Towards the establishment of a one-party political system. Establishment of a one-party system

Definition 1

An important component of the mechanism of power is the party system, which is a 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 takes place under the influence of a variety of factors. These may be some of the features national composition population, the impact of religion or historical traditions, the balance of political forces and much more.

In order to determine the nature political system it is worth paying attention to the degree of real participation in the life of the state of political parties. 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 foregoing, the following types of party systems can be distinguished:

one-party;
bipartisan;
multiparty.

One-party system of the USSR

Special attention should be paid to the one-party political system. This system is considered non-competitive. Its name already indicates that it is based on only one party. Such a system leads to the fact that the institution of elections is emasculated, since there is no possibility alternative choice. The center for making certain decisions completely recedes to the leadership of the party. One way or another, but gradually such a system leads to the formation 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.

V.I. headed the one-party government. Lenin. The time has come for the "elimination" of all non-Bolshevik parties. The first of the conclusions characterizing the one-party system Soviet period- the decisive importance of violence in the formation of a one-party system. However, there was another approach on the way to the set goal - the emigration of party leaders, their separation from the country.

Remark 1

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

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

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

Establishment of Soviet power. This stage took place in two directions. It is characterized both by the peaceful transfer of control into the hands of the Soviet, and by a series of resistance by anti-Bolshevik forces.
Election of the Constituent Assembly. Following the path of forming a one-party system, unequal conditions were formed for the liberal parties. Thus, the results of the elections testify to the inevitable development of the country along the socialist path.
Formation of a coalition government through the unification of the Bolsheviks and the Left SRs. However, this union was not destined to last long. Not supporting the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Bolshevik policy, the Social Revolutionaries left the coalition union, which led to their subsequent expulsion from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
The process of redistribution of powers becomes obvious, the power of the councils passes in favor of party committees, as well as emergency authorities. The stage of the final prohibition of all democratic parties is coming. Only one party remains - the Bolsheviks.

Figure 1. Formation of the one-party system of the USSR. Author24 - online exchange of student papers

The year 1923 is characterized by the disintegration 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 in full strength came under the leadership of the main party. Individuals did the same.

The 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 has been reduced to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of a party that knows no rivals. The entire repressive state apparatus and the influence on the people through the media were presented to her services. The created all-penetrating vertical carried out its activities exclusively unilaterally towards the public, without accepting any feedback.

The development took place due to the contradictions characteristic of political parties in general, but in our country they had a specific form dictated by a one-party system. Thanks to the party system, it became obvious that our society is not capable of developing under conditions of monopoly power. In order for a party to gain the necessary strength, and at the same time to maintain it, to develop in line with a free community, 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 representatives of parties before voters.

Today the political system of Russia is multi-party.

One-party system A type of political system in which a single political party has legislative power. Opposition parties are either banned or systematically excluded from power. The dominance of one party can also be established through a broad coalition of several parties (People's Front), in which the ruling party strongly dominates.

One-party system in the USSR (1922-1989) On November 12, 1917, elections to the Constituent Assembly were held: 58% of all voters voted for the Socialist-Revolutionaries, for the Social Democrats - 27.6% ( with 25% for the Bolsheviks, 2.6% - for the Mensheviks), for the Cadets - 13%. It is also characteristic that the Bolsheviks had a predominance in the capitals, the Socialist-Revolutionaries became the undisputed leaders in the provinces. However, the ultra-radical position of the Bolshevik leader Lenin and his supporters, the enormous political will and confidence in the possibility of implementing their ideological doctrine in the face of the growing revolutionary anarchist element ultimately led to a different course of events: the Bolsheviks usurped power.

The formation of the mono-party system took place on certain ideological, political and socio-economic grounds, relying on repressive and punitive bodies. This gives grounds to speak not only of the party-state, but also of the phenomenon of Soviet totalitarianism. The state belonged entirely to one party, whose leaders (Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev) concentrated in their hands the legislative, executive and judiciary. In all the most important sectors of the life of society, "cadres" - the party nomenklatura - were placed.

The following years of activity of the Bolshevik Party became a time of gradual decline in its authority (not without the "energetic" actions of an increasingly aging leadership).

Undoubtedly, the reformist intention underlay the actions of the young General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M. Gorbachev. However, he could not cross over his partocratic nature, since he connected the fate of perestroika in one way or another with the role of the CPSU. Not tired of talking about democracy, Gorbachev tolerated in his entourage not only "conservatives", but also "agents of influence", to whose side he eventually went over, by dissolving the CPSU, he betrayed millions of innocent people.

The question of the fate of various political parties before the October Revolution was not raised even theoretically. Moreover, from the Marxist theory of classes naturally followed the thesis of the preservation of a multi-party system in a society divided into classes, even after the victory of socialism. However, practice Soviet power came into sharp conflict with this theory.

However, the cessation of the activities of the CPSU in August 1991 gave us a new historical experience of the death of the party, where repressions or emigration played no role. Thus, there is now sufficient empirical material to consider the cycle of evolution of a political party in Russia up to its collapse and determine its causes. In our opinion, they are rooted in the contradictions inherent in the party as a historical phenomenon. The one-party system facilitates this analysis, ensuring the unity of the subject of research.

single party simplified the problem political leadership, reducing it to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which does not know political rivals. At her service were the repressive apparatus of the state, the means of mass influence on the people. An all-powerful all-penetrating vertical was created, working in a one-way mode - from the center to the masses, devoid of feedback. Therefore, the processes taking place within the Party have acquired a self-contained significance. The source of its development was the contradictions inherent in the party, they are characteristic of a political party in general, but they proceeded in our country in a specific form, due to the one-party system.

The experience of the one-party system in our country has proved the impasse of the development of society under conditions of a monopoly on power. Only political methods in an atmosphere of free competition of doctrines, strategic and tactical attitudes, rivalry of leaders in full view of the voters could help the party gain and maintain strength, develop as a free community of people united by the unity of convictions and actions.

45. Curtailment of the NEP. Industrialization and collectivization of agriculture

The NEP at the first stage led to the rapid growth of the country's economy, however, state policy continued to be based on the principle of command and control management methods, including economic sphere. As a result, there was an acute shortage of both food and manufactured goods, in connection with which ration cards were introduced, then the state actually returned to the previous policy of confiscating food from the peasants. 1929 the year is considered the final end of the NEP and the beginning of mass collectivization.

Collectivization (1928-1935). In fact, collectivization (i.e., the unification of all private peasant farms into collective farms and state farms) began in 1929 when, in order to solve the problem of acute food shortages (peasants refused to sell products, primarily grain, at prices dictated by the state), taxes on private owners were increased and the authorities proclaimed a policy of preferential taxation for newly created collective farms. Thus, collectivization meant the curtailment of the New Economic Policy.

Collectivization was based on the idea of destroying the prosperous class of peasants, the kulaks, who, since 1929, found themselves in a virtually hopeless situation: they were not accepted into collective farms and they could not sell their property and leave for the city. Already on next year a program was adopted according to which all the property of the kulaks was confiscated, and the kulaks themselves were subject to mass eviction. In parallel, the process of creating collective farms was going on, which were to completely replace individual farms in the very near future.

Hunger breaks out 1932 - 1933 gg. only aggravated the situation of the peasants, whose passports were taken away, and in the presence of a strict passport system, moving around the country was impossible.

Industrialization. After civil war the country's industry was in a very distressed situation, and to solve this problem, the state had to find funds for the construction of new enterprises and the modernization of old ones. Since foreign loans were no longer possible due to the refusal to pay the royal debts, the party announced a course towards industrialization. . From now on, all the financial and human resources of the country were to be devoted to restoring the industrial potential of the country. In accordance with the developed program of industrialization, a specific plan was established for each five-year plan, the implementation of which was strictly controlled. As a result, by the end of the 1930s, it was possible to approach the leading Western European countries in terms of industrial indicators. This was achieved to a large extent by attracting peasants to the construction of new enterprises and using the forces of prisoners. Enterprises such as Dneproges, Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, White Sea-Baltic Canal.

Similar information.

Within half a year in Germany, the Nazis established a one-party dictatorship of the Nazi Party. At the first stage, the Nazis, with the support of the conservatives, carried out the violent liquidation of the left parties. The activities of the Communist Party of Germany were not formally banned. However, from February 28, 1933, it becomes illegal. The Social Democratic Party was banned in June 1933. Then, at the end of June - beginning of July 1933, under pressure from the Nazis, the rest of the political parties - liberals, the Catholic Center Party, conservative nationalists - announced their dissolution.

On July 14, 1933, the Reichstag passed a law "against the formation" of new parties." He declared the National Socialist Party the only legal political party, and membership in any other political parties a criminal offense.

In May 1933, the Nazis crushed the trade unions. Trade union buildings were seized by stormtroopers. Their leaders were arrested. Union property was confiscated. Instead of independent trade unions, the Nazis created the German Labor Front.

In November 1933 new elections to the Reichstag took place. At them, the vast majority of voters (92%) voted for the only list of candidates from the Nazi Party - the list of the Fuhrer. On December 1, 1933, the new Nazi Reichstag adopted the law "On Ensuring the Unity of the Party and the State." He declared the National Socialist Party "the bearer of state thought and inextricably linked with the state." The party was declared not a bearer state power, but only the "state idea", that is, the party did not receive any power functions under this law.

Law on the Supreme Head of the German Empire of August 1, 1934

After the death of the aged President Hindenburg on August 1, 1934, the government passed a law on the supreme head of the German Empire. Under this law, the positions of chancellor and president were combined in the person of the Fuhrer and Reich Chancellor Hitler. The post of president was abolished. His powers passed to Hitler. The rights of the head of state were assigned to Hitler for life. At the same time, Hitler, as a monarch, was given the right to appoint a successor to himself. Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces. Officers and officials took an oath of allegiance in unconditional obedience to Hitler personally.

Due to its special significance, this law was approved by popular vote and thus acquired the highest constitutional force. This law, giving Hitler unlimited power, was approved by the vast majority of Germans: 90% or more than 38 million voters voted in favor, only four million two hundred and fifty thousand opposed. The result of the referendum on the support of the Fuhrer does not raise any particular doubts about their general more or less correspondence to reality. Hitler's policy thus received the support of all sections of the Germans. The Third Reich arose through free mass expression of will.

Lecture number 7. State mechanism Nazi dictatorship. The essence of a totalitarian political regime

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru

Federal Agency for Education of the Russian Federation

Novokuznetsk branch-institute

state educational institution

higher professional education

"Kemerovo State University"

Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law

Course work

on the topic: The formation of a one-party system in the USSR in the 20-30s. Consequences and controversies

Completed:

student group U-092

Mosolov E.D.

Supervisor:

Cand. history Sciences, Associate Professor

Lipunova L.V.

Novokuznetsk - 2010

Introduction

3. The contradictions of the one-party system in the USSR

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

As a result of the October Revolution, the Provisional Government was overthrown and a government formed by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets came to power, the absolute majority of the delegates of which were Bolsheviks - the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) and their allies, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, also supported by some national organizations, a small part of the Menshevik-internationalists, and some anarchists. This absolute majority gave the Bolsheviks the right to implement their political views and theories.

So, the topic "The Formation of a One-Party System in the USSR, Consequences and Contradictions" is of interest and relevant for research because:

The creation of a one-party system influenced the entire history of the Soviet state, laid down the features of the policy of the USSR for all subsequent years of its existence, and influenced people's minds. All this is still reflected in modern Russia.

The object of research is the state apparatus of the USSR and the Bolshevik Party (RKP (b) - VKP (b)).

The subject of the study is the actions of the state apparatus of the USSR in the period from 1918 to 1936, to establish a one-party system.

The purpose of the course work is to consider the formation and evolution of the one-party system in the USSR, its contradictions and consequences.

The goal is revealed through the following tasks:

* trace the history of the formation of a one-party system in the USSR;

* Establish the implications of adopting such a system;

* Identify the circle of people who have made the greatest contribution to the establishment of a one-party system;

* Reveal problematic aspects;

* Make a conclusion on the study.

one-party political conformism

1. The history of the formation of a one-party system in the USSR

The course towards the establishment of a one-party political system (such a system in which a single and, therefore, the ruling party is preserved) was fully consistent with theoretical ideas about the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The authorities, relying on direct violence and systematically using it against "hostile classes", did not even allow the thought of the possibility of political rivalry and opposition from other parties. Equally intolerant for this system was the existence of dissent, alternative groups within the ruling party. In the 20s. the formation of a one-party system was completed. The NEP, which allowed elements of the market, private initiative, and entrepreneurship in the economic sphere, retained and even toughened the military-communist intolerance towards "enemies and vacillators" in the political sphere.

The Bolshevik Party has become the main link in the state structure. The most important government decisions were first discussed in the circle of party leaders - the Political Bureau (Politburo) of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which in 1921 included V.I. Lenin, G.E., Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev, I.V. Stalin, L.D. Trotsky, etc. Then they were approved by the Central Committee of the RCP (b), and only after that all issues were fixed in the decisions of the state, i.e. Soviet authorities. All leading government posts were occupied by party leaders: V.I. Lenin - Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars; M.I. Kalinin - chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee; I.V. Stalin - People's Commissar on affairs of nationalities, etc.

By 1923, the remnants of the multi-party system were eliminated. The 1922 trial of the Socialist-Revolutionaries accused of organizing conspiracies against the Soviet government and the leaders of the Communist Party put an end to more than twenty years of the party's history. In 1923, the persecuted and frightened Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. The Bund ceased to exist. These were leftist, socialist parties; monarchist and liberal parties were liquidated in the first years after the October Revolution of 1917.

Political opponents who were outside the ranks of the Communist Party were done away with. It remained to achieve unity within the party. After the end of the Civil War, V. I. Lenin considered the question of the unity of the party to be the key, "a matter of life and death." X Congress of the RCP (b) in 1921 adopted at his insistence the famous resolution "On the Unity of the Party", which prohibited any factional activity. In no less famous recent works of 1922-1923. The seriously ill leader urged his heirs to preserve the unity of the party "like the apple of his eye": he saw the main threat in the split in its ranks.

Meanwhile internal party struggle, aggravated even during the life of Lenin, after his death (January 1924) flared up with renewed vigor. Its driving forces were, on the one hand, disagreements about which direction and how to move forward (what to do with the NEP; what policy to pursue in the countryside; how to develop industry; where to get money for the modernization of the economy, etc.), and personal rivalry in an irreconcilable struggle for absolute power -- on the other hand .

The main stages of the inner-party struggle in the 20s.

1923--1924 - "triumvirate" (I.V. Stalin, G.E. Zinoviev and L.B. Kamenev) against L.D. Trotsky. The ideological content: Trotsky demands to stop retreating before the petty-bourgeois elements, "tighten the screws", tighten command management of the economy, accuses the party leaders of degeneration. Outcome: the victory of the "triumvirate", the personal strengthening of Stalin.

1925 -- Stalin, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov, M.P. Tomsky and others against the "new opposition" of Zinoviev and Kamenev. Ideological content: Stalin puts forward the thesis about "the possibility of building socialism in a single country"; the opposition defends the old slogan of "world revolution" and criticizes the authoritarian methods of party leadership. The result: the victory of Stalin, the rapprochement of the "new opposition" with Trotsky.

1926--1927 -- Stalin, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky and others. Against the "united opposition" of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky ("Trotsky-Zinoviev bloc"). Ideological content: the struggle continues around the Stalinist thesis about the construction of socialism in a single country. The opposition demands to speed up the development of industry by "pumping" money out of the countryside. Outcome: Stalin's victory, the removal of opposition leaders from leading positions in the party and the state, exile, and then expulsion from Trotsky's country.

1928--1929 -- Stalin against the "Right Opposition" (Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky). Ideological content: Stalin puts forward a course towards forced industrialization, carried out at the expense of the peasantry, speaks of intensifying the class struggle; Bukharin and others develop the theory of "growing" into socialism, of civil peace and support for the peasantry. Outcome: Stalin's victory, the defeat of the "right opposition".

Thus, the intra-party struggle in the 20s. ended with the personal victory of Stalin, who by 1929 had seized absolute power in the party and state. Together with him, he won the course of abandoning the NEP, forced industrialization, the collectivization of agriculture, and the establishment of a command economy.

Socio-political life of the USSR in the 1930s. was the life of a country that had already become totalitarian. A totalitarian society is such a society in which the multi-party system has been eliminated and there is a one-party political system; the ruling party has grown together with the state apparatus and subjugated it to itself; a single, obligatory ideology was established; there is no society independent of the control of the party and the state, all public organizations. And all public relations directly controlled by the state; there was a cult of the leader; there is an extensive police apparatus that carries out repressions against citizens; civil rights, formally recognized, are in fact eliminated.

The economic basis of Soviet-type totalitarianism was a command-administrative system built on the nationalization of the means of production, directive planning and pricing, and the elimination of the foundations of the market. In the USSR, it was formed in the process of industrialization and collectivization.

The one-party political system was established in the USSR already in the 1920s. The merging of the party apparatus with the state apparatus, the subordination of the party to the state became a fact at the same time. In the 30s. The CPSU(b), having gone through a series of sharp fights of its leaders in the struggle for power, was a single, strictly centralized, rigidly subordinated, well-oiled mechanism. Discussions, discussions, elements of party democracy are irrevocably a thing of the past. The Communist Party was the only legal political organization. The Soviets, formally the main organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, acted under its control, all government decisions were made by the Politburo and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and only then formalized by government decrees. Leading party figures occupied leading positions in the state. All personnel work went through the party bodies: not a single appointment could take place without the approval of the party cells.

As for the Komsomol, trade unions, and other public organizations, they were nothing more than "transmission belts" from the party to the masses. Original "schools of communism" (trade unions for workers, the Komsomol for youth, a pioneer organization for children and adolescents, creative unions for the intelligentsia), they, in essence, played the role of representatives of the party in various sectors of society, helping it to lead all spheres of the country's life.

The spiritual basis of the totalitarian society in the USSR was the official ideology, the postulates of which - understandable, simple - were introduced into the minds of people in the form of slogans, songs, poems, quotes from leaders, lectures on the study of " short course the history of the CPSU(b)”: the foundations of a socialist society have been built in the USSR; as we advance towards socialism, the class struggle is bound to sharpen; “who is not with us is against us”; The USSR is the bulwark of progressive society throughout the world; "Stalin is Lenin today." The slightest deviation from these simple truths was punished: "purges", expulsion from the party, repressions were called upon to preserve the ideological purity of citizens.

The cult of Stalin as the leader of society was perhaps the most important element of totalitarianism in the 1930s. In the image of a wise, merciless to enemies, simple and accessible leader of the party and people, abstract appeals took on flesh and blood, became extremely concrete and close. Songs, films, books, poems, newspaper and magazine publications inspired love, awe and respect bordering on fear. The whole pyramid of totalitarian power closed on him, he was its undisputed, absolute leader.

In the 30s. the previously established and significantly expanded repressive apparatus (the NKVD, extrajudicial reprisals - "troikas", the Main Directorate of Camps - GULAG, etc.) worked at full speed. Since the end of the 20s. waves of repressions followed one after another: the Shakhty case (1928), the trial of the Industrial Party (1930), the Academician Case (1930), repressions in connection with the assassination of Kirov (1934), political trials of 1936-1939 . against the former leaders of the party (G.E. Zinoviev, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov and others), the leaders of the Red Army (M.N. Tukhachevsky, V.K. Blucher, I.E. Yakir and others .) . The "Great Terror" claimed the lives of almost 1 million people who were shot, millions of people passed through the Gulag camps. Repression was the very tool by which a totalitarian society dealt not only with real, but also with the alleged opposition, instilled fear and humility, readiness to sacrifice friends and loved ones. They reminded the frightened society that a person “weighed on the scales” of history is light and insignificant, that his life has no value if society needs it. The terror had economic importance: millions of prisoners worked at the construction sites of the first five-year plans, contributing to the economic power of the country.

A very complex spiritual atmosphere has developed in society. On the one hand, many wanted to believe that life is getting better and more fun, that the difficulties will pass, and what they have done will remain forever - in the bright future that they are building for the next generations. Hence the enthusiasm, faith, hope for justice, pride from participating in a great cause, as millions of people thought. On the other hand, there was fear, a feeling of insignificance, insecurity, and a readiness to unquestioningly carry out commands given by someone. It is believed that this is precisely this - an excited, tragically split perception of reality is characteristic of totalitarianism, which requires, in the words of a philosopher, "an enthusiastic affirmation of something, a fanatical determination for the sake of nothing."

The Constitution of the USSR adopted in 1936 can be considered a symbol of the era. It guaranteed citizens the entire set of democratic rights and freedoms. Another thing is that the citizens were deprived of most of them. The USSR was characterized as a socialist state of workers and peasants. The constitution noted that socialism was basically built, socialist ownership of the means of production was established. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies were recognized as the political basis of the USSR, and the role of the leading core of society was assigned to the CPSU (b). There was no principle of separation of powers.

2. Consequences of establishing a one-party system in the USSR

If we analyze the events described in the previous chapter, and add to them the current state of the Russian Federation, we can single out the following consequences of one-party politics:

* Destroy enemies within the party

* Full merging of party and state apparatuses

* Elimination of the system of separation of powers

* Destruction of civil liberties

* Creation of mass public organizations

* Spread of the cult of personality

* Mass repression

* large human losses, often the best representatives of various social groups

* technical, economic and selectively scientific lag behind the developed democratic countries of the West and East

* ideological mess in the minds, lack of initiative, slave psychology in many Russians and residents of some other republics former USSR currently

one-party political state regime

3. Contradictions

The question of the fate of various political parties before the October Revolution was not raised even theoretically. Moreover, from the Marxist theory of classes naturally followed the thesis of the preservation of a multi-party system in a society divided into classes, even after the victory of socialism. However, the practice of Soviet power entered into a striking contradiction with this theory.

Repressions against non-Bolshevik parties began immediately after the victory of the October Revolution and did not stop until their complete disappearance, which made it possible to draw the first conclusion: the conclusion about the decisive role of violence in establishing one-party system. Another approach to this problem proceeded from the fact that most of the leaders of these parties had emigrated, which made it possible to draw a different conclusion - about their separation from the country and the remaining membership in it. However, the cessation of the activities of the CPSU in August 1991 gave us a new historical experience of the death of the party, where repressions or emigration played no role. Thus, there is now sufficient empirical material to consider the cycle of evolution of a political party in Russia up to its collapse and determine its causes. In my opinion, they are rooted in the contradictions inherent in the party as a historical phenomenon. The one-party system facilitates this analysis, ensuring the unity of the subject of research.

The dividing line between a multi-party system and a one-party system lies not in the number of parties that exist in the country, but in their real impact on its politics. At the same time, it is not so important whether the parties are in the government or in the opposition: it is important that their voice is heard, they are considered, the policy of the state is formed with their participation. From this point of view, the existence in the PRB, the GDR, the DPRK, the PRC, Poland, Czechoslovakia in the second half of the 40s - early 80s. several parties, and in the USSR, the NRA, or the Hungarian People's Republic - only one party does not play a role, because the "allied parties" did not have their own political line and were entirely subordinate to the leadership of the communists. It is no coincidence that they hastened to distance themselves from the ruling party as soon as the crisis of the 1980s began.

Therefore, we can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918.

Because the Left Social Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Soviets at all levels, the leadership of the people's commissariats and the Cheka, with their noticeable participation the first Constitution of the RSFSR, the most important laws of Soviet power were created ( especially the Basic Law on the Socialization of the Land). At that time, some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets.

In the early 20s. a phenomenon called "dictatorship of the party" is formed. This term was first put into circulation by G.E. Zinoviev at the XII Congress of the RCP (b) and entered the resolution of the congress. I.V. Stalin hastened to dissociate himself from him, however, in my opinion, this term reflected the real picture: since October 1917, all state decisions were previously made by leading institutions Communist Party, which, having a majority in the Soviets, carried them out through its members and formalized them in the form of decisions of Soviet bodies. In a number of cases, this procedure was not observed: a number of decisions of national importance existed only in the form of party resolutions, some - joint resolutions of the party and government. Through communist factions (since 1934 - party groups), the party led the Soviets and public associations, through the system of political agencies - power structures and sectors of the economy that became "bottlenecks" (transport, agriculture). Almost all the "first persons" in state bodies, public organizations, enterprises, cultural institutions were members of the party. This leadership was consolidated by the nomenclature system for the appointment and approval of managers and responsible employees.

Theoretically, the justification for the right of the Communist Party to lead was a peculiar interpretation of the idea of classes put forward, as you know, even before Karl Marx by French historians of the Restoration. Its Leninist interpretation consisted in the consistent narrowing of concentric circles: the carriers of progress, the most important part of the people are only the working people, among them the working class stands out, behind which the future stands. Within it, the leading role belongs to the factory proletariat, and in it to the workers. large enterprises. The most conscious and organized part, constituting a minority of the proletariat, is united in the Communist Party, headed by a narrow group of leaders, to which the right to lead is given "not by the power of power, but by the power of authority, the power of energy, greater experience, greater versatility, greater talent."

Under the conditions of a one-party system, the last part of the formula did not correspond to reality. With all the fullness of state power at its disposal, the ruling elite maintained its leadership position precisely by the "power of power", with the help of repressive bodies. But this meant for the party the loss of one of the essential signs of party membership - the voluntariness of association. All who aspire to political activity, understood that there is no other way into politics, except for belonging to a single party. Exclusion from it meant political (and in the 1930s and 1940s often physical) death, voluntary withdrawal from it, condemnation of its policy, and consequently, disloyalty to existing state, at least - the threat of reprisals.

Political pluralism, which assumed the rivalry of different parties representing the plurality of interests of social groups, the struggle of parties for influence on the masses and the possibility of losing one of them the status of the ruling one, was the opposite of this system. Its presumption was the tacit assertion that the leaders know their interests and needs better than the masses, but only the Bolsheviks possess this omniscience. The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. The Decree "On the arrest of the leaders of the civil war against the revolution" of November 28, 1917 banned one party - the Cadets. This was hardly justified by practical considerations: the Cadets were never represented in the Soviets, in the elections to the Constituent Assembly they managed to get only 17 deputies into it, moreover, some of them were recalled by the decision of the Soviets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, connections with commercial, industrial and military circles, and support for the allies. But just this ban on the party could not undermine, most likely, it was an act of revenge on the once most influential opponent. The repressions only further weakened the prestige of the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the intelligentsia and raised the authority of the Cadets.

The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were, above all, the anarchists who stood to the left of them. Their strengthening on the eve of the October uprising was indicated at an enlarged meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) on October 16, 1917. They took an active part in the establishment and strengthening of Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. The strength of the anarchists was that they expressed the spontaneous protest of the peasantry and the urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists, who occupied 26 mansions in the center of Moscow, were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists, without exception, bandits. Some of the anarchists went underground, while others joined the Bolshevik Party.

On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of the more moderate sections of the workers and peasants, who longed for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their financial situation. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, relied on the further development of the class struggle, transferring it to the countryside, which further increased the gap between them and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, formed in connection with the conclusion Brest Peace. It is characteristic that both the Bolsheviks and their political opponents and even former allies did not think about legal rivalry on the basis of the existing regime. Soviet power was firmly identified with the power of the Bolsheviks, and the armed way was recognized as the only method of resolving political contradictions. As a result, in June the Mensheviks and Right SRs, and after July, the Left SRs were expelled from the Soviets. The Socialist-Revolutionaries Maximalists still remained in them, but due to their small number they did not play a significant role.

During the years of foreign military intervention and the civil war, depending on the change in the policy of the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties in relation to the power of the Soviets, they were either allowed or banned again, moving to a semi-legal position. Attempts from both sides to conditional cooperation have not been developed.

New, much more solid hopes for the establishment of a multiparty system were associated with the introduction of the New Economic Policy, when the admitted multistructural nature of the economy seemed to be able to receive a natural continuation and consolidation in political pluralism. And first impressions confirmed it.

At the X Congress of the RCP (b) in March 1921, when discussing the issue of replacing the surplus appropriation with a tax in kind, when the People's Commissar for Food A.D. Tsyurupa spoke out against the revival of free cooperation in view of the predominance of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries there, the speaker V.I. Lenin objected to him in a broader sense: well known. Here we have to choose not between whether or not to give a move to these parties - they are inevitably generated by petty-bourgeois economic relations - but we have to choose, and then only to a certain extent, only between forms of concentration, unification of the actions of these parties.

However, just a year later, in the Final Address on the Political Report of the Central Committee to the XI Congress of the RCP (b), Lenin said the exact opposite: “Of course, we allow capitalism, but within the limits that are necessary for the peasantry. It is necessary! Without this, the peasant cannot live and manage. And without Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik propaganda, we assert that he, a Russian peasant, can live. And whoever claims the opposite, then we say that it is better that we all die to one, but we will not yield to you! And our courts must understand all this.” What happened during this year for the Bolsheviks to radically change their approach to the issue of political pluralism?

In my opinion, the decisive role here was played by two different, but deeply interconnected events: Kronstadt and "Smenovekhovism".

The rebels in Kronstadt, like the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries before, did not set the task of overthrowing the Soviet power, which the Bolsheviks accused them of. Among their slogans were: "Power to the Soviets, not to the parties!" and "Soviets without communists!". You can talk about the craftiness of P.N. Milyukov and V.M. Chernov, who suggested these slogans to the Kronstadters, but they themselves apparently believed in them. The implementation of these slogans meant not only the elimination of the monopoly of the RCP (b) on power or its removal from power, but, given the experience of the civil war that had just ended, the prohibition of the RCP (b), repression not only against leaders, but also against the membership mass, and non-party Soviet activists. The "Russian rebellion, senseless and merciless" never knew the generosity of the winners. For the Bolsheviks, it was literally a matter of life and death.

Peaceful "Smenovekhovism" approached this problem from a different angle. By posing the fundamental question: "What is the NEP - is it tactics or evolution?", its leaders gave the answer in the second sense. In their opinion, the NEP marked the beginning of the evolution of Soviet society towards the restoration of capitalism. From this, the next step of the Bolsheviks should logically follow: the addition of a multi-structural economy with a "political NEP" - the assumption of pluralism in politics. This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did not want to do, rightly fearing that in free elections, voters, remembering the “Red Terror”, food requisitioning, etc., would refuse to support them, handing power to other parties. At the same time, such a vote had an important advantage over an armed rebellion - legitimacy. I think that is why the “Smenovekhovism” frightened Lenin more than the Kronstadt uprising. In any case, he repeatedly spoke about the warning against the "Change of milestones" in 1921-1922.

The course towards the eradication of political pluralism and the prevention of a multi-party system was confirmed by the resolution of the XII All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) in August 1922 "On anti-Soviet parties and trends", 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 should have been directed against them. Repressions were not ruled out, but officially they had to play a subordinate role.

Organized in the summer of 1922, the process of the Combat Organization of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was intended to play, above all, a propaganda role. Held in the Hall of Columns in the House of the Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large audience, foreign observers and defenders, and widely covered in the press, the process was supposed to present the Social Revolutionaries as ruthless terrorists. After that, the Extraordinary Congress of rank-and-file members of the AKP easily passed, announcing the self-dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. Recent literature has made public the facts about the role of the RCP(b) and the OGPU in the preparation and holding of these congresses.

Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. was finally crossed. It seems that from this time it is possible to date the completion of the process of forming a one-party system, the decisive step towards which was taken in 1918.

In defending its monopoly on power, the Bolshevik leadership defended its own life. And this could not but distort the system of political relations, in which there was no place for traditional means of political conflict resolution: compromise, blocs, concessions. Confrontation became the only law of politics. And a whole generation of politicians was brought up in the conviction of the inevitability of this.

Political pluralism threatened in Soviet Russia break through in another way - through factionalism in the RCP(b) itself.

Having become the only legal party in the country, it could not but reflect, albeit in an indirect form, the diversity of interests, which was further strengthened with the introduction of the NEP. The fact that factions really serve as the basis for the formation of new parties is evidenced by the experience of both the beginning and the end of the 20th century. But it seems that the leadership of the RCP(b) was no longer concerned with this, but with the threat of "shifting power" first to the faction closest to the ruling group, and then to the forces of open restoration. It was precisely the fear that the inner-Party struggle would so weaken the leading narrow stratum of the Party that "the decision would no longer depend on it," and were dictated crackdown against the platforms, discussions, factions and groupings contained in the resolutions of the Tenth Congress of the RCP(b) "On Party Unity". For decades there was no crime in the Bolshevik Party worse than factionalism.

Fear of factionalism led to the deformation of the ideological life of the party. The discussions traditional among the Bolsheviks began to be seen as undermining ideological unity. First, in 1922, the activity of party debating clubs was curtailed, where high-ranking members of the party had the courage to share doubts in their circle. Then, in 1927, the opening of a general party discussion was arranged difficult conditions: the lack of a strong majority in the Central Committee on the most important issues of party policy, the desire of the Central Committee itself to verify its correctness by polling party members or, if required by several organizations of a provincial scale. However, in all these cases, the discussion could begin only by decision of the Central Committee, which actually meant the cessation of any discussion whatsoever.

The former struggle of opinions by the end of the 20s. was replaced by outward unanimity. The general secretary became the only theoretician, the stages of ideological life were his speeches. This led the party, which prided itself on the scientific soundness of its policy, to call theory the last indication of the leaders, whose intellectual level was increasingly declining. Marxism-Leninism began to be called a set of dogmas and platitudes, which united with it only an ornament in the form of Marxist terms. Thus, the Communist Party has lost another essential attribute of party spirit - its own ideology. It could not develop in the absence of discussions both among itself and with ideological opponents.

On the contrary, a number of new parties of the early 1990s (Democratic, Republican, Social Democrats, etc.) originated in the depths of the debating party clubs that spontaneously arose in the CPSU in the late 80s. However, the general decline in the level of ideological life in the country affected them as well. One of the main difficulties of most modern Russian parties is the development of a clear ideological line that would be understandable to the people and could claim their support.

The one-party system simplified the problem of political leadership to the limit, reducing it to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which does not know political rivals. At her service were the repressive apparatus of the state, the means of mass influence on the people. An all-powerful all-penetrating vertical was created, working in a one-way mode - from the center to the masses, devoid of feedback. Therefore, the processes taking place within the Party have acquired a self-contained significance. The source of its development was the contradictions inherent in the party. In my opinion, they are characteristic of a political party in general, but they took place in our country in a specific form, due to the one-party system.

The first contradiction is between the personal freedom of a party member, his own convictions and activities, and belonging to a party whose program, regulations and political decisions restrict this freedom. This contradiction is immanent in any public association, but is especially acute in a political party, where unity of action is required of everyone together with its other members.

A generic feature of Bolshevism was the subordination of a member of the party to all its decisions. “After the decision of the competent authorities, we all, party members, act as one person,” V.I. emphasized. Lenin. True, he stipulated that this should be preceded by a collective discussion, after which the decision is made democratically. However, in practice it became more and more formal.

Iron discipline, which the Bolsheviks were proud of, ensured the unity of their actions at turning points in history, in a combat situation. However, this created a tradition of priming coercion over conscious submission. The majority always turned out to be right, and the individual was initially wrong in front of the team.

This was very clearly expressed by L.D. Trotsky in his well-known repentance at the Thirteenth Congress of the RCP(b) in May 1924: “Comrades, none of us wants and cannot be right against our party. The Party, in the final analysis, is always right, because the Party is the only historical instrument given to the proletariat for the solution of its fundamental tasks... I know that it is impossible to be right against the Party. One can be right only with the party and through the party, because history has not given other ways to realize the rightness. The British have a historical proverb: right or wrong, but this is my country. With much greater historical right, we can say: right or wrong in certain particular, specific questions, at certain moments, but this is my party. Such frank conformism made it possible for I.V. Stalin to condescendingly object: “The Party often makes mistakes. Ilyich taught us to teach the Party leadership from its own mistakes. If the party did not make mistakes, then there would be nothing to teach the party on. In fact, he himself adhered to the thesis of the party's infallibility, which was identified with the infallibility of its leadership, or, more precisely, with its own infallibility. Mistakes were always the fault of others.

Already in the early 20s. a system of strict regulation of the spiritual, social and personal life of a communist took shape. All of it was placed under the supervision of cells and control commissions. Created in September 1920 in connection with the raising of the question of the growing gap between the “tops” and “bottoms” of the party and the demand of the latter to revive party equality, the Central, and then the local control commissions, from the very beginning turned into party courts with all their attributes : "Party investigators", "Party judges" and "Party Troikas".

General purges and partial inspections of party personnel played a special role in instilling conformism in the party. First of all, they struck at the party intelligentsia, who could be blamed not only for non-proletarian origin, but also for social activity that did not fit into the framework prescribed from above. “Hesitations in carrying out the general line of the Party”, speeches in the course of discussions still taking place, mere doubts were sufficient grounds for expulsion from the Party. Against the workers, who were officially considered the main support and core of the party, another accusation was brought forward: "passivity", which meant non-participation in numerous meetings, the inability to speak with the approval of decisions sent down from above. The peasants were accused of "economic fouling" and "connections with class alien elements", i.e. precisely in what naturally flowed from NEP. Purges and inspections kept all categories of the party "lower classes" in constant tension, threatening exclusion from political life, and from the beginning of the 30s. - repression.

But even the “tops” did not enjoy freedom at all. They were accused of factionalism. At the same time, as it turned out, the main danger to the unity of the party ranks did not come from factions that possessed platforms and group discipline, which to a certain extent imposed restrictions on their supporters, but from unprincipled blocs, for which Stalin was such a master. First, this was the "troika" of Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin against Trotsky, then the bloc of Stalin and Bukharin against the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc, and finally, the majority in the Central Committee, which Stalin took a long time to select, against Bukharin and his "right deviation". The signs of factionalism defined by the resolution of the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) "On Party Unity" did not apply to them. But then reprisals also began against members of the majority, the main accusation against which was connection with factionalists, real or imaginary. It was enough to ever work with one of the convicts. Even personal participation in the repressions was not seen as proof of loyalty to the Stalinist leadership; on the contrary, it made it possible to shift the blame for them from the organizers to the perpetrators.

Thus, during the 20-30s. formed a mechanism artificial selection conformists and careerists. The latter, moving up the career ladder, competed in diligence. Intelligence, knowledge, popularity served as an obstacle rather than an aid to advancement, because they threatened the authorities, who had less and less of these qualities. Mediocrity received the greatest chances for promotion. (Trotsky once called Stalin a "genius of mediocrity"). Once at the top, the mediocre leader was kept by the forces of the repressive apparatus. It was impossible to replace him with the help of a democratic election procedure.

However, it was impossible for the Stalinist leadership to abandon inner-party democracy, at least in words: the democratic tradition was too strong, and an open rejection of democracy would have destroyed the propaganda image of “the most democratic society.” But he managed to reduce electivity and turnover to a mere formality: at each election, starting with the district committee and rising higher, the number of candidates exactly corresponded to the availability of seats in the elected body, and the secretaries of the party committees were selected in advance by a higher body. In moments of crises, this election was also replaced by co-optation on the recommendation from above. This was the case during the civil war, at the beginning of the New Economic Policy and in the mid-1930s.

The accumulation of mediocrities in leadership eventually led to a new quality: the inability of leaders to either adequately assess the situation themselves or listen to competent opinion from outside. This, in my opinion, explains many obvious mistakes of the 1920s and 1930s. and more recent times.

Due to the lack of feedback in the party, its members did not exert any influence on politics. They became hostages of anti-democratic internal party relations. Moreover, non-party people were excluded from decision-making and control over their implementation. The second contradiction of the political party is between the desire for sustainability and the need for renewal in connection with changes in society.

This, first of all, manifested itself in ideology, as already mentioned above. The result of the rigidity of ideology was a growing gap between the official point of view and reality: persistent references to the kulak threat contradicted the fact that it was insignificant. specific gravity like in the country's economy. So in the size of the rural population, the elimination of antagonistic classes contradicted the thesis about the aggravation of the class struggle as we moved towards socialism, growing social differentiation and the growth of interethnic contradictions - the thesis about the solution national question, achieving social homogeneity of Soviet society and the emergence of a new historical community - the Soviet people.

In the economic field, the desire to remain faithful to the old dogmas led to repeated economic and political crises. In domestic politics, the growing diversity and the strengthening of the economic base and local power were opposed by traditional centralism. This led to the growth of the executive apparatus and the growth of bureaucracy, on the one hand, and the strengthening of local separatism, on the other. In foreign policy the original class approach prevailed over healthy pragmatism. Fixation on the old policy was especially dangerous at critical moments: the establishment of a new government, the transition to a civil war, its end in the mid-20s, on the verge of the 20s and 30s. etc.

The persistent striving for stability resulted in the inertia of thinking of both leaders and those led, a lack of understanding of new trends and processes, and, in the end, the loss of the ability to manage the development of society.

The third contradiction is between the integrity of the association and its connection with the society of which it is a part. In the Party, it finds its solution in the definition of membership, admission rules, openness of inner-Party life to non-Party people, methods of Party leadership, and relations with mass public organizations. Here, too, the matter increasingly came down to the administrative method of solving the problems that confronted the Party: regulating admission to the Party from above, establishing quotas for the admission of people from different social categories, commanding non-Party organizations, Party instructions to writers, journalists, artists, musicians, artists. In the absence of feedback, this subsequently led to the collapse of the CPSU and the loss of its ability to influence society, as soon as the usual administrative methods of pressure began to fail.

Such are the main contradictions of the one-party system, inherent both in the party itself and in Soviet society as a whole. Accumulated and not resolved, they manifested themselves in numerous crises of the 20s and 30s, but were held back by the hoops of the administrative influence of the authorities. The experience of the one-party system in our country has proved the impasse of the development of society under conditions of a monopoly on power. Only political methods in an atmosphere of free competition of doctrines, strategic and tactical attitudes, rivalry of leaders in full view of the voters could help the party gain and maintain strength, develop as a free community of people united by the unity of convictions and actions.

Conclusion

After analyzing all of the above, we can conclude that despite the statements of the Bolsheviks about the creation of a socialist state, with the ideas of universal equality and democratic rights, the actual economic, political and personal factors led to the creation of a one-party system with a police state that fictitiously provides democratic rights. The cult of personality and many years of pressure from the state influenced the psychology of people, making it more conciliatory, with less manifestation of critical thinking. This makes it difficult to build a democratic state today.

Bibliography

1. Entin E.M. Formation and collapse of the one-party system in the USSR. Gomel Technical book. 1995 506s.

2. Bokhanov A.N., Gorinov M.M., Dmitrenko V.P. History of Russia, XX century. - M., 2001. 478s.

3. Munchaev Sh.M. Political history of the Russian state: Textbook. - M., 1998.

4. Pipes R. Creation of a one-party state in Soviet Russia (1917-1918) // Polit. research. 1991. No. 1.

5. N. Werth. History of the Soviet state. M., 1992

6. L.S. Leonova. "Communist Party (1917-1985)" publishing house Mosk. un-ta, 2008.

7. N. Werth. History of the Soviet state. M., 1992

8. Entin E.M. Formation and collapse of the one-party system in the USSR. Gomel Technical book. 1995 506s.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

Adoption of the new Constitution of the USSR in 1936, its distinctive features and innovations. The economy of the Soviet state in the 30s, its directive character. The social class structure of the population and the political system of the USSR in those years, the consequences of repression.

control work, added 05/12/2010

Economic and political crises of 1920 -1921 Transition to the New Economic Policy. Education of the USSR. The results of the NEP, the reasons for its curtailment. Socio-economic development of the USSR in the 30s. Formation totalitarian regime in the 30s.

abstract, added 06/07/2008

The formation of a one-party system and the transformation of Soviet society from 1917 to 1920. The formation of a totalitarian political regime and the development of society from the end of 1920 to the 1950s. Characteristics of society in the period of "stagnation" and "perestroika".

term paper, added 12/29/2015

The question of the fate of various political parties before the October Revolution. Repressions against non-Bolshevik parties and the "dictatorship of the party". The right of the Communist Party to leadership. Rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses and political pluralism.

abstract, added 08/10/2009

The formation of the system government controlled after the October Revolution. The establishment of a one-party system in Soviet Russia. The reasons for the emergence of the cult of personality V.I. Stalin. Political and ideological struggle in the 20-30s. (Trotskyism, right deviation).

control work, added 11/01/2010

Analysis of the socio-economic and political development of the USSR and Russia in the 80-90s of the twentieth century. The reasons that prompted M.S. Gorbachev to begin the process of introducing "perestroika". "The period of storms and stress" - a new vision of the modern world. The collapse of the USSR.

thesis, added 09/18/2008

Features of the punitive criminal policy in the USSR in the 30s of the XX century: the beginning and preconditions of mass repressions, the influence of the party apparatus on their organization and implementation. Legal support activities of the punitive apparatus of the USSR and Germany.

term paper, added 03/02/2012

Historical and legal aspects of national-state construction in the pre-war period. general characteristics state structure according to the Constitution of the USSR in 1936. Nation-state construction of the USSR during the Great Patriotic War.

term paper, added 07/23/2008

Relations between the USSR and the USA at the beginning of the war. US response to German aggression. The adoption of the law on Lend-Lease, its significance for the USSR. Solving the problem of the second front. Soviet-American society during the Second World War: cultural and scientific ties.

thesis, added 06/03/2017

Transition to a new economic policy. Reasons for the transition to the NEP. Transformation mechanism. Entrepreneurship in the years of the NEP and the policy of "state non-admission". Entrepreneurship activation. Contradictions of the NEP economy.

After the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, V.I. Lenin, in a draft decree on its dissolution, declared that power belongs to the Soviets, in which the vast majority are the parties of the Bolsheviks and the Left Social Revolutionaries, who enjoy the confidence of the workers and the majority of the peasantry. Thus was marked, so far only in its original form, the course towards a one-party monopoly in the state. Under these conditions, any Soviet party that wished to form a government together with the Bolsheviks would act as a reasoner, which confirmed the short stay of the Left SRs in the Bolshevik government.

The suppression of legal opposition led to the fact that further watered. struggle began to develop in the plane of civil war. The civil war necessitated emergency measures, which were invented not by the Bolsheviks, but by the governments of the countries that fought in the First World War. They were in the state. monopolies on the most important foodstuffs and consumer goods, their rationed distribution, labor conscription, fixed prices, the establishment of a distribution method for the alienation of agricultural products from the rural population. It was the Bolsheviks who turned these measures into an instrument for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat. To suppress broad resistance, they created a strict system of governing the army and society in the form of military commissariats and "war communism".

war communism - it is a system of emergency measures caused by the civil war and military intervention, which together determined the originality of the economic policy of the Soviet state in 1918-1920.

It was during this period that the process of transforming the Bolshevik Party of Russia into a state party began, when, along with the Soviets, called after October 1917. to exercise power, party committees began to be created in the center and in the localities - military commissions. They took over the polit. economic and ideological functions, concentrating in one hand all the power in each county, volost, province.

The end of the civil war and the struggle against the interventionists was of great historical significance for Soviet Russia and the Bolshevik Party that led it. However, the situation in the country was very difficult: the crisis state of the economy, requisitions, famine, banditry, epidemics. The main polit. events in the early 1920s. in Soviet Russia became: peasant uprisings against the policy of "war communism". one of essential elements which was the food allocation; a terrible famine in the Volga region, which claimed a huge number of lives; Kronstadt uprising of naval sailors of the Baltic Fleet.

In order to get out of this crisis, to maintain and strengthen their power, the Bolsheviks had to drastically change their policy, find new methods of interaction with the masses, satisfy their main needs and demands. There was an urgent need to revise the state. policy in all areas, and above all in the economic sphere.

NEP - the new economic policy of the Soviet state in the 20s. The beginning of the transition to the NEP was the 10th Congress of the RCP (b), held in March 1921. The essence of this policy is the use of commodity-money relations in the sphere of agriculture, industry, trade, credit policy, etc.

During this period, the crisis spread to the party. This manifested itself in sharp disagreements that split the RCP(b) on the question of the attitude towards the trade unions, of their role in the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. For the first time in the history of the Bolshevik Party, the election of delegates to the 10th Congress of the RCP(b) took place on factional platforms, among which were:

l "platform of ten", presented by V. Lenin, G. Zinoviev and others;

L. Trotsky's platform "The Role and Tasks of Trade Unions";

ь platform of the "workers' opposition" (A. Shlyapnikov, A. Kolontai, S. Medvedev and others);

- the platform of the group of "decists" ("democratic centralists" - T. Sapronov, N. Osinsky and others);

b "buffer platform" N. Bukharin.

Each of them contained its own vision of the role and methods of work of trade unions in peaceful conditions, as well as the immediate tasks of the party.

L. Trotsky, based on the theory of permanent revolution, considered it necessary for the sake of preserving Soviet power in Russia before the start of the world revolution to militarize the state as much as possible, and to “nationalize” the trade unions, merging them with state economic bodies by industry and giving them the functions of administrative and economic management.

The "workers' opposition", on the contrary, sought to "ally" the state, proposed transferring the management of the national economy to a body elected at the "All-Russian Congress of Producers", granting trade unions the exclusive right to appoint workers to administrative and economic posts.

Similar demands were also contained in the platform of the "decites", who announced the "bureaucratic deadening of the trade unions" and insisted that the presidium of the All-Union Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) be nominated by the leadership of the trade unions.

The discussion of the question of the role and tasks of the trade unions took on a sharp and principled character at the congress. Most of the delegates followed V. Lenin, adopting a resolution drawn up on the basis of the "platform of ten". Trade unions were viewed as a "school of communism", a school of management in the period of socialist construction, the need for party leadership of trade unions was announced and the principle of democratic centralism in leadership was established. The implementation of this resolution further led to the loss of independence by trade unions and the suppression of dissent.

However, many supporters of other platforms, as subsequent events showed, did not abandon their views. This threatened the traditional unity of Bolshevism, which was defended by V. Lenin at the congress. He drafted and proposed to the delegates to adopt two resolutions - "On the syndicalist and anarchist deviation in our party" and "On the unity of the party."

The first of them assessed the platform of the "workers' opposition", in the words of V. Lenin, as "an obvious deviation of the syndicalist-anarchist" contradicting the foundations of Marxism, and stated that the promotion of such views is incompatible with belonging to the RCP (b).

The second resolution - "On the unity of the party", declaring that the unity of the party is an inviolable law of party life, proposed to immediately disband all groups created on independent platforms, and forbade the creation of any factions in the future. Failure to comply with this decision, while ensuring the mechanical cohesion of the RCP (b) under the threat of the highest measure of party punishment, at the same time significantly curtailed intra-party democracy and deprived party members of the opportunity to have and defend their own views.

However, the presence in the ranks of the RCP (b) of "non-disarmed" factionalists, people from other parties who disagree with the undemocratic methods of strengthening party discipline, politically unstable (from the point of view) party leadership and passive communists forced the Central Committee of the RCP (b) to hold in the second half of 1921 . general purge of the party. In the appeal of the Central Committee to all party organizations “On the Purification of the Party”, published on July 27, 1921 in Pravda, it was said that “our party, more than ever, should be poured out of one piece.” The Central Committee demanded that the title of a member of the RCP (b) "bear only those who really deserve it."

In March 1922 The 11th Congress of the RCP (b) adopted clear rules for admission to the party, which varied depending on the social affiliation of the applicant: it was easiest for workers and peasants to join it. Despite these measures, the party did not become more proletarian in its composition: in 1922. Approximately 15 thousand workers, dissatisfied with the "bourgeois transition" to the NEP, left its ranks.

During the civil war, a "commanding style" of leadership was established in the party, the local authorities were appointed from above. This practice continued in the subsequent period: grassroots organizations in need of leaders immediately applied to the special departments of the Central Committee (Organizational Department and Uchraspred), which dealt with the placement of personnel. These methods also contributed to the transformation of the Bolshevik Party into a state structure. The role of rank-and-file communists was often limited to approving directives coming from the governing bodies, while the party "tops", including the Central Committee and the provincial committees of the party, were increasingly separated from the party masses. Therefore, in the fall of 1923, even during Lenin's lifetime, a heated discussion flared up in the party about inner-party democracy, bureaucracy, and the principles of party building.

On January 21, 1924 V. Lenin died. His death was a serious shock to the party and the people and was used by the leadership of the RCP (b) to create a posthumous cult of the leader.

Lenin did not leave behind an unconditional successor who could rightfully take his place in the party and the country. The characteristics that he gave to his closest associates in the "Letter to the Congress" were very ambiguous. Lenin proposed that Stalin be removed from the post of General Secretary, expressing doubt that he, having concentrated immense power in his hands, would always be able to use it carefully enough. In 1927-1928. Stalin led the fight against N. Bukharin and his supporters, accusing them of "legal deviation", of aiding and protecting the kulaks. In this way, Stalin tried to eliminate the most authoritative party leaders and strengthen his position not only in the party, but also in the state. Stalin and his entourage managed to stop all attempts at organized resistance, and this was largely facilitated by deep changes within the party itself. First of all, by the end of the 1920s. as a result of the Lenin and October appeals, it becomes a mass party, numbering by 1927. 1 million 200 thousand people The overwhelming majority of those admitted to the Party at that time were illiterate people, who were required above all to obey Party discipline. At the same time, the number of old experienced Bolsheviks decreased, they were drawn into the struggle for power and split, and then physically destroyed.

As a result, in the 30s. 20th century finally took shape such a system of governance within the Bolshevik Party itself, which provided for strict obedience to party discipline and the absence of dissent.

The next important step towards the transformation of the RCP(b) into a state party and the establishment of an administrative-command system of government in the country was the 17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which was held in Moscow from January 26 to February 10, 1934. It was of a solemn and triumphal nature and received in the official press the name of the "Congress of the Winners".

The glorification of Stalin has reached the level of an obligatory ritual. On the whole, the resolutions adopted at the congress allowed the party to be directly involved in state and economic management, gave unlimited freedom to the top party leadership, and legitimized the unconditional subordination of rank-and-file communists to the leading bodies of the party.

First of all, the congress introduced a new structure of party committees. grassroots divisions were no longer called "cells", but "primary organizations", and their boundaries everywhere should be. coincide with the corresponding industrial or agricultural enterprises. The apparatus of the Central Committee was subdivided into the so-called "holistic production and sectoral departments": industrial, agricultural, financial planning, trade, national economy and state activities.

The regional committees and central committees of the republican communist parties were built on the same pattern. These were parallel departments of party committees, along with the departments for industry, agriculture, culture, science and educational institutions that already existed under the executive committees of the Soviets. However, the functions of these identically named departments had a significant difference. Polit. the role of party committees in fact became decisive and led to the substitution of the power of the Soviet and economic organs of the time. distinctive feature throughout the Soviet period.

The next significant decision of the 17th Congress was the abolition of the former practice of party-Soviet control, proposed by Lenin. The congress established a new decentralized control system: the People's Commissariat of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate was abolished, and the Central Control Commission, elected by the congress, was transformed into the Party Control Commission under the Central Communist Party of Bolsheviks. The head of the commission was appointed from among the secretaries of the Central Committee. Thus, the activities of the inspection bodies were taken under the strict control of the Central Committee of the Party and the General Secretary. In addition, the congress established a kind of "zone beyond criticism." The new charter adopted at the congress also authorized the right of the Central Committee to establish, where necessary, political departments, which significantly diminished the prerogatives of party organizations and secretaries of party committees in the localities.

Gradually, Stalin becomes practically the only full-fledged leader of the party and state. The assertion of autocracy in the party was accompanied by the rise and strengthening of the power structures of the state, its repressive bodies. Already in 1929. in each district, so-called "troikas" are created, which included the first secretary of the district committee of the party, the chairman of the district executive committee and a representative of the Main political party. management (GPU). They began to carry out out-of-court trials of the accused, passing their own sentences. This practice of extrajudicial sentences was fixed at the all-Union level.

The events that took place at the same 17th party congress, which also had another (unofficial) name - "the congress of the executed" contributed to the intensification of repressive actions. Of the 1,961 congress delegates, 1,108 were subjected to repression, and 98 of the 139 members of the Central Committee elected at the congress. main reason these repressions, which were organized by Stalin, was disappointment in him as in the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of a certain part of the party workers and communists. They condemned him for the organization of forced collectivization, the famine caused by it, the unthinkable pace of industrialization, which caused numerous victims. This dissatisfaction found expression in the voting for the list of the Central Committee. 270 delegates expressed in their ballots a vote of no confidence in the "leader of all times and peoples." Moreover, they offered the post of General Secretary to S. Kirov, who. however, this proposal was rejected.

December 1, 1934 S. Kirov was killed. This murder caused new round intensification of punitive actions. Amendments were made to the existing criminal procedure codes union republics. The changes concerned the investigation of cases of terrorist organizations and similar acts against workers of the Soviet government. Extraordinary forms of consideration and hearing of cases were introduced: the investigation period was limited to 10 days, the hearing of cases was allowed without the participation of the parties, the cassation appeal was canceled, the sentence to capital punishment was carried out immediately. In March 1935 a law was adopted on the punishment of family members of traitors to the Motherland, and a month later a decree on the involvement of children from the age of 12 in the UO. In essence, this legitimized mass terror at the state level.

By the end of the 1930s. a regime of arbitrariness and repression was established in the country, any dissent was suppressed, a command-administrative and totalitarian system was formed.

The essence of this system consists in merging the state and party apparatuses, establishing the priority of planning and distribution functions of management, unifying the legal system and law enforcement practice, total control over the life of society.

Totalitarianism is a universal phenomenon affecting all spheres of life.

In economics, it means the nationalization of economic life, the economic lack of freedom of the individual. The individual has no self-interest in production. There is an alienation of a person from the results of his work and, as a result, deprivation of his initiative. The state establishes centralized, planned management of the economy.

In polit. sphere, all power belongs to a special group of people that the people cannot control. The Bolsheviks, who set themselves the goal of overthrowing the existing system, were forced from the very beginning to act as a conspiratorial party. This secrecy, intellectual, ideological and political secrecy remained its essential characteristic even after the conquest of power. Society and the state under the command-administrative system are absorbed by one dominant party, there is a merger of the highest bodies of this party and the highest bodies of the state. authorities. In fact, the party is turning into a decisive pivotal element of the state structure. Mandatory element such a structure is a ban on opposition parties and movements.

A characteristic feature of such regimes is also that power is not based on laws and constitutions. Almost all human rights were guaranteed in the Stalinist constitution, which were practically not implemented in practice.

The spiritual sphere is dominated by one ideology and worldview. As a rule, these are utopian theories that realize people's eternal dream of a more perfect and happy life. public order which are based on the idea of achieving harmony between people. Such an ideology, for example, Marxism in the USSR, turns into a kind of state religion, giving rise to another phenomenon of totalitarianism - the cult of personality.

Such a regime decomposes from within over time. Originally from polit. elites come out of the faces that become in opposition to the regime. With the emergence of dissent from the regime, first narrow groups of dissidents are alienated, then broad sections of the population. The destruction of totalitarianism ends with a departure from strict control in the economic sphere.

home > Mathematics