih forces in регионе369. Opening features of the left block in the Cossack areas, V.N.Sergeev has allocated three stages of cooperation of Bolsheviks and left eserov: 1. «March - October, 1917 - occurrence of cooperation of Bolsheviks with party"bottoms"eserov. 2. October 1917 - March, 1918 - time of the greatest success of the block, first of all in connection with conclusion RSDRP () the governmental agreement with "petty-bourgeois" party left eserov. Bolsheviks managed to involve in struggle with kadetsko - the Cossack counterrevolution of supporters left eserov, to split local eserovskie the organisations and to isolate their leaders from weights, to undermine social bases of the coalition regional governments, to unite city and village Councils. 3. April - July, 1918 - the period of persevering struggle of messengers of Central Committee RKP () G.K.Ordzhonikidze and A.S.Bubnova, heads of the local organisations of Bolsheviks for preservation of the block with left eserami for the sake of the further strengthening of the Soviet power ». From the given characteristic of the left block it is visible, that V.N.Sergeev more than uproshchenno treated the facts. Following its logic, Bolsheviks "forced" inert left eserov to take part in struggle against the armed counterrevolution literally. Confirming about split by Bolsheviks of the party organisations eserov and isolation of their leaders, the historian conflicts to the conclusion about ostensibly exclusively internal reasons of self-liquidation of organisations PSR. There are not clear the reasons which have induced Bolsheviks in the spring - in the summer of 1918 to keep the block with levoeserovskimi «revolutionary phrase-mongers». It is clear, that at the heart of the concept of research of V.N.Sergeeva in advance set postulates laid some: proletariat hegemony, monopoly of Bolsheviks for original revolutionism, treachery of national interests by petty bourgeoisie and its parties. Such approach turned around the poster is black - the white scheme of revolutionary process in which in reality was much more paints and shades. The history levoeserovskih the party organisations of the central industrial region became object of researches of N.P.Margelinoj. By estimates of the historian, in it is central - chernozemnom area within 1917 109 organisations PLSR were generated, twice there are more than Bolshevist. N.P.Margelina considered, that allocation of the left wing from PSR has occurred in second half of summer - in the autumn 1917 года370. Innovative N.P.Margelinoj's judgements about financing by Bolsheviks of split of Party of socialists - of revolutionaries and the help in formation of the organisations left eserov are represented. So, «Smolensk Bolsheviks, - ascertained the author, - at the desire of left eserov distances it vzaimoobrazno 2 thousand rbl. - on the organisation city levoeserovskoj ячейки371. The fraction of Bolsheviks of the Kolomna Council of the Moscow province has transferred 500 rbl. to strengthening of fraction left eserov» 372. The similar facts of transfer of money Bolsheviks to the left socialists - to revolutionaries on creation of organisations PLSR are revealed by us in llg Yaroslavl, Tula, the Eagle. Summing up to section, we will note: First, the lifting which has begun about second half 1950th of activity of historians can be characterised as «the Lenin Renaissance» in a domestic historiography. The end result of such creativity consisted that there was a process not so much mastering by Lenin methodology, how many loan at V.I.Lenina of ready conclusions without their critical judgement and application to concrete historic facts and the analysis of data of history of parties and movements. Secondly, certain influence on studying of history of Party of the left socialists-revolutionaries a number of factors of ideological and political character, first of all, has rendered political changes in a society, events after XX congress of the CPSU. It is necessary to name also occurrence of modes of "national democracy» in countries of Eastern Europe during post-war time, with preservation of the "petty-bourgeois" parties entering into blocks with communists; it demanded to confirm historical correctness of such coalitions, having shown, the truth, that any attempt to "improve" the Soviet power at the expense of narrowing of dictatorship of proletariat leads to disorganisation, distempers, lifts an anarchy wave. Thirdly, in the conditions of anticommunistic performances in a number of countries of Eastern Europe, first of all Hungary and Czechoslovakia, before historians there was a task in view to condemn pseudo-socialism of "petty-bourgeois" parties, to warn communists about danger of an alliance with them. The duality of the nature of petty bourgeoisie was an evident explanation of a policy of fluctuations eserov, their inconsistency, ideological eklektizma, absence of internal unity. Fourthly, the anniversary celebrations devoted to the 50 anniversary of revolution on 1917, focusing attention to heroic history of the CPSU, have predetermined interest to the organisations operating in the past in parallel with Bolsheviks, including to Party of the left socialists-revolutionaries. Fifthly, the Soviet researchers allocated only four problems of history PLSR: the block with Bolsheviks, agrarian, The relation to the Brest world, and, at last «July putsch». Such questions as genesis of left wing PSR in the First World War, a social status of party members, age, education status, the relation to trade unions and students, youth and female levoeserovskie movements did not become object of steadfast attention of domestic historians. Moreover, in works of the Soviet researchers the tendency to decrease in influence PLSR in histories of revolution and Civil war and, accordingly, increase in the importance of Bolshevik party is distinctly traced. K.V.Gusev confirmed, for example, that the Kronstadt Council «became Bolshevist as a result of elections on May, 4th, 1917» though it is known, that in Kronstadt Council till spring of 1918 extremists and anarchists dominated left esery. Even later, summer of 1918, Bolsheviks did not manage to achieve overwhelming majority in Council. Quintessence of conclusions and estimations of the Soviet historians about M.I.Nadeevoj's who has declared statement, perhaps, can serve party structure of revolutionary Russia: «during Preparations and carrying out of the Great October socialist revolution Bolsheviks were unique (it is allocated by us. - A. K) force in which weights of workers and which they followed trusted. All other political parties have suffered ideological wreck and have disappeared from a political arena »373. * * * * Summing up chapters as a whole, we will notice, that except a political conjuncture, creativity of historians was influenced by actually scientific reasons: holding conferences, problem councils, partial opening of archives, "falsification" of studying of history of socialists-revolutionaries abroad. From the end of 1950th there are some centres in which walls researches of various aspects of history PSR regularly began to be conducted. It is necessary to name IML at the Central Committee of the CPSU, chair of social studies of the Moscow regional pedagogical institute, the Moscow library institute, the Moscow construction institute of B. V.Kujbysheva, then the Moscow state University of M.V.Lomonosova, the Karelian state institute. In 1960 - 1980th in Leningrad it is formed Problem Council about studying «struggle against opportunism in Revolutionary movement », in Kalinin (Tver) is created Problem Council about studying «struggle against not proletarian, conciliatory parties». The general coordination Research process carried out complex Council about studying «History of the Great October socialist revolution» under the guidance of academician I.I.Mintsa. It is possible to assert, that in Soviet historiography PSR have developed northwest (Leningrad, Pskov, Petrozavodsk), central (Moscow, Kalinin) and Volga region (Kazan, Saratov, Samara) the centres on studying «histories of struggle of the CPSU with petty-bourgeois parties». It is necessary to recognise, that many approaches used at illumination of istoriko-party subjects, are realised Insufficiently widely and full. The party program eserov has received superficial estimations, organizational structure, number and structure PSR did not become an in-depth study subject. Political and social and economic models of the device Russia offered PSR, and also tactics, the reasons of successes and failures eserov, as a matter of fact, have received unilateral illumination. Same it is possible to tell about activity estimations eserov in the State Duma, Councils and local governments. It is obvious, that in the further working out eserov questions on a place and a role required system of political forces, scales and degree of influence on various social classes, as in 1917, and later. Practically all resulted positions have received development in works of subsequent time. Thereupon it is necessary to notice, that the history of Party of the socialists-revolutionaries, created during the Soviet period (approximately up to the end 1980th) as branch of historical knowledge is the finished stage. It should be understood as the high-grade complete work spent both separate historians, and the groups of authors standing on Marxist-Leninist methodological positions and adhering class approach at the organisation of historical researches. t Uniform characteristics of Soviet historiography PSR to give it is impossible, as type of mutual relations of the state and a historical science, degree of interference of a science and the power were various throughout 70 years. The Soviet historiography eserov by the end of 1980th worried absence of new ideas and duplicating of former stereotypes. Only wreck of communistic system in the USSR and liquidation of the Soviet political system have allowed domestic historians to refuse ideological influence of monoparty membership and to develop fruitful work in which the priority of the western researchers in statement and the decision of many problems on history of Party of socialists-revolutionaries was aloud designated.
<< | >>
A source: Kononenko, Anatoly Anatolevich. Historiography of the creation and activities of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in the years 1901-1922. / Thesis / Tyumen - 2005. 2005

More on topic 4.2. History studying levonarodnicheskih parties and the organisations:

  1. § 1. Studying history
  2. 1.1. Theoretical approaches to studying of history of party eserov
  3. the Beginning of studying of history of Party of socialists - of revolutionaries
  4. 1.3. History of studying of an epithet
  5. HISTORY of STUDYING And the HISTORIOGRAPHY
  6. History of studying of a biological variety
  7. history of studying of advertising in a humanitarian paradigm
  8. the Appendix 9. A writing-book for independent works on studying of history of local edge
  9. chapter 1. History of studying of irony: from antiquity to the PRESENT
  10. Chapter 1. The AMBIGUITY PHENOMENON: the NATURE And STUDYING HISTORY
  11. 3.2. Studying of history of socialists-revolutionaries in the early thirties - the middle of 1950th
  12. 1.1. History of studying of terms and problems of their transfer domestic and foreign linguistics
  13. 3.1. The civil remedial legal personality of the parties and the third parties
  14. CHAPTER 6. Studying of history of Party of socialists - revolutionaries the Russian emigrants and foreign researchers