Marx-Engels |  Lenin  | Stalin |  Home Page

 On the activities of Lenin in 1917-1922

DIGEST OF ARTICLES,  MOSCOW 1958

K.S. Tarasenko

 THE STRUGGLE OF THE BOLSHEVIK PARTY LEADED BY V. I. LENIN FOR THE STRENGTHENING OF ITS RANKS IN 1917

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, having arisen in 1903 as a revolutionary Marxist party of a new type, traveled the heroic path of struggle for the triumph of the socialist revolution.

Waging an uncompromising struggle against all varieties of opportunism in the Russian and international working-class movement, exposing revisionists and capitulators in its midst, the Bolshevik Party constantly strengthened the iron discipline and unity of its ranks. Long before the socialist revolution, it expelled all Compromisers from its ranks and exposed the betrayal of the Mensheviks. “In Russia, the Bolsheviks were especially lucky,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “that they had 15 years for a systematic and carried out struggle both against the Mensheviks (i.e., opportunists and “Centralists”) and against the “Left "long before the immediate mass struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat" 1 .

Of the political parties in Russia, the Bolsheviks were the only party which, during the years of the Stolypin reaction, retained its illegal organization. The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, betraying the cause of the revolution, abandoned illegal work, and their legal party organizations existed in the form of disparate groups, in whose ranks disintegration and disintegration took place. The Bolsheviks, despite the most severe persecution of tsarism and the defeat of many party organizations, managed to preserve their party as an illegal centralized organization with a network of party cells in the main industrial regions of the country.

Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkov, Yekaterinoslav, Kyiv, Saratov, Samara, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kronstadt, Kazan, Rostov-on-Don, Yekaterinodar, Donbass, 9 points in the Urals - Yekaterinburg, Lysva, Upper Tura, Revda, Kyshtym , Nevyansk, Minyar, Kushva, Kungur and other places in the country there were committees, groups and circles of the Bolsheviks. They waged an uncompromising struggle against the tsarist autocracy, issued appeals directed against the imperialist war and the defensive policy of the compromising parties.

However, the war, mass mobilizations, and the persecution of the Bolsheviks, which intensified during the period of the imperialist war, could not but affect the work of the party organizations. Many illegal organizations of the Bolsheviks were crushed, printed publications were closed. A significant part of the Communists ended up in prisons and exile, and was also drafted into the army and navy. This greatly narrowed the scope of the organizational and mass-political work of the surviving party organizations. But everywhere, in various forms, the Bolsheviks continued their heroic work.

On the eve of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, in an atmosphere of incredible difficulties caused by the imperialist war, in conditions of economic ruin, and famine, the Bolsheviks everywhere intensified their work not only among the working class, but also among soldiers and sailors.

The Bolshevik Party came to the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia as a new type of party, armed with the Leninist revolutionary program, strategy and tactics. It had cadres hardened in the struggle against tsarism and in battles with opportunists of all stripes.

"As a result of this struggle," wrote I. V. Stalin, "a close-knit group of leading elements was formed, strong enough in theory and sustained in principle in order to lead the party masses" 2 .

In the autumn of 1916, the Russian Bureau of the Bolshevik Central Committee resumed its work. It intensified the activities of the Bolsheviks who were at large, took measures to restore the defeated party organizations and create new ones.

At the same time, the desire of the best representatives of the working class, the poorest peasantry and the intelligentsia to join the ranks of the Bolshevik Party increased. Suffice it to say that in just over two months of 1917 (January-March) the party almost doubled in size, numbering up to 40,000-45,000 people in its ranks. The rapid growth of the ranks of the RSDLP (b) was a clear expression of the growing confidence of the proletariat in the Bolshevik Party, the support of its advanced elements from among the working class.

In February 1917, the Russian proletariat, in alliance with the peasantry, carried out a bourgeois-democratic revolution that overthrew the tsarist autocracy in Russia.

The February bourgeois-democratic revolution was a turning point in the fate of our country and a sharp turn in the life of the Bolshevik Party. The party got the opportunity of legal activity. The Bolshevik Party came out of the underground numerically small, but ideologically and politically hardened and organizationally united.

Although the Bolshevik Party was small, it consisted of cadres tested in the struggle, who had gone through the harsh school of revolutionary struggle against capitalist slavery in the most cruel conditions of tsarism, enriched by the experience of the two Russian revolutions. It was the hardened vanguard of the proletariat.

As the Bolsheviks were released from prisons and returned from exile and emigration, the party organizations strengthened their ranks and intensified organizational and political work among the masses. Immediately after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Bolsheviks began a huge amount of work to create and strengthen the mass organizations of the working class: trade unions, factory committees, etc. The Bolsheviks increased their influence in the Soviets.

From the very first days of the revolution, the Bolshevik Party launched organizational and agitational work of unprecedented intensity and scope. During the period of preparation for the socialist revolution, it used in its activities all its rich experience in inner-party work, in the ideological struggle against opportunist elements in its ranks and against petty-bourgeois parties, groups and trends among the working class, and its vast organizational experience in contact with the masses. In all its activities after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, the Bolshevik Party attached paramount importance to questions of strengthening its ranks, the efficiency and militancy of party organizations.

The Party understood that the degree of organization and cohesion of its ranks determined the organization, cohesion and strength of all other organizations of the working class as a whole, and consequently its ability to move the revolution forward.

In questions of organizational construction, as well as questions of ideology and politics, the Bolshevik Party, created and educated by V. I. Lenin, always stood on the positions of creative Marxism. Upholding the inviolability of the Leninist organizational principles of party leadership and the norms of party life, the party improved the forms of organization and methods of work under the conditions of the specific historical situation of 1917, ensuring that its organizational leadership was at the level of political tasks and ensured the implementation of its political line.

The world-historical mission of the Bolshevik Party as the organizer and leader of the socialist revolution also determined the basic organizational principles of building the party: the strictest centralism in the activities of party organizations, conscious discipline, unity of will and unity of action, the inadmissibility of internal party factions and groupings, careful selection of those joining the party, fencing party from opportunist, petty-bourgeois conciliatory elements, the development of inner-party democracy. All the work aimed at educating and strengthening the ranks of the Bolshevik Party was built on these unshakable foundations of inner-party life.

The April theses of V. I. Lenin, his reports, articles and speeches from February to October, the directives of the April Conference and the VI Congress of the RSDLP (b) and, in particular, the decisions “On the unification of internationalists against the petty-bourgeois defense bloc”, “On the revision Party Program” (April Conference), the new Party Rules and the special resolution “On the Unity of the Party” (VI Congress) were the main documents that determined the forms and methods of intra-Party work. These documents played a decisive role in raising the ideological and theoretical level, political maturity and revolutionary hardening of the members of the Bolshevik Party.

One of the main conditions for the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution was that the Bolsheviks, led by V. I. Lenin, in the course of their struggle to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, decisively defeated the opportunist, compromising elements in their own ranks. The anti-Leninist position of these elements was expressed, in particular, in their support for the Mensheviks, who called for unity with the Bolsheviks within the framework of single party organizations.

Acting under the false flag of "unity of social democracy", the Mensheviks wanted to deprive the Bolshevik Party of ideological and organizational independence, dilute the ranks of the Bolshevik organizations with petty-bourgeois elements and undermine party discipline. They sought to "de-Bolshevik" the Marxist party and thereby blow it up from within.

“The main party issue in Russia,” wrote V. I. Lenin in 1916, “was and remains the question of ‘unity’. Trotsky, in issues 500-600, never finished his newspaper and did not think it through to the end: unity with Chkheidze, Skobelev and Co.? or not? It seems that there are still some "Unionists" in St. Petersburg, although they are very weak (were they not the ones who published Rabocheye Vedomosti in St. Petersburg?). "Makar", they say, is in Moscow and is also conciliating. Conciliation and unity is the most harmful thing for the workers' party in Russia, not only idiocy, but also the death of the party. For, in fact, “unification” (or reconciliation, etc.) with Chkheidee and Skobelev (there is a nail in them, for they pass themselves off as “internationalists”) is “unity” with the Organizing Committee, and through it with Potresov and Co. ... that is, in fact, servility to the social-chauvinists” 3 .

Uniting with the Mensheviks would mean a departure from the Bolshevik positions, a retreat from the Leninist organizational principles in building a new type of party, and would be an actual violation of the decisions of the VI Prague Conference of the RSDLP (b) in 1912, which forever expelled the Menshevik liquidators from the ranks of the party.

Unification in the organizational question prevented the Bolsheviks from exposing the betrayal of the Mensheviks, freeing the working masses from the influence of compromising parties and winning them over to their side. It imposed on the Bolsheviks, who were part of the united organizations, moral responsibility for all the behavior of the Mensheviks. Therefore, the struggle of V. I. Lenin and the Bolshevik Party against conciliation and unification with the Menshevik defensists was of exceptional importance for the ideological and organizational strengthening of the Bolshevik Party, for exposing the treacherous policy of the Mensheviks and winning over the majority of the working class and the poorest peasant masses to the side of the proletarian revolution.

* * *

The new tasks that confronted the Bolshevik Party the very next day after the February Bourgeois-Democratic Revolution required the Party to work out a political line that would correspond to the new historical conditions that had taken shape after the overthrow of the autocracy.

The complexity of the historical situation after the victory of the February Revolution consisted in the fact that "a gigantic petty-bourgeois wave swept over everything, crushed the class-conscious proletariat not only by its numbers, but also ideologically, i.e., infected, captured very wide circles of workers with petty-bourgeois views on politics" 4 .

This petty-bourgeois element, the bearer of which was the petty bourgeoisie, brought the petty-bourgeois compromising parties of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries to the crest of the revolution. These parties, by virtue of their class nature, did everything in their power to transfer power into the hands of the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie. Such was the class basis of the agreement between the Provisional Bourgeois Government and the Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, which voluntarily gave power to the bourgeoisie, since the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries predominated in the Soviet.

One of the reasons for the growing influence of the petty-bourgeois elements in the working class was the serious changes in the composition of the Russian proletariat itself. During the war, up to 40% of regular workers were mobilized into the army. Instead, new workers from the countryside came to factories and factories, and many small owners, handicraftsmen, and shopkeepers, who were hiding from mobilization, also joined.

The newly arrived workers brought with them to the environment of the working class their petty-bourgeois psychology, their concepts and prejudices. This petty-bourgeois stratum provided fertile ground for the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. It became a serious brake on the road to the growth of class consciousness and the organization of the proletariat.

The millions of working people who had previously been downtrodden by tsarism and were now drawn into political life by the revolution were not versed in the "subtleties" of politics. They were intoxicated by the revolutionary events and were gullible towards the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. The working masses have not yet recognized the treacherous line of the Compromisers through their own experience.

Lenin called the behavior of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries “a classic example of betrayal of the cause of the revolution and the cause of the proletariat, betrayal of precisely this kind, which ruined a number of revolutions of the 19th century” 5 .

In the peculiar and complex situation of dual power, only the revolutionary proletariat was able to save Russia from destruction. The class-conscious proletariat understood that in the struggle to overthrow the power of the bourgeoisie and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, the working people must organize, unite, unite into a single force against the bourgeoisie.

The salvation of the country from catastrophe and the fulfillment by the proletariat of its historical mission in the victorious struggle against capital depended on the fact that the proletariat had its own revolutionary party, armed with Marxist-Leninist theory, free from opportunism, irreconcilable against compromisers and capitulators in its own ranks and the workers’ movement, revolutionary in relation to the bourgeoisie and its state power, a party that is strong and authoritative among the masses of the people, capable of preparing the proletariat for decisive clashes with the bourgeoisie and organizing the victory of the socialist revolution.

Only a party armed with the theory of scientific communism, united and monolithic, possessing a clear revolutionary program and flexible tactics, able to correctly understand the complex conditions of the new situation, could correctly chart the path to the victory of the working class. Such a party among the Russian proletariat was the Bolshevik Party, created and led by the leader of the working people of the whole world, the successor of the great cause of Marx - Lenin.

To gather together the forces of the party, to organize them for the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution, to overcome the vacillations and vacillations in their own midst, to work out a single and correct strategic and tactical line—such was the difficult task that confronted the Bolsheviks after the overthrow of tsarism.

With the victory of the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917, a strategic stage of great importance in the history of the Russian revolution, the main task of which was the overthrow of tsarism, ended. This was the greatest turning point in the destinies of the peoples of Russia. He demanded a sharp turn in the activities of the party.

“It has happened too often,” Lenin points out, “that when history takes a sharp turn, even the advanced parties for a more or less long time cannot get used to the new situation, repeat slogans that were correct yesterday, but have lost all meaning today, have lost their meaning “suddenly just as "suddenly" was the sharp turn of history" 6 .

Upon receiving the first news of the February Revolution, V.I. Lenin, being in exile, warned that the Russian proletariat could not regard this revolution otherwise than as the first and still far from complete victory on its way, it must continue the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution. To accomplish this task, V. I. Lenin wrote in the article “Outline of theses on March 4 (17), 1917”, “the ideological and organizational independence of the party of the revolutionary proletariat, which remained true to internationalism and internationalism, is necessary. not succumbing to the lies of bourgeois phrases that deceive the people with speeches about the "defence of the fatherland" and the present imperialist, predatory war" 7. In the “Telegram to the Bolsheviks Departing for Russia” on March 6, 1917, V. I. Lenin warned the party not to deviate from the fundamental class line and not allow “any rapprochement with other parties” 8 . Lenin had in mind primarily the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Fearing that these instructions might not reach Russia and that some party workers there, not having understood the intricate and peculiar situation that had developed after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, might agree to unite with the Mensheviks, V. I. Lenin in letters to A. M. Kollontai of March 16 and 17, 1917, again emphasized the harm of uniting with the Mensheviks: “It would be the greatest misfortune if ... ours agreed to “unity” with Chkheidze and Co.!!...

No way again like the Second International! Nothing with Kautsky! Certainly a more revolutionary program and tactics .

In the same letters, V. I. Lenin warned the party not to allow itself to be entangled in stupid “unifying” attempts with social patriots (or, even worse, vacillating ones, like the Organizing Committee, Trotsky and Co.) and demanded that it continue its work in a consistently internationalist spirit, systematically strengthening itself as a party of a new type.

V. I. Lenin in letters to V. A. Karpinsky dated March 24 and 25, A. V. Lunacharsky dated March 25, and Y. Ganetsky dated March 30, 1917 again and again strongly emphasized the harm of uniting with the Mensheviks and demanded independence and isolation of the Bolshevik Party. “And I personally,” pointed out V.I. -pacifism and Kautakianism of Chkheidze and Co. “Neither Chkheidze with K0, nor Sukhanov, nor Steklov, etc., can be trusted. No rapprochement with other parties, with anyone!..., the organization of our party is the essence of it.” 10Lenin wrote, taking into account the current situation in the country and the positions of all other parties after the overthrow of the autocracy in Russia. Speaking as an irreconcilable opponent of unification with the Mensheviks, V. I. Lenin demanded from the Bolshevik Party a principled and merciless struggle against the unification sentiments that took place in some party organizations. Lenin spoke out not only against uniting with the social traitors, but also against any kind of blocs with the defencists in practical work. "The greatest danger," said V. I. Lenin, "which threatens the Russian revolution, is the union of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks" 11 .

How cautiously V. I. Lenin treated everything that could give rise to the unification of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks in Russia can be judged by the following fact. After the February Revolution in Switzerland, a rally was organized at which V. I. Lenin refused to speak together with the Menshevik Martynov in order to prevent the Mensheviks in Russia from using this fact to propagate the idea of ​​unification.

“No one knew the nature of the Mensheviks and where they would pull the Russian revolution like V. I. Lenin,” notes M. Kharitonov in the article “Lenin and the February Revolution,” and therefore he was so afraid, as if in the heat of the first victories our Russian comrades did not fall for the unifying bait of the Menshevik gentlemen, who were great masters in exploiting the legitimate striving of the proletariat for the unity of their ranks .

Despite these warnings by V. I. Lenin, who most sharply warned the Bolshevik Party against uniting with the Mensheviks, and contrary to the decisions of the Prague Conference, which expelled the Mensheviks from the party, there were such party organizations that, in the process of switching to legal work after the February Revolution, went to unite with the Mensheviks. In addition, a number of such united organizations existed even before the revolution.

It is quite obvious that the consent of some Bolsheviks to join such unified organizations was a major political mistake. Uniting with the Mensheviks prevented the exposure of the treacherous policies and tactics of the petty-bourgeois parties as the main support of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the working class. The association helped these parties sow petty-bourgeois illusions in the working class and spread the ideas of class collaboration. It hindered the mobilization of the working class and the working masses for the struggle for the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one.

How, then, is it to be explained that such party organizations were found that agreed to unite with the Mensheviks? Why did even those organizations that did not unite with the Mensheviks discuss the questions of uniting with them?

The unification of the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks took place mainly on the outskirts of Russia or in areas with underdeveloped industry, a small stratum of the industrial proletariat, little experience in class struggle and revolutionary work, and also in the army, which consisted mostly of peasants dressed in soldiers' overcoats. . The party organizations of the outskirts of Russia (the Far East, Siberia, Turkestan, Crimea and other places), crushed by the tsarist government during the period of the Stolypin reaction and the imperialist war, emerged from the underground after the victory of the February Revolution, small in number and significantly weakened. Their weakness, in particular, was due to the fact that some of them existed as united social democratic organizations even before the revolution.

This is primarily due to the fact that the Bolsheviks in a number of Russia's outlying districts were in fact poorly acquainted with the decisions of the Prague Conference, did not understand the reasons why the Mensheviks were expelled from the party. They were not represented at the Prague Conference, they did not have regular party information, they were cut off from the revolutionary centers - Petrograd and Moscow. All this could not but affect the political level and party consistency of a number of Far Eastern, Siberian, Turkestan and other party organizations.

One of the reasons for conciliation towards the Mensheviks and unification sentiments among the Bolsheviks before the arrival of V. I. Lenin in Russia was the presence of some confusion on theoretical issues and incorrect views on the nature of the revolution, the prospects for its development and party tactics. Persecution and repression, the weakening of many party organizations during the war, the lack of communication with V. I. Lenin and the Russian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b), which worked with great interruptions, all this made it very difficult to develop the correct political orientation in some party organizations. Many prominent workers of the party, being in remote Siberian exile before the February Revolution, did not really know what was going on in the country.

Not the last role was also played by the fact that after leaving the underground, the insignificant forces of the Bolsheviks that were available in the localities were completely absorbed in work in mass organizations, they could not pay the necessary attention to the organizational strengthening of the party ranks.

At the first conference of the Ural Bolsheviks, Ya. M. Sverdlov noted that “in the beginning, after the revolution, there was no precise demarcation. The work of party building receded into the background. The workers were captured by work in non-Party organizations” 13 .

The Mensheviks managed to push through the union with the Bolsheviks in those organizations where the leadership turned out to be insufficiently politically mature people who were poorly versed in questions of the theory and tactics of Bolshevism.

Thus, for example, in one resolution of the Orenburg organization of the RSDLP it was stated that “the previous main tactical differences between the factions were generally removed from the queue by the course of events” and allegedly “a common line is outlined both in assessing the meaning of the coup and the immediate political behavior.” In the same way, at a meeting of Social Democrats in Kharkov on March 23, 1917, supporters of unification with the Mensheviks argued that “at present there are no those sharp disagreements that in the past justified the independent existence of two parts of the RSDLP” 14. The Nikolaev Bolsheviks considered unification with the Mensheviks possible because after the revolutions the main basic question of illegal work had disappeared. The Ufa Bolsheviks, for example, rather naively explained their union with the Mensheviks by the fact that in this way they want to first win the masses from the Menshevik leaders, and then expel them from the party.

Before the arrival of V. I. Lenin, Kamenev's anti-Marxist, anti-Leninist articles in Pravda, imbued with the spirit of defencism and conciliation, could not but influence the behavior of individual groups of Bolsheviks. Kamenev's anti-Leninist position on questions of revolution, war, and attitudes toward the Provisional Government hampered the development of a correct tactical line in the localities and served as an ideological justification for conciliation and unity in party organizations.

The unification movement did great harm to the Bolshevik organizations, hindered the growth of the revolutionary forces in the country and their rallying around the Bolsheviks, prevented the spread of correct views among the masses on the question of the prospects for the development of the revolution, and hindered the exposure of the treacherous role of the petty-bourgeois parties of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries.

The question of unification with the Mensheviks was debated not only in individual local party organizations, but at the insistence of opportunist elements it was also discussed at the center, in particular, this question arose at the March meeting of the Bolsheviks, convened by the bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b).

The participants in the meeting at a meeting on April 1, 1917, discussed the proposal of one of the Menshevik leaders, Tsereteli, to unite the Mensheviks with the Bolsheviks. Since the recording of the meeting is very brief and incomplete, it is very difficult to judge the nature of the debate at it. In any case, it is known that after an exchange of opinions at this meeting, it was decided to go to a joint meeting with the Mensheviks for the purpose of information .

The March Conference of the Bolsheviks, which was held simultaneously with the All-Russian Conference of Soviets, discussed almost all the main questions of the political situation in the country. Along with this conference's correct assessment of the nature of the war, the social nature of the Provisional Government, etc., it, under the influence of a group of delegates from the united organizations, headed by Sevryuk and Voitinsky, adopted some compromise resolutions, making a number of concessions to the defensists. This circumstance, undoubtedly, would also have contributed to the strengthening of conciliation, if the incorrect, erroneous decisions of the conference were not completely paralyzed by the appearance of the famous April theses of V. I. Lenin.

* * *

From the first days after his return to Russia, V. I. Lenin continued to wage an uncompromising struggle against the slightest attempts to unite with the defensists, and was a resolute opponent of any kind of agreements with the Mensheviks.

Arriving in Petrograd towards the end of the work of the All-Russian Conference of Soviets, on April 4 (17) V. I. Lenin spoke at a meeting of the Bolsheviks - members of this conference, and then repeated his speech at the meeting, where, in addition to the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks were also present.

Speaking at a conference of the Bolsheviks, Lenin, on the question of the attitude towards the Mensheviks, declared: “Let me better remain in the minority. One Liebknecht is worth more than 110 defencists like Steklov and Chkheidze . Any attempts to unite with the defencists, no matter who they came from, Lenin qualified as a betrayal of socialism.

Assessing the current situation, Lenin pointed out that even under the Provisional Government, due to its imperialist nature, the war undoubtedly remains a predatory, unjust war. Therefore, "not the slightest concession to 'revolutionary defencism' is unacceptable." In order to pass "from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie due to the insufficient consciousness and organization of the proletariat, to its second stage, which should place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest strata of the peasantry" 17, Lenin said, the proletariat must have its own solid organization, an independent and strong party, free from opportunist elements. To this end, Lenin proposed to immediately convene a congress and change the program of the party. Lenin demanded the renaming of the party, proposed calling it the "Communist Party" and forming the Third, Communist International. Thus, immediately upon his return to Russia, V. I. Lenin demanded from the party organizations a decisive and final break with the right-wing social democracy.

The April theses of V. I. Lenin were of great importance for the fate of the revolution, for all the activities of our party. They provided an ingenious plan for the Party's struggle for the transition from the bourgeois-democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. VI Lenin's theses gave a clear and concrete answer to all the questions posed by the course of revolutionary events in the country.

The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, as well as all sorts of opportunists in the ranks of the Bolsheviks, met Lenin's theses with hostility and raised a furious howl against them. The bourgeoisie and the Menshevik-Socialist-Revolutionary press tried to distort the main provisions of the theses . The Plekhanov newspaper Unity was especially zealous in slandering Lenin.

The April theses of V. I. Lenin armed the Bolshevik party with a clear program of struggle and were the granite basis for the ideological and organizational strengthening of all Bolshevik organizations, eliminating chaos and confusion in the theoretical and practical activities of individual groups of Bolsheviks. They completely cut the ground from under the feet of the vacillating and conciliatory elements, the bearers of the unification tendencies imposed by the Mensheviks.

Lenin's April theses clearly and distinctly stated that there could be no basis for unification between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, that Bolshevism and Menshevism were political currents hostile to each other, representing different class forces: their program and tactics in the revolution were diametrically opposed; to be a supporter of Menshevism means to act as an enemy of the proletarian revolution, to uphold the inviolability of the capitalist system and the preservation of the exploitation of man by man.

Lenin's theses were a sharp ideological weapon of the Bolshevik-Leninists against the conciliatory elements in the party organizations. In each united organization there were firm Leninist-Bolsheviks. The ranks of the latter especially increased after the return from exile, hard labor and emigration of many old Bolsheviks, who from the very first days of their work waged an uncompromising struggle against the Mensheviks, demanding complete ideological and organizational independence of the Bolshevik organizations.

In the Minsk United Organization of the RSDLP, a group of Bolshevik-Leninists was headed by M. V. Frunze and A. F. Myasnikov, in Ufa - A. D. Tsyurupa, in Baku - S. G. Shaumyan, in Tsaritsyn - Yakov Yerman, in Odessa - P Starostin, in Krasnoyarsk - I. Belopolsky, A. Rogov and Ya. Bograd, in Irkutsk - P. Postyshev and Lebedev. They consistently defended the position of the Bolsheviks, exposed the conciliatory policy of the Mensheviks and fought for the speediest organizational break with them.

The Bolsheviks were clearly aware of the fact that without a break with the Mensheviks in the united organizations, without the elimination of unity sentiments in the party organizations, it was impossible to move the revolution forward in the localities. Therefore, the Bolsheviks pursued a policy of resolutely exposing in their midst the conciliatory elements that contributed to unity.

Coming out against unification and joint action with the Mensheviks, Lenin spoke out in favor of wresting healthy proletarian revolutionary elements from the Mensheviks. “I am strongly in favor,” said V. I. Lenin, speaking during the discussion of the report on the municipal elections at the Petrograd City Conference in April 1917, “to insert Mensheviks who break with chauvinism into our lists of candidates. It's not a block." 19 .

The resolution on this issue, proposed by V. I. Lenin and unanimously adopted by the Petrograd City Conference, emphasized the impossibility of uniting with the parties that pursued a policy of supporting the Provisional Bourgeois Government, that stood on the positions of "revolutionary defencism" and opposed the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one. The conference called on the Party organizations to intensify their work among the working masses, freeing them from the influence of the Mensheviks and winning them over to the side of the Bolshevik Party.

The resolution of the conference stated: “In relation to individual local groups of workers who are adjacent to the Mensheviks, etc., but who are striving to defend the positions of internationalism against “revolutionary defencism”, against voting on loans, etc., the policy of our party should consist in support for such workers and groups, in rapprochement with them, in support of uniting with them on the basis of an unconditional break with petty-bourgeois betrayal of socialism .

In carrying out this resolution, the St. Petersburg Committee of the RSDLP (b) took all measures to draw into the ranks of the Bolsheviks the revolutionary Social Democratic, internationalist elements who did not share the platform of the Mensheviks. This tactic was followed by the Bolsheviks throughout the struggle to strengthen the party ranks in the pre-October period. The Bolsheviks proceeded from the same attitudes in their struggle against conciliation and unity in party organizations.

After the publication of Lenin's April Theses, the struggle against conciliatory sentiments aimed at uniting the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks intensified everywhere.

The irreconcilable struggle of the Bolsheviks against unifying sentiments in the Moscow city party organization led to the fact that conciliatory sentiments did not become widespread here. Expressing the opinion of the Moscow City Committee of the Bolsheviks, R. S. Zemlyachka, in her speech at the first Moscow regional conference of the RSDLP (b), held from April 19 to 21, stated: “We cannot unite with the Mensheviks. We can only include those Social Democrats who accept all our resolutions. We now need a crystal clear position, and then the revolutionary masses will follow us.” 21. At the Second Citywide Moscow Conference of the RSDLP (b), during the discussion of Osinsky’s report “On Unification with the Mensheviks” on April 15, the conference delegates rejected all the arguments of the speaker who spoke in favor of unification with the Mensheviks, and branded the latter as traitors to the revolution.

The successful struggle against the conciliators in the Urals was facilitated by the fact that even before the revolution there were strong underground Bolshevik organizations in Yekaterinburg, Lysva, Upper Tura, Revda, Kyshtym, Nevyansk, Minyar, Ufa, Kushva, Kungur.

In the industrial centers of the Urals, the Mensheviks did not have much influence. In addition, internationalist elements prevailed among the Mensheviks, who followed the Bolsheviks and worked together with them. Therefore, the Ural Social Democratic organization as a whole was essentially a Bolshevik organization. This can already be seen from the composition of the participants in the first Ural Conference, which took place on April 15-17, 1917. Of the 63 delegates to the conference, there were 57 Bolsheviks, 3 Menshevik internationalists and 3 Menshevik defencists. During the discussion of political questions at the conference, only 2-3 delegates defended the defencist point of view.

The struggle against unification tendencies in the Ural party organizations especially intensified with the arrival in the Urals in early April 1917 of Ya.

“It is not always true that there is strength in quantity,” Ya. M. Sverdlov pointed out in his speech at the first regional conference. It is not always profitable to gather more people under the banner. Strength is in discipline and quality. Can we make a formless union? Not! Only when there are no disagreements among you, only then unite... We do not accept Mensheviks into the Party .

Several Mensheviks present at the conference, representing the Nizhny Tagil United Organization, spoke out on this issue, as on many others, against Sverdlov. They were supported by the conciliatory opportunist Sosnovsky, who later became a Trotskyist.

In the decision adopted by the conference on the question of the attitude towards the Mensheviks, it was said that "unification is possible only with internationalists who stand on the point of view of Zimmerwald and Kienthal" 23 . The fallacy of this decision was that it spoke about the supporters of Zimmerwald and Kienthal as a whole, and did not highlight the views of the left minority of this association. It should be said that such a mistake was made not only by the Ural Bolsheviks, but also by some other organizations.

In the main centers of the Volga region - Saratov, Samara, Kazan, after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, independent Bolshevik organizations worked. Although at first there were unification sentiments among the compromising elements, they were quickly overcome thanks to strong party traditions and the presence of experienced Bolshevik cadres who headed the organizations. Even during the years of the imperialist war, a strong Bolshevik core formed in Saratov: M. S. Olminsky, S. I. Mitskevich and others, which took the correct revolutionary-internationalist position on issues of war and revolution, and this contributed to the further successful struggle against conciliationism and maintaining an independent Bolshevik organization.

Therefore, even after the February Revolution, the Saratov organization occupied, in the main, the correct Leninist position. The state of uncertainty and ambiguity on some issues of political life in the Saratov organization was observed for a short time. “The multilingual state of our organization,” writes Antonov-Saratovsky, “was put to an end by the masses of the party itself, and above all by its working section, they took the point of view of Lenin and forced our intelligentsia and semi-intelligentsia to pull themselves together . ” 24

At the first Saratov Citywide Party Conference under legal conditions, held on April 17, 1917, the conciliator Mgeladze proposed to unite with the Mensheviks. Rebuffing Mgeladze's opportunist attacks, the conference recognized the possibility of uniting only with those trends that rejected "civil peace", stood on the basis of an irreconcilable class struggle, pursued an internationalist policy and fought for an immediate end to the world war.

In another large party collective of the Volga region, in the Samara organization of the RSDLP (b), unity sentiments also appeared in the first days of the revolution. But the organizational opportunism, the vacillations and vacillations of some Bolsheviks were soon brought to an end. The Samara Bolsheviks rallied their ranks around the prominent Bolsheviks Kuibyshev, Shvernik, Bubnov and waged a decisive struggle against the Menshevik "unifying frenzy" and conciliatory moods of individual Bolsheviks. In March 1917, in the movie "Triumph" at the general meeting of the Samara organization of the RSDLP (b), when discussing the issue of unification, a group of Bolsheviks led by Bubnov exposed the treacherous policy of the Mensheviks and spoke out against any unification with them until this issue was resolved by the center. This proposal was accepted.

The Samara Mensheviks, dissatisfied with the position of the Bolshevik organization on this issue, decided at their meeting on March 23 to convene a "constituent assembly" of all Social Democratic trends. However, this attempt by the Mensheviks was a complete failure. The game of "unity" helped them to attract to the "united meeting" only a few conciliatory Bolsheviks, who did not play a significant role in the Samara organization of the RSDLP (b). The Samara Bolshevik Committee declared to the Mensheviks that unification could only take place on the platform of the 7th All-Russian April Conference.

The question of unification with the Mensheviks was also discussed at the first citywide conference of the Samara Bolsheviks, which took place on April 22, 1917. A comprehensive examination of this question revealed that the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the course of the revolution not only were not smoothed out, but, on the contrary, were intensified. For this reason the conference rejected any association with the Mensheviks.

The process of registration of the Kazan Bolshevik organization, crushed during the years of reaction, lasted the whole of March 1917. All this time the Bolsheviks continued to be scattered into separate groups and circles. Such organizational disunity during this period was especially dangerous. The lack of a unified organization among the Bolsheviks sought to use the Mensheviks, trying to create a unified organization.

To this end, under cover of hypocritical statements about the "common goals" of the struggle and "common aspirations", the Mensheviks of Kazan in their organ, the Kazan Rabochaya Gazeta, stubbornly propagated the idea of ​​a "united party" and criticized the Bolsheviks for their unwillingness to unite.

Among the Kazan Bolsheviks, with the exception of a small part of them, unification sentiments did not meet with any support.

In mid-March, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) sent V. A. Tikhomirnov to Kazan. With his arrival, the Kazan Bolsheviks resolutely embarked on the path of creating an independent organization. Tikhomirnov took vigorous measures to create and strengthen the Bolshevik organization of Kazan. To this end, he held several meetings with individual groups of Bolsheviks, at which a decision was made: "Unconditionally evade association with the Mensheviks, organize a Bolshevik committee and immediately begin to create their own body" 25 .

The Mensheviks, in opposition to Tikhomirnov's efforts to create an independent Bolshevik organization, continued to take steps to unite all social democratic forces. On their initiative, on March 24, 1917, a general meeting of all the Social Democrats of Kazan was held in order to unite. Tikhomirnov made a report at the meeting on behalf of the Bolshevik groups. During the discussion of his report, sharp differences were revealed between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks on all the questions raised in the report, and the complete impossibility of uniting the Social Democrats in one organization. At the end of the meeting, Tikhomirnov, on behalf of the Bolsheviks, declared that “an independent organization is being formed in Kazan, standing on the positions of the Central Committee and fully recognizing its authority” 26. Thus, from the first steps of legal activity, the Bolsheviks of Kazan sharply opposed the Mensheviks and formed their own independent organization.

The Bolsheviks of the industrial centers of Ukraine waged a resolute struggle against the conciliatory policy towards the Mensheviks and the tendency to unite with them.

In Kharkov, the question of unification was raised by the Menshevik Provisional Committee, which proposed that the Bolsheviks autonomously unite into one common Kharkov Social Democratic organization, regardless of the solution of this issue by the central institutions of the party. Some members of the Kharkov Bolshevik Committee, such as Luganovsky, Borshchevsky, Kin, and others, supported this proposal of the Mensheviks, arguing that at the present time there are no sharp differences that in the past justified the independent existence of two parts of the RSDLP. The committee raised this issue for discussion at the general meeting of the Kharkov organization of the Bolsheviks, which took place on March 23, 1917. The participants in the meeting sharply condemned the vacillating members of the city committee and resolutely rejected the Mensheviks' proposal for unification. At the same time, the meeting instructed the representative of the Kharkov Committee to raise the question of merging with the Mensheviks at the All-Russian Party Conference in Petrograd. Pending the clarification of this question in the Central Committee, the meeting obliged the Kharkov Committee, for the purpose of coordinated work, to enter into closer contact with the Mensheviks.

This wrong decision was undoubtedly a concession to the Mensheviks. It helped the Mensheviks, under the guise of revolutionary phrases, to preach in the first period of the revolution the unity of action and the "community" of aims of all Social Democracy.

After this meeting, the discussion of the question of the merger of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was transferred to the pages of the Proletary newspaper. In No. 7 of March 23 and No. 8 of March 28, two articles were published in this newspaper: one - a supporter of the merger, the other - a response article, an opponent of the unification. Opposing the formation of a united organization, the opponents of the merger made a serious mistake in offering their cooperation to the Mensheviks. "...Let's," the author of the article pointed out, "find other ways to work together" 27 .

On April 9, the general meeting of the Kharkov Bolshevik organization, after discussing the report of Muranov, seconded by the Central Committee, recognized the admissibility of uniting with the Mensheviks, who stood on the point of view of Zimmerwald and Kienthal, on the condition of a complete organizational break with "revolutionary defencism." The United Organization was to send a delegate to the All-Russian Conference of the Bolsheviks.

Naturally, such a decision could not suit the Mensheviks.

On April 18, at the insistence of the conciliators, the Kharkov Committee again returned to discussing the question of unification with the Mensheviks. In opposition to the speaker, who insisted on uniting with the Mensheviks, among whom there were many defencists, the committee adopted a resolution stating that due to the fact that the Menshevik Organizing Committee did not break ties with the social chauvinists and "revolutionary defencists", the Kharkov Committee finds it is impossible to move on to the concrete implementation of the unification until the Organizing Committee has fulfilled the main provisions expressed in the resolution of the general meeting of April 9th.

Later, the Kharkov Bolsheviks had not yet discussed the question of cooperation with the Mensheviks. Thus, for example, on May 18, the general meeting of the Kharkov organization, when discussing the question of elections to the City Duma, considered it possible to conclude a bloc with the Menshevik-Internationalists if the latter broke off all relations “with the Menshevik and Kadet defencist bloc, with which they had not broken ties” 28 .

As can be seen from the above facts, all the efforts of the supporters of unification, the conciliatory Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, to drive the Kharkov Bolshevik organization from the Leninist positions, suffered a complete failure.

In Ukraine, many organizations of the Bolsheviks did not enter into any organizational connection with the Mensheviks, for example, in Yekaterinoslav. Despite this, the conciliators who were members of the Committee campaigned for unification with the Mensheviks. During the elections to the City Duma, the Yekaterinoslav Committee of the Bolsheviks passed a decision on the so-called technical agreement with the Mensheviks. This meant putting up a list with the Mensheviks at the elections. It was essentially a resolution on a bloc. But when the committee's decision was put up for discussion by the general meeting of the organization, the latter indignantly rejected the proposal for a bloc with the Mensheviks by an overwhelming majority.

In Kyiv, the Bolshevik organization also did not enter into any unification negotiations with the Mensheviks. But in Kyiv there was a group of Social Democrats who called themselves the “group of united Mensheviks and Bolsheviks,” which sought to unite the Bolshevik and Menshevik organizations. This group worked out a "platform" that was purely Menshevik in nature. She put forward the idea of ​​convening a "workers' congress", creating a "broad workers' party" on the basis of the Soviets of Workers' Deputies. The "Group of United Mensheviks and Bolsheviks" turned to the committees of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks with a proposal to create a joint citywide body, threatening that if its proposal was rejected, it would create a committee itself. The Mensheviks agreed to the creation of a joint committee. The Bolsheviks answered in the negative.

In the Donbass, in most places, there were strong Bolshevik organizations, and there was no noticeable unifying mood there. The Communists of Donbass ruthlessly fought against any attempts to unite with the social traitors, exposed the proposals of the local Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks for unification, resolutely condemned the opportunist elements in their ranks, who occupied conciliatory positions.

When discussing the April theses of V. I. Lenin at the general meeting of the Rostov organization of the RSDLP (b) on April 13 (26), Syrtsov spoke out for unification with the Mensheviks. He was supported by Vasilchenko. Having condemned the conciliationism of Syrtsov and Vasilchenko, who later joined the Trotskyists, the Rostov Bolsheviks did not agree to unite with the Mensheviks, standing firmly on the Leninist positions outlined in the April Theses.

In mid-April 1917, the Bolsheviks of Gomel, having unanimously approved the April Theses of V. I. Lenin, broke off all organizational ties with the Mensheviks and formed their own independent organization.

Within the Krasnoyarsk United Organization of Social Democrats, at the beginning of March 1917, the first initiative group of Bolsheviks in Siberia was formed, which included firm Leninists - I. Belopolsky, A. Rogov, Ya. Bograd and others. On March 4-5, the first meeting of the Bolshevik group took place, at which the question of attitudes towards the Krasnoyarsk United Social Democratic Organization, created on March 2, which included Bolsheviks, Menshevik-internationalists and Menshevik-defensists, was discussed.

During the discussion of this question, part of the participants in the meeting demanded an immediate organizational break with the Mensheviks and the withdrawal of the Bolsheviks from the local united organization. Another part spoke in favor of a temporary stay in it in order to win over the majority of organizations to their side. After a comprehensive discussion of the issue, it was decided that the Bolsheviks remain in the ranks of the united organization for a month, in order to prepare and carry out a split during this time. To this end, the meeting has developed a specific program of activities. The group adopted the name "Pravdist Bolsheviks".

In order to fight against the Mensheviks and conciliatory elements from among the Bolsheviks, the Krasnoyarsk "Pravdists" decided to unite the Bolshevik groups of all the cities of Siberia, or at least the regions of Central Siberia adjacent to Krasnoyarsk. On the 20th of March, the Krasnoyarsk group of Pravdist Bolsheviks held a series of meetings with a member of the Central Committee Ya. To this end, it was decided to create the Central Siberian Regional Bureau of the RSDLP (b). The group of Pravdist Bolsheviks of Krasnoyarsk was joined by the Bolsheviks of Achinsk, headed by A. V. Pomerantseva and F. K. Vrublevsky, Yeniseisk, headed by V. N. Yakovlev and Peterson, Minusinsk, with G. S. Weinbaum, and others.

In the first days of April 1917, representatives of the Bolshevik groups of Yeniseisk gathered in Krasnoyarsk for a meeting. Achinsk, Kansk, the Znamensky Plant, from the railway workshops, from the editorial office of Sibirskaya Pravda, from the Council of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, the union of photographic business, the Social Democratic faction of soldiers, the cooperative of employees, the group of like-minded people of Sibirskaya Pravda, the Social Democratic Polish section of the city Krasnoyarsk.

The meeting participants approved the initiative of the Krasnoyarsk group of Pravdist Bolsheviks to establish close ties and unity of action between the Bolshevik groups of Siberia under the direct leadership of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) and elected the Central Siberian Regional Bureau of the RSDLP (b). The meeting sent a telegram to the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks, in which they welcomed the leading center of the party, leading the working class of Russia in difficult conditions to fight for the basic demands of the revolution, asked the Central Committee to confirm the authority of the Central Siberian Regional Bureau and approve its composition. On April 13, 1917, a response telegram was received signed by the Secretary of the Central Committee E. D. Stasova, which announced the approval of the Central Siberian Regional Bureau,

From that moment on, the Central Siberian Regional Bureau began to call itself the "Central Siberian Regional Bureau of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b)". The approval of the Central Committee of the Party of the Bolshevik Party Center for Siberia was of great importance in the struggle against unificationism, in the organizational strengthening of the Party organizations in Siberia.

When discussing the April theses of V. I. Lenin in such party organizations of the country as Petrograd, Moscow, Kharkov, Lugansk, Yekaterinoslav, Rostov, Kyiv, Yekaterinburg, Samara, Saratov, Yekaterinodar, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kazan and many others even before VII ( The April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b) put an end to the unification sentiments that manifested themselves among individual compromising Bolsheviks.

But, in spite of this, it still took a considerable amount of time to finally sever the organizational ties with the Mensheviks that had been preserved in the localities in the united organizations, to formalize and strengthen independent Bolshevik organizations everywhere.

* * *

In the context of the unfolding struggle of the Bolshevik Party for the ideological and organizational strengthening of its ranks, in the conditions of the rapid growth of the Party and its primary organizations, the VII (April) All-Russian Conference of the Bolshevik Party opened.

The April Conference of the Bolsheviks completed the elaboration and adoption of the Party's new orientation at the new stage of the struggle and set a course for the preparation of the socialist revolution. It gave clear answers to all fundamental questions of the revolution and put forward the slogan of struggle for the transfer of all state power into the hands of the Soviets.

During the discussion at the conference of the report on the situation in the International, a resolution was adopted that determined the attitude of the Bolsheviks towards the chauvinists, centrists and wavering elements in the Second International and confirmed the impossibility of uniting with parties and groups that stood on the positions of "revolutionary defencism". Along with this, the conference, contrary to the point of view of Lenin, who proposed to remain in the Zimmirwald association only for informational purposes and considered that this association could not serve as the basis for the formation of the Third International, adopted the clearly erroneous point of the resolution advocated by Zinoviev that our party remains in Zimmerwald bloc, setting itself the task of defending the tactics of the Zimmerwald Left there. The Conference instructed the Central Committee to begin immediately the implementation of measures to found the Third International.

The April conference adopted a resolution "On uniting the internationalists against the petty-bourgeois defencist bloom." In this resolution, the conference noted that the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties had gone over to the positions of "revolutionary defencism", that is, they supported the imperialist war, voted for a loan and support for the Provisional Government, that these parties pursued the interests and point of view of the petty bourgeoisie in their entire policy and corrupted the proletariat with bourgeois ideas that it was possible to change the policy of the bourgeoisie by means of agreement on it, "control" of the Provisional Government, entry into the ministry, etc. to the further development of the revolution, created the possibility of its defeat by the forces of counter-revolution. Based on this, the conference decided:

“1) recognize unification with the parties and groups pursuing” this policy as certainly impossible;

2) recognize rapprochement and unification with groups and trends that actually stand on the basis of internationalism as necessary on the basis of a break with the policy of petty-bourgeois betrayal of socialism” 29 .

These decisions of the April Conference outlined a clear and precise platform for rallying the internationalist elements in the working-class movement, gave direction and indicated methods for strengthening the Bolshevik Party under the specific conditions of the struggle for the preparation of the proletarian revolution.

The clear statement of the April Conference of the Bolsheviks that any association with the Mensheviks would prevent their isolation from the masses, without which it would be impossible even to think of liquidating the power of the bourgeoisie, was of exceptional importance. Unification and any blocs with the Mensheviks would have undermined the leading role of the proletariat and its party in the revolution and would have strengthened the position of the Compromisers among the masses, would have made it difficult to free the working people from the captivity of the gullibility of the bourgeoisie, which the Mensheviks, together with the Socialist-Revolutionaries, planted.

The Bolshevik Party most decisively exposed the main thesis of the Mensheviks, put forward by them in favor of unification, that supposedly after the February Revolution of 1917 only two forces appeared in the political arena: the bourgeoisie and "revolutionary democracy". They included the Bolshevik Party along with themselves and the Socialist-Revolutionaries in the latter.

V. I. Lenin drew special attention of the party to the need to explain to the working masses that in fact its two main forces are fighting in the revolution, but three forces, three main groups of parties that differed radically from each other: 1) the Cadets and those who to the right of them, 2) the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, and 3) the Bolshevik Party. At the same time, the first two groups of parties were in a bloc with each other and pursued an imperialist policy.

Only the Bolshevik Party, expressing the interests of the proletariat and the poorest peasantry, consistently defended the interests of all the working masses against the imperialist bourgeoisie.

The Party saw the clear separation of the revolutionary line of the Bolsheviks from the conciliatory line of the Mensheviks as the main condition for rallying the working people around their slogans. But, while rejecting unity and a bloc with the Mensheviks, the party did not at all refuse to unite with internationalist elements. Waging an uncompromising struggle against the Mensheviks, the party advocated uniting around itself all political groups that, on the fundamental questions of the revolution, departed from positions of compromise with the bourgeoisie. The Party considered the complete ideological and organizational break of these groups with the Menshevik line in the revolution and their recognition of the revolutionary platform of the Bolsheviks as the condition for such a unification. Such tactics of the Bolsheviks contributed to the creation of the unity of the labor movement from below, helped to expose the conciliatory policy of the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties.

This line in the Bolshevik Party can be clearly seen in the example of the unification of the Petrograd organization of the RSDLP (b) with the Mezhrayontsy.

As long as the "Interdistrict Committee" took a conciliatory position in relation to the defensists, the Bolsheviks resolutely opposed unification with them, and only when the "Interdistrict Organization" spoke in favor of a break with the defencists, when, following the Bolsheviks, it spoke in favor of the transfer of all power The Soviets were put on the order of the day the question of uniting with the "mezhraiontsy", which the Bolsheviks agreed to, trying to unite all the revolutionary elements of the working class.

The instructions of the VII (April) All-Russian Conference on the need for an immediate break with the Mensheviks were accepted by the Bolsheviks of the united party organizations for execution.

In the first half of May 1917, under pressure from progressive, revolutionary-minded workers, a split took place between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the Bryansk city party organization.

The struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the Voronezh United Organization intensified greatly. The Bolsheviks of Voronezh already at the beginning of May managed to rally around themselves the majority of the members of the united organization. This prompted a group of Mensheviks to make an extraordinary statement at a general meeting on May 3 (16), which was attended by about 400 people, about leaving the united organization and forming an independent Voronezh group of the RSDLP. However, as a result of the conciliatory position taken by the leadership of the Voronezh Bolsheviks, a final break with the Mensheviks did not occur at this meeting. May 17 (30) only. In 1917, when discussing the decisions of the April Conference, the general meeting of the Voronezh organization, breaking all organizational ties with the Mensheviks, decided to join the Moscow Regional Bureau of the RSDLP (b).

After the April Conference of the RSDLP (b), the struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in the Kolomna, Vladimir, Nizhny Novgorod, Tula, Kostroma and other united organizations intensified.

To explain the decisions and significance of the April Conference, the Moscow Regional Bureau sent its representatives to the Tula United Organization. On May 11, a meeting of the Tula Bolsheviks was held in the amount of 35 people, at which the materials of the April Conference were discussed in detail and a decision was made on an immediate break with the Compromisers and the formation of a Bolshevik organization. On May 14, at the second meeting, the Executive Committee of the Bolshevik organization of Tula was elected.

Having prepared the creation of their party organization, the Bolsheviks of Tula at the general meeting of the united organization on May 28 officially announced their withdrawal from it and the formation of an independent Bolshevik organization. The 89 Bolsheviks who left the meeting of the united organization convened their own meeting and elected the Tula City Committee of the Bolshevik Party and two district committees - Zarechensky and Chulkovsky.

After the formation of the Tula City Committee, the Polish, Lithuanian and Latvian Social Democratic organizations of the city of Tula in the amount of 80 people immediately joined the Bolsheviks, sending their representatives to work in the city committee of the party.

The Bolshevik military organization of the Tula garrison in the amount of 100 people also fully joined the Bolsheviks of the city.

How difficult it was to fight the conciliatory moods that nourished the Menshevik idea of ​​"unification" is evidenced by the fact that on May 21, 1917, the Moscow Regional Bureau of the Bolshevik Party again had to consider the question "On the attitude towards the united organizations."

After an exchange of views, the Regional Bureau adopted a decision stating that “standing entirely on the basis of the resolution of the All-Russian Conference on the unification of internationalists against the petty-bourgeois defense bloc, the Moscow Regional Bureau is forced to state the fact of the extraordinary organizational diversity, the extraordinary diversity of party organizations that have developed locally in the Central Industrial Region ". Along with certain, purely Bolshevik organizations, the decision pointed out, we have here both organizations that have not yet had time to decide, and organizations that are united. “United organizations, in turn, fall into two types: organizations that unite Bolsheviks and Menshevik-internationalists, and mixed organizations, in which all trends are represented, both internationalists and defencists”30 .

Depending on this, it was emphasized in the decision, the methods of implementing the resolution of the April Conference on the unification of internationalists in different cases should be different. If in undecided organizations the task was to immediately put on the table all the main questions of the divergence between the Bolsheviks and the defencists and to help these organizations to take a revolutionary internationalist position, then organizations that united Bolsheviks and Menshevik-internationalists in their ranks had to be supported and, by establishing with them the closest organizational ties and energetic participation in their work, to stop in such organizations the desire of their individual members to unite with the defencists.

Proceeding from this position, the Bureau recommended that cautious tactics be pursued, aimed at ensuring that the Bolshevik part of these organizations, clearly and sharply revealing their position of principle and differences with the Mensheviks, would strive for the complete conquest of the organizations.

The issue of attitudes towards mixed organizations required more careful, careful and detailed consideration. The development of the revolutionary movement, leading to an intensification of clashes between classes, forced all the classes participating in the revolution to take a completely definite position. At the same time, this circumstance caused disagreements between the individual trends within such mixed organizations, gradually made their joint work more and more impossible, and inevitably led these organizations to disintegration. Therefore, the Regional Bureau, in order to speed up this process of self-determination, by its decision set the task of helping to clarify the full depth and irreconcilability of the differences between the two main directions in mixed organizations - defense and Bolshevik,

With regard to those organizations that, while calling themselves united, nevertheless had already taken a defensive and opportunist position in their speeches, the Regional Bureau recommended that its like-minded people immediately withdraw from such organizations and, for its part, broke off all ties with them .

By the July days of 1917, the process of the final organizational break with the Mensheviks and the formation of independent Bolshevik organizations in the central industrial region had ended everywhere.

The July events and the shameful role of the Mensheviks in them hastened the process of organizational rupture between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks in all the united organizations. In the course of the intensified struggle between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, a significant part of the united party organizations split with the Mensheviks and independent Bolshevik organizations took shape.

On the basis of the decisions of the April Conference, the Bolsheviks of Chelyabinsk waged a determined struggle for the expulsion of the Mensheviks from the united organization. The general meeting of the Bolsheviks of Chelyabinsk on May 8, having unanimously approved the decisions of the April Conference, decided on a stricter admission to the party. In the future, admission to the party was to be carried out with the recommendation of one member of the party and only those persons who, in questions about the war and in relation to the Provisional Government, recognized the decisions of the April Conference. At the same meeting, the party committee of the Bolshevik organization of Chelyabinsk was elected, which did a great job of rallying all the truly revolutionary forces and withdrawing them from the united organization.

At the general meeting on July 18, by an absolute majority of votes, the Mensheviks were expelled from the organization. Regarding their counter-revolutionary role, the Chelyabinsk Committee addressed a special appeal to the workers.

The appeal said:

“Comrade workers!

Some time ago a new party, the Mensheviks, was formed in Chelyabinsk, calling itself the Social Democrats; Among the members of this organization are the same people who during the four months of the Great Russian Revolution did nothing but fight the revolutionary Social Democracy, the genuine old defenders of the working class. Further, the appeal stated that “having entered into an agreement with the local counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie ... these disorganizers are now rallying their ranks in order to fight with great success against our revolutionary tactics. Defenders of the interests of the petty bourgeoisie—shopkeepers and townsfolk—they are in full contact with their counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, and their task is to split, weaken, and disperse the dense ranks of the revolutionary proletariat.” Proceeding from this, the appeal called: “Comrade workers! do not be deceived by the sweet speeches of the disorganizers. Let the members of the "Menshevik" party be that bourgeois intelligentsia which has lost all living contact with the workers, which has entered into an agreement with the bourgeoisie and supports it.

Not a single worker in the ranks of imaginary Social Democrats!” 32

After the Mensheviks were expelled from their ranks, the Chelyabinsk Bolshevik Organization began to grow rapidly at the expense of the best, advanced factory workers. If in April it had 240 people in its ranks, then six months later it had grown to 1,700 people. In connection with the rapid growth and increase in the volume of party work, 3 district party committees were organized in July and party clubs were opened.

In the Urals, after the July events, the Bolsheviks of Nizhny Tagil finally broke off their ties with the Mensheviks and formed an independent organization. Almost simultaneously, in Kushva, the Bolsheviks, who dominated the organization, expelled the Mensheviks from it. In July 1917 there was a split in Zlatoust, in August - in Nizhnyaya Salda and Nizhnyaya Tura. Soon after the April Conference, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks disengaged in Perm, and in September 1917 in Orenburg.

The association took on a protracted character in the Ufa organization.

From the moment the united party organization was created in Ufa on March 3, 1917, a group of firm Leninists was formed in it, headed by A. D. Tsyurupa. This group waged an uncompromising struggle against the policy of the Menshevik leaders and opportunist elements among the Bolsheviks. In March 1917, the Ufa Bolsheviks did a great job of creating and strengthening factory primary party organizations and trade unions. Bolshevik organizations arose at all large plants and factories of the Southern Urals (Asha-Balashovsky, Simsky, Minyarsky, Ust-Kotavsky factories, among the Ufa railway workers, later at the Beloretsky factory, at the Nizhne-Troitsk cloth factory of the Alafuzovs, in Biysk, Belebey and other places) . In their struggle to win a majority in the working class, a group of Leninists in the Ufa United Organization, headed by A.D. Tsyurupa relied on the Bolshevik party organizations of the factories of the Southern Urals. And only after the Sixth Congress of the RSDLP (b), which once again reminded of the need for a complete break with the Mensheviks, did the Ufa Committee of the RSDLP and its organ, the Vperyod newspaper, firmly take Leninist positions.

On June 21-22, 1917, the Ufa provincial party conference was held, at which 7 organizations of Bashkiria were represented, uniting 3020 party members. At the conference, delegates from factory organizations sharply criticized the work of the Ufa Committee and its organ, Vperyod, for their conciliatory policy towards the Mensheviks. The new composition of the Ufa Committee, elected at the conference, turned Vperyod into a Bolshevik organ. The Ufa Mensheviks lost all support among the working masses. In early September 1917 they were expelled from the party organization.

Analyzing the struggle of the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks in the united organizations, the second Ural regional conference, held on July 14-18, summed up the results of the work of the Ural organization in fulfilling the instructions of the Central Committee to expel "chauvinists of various shades" from their ranks. She noted that in the Urals, as well as throughout Russia, there is not the creation of new unified, but the disintegration of old "single" organizations. For 3 months in the Urals, they finally broke with the association of organizations that were completely cleansed of the Mensheviks.

“Considering this natural and inevitable disintegration as a process of purification and strengthening of the party of the proletariat, the Second Ural Regional Conference considers the path of party unification that our Central Committee has taken to be absolutely correct” 33

On May 28, 1917, the Bolsheviks of Vyatka broke organizational ties with the Mensheviks and formed their own organization, and the Bolsheviks of the Izhevsk plant achieved this by leaving the “association” on May 13, 1917. At the end of May, after a special directive from the Central Committee of the party, the Sormovo and Nizhny Novgorod Bolsheviks finally broke with the Mensheviks and created their own independent organization. Only as a result of an uncompromising struggle, a group of Tsaritsyn Bolsheviks led by Yakov Yerman, who was sent by the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) to Tsaritsyn, on May 9, 1917, managed to expel the Mensheviks from the united party organization and turn it into a Bolshevik one. At the same time, out of 380 members of the organization, only 30 people followed the Mensheviks.

In early May, a city meeting of the Simbirsk Bolsheviks was held to discuss the materials of the April Conference. At the meeting, a small group of compromisers and capitulators, who smoothed over the fundamental differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks and defended cooperation with the Mensheviks in a united organization, opposed the decisions of the April Conference.

Most of the participants in the meeting, headed by M. A. Gimov, resolutely rebuffed the Menshevik attacks. Having approved the decisions of the April conference, the assembly adopted them as a program of its daily activities. In accordance with the decisions of the conference, the assembly decided to immediately break all ties with the Mensheviks and form an independent Bolshevik organization. At the same meeting, the Organizational Bureau headed by M. A. Gimov was elected. Fulfilling the decision of the general meeting, by June the Organizational Bureau had done a great deal of work to rally the Bolshevik forces, educate and politically harden party members from workers and soldiers. During May, the ranks of the Simbirsk Bolsheviks more than tripled. The prestige of the Bolsheviks among the working masses increased.

On June 9, at the organizational meeting, the creation of the Bolshevik organization of the city of Simbirsk was formalized. The meeting gave a sharp rebuff to a small group of opportunists who were trying to maintain a united organization. The Simbirsk city committee of the Bolsheviks was also elected here, headed by M. A. Gimov, who was instructed to intensify work on the creation of production party cells and the political education of party members.

Even before the 7th (April) All-Russian Conference, the Bolshevik organizations of the industrial centers of Ukraine had, in the main, correctly assessed political events and oriented the proletariat towards the struggle for the continuation of the revolution. They persistently exposed the Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries and Ukrainian nationalists, winning over the masses to their side. The influence of these conciliatory parties manifested itself, in particular, in their attempts to push the Bolsheviks onto the path of unification with the defencist Mensheviks. United social democratic organizations were in Odessa, Nikolaev, Poltava, Kremenchug, Krivoy Rog, Berdyansk, Kherson, Zhytomyr and other cities. The split in these organizations occurred, for the most part, in the summer of 1917.

In the Odessa organization, during the discussion at a meeting of the citywide committee on April 23, Schwartz's report "On the situation in the party and the All-Russian Conference being convened," sharp disagreements arose between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks.

The clash between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks was repeated at the first citywide conference of the Odessa organization of the RSDLP, which took place a little later, and which adopted a Menshevik resolution on the question of the Provisional Government. After this, the differences between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks escalated. At rallies, meetings and meetings, each of the parties usually put up its own speaker, meetings of factions were held, but the matter did not yet reach a break.

After the Menshevik leaders entered the coalition government and with the arrival in Odessa in May 1917 of prominent Bolshevik workers, P. Starostin and others, relations between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks became even more aggravated. The Bolsheviks began to prepare for the creation of an independent Bolshevik organization.

In connection with the inactivity of the city committee of the united organization and the conciliatory line that he pursued in the Soviet of Workers' Deputies and in other public organizations, at a meeting of the Odessa Bolsheviks and delegates to the front congress, who shared the views of the central organ of the party, Pravda, on May 18, 1917, it was adopted the decision to form a fraction of the Bolsheviks in the united organization of the RSDLP. In the 20th of May, at their meeting, the Mensheviks ordered the city committee to "take all measures to preserve the united organization."

After the Bolsheviks openly exposed the treacherous policy of the Mensheviks on the fundamental questions of the revolution in the newspaper Yuzhny Rabochy, No. On June 19, the Bolsheviks, not agreeing with the position of the Mensheviks, defiantly left the meeting of the united organization.

The Mensheviks, in their turn, adopted a decision on June 22, which stated: "Recognize the split as a fait accompli."

However, the Odessa Bolsheviks severed organizational ties only with the defencist Mensheviks, leaving in their organization the Internationalist Mensheviks, whose representatives even entered the city committee. The organization continued to be called social democratic - internationalist, not Bolshevik. This half-hearted, inconsistent position of the leaders of the Odessa Organization led to the fact that even after the split with the defensists, unifying moods continued to take place in the Odessa Organization, and there was no firm line on tactical issues.

As a result, the Odessa organization only on September 30 recognized the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b), elected at the VI Congress of the Party, and decided to obey the Charter adopted by this congress, and removed the subheading from the newspaper "Voice of the Proletarian": "Organ of the United Social Democrats-Internationalists" 34 .

The Bolshevik organizations of Donbass enthusiastically accepted the historic decisions of the April Party Conference as a guide to action. They intensified their activity in the education and organization of the working masses. The Lugansk Committee of the RSDLP (b) under the leadership of K. E. Voroshilov defeated the opportunists who in July 1917 came out for a bloc with the Mensheviks during the elections to the Lugansk Soviet and the City Duma. A resolute struggle against conciliation and unification tendencies in the party organizations of Donbass and Kharkov was carried out by a prominent figure in the Bolshevik party Artem (F. A. Sergeev). On June 11, 1917, Artyom appeared in the Proletariy newspaper with a revealing article “Unfortunate Unifiers”:

“If you are those Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries,” wrote Artyom, “who transfer power to the worst enemies of the people—the landlords and big capital, if you are the ones in whose name and on whose behalf the military units smash the workers and send punitive expeditions to various districts of Russia, if you are the ones who introduce a punitive regime for those who fight for freedom ... then tell me, why do you come to us to unite with us? After all, we are fighting against everything that you do.”

In this article, Artyom showed all the falsity and hypocrisy of the “revolutionary” phrases of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, who, portraying themselves as defenders of the interests of the working class, wanted to liquidate the revolutionary party of the working class under the guise of unity of action and common goal. “The Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries call on us to unite to stop our activities.

Empty hope! — wrote Artem. “We will continue our activities” 35 .

After the July events, when the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries became participants in the massacre of Petrograd workers and soldiers, the Donetsk workers united even more closely around the Bolshevik Party. The best representatives of the proletariat these days joined the ranks of the Bolsheviks. In July alone, 300 people joined the party organization of Makeyevka. Other party organizations of Donbass also grew rapidly these days.

In the Minsk United Organization of Social Democrats, from the very beginning of its formation, firm Leninists - A. F. Myasnikov, M. V. Frunze and others waged an uncompromising struggle against the dominance of the Mensheviks in the organization, with their treacherous policy, winning the masses of workers, peasants and soldiers on your side.

From the first days of the revolution, staunch Leninists took consistent steps to form an independent Bolshevik organization and establish links with the Central Committee. To this end, a group of Bolsheviks sent Mogilevsky and Dmitriev to Petrograd; moreover, the first brought information from the Central Committee of the party, and the second - a small amount of money, which subsequently began to be published in Minsk by the Bolshevik newspaper Zvezda.

Upon the return of the representative of the Bolsheviks in Minsk from the April Conference, the intransigence of the positions of both factions became even more obvious, the illusions about the possibility of the existence of a single social democracy were finally dispelled, and an organizational split was quickly brewing.

Prior to this, the Bolsheviks, on behalf of the united social democratic organization, were included in the governing bodies of the Minsk Soviet, in their hands was the bureau of the Social Democratic faction of the Soviet, headed by A.F. Myasnikov.

On May 19 (June 2), the first meeting of the Bolshevik faction of the Soviet was convened, which was attended by all the Bolsheviks of Minsk. The meeting discussed the main questions of Bolshevik tactics. During the discussion of these questions, the majority of responsible workers spoke out against immediate withdrawal from the united organization, in favor of maintaining for the time being formal unity with the Mensheviks. Therefore, the break did not happen quickly. But at this meeting, the first (still unspoken) Minsk Committee of the RSDLP (b) was elected. The Bolsheviks of Minsk were in no hurry to leave the united organization, hoping to win a majority in it and leave it along with the bulk of the members of this organization.

In June, a military organization of the Bolsheviks was created. This organization, set up without the knowledge of the Mensheviks, was not recognized by the united organization and opposed sending its delegate to the All-Russian Conference of Military Organizations of the RSDLP(b). But the protests of the Mensheviks led nowhere. The military organization sent a delegate to the conference of military organizations and subsequently played a large role in the organizational formation of the independent Bolshevik organization in Minsk.

Having prepared a break with the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks, at a meeting of the united organization on June 4 (17), came up with a comprehensive Bolshevik program on the fundamental questions of the revolution. The political line outlined by the Bolsheviks and their tactics won out in the organization. This meeting put an end to the existence of the Minsk United Social Democratic Organization.

In connection with the split of the united organization, the Minsk Bolsheviks appealed to the workers, working peasants of Belarus and the soldiers of the Western Front. In this document, issued in a special leaflet, the Minsk Committee wrote:

“Now we are already an independent organization of consistent Social Democracy; we, as the vanguard of the working class, are striving for the socialist system through the firm class struggle of the proletariat.

We rally the workers, as a single class, around our true banner... Irreconcilable class struggle and through it the striving by sure steps towards socialism—this is our fundamental commandment. ” 36

The purge of the party organization of the Mensheviks strengthened the influence of the Bolsheviks among the masses, especially among the soldiers, helped to eliminate the harm caused by the long stay of the Bolsheviks in the same organization with the Mensheviks.

The Minsk Bolshevik Organization, under the leadership of M. V. Frunze and A. F. Myasnikov, did an enormous amount of political work to formalize and strengthen the Bolshevik organizations in Belarus.

Being located in the immediate rear of the Western Front and being the largest Bolshevik center in the North-Western region, which then included the areas of the Vilna, Minsk and Vitebsk provinces that were not occupied by the Germans, as well as the Mogilev province, the Minsk Committee performed the functions of not only the provincial, but also the regional party organ.

With his active participation, Bolshevik organizations were created in a number of places in the North-Western region and the Western Front - in Bobruisk (June), Polotsk (July), in the army - in Zamirye, Lutsk, Koidanov and Slutsk.

Almost simultaneously with the Minsk Bolsheviks, the Vitebsk Bolsheviks left the united social democratic organization. At a general meeting on June 20, when discussing the issue of withdrawing from the united organization, the Bolsheviks who spoke out sharply criticized the Vitebsk Committee of the RSDLP because it had greatly corrected its policy and proposed the creation of an independent organization of the Bolsheviks. After an exchange of views, the Provisional Committee of the RSDLP (b) was elected here at the meeting.

On July 4, a joint meeting of the Provisional Committee of the Vitebsk Organization and the Committee of the Latvian Social Democracy of Vitebsk took place, where it was decided to unite these two organizations and create a common city committee of the Bolsheviks.

The existence of united social-democratic organizations in Mogilev and Orsha was greatly delayed. The headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was located in Mogilev and a large number of counter-revolutionary troops were concentrated. Therefore, it was especially difficult for the Bolsheviks to work here. In August 1917, the Mogilev Bolsheviks intensified their struggle against the Mensheviks and began to prepare their withdrawal from the united Social Democratic organization.

The Bolsheviks of Orsha, after a long struggle with the Mensheviks and conciliators in their own ranks, in mid-September 1917 were able to inform the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b): “Recently, only we have an independent organization. Until now, we have been part of the united organization” 37 .

How much importance the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) attached to the break with the Mensheviks and the organizational formation of independent Bolshevik organizations can be judged on the basis of the following. Having received news of the formation of an independent Bolshevik group in Orsha, Ya. M. Sverdlov, a member of the Bolshevik Central Committee, wrote in his reply to the Orsha Bolsheviks: “We can only welcome the formation of an independent group in you. In the times we are living through, not a single honest internationalist can remain in a bloc with the defencists, who are betraying the proletariat with their conciliatory policy .

The VII (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b) had a decisive influence on the strengthening of the Bolshevik organizations in Transcaucasia.

The Bolsheviks of Transcaucasia, on the basis of the decisions of the April Conference, launched a great organizational-mass work to win over the working masses to their side, to increase and strengthen the party organizations, to finally demarcate in the united organizations with the traitors to the revolution. The widespread discussion of the decisions of the April Conference in the Transcaucasian party organizations in May and June took place in a sharp struggle against the opportunists in their ranks, who were united towards the Mensheviks.

The general meeting of the Tiflis organization on June 6, after discussing the decisions of the April Conference, unanimously adopted them as leaders in its practical activities.

Fulfilling the decision of the April Conference "On the Unity of Internationalists Against the Petty-Bourgeois Defensive Bloc", the meeting of the Tiflis Bolsheviks decided to break with the Menshevik organization, which stands on the point of view of revolutionary defencism, to recall all the Bolsheviks from there and create a separate Social Democratic organization, standing on the point of view of revolutionary Social Democracy. . The irreconcilable struggle of the Baku Bolsheviks under the leadership of a prominent figure in the party, S. G. Shaumyan, against the Menshevik part of the united Baku organization of the RSDLP, which was influential at the beginning of the revolution, led to the fact that already in the first half of May, the leadership of the Baku Committee passed into the hands of the Bolsheviks. The Baku Committee at a meeting on May 19 demanded that the editorial office of the Baku Rabochiy newspaper change direction and pursue a firm Bolshevik line.

On June 25, the second conference of the Baku Party Organization took place, at which there was a final break with the Mensheviks.

After the VII (April) All-Russian Conference, the Bolsheviks of Batum and other party organizations of Transcaucasia broke with the Mensheviks and created their own organizations.

The Bolsheviks of Stavropol, after sharp disagreements with the Mensheviks on the question of their attitude towards the Provisional Government at the general meeting on April 13, formed their own faction in the united Social Democratic organization. The Bolshevik faction elected its Organizational Bureau and sent a telegram to the Central Committee asking for assistance to the newly created Bureau. At the same time, the Bolsheviks did not leave the united organization, since they played a leading role in it.

The Bolsheviks of Stavropol explained their inconsistent position by the fact that in the united organization, on the one hand, it was possible to use the left wing of the Menshevik-Internationalists in certain cases; on the other hand, it opened up the possibility of influencing that part of the workers who were still following the Mensheviks. Only after the July events in Petograd and a sharp disagreement with the Mensheviks in developing a platform for the city elections did the Stavropol Bolsheviks form their own independent organization on July 20.

In Siberia, the Krasnoyarsk group of Pravdist Bolsheviks after the April Conference of the RSDLP (b) severed all organizational ties with the Mensheviks.

On May 30, 1917, a group of Pravdist Bolsheviks, in the amount of 87 people, led by the Central Siberian Regional Bureau of the Central Committee of the Bolsheviks with the printed organ "Sibirskaya Pravda", left the Krasnoyarsk United Social Democratic Organization and created an independent Bolshevik organization, the ranks of which were quickly replenished by those departing from the "Unionists". » local workers. By July 6, 1917, the Krasnoyarsk organization of the RSDLP (b) had grown to 300 people. This example was followed by the Bolsheviks of the military units of Krasnoyarsk. On June 9, at a meeting of party members of the Krasnoyarsk garrison, which was attended by 250 people, it was decided to break with the Mensheviks, recognize the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) and form Bolshevik cells in military units.

After a stubborn struggle between the Pravdists and the opportunists, the Krasnoyarsk United Social Democratic Organization, having broken with the defencists, recognized the Bolshevik Central Committee as its leading body and in mid-June 1917 merged with the Krasnoyarsk Bolshevik organization of the Pravdists.

At the beginning of June, a general meeting of the Barnaul United Organization was held, at which a report on the results of the April conference was made by Prysyagni, who had come from Petrograd. During the discussion of the report, a sharp struggle flared up between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. At the end of the debate, the Bolsheviks submitted a draft resolution proposing to approve the resolutions of the April Conference of the Bolshevik Party and to recognize the Central Committee, elected by the April Conference, as their leading party body.

The Mensheviks came out with a categorical objection and voted against this resolution. After that, the Bolsheviks left the meeting, declaring their withdrawal from the united organization.

After the April Conference, political work in the party organizations of Kuzbass, Tomsk, Omsk, and Novonikolaevsk intensified considerably. In Kuzbass, the defencist Mensheviks were expelled from the united party organization, and the Internationalist Mensheviks joined the decisions of the April Conference and recognized the Central Committee elected by it.

Thus, fulfilling the decisions of the VII (April) All-Russian Conference. RSDLP (b) about an immediate break with the Mensheviks, the Bolsheviks of the united party organizations of Central Russia, Ukraine, the Urals, Siberia, the Caucasus, Belarus, with a few exceptions, at the beginning of the summer of 1917 broke all ties with the Mensheviks and formed their own organizations.

* * *

The VI Congress of the RSDLP (b) was of great importance in the life of the Bolshevik Party. The congress, heading for an armed uprising, adopted important decisions on questions of party building, aimed at the all-round ideological and organizational strengthening of the ranks of the party, strengthening party organizational and party political work. The purpose of these decisions was to increase the mobilizing and organizing role of the party as a headquarters at the head of preparing the masses for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the conquest of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Of great importance was the adoption by the Sixth Congress of the new Party Rules, which marked an important stage in the development of the Leninist organizational principles of the Party.

The 6th Congress of the RSDLP (b) summarized the experience of political and organizational work that the party had accumulated since the April Conference, discussed the political situation in the country that had arisen as a result of the July events, and developed tactics and new slogans for the struggle.

During the work of the 6th Congress, the central organ of the party "Worker and Soldier" in editorial No. 9 of August 2 "Toward the Utopia of Unification" and in No. 10 of August 3 in the article "Unifying absurdity" in the sharpest form exposed the attempts of the Mensheviks by convening a unification congress create a "united socialist party".

Ridiculing the absurd idea of ​​uniting various class forces in the party, the newspaper Rabochy i Soldat wrote: “It is precisely now that the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks are in completely opposite conditions: Bolshevism as a trend is omnipotently persecuted, Menshevism as a trend is encouraged in every possible way. The Bolsheviks sit behind the double prison bars of "crosses", the Mensheviks solemnly sit in the Council of Ministers.

And at such an acute moment, politically short-sighted people still cannot part with their miserable, absurd, incomprehensible utopian idea of ​​uniting the Bolsheviks with the Mensheviks within the framework of a single political party.

These people, insistently repeating the idea of ​​one Social-Democratic Party, come out with an absurd, lifeless and never-realizable call "for the union of ministers with political prisoners, rulers with the oppressed, adherents of a close alliance between democracy and the bourgeoisie with the irreconcilable class enemies of the latter."

Rejecting any blocs with the Compromisers, especially uniting with the Mensheviks within the framework of one party, the newspaper Rabochy i Soldat pointed out that the Bolshevik Party rallied around itself only internationalist elements that had forever severed all ties with the Compromisers and that the Bolshevik Congress was taking place " institutionalizes the bloc of the left internationalists with the party.

The 6th Congress adopted a special resolution "On the Unity of the Party", which stated that "the split between social patriots and revolutionary internationalists in Russia - a split fixed on a world scale - is getting deeper every day. The Mensheviks, who began with defensism, ended up in the most shameful alliance with the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, inspiring and sanctioning the persecution of internationalist organizations, the workers' press, etc., etc. Turning into servants of Russian and allied imperialism, they finally went over to the camp of enemies of the proletariat .

Under such circumstances,” the resolution continued, “the first task of revolutionary Social-Democracy is to expose the treacherous policy of the imperialist Mensheviks to the broadest working masses, to isolate them completely from all the least revolutionary elements of the working class. Any attempt to reconcile the revolutionary-internationalist elements of socialism with the Menshevik-imperialists by convening a "unification congress" with the aim of creating a single social-democratic party inflicts grave damage on the interests of the proletariat. Proceeding from the recognition of the need for a complete and irreversible split with the Menshevik-imperialists, the congress spoke out in the strongest terms against such attempts. Contrasting the dangerous slogan of the unity of all, Social Democracy put forward the class revolutionary slogan—the unity of all internationalists who had broken with the imperialist Mensheviks in practice. Considering such unity necessary and inevitable, the congress called on all the revolutionary elements of the Social Democracy to immediately break their organizational ties with the defencists and unite around the RSDLP.40 .

After the VI Congress, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) and local party organizations paid great attention to the propaganda of the decisions of the congress. Fulfilling the decision of the 6th Congress "On the Unity of the Party", the Bolsheviks of the united Social Democratic organizations launched a great deal of work to expose the policy of maneuvering, hypocrisy and opportunism of the Mensheviks, seeking the fastest and final split of the united organizations.

Having received the decisions of the Sixth Congress, the Astrakhan Bolsheviks on August 20 broke all ties with the Mensheviks and formed their own organization. In August, the Belgorod Bolshevik organization was also formed. In September, after a split with the Mensheviks, the Berdyansk, Vitebsk, and Vladivostok Bolshevik organizations were created, and in October, the Vladikavkaz and Kursk organizations . In mid-October, a split occurred in the Pyatigorsk United Social Democratic Organization. In response to a message about the formation of the Pyatigorsk Bolshevik organization, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) wrote on October 21:

"We welcome your speech from the united organization and we believe that your ranks will rapidly grow and multiply" 42 .

The struggle against unification tendencies took on a particularly protracted character in the Siberian, Far Eastern, Turkestan and Crimean united organizations. This was due to the presence of strong conciliatory sentiments among some of the Bolsheviks of these organizations.

In the Irkutsk organization of the RSDLP, after the All-Russian April Conference, a close-knit group of Bolsheviks emerged (Postyshev, Lebedev, and others). In early May, a split occurred in the organization, but then very soon “unity” was restored. The break with the Mensheviks, which occurred a month later at the June conference of the Irkutsk organization, again did not lead to the desired results. At this conference, by 32 votes, with one against and two abstentions, a resolution was adopted in which the old motives for the need for unity figured.

The Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) closely followed the struggle of the Irkutsk Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks. It was obvious that in Irkutsk the influence of the bourgeoisie on the working class was strong, that the party of the proletariat would face a stubborn struggle against the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties. V. I. Lenin specifically pointed out this circumstance to the Irkutsk Bolsheviks.

It is known that back in April, immediately after the All-Russian Party Conference, V. I. Lenin told the delegates from the Central Siberian Bureau of the Central Committee (Bolsheviks) who came to the conference that the urgent task of the Siberian Bolsheviks was to transfer the base of their work to Irkutsk, which, in the fate of the revolutionary wrestling was to play an important role. Lenin emphasized that there the Siberian Bolsheviks would meet fierce resistance from the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, since from there they would try to influence the peasantry throughout and especially Western Siberia in order to deprive the proletariat of St. Petersburg and Moscow and the revolutionary parts of the rear and front of Siberian bread, meat and other types of food.

Attaching such importance to Irkutsk and considering that the unification mood in the Irkutsk party organization persisted for a long time, the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) at the end of September sent one of its employees to Irkutsk.

After the arrival in Irkutsk of a representative of the Central Committee and a group of Krasnoyarsk Bolsheviks, the Irkutsk Bolsheviks in October 1917 finally broke off all ties with the Mensheviks and institutionalized their Bolshevik organization.

Following the example of the Krasnoyarsk group of Pravdists, which left the united social-democratic organization, the Bolsheviks of Tomsk, under the joint committee, created their own organizing commission, whose task was to form the Bolsheviks into an independent party organization. On June 16, this commission issued an appeal "To all comrades who share the platform of the All-Russian Conference of Social-Democrats convened by the Central Committee." In the appeal, the Bolsheviks were called upon to clarify their consistent internationalist position more sharply and more definitely. The indecisiveness of the conversion of the Tomsk Bolsheviks, which testified that conciliatory sentiments were still strong among the Tomsk Bolsheviks, should be especially emphasized.

Only in September 1917, after the 6th Congress, did the Tomsk Bolsheviks finally break organizational ties with the Mensheviks.

A few days after the formation of the Tomsk Bolshevik organization, a split occurred in the Novonikolaev United Social Democratic Organization. By a majority of 85 against 22, the meeting of the organization decided to join the platform of the Bolsheviks. And, finally, on October 12, 1917, the Omsk Bolsheviks expelled the Mensheviks from their ranks and formed an independent organization.

Thus, in fulfilling the decision of the 6th Congress "On the Unification of the Party", the Bolsheviks of Siberia in September and October 1917 everywhere broke all organizational ties with the Mensheviks and formalized their Bolshevik organizations.

The Bolsheviks of the Far East managed to finally break organizational ties with the Mensheviks only by the autumn of 1917. However, the Blagoveshchensk and Chita organizations of the RSDLP remained united until 1918.

Under the influence of the VI Congress of the RSDLP (b), the Crimean Bolsheviks also stopped their cooperation with the Mensheviks in the united social democratic organizations and created their own organizations.

In November-December 1917, the Bolsheviks of Turkestan took shape in independent organizations in Chardzhui (November 26), in Tashkent, Samarkand, Namangan, Ashgabat (in December), Jizzakh, Kokand, Skobelev (January-February 1918) and other cities.

The struggle against conciliation towards the Mensheviks and against "unity" was primarily a struggle for strengthening the party of the proletariat, for putting into practice the Marxist-Leninist organizational principles. It was a struggle for the ideological and organizational strengthening of a new type of Marxist party as the leading force of the proletariat and the main weapon in the hands of the working class to ensure the victory of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

* * *

Thus, following the instructions of the leader of the party V. I. Lenin, the decisions of the VII (April) All-Russian Party Conference, the VI Congress of the Bolshevik Party, the directives of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) (on organizational issues, waging an uncompromising struggle for the purity of their ranks, the Bolsheviks of the united organizations on During the spring and summer of 1917, having successfully defeated the conciliators in their midst, they broke all organizational ties with the Mensheviks and united around the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, headed by V. I. Lenin.

The Bolshevik Party, under the leadership of its leader V. I. Lenin, managed in a relatively short time to successfully defeat the organizational opportunism that manifested itself in a number of local organizations, and to expose the anti-Marxist principle of "unity at all costs." It was able to quickly overcome conciliation and vacillation in its ranks, to unite the vast masses of workers and peasants around itself, because it was armed with the most advanced revolutionary Marxist-Leninist theory.

The struggle of the Bolshevik Party for an organizational break with the Mensheviks in the united Social Democratic organizations that existed for some time in the localities, the struggle for rallying the working masses around the Bolshevik Party proceeded in an atmosphere of steady exposure of the treacherous policy of the petty-bourgeois compromising parties, their isolation as the most dangerous during the preparation of the proletarian revolution. in Russia, as a disguised agent of the bourgeoisie in the ranks of the working class.

At the same time, our party waged a determined struggle against the wavering elements within its ranks. Without an irreconcilable struggle and the defeat of the capitulators in its own midst, the Bolshevik Party would not have been able to maintain unity, strengthen discipline and fulfill the role of organizer and leader of the socialist revolution in Russia.

During the period of direct struggle for power, the Bolshevik Party grew and strengthened, overcoming internal contradictions. The organizational, political and ideological strengthening of party organizations during the period of preparation for the socialist revolution took place in a merciless struggle against opportunist elements within the party, who tried to violate the principles of party leadership worked out by V. I. Lenin.

The Bolshevik Party, in the course of the struggle for the monolithic unity of its ranks, the strengthening of party organizations in the center and localities, the creation of a political army of the socialist revolution, the overthrow of the rule of the bourgeoisie and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia in 1917, provided classic examples of correct strategic and tactical leadership.

It strictly took into account the specific historical conditions for the development of the Russian revolution, the uniqueness of the situation that had developed in the country after the February bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1917.

Fulfilling its historic mission of leading the proletariat in overthrowing the bourgeois system in Russia, the Bolshevik Party, during the eight months of 1917, launched organizational and educational work among the proletariat and the working masses, unprecedented in its diversity and scale. It succeeded in isolating the conciliatory Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties, and rallied the proletariat and the poorest peasantry around its revolutionary slogans.

The history of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during the period of preparation for the socialist revolution in Russia shows that the Bolshevik Party grew and gained strength in a principled struggle against all enemies of the working class and working people. It was purging its ranks of all opportunist elements. Guided by the tenets of Marxism-Leninism, the Bolsheviks never denied the possibility of uniting on a principled basis with parties and groups that had actually broken with opportunism and reaction and taken up positions of struggle for the socialist revolution, for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and ensuring the leading role of the Communist Party in it. The Bolshevik Party in all its activities was also guided by the Marxist-Leninist propositions that, in order to ensure the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie,

This historical experience of the CPSU is being creatively taken into account by all communist and workers' parties that are waging a resolute struggle against revisionism and dogmatism in the workers' and communist movement and at the same time have become the core of the rallying of all the democratic and peace-loving forces of the globe.

The Communist Party of the Soviet Union has always strengthened, expanded and multiplied its ties with the masses, leading them to storm the capitalist system and carry out the greatest upheaval in the history of mankind, which was the Great October Socialist Revolution, and building socialism in the USSR. A solid, powerful revolutionary proletarian organization closely connected with the vast masses of workers and peasants—such was the appearance of the Bolshevik Party in the historic days of October 1917.

Notes:

1 V. I. Lenin. Op.. vol. 31, p. 88.

2 I. V. Stalin. Works, vol. 5, p. 1.

3 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 35, p. 186.

4 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 24, p. 41.

5 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 23, pp. 308-309.

6 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 25, p. 164

7 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 23, p. 285.

8 Ibid., p. 287.

9 V. I. Lenin. Soch., vol. 35, pp. 238-239.

10 V. I. Lenin. Works. Vol. 35, pp. 251, 253.

11 Pravda, March 12, 1927

12 Ibid.

13 "Essays on the history of Bolshevik organizations in the Urals". Sverdlovsk, Gosizdat, 1951, p. 239.

14 "1917 in Kharkov", ed. "Proletary", 1927, p. 34.

15 Institute of Marxism-Leninism. Materials of the March meeting of the Bolsheviks, l. 106.

16 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. XX, p. 79.

17 V. I. Lenin. Works, vol. 24, pp. 3, 4

18 Bourgeois, Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary newspapers published reports on Lenin's speech on April 5, 1917. Pravda, due to the breakdown of the printing press, was able to publish the April Theses only on April 7:

19 “Protocols of the Citywide Petrograd Conference in the All-Russian Conference”, p. 39.

20 “Protocols of the Citywide Petrograd and All-Russian Conference”, pp. 41-42.

21 Minutes of the First Moscow Regional Conference, Proletarian Revolution No. 10(93), 1929, pp. 176-176.

22 "Minutes of the Seventh (April) Conference of the RSDLP (b)", 1934, p. 110

23 "Essays on the history of the Bolshevik organizations in the Urals", p. 239.

24 Proletarian Revolution, No. 4(27), 1924, p. 181.

25 "Kazan Bolshevik Organization in 1917", Kazan, 1933, p. 44.

26 Ibid., pp. 45-46.

27 "1917 in Kharkov", p. 38.

28 "1917 in Kharkov", p. 39.

29 "Minutes of the Seventh (April) Conference of the RSDLP (b)", pp. 231-232.

30 “Minutes of the Moscow Regional Bureau for May-June 1917”, Proletarian Revolution No. 4, 1927, pp. 256-257.

31 “Minutes of the Moscow Regional Bureau for May-June 1917”, Proletarian Revolution No. 4, 1927, p. 257.

32 Collection of documents "The struggle for the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution in the Urals". Sverdlovsk, 1947, pp. 40-41

33 "Resolutions of the II Ural Regional Conference", published in the appendix to "Uralskaya Pravda", July 28, 1917.

34 "Voice of the Proletarian" - the organ of the Odessa organization of the RSDLP (b).

35 "Proletary", June 11, 1917.

36 "KP(b)B in resolutions", part I, Partizdat, Minsk, 1934, p. 194.

37 "Working Way", September 17, 1917

38 "Historical Archive" No. 5, 1955, p. 8

40 "Minutes of the Sixth Congress of the RSDLP", p. 253.

41 Historical Archive No. 5, 1956, pp. 30, 43, 44.

42 Ibid., p. 29.