IN late XIX century, the Russian Empire was considered a powerful state in the world with a strong economy and a stable political system. However, in the new century, the country faced a revolution and a long struggle to establish a specific model of statehood.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the country witnessed the dominance of various parties with completely different programs and political leaders. Who led the future revolutionary movement, and which parties waged the most intense and lengthy struggle for power?

The main political parties of the country at the beginning of the 20th century and their political positions

The presence of various state parties, both with sharply revolutionary and liberal views on the future of the country, directly testified to the crisis of power. At the beginning of the 20th century, Nicholas II could still change the course of history by ensuring that all the named parties ceased to exist. However, the inaction of the monarch only further spurred political activists.

As a result, the country experienced two revolutions and literally being torn apart by the Mensheviks, Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. In the end, the Bolsheviks managed to win, but only at the cost of thousands of losses, a sharp deterioration in the economic situation and a decrease in the international authority of the country.

By the beginning of the 20th century, political activity in Russia reached its maximum. All social party organizations that existed at that time were divided into three main branches: socialist movements, liberal and monarchical. Each of the movements reflected the mood of the main segments of the population.

Economic demands of the first Russian parties in the Russian Empire

Octobrists

The Octobrist Party was created in November 1905. The social base of the party consisted of the intelligentsia, the commercial and industrial bourgeoisie, and landowners. Guchkov A.F. became the leader of the party. The number of the party was 50 thousand people. The party program envisaged the introduction of universal voting rights, independent court, equalization of all classes, gradual improvement of the situation of workers, state insurance. The activities of the Octobrists were concentrated in the State Duma. But by 1916, they became disillusioned with Nicholas II’s ability to bring the war to a victorious end and put forward the idea of ​​a palace coup. However, the February Revolution prevented them from implementing it. After the revolution, the Octobrists tried to save the monarchy. Guchkov entered the Provisional Government as Minister of Navy and War, but resigned two months later, disagreeing with its policies. The Octobrists did not accept the October Revolution. Most of the party members fought for the “white idea” on the fields of the Civil War and ended their lives in exile.

Social Democrats

The formation of the party actually took place at the Second Congress of the RSDLP in 1903. The founders of the party were V.I. Lenin, Yu.O. Martov, G.V. Plekhanov, A.N. Potresov. The social base of the party consisted of the intelligentsia, workers and petty bourgeoisie of the city. The party program provided for the overthrow of the autocracy, the establishment of suffrage for the working people, the election of officials, political freedoms, the right of nations to self-determination, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, workers' control, and state insurance. The party split into two wings (Mensheviks under the leadership of Martov and Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin) at the founding congress. But until 1917 it acted as a single entity. The final formation into two different parties occurred in 1917 with the adoption by the Bolsheviks of Lenin’s April Theses, in which he called not to recognize the Provisional Government and was preparing for new revolution. And the Mensheviks entered the Provisional Government.

Social Revolutionaries

The creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party took place in 1901-02. The social base of the Social Revolutionaries consisted of the intelligentsia, students, and the petty bourgeoisie of the city and countryside. Chernov became the main theorist and prominent leader of the party. The goal of the party was the destruction of the autocracy, the establishment of universal suffrage, political freedoms, the election of officials, the introduction of an 8-hour working day, state insurance, and increased wages. The Social Revolutionaries advocated the socialization of the land, which meant the abolition of private ownership of it, its withdrawal from trade and distribution among everyone who wants to cultivate it. The Socialist Revolutionary Party actively used the tactics of individual terror. The “Combat Organization” that existed in the party, headed by E.F. Azef, prepared and carried out the murder of the Minister of Internal Affairs V.K. Plehve, Ufa Governor N.M. Bogdanovich, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. At the end of 1908, the provocateur Azef was exposed, which dealt a significant blow to the authority of the party. The party condemned the start of the war with Germany and called for "solidarity of the working people of the whole world." After the February Revolution, the party's influence and numbers increased sharply. The Social Revolutionaries, together with the Mensheviks, formed the majority in the Petrograd Soviet of Workers and soldiers' deputies. The party spoke in favor of supporting the Provisional Government and a coalition with bourgeois parties. The government from the Social Revolutionaries included: Kerensky A.F., Chernov V.M. and others. The majority of the Socialist Revolutionaries did not accept the October revolution and the party split.

Now let’s look at what was typical for modern political parties.

What is characteristic of modern political parties, in particular, is that they:

1. are political organizations;

2. are public organizations (non-governmental);

3. are stable and fairly broad political associations that have their own bodies, regional branches, and ordinary members;

4. have their own program and charter;

5. built on certain organizational principles,

6. have a fixed membership (although, for example, the US Republican and Democratic parties traditionally do not have a fixed membership);

7. rely on a certain social stratum, a mass base represented by those who vote for party representatives in elections.

According to the place and role of parties in the political system, they are divided into:

State (party ideology becomes state, the party forms a state management system);

Parliamentary (acting in competitive political systems Oh).

There is a classification of parties according to the criterion of organizational structure:

Centralized;

Decentralized;

Personnel;

Mass;

Parties with formally defined principles of membership;

Parties with free membership.

According to the type of party leadership, parties are:

Collective leadership;

Collective leadership with a clearly expressed supremacy of the leader;

Personal guidance;

Charismatic leadership;

Consensual leadership.

Political parties in modern societies perform the following functions:

Representation - expression of the interests of certain groups of the population;

Socialization - the involvement of part of the population among its members and supporters;

Ideological function - developing a political platform that is attractive to a certain part of society;

Participation in the struggle for power - selection, promotion of political personnel and provision of conditions for their activities;

Participation in the formation of political systems - their principles, elements, structures.

3. Revolutionary democratic movement. RSDLP and Socialist Revolutionaries

The revolutionary democratic movement in Russia was formed by two large socio-political movements - populism, based on the ideas of peasant, utopian socialism, and proletarianism, the ideological basis of which was Marxism.

The most important parties in the movement of the formation were the group of V.G. Plekhanov “liberation of labor” (19883 – 1903) and the “St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” (1895), created by V.I. Lenin.

The unification of social democratic groups and circles throughout the country, the adoption of the program and charter took place at the 2nd Congress of the RSDLP (July - August 1903). The program of social democracy concentrated on the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution: the accomplishment of autocracy, the convening of the Constituent Assembly, the establishment of a democratic republic, the constitution of which would ensure the establishment of civil and political rights and freedoms, the demand for the right of all nations to self-determination, broad socio-economic demands for workers. For peasants, the program provided for the abolition of serfdom: the return of plots of land to them, the abolition of redemption payments, etc.

The program outlined the basic ideas of Marxism: the replacement of private property with public property, the introduction of a planned organization of production to ensure the comprehensive development of all members of society, the elimination of all types of exploitation of one part of society by another.

At the 2nd Congress of the RSDPR, the party split into two wings - supporters of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and their opponents - the Mensheviks. The Mensheviks did not recognize Lenin's innovations and were consistent supporters of Western European social democracy and the widespread use of the reformist path of development. The Mensheviks were a moderate, reform-oriented movement of the RSDPR. Its main leaders and ideologists were P.B. Akeldor, F.I. Dan, March, G.V. Plekhanov, A.N. Potresov and others. Of course, the internal struggle between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks weakened the actions of the RSDPR.

The establishment of Marxism in the Russian labor movement took place in a long and bitter struggle against populist ideas that had taken deep roots in the revolutionary movement of Russia. In the 90s, the populist movement, having survived the revolutionary and liberal stages, found itself in a deep crisis. Numerous populist circles and groups are emerging abroad and in Russia. One of the first emigrant organizations of populists is the “Union of Russian Socialists-Revolutionaries.” In January 1902, the newspaper “Revolutionary Russia” published abroad announced the creation of a party based on the merger of populist organizations socialist revolution- Socialist-Revolutionaries (Socialist Revolutionaries). From their predecessors, the Narodniks, the Socialist Revolutionaries adopted an ideology that combined a program for the liberation of the country's peasantry from feudal-serf dependence with the ideas of utopian socialism, a non-capitalist path of development of Russia.

In Russia, a new party declared itself through terrorist acts.

The first revolution was powerful impulse for the political and organizational strengthening of the positions of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. In December 1905, in a semi-legal environment, the first congress of socialist revolutionaries took place in Finland, at which a charter was adopted, according to which anyone who accepted the party program, obeyed the regulations and participated in one of the party organizations was considered a party member. The ideological, theoretical and political foundations of the Socialist Revolutionary Party were justified in the program document approved by the congress.

The program was focused on the liberation of the working class and all layers of the exploited labor population through a social revolutionary revolution, the socialization of labor, property and economy, the destruction, along with private property, of the very division of society into classes, as well as the destruction of the class, forced-repressive nature of public institutions while maintaining and the development of their normal cultural functions, i.e. systematic organization of universal labor for the benefit of all.

In the political and legal field, the Social Revolutionaries recognized the following human and civil rights: complete freedom of conscience, speech, press, meetings and unions, freedom of movement, choice of occupation and collective refusal to work; inviolability of person, home, universal equal suffrage for every citizen at least 20 years of age, without distinction of gender, religion or nationality.

The Socialist-Revolutionaries believed that a democratic republic should exercise broad autonomy for regions and communities, both urban and rural, make the greatest possible use of federal relations between individual nationalities, and recognize their right to self-determination. They were supporters of “direct popular legislation” (referendum and initiative), election, turnover “at any time and the jurisdiction of all officials, including deputies and judges"; the complete separation of church and state and the declaration of religion as a private matter for everyone; the destruction of the standing army and its replacement by the people's militia. In the “national economic field” the program requirements were: the introduction of a progressive tax on income and inheritance with complete exemption from tax on small incomes, the abolition of indirect taxes.

In matters of labor legislation, the Socialist Revolutionaries set as their goal the protection of the spiritual and physical forces of the working class in the city and in the countryside. For these purposes, the party declared its intention to defend the greatest possible reduction in working hours, the establishment minimum wages, state insurance in all types, legislative labor protection in all areas of production and trade, professional organizations of workers.

The Social Revolutionaries stood for the development of all kinds of public services and enterprises (free medical assistance, zemstvo-agronomic and food organization, etc.).

The most prominent figures and ideologists of the Socialist Revolutionaries were N.D. Avksentyev, G.A. Gershuni, B.V. Savinkov, V.L. Chernov.

An important role in the propaganda of the Socialist Revolutionaries was played by their print media: the newspaper “Delo Naroda”, “Revolutionary Russia”, and the magazine “Bulletin of the Russian Revolution”.

In 1907, the Socialist Revolutionary Party increased in number 30 times and became the largest petty-bourgeois party of the populist type. In total, there were more than 65 thousand people in the party at that time. Among the party members there were many peasants - 45%, workers - 48%, intelligentsia - 11.6%.

The main tactical slogan was a call for an armed uprising, and the Social Revolutionaries considered terror to be the main tactical means against the autocracy. The Socialist Revolutionary Party was characterized by internal organizational instability, a tendency toward splits, division, and the formation of new parties. Two biases emerged - right and left.

Right leaders - A.V. Peshekhonov, N.F. Anensky, V.A. Myakotin became the founders of the People's Socialist Party (Enes). Their programs were in many ways consonant with the program of the Socialist Revolutionaries. However, the Popular Socialists were skeptical about the peasant community, allowed the possibility of buying out landowners' lands, and refrained from calling on the peasantry to seize land.

The Socialist-Revolutionary and Popular Socialist parties did not completely demarcate among themselves. The moderation of the Popular Socialists is acceptable to the Socialist Revolutionaries. In addition, several regional populist parties were formed.

But only the Socialist Revolutionary Party declared itself as a serious political force.

The process of formation of political parties in Russia, significantly accelerated by the revolution of 1905 - 1907, was dynamic and covered all social strata and classes of Russian society. In 1907, there were up to 50 political parties in Russia. The “Union of the Russian People”, Octobrists, Cadets, Socialist Revolutionaries were mass political structures, they had their program document press organs enjoyed significant support from certain class social strata and groups of the population.

These and other parties, together with social movements, formed three socio-political camps - government-conservative, liberal-bourgeois and revolutionary-democratic. The relationship between the parties went beyond belonging to a particular camp.

The most important result of the people's revolution of 1905-1907 was the formation of a multi-party system, and since 1906 - the First State Duma and a multi-party political system. Thus, autocratic monarchical Russia stood on a par with the European powers, which by that time already had significant experience in the functioning of multi-party political systems. However, unlike European countries, all Russian political parties operated in the absence of constitutional protection of political freedoms and were (with the exception of monarchist parties) under heavy police pressure.

In 1905-1907 political parties were unable to implement their program guidelines. The Bolsheviks' hopes of overthrowing the autocracy were not justified. Attempts by the cadets to turn State Duma to a European-style parliament were not successful, since the consent of the tsarist government to convene the Duma was of a forced, palliative nature. The radicalized socio-political movement came into conflict with the intention of the tsarist government to do its best to preserve the autocracy intact, which added to the deep socio-economic contradictions a contradiction in the political sphere and deepened the crisis of power in Russia.

1. Munchaev Sh.M., Ustinov V.M. history of Russia - M.: Infra - M - Norma, 1997.

2. Essays on the history of social movements and political parties in Russia / ed. Romanova V.V. – Khabarovsk, 1993

3. History of the USSR, 1990 No. 4 Political parties 1905 – 1907, p. 25–21.

4. Golovatenko A. Current problems in the history of Russia - M, 1993

5. History of political parties in Russia / ed. A.I. Zaveleva - M.: Higher School, 1994

Old men and women acted together against, and at times prevented, pogroms of landowners' estates. At the same time, a particular militancy of young men in the villages was noted. In the book "Russia as a Developing Society" we showed that differences in the mentality and behavior of age groups were determined by the social characteristics of the family economy and village life. "Old people" who were...

St. Petersburg Polytechnic Institute K.P. Boklevsky, A.G. Gusakov, I.I. Ivanyukov, A.P. Makedonsky and others. The organizing committee also included lawyer D.V. Stasov. Party leader – M.M. Kovalevsky. Among the political parties in Russia, the Party of Democratic Reforms occupied a middle position between the Constitutional Democratic Party and the Party of Peaceful Renewal. Published in January 1906...

Great government financial assistance, giving a large loan of money that was used to suppress the revolution. 1.5.2 Results of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907. One of the main results of the revolution of 1905-1907. There was a noticeable shift in the consciousness of the people. Patriarchal Russia was replaced by revolutionary Russia. The revolution was bourgeois-democratic in nature. She hit...

Democracy and law and order, preservation of all landowners' land, united and indivisible Russian Empire, protected from the world capitalist system. 2. Reforms of P.A. Stolypin and the State Duma The revolution created the need for reforms on basic issues of economic and political life. S.Yu. Witte back in 1893-1899. put forward a program for the reorganization of agriculture...

Backward agriculture, crop failures and years of famine, low profitability of small peasant farms, and the growing poverty of the poor part of the village (up to 50% of the rural population) increased social tension in Russian society.

Revolutionary democrats, liberal-democratic and socialist leaders, and progressive-minded intelligentsia have repeatedly written in their publications about the deep crisis in the social sphere, the need to overcome growing poverty, and the ignorance of the disadvantaged classes. For example, S.P. Botkin and his colleagues at the St. Petersburg Society of Russian Doctors, having studied the statistics of average life expectancy in the country (27 years for men, 29 years for women), came to an alarming conclusion in 1885: “Excessive mortality among the Russian population reduces its working capacity and drives the national economy to unprofitability. Increasing the working capacity of the population, and at the same time the well-being of education in our fatherland, is impossible without reducing mortality, and therefore reducing mortality and the closest means to this - improvement - constitute our state need."

Reflecting on the causes of the aggravating social crisis, zemstvo doctor A.I. Shingarev (future minister of agriculture in the first composition of the Provisional Government in 1917) in his work “The Dying Village” noted in 1901 that “the low cultural level of the population and its terrifying material prosperity and landlessness are directly dependent... on general conditions Russian life"*.

The growing social explosion should have been prevented by taking urgent measures in the field of social depreciation. However, the autocracy and the power structures in the Center and locally showed complete indifference to the difficult financial situation and health protection of hired workers and their families, and the legal lawlessness of entrepreneurs.

With all their desire, they could not solve the problems of social protection of working people and the disadvantaged by charitable societies and institutions, the number of which in January 1899 was only 14,854, including 7349 charitable societies and 7505 charitable institutions. The forms and nature of social assistance activities depended on their type. If charitable societies assisted persons who turned to them for help at the time of their visit, then charitable institutions, in addition to one-time assistance to those in need, provided shelter and food to those who lived in them on a permanent basis. In 1898, 461.4 thousand people lived there permanently, and more than 7 million people used various services. The number of one-time requests amounted to about 20 million.

On the eve and during the years of the first Russian revolution of 1905-1907. Political parties and movements launched a search for ways to socially renovate Russia, a fair solution to worker and peasant issues, and social protection for the needy segments of the population. As the organization took shape, leading parties of various political orientations expressed their views on the decision social problems in program documents adopted at the relevant congresses.

So, in my opinion, the insufficient knowledge of this problem in relation to modern society is relevant, which was the reason for choosing the topic for writing this work.

The purpose of this work is a comprehensive study and presentation of material on the socio-political problems of the programs of the Bolshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties of the early twentieth century.

The objectives of the work are to consider the Bolshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties belonging to this periodical, which were of great importance for that time in socio-economic and political changes Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as an analytical review of their programs, and identification of the discussed problems of the latter.

The subject of the study is the programs of parties of the early twentieth century.

The object of the study is the parties of the early twentieth century in the context of their activities in the socio-political aspect.

1. SOCIAL DOCTRINES OF POLITICAL PARTIES OF RUSSIA AT THE BEGINNING OF THE XX CENTURY

1.1. Russian Social Democratic Labor Party

Among the first, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (1903) formulated a wide range of demands for the provision of social and economic rights to hired workers in its Program. Along with general political tasks (the revolutionary overthrow of the autocracy and its replacement with a democratic republic, the introduction of universal, equal and direct suffrage, local self-government, freedom of conscience, speech, press, meetings, strikes and unions, etc.), 16 points outlined measures for; organizations for social protection of working people.

In the interests of protecting the working class from physical and moral degeneration, the Social Democrats put forward demands to limit the working day to 8 hours a day, prohibit overtime work, establish a weekly rest of up to 42 hours, prohibit night work in all sectors of the national economy, with the exception of production continuous cycle.

The program contained requirements to protect children from exploitation in production: prohibiting entrepreneurs from using the labor of children under 16 years of age, limiting the working day of adolescents (16-18 years old) to six hours. Separate clauses provided for the exclusion of female labor in those sectors where it was harmful to female body, protection of motherhood and childhood. As practical measures, it was proposed to release women for four weeks and up to six weeks after childbirth, maintaining wages at the usual rate for all this time, to establish nurseries for infants and young children at all enterprises where women work; release women who are breastfeeding from work at least every three hours for a period of at least half an hour.

An important element of social protection was contained in the clause on the need to introduce state insurance for workers in case of old age and complete or partial loss of ability to work “at the expense of a special fund compiled through a special tax on capitalists.”

Social Democrats opposed the payment of wages in goods and for the prohibition of monetary fines from the wages of employees, which were widely used by entrepreneurs for their own selfish purposes.

Demands were put forward to establish criminal liability of employers for violation of labor protection rules, sanitary supervision at enterprises and in government-owned residential premises, the participation of workers in self-government bodies, and the determination of hiring procedures work force. The RSDLP program demanded the introduction of “free medical care for workers at the expense of entrepreneurs, with maintenance during illness.”

More concisely, in order to “eliminate the remnants of the serfdom,” the RSDLP Program, its agrarian part, was set out in 5 points. The following were considered as urgent steps: abolition of redemption dues and duties; laws “constraining the peasant in the disposal of his land”; the return to the peasants of the sums of money taken from them in the form of redemption and quitrent payments, the creation of a people’s fund for the cultural and charitable needs of rural societies.

Seeking an alliance between the working class and the entire peasantry at the stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, the RSDLP included in its Program a clause on the establishment of peasant committees to return to rural societies those lands that were cut off from the peasants during the abolition of serfdom and served in the hands of the landowners as an instrument of their enslavement. At the third congress of the RSDLP (1905), in which only the left wing of Social Democracy (Bolsheviks) took part, a more radical task was formulated: to fight for sections under the slogan of confiscation of landowners, state, church, monastery and appanage lands. This task was supposed to be solved through “the immediate organization of revolutionary committees with the aim of carrying out all revolutionary democratic transformations in the interests of ridding the peasantry of police, bureaucratic and landlord oppression.” Thus, the solution to the social problems of the peasants of the RSDLP was directly linked to their participation in the revolution led by the working class.

In the interests of the country's social and cultural progress, the RSDLP put forward a demand for free general and vocational education for children of both sexes up to 16 years of age, and for the provision of poor children with clothing and educational aids at the expense of the state.

1.2. Socialist Revolutionary Party

At the beginning of the twentieth century. In Russia, along with Social Democracy, another force entered into active political activity - the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs), who were the main party of peasant democracy. It was constituted at the end of 1901 and beginning of 1902 as a result of the merger of several neo-populist organizations. The name of the party “Socialist Revolutionaries” was not accidental. It stemmed from the fact that the Socialist Revolutionaries set as their task the transformation of society on a socialist basis. “The Party of Socialist Revolutionaries in Russia considers itself as one of the detachments of the army of international socialism and conducts its activities in the spirit of the general interests of its struggle, in forms corresponding to the specific conditions of Russian reality,” stated the Socialist Revolutionary Program adopted in 1905.

The formation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (AKP), like the RSDLP, was a long and complex process. Its formation took place on the basis of the merger of a number of Russian regional and emigrant populist organizations that were formed back in the 90s of the nineteenth century. These parties, unions, leagues were carriers of different trends in populism. Some of them remained faithful to the Narodnaya Volya traditions of terror. Others pinned their hopes on the creation of a mass party of “revolutionary socialism” and looked at terror as only an additional means of fighting the autocracy, and some were even ready to abandon it. But regardless of their tactical views, they were all united by the desire to renew the populist ideology in the conditions of the new historical situation, when capitalist relations were established in Russia.

Just as “Iskra” acted as a collective propagandist, agitator and organizer of social democratic forces, the newspaper “Revolutionary Russia” and the magazine “Bulletin of the Russian Revolution” were of corresponding importance for the unification of neo-populist forces and the spread of their influence among the masses. It is very significant that the first issues of Iskra and Revolutionary Russia were published almost simultaneously, and also almost simultaneously at the end of 1905, both competing revolutionary newspapers ceased to exist. Since January 1902, from the moment of publication in “Revolutionary Russia” of the notice about the creation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, the newspaper became its official organ. The newspaper was designed to promote Socialist Revolutionary views both among party members and among the broad masses. The theoretical organ of the AKP was the “Bulletin of the Russian Revolution”. The draft AKP program was published in the newspaper “Revolutionary Russia” in 1904 (N 46). Its leading author was V. M. Chernov (1873-1952), who emerged at the end of the 19th century as the most prominent theorist of neo-populism.

The party program was developed by its leaders: V.M. Chernov, A.R. Gots, G.A. Gershuni, N.D. Avksentiev. They advocated the elimination of autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the transfer of land to peasants, and democratic reforms. The Social Revolutionaries chose the same methods of struggle for the implementation of their program as the populists - individual terror. For this purpose, a terrorist combat organization was created within the party in 1902, headed by G.A. Gershuni. The militant organization committed a number of terrorist acts, as a result of which the Ministers of Internal Affairs D.S. were killed. Sipyagin and V.K. Plehve, Moscow Governor-General Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. The terror of the Social Revolutionaries provoked a response from the authorities, and in 1903 G.A. Gershuni was arrested. The fighting organization was headed by E.F. Azef, he was also an agent of the security department of the Police Department. Already at the First Party Congress, held at the end of 1905 - beginning of 1906, the party split. The left wing created a separate organization called the "Union of Socialists - Revolutionaries - Maximalists." The maximalists demanded the immediate socialization of not only the land, but also factories and factories. Their means of struggle was to undermine the political and economic power of the old government through terror and private expropriations. The right wing created the “Labor People's Socialist Party” - the Popular Socialist Party. They declared their intention to create a legal party of an open type, believing that conspiratorial methods of work cannot solve the main task - to organize masses . The bulk of the Socialist Revolutionaries gave preference to the leaders of the center, who decided to strictly follow the program adopted at the First Congress. The leader of the centrists was V.M. Chernov. The Social Revolutionaries boycotted the elections to the First State Duma, and in the Second Duma they received 37 deputy seats. After the dissolution of the Second Duma, the elections to the Third Duma were boycotted. There was no unity in the party regarding Russia's participation in the First World War. After the February Revolution, the Socialist Revolutionaries became more active. In May 1917, the Socialist Revolutionary Party was the largest and most influential party in Russia: over 500 thousand members, had organizations in 63 provinces, in the fleets and fronts of the active army. The Social Revolutionaries, together with the Mensheviks, from February to July-August played a leading role in most Soviets and were part of the Provisional Government (A.F. Kerensky, V.M. Chernov, N.D. Avsksentiev, etc.). By the summer of 1917, the split in the party intensified; maximalists and popular socialists (Enes) emerged from it, who in early December united into the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party. Those who remained in the party began to be called Right Socialist Revolutionaries. The Right Socialist Revolutionaries met the October Revolution with hostility. Having gone underground, they created counter-revolutionary organizations, became the initiators of riots against Soviet power (in Yaroslavl, Murom, Rybinsk and a number of other cities, in the Volga region, Siberia, and the Far East), terrorist acts (the murder of V. Volodarsky on June 20, 1918, M.S. Uritsky on August 30, 1918; on August 30, 1918, the right-wing Socialist Revolutionary F.E. Kaplan seriously wounded V.I. In June 1918, the right Socialist Revolutionaries in Samara, with the help of foreign interventionists, created the Komuch government. On June 14, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee expelled the Right Socialist Revolutionaries from its membership. In September 1918, they formed the Ufa Directory and throughout the civil war they waged a fierce struggle with Soviet power. The Socialist Revolutionaries organized a series of rebellions among wealthy peasants, as well as the Kronstadt revolt of 1921. In 1923, the Right Socialist Revolutionary Party was banned by the Soviet government. Some of its leaders emigrated, some were arrested. The Left Socialist Revolutionaries (leaders M.A. Spiridonova and others) in October 1917 organized themselves into a separate party and from January 26, 1918 began publishing the newspaper “Maximalist”, then a magazine under the same name. The Left Social Revolutionaries (maximalists) recognized Soviet power, their representatives participated in the All-Russian Congresses of Soviets (from the 2nd to the 7th), and were members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and local Soviets. But the maximalists did not recognize the dictatorship of the proletariat, denied the need to centralize the management of the country’s economy and workers’ control, opposed the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, and participated in anti-Soviet riots, in particular in July 1918. organized a Left Socialist Revolutionary rebellion in Moscow. At the 5th conference in April 1919, a split occurred among the left SRs: a minority of the left SRs openly switched to anti-Soviet positions, the other, recognizing the Bolshevik program, at the conference in April 1920, decided to join the RCP (b).

In developing the agrarian program, Lenin proceeded from the fact that the agrarian question formed the basis and national peculiarity bourgeois revolution in Russia. The severity of the agrarian question in tsarist Russia was due to the fact that a huge amount of land was concentrated in large landowner latifundia, while the mass of peasant farms suffered from a lack of land. In the European part of Russia, on average, 1 landowner's latifundia accounted for 2,333 dessiatines of land, and 1 peasant household - 7-15 dessiatines. Against this background is the backwardness of agricultural technology, the downtrodden masses of the peasantry, and various forms of serf-like semi-feudal exploitation. The essence of the agrarian revolution was supposed to be the destruction of the latifundia and the transfer of land into the hands of the peasants, the elimination of the remnants of serfdom as a condition for the free development of capitalism. Lenin proceeded from the fact that in Russia there was objectively the possibility of two types of capitalist agrarian evolution: landowner (Prussian) and peasant (American). The first path means the slow development of large landowner farms into capitalist ones, a slow and painful process of expropriation of the peasantry, accompanied by the separation of a small minority of “grossbauers” (kulaks). The second path assumes the absence of landowners or their destruction by revolution, and small peasant farms become the head of development, the patriarchal peasant evolves into a capitalist farmer. The first path requires continuous, systematic violence against the peasantry and proletariat. The second path is also associated with a violent breakup, but it is carried out in the interests of the peasantry, the development of capitalism is freer, faster, it is associated with the enormous growth of the domestic market. Lenin shows that in the economic history of Russia both types of capitalist agrarian evolution were clearly revealed: in the center of the country development followed the Prussian path, in the outskirts - along the American one. The class struggle between landowners and peasants was objectively a struggle for one or another type of capitalist agrarian evolution. Lenin proves this by analyzing the programs of all political parties and classes, the struggle on the land issue in the State Dumas, the first (1906) and, especially, the second (1907). All parties of the landowners and bourgeoisie, from the Black Hundreds to the Cadets, advocated the reformist, landowner path of development. The revolutionary, peasant path was defended by representatives of the proletariat and peasantry. Peasant deputies from all regions of Russia spoke in the Duma in favor of nationalizing the land. The populist parties also included this demand in their program. Noting the fallacy of their pseudo-socialist views, Lenin at the same time believes that their petty-bourgeois democracy was progressive for that time, because they reflected the struggle of the peasantry against the latifundia.

Lenin examines the agrarian programs of Russian Social Democracy in their historical development: he analyzes the agrarian project of the “Emancipation of Labor” group, the “cutoff” program of the RSDLP of 1903 and, especially, the struggle on the agrarian question at the Fourth (Unification) Congress of the RSDLP in 1906. Defending the Bolshevik agrarian program struggle for the nationalization of the land, Lenin criticized the project of the “divisionists” and, most sharply, the program of municipalization of the land adopted at the congress, which was defended by the Mensheviks. He proves that the Menshevik program is reactionary, because it proposes to preserve allotment land ownership, and transfer privately owned lands to local governments; it perpetuates the fragmentation of the peasant movement. The demands of the popular masses are most fully reflected in peasant and populist projects. Among the peasants, the demand to abolish private ownership of land was spontaneous; the populists clothed their projects in quasi-socialist forms. The Bolshevik agrarian program was scientifically substantiated (see Agrarian program of Bolshevism). Lenin points out that the scientific concept of land nationalization is inextricably linked with the theory of capitalist land rent. Differential rent does not depend on private land ownership; Nationalization of land does not mean its destruction, but its transfer to the state. Private ownership of land gives rise to absolute rent. It interferes with the free application of capital to agriculture. Nationalization of land, destroying private land ownership, also destroys absolute rent; it means the abolition of the monopoly that hinders the development of capitalism. Consequently, the nationalization of land is not only the only way the complete elimination of the Middle Ages, but also the best conceivable way of land management under capitalism.

Considering the question of land ownership historically, Lenin proves that the nationalization of land in a capitalist society is most feasible in the era of bourgeois revolutions; in the future, the bourgeois can no longer take the path of radical agrarian reforms, because he is afraid of the struggle of the proletariat against all private property, and land ownership has already turned from feudal into bourgeois. Lenin emphasizes that in Russia there was just such a favorable combination of conditions when the nationalization of land became possible as a measure of bourgeois progress: the Russian revolution at its bourgeois-democratic stage is a peasant revolution. Elaborating on the question of a bourgeois revolution of the peasant type, about its driving forces, Lenin proves that it can only win under the leadership of the proletariat. The breadth and depth of agrarian reforms depends on the breadth and depth of the political revolution. The agrarian program of the Bolsheviks is designed for the complete completion of the bourgeois-democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat, for the establishment of a revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry, which will carry out the nationalization of the land. In the afterword to the book, written in September 1917, Lenin points out that in the new period, when the development of the contradictions of capitalism put the socialist revolution on the agenda, the nationalization of the land becomes not only the “last word” of the bourgeois revolution, but also a step towards socialism. Lenin notes that the most important issues of agrarian policy that arose during this period are set out in his works: “Letter on Tactics” and “Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution.”

Lenin's work "The Agrarian Program of Social Democracy in the First Russian Revolution of 1905-1907" has enormous international significance as a major contribution to Marxist agrarian theory; it helps the communist and workers' parties of all countries, taking into account specific historical conditions, to develop their agrarian programs and tactics in relation to the peasantry. Translated into the languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR and foreign languages.

2.2. Program of the Socialist Revolutionary Party

Modern Russia, culturally and socially, is entering into ever closer ties with the advanced countries of the civilized world, while retaining, however, a number of features due to the uniqueness of its previous history, its local conditions and international position.

In all the advanced countries of the civilized world, in parallel with the growth of the population and its needs, there is an increase in human power over nature, an improvement in the ways of controlling its natural forces and an increase in the creative power of human labor in all areas of its application. This growth is a necessary condition social progress and the struggle for the comprehensive and harmonious development of human individuality.

But this growth of human power over nature occurs in modern society under the conditions of bourgeois competition between disparate economic units, private ownership of the means of production, their transformation into capital, the preliminary expropriation of direct producers or their indirect subordination to capital. As these foundations of modern society develop, it splits more and more sharply into a class of exploited workers, receiving a smaller and smaller share of the benefits created by their labor, and classes of exploiters, monopolizing ownership of the natural forces of nature and social means of production.

Since, within the close framework of bourgeois-capitalist relations, forms of collective labor and production on a large social scale are developing, albeit one-sidedly and incompletely, modern economic development reveals its positive creative sides, preparing some material elements for a higher socialist system of life and uniting them into a compact social force industrial armies of hired workers.

Since bourgeois-capitalist forms narrow, limit and distort the development of collective forms of labor and social productive forces, modern economic development reveals its negative, destructive sides: the anarchy of commodity production and competition; the fruitless waste of economic forces in it; crises, a stunning national economy at its very foundations; growth of exploitation, dependence and insecurity of the working masses; the power of money that corrupts all moral principles; the selfish struggle of all against all for an existing and privileged position.

The mutual relationship between these positive and negative sides modern economic development is different both for different branches of production and for different countries. Comparatively favorable in the higher branches of industry and countries of classical capitalism, it becomes less and less favorable in other branches of industry, especially agriculture, and in entire countries less favorably positioned in the international economic struggle.

But, regardless of these differences, the inconsistency and contradiction between the positive and negative aspects of modern economic development represent a general and growing fact, fraught with enormous historical consequences.

With the growth of the social distance between the exploiters and the exploited, with the growth of the contradiction between labor productivity and the insignificant share in the products of the working people themselves, with the growth of the rate of their exploitation, their dissatisfaction with their position in modern society grows.

On the basis of the spontaneous process of aggravation of class relations, conscious and systematic intervention in the course of events by organized collective forces, in the name of one or another social ideal, the ultimate goal, with systematically developed tactics, is increasingly developing. Their expediently directed struggle simultaneously covers all aspects of the life of society - economic, political and spiritual.

The exploiting classes strive to perpetuate the basis of their existence - exploitation through rent, profit on capital in all its forms and taxation of the working masses. Through syndicates, cartels and trusts, they strive to master, in their selfish ways, the conditions of production and sales. They strive to adapt all the institutions of the modern state to their class interests and turn it entirely into an instrument of their domination and enslavement of the exploited. Finally, they strive to subordinate to themselves spiritually and materially literature, art, science, and the oratory, in order to keep the working masses not only in economic, but also in mental slavery.

Having no other resources or having exhausted them in the struggle, they resort to alliances with the reactionary forces of the moribund past, resurrecting racial and religious enmity, poisoning the people's consciousness with chauvinism and nationalism, entering into compromises with the remnants of monarchical, old noble and clerical institutions.

Having outlived all its former progressive content, the bourgeois system leads to the intellectual degeneration of the class ruling classes in it, increasingly pushing away the mental and moral color of the nation and forcing it to gravitate towards the camp of the oppressed and exploited, hostile to the bourgeoisie.

The exploited classes naturally strive to defend themselves from the oppression weighing on them and, as their consciousness grows, they increasingly unite this struggle and direct it against the very foundations of bourgeois exploitation. International in its essence, this movement is more and more defined as a movement of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority, and this is the guarantee of its victory.

The conscious expression, scientific illumination and message of this movement is international revolutionary socialism. Setting as its task the mental, political and economic emancipation of the working class, it acts primarily as an initiative revolutionary minority, as a militant vanguard of the working masses, while at the same time constantly striving to merge with these masses and embrace them entirely in its ranks. Its main practical task comes down to ensuring that all layers of the working and exploited population recognize themselves as a single working class, see in their class unity the guarantee of their liberation, and through a systematic organized struggle carry out a social revolutionary revolution, the program of which is: the liberation of all public institutions from under the power of the exploiting classes: destruction, together with private ownership of the natural forces of nature and social means of production, the very division of society into classes: destruction of the modern class forced-repressive nature of public institutions, while maintaining and developing their normal cultural functions, i.e. systematic organization of universal labor for the benefit of all.

Only the implementation of this program will make it possible for the continuous, free and unhindered development of all the spiritual and material forces of humanity; only he will transform the growth of social wealth from a source of dependence and oppression of the working class into a source of its well-being and comprehensive, harmonious development of the individual; only it will stop the degeneration of humanity, on the one hand from idleness and satiety, on the other - from excessive labor and half-starved existence; Only with the implementation of a free socialist community will humanity develop unhindered physically, mentally and morally, fully embodying truth, justice and solidarity in the forms of its social life. And this is the meaning of the cause of revolutionary socialism: the cause of the liberation of all humanity. It leads to the elimination of all forms of internecine struggle between people, all forms of violence and exploitation of man by man, to freedom, equality and brotherhood of all without distinction of sex, race, religion and nationality.

The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Russia views its cause as organic component the worldwide struggle of labor against exploitation, of the human person against the social forms that are constraining for its development, and leads it in the spirit of the general interests of this struggle, in forms corresponding to the specific conditions of Russian reality.

“The entire burden of the struggle against the autocracy, despite the presence of a liberal-democratic opposition, covering mainly elements of an “educated society” that are intermediate in class terms, falls on the proletariat, the working peasantry and the revolutionary socialist intelligentsia. The necessary task of the socialist party, to which the leading role in This struggle results in the expansion and deepening at the revolutionary moment of those social and property changes with which the overthrow of the autocracy should be associated.”

Full implementation of its program, i.e. the expropriation of capitalist property and the reorganization of production and the entire social system on socialist principles presupposes the complete victory of the working class, organized in a social revolutionary party, and, if necessary, the establishment of its temporary revolutionary dictatorship.

As long as, as a revolutionary minority, the organized working class can exert only partial influence on the change in the social system and the course of legislation, the Socialist Revolutionary Party will strive to ensure that the policy of partial conquests does not obscure from the working class its ultimate, fundamental goals; so that with his revolutionary struggle, even during this period, he achieves only such changes that will develop and strengthen his cohesion and ability to fight for liberation, helping to increase the level of his intellectual development and cultural needs, strengthening his fighting positions and eliminating obstacles standing in the way of his organizations.

Since the process of transformation of Russia will proceed under the leadership of non-socialist forces, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, based on the considerations developed above, will defend, support or wrest through its revolutionary struggle the following reforms:

In the political and legal field:

Establishment of a democratic republic, with broad autonomy for regions and communities, both urban and rural; a wider application of the federal principle to relations between individual nationalities is possible; recognition of their unconditional right to self-determination; direct, secret, equal, universal right to vote for every citizen at least 20 years of age, without distinction of gender, religion, nationality; proportional representation; direct popular legislation (referendum and initiative); election, replacement at any time and jurisdiction of all officials; complete freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly, workers' strikes and unions; complete and universal civil equality; inviolability of person and home; complete separation of church and state and the declaration of religion as a private matter for everyone; the establishment of compulsory, equal general secular education for all at the state expense; equality of languages; free legal proceedings; the destruction of the standing army and its replacement by the people's militia.

In the national economic field:

1. In matters of labor legislation, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party sets as its goal the protection of spiritual and physical strength the working class and increasing its capacity for further liberation struggle, the general interests of which must be subordinated to all narrow - practical, immediate, local and professional interests of individual working strata. In these types, the party will defend: the greatest possible reduction in working time within the limits of surplus labor; establishment of a legal maximum working time in accordance with the standards specified by scientific hygiene (in the near future, an eight-hour standard for most industries, and correspondingly less in more dangerous and harmful to health); establishing minimum wages by agreement between self-government bodies and trade unions of workers; state insurance in all its types (from accidents, from unemployment, in case of illness, old age, etc.) at the expense of the state and owners and on the basis of self-government of the insured, legislative labor protection in all sectors of production and trade, in accordance with the requirements of scientific hygiene , under the supervision of a factory inspectorate elected by workers (normal working conditions, hygienic arrangement of premises, prohibition of work for minors under 16 years of age, restriction of the work of minors, prohibition of female and child labor in certain branches of production and during certain periods, sufficient uninterrupted weekly rest, etc. .); professional organization workers and their progressively expanding participation in establishing internal regulations in industrial establishments.

3. In questions financial policy the party will campaign for the introduction of a progressive tax on income and inheritance, with complete exemption from tax on small incomes below a certain norm; for the abolition of indirect taxes (excluding the taxation of luxury goods), protective duties and all taxes in general falling on labor.

4. In matters of municipal and zemstvo management, the party will stand for the development of all kinds of public services (free medical care, zemstvo-agronomic organization, communal water supply, lighting, roads and means of communication, etc.); for providing urban and rural communities with the broadest tax rights real estate and by forced alienation” of them, especially in the interests of meeting the housing needs of the working population; for communal, zemstvo, as well as state policies that favor the development of cooperation on strictly democratic principles.

5. As for various measures aimed at nationalizing certain sectors of the national economy within the bourgeois state, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party will be able to meet them halfway only then and only insofar as the democratization of the political system and the balance of social forces are equally the very nature of the corresponding measures will provide sufficient guarantees against increasing in this way the dependence of the working class on the ruling bureaucracy. In general, the Socialist-Revolutionary Party warns the working class against that “state socialism”, which is partly a system of half-measures to lull the working class, and partly a kind of state capitalism, concentrating various branches of production and trade in the hands of the ruling bureaucracy, for the sake of its fiscal and political goals .

The Socialist-Revolutionary Party, starting a direct revolutionary struggle against the autocracy, is agitating for the convening of the Zemsky Sobor (Constituent Assembly), freely elected by all the people without distinction of gender, class, nationality and religion, to eliminate the autocratic regime and reorganize all modern orders. She will both defend her program for this reorganization in the Constituent Assembly and strive to directly implement it during the revolutionary period.

2.3. Common features in the programs of the Bolshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties

At the turn of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Socialist Revolutionaries could not deny, as their populist predecessors did, the very fact of the victory of capitalism in Russia. But the spread of capitalism in the country was largely explained by its artificial imposition by the government. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Socialist Revolutionaries still had hope for the stability of small peasant farming, which, they believed, would not be drawn into the orbit of capitalist relations and could become the basis for evolution towards socialism. Unwilling to acknowledge the increasing process of property stratification of the peasantry, the Socialist Revolutionaries explained this more by the influence of tsarist policies than by the result of the natural evolution of the capitalized village. They classified the majority of peasants who manage their own farms independently and do not use hired labor into the category of the so-called “labor peasantry.” Since the source of income for this category was their own labor, and not the exploitation of hired force, the Social Revolutionaries did not classify them as petty-bourgeois strata. In essence, there was no difference between the working peasantry and the factory worker in the minds of the Socialist Revolutionaries, since the source of their existence was their own labor.

The Socialist Revolutionaries considered the impending revolution in Russia neither bourgeois nor socialist, but “labor”, since it is carried out by the working masses and is aimed at implementing fundamental social changes. Its main task was “the socialization of labor, property and economy; the destruction, together with private property, of the very division of society into classes.” The Socialist Revolutionary program formulated the tasks of both the socialist and democratic stages of the revolution. The first included the main demand for the expropriation of capitalist property and the organization of production and the entire social life of the country on a socialist basis. And this presupposes “the complete victory of the working class, organized in a social revolutionary party, and, if necessary, the establishment of its temporary revolutionary dictatorship.”

In order to protect the spiritual and physical strength of the working class and create favorable conditions for its struggle for socialism, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, like the RSDLP, put forward the demand for an 8-hour working day, the introduction of state insurance, and the establishment of a minimum wage.

In accordance with their views on the tasks of the revolution in the countryside, the Socialist Revolutionaries advocated the socialization of the land, i.e. its withdrawal from private property and from the sphere of purchase and sale, and its transfer to the public domain, primarily to rural communities, as well as local self-government bodies. An equal-labor right to use land was established. No one could demand more land than he was able to cultivate it himself or with the labor of his family members.

In organizational terms, the Socialist Revolutionaries took into account the experience of the Party of the Second International, which they belonged to along with the RSDLP. Anyone who accepted its program, obeyed its decisions and participated in the work of one of its party organizations was considered a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. In contrast to the territorial-production principle of building the RSDLP, the Socialist-Revolutionaries proclaimed only a territorial one. The Social Revolutionaries had two governing bodies - the Central Committee and the Party Council. The Central Committee carried out the ideological and practical activities of the party. The Party Council included five members of the Central Committee and representatives of all regional organizations, as well as the Moscow and St. Petersburg organizations. The Party Council was convened by the Central Committee, its decisions were binding on the party, they could only be canceled by the congress.

The Combat Organization of the Social Revolutionaries, created at the end of 1901 by one of the party leaders G. A. Gershuni, had a special position in the party. She was strictly under wraps. Members of the Combat Organization did not take part in the regional committees of the party, nor did the latter participate in the activities of the Combat Group. Her relations with the Central Committee of the party were built through a special representative and were distinguished by great independence. Since 1903, the Combat Organization was headed by Yevno Azef, who was an informant for the Tsarist secret police.

On the eve of the first Russian revolution, the Socialist Revolutionaries did not yet have an approved general party program, there was no consistent tactical line, and there was a difficult search for organizational forms of the party organization. At the same time, on the eve of the revolution, it did not experience acute internal splits on these issues.

The Socialist Revolutionaries assessed the beginning of the revolution from a special point of view. In their opinion, the Russian revolution combined not only the tendencies of revolutions preceding it in world history, but also new social trends that had not previously been observed in world history. These trends were associated with the special historical mission of the peasantry and revolutionary intelligentsia in Russia.

The revolution, according to V.M. Chernov, came prematurely, when there were no actual forces prepared to defeat the autocracy. The Russo-Japanese War accelerated its advance, and military defeats caused confusion among the government. Thanks to this, the revolutionary movement “jumped far above the real balance of forces,” an explosion of indignation created a “false appearance” of the dominant position in the country of the “left.” The revolution did not have power, but it believed in it and made the government believe in this power.

Being the driving force of the revolution, the proletariat, according to the Socialist Revolutionaries, was ready to destroy, but, like the peasantry, was not prepared for creative work.

In October 1906, an independent formation, the “Union of Socialist-Revolutionary Maximalists,” emerged from the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Ideologists and theorists of this direction were A. Troitsky, M. Engelgart, S. Svetlov, G. Nestroev and others. The Socialist-Revolutionaries-maximalists imagined the revolution as a process of disorganization of power and all aspects of state life through the seizure and expropriation of land, enterprises, and instruments of production. In their opinion, any party, since it is based on centralism, suppresses the initiative of its members and thereby fetters revolutionary energy.

Another part of the Socialist Revolutionary Party (A.V. Peshekhonov, V.A. Myakotin, N.F. Annensky, S.Ya. Elpatievsky) founded the Party of People's Socialists (Enes). The Enes had a negative attitude towards the destruction of landowners' estates and the "grabbing" actions of the peasants. The proletariat, in their opinion, overestimated its strength, which was facilitated by the socialist intelligentsia. A legalist view of the revolution of 1905-1907. was based on the fact that the socialist parties were making a mistake by alienating the Cadets, since their program contained many neo-bourgeois features. It was as a result of the erroneous tactics of the revolutionary parties after October 1905 that the proletariat, without the active support of the “bourgeoisie, liberals and non-class intelligentsia, was crushed by the government.”

The most important area of ​​activity of the AKP was considered to be propaganda and agitation work among the masses. The Social Revolutionaries called on peasants to organize strikes, boycott landowners, and create peasant “brotherhoods” (secret circles of primary organizations in the countryside). The “brotherhoods” were tasked with disseminating populist ideology among the peasants, familiarizing them with the programs and tactical guidelines of the Social Revolutionaries, strengthening their influence on the solution of “worldly affairs” in accordance with these guidelines, uniting peasants to carry out educational events, in the fight for their rights and organization “ revolutionary" actions. Moreover, in “revolutionary” actions, preference was given to peaceful democratic actions (strikes, demonstrations, petitions).

While engaged in the “political education” of the peasants, the Socialist Revolutionaries did not lose sight of the urban proletariat. Moreover, after the defeat of the first Russian revolution, their propaganda and agitation efforts were directed more towards working among the urban population than among the rural population.

Deep ideological and organizational confusion after the defeat of the revolution also overtook the neo-populist parties and groups. The Esser Party suffered serious losses due to police repression. Numerous arrests weakened its organizations, and a wave of decadence swept through the ranks of the Socialist Revolutionaries. Among the Socialist-Revolutionaries, as well as among the Social Democrats, two currents emerged: an extremely terrorist one and supporters of exclusively legal forms of activity among the masses.

Socialist Revolutionary ultra-terrorists 1908-1909. with their tactical views they were in many ways reminiscent of the maximalists of the period of the first Russian revolution. In turn, the position of supporters of predominantly legal activities was somewhat akin to the Popular Socialists.

In the post-revolutionary period, the collapse of the peasant community as a result of Stolypin's agrarian reform forced the Social Revolutionaries to adjust their views in support of the wealthy strata of the peasantry. Now, in their opinion, it has become an integral part of the “laboring peasantry,” although before the revolution, Socialist Revolutionary theorists, as is known, held opposing views. This was a step towards meeting the Popular Socialists on the agrarian issue.

One of the indicators of acute disagreements in the party was the question of attitude towards the elections to the Fourth State Duma. After lengthy discussions, the party's organ, Banner of Labor, recommended boycott tactics. However, the boycott of the Duma was not connected with the new revolutionary upsurge that was beginning in the country. And although local organizations issued a call to fight, this, by and large, did not change the overall situation. The calls were not supported by practical actions. In one of the proclamations of the Moscow group of Social Revolutionaries, the situation in the party was characterized as follows: “Internal mistrust was breaking it up, the onslaught of reaction and the weakening of the masses deprived it of the connection and support that had previously given its leaders strength and firmness in the most severe trials: the organization disintegrated.”

The new revolutionary upsurge from 1912 to the summer of 1914 was constantly gaining strength. On the eve of the First World War, the country was engulfed in political and economic strikes. But this new rise revolutionary movement was cut short by the outbreak of war. The attitude towards it in connection with one or another understanding of the revolutionary perspective determined the regrouping in the ranks of the Socialist Revolutionaries and in the direction of their activities.

THE ORIGIN OF THE BOLSHEVIK-LEFT SR COALITION

Both parties considered the Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary alliance a brilliant tactical move. Formally, the “union” was concluded only after the Second Congress of Soviets, but the leaders of the Bolsheviks and Left Socialist Revolutionaries came to the idea of ​​​​the need to form a coalition even before the October coup. The tactics of the Left SRs were simple: hit “to the right”, cooperate “to the left”. “To the left” were the Bolsheviks. And the Left Socialist Revolutionaries could cooperate primarily with them. The Bolsheviks, according to the Soviet historian, entered into a bloc with the left Socialist Revolutionaries “not for the sake of the left Socialist Revolutionaries as such, but because of the influence that the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program had on the peasants.” However, it was not a matter of “influence,” but of the program itself, and, earlier, of the Left Socialist Revolutionary Party workers, who, unlike the Bolsheviks, had at least some access to the countryside. Sverdlov admitted in March 1918 that before the revolution the Bolsheviks “were not at all involved in work among the peasantry.” Soviet historiography indicated back in the 1920s that the Bolsheviks “failed by the time of the October Revolution to create their own peasant organization in the countryside, which could take the place of the socialist revolutionaries.” And the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, which defended the “principles of Soviet power and internationalism,” came in handy in this sense. This is what Lenin wrote on September 27, 1917 to the chairman of the regional committee of the army, navy and workers of Finland I. T. Smilga:

“Your position is exceptionally good, because you can immediately begin to implement that bloc with the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, which alone can give us lasting power in Russia and a majority in the Constituent Assembly. While there is a trial and action, immediately conclude such a bloc at home, organize the publication of leaflets ( find out what you can do technically for this and for transporting them to Russia), and then it is necessary that in each propaganda group for the village there are at least two people: one from the Bolsheviks, one from the left Socialist Revolutionaries. In the village there is a “firm” of Socialist Revolutionaries. reigns, and we must take advantage of your good fortune (you have Left Socialist-Revolutionaries) in order, in the name of this company, to establish a bloc of Bolsheviks with Left Socialist-Revolutionaries in the villages..."

The Bolsheviks, in addition, needed some kind of agricultural program. The paradox was that the RSDLP (b), a party that considered itself purely proletarian, did not have its own agrarian program at all.

For the first time since 1906, the Bolsheviks put the agrarian issue on the agenda only at the All-Russian Party Conference in April 1917. The resolution adopted on the agrarian issue became the Bolshevik agrarian program.

The resolution called for the immediate confiscation of all landowners' lands and the transfer of all lands to peasant councils and committees. The third point of the agrarian resolution of the conference demanded the “nationalization of all lands in the state.”

On the peasant question, the Bolshevik Party did not want to take on any clear obligations. In this sense, Lenin in 1905 was no different from Lenin in 1917: “We stand for confiscation, we have already stated this,” Lenin wrote at the turn of 1905-1906. - But who do we advise to give the confiscated lands to? Here we have not tied our hands and never will... we do not promise an equalizing division, “socialization”, etc., but we say: there we will still fight...” In October 1917, Lenin was also categorically against introduce “excessive detail” into the agrarian program, which “may even harm us by tying our hands in particulars.” But the Bolsheviks could not ignore the peasant question and the Russian village. For the victory of the “proletarian revolution” in the city and throughout the country, the Bolsheviks needed a civil one. war in the countryside. And Lenin was very afraid that “the peasants would take away the land [from the landowners], and the struggle between the rural proletariat and the wealthy peasantry would not break out. Lenin thus grasped not only the similarity of the situations of 1905 and 1917, but also their difference.” : “To repeat now what we said in 1905 and not talk about the class struggle in the countryside is a betrayal of the proletarian cause... We must combine the demand to take the land now with propaganda for the creation of Soviets of farm laborers’ deputies.”

From April to October 1917, the Bolshevik tactics regarding the peasantry and the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program changed several times. Thus, the agrarian resolution of the Bolshevik conference contained a proposal to achieve the formation of “a sufficiently large farm from each landowner’s estate.” A month later, speaking at the First All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Peasant Deputies, Lenin, on behalf of the Bolshevik Party, recommended “that from each large farm, from each, for example, the largest landowner economy, of which there are 30,000 in Russia, model farms for general processing of them together with agricultural workers and scientific agronomists, using the landowner’s livestock, tools, etc. for this work.”

Meanwhile, the First Congress of Peasant Soviets was not so radical. Of the 1,115 delegates, there were 537 Socialist Revolutionaries, 103 Social Democrats, 4 People’s Socialists, and 6 Trudoviks. Not a single Bolshevik was elected to the congress, despite the fact that 136 delegates declared themselves non-party, and 329 belonged to non-socialist parties, i.e. e. “to the right” of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Popular Socialists. No matter how much Lenin wanted the opposite, the peasants stood for an equalizing division of landowners' lands, but not for an equalizing division of lands in general. The order of the peasant congress of the First Army said this:

“...The use of land should be equal to labor, i.e. Each owner receives as much land as he can cultivate personally with his family, but not below the consumer norm..."

These peasant sentiments were confirmed by the publication in August 1917 of a consolidated peasant mandate, compiled from 242 peasant mandates brought to the congress in May by Socialist Revolutionary peasant delegates. These orders were, of course, “to the left” of the orders of non-party peasants or delegates of non-socialist parties, but even according to the consolidated Socialist Revolutionary order, the peasants agreed to leave only a few highly cultured former landowner farms undivided, but nothing more. And Lenin, soon after the congress and publication of the order, retreated and immediately changed his tactics. He decided to accept the Socialist Revolutionary program in its entirety, to lure the peasants to his side, at least to fragment them, to deprive the AKP of its support in the countryside and then, having strengthened the bloc with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries thanks to the adoption of the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program, to deprive the Socialist Revolutionary Party of its Left Socialist Revolutionary functionaries as well. practitioners in the village. The same goals were to be served by strengthening Bolshevik propaganda among the peasants. Lenin now demanded that “all agitation among the people... be restructured in such a way as to make clear the complete hopelessness of the peasants receiving land until the government is overthrown, until the parties of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks are exposed and deprived of the people’s trust.” At the end of August, Lenin assures the peasants that only the Bolshevik Party “can actually fulfill the program of the peasant poor, which is set out in 242 orders.”

Here, however, a new moment emerged. Lenin imperceptibly replaced the “peasants” with the “peasant poor”, i.e. "rural proletariat". Lately reinforcing Lenin’s demagogic statement, the Soviet historian Gusev writes: “Thus, we can assume that about 80% of peasant households were proletarians or semi-proletarians.” But this statement by Gusev is completely unfounded, and the figure of 80% is openly falsified. The absolute majority of Russian peasant farms were classified as “kulak” and “middle peasant”, and the latter predominated.

Preparing bridges for future retreat Bolshevik Party from previously assumed obligations, Lenin began to read into the Socialist Revolutionary peasant mandate what was never there. Thus, Lenin pointed to the supposed desire of the “peasant poor” in the order to abolish private ownership “of all types of land, including peasant land” without compensation. Lenin's statement, of course, contradicted the resolutions of the First All-Russian Congress Councils of Peasant Deputies, and the mandate itself. But this did not bother Lenin. By “equal land use” he also began to understand something different from what the peasants and even the Socialist Revolutionaries understood by it. In April 1917, at the All-Russian Party Conference of the Bolsheviks, Lenin said that peasants “understand “equalization of land use” as the taking of land from landowners, but not as the equalization of individual owners.” However, in August, Lenin described the consolidated Socialist Revolutionary peasant mandate as “a program for the poor peasants” who want to “retain small farming, level it out, periodically level it again... Let it be,” Lenin continued. “Because of this, no reasonable socialist will break up with the peasant poor.” But Lenin, of course, was ready to part ways with the “peasant poor.” He stubbornly and methodically prepared the basis for a future civil war in the countryside, or rather, a theoretical justification for the need for such a war. He had no intention of seriously deviating from the position he had formulated back in 1905:

“Together with the peasant owners against the landowners and the landowner state, together with the urban proletarian against the entire bourgeoisie, against all peasant owners. This is the slogan of the conscious rural proletariat.”

Unlike the Socialist Revolutionaries, who saw only two opposing camps in the countryside - landowners and peasants, the Bolsheviks identified another group from the peasants: the rural poor. But, as always, when tactical considerations required it, the Bolsheviks cooperated with the “left” wing to destroy the “right”. In this case, it was necessary to support the peasants in the fight against the landowners, so that after the landowners’ property was destroyed, they could deal with the peasants by supporting the demands of the “village poor.” To this end, the Bolsheviks temporarily abandoned the slogan of transforming every landowner's estate into a state farm. At the same time, Lenin tried not to mention any more equalization of land use. Thus, in the appeal “To Workers, Peasants and Soldiers,” written at the beginning of October but not published then, it was only said that “if the Soviets have power, then the landowners’ lands will immediately be declared the possession and property of all the people.” The formulation, of course, was purely SR. In his work “Toward a Revision of the Party Program,” Lenin also did not touch upon the issue of equalizing division of land, as well as the issue of transforming landowners’ estates into public-state farms. However, the clause on the nationalization of land was included by Lenin in the work, although not a word was said about what to do with the nationalized land. This strange silence on an issue so important for the Bolsheviks attracted the attention of many. After the coup, V. Meshcheryakov, in an article “Marxism and the socialization of the land” published in several issues of Pravda, noted this significant feature of the Bolshevik agrarian program:

“What to do with nationalized, socialized state land? The Bolsheviks' nationalization program did not answer this question at all, postponing it until after the seizure of land, after the victory of the revolution, after the nationalization of the land... Neither in the nationalization project proposed by the Bolsheviks to the Stockholm Congress of the Workers' Party (1906), nor in the program nationalization adopted at the party conference in April 1917, nor in the extensive literature on this issue - not once did any of the supporters of nationalization among Marxists touch on this issue or propose any solutions.”

The closer to the revolution, the more and more Lenin modified the original peasant demands. Thus, in the article “New Deception of the Peasants by the Socialist Revolutionary Party,” written five days before the October uprising and published on October 24, Lenin “retelled” the demands of the peasants as follows:

“The peasants demand the abolition of the right of private ownership of land; converting all privately owned, etc. land into the public domain free of charge; transforming land plots with highly cultural farms (gardens, plantations, etc.) into “demonstration plots”; transferring them to the “exclusive use of the state and communities”; confiscation of “all household equipment, living and dead,” etc. This is how the demands of the peasants are expressed, precisely and clearly, on the basis of 242 local orders given by the peasants themselves.”

But, firstly, we were talking about the orders of the “SR” peasants, and not about peasants in general. Secondly, even the Socialist Revolutionary orders did not contain the demands set out by Lenin. Essentially, Lenin very subtly and veiledly started talking about nationalization. But among the soldiers and peasants, the idea of ​​“equal land ownership” according to the consumer-labor norm of distribution, and not the predatory Leninist idea of ​​“nationalization,” was dominant.

However, Lenin was too pragmatic to influence the peasants with newspaper articles alone. He was faced with the dual task of penetrating the village to gain positions there and weaken the Socialist Revolutionary Party as a political force that enjoyed significant influence in the village.

But in order to penetrate the village, it was necessary to win over to one’s side some of the active figures in the peasant Soviets, and among them were the Socialist Revolutionaries. This is where the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionary Party helped the Bolsheviks. A bloc with the left wing of the AKP was at that moment a natural and only possible step for Lenin. There was also a real foundation for the union. Through months of permanent struggle with the majority of their party, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries proved their commitment to dogmatic radical socialism.

The acceptance by the Bolsheviks of the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program, without which the Bolshevik government would not have been able to function, and the consent of the left Socialist Revolutionaries, if the Bolsheviks accepted the Socialist Revolutionary agrarian program, to follow the Bolshevik program in all matters were, as it seemed to everyone then, the key to a successful union. Left Socialist Revolutionary party cadres in rural Soviets and Bolshevik party leaders in urban Soviets naturally complemented each other.

In May 1917, during the elections to the regional Dumas of Petrograd, the Bolshevik-Left Socialist Revolutionary alliance gave its first practical results: in the Nevsky district, the Bolsheviks entered into a bloc with the left Socialist Revolutionary internationalists. It was in May 1917 that the open withdrawal of the left wing from the main core of the AKP began. This month, shortly before the Third Congress of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, one of the future leaders of the PLSR, V. Trutovsky, said that among the members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, many, “calling themselves both socialists and revolutionaries,” are in fact neither one nor the other. This statement by Trutovsky, published in the press, became a challenge to the entire AKP, which rightly considered itself a socialist and revolutionary party. An immediate party split began.

At the Third Congress of the AKP, held in late May - early June 1917, the left wing of the party, numbering 42 people, formed its own faction and came up with a resolution that was ultimately rejected by the congress. From about this moment, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, while formally remaining members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, began to take a position on a number of issues that was different from the directives and guidelines of their Central Committee, and to pursue their own political line. In response to this, the leadership of the Socialist Revolutionary Party forbade the left socialist revolutionaries to speak on behalf of the AKP and criticize the decisions of the Third Party Congress. But this decision had no real consequences. But the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries decided somewhat later, “without breaking the organizational connection with the party, to definitely and firmly distinguish themselves from the policies adopted by the leading majority.” The left accused the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party of deviating from the program and “traditional tactics” and of shifting “the party’s center of support to sections of the population that, due to their class character or level of consciousness, cannot truly support the policy of true revolutionary socialism.” The statement also stated that the left wing reserves the right to "full freedom of speech in the spirit of the above provisions." The statement was signed by the organizational bureau of the left wing of the Socialist Revolutionaries, elected by the faction of the left socialist revolutionaries at the Third Congress, as well as by the factions of the left Socialist Revolutionaries in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies.

In August, the Left Socialist Revolutionary faction in the AKP achieved the fact that it began to be considered legal. And already on September 10, at the Seventh Petrograd Provincial Conference of the AKP, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries sharply criticized the work of the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, and during the re-election of the provincial committee, due to the growing radicalism of the Petrograd Socialist Revolutionaries, they received a majority of votes. The left now began to dominate in a number of organizations: Petrograd, Voronezh and Helsingfors, and in the Petrograd organization of Socialist Revolutionaries, out of 45 thousand people, about 40 thousand followed the left.29 In Petrograd, therefore, there was real power behind the Left Socialist Revolutionaries.

There were almost no defeats for the left Socialist Revolutionaries in those days, except for the fact that they were forced to leave the editorial office of the Socialist Revolutionary newspaper “Land and Freedom.” But here, too, they took revenge, achieving in September the re-election of the editorial board of the newspaper Znamya Truda, which has since become their organ. Intensifying their criticism of the AKP, at the All-Union Democratic Conference of Socialist Parties, Trade Union Councils, Zemstvos, commercial and industrial circles and military units, held in the citadel of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries - Petrograd - from September 14 to 22, 1917, the left opposed the coalition with the Cadets , thereby causing a split in the ranks of the socialists.

And in the Socialist-Revolutionary faction of the Pre-Parliament - the Provisional Council of the Republic, created by the Democratic Conference - the left Socialist-Revolutionaries declared the policy of the AKP treasonous and left the meeting. The criticism was carried out mainly on three issues: about the attitude towards the war, about agrarian policy and about power.

Even at the Third Congress of the AKP, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries demanded “to immediately break the civil peace with the entire bourgeoisie.” They also spoke out against preparing an offensive at the front and for the publication of secret treaties concluded by the tsarist government with the Entente countries. But, despite this, the Central Committee of the AKP, being not interested in a party split, continued to consider the Left Socialist Revolutionaries as members of a single Socialist Revolutionary party.

The Left Socialist Revolutionaries, however, were moving closer and closer to the Bolsheviks. They agreed in principle with the idea of ​​​​dispersing the Provisional Government and already on the eve of the October revolution entered the Bureau of the Military Revolutionary Committee, where they worked, according to Trotsky, “excellently.” Meanwhile, this fact was by no means of minor importance. The Military Revolutionary Committee was created in Petrograd for practical activities in organizing a coup, although it was openly stated that the Military Revolutionary Committee was being formed to organize the defense of Petrograd against the Germans. It was into this organizational center of the coup that the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries entered, and the Left Socialist-Revolutionary P.E. Lazimir became the first chairman of the Military Revolutionary Committee.

Together with the Bolsheviks, the Left SRs also spoke at the Northern Regional Congress of Soviets, which opened in Smolny in October 1917. 150 delegates from Finland and the Northern region were present at the congress, and Krylenko was elected chairman. The talk, essentially openly, was about the seizure of power, and Trotsky, in agreement with the Left Social Revolutionaries, read a resolution “on the current moment” demanding “the immediate transfer of all power into the hands of the Soviets.” Trotsky demanded that the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks unanimously adopt this resolution, which, in his opinion, would mean “a transition from words to deeds.” And the Left Socialist Revolutionaries supported the resolution. She was also supported by the Mensheviks present at the congress “without Martov’s supervision”, who were afraid to stand out from the general friendly chorus of delegates to the congress. And just before they sang “The Internationale” together, the Latvian socialists presented a gift to the Northern Congress. To the stormy applause of the Bolsheviks, Left Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, “the representative of “red Latvia”... offered 40,000 Latvian riflemen at the disposal of the future rebels... This was a real force...”

Just before the opening of the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries dealt their party another blow. They split the party faction of the congress, at a meeting of the faction, where they had a majority: by 92 votes to 60 they rejected the resolution of the AKP Central Committee on the attitude to the congress, proposed on behalf of the Socialist Revolutionary Party by Gendelman.

The convening of the Second All-Russian Congress was not an ordinary occurrence. As early as September 28, 1917, the Bureau of the Executive Committee of the Council of Peasant Deputies decided not to convene the congress. And on October 4, the plenum of the peasant Central Executive Committee recognized the convening of the congress on October 20, as once planned, as “untimely and dangerous” and invited the peasant Soviets to refrain from sending delegates to it. October 12 IR All-Russian Council Peasant deputies recognized the decision on the transfer of power to the Soviets before the convening of the Constituent Assembly as “not only a harmful, but also a criminal undertaking, disastrous for the homeland and the revolution.” And just before the opening of the congress, on October 24, the Executive Committee sent telegrams to all peasant councils in which it confirmed “its decision on the untimeliness of the congress” and called on the peasant councils “not to take part” in it. The congress was considered untimely, in particular because it was convened during the preparation of elections to the Constituent Assembly and, as if in contrast to it, was supposed to resolve the issue of power in the country.

Faced with the active reluctance of the Peasant Executive Committee and the passive reluctance of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the first convocation to hold a Congress of Soviets, the Bolsheviks decided to act arbitrarily. On October 16, on behalf of the Petrograd Council of Workers' Deputies and the Petrograd Council of Peasants' Deputies, the Moscow Council of Workers' Deputies and the regional committees of peasants', workers' and soldiers' deputies of the Northern Region, it was decided to send a circular telegram to all provincial and district Soviets and invite them to send congress delegates to Petrograd by October 20 . Northern regional, Moscow and Petrogradsky Soviets They were therefore ready to convene the congress in person.38 This is where the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of the first convocation faced a real alternative: to participate in the congress and try to find a common language with the Bolsheviks, or to boycott the congress. The Central Election Commission preferred the former. On October 17, he agreed to convene a congress on October 25,39 thus giving the Bolsheviks an extra five days to organize a coup. The congress was supposed to last “no more than 3 days.”

On October 25 at 10.45 pm the congress opened. Initially, the Bolsheviks had 250 mandates out of 518, the Socialist Revolutionaries - 159, the Mensheviks - 60. But according to reports, it seems that the Bolsheviks were in the minority, so numerous and harsh was the criticism against them, so shocked were all the socialist parties by the coup, the preparation for which, however, it was quite openly carried out by the Bolsheviks in front of the same socialist parties. After a sharp exchange of opinions and the issuance of appropriate declarations, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries left the congress. But the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, despite the decision of the Central Committee of the AKP, remained at the congress. They condemned the departure of the Socialist Revolutionary faction and thus finally split the Socialist Revolutionary Party.

At the same time, the Left Socialist Revolutionary wing of the party has now become significantly stronger, since many of the members of the Socialist Revolutionary faction who remained at the congress began to consider themselves leftists. In addition, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries were joined by newly arrived Left Socialist-Revolutionary delegates, as well as those of the delegates of the peasant Central Executive Committee who refused to leave the congress. But even after this, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries did not stand up in opposition to the Bolsheviks at the congress, did not unite around themselves the socialist parties that were to the right of the Bolsheviks, but preferred to cooperate with the Bolsheviks. The latter, for their part, could not help but take into account such a large faction and were most afraid of the creation of a single anti-Bolshevik socialist bloc.

The majority of members of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) were also afraid to form a one-party government, and therefore on October 26, a few hours before the formation of a purely Bolshevik government at the Second Congress of Soviets, the Bolsheviks invited three Left Socialist Revolutionary leaders - Karelin, Kamkov and Spiro - to join the Council of People's Commissars. But they refused. Karelin motivated this refusal as follows: “If we agreed to such a combination, we would thereby aggravate the differences existing in the ranks of revolutionary democracy. But our task is to reconcile all parts of democracy.”

Having taken note of the refusal of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries to enter the government they were forming, the Bolsheviks reached an agreement with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries on the proclamation by Lenin of the Socialist Revolutionary Land Law “in its entirety” on October 26, along with equalization of land use, in accordance with the Socialist Revolutionary Peasant Mandate 242. On October 26, Lenin actually proclaimed this order at the congress, which became the famous “Decree on Land,” without hiding the fact that the decree was copied from the Socialist Revolutionaries. Lenin was later inclined to attribute to this tactical move the establishment of Soviet power in Russia: “We won because we accepted not our agrarian program, but the Socialist Revolutionary Program... Our victory lay in that... That’s why this victory was so easy... "

There is, of course, nothing surprising that the Left Socialist Revolutionaries approved this project in its entirety. But the Socialist Revolutionaries did not forgive Lenin’s “robbery” to the Bolsheviks. On their initiative, the Central Executive Committee of the first convocation sent out a telegram to all Soviets and army committees about the non-recognition of the Second Congress. And Chernov, in addition, wrote a “Letter to the Peasants,” rightly assuring them that no egalitarian land use could be expected from the Bolsheviks, that the Bolsheviks defended the interests of the rural proletariat, and considered the peasants their opponents and considered them as the petty bourgeoisie. All peripheral Socialist Revolutionary organizations were asked to immediately “reprint this letter in the local Socialist-Revolutionary Party.” press, and also, where possible, publish it as a separate leaflet.”

The Executive Committee of the All-Russian Council of Peasant Deputies also issued an appeal in which it explained to the peasants that the Bolsheviks were only deceiving them and that the peasants would “lose their land and freedom” if they followed the Bolsheviks. And on October 28, the Executive Committee declared that it “does not recognize the Bolshevik government as state power” and called on the peasants and the army not to obey the government formed at the Second Congress of Soviets. The next day, the Central Committee of the AKP expelled from the party all those who remained at the Second Congress of Soviets after October 25, and on October 30 it dissolved the Petrograd, Voronezh and Helsingfors organizations of the AKP, which were dominated by the left Socialist Revolutionaries. The latter urgently convened the Ninth Petrograd Conference of the AKP, inviting their supporters there, and, refusing to recognize the decision of their Central Committee as legal, expressed no confidence in it, accusing the leaders of the Socialist Revolutionary Party of an organizational split. Following this, the Left Social Revolutionaries created the so-called Provisional Bureau and scheduled their own party congress for November 17.

Meanwhile, the alliance of the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks was being established. Both parties were interested in the defeat of the Social Revolutionaries. And for this it was necessary, first of all, to recapture from the Socialist Revolutionaries the positions they occupied at the First Peasant Congress. To this end, on October 27, by agreement between the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at its first meeting decided to urgently convene the Second Peasant Congress and proposed “to elect a commission for the preparatory work for the convocation.” Five people were elected to the commission: Spiro, Kolegaev (Kalegaev), Vasilyuk, Grinevich and Muranov. The Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, bypassing the majority of the members of the peasant Central Executive Committee of the first convocation, proposed to this commission “to come to an agreement with the left part of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee,” i.e. with the Left Socialist Revolutionaries themselves.

CONCLUSION

The rapid rise of the revolution in 1905 accelerated the determination of their political positions and ways of solving acute social problems by bourgeois parties. They were presented wide range: from liberal (constitutional democrats, party of democratic reforms, party of peaceful renewal, progressive party) to conservative (Octobrists, party of law and order, commercial and industrial party, etc.). Their political positions and programs, although they had their own shades, were similar in the main thing (Russia’s transition to the bourgeois-democratic path of development), differing in the form of presentation.

It is worth noting the broad program of democratic reforms put forward by the Socialist Revolutionaries. Its main provisions were very close to the requirements of the RSDLP. These included freedom of conscience, speech, press, assembly and association, freedom of movement, inviolability of person and home. On the basis of universal and equal suffrage for all citizens, it was planned to form elected bodies of a democratic republic with the autonomy of regions and communities, the widespread use of federal relations between nationalities, and the introduction of the native language in all local, public and state institutions.

In conclusion for this work, we can say that the first Russian revolution sharply aggravated antagonistic contradictions and became an accelerator for the formation of numerous political parties and movements that took positions reflecting the interests of various classes and social groups. Political parties set out their attitude to the existing system, the prospects for the development of Russia, the modernization of its political system, economy, and culture in their program documents.

Liberal constitutional ideas again began to be openly proclaimed in our country in the late 80s and early 90s of the past century. To one degree or another, they were voiced in the programs of the European Liberal Democratic Party, the Russian Social Liberal Party, the Republican Party and a number of others. In 1989, the beginning of the revival of the Cadet Party was laid.

Studying the history of the liberal tradition and the attitude of the liberal intelligentsia to issues of social and economic development Russia seems to be very relevant in the modern period. All these problems are closely related to the process of formation and evolution of civil society and the rule of law in modern Russia.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anikin A.V. The path of quest: Socio-economic ideas in Russia before Marxism. M., 1990.

3. Bokhanov A.N. Big bourgeoisie in Russia. The end of XIX-1914. M., 1994.

4. Vandalkovskaya M.G. History of the study of the Russian revolutionary movement, ser. XIX - 1917. M., 1982.

5. Weber M. Historical sketch liberation movement in Russia. Kyiv, 1906.

6. Galtseva R.A. Essays on Russian utopian thought of the twentieth century. M., 1992.

7. Gambarov Yu.S. Political parties of Russia in their past and present. St. Petersburg, 1904.

8. Dyakin V.S. Autocracy, bourgeoisie, nobility in 1907-1911, Leningrad, 1978.

9. Dyakov V.A. The Slavic question in the public life of pre-revolutionary Russia. M., 1993.

10. Ivanov V.F. Russian intelligentsia and Freemasonry. From Peter I to the present day. M., 1997.

11. History of national political parties in Russia. Scientific materials conf. M., 1997.

12. Karpachev M.D. Russian liberalism of the post-reform era in the light of English and American historiography // Origins of the Russian Revolution: Legends and Reality. Chapter 5. M., 1990.

13. Korelin A.P. Nobility in post-reform Russia. 1861-1904: condition, numbers, corporate organization. M., 1974.

14. Brief history guide. To the applicant. Moscow, " graduate School", 1992

15. Kuleshov S.V. From the history of studying the national programs of bourgeois parties // Bolsheviks in the fight against non-proletarian parties, groups and movements. M., 1983.

16. Lenin V.I. Experience of classification of political parties // Complete. collection Op. T.14.

19. Nikola Vert. Story Soviet state. 1900-1991 Moscow, Progress Academy, 1992

20. Novikov M.N. Problems of reforming Russian statehood in the programs of political parties of the early twentieth century. Historical and political aspect. M., 1998.

21. Novikov M.N. Political parties of Russia // Complete. collection Op. T.14.

22. Pantin I.K., Plimak E.G., Khoros V.G. Revolutionary tradition in Russia. M., 1986.

23. Plimak E.G. Revolutionary process and revolutionary consciousness. M., 1983.

24. Political parties of Russia during the revolution of 1905-1907. Quantitative Analysis. Sat. Art. M., 1987.

25. Political parties of Russia. XIX - first third of the XX century. Encyclopedia. M., 1996.

26. Program documents of national political parties and organizations of Russia (late 19th century - 1917). Sat. docs IN 1. M.INION, 1996.

27. Workers and intelligentsia of Russia in the era of reforms and revolution. 1861 - February 1917. M., 1996.

28. Spirin L.M. Some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of non-proletarian parties in Russia. M., 1977.

29. Shchetinina G.I. The spiritual life of the Russian intelligentsia at the beginning of the twentieth century. M., 1997.