The beginning of the formation of a one-party political system. Question. formation of a one-party regime. education of the ussr

The Soviet system was born in a multi-party system. Soon there was a transition from a multi-party system to a one-party system with the subsequent elimination of the democratic gains of the February Revolution. The reasons for the progressive undemocraticism of the Bolshevik regime lay, firstly, in the authoritarianism inherent in the ideology and party organization of the Bolsheviks, and secondly, in the adaptation of the Soviet system to the extreme conditions of economic ruin and civil war. Several important stages in the establishment of a one-party system can be identified.

1. Establishment Soviet power on the ground occurred both through the peaceful transfer of administrative functions into the hands of the Soviets, and as a result of the armed suppression of the resistance of anti-Bolshevik forces. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks had to repel an attack on Petrograd by troops who remained loyal to the Provisional Bourgeois Government. It was at this moment that the Executive Committee of the Railway Workers' Union issued an ultimatum to create a homogeneous socialist government. As soon as the threat to Petrograd was eliminated, Lenin's group broke off negotiations on the creation of a coalition socialist government.

2. During the elections to the Constituent Assembly, unequal conditions were created for liberal pariahs. The All-Union Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution and Sabotage (VChK) focused on countering the liberal opposition. In general, the results of the elections to the Constituent Assembly indicated that Russia must inevitably follow the socialist path, but the fundamental question was whose program would form the basis of this movement: the Socialist Revolutionaries or the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks received only 24% of the votes. The right-wing Socialist-Revolutionaries dominated and were to form new line-up government. To maintain power, Lenin, who believed that bourgeois parliamentarism had outlived its usefulness, signed a decree dissolving the Constituent Assembly. The Bolsheviks, with the support of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, are going to dissolve the local Soviets, where the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had a majority. From that time on, the Council of People's Commissars ceased to be a provisional government.

3. In December 1917, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries agreed to form a coalition government with the Bolsheviks. A bloc with the Left Social Revolutionaries allowed the Bolsheviks to unite the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies with the Soviets of Peasants' Deputies. However, in March 1918, as a sign of disagreement with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Bolshevik policy on the peasant issue, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries resigned from the government. In July 1918, after the Socialist Revolutionary rebellion, the Bolsheviks expelled the Socialist Revolutionaries from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, expelled them from all Soviets and broke off partnerships with their only ally. 4. The civil war exacerbates undemocratic and bureaucratic tendencies. There is a redistribution of powers from the Soviets in favor of party committees and emergency government bodies: the Revolutionary Military Council of the Republic (RVSR), the Council of Workers' and Peasants' Defense, the Committees of Poor Possessions, revolutionary committees (revolutionary committees), the Cheka, all kinds of supply bodies and the army. From illusions regarding factory committees and self-government in the form of Soviets, Lenin already in 1918 was inclined to transfer the functions of power to the party apparatus. In 1920, all other democratic parties except the Bolshevik were finally banned on the territory of the RSFSR.

1) Establishment of Soviet power in Russia

From late October 1917 to February 1918, Soviet power established itself (mostly peacefully) over most of the territory of the former Russian Empire.

At the end of 1917 - beginning of 1918, simultaneously with the liquidation of the old government bodies, a new state apparatus was being created. The Congress of Soviets became the highest legislative body. In the intervals between congresses, these functions were performed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK). The highest executive body was the Council of People's Commissars (government) headed by V.I. Lenin.

After the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918, which at its first meeting refused to support the October Revolution, the Third Congress of Soviets was held. At this congress, Russia was declared the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).

The new organization of power was enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted at the V Congress of Soviets in 1918.

The Left Socialist Revolutionaries were the only party that entered into a government bloc with the Bolsheviks. However, already in March 1918, the bloc collapsed: the Left Socialist Revolutionaries left the government in protest against the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty.

After the exclusion of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and local Soviets (June 1918), we can talk about the actual establishment of a one-party system in the Soviet Republic.

One of the key issues of the young Soviet government was the issue related to the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace Treaty, over which even a large internal party struggle unfolded.

Having embarked on a grandiose transformation of Russia, the Bolsheviks were in dire need of calm on the external borders. Continued World War. The Entente countries ignored the Bolshevik Peace Decree. It was obvious that the Russian army was not able to fight, and mass desertion began.

I had to negotiate a separate peace with Germany. They took place in Brest-Litovsk. The conditions proposed by the enemy were humiliating: Germany demanded the separation of Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Estland and Livonia from Russia. Trotsky disrupted the negotiations. On February 18, 1918, the Germans resumed hostilities. February 23 (birthday Soviet army) the Germans are presenting even more difficult peace conditions, according to which Finland, Ukraine and some regions of Transcaucasia are torn away from Russia. Finally, on March 3, 1918, the agreement was signed.

It must be said that the Brest Peace Treaty was still a forced measure; it was necessary for the young Soviet Republic to keep the Bolsheviks in power.

2) Formation of a one-party system

We can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918, because the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Councils of all levels, the leadership of the People's Commissariats and the Cheka , with their significant participation, the first Constitution of the RSFSR and the most important laws of Soviet power were created. Some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets at that time.

The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. By the decree “On the arrest of the leaders of the civil war against the revolution” of November 28, 1917, one party was banned - the Cadets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, connections with commercial, industrial and military circles, and the support of the allies. But it was precisely this ban on the party that could not be undermined; most likely it was an act of revenge against the once most influential enemy.

The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were the anarchists. They accepted Active participation in establishing and consolidating Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. They expressed the spontaneous protest of the peasantry and urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists, without exception, bandits. Some anarchists went underground, others joined the Bolshevik Party.

On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of more moderate layers of workers and peasants who longed for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their financial situation. The Bolsheviks relied on the further development of the class struggle, transferring it to the countryside, which further widened the gap between them and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries that formed in connection with the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace. As a result, in June the Mensheviks and Right Socialist Revolutionaries, and after July, the Left Socialist Revolutionaries were expelled from the Soviets. There were still maximalist Socialist-Revolutionaries in them, but due to their small numbers they did not play a significant role.

During the years of foreign military intervention and the civil war, depending on changes in the policy of the Menshevik and Socialist Revolutionary parties in relation to the power of the Soviets, they were either allowed or prohibited again, moving to a semi-legal position. Attempts from both sides to achieve conditional cooperation did not gain momentum.

The course towards eradicating political pluralism and preventing a multi-party system was confirmed by the resolution of the XII All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) in August 1922 “On anti-Soviet parties and movements”, which declared all anti-Bolshevik forces anti-Soviet, i.e. anti-state, although in reality most of them encroached not on the power of the Soviets, but on the power of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets. First of all, measures of ideological struggle had to be directed against them. Repression was not excluded, but officially had to play a subordinate role.

The process of the Combat Organization of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, organized in the summer of 1922, was intended to play primarily a propaganda role. Conducted in the Column Hall of the House of Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large public, foreign observers and defenders, and widely covered in the press, the trial was intended to present the Socialist Revolutionaries as ruthless terrorists. After this, the Extraordinary Congress of ordinary members of the AKP passed easily, announcing the self-dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. In recent literature, facts about the role of the RCP(b) and the OGPU in the preparation and conduct of these congresses have been made public.

Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. the cross was finally put up. It seems that from this time we can date the completion of the process of forming a one-party system, the decisive step towards which was taken in 1918.

21. Civil war in Russia: causes, stages, results, consequences.

After the October Uprising, a tense socio-political situation developed in the country, which led to the Civil War. Causes of the Civil War: the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks; domestic politics Bolshevik leadership; the desire of the overthrown classes to preserve private property and their privileges; refusal of the Mensheviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and anarchists to cooperate with the Soviet regime. The uniqueness of the Civil War in Russia lay in its close intertwining with foreign intervention. Germany, France, England, the USA, Japan, Poland and others took part in the intervention. They supplied the anti-Bolshevik forces with weapons and provided financial and military-political support. The policy of the interventionists was determined by the desire to put an end to the Bolshevik regime and prevent the “spreading” of the revolution, to return the lost property of foreign citizens and to gain new territories and spheres of influence at Russia’s expense. In 1918, the main centers of the anti-Bolshevik movement were formed in Moscow and Petrograd, uniting the Cadets, Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. A strong anti-Bolshevik movement developed among the Cossacks. On the Don and Kuban they were led by General P.N. Krasnov, on Southern Urals- Ataman P.I. Dutov. The basis of the white movement in the south of Russia and the North Caucasus was the Volunteer Army of General L.S. Kornilov. In the spring of 1918, foreign intervention began. German troops occupied Ukraine, Crimea and part of the North Caucasus, Romania captured Bessarabia. In March, an English corps landed in Murmansk. In April, Vladivostok was occupied by a Japanese landing. In May 1918, soldiers of the Czechoslovak corps who were held captive in Russia rebelled. The uprising led to the overthrow of Soviet power in the Volga region and Siberia. At the beginning of September 1918, troops Eastern Front under the command of I.I. Vatsetis went on the offensive and during October-November drove the enemy beyond the Urals. The restoration of Soviet power in the Urals and Volga region ended the first stage of the civil war. At the end of 1918 - 1919. The white movement reached its maximum extent. In 1919, a plan was created for a simultaneous attack on Soviet power: from the east (A.V. Kolchak), south (A.I. Denikin) and west (N.N. Yudenich). However, the combined performance failed. Troops of S.S. Kamenev and M.V. Frunze stopped the advance of A.V. Kolchak and pushed him out to Siberia. Two offensives by N.N. Yudenich's attack on Petrograd ended in defeat. In July 1919 A.I. Denikin captured Ukraine and launched an attack on Moscow. The Southern Front was formed under the command of A.I. Egorova. In December 1919 - early 1920, the troops of A.I. Denikin was defeated. Soviet power was restored in southern Russia, Ukraine and the North Caucasus. In 1919, the interventionists were forced to withdraw their troops. This was facilitated by revolutionary ferment in the occupation units and social movement in Europe and the USA under the slogan "Hands off Soviet Russia!" The main events of the final stage of the Civil War in 1920 were the Soviet-Polish war and the fight against P.N. Wrangel. In May 1920, Polish troops invaded Belarus and Ukraine. The Red Army under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky and In May 1920, P.I. Egorova defeated the Polish group and launched an attack on Warsaw, which soon fizzled out. In March 1921, a peace treaty was signed, according to which Poland received the lands of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. , elected “ruler of the south of Russia,” formed the “Russian Army” in the Crimea and launched an attack on the Donbass. At the end of October 1920, the Red Army troops under the command of M.V. Frunze defeated the army of P.N. remnants to Crimea. The defeat of P.N. Wrangel marked the end of the civil war. The Bolsheviks defeated foreign intervention. This victory was due to a number of reasons. great importance had international solidarity, assistance from the proletariat of Europe and the USA. The policies of the White Guards - the abolition of the Decree on Land, the return of land to the previous owners, reluctance to cooperate with liberal and socialist parties, punitive expeditions, pogroms, mass executions of prisoners - all this caused discontent among the population, even to the point of armed resistance. During the civil war, opponents of the Bolsheviks failed to agree on a single program and a single leader of the movement. The Civil War was a terrible tragedy for Russia. Material damage amounted to more than 50 billion rubles. gold. Industrial production decreased by 7 times. In battles, from hunger, disease and terror, 8 million people died, 2 million people were forced to emigrate.

Definition 1

An important component of the mechanism of power is the party system, which represents the process of development of the political process itself, its formation in dynamics.

Describing the specifics of the party system, it can be noted that the process of its formation is influenced by a variety of factors. This could be one or another feature. national composition population, the impact of religion or historical traditions, relationships of political forces and much more.

In order to determine the character political system It is worth paying attention to the degree of real participation of political parties in the life of the state. The important point is that the decisive role is always played not by the total number of parties, but by the direction and number of parties actually participating in the life of the country. Based on the above, the following types of party systems can be distinguished:

• one-party;
• bipartisan;
• multi-party.

One-party system of the USSR

Special attention should be paid to the one-party political system. This system is considered non-adversarial. Its name already suggests that it is based on only one party. Such a system leads to the emasculation of the institution of elections, since there is no opportunity alternative choice. The center for making certain decisions goes entirely to the party leadership. One way or another, but gradually such a system leads to the establishment of a dictatorial regime and total control. An example of states with this type of system is the USSR in the period from 1917 to 1922.

The key event that influenced the emergence of a one-party system in the USSR was the events of February 1917, when the monarchy was replaced by an indecisive and weak provisional government, which was subsequently overthrown by the Social Democratic Party.

The one-party government was headed by V.I. Lenin. The time has come to “eliminate” all non-Bolshevik parties. The first of the conclusions characterizing the one-party system of the Soviet period is the decisive role of violence in the formation of one-party system. However, there was another approach to the goal - the emigration of party leaders, their separation from the country.

Note 1

It is worth noting that the Bolsheviks’ methods of struggle were not peaceful. Quite often boycotts and obstructions were used: speeches were interrupted, mocking remarks were often heard from the audience, and booing was heard. In cases where it was not possible to achieve victory, the Bolsheviks resorted to forming a similar body in the necessary body, recognizing it as the only legitimate one. There is an opinion that this method of fighting was personally invented by V.I. Lenin.

Stages of approval of the one-party system of the USSR

There are several stages in the approval of a one-party system:

1. Establishment of Soviet power. This stage took place in two directions. It is characterized by both the peaceful transfer of control into the hands of the Soviet and a number of resistances by anti-Bolshevik forces.
2. Elections of the Constituent Assembly. Following the path of forming a one-party system, unequal conditions were created for liberal parties. Thus, the election results indicate the inevitable development of the country along the socialist path.
3. Formation of a coalition government by uniting the Bolsheviks and the Left Socialist Revolutionaries. However, such an alliance was not destined to last long. Not supporting the Brest Peace Treaty and the Bolshevik policy, the Socialist Revolutionaries left the coalition union, which led to their subsequent expulsion from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
4. The process of redistribution of powers becomes obvious; the power of the councils is transferred to party committees, as well as emergency authorities. The stage of the final banning of all democratic parties is coming. There is only one party left - the Bolshevik.

Figure 1. The formation of the one-party system of the USSR. Author24 - online exchange of student works

1923 is characterized by the collapse of the Menshevik Party. The political opposition ceases to exist outside the Bolshevik Party. A one-party political system is finally established in the country. Undivided power passes into the hands of the RCP(b). By this time, as noted above, the transition of small parties, especially those that did not have any political perspective, had long ended. They came in full force under the leadership of the main party. Individuals did the same.

Results of the one-party system of the USSR

The one-party system of the USSR greatly simplified all the problems of political leadership. It was reduced to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which knew no rivals. The entire repressive state apparatus and influence on the people through means were presented at its service. mass media. The created all-pervasive vertical carried out its activities exclusively unilaterally towards the public, without accepting any feedback.

Development occurred due to contradictions characteristic of political parties in general, but in our country they had a specific form, dictated by the one-party system. Thanks to the party system, it became obvious that our society is not capable of development under conditions of monopoly power. In order for a party to gain the necessary strength, and at the same time maintain it, to develop in line with a free commonwealth, the unity of which is based on the unity of not only beliefs, but also actions, it is necessary to have the possibility of free competition of doctrines, strategies, struggle of party representatives in front of by voters.

Today the political system of Russia is multi-party.

The October Revolution did not mark the beginning of a direct world revolution, but it undoubtedly stimulated global reformist transformations in the West, as a result of which workers achieved significant social gains, and capitalism itself subsequently took on a very civilized, decent form of a “social partnership” society. The Bolsheviks did their best to ensure a majority in the Soviets for workers and members of the party elite as the most proletarian, as a result of which Soviet power began to acquire the features of a one-party dictatorship. The main instrument for building a new statehood was the Council of People's Commissars, headed by V.I. Lenin, which from the very beginning freed itself from the control of the Soviets and began the formation of a specific Bolshevik political regime of power. In January 1918, the Constituent Assembly was dispersed. The contours of Soviet statehood were determined by the first Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted in July 1918, which simultaneously became the very first constitution in Russia as a whole. The Basic Law reflected the influence of the recent revolution and the beginning of the civil war. Former exploiters were deprived of civil rights and excluded from political life unearned elements and provided for unequal rights for urban and rural voters. The elections were multi-level, which ensured the required composition of all Councils.

Until the death of V.I. Lenin, the party and state maintained a regime of relative communist pluralism, which allowed a certain freedom of opinion within the framework of communist doctrine. But already at this time there was a deformation of the political regime, which the “workers’ opposition”, the group of “democratic centralism”, Trotsky’s opposition and others tried to fight against. The formation of a one-party political system. system, the resolution “On Party Unity” prohibited the creation in the RCP (b) of factions or groups that had a point of view different from the party leadership. Having introduced unanimity in its ranks, the Bolshevik leadership set to work for its political leaders. opponents. In December 1921, at the suggestion of Dzerzhinsky, the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks decided to hold an open trial of the Socialist Revolutionaries. The trial took place in June-August 1922. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee tribunal accused those arrested of organizing conspiracies to overthrow the Soviets. authorities, in counter-revolutionary propaganda and agitation. In June 1923, a secret instruction was developed “On measures to combat the Mensheviks,” which set the task of breaking up the Menshevik party. Polit. the opposition outside the Bolshevik Party ceased to exist.

Education of the USSR. At the suggestion of Lenin, on October 6, 1922, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) approved the draft Federal Treaty, according to which. All republics were guaranteed equal rights within the newly formed USSR, and were theoretically given the right to freely secede from the Union. December 30, 1922, on the opening day of the 1st Congress of Soviets of the USSR, which adopted the decision. on the formation of the USSR, the already paralyzed Lenin dictated a letter “On the question of nationalities or “autonomization”.” Here he outlined his understanding of internationalism and emphasized the need to preserve and strengthen it. THE USSR. The formation of the USSR on December 30, 1922 occurred as part of 4 republics: the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus and the Transcaucasian Federation. In January 1924, the Constitution of the USSR was adopted. Supreme law. According to it, the body was the Congress of Soviets of the USSR. He was elected on the basis of indirect election. rights of deputies of provincial and republican Soviets. At the same time, the so-called “non-labor elements”, the elections were not secret, they were held at meetings of labor collectives. The Central Executive Committee met at the Congresses of Soviets three times a year. It consisted of two laws. chambers: the Council of the Union and the Council of Nationalities. The CEC elected the Presidium of the CEC and appointed the Council of People's Commissars (an executive and administrative body with a number of legislative functions). Thus, the NEP as a whole included an administrative-market system of economic management under the state. property on a large scale and that means. part of industry, transport, banks, with unequal exchange with the countryside and authoritarian politics. The Authoritarian regime is distinguished by a strictly hierarchical structure of power that does not allow any kind of political power. opposition, if present, however, in the economy various forms property. From here internal inconsistency of authoritarian regimes, cat. leads to the fact that their development leads either to the gradual democratization of politics. sphere and legal society, or origin. nationalization of the economy with further tightening of state control over politics, ideology and the personal lives of citizens, as a result, all the “innovations” of the NEP required the abolition of force. labor and centuries labor market, reforming the salary system (a tariff system of remuneration was introduced). A monetary reform was carried out, resulting in a cat. became centuries in a solid country monetary unit, backed by gold - “golden chervonets”, cat. was highly valued internationally foreign exchange market. Most quickly adapt. to the NEP small industry, retail trade and the countryside. The recovery of heavy industry proceeded at a slower pace. After the terrible drought of 1921 and the famine of 1922, agriculture began to gradually improve. took away their volumes. The introduction of the NEP caused a change in social life. structures and lifestyles of people. The personification of the new economy. The regiments were bright, socially heterogeneous types: red people's commissars, directors.

The years of “war communism” became a period of establishing the political dictatorship of one party. This process took place in stages and in various ways. Publishing activities were curtailed, non-Bolshevik newspapers were banned, and leaders of opposition parties were arrested and then outlawed. Independent institutions were constantly monitored and gradually destroyed, and terror intensified.

On November 28, 1917, the cadets were declared “enemies of the people.” After the Bolsheviks came to power, the Cadets Party took an active part in the formation of various kinds of armed detachments and underground organizations to fight the new regime. The cadets were part of the inner circle of Admiral A.V. Kolchak, occupied key positions in the governments of generals A.I. Denikin, N.N. Yudenich and others. Prominent figures of the Cadet Party V. A. Maklakov, P. N. Milyukov and some others, while abroad, played a large role in ensuring support for the White armies from Western governments. By the spring of 1920, almost all of the most active party members had gone abroad. Underground organizations operating on the territory of Soviet Russia, including Moscow and Petrograd, were destroyed.

In April 1918, the anarchists were defeated. The Bolsheviks, accusing the anarchists of supporting “bourgeois counter-revolutionaries” and creating their own armed formations - “hotbeds of anarcho-banditry,” used all methods against them, including punitive ones. In 1921, the majority of anarchists collaborated with the Bolsheviks, while the other part emigrated.

The main political rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for influence on workers and peasants were the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries. In the fight against them, the leadership of the Bolshevik Party used various methods: violent suppression of the political activity of the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks; an agreement with those factions and movements that shared the ideas of the world revolution and recognized the inviolability of the principles of Soviet power; bringing the split within the socialist parties to a final organizational break between those who supported the Bolsheviks and those who refused to cooperate with them.

The leadership of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, taking into account the will of the majority of local Soviets to prevent a new Kornilov revolt, temporarily abandoned the tactics of violent liquidation of the Bolshevik regime. The Mensheviks pursued an agreement with the Bolsheviks with the goal of creating a “uniform socialist government.” At the beginning of November 1917, the Left Social Revolutionaries decided to join such a government. As a result, the socialist parties finally split into two camps - into supporters of Soviet and parliamentary democracies (Constituent Assembly). In the first half of 1918, the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries managed to strengthen their influence in a number of industrial centers Russia and among the peasantry. All this gave rise to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to adopt a resolution expelling the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks from its membership. When the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries began to win elections to local Soviets, they were expelled from the Soviets on June 14, 1918, by a resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. The same fate befell the left Socialist Revolutionaries, to whom, after the actual ban of the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, those dissatisfied with communist politics began to join. On July 6, 1918, the Left SRs shot and killed the German ambassador Mirbach, seeking to provoke war with Germany. The Bolsheviks immediately took advantage of this murder. The Left Social Revolutionaries were accused of rebellion, their military units were destroyed, their leaders, incl. M. Spiridonov, were arrested, their deputies were expelled from the Soviets.

However, in November, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee reversed the decision regarding the Mensheviks in exchange for their recognition of the historically inevitable Bolshevik coup and the launch of a political campaign in the West against interference in the internal affairs of Russia. The Socialist Revolutionaries finally rejected the attempt to overthrow the Soviet regime through armed struggle and abandoned any bloc with the bourgeois parties in February 1919. At the same time, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee reversed its decision regarding the Socialist Revolutionaries. However, the legalization of the activities of opposition socialist parties was incomplete, since the punitive authorities in every possible way prevented them from enjoying the freedom of the press, speech, assembly and re-establishing their organizations. Relations between them and the Bolsheviks became especially tense since the summer of 1919 due to the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks’ criticism of command-administrative methods of management and the call to abandon the utopia of a direct transition to socialism.

Using the participation of the Socialist Revolutionaries in the anti-Bolshevik uprisings, the Cheka authorities made a number of arrests from September 1920 to March 1921, which forced the Socialist Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to go underground. Subsequently, they were subjected to repression, and by the summer of 1923 the socialist opposition in Russia was practically crushed.

Unlike other political parties, the Bolsheviks were the most mobile and disciplined and soon acquired the status of the ruling party.

Since May 1918, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) began to gradually subjugate Soviet, trade union, youth and other public organizations. The armed forces were completely politicized, others strong structure. The Bolsheviks in practice turned the dictatorship of the proletariat in the form of the Soviets into the dictatorship of their party. All this allowed the party leadership to pursue a policy based on coercive methods in all areas of the country's life.

The very concept of the party, called communist since March 1918, did not allow for the division of power. This new type of organization was no longer a political party in the traditional sense, since its competence extended to all spheres - economy, culture, family, society. Under these conditions, any attempt to impede party control over social and political development was regarded as sabotage.

Communist Party performed the functions of public administration, and its governing bodies made decisions on all issues of economic, cultural and social life.

The establishment and strengthening of one-party rule in the USSR and the BSSR went in parallel with the formation of a totalitarian party - a “party of a new type.” To achieve their goals, at the beginning of 1920, changes were made to structural organization and the activities of communists. The leadership of the party has become multi-level. Previously, the highest bodies of the party did not have an internal structure.

At the 10th Congress of the RCP (b) the resolution “On Party Unity” was adopted, according to which it was forbidden to create party factions and groupings. Control over party members became stricter; people from “alien classes” were not accepted into the party. A special commission was created - the Central Control Commission, which made sure that degenerates did not appear in the party. The concept of party purges was introduced.

In the Byelorussian SSR in the first half of the 1920s, as in the RSFSR, a one-party system was established. Independent political parties were consistently destroyed different ways. National democratic parties were weakened by the separation of different currents from them. Many representatives of national democracy switched to the platform of the Communist Party and Soviet power. After the self-liquidation of the Bund, some of its members joined the ranks of the Communist Party (b) B. In June 1924, the Belarusian Party of Socialist Revolutionaries, the most significant and influential among the movements of national democracy, dissolved itself.

Main features of AKSU

1. AKSU was especially noticeable in the implementation of the most important function of the state and its authorities - legislation. The legislative activity of even the highest bodies of power - the Congresses of Soviets and the Central Executive Committee of the USSR - was, as it were, secondary: the convening of each congress or session of the Central Executive Committee, as a rule, was preceded either by the Plenum of the Party Central Committee, which discussed issues on the agenda of the next Congress of Soviets, or by a party conference or party congress, where fundamental issues of economics, politics, and culture were discussed and decisions were made. Therefore, the reports discussed at congresses of Soviets (higher and local) were of an informational, reporting, rather than staged nature. By the end of the 1920s. The All-Belarusian Congresses of Soviets were a body of power, primarily of the Soviet-party bureaucracy. Even the appearance of popular representation and the democratic nature of elections disappeared. All organizational work on the preparation of the All-Belarusian congresses was carried out under the leadership of the bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus, which approved the agenda of the congresses, draft resolutions, candidates for the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR, and gave appropriate instructions to the presidium of the Central Executive Committee and the communist faction of the congress. Since the early 1930s. Councils at all levels already had a decorative character. The regularity of convening congresses of Soviets of the BSSR was disrupted: they met to retroactively approve the political line of the executive bodies and the Central Committee of the CP(b)B. The activities of the Central Election Commission were finally formalized. From 1933 to 1937, only 9 sessions of the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR took place.

Outwardly, the activities of the CEC Presidium looked quite stormy. In addition to the fact that he approved on behalf of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR the decisions of the union and republican party bodies, many different resolutions were adopted, prepared by the relevant departments of the presidium. The presidium met 3 times a month. The agenda included 4-6 planned issues. In reality, up to 25 issues were considered at one meeting. Naturally, with such a volume of work, there was no discussion or modification of pre-prepared draft resolutions. The Presidium actually controlled the compliance of the officials trained government decisions party lines.

Often, not only departmental (People's Commissariat) resolutions, but also party decisions (from the Politburo to the district committee) became laws. There was no need to talk about the rule of law with such a mass of legislative acts.

2. The main method of leadership under the AKSU was “emergency” - a set of principles, techniques and management methods based on mass repression, judicial and extrajudicial coercion. An emergency control system, even if it is necessary (for example, in conditions of war), is permissible and justified only for a short time. AKSU made “emergency” not only the basic principle of organization and activity of the entire state apparatus, but also a “way of life.”

The peak of “emergency legislation” occurred in 1930-1932. These are, first of all, party decisions related to collectivization and the liquidation of the kulaks. All these laws were not only infinitely cruel, but also unusually flexible: they could be applied for any offense and convicted for any term. The tightening of criminal legislation through a huge number of “emergency” laws, aimed primarily at protecting socialist property, was the basis of the AKSU.

As you know, the AKSU also created bodies of extrajudicial repression - “special meetings” under the People’s Commissars of Internal Affairs of the USSR, union and autonomous republics, and local law enforcement agencies.

Emergency measures introduced by law from the mid-1920s inevitably led to hypertrophy of the functions of punitive bodies, which increasingly began to go beyond the control of the state, being only under the control of the leader.

“Emergency” persisted in subsequent years, as it remained one of the characteristic features of AKSU, a means of maintaining political stability and “order.” In the 1930s-80s. New emergency laws were periodically issued, the scope of which was either expanded to the limit or narrowed.

Throughout the 1930-50s. AKSU used repression as a universal means of solving all problems. The first wave of repression occurred in 1929-1933, when the so-called “revolution from above” was carried out in the countryside, with the goal of eliminating the kulaks. The second - for 1937-1938, when the destruction of all potential rivals of Stalin in the struggle for power was undertaken. The third wave (1940-50s) had the goal of forever mothballing the administrative-command system.

3. Bringing the state apparatus to the forefront, increasing it and merging it with the party apparatus. AKSU demanded a reorganization of the entire state apparatus that had formed at the beginning of the NEP.

Firstly, in the late 1920s - early 30s. There was a rapid growth of the entire administrative apparatus, which gradually bled the Soviets as bodies of power. The structure of the bodies of Soviet power, proposed by the Bolsheviks in October 1917, contained two branches of executive power: the People's Commissariats and the executive committees of the Soviets. In the early 1920s. the contradictions between them were resolved - through centralization by reassigning the executive committees of local Soviets to the people's commissariats. To complete all work to be carried out local authorities, and to implement the decisions of higher executive committees and central authorities, 15 departments were formed in provincial executive committees, and 12 in district ones. The departments, in their structure, completely copied the People's Commissariats, becoming their subordinate institutions: the People's Commissariats had the right to give instructions to the department of executive committees of any level corresponding to their profile. At the same time, the authority of the Soviets as legislative bodies decreased significantly.

The formalization of the activities of the Soviets as bodies of state power was strengthened by the development of the institution of “authorized commissars” - workers sent to places with specific instructions from the party or from representatives of the central government. The authorized representatives carried out the instructions of the center on the ground and fought against local initiative. They had unlimited powers within their competence and enjoyed the support of the Cheka.

Already by the beginning of the 1920s. the strengthening of the role of executive committees and the Bolshevization of the Soviets turned the latter into formal bodies that practically did not participate in political life.

There was fragmentation and disaggregation of almost all people's commissariats - both industrial and non-industrial. This concerned, first of all, the state apparatus of the all-Union, but the same processes (only to a lesser extent) took place in the Union republics, locally. First of all, they affected the management of the national economy.

In the bodies governing socio-cultural construction, the same process was going on, but with a more obvious desire for centralization.

The disaggregation of the People's Commissariats was aimed at transforming large industry centers, the unique headquarters of industries, which these People's Commissariats were, into sub-industry, highly specialized departments, the activities of which were easier to control.

Secondly, since the mid-1920s. The executive apparatus grew especially rapidly, and precisely that part of it that is associated with administrative coercive measures: NKVD bodies, highly specialized control bodies (financial, sanitary, planning, etc.), all kinds of “inspections” and “authorized persons.” All of them were centralized and operated throughout the USSR, regardless of the Soviets.

The growth of the administrative apparatus continued in the 1940s-80s, sometimes slowing down under the influence of circumstances (for example, during the Great Patriotic War) or regulatory intervention from above, sometimes accelerating, especially during periods of “stagnation”.

Thirdly, in the 1920s. a phenomenon such as departmentalism arises and develops. Arose in the early 1930s. After the abolition of the Supreme Economic Council, the sectoral people's commissariats quickly turned into closed centers of administrative and economic systems. The sectoral People's Commissariat was both a central body of government and a management body. Gradually, each sectoral system, headed by its People's Commissariat-department, became closed, and with the increase in the number of enterprises, production volumes and resources that the People's Commissariat concentrated in its hands, its own interests in implementing plans became increasingly important for such a center. In the sphere of public administration, departmentalism manifested itself as a clash of interests: departmental (People's Commissariat) and national (national economic).

Fourthly, AKSU gave rise to such a phenomenon as the merging of the party and Soviet apparatuses. In the first years after the revolution, the functions of party and Soviet bodies were not clearly delineated. However, at that time the party apparatus and the state apparatus still balanced each other. But by the mid-1920s. the party stood above society, its leadership stood above the party and found itself out of control. Local party leaders acquired power, which, due to its lack of control, was above the law

According to the 1918 constitution, the highest bodies of legislative power were all-Russian congress Soviets and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the highest body of executive power - the Council of People's Commissars, which, however, also had legislative powers. In reality, the real power lay with the party apparatus. In the name of Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, the country was ruled by an oligarchy - the Central Committee, and with its expansion - the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), not mentioned in the Constitution. How was this merging of the party and state apparatuses expressed?

On early stages these were individual, as they were called then, “irregularities”: plenums of provincial committees considered resolutions of congresses of Soviets and sessions of provincial executive committees, party bodies appointed heads of enterprises, considered and resolved issues of Soviet and economic development, etc. This “guardianship” of party bodies over non-party people taught the latter to turn to party bodies on any, even economic, issues.

Special circulars regulated not only the content of the activities of local workers, but also its form, ritual, and ceremonial. Raised as a principle, such intervention later not only did not raise objections, but was already taken for granted. All economic issues, including the development and approval of plans, were decided at party congresses, and not in the Soviets. All major decisions on these issues were adopted by the Politburo. All “emergency laws,” although issued on behalf of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, were developed and adopted in the Politburo, in the apparatus of the Central Committee. The party itself, from an organization collectively developing decisions, increasingly turned into an organization carrying out decisions, into a kind of People's Commissariat. Collective leadership at all levels - from top to bottom - was replaced by individual leadership, although formally democratic procedures were observed.

Nationalization was carried out in three directions:

1. Conducting or appointing communists to the executive bodies of the Soviets.

2. Changing functions structural divisions parties and their right to control infrastructure.

3. Financing the activities of the RCP (b) from the state budget.

The lack of democratic traditions and the low level of political culture of the population contributed to the virtually painless replacement of the Soviets by party committees. Issues of fundamental importance for the development of the country related to internal and foreign policy, were decided at party forums.

The establishment of party control over the activities of state institutions began with the unification of party structures. Primary cells of Bolsheviks operated in enterprises and institutions, which were subordinate to the party committees and carried out their decisions specifically at these enterprises and institutions.

In addition to control “from below”, which was carried out by party cells and party committees, there was also a system of party control over the activities of state institutions from above. Issues of control were dealt with by the Central Control Commission, as well as members of the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B.

Reports on the activities of central institutions were regularly heard at the bureau and secretariat of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B and their divisions in district committees, city committees, and regional committees.

The merger of the Communist Party with the state made it possible to use funds and structures to carry out party tasks. Local party organizations were subsidized from local budgets, since they were considered the propaganda departments of local councils.

Already the III Congress of Soviets of the USSR (May 1925) noted among the shortcomings of the Soviet system “the diminishing role of the Soviets as bodies of genuine people’s power”, the replacement of the Soviets by their personal chairmen, the reduction of the Soviets to the role of institutions registering ready-made decisions, the continuous increase in the number of members of executive committees and the Central Election Commission, violation of national legislation for reasons of “local expediency”, etc. Red tape and bureaucracy in resolving simple issues pitted the government against the interests of the population and made the influence of local officials almost limitless. Peasant dissatisfaction caused by state pricing policies and the bureaucratization of the Soviets led to a spontaneous boycott of elections to local Soviets.

In this regard, on the initiative of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B, the VII All-Belarusian Congress of Soviets in May 1925 decided to expand the rights and functions of district and village Councils. The Regulations on district councils and the structure of the apparatus of district executive committees were approved. They included fewer members, which made them more efficient.

On October 22, 1925, the Central Executive Committee of the BSSR adopted a new Regulation on village councils, however, as before, village councils were not free in their activities. Their work was completely determined by the orders of the district executive committees, which financed them.

But a real intensification of the activities of the Soviets would lead to their confrontation with the party bodies, which actually strived for autocracy.

The work of executive committees as collegial governing bodies continued to be carried out formally. A presidium was elected from the executive committee, which decided all issues important to citizens.

The highest bodies of Soviet power in the republic were completely dependent on the decisions of the Central Bureau of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks). The system of elections to territorial Soviets and the highest body of state power met the interests of the “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The nomination of candidates for delegates to the Congresses of Soviets was carried out by party bodies or with their support. If for any reason the party bodies were unable to appoint their candidate, a replacement was immediately carried out. As a result, in the second half of the 1920s. more than half of the participants in the All-Belarusian congresses with the right to vote were employees of the administrative, economic and political management of the republic. There were even more managers among the members of the Central Election Commission.

The elections of members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee were neither secret, nor direct, nor equal, nor universal. They were elected at special congresses by open voting. Candidates were nominated by party bodies for election and approved by the Bureau of the Central Committee of the CP(b)B. The finished list was “discussed” at the congress with representatives of the district delegations. As a rule, voting took place on a list, which was read out by a representative of the congress presidium. The number of members of the Central Executive Committee by the end of the 1920s. there were more than 250 people. There was no discussion of candidacies for members of the highest executive body at the congresses: the number of candidates for members of the Central Election Commission strictly corresponded to the number of seats. As a rule, self-recusals were not granted.

Elections to the highest bodies of power were not direct: thus, delegates to the congresses of Soviets of the BSSR were elected at congresses of county councils and plenums of city councils. They were not equal either - city councils elected one delegate from 2 thousand voters, and volost and district (later district and district) congresses of Soviets elected one deputy from 10 thousand residents. Representatives of the city enjoyed an advantage in voting rights: it was believed that the bulk of the working class was concentrated in the cities. Workers also included people from the working environment, those in administrative, economic, party, trade union work, and military personnel. Elections to the Soviets had already taken place by the early 1930s. were formally compulsory in nature: participation in them was intended to publicly demonstrate support for the authorities, and not the actual election of someone.

Congress delegates, members of the Central Executive Committee, and deputies of the Soviets performed their work on a voluntary basis, while engaging in other professional activities. Therefore, virtually everything was decided by numerous officials, who formally were only supposed to serve the elected representatives of the Soviet government.

The rotation of personnel of both local and central Councils was initially high - the former were elected for a term of two, the latter - for six months. With the end of the “Bolshevization” process, the terms of re-elections were significantly increased.

A paradoxical situation arose in which the Soviets, as a real force, formally (by law) had all the rights and powers, but were actually removed from power.

4. AKSU was largely based on the nomenklatura principle of managing the entire society.

The basis of the power of the CP (b) - CP (b) B was the establishment of control by the party apparatus over personnel appointments, carried out through the organizational bureau or secretariat. The decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of November 24, 1924 eliminated the previous hierarchy of employees and stated that “all civil ranks are abolished” and “names civil officials" are destroyed. But the dream of a commune state, in which there would be no professional bureaucracy and everyone would be managers, remained unrealized. Very soon it became clear that in the disintegrating, engulfed civil war To master the situation, the country needs a clear system of organizing power and management. The personnel corps of civil servants was formed primarily from members of the RCP (b). The principles of personnel selection were initially simple: personal contacts of prominent Bolsheviks with the future appointee revolutionary activities, clarification social origin and degree of political allegiance. Gradually, a clear mechanism for selecting, training and testing management personnel was created. For responsible employees employed at different levels of government administration, a nomenclature category was introduced.

On November 15, 1925, the Organizing Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) adopted a resolution “On the procedure for selecting and appointing workers.” Accounting and distribution departments were formed within the structure of the party apparatus. Lists of nomenklatura positions were strictly secret. The nomenclature is a list of the most important positions in the state apparatus (and later in public organizations), candidates for which are preliminary considered, recommended, approved and recalled by the party committee - from the district committee (city committee) to the party Central Committee. The nomenclature existed until the end of the 1980s.

The nomenclatures did not remain unchanged; they were revised annually and in different years. included a varying number of positions. The nomenklatura was divided into two lists: No. 1 and No. 2. The first of them, the distribution list, included positions to which leaders were appointed only by resolution of the Politburo of the Party Central Committee, the second, the accounting and reserve list, included positions for which appointment required the consent of the Organizational Preparatory Department Central Committee. The accounting and reserve nomenclature was a kind of “data bank” for the distribution nomenclature, as well as so that the Central Committee had the opportunity to constantly create a personnel reserve.

In addition to the nomenklatura lists, lists of elected positions were introduced, approval of which was carried out through special commissions created by the Central Committee of the RCP (b) for holding congresses. This included members and candidate members of the Komsomol Central Committee, members and candidate members of the presidiums of the Council of People's Commissars, the Central Executive Committee of the union republics and the USSR.

Selection and appointment to positions not included in lists No. 1 and No. 2 were to be made according to lists established by each government agency in agreement with the Organizational and Distribution Department of the Central Committee, the so-called “departmental nomenclature” No. 3.

The year 1926 was important in the formation of the nomenclature system. In August 1926, the Central Committee of the Communist Party (b) B adopted the resolution “On the organization of accounting and distribution work,” according to which “the planned work of the administrative distribution department should cover detailed study and the selection of people for nomenklatura positions, the preparation of reserves for individual sectors, the systematic study of the nomination process, the regular management of the work of administrative departments of departments and local party committees.” As a result, both nomenclatures were clearly structured. The distribution nomenclature was divided into 14 groups. Similar nomenclatures were introduced in the district and city party committees. The structure of the nomenklatura of the district and city committees was built on the same principle, but the number of groups into which it was divided, as well as the number of positions, was reduced. It included positions at the district and city level and was divided into 6 groups.

The existence of the nomenklatura is closely related to lack of professionalism and lack of management qualifications. For decades, the authority of skilled labor has been declining and agriculture, both in industry and in management. This caused particular damage to the area of ​​government. AKSU demanded opportunism, replicated non-professionals, i.e. people who have studied poorly or not at all, who do not know the business, but have internalized the slogans of the current moment and the “general line.” The Stalinist and post-Stalinist nomenklatura were more educated than the Leninist one. It has become a requirement of time and prestige to have a higher education.

Purges became an important and necessary means for creating a Soviet administrative apparatus capable of “new methods and forms of work to implement the general line of the party and government directives.” A massive purge of Soviet institutions was carried out in 1932-1933. It was carried out under the guidance and with the direct participation of employees of the NK RKI by specially created commissions. The cleaning was carried out in three categories. Those “purged” in the first category were considered enemies of Soviet power. They were arrested and convicted. Those “purified” in the second category could only engage in manual labor and were sent to work in factories. The third category allowed one to remain in the same enterprise or institution, but with a demotion or transfer to a lower-paid job.

The place of the “purged” was taken by the “promoted”. On April 7, 1930, the Presidium of the Central Executive Committee discussed and approved the resolution of the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the BSSR “On Nominees.” General meetings of enterprises, workshops, shifts (or production meetings), trade unions and public organizations, local executive committees and councils (or their sections and commissions), general meetings of collective farmers received the right to “nominate”, i.e. offer workers, farm laborers or collective farmers for leadership work.

If the “nominated” person could not cope with the job, he could be transferred to another position or fired only with the consent of the nominating organization. “Promotion” was calculated for 2 years, after which the nominee could be dismissed on a general basis, however, if it was a question of staff reduction, then only as a last resort. However, the “democratization” of government bodies associated with the introduction of the institution of “nomination” did not improve their performance.

Thus, the administrative-command management system left its mark on all spheres of state life - on production relations, the economic basis, the state apparatus, culture, everyday life, etc., deforming their socialist content.

The process of merging the party and state apparatuses ultimately led to a functional merger of the apparatuses, to a mixing of the competence of bodies with different purposes. The limits of interference of party bodies in the activities of the state apparatus (absorption of its functions) expanded every year. Comprehensive regulation aggravated such a disease as bureaucracy, and its carriers gradually turned into a certain layer - a corporation of party and economic leaders, managers, using their position not in the interests of business, but in their own selfish interests.

In the industrial sector of the economy, AKSU manifested itself in the hypertrophy of the state principle: in the nationalization of the main means of production, in the creation of a privileged bureaucracy uncontrollable by society, in the artificial stimulation of industrial development, which led to frequent failures.

In the agricultural sector of the economy, AKSU was used for non-economic coercion of peasants. This was expressed in the alienation of most of the products produced by the peasants, which undermined the principle of socialist distribution according to labor. Non-economic coercion, attachment to the land (the ban on issuing passports to collective farmers), mandatory forced labor were supplemented by economic coercion. Collective farms were created on the basis of combining peasant means of production: the peasant’s share went into the indivisible fund of the collective farm and was not subject to return. But the collective farms themselves did not have the right to dispose of their indivisible fund; they were deprived of the main means of production - equipment, which was in the hands of the state. The state, through MTS, provided equipment to collective farms for payment in kind.

In the spiritual sphere, the administrative-command system instilled “unanimity” and created an atmosphere of fear, suspicion, and uncertainty.

In the field of national relations, AKSU manifested itself in the form of gross deformations associated with the violation of socialist legality, both in relation to entire nations and in relation to individual citizens of a certain nationality: a) forced resettlement in the 1930-40s. thousands of representatives of individual nationalities in Kazakhstan, Siberia, Central Asia; b) liquidation in wars of national statehood of a number of peoples; c) illegal repressions against national personnel of tactically all the republics of the country (the so-called “Leningrad case”, “Doctors’ case”, etc.).