If we turn to the fate of political parties after the revolution and their relationships, we cannot fail to note several fundamental points. The Bolsheviks, of course, were interested in expanding the political base of the revolution and in finding allies. It could not have been otherwise, because in the conditions of that time, any other tactic would have been tantamount to political suicide. However, very soon political power in the Soviet Republic acquired the visible features of a one-party dictatorship. Why did this happen?
If you look closely at the theory of the proletarian dictatorship, the harmonious edifice of the new statehood, drawn on paper by Lenin and his associates, then you will not see any place in it for other parties. In fact, the Bolshevik Communist Party was declared to be the core of the proletarian dictatorship, uniting the activities of all state and non-state bodies. [The official name of the party since its VII Congress in March 1918 is RKP(b)]. The implementation of this idea in practice led to a one-party system. Initially, the Bolsheviks conditioned participation in the political life of other parties on the recognition of Soviet power. Many of the socialist parties after October, in principle, did not oppose the recognition of its legitimacy and were ready to cooperate, stipulating it with a number of conditions. Therefore, the term “anti-Soviet protests” must be used carefully in relation to this time. Rather, we are talking about opposing the policies of the Bolsheviks. The role that was assigned to them could not but arouse the rejection of other parties, namely, pathetic compromisers with all the Bolshevik improvisations. The first victims on the way to a one-party dictatorship were the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, expelled from the Soviets by the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 14, 1918. After the “rebellion” of the left Socialist Revolutionaries in early July 1918 and their “expulsion” from the Soviets, the latter became almost homogeneous in party terms. There was no particular meaning in the existence of parties or their remnants destined for the role of appendages to the Bolsheviks, and, looking ahead, one can see that they were all absorbed by the ruling party or dissolved themselves. Those who continued to persist in their opposition faced a difficult fate.
In general, however, speaking about the first period of revolutionary transformations, one can hardly talk about the final establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship. The process of its registration took time. The new government was still too weak. It looked more like a roughly and hastily put together structure than a slender building of government. She still faced a long and persistent struggle for survival, during which even more strange and bizarre forms arose that characterized the new society and state. Speaking about this time, it is difficult, for example, to determine, especially locally, in whose hands the real power was concentrated: either the Soviet executive committee, or the party committee, or the revolutionary committee, or the local “emergency”. The sources provide plenty of food for thought. The final formation of a one-party dictatorship goes beyond the revolution and civil war and dates back to a later time.
Leaders and masses
It is necessary to say something about the protagonists of the first revolutionary transformations, people of the nameless masses with a riot of feelings and immaturity of thought. They personified an undeveloped, immature democracy, close to mob rule, ochlocracy. This explains many of the excesses of the revolutionary time, which are difficult to justify and from which the Bolshevik leadership itself was forced to dissociate itself: massacres, pogroms, robberies, etc. Such an undeveloped and immature democracy has a peculiarity - it is incompetent, poorly versed and oriented in events, follows his instincts and impulses, and not the arguments of reason and common sense. This underlies such a phenomenon as leaderism. People are looking for someone who can speak their language, who can translate their aspirations and hopes into accessible slogans. The higher the level of incompetence of the masses, the more they are inclined to rely on their leaders, even to the point of creating the image of an unconditional “charismatic” leader.
The revolution managed to promote many leaders from the ranks of various political parties. What was decisive: the ability to capture public moods and present them simply and intelligibly. Almost all the leaders of the revolution were fiery orators, famous publicists, and more or less educated people. Their nomination to the role of leaders is a natural phenomenon. Only developed forms of democracy are disgusted by leaderism. In conditions of immature democracy, the leader and the masses form a single whole. If you read the protocols and reports about mass gatherings of the revolutionary period, then these are continuous speeches of the leaders, accompanied by deafening applause, shouts, stomping and whistling of ordinary participants in the events.
It is hardly worth considering such phenomena as evidence of the emergence of a so-called totalitarian personality on the historical stage, although there is no doubt that the authors who adhere to the concept of totalitarianism to explain some events in the history of the twentieth century are right in noting the general craving of the masses to participate in political life and formation of certain stereotypes of mass consciousness. However, every person in any historical conditions remains, first of all, an individual, which mass consciousness can never completely suppress. This, in fact, is the source of complexity and contradictions in the historical process and the impossibility of bringing it under any one denominator.
The danger of leaderism at the first stages of revolutionary transformations is that the masses, fascinated by revolutionary slogans, can easily be deceived and misled when the leaders replace their slogans with their own ideas and ideas. Leaderism is dangerous because leaders gain a special position and constitute a special privileged group in society. Leaderism inspires an example to follow, creates the basis for the emergence of cults and cults. The symptoms of this appeared almost immediately, but many of the dangers of leaderism were still ahead. In the meantime, the revolution spoke the language of the masses and leaders. An era was passing into the past, new concepts, new terminology, a new language were being adopted, which the rivals and opponents of the Bolsheviks were forced to use.
Bolshevik leaders
The focus of attention must be focused on the Bolshevik leaders, although today we must pay tribute to the leaders of other political parties, among whom there were many prominent figures, such as P. Milyukov, V. Chernov, L. Martov, M. Spiridonova and others, who were undeservedly excluded from history of Soviet historiography. But the goals and objectives of the course require turning to the Bolsheviks, who ascended to the highest positions in the state and carried out revolutionary changes. How did they see their place in history, were they aware of the dangers and difficulties, the pitfalls that could come their way? It would be appropriate to free ourselves from later assessments and stratifications, political cliches behind which the personality disappears. From this point of view, an interesting document of the era is “Revolutionary Etudes”, written by one of the Bolshevik commissars - People's Commissar of Education A.V. Lunacharsky in 1919, where he characterizes the prominent leaders of the Bolshevik revolution, and above all Lenin and Trotsky. Here are some of them:
... Enormous power and some kind of inability to be at all affectionate and attentive to people, the absence of that charm that always surrounded Lenin, condemned Trotsky as a leader to some loneliness...
... Trotsky seemed ill-suited to work in political parties, but in the ocean of historical events, where personal organizations are completely unimportant, Trotsky’s positive aspects came to the fore...
... Trotsky’s main talent is his oratory and writing talent...
... Trotsky is undoubtedly more orthodox than Lenin, always guided by the letter of revolutionary Marxism. Lenin feels like the creator and master of political thought and very often gave completely new slogans that shocked us all, which seemed wild to us and which produced rich results. Trotsky is not distinguished by such courage of thought...
... It is customary to say about Trotsky that he is ambitious. This, of course, is complete nonsense... There is not a drop of vanity in it. He does not value any titles or any external authority at all... His historical role is infinitely dear to him. Lenin is also not at all ambitious. He never looks back at himself, never looks in the historical mirror, never thinks about what posterity will say about him, he just does his job. In contrast to him, Trotsky often looks back at himself, values his historical role extremely and would be ready to make any sacrifices, not excluding the most difficult one - the sacrifice of his life, in order to remain in the memory of mankind in the aura of a tragic revolutionary leader...
... One should not think, however, that the second leader of the Russian revolution is inferior to his colleague in everything. Trotsky is more brilliant, more brilliant, more active. Lenin could not have been more suited to the fact that, sitting in the chairman's chair of the Council of People's Commissars, he could brilliantly lead the world revolution..., but he could not cope with the titanic task that Trotsky placed on his shoulders...
... When a great revolution occurs, the great people always find a suitable actor for every role. One of the signs of the greatness of our revolution is that it brought forward from its depths or borrowed from other parties so many outstanding people and two of the strongest among the strongest, Lenin and Trotsky.
In addition to Lenin and Trotsky, among the Bolshevik leaders there were a number of outstanding personalities: Y. Sverdlov, G. Zinoviev, L. Kamenev, N. Bukharin, F. Dzerzhinsky and others. Others, due to the conditions of that time and personal data, could not yet advance for the role of leaders, but passionately desired to become one. A common feature of the main Bolshevik commissars was that in the past they belonged to the so-called “old party guard”, i.e. professional revolutionaries who had experience in agitation, propaganda and organizational work in underground and emigration conditions. But now, having stood at the helm of power, they had to deal with a completely different situation, where the previous baggage was clearly missing. There were any number of revolutionary ideas, but no practical skills in managing the state. Therefore, at first, the Bolsheviks were inclined to rely on the institutions of power and administration they created, on the revolutionary creativity of the masses themselves, who, in turn, were infected with revolutionary ideas. Mutual encouragement created a situation of revolutionary impatience, a desire, regardless of anything, to strive for vague ideals, “to pull the plant by the top so that it grows faster.” The wisdom of political leadership often consists in restraining impulses and impulsive actions, but this was clearly not enough for the Bolshevik leaders. Perhaps this was revealed most clearly in the area of socio-economic transformations that laid the foundation for a new social system.
If we turn to the fate of political parties after the revolution and their relationships, we cannot fail to note several fundamental points. The Bolsheviks, of course, were interested in expanding the political base of the revolution and in finding allies. It could not have been otherwise, because in the conditions of that time, any other tactic would have been tantamount to political suicide. However, very soon political power in the Soviet Republic acquired the visible features of a one-party dictatorship. Why did this happen?
If you look closely at the theory of the proletarian dictatorship, the harmonious edifice of the new statehood, drawn on paper by Lenin and his associates, then you will not see any place in it for other parties. In fact, the Bolshevik Communist Party was declared to be the core of the proletarian dictatorship, uniting the activities of all state and non-state bodies. [The official name of the party since its VII Congress in March 1918 is RKP(b)]. The implementation of this idea in practice led to a one-party system. Initially, the Bolsheviks conditioned participation in the political life of other parties on the recognition of Soviet power. Many of the socialist parties after October, in principle, did not oppose the recognition of its legitimacy and were ready to cooperate, stipulating it with a number of conditions. Therefore, the term “anti-Soviet protests” must be used carefully in relation to this time. Rather, we are talking about opposing the policies of the Bolsheviks. The role that was assigned to them could not but arouse the rejection of other parties, namely, pathetic compromisers with all the Bolshevik improvisations. The first victims on the way to a one-party dictatorship were the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, expelled from the Soviets by the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of June 14, 1918. After the “rebellion” of the left Socialist Revolutionaries in early July 1918 and their “expulsion” from the Soviets, the latter became almost homogeneous in party terms. There was no particular meaning in the existence of parties or their remnants destined for the role of appendages to the Bolsheviks, and, looking ahead, one can see that they were all absorbed by the ruling party or dissolved themselves. Those who continued to persist in their opposition faced a difficult fate.
In general, however, speaking about the first period of revolutionary transformations, one can hardly talk about the final establishment of the Bolshevik dictatorship. The process of its registration took time. The new government was still too weak. It looked more like a roughly and hastily put together structure than a slender building of government. She still faced a long and persistent struggle for survival, during which even more strange and bizarre forms arose that characterized the new society and state. Speaking about this time, it is difficult, for example, to determine, especially locally, in whose hands the real power was concentrated: either the Soviet executive committee, or the party committee, or the revolutionary committee, or the local “emergency”. The sources provide plenty of food for thought. The final formation of a one-party dictatorship goes beyond the revolution and civil war and dates back to a later time.
The October Revolution and the Constituent Assembly.
In the fall of 1917, the political crisis in the country worsened. The provisional government lost control over most of the army and the periphery. In mid-October, Kerensky proposed to the Council of the Republic to discuss the issue of the gradual evacuation of state institutions from Petrograd, in Moscow was supposed to host the Constituent Assembly. Preparations for evacuation were associated with the expected armed uprising of the Bolsheviks, timed to coincide with the convening of the next Congress of Soviets. The collapse of the economy and the ongoing war aggravated social tensions.
After the Kornilov rebellion, the left increased its influence, the Bolshevization of the Soviets took place, moderate socialist elements (Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries) were replaced by more radical ones. A large number of armed soldiers accumulated in Petrograd who did not want to go to the front. The Bolsheviks carried out active work to prepare an armed uprising. It began and was carried out according to plan.
Back in August, during the organization of the defense of Petrograd from the advancing Kornilov troops, The Military Revolutionary Committee (MRK) was formed, which became the “headquarters of the revolution.” At the very beginning of September, the “Bolshevized” Petrograd Soviet adopted a new political course aimed at overthrowing the Provisional Government and seizing power.
On October 10, the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party decided to prepare an armed uprising. The Executive Committee of the Petrograd Soviet organized the Military Revolutionary Committee from representatives of the army, trade unions, factory committees, military sections of the Soviets, etc.
Military Revolutionary Committee.
The tasks of the Military Revolutionary Committee included: “determining the combat strength and auxiliary means necessary for the defense of the capital,” measures to protect the city from pogroms and desertion, and maintaining revolutionary discipline.
A garrison meeting was formed under the Military Revolutionary Committee; The Military Revolutionary Committee consisted of departments: defense, supply, communications, information, workers' militia, etc.
Under the slogan of the defense of Petrograd, a new body was created, which concentrated in its hands all military power in the capital and became a powerful tool of the Bolshevik Petrosovet. On October 21, the Petrograd garrison, in its resolution, recognized the Military Revolutionary Committee as its leadership and refused to submit to the Provisional Government. The headquarters of the Petrograd Military District, the cadets and some Cossack units remained loyal to the government.
The Military Revolutionary Committee appointed commissars to military units and individual districts of the city. They were entrusted with a new task - protecting the revolution from attacks by counter-revolutionary forces. The distribution of weapons to workers began among the departments of the Military Revolutionary Committee; the Commissars of the Military Revolutionary Committee established censorship over printed publications and orders from the headquarters of the military district. At the same time, the Military Revolutionary Committee declared as early as October 24 that it “does not intend to prepare for the seizure of power,” but is only protecting the interests of the garrison from counter-revolutionary attacks.
October 17 Bureau All-Russian Central Executive Committee(Menshevik-SR) agreed to convene the Second Congress of Soviets. The congress was supposed, according to the calculations of the Bolsheviks, to officially recognize and legalize the work carried out by the militant organizations of the Soviets (MRC, Red Guard, workers' militia, units of the Petrograd garrison) seizure of power.
Second Congress of Soviets.
During the uprising, by October 25, 1917, all key points in Petrograd were occupied by detachments of the Petrograd garrison and the workers' Red Guard.
By the evening of this day, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies began its work, who proclaimed himself the supreme power in Russia. Some of the congress delegates, representing the Menshevik and Right Socialist Revolutionary parties, left the meeting. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee, formed by the First Congress of Soviets in the summer of 1917, was re-elected, and The Council of People's Commissars was formed, which became the government of Russia.
The Second Congress of Soviets proclaimed the transfer of power in the center and locally to the Soviets, recognizing them as the only form of power.
The congress elected a new All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The congress was of a founding nature. Governing state bodies were created there and the first legal acts were adopted, which had a constitutional, fundamental significance for the new government.
Peace Decree along with very specific proposals to conclude peace between warring states, to publish all secret diplomatic acts, and to renounce annexations and indemnities, he proclaimed the principles of Russia’s long-term foreign policy - peaceful coexistence and “proletarian internationalism”, the right of nations to self-determination. To a large extent, the decree was declarative in nature.
Decree on land was based on peasant orders formulated by the Soviets and land committees back in August 1917. To a large extent, the Decree was based on the basic ideas of the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program and the draft agrarian law (Order).
The agrarian practice of the summer of 1917 was legalized. A variety of forms of land use were proclaimed (household, farm, communal, artel), confiscation of landowners' lands and estates, which were transferred to the disposal of volost land committees and district Soviets of Peasant Deputies.
On October 26, the All-Russian Committee for the Salvation of the Motherland and the Revolution was formed, which took the initiative to recreate the Provisional Government, i.e. declared himself the temporary bearer of power in the country. The committee included representatives of the parties that left the congress (the Trudoviks, the Mensheviks of the Unity group), and members of the Petrograd City Duma.
On October 29, the Salvation Committee, whose leadership included Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, attempted to seize power, expecting support from military units loyal to the Provisional Government. The uprising was suppressed.
October 31st at Moscow Committee of Public Safety, which included representatives of various government agencies, made an appeal to the citizens of Russia, which spoke of the need to stop the “civil war”, for which it was necessary to turn to the “third force”.
Such a force was the “Vikzhel” (All-Russian Executive Committee of the Union of Railway Workers), formed long before the October coup and having great influence on the masses of transport workers.
The main demand of Vikzhel was the creation of a “uniform socialist government” from representatives of all parties of “revolutionary democracy” (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries, etc.). However, after the military victory of the Bolsheviks in Moscow in early November, the idea of a “uniform socialist government” lost relevance.
Dissolution of the constituent assembly.
On January 5, 1918, the Constituent Assembly opened. The Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, on behalf of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, read out the “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People,” which formulated the main political, social and economic goals of the party:
Dictatorship of the proletariat,
Nationalization of land, etc.
The majority of the Constituent Assembly refused to discuss the document, and the Bolshevik faction left the meeting. The agenda included questions about loyalty to the allies and the continuation of the war, the preparation of agrarian reform by land committees, and the organization of state power. The actions of the revolutionary parties to seize power were condemned. At the end of the day, the Red Guard closed the meeting.
The Union for the Defense of the Constituent Assembly (the Social Revolutionaries were especially active) prepared a mass demonstration in support of the Assembly.
However, its meeting began after the demonstration was dispersed by soldiers.
There was no mass support for the Constituent Assembly. Moreover, after the closure of the Assembly, employees of ministries and private enterprises stopped their strike.
The socialist intelligentsia also came to terms with the dissolution of the Assembly, fearing the outbreak of civil war. Rallies were held at Petrograd factories condemning the violent dispersal of the Constituent Assembly and demanding re-election of the Petrograd Soviet, but these protests had no political consequences.
The next day, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a Decree on the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, and government troops dispersed a demonstration in Petrograd organized in its support.
After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, the only supreme body of power in the country became the All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. In parallel with these Soviets, there was a system of Soviets of Peasant Deputies, which were under the strong political influence of the Socialist Revolutionaries.
Association of Soviets.
In November 1917 took place Extraordinary All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies, who decided to unite with the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. At the same time, a joint meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the Petrograd Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Extraordinary All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies took place. The final unification of the Soviets took place in January 1918 at the III All-Russian Congress of Soviets.
During the breaks between sessions of the All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the highest authority in the country was the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). Its structure and operating procedures were approved at a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee in early November 1917. At the beginning of its existence, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was a permanent body. Plenary sessions were held at least once every two weeks. Meetings in a narrow format were convened as needed, on the initiative of party factions or at the request of a group of members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (at least ten people).
The structure of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee included: a presidium, departments and commissions.
The Presidium consisted of representatives of party factions, prepared materials for meetings of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and controlled the work of commissions and departments. Its meetings were held two to three times a week.
Organization and conduct of current work (preparation of draft documents, management of lower-level Councils, etc.) carried out by departments of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee: Military Revolutionary Committee, non-resident, agitation, on the national issue, Cossack, etc.
The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets elected a government - the Council of People's Commissars (SNK) “to govern the country until the convening of the Constituent Assembly.” 13 people's commissariats were formed: internal affairs, agriculture, labor, military and naval affairs, trade and industry, public education, finance, foreign affairs, justice, food, post and telegraphs, nationalities, and communications. The chairmen of all people's commissariats became members of the Council of People's Commissars.
In emergency cases, the Council of People's Commissars could issue decrees without first discussing them in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The latter approved the decrees of the Council of People's Commissars if they had national significance. By mid-1918, the number of People's Commissariats (NK) was increased. The NK of state control, industry and trade, the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh), etc. were formed.
Meetings of the Council of People's Commissars were held daily. Since December 1917, the practice of holding meetings of deputy people's commissars has developed. Since January 1918, this form of work was transformed into a permanent commission of the Council of People's Commissars (Small Council of People's Commissars). Its decisions were approved by the government without re-examination. The legislative activities of the Council of People's Commissars have often been criticized by the opposition:
the left Socialist Revolutionaries and representatives of other parties insisted on limiting this function of the Council of People's Commissars and strengthening control over it by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
However, at the beginning of November 1917, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee confirmed the legislative powers of the government. This provision was enshrined in a special resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and later became part of the Constitution of the RSFSR.
Soviets and political parties.
To strengthen its political base, the regime had to hold re-elections of the Soviets, many of which were strongly influenced by the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries.
Re-elections took place in May - June 1918. Their results were unfavorable for the Bolsheviks - representatives of the opposition (Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries) received a large number of seats in the councils. In a number of cities (Petrograd, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Tver, etc.) protest rallies were held, at which demands were made to abolish the grain monopoly, create independent trade unions and hold new elections to the Soviets.
At the very beginning of June 1918, a meeting of workers' representatives called for a general strike. As a political slogan, the demand was put forward to transfer power to the Constituent Assembly. Back in May, the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party, supporting the movement of “workers’ representatives,” proposed convening an All-Russian Conference of Workers’ Representatives. They were supported by the Social Revolutionaries.
At the same time, moderate socialists did not support calls for a political strike, fearing that the overthrow of the Bolsheviks would lead to the triumph of the counter-revolution. In their opinion, Bolshevism reflected the basic opinion of the people: “The Bolshevik movement is the distorted, degenerated revolutionary aspirations of the broad masses of the people.”
In the spring of 1918, a serious confrontation emerged between the Soviets and the workers. In many cities where elections to the Soviets were prohibited or declared invalid, alternative organizations were formed: ≪works councils≫, ≪work conferences≫, ≪meetings of workers representatives≫ etc., not associated with political parties and free from Bolshevik control.
On June 16, 1918, local Soviets were ordered to recall all Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary deputies and hold re-elections before the convening of the V Congress of Soviets. The Petrograd Soviet decided to dissolve the Council of Workers' Representatives. The political strike prepared by the opposition did not take place. Workers' organizations independent of the Soviets were liquidated.
In 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee excluded from its membership representatives of the Socialist Revolutionary parties (right and center) and Mensheviks after the July speech of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries.
Local Councils.
The system of local power as a whole developed over the period from October 1917 to February 1918.
During this period, the Soviets, after the news of the Bolshevik victory in Petrograd, began to take local power everywhere by peaceful or armed means.
They implemented the decrees of the central government, created judicial bodies, carried out tax and requisition activities, and formed armed detachments. Local Councils themselves determined the structure and directions of activity of their executive bodies - departments, sections, commissions, commissariats, endowing them with different functions and competencies.
Soon after the revolution, the NKVD issued a decree in which an attempt was made to determine the place of the Soviets in the system of new authorities: “At the local level, the governing bodies, local authorities are the Councils, which must subordinate to themselves all institutions of both administrative, economic, financial, cultural and educational significance...
Each of these organizations, down to the smallest, is completely autonomous in matters of a local nature, but complies its activities with the general decrees and resolutions of the central government and with the decisions of those larger Soviet organizations of which it is a part. In this way, a coherent, homogeneous organism in all parts is created - the Republic of Soviets.
City and zemstvo local governments(created back in the 60-70s of the last century) were either liquidated for political reasons as hostile, or placed under the control of local Soviets continued to work for some time. Zemstvo councils often turned into departments of local councils for managing the local economy.
In June 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a decree, on the basis of which volost and rural committees of the poor began to be created locally, which became the support of the new government in the countryside. The committees carried out the redistribution of land among peasants, confiscated “surplus grain,” acted together with food detachments and detachments of the Red Army, and also controlled the work of local Soviets, could dissolve them, call new elections or replace them, taking over their functions. At the end of 1918, the Pobedy Committees finally merged with the local Soviets.
With such emergency measures (combined committees, food detachments), the authorities put pressure on the Soviets, limiting their autonomy and strengthening their control over them. At the same time, the severity of the class struggle was transferred from the cities to the countryside, the “hegemon of the revolution” - the proletariat was opposed to the more conservative and inert peasantry. The party apparatus of local power, which quickly strengthened after the October Revolution, had a noticeable influence on the system of local
organs. In November 1917, the Council of People's Commissars adopted a Decree on the right of recall, on the basis of which Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries began to be recalled from the Soviets, and re-elections were held at least once a quarter.
In June 1918, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a special resolution “On the exclusion from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and local Soviets of representatives of the counter-revolutionary parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries (center and right) and Mensheviks.” There was a total Bolshevisation of local Soviets.
The activities of central government bodies were also carried out under the control of party bodies. Party decisions were given the importance of legislative acts, and joint resolutions of government and leading party bodies on the most significant issues began to be adopted more and more often.
III Congress of Soviets
The III Congress of Soviets (January 1918) became a unification for the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', Peasants' and Cossacks' Deputies. The majority on it belonged to the Bolshevik Party. The Congress adopted a program document rejected by the Constituent Assembly - the Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People.
The Declaration defined Russia as a republic of Soviets and emphasized the omnipotence of these bodies in the Center and locally. The government structure was defined as a federation of national republics.
The socialization of land, the abolition of private ownership of land were proclaimed, and the principle of equal land use formulated by the Decree on Land was consolidated - the distribution of land plots according to the number of able-bodied persons and the number of “eaters” in each family.
Victory of the one-party system
Gradually, supreme power from the Central Committee began to pass to the Politburo. In March 1921, the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b) adopted a ban on the formation of intra-party factions. The ban on non-communist parties began at the end of 1917. The Cadet Party continued to operate underground in 1918. Its legislative prohibition was carried out already at the beginning of 1918. The Right Socialist Revolutionaries participated in the preparation of peasant uprisings in June - August 1918. In the spring of 1918, the Mensheviks tried to gain a majority in the re-elected city councils. In July 1918, the Central Committee of the Menshevik Party recommended that its local organizations support anti-Soviet protests and strikes. At the end of November 1918, the Mensheviks began to pursue a policy more loyal to the regime. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee lifted the ban on parties. In February 1919, the Socialist Revolutionaries proclaimed their renunciation of attempts to “overthrow Soviet power through armed struggle.” At the same time, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the RSFSR adopted a resolution restoring the rights of the Socialist Revolutionaries. The Left Socialist Revolutionaries split after their defeat in July 1918. One part of the party (“populists-communists” and “communist-revolutionaries”) sided with the Bolsheviks, the other with the anarchists. Anarchists who had previously participated in the civil war on the side of the “Reds” opposed the “new state dictatorship” using methods of terror or open war (Makhno). The Bolsheviks used military and criminal repression against anarchists. In December 1920, at the Eighth All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries were present as delegates without the right to a casting vote. At the end of the civil war, terror against the Mensheviks resumed. In 1923 they finally went underground. In February 1922, a large group of leading members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party was arrested on charges of conspiracy.
Related information.
What is the essence of the dictatorship of the party? In a state where one political organization achieves sole power, it gets rid of all its competitors and merges with the state apparatus. The most striking example of such an order is the Soviet Union.
The example of the Bolsheviks
To understand the essence of the dictatorship of the party, it is enough to consider in detail the example of the Bolshevik party, which came to power in Russia in 1917. The leadership of the RSDLP(b) was not going to take its opponents into account. When this happened, part of society still harbored the illusion that Lenin and his comrades were organizing the work of the Constituent Assembly. This body was supposed to determine the political future of Russia through a democratic procedure.
The Constituent Assembly worked for only one day. It included not only Bolsheviks, but also Socialist Revolutionaries. They also adhered to leftist views, but disagreed with Lenin on some fundamental issues. In particular, the Social Revolutionaries refused to recognize the first decrees of the Soviet government. By a majority of votes, they elected their representative Viktor Chernov as their chairman.
When the RSDLP(b) realized that the new government body was becoming oppositional, it was decided to disperse it at all costs. In advance, the authorities banned demonstrations in Petrograd. The deputies were expelled from the meeting room the next day after the start of work. This scene became famous thanks to the phrase “The guard is tired.” This is exactly how the security argued for the temporary closure of where the deputies were meeting.
State terror
Later it became clear that the Constituent Assembly was completely dispersed. Petrograd residents held several demonstrations and rallies in support of the representative body. And they were shot by units of Latvian riflemen. According to various estimates, from 8 to 20 people died.
This tragedy revealed the essence of the dictatorship of the party. The Bolsheviks did not want to share powers and were ready to destroy all their opponents. Terror is a principle that is key when it comes to a party dictatorship that has seized power in any state.
Ban on discussions
However, even after the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, some Russian parties remained legal. They could become serious competitors of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for public opinion. These were the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. The way the RSDLP(b) destroyed them again revealed the essence of the party’s dictatorship.
The Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks were left with the only non-military way to come to power. These were the Soviets. These bodies have turned into a typewriter, churning out the necessary votes. The dictatorship of the party of the proletariat was that any discussion was prohibited if the decision had already been made “at the top” in the Central Committee.
Opponents of the Bolsheviks were successfully re-elected to the Soviets and began to change their mood. The situation for Lenin and his supporters became extremely precarious. The situation was also bad because the communists controlled only Petrograd and Moscow, while the white movement was active in the rest of the country.
Merging the party with the state
In May 1918, Zinoviev compared the Soviets to the House of Lords in the British Parliament. The elected officials were leaving the control of the Bolsheviks. In this regard, the party leadership decided to launch a preemptive strike. In the spring of 1918, the leaders of the Assembly of Commissioners, on which the opposition relied most of all, were arrested.
Meanwhile, the process of merging the party apparatus with the state began. The People's Commissariat, the Defense Council and the Council of People's Commissars were entirely Bolshevik. Party members increasingly became bureaucrats and part of the nomenklatura. By 1920, when the IX Congress of the RCP(b) took place, every second Bolshevik was already in the Soviets (and in the entire organization there were 98% of the total number of deputies). And only every tenth party member worked in production.
Dominance of intelligence services
Subsequently, the essence of the party dictatorship of the 1920s was the use of special services and the repressive apparatus. The Bolsheviks had the Cheka in this capacity. The main concern of the Chekists was the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. A large network of informants was created. Denunciations and slander were collected against every noticeable oppositionist.
The dictatorship of the Bolshevik Party officially emerged in 1922. Lenin then declared that the only way to spark a world revolution was to create a unified communist political movement. In the summer, show trials began against the Socialist Revolutionaries. Such performances, widely covered in the press, were also of a propaganda nature. Society developed an image of enemies and traitors who needed to be dealt with. Later, this practice was successfully applied not only to professional political opponents, but also to any citizens dissatisfied with the authorities.
Repression against opponents
Repressions against opposition movements were justified by “revolutionary expediency” and other loud slogans. After they were convicted, the Soviet secret services organized a congress of that part of the party that was ready to merge with the Bolsheviks. These socialists were called "initiators." They dissolved the party and joined the communists. The fate of the Mensheviks developed in a similar way.
Only one batch left. But even within the RCP(b) a similar process was launched. In 1924, after the first wave of Bolsheviks, a struggle for power began.
Internal party purges
The struggle in the ranks of the CPSU(b) was not so much of a social nature as of a personal one. However, when Stalin became the sole leader of the party, he also got rid of theoretical discussions. Opponents were convicted and mostly executed in the 1930s. The peculiarities of the political regime and the essence of the dictatorship of the party led to the dictatorship of one person.
At first, Stalin’s main opponent was He, along with Lenin, organized the October Revolution, while Koba did not claim leadership at all. It was because of this that Trotsky was the first to be repressed. At the last moment he managed to emigrate. The revolutionary lived in Mexico for several more years until he was killed by a Soviet agent in 1940.
It is worth noting that some of the above principles developed by the Bolsheviks were later successfully used by the Nazis in the Third Reich. In the modern world, party dictatorship is much less common. Today, a country with such a political system is communist China, where all state institutions are also replaced by party ones, and the opposition is banned.