Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

During the revolutions of 1917

Even immediately after the February Revolution, the leaders of the Bolsheviks by no means changed their initial attitude towards federalism. An indicator of this is the well-known article by I. V. Stalin, published in the newspaper Pravda on March 28, 1917, and directed directly against the article in the Socialist-Revolutionary newspaper Delo Naroda, where the “federal state” was defended. Stalin, in his article, which was called "Against Federalism," not only did not agree with the statement of the Socialist-Revolutionary author, but spoke out against him very belligerently, emphasizing "that it is unreasonable to seek for Russia a federation that is doomed to extinction by life itself." [one]

There is no need to think that absolutely all the Bolsheviks adhered to the same opinion and shared Lenin's views on the national question, there were other opinions. The literature rightly noted that "the Leninist concept of Soviet federalism was formed and asserted itself in an atmosphere of acute struggle." [2] A clear example of this was the April party conference of 1917. A report on the national question was made by I. V. Stalin, whose views on this issue at that time practically coincided with Lenin's. Stalin emphasized his commitment to the right of nations to self-determination and clearly distinguished the right to secession from the obligation to secession. For the peoples remaining within Russia, regional autonomy was provided, in addition, for national minorities, the publication of special laws was ensured that would guarantee their free development. The creation of a single proletarian collective for all nationalities of a given state and a single party were also emphasized. [3]

However, in the co-report of GL. Pyatakov sounded in many respects other motives. Pyatakov assessed the right of nations to self-determination only as "just a phrase, without any real content" and put forward the slogan "away from the borders." Moreover, at the section of this conference Pyatakov's position was supported and even reflected in the draft resolution. Lenin had to come out sharply against this project, and this position was already rejected in the resolution adopted by the conference. All nations were recognized the right to free secession and the formation of independent states. [4] In general, the development of Lenin's views on federalization has already received significant reflection in the literature, including contemporary literature. [five]

At the same time, in the period after the February Revolution, Lenin and many other Bolsheviks linked the solution of the national question in Russia to the victory of the power of the Soviets. On the basis of the Soviets, Lenin also approached the idea of a union not only of peoples, but also of republics. There, at this conference, speaking on the national question on April 29 (May 12), Lenin emphasized: “We want a fraternal union of all peoples. If there is a Ukrainian Republic and a Russian Republic, there will be more ties between them, more trust. If the Ukrainians see that we have a Soviet republic, they will not secede, but if we have a Milyukov republic, they will secede.” [6]

The resolution of the April Conference on the National Question clearly stated that all nations that were part of Russia had the right to free secession and the formation of independent states and, at the same time, called for not confusing the right to secession with the expediency of secession. It was also emphasized there: “The party demands broad regional autonomy, the abolition of supervision from above, the abolition of the compulsory state language and the determination of the boundaries of self-governing and autonomous regions on the basis of the consideration by the local population of economic and living conditions, the national composition of the population, etc.” This resolution rejected cultural and national autonomy,[7]

Thus, at the April Conference, the idea of a union of Soviet republics and broad regional autonomy was voiced, together with other basic provisions of Russian Marxists on the national question. On the whole, the Bolshevik program on this question was further developed.

In general, in the “Materials for the revision of the party program”, Lenin dwelled on the most important provisions of the future Constitution of the Russian Soviet Republic, including the need for regional self-government, the right of every citizen to receive an education and explain himself in his native language when the compulsory state language is abolished, the right to free secession and on the formation of his state for all nations. At the same time, Lenin emphasized: "The republic of the Russian people should attract other peoples or nationalities not by violence, but exclusively by a voluntary agreement to create a common state." [eight]

In general, in 1917, among other things, there was a significant strengthening of national movements. This was not the first rise in national performances. Inter-ethnic tension in Russia has tended to intensify before. [9] If in the XIX century. there was one powerful national movement in the country - the Polish one, then at the very end of this century a number of other national movements also urgently declared themselves. For example, in the Special Section of the Police Department, one can find special files on the Armenian national movement, Tatar, Lithuanian, Jewish (Zionist) and other national movements. [10] There is also a special two-volume file called “On the Ukrainian Mazepa Movement”. [eleven]

A new upsurge of national movements came after the revolution of 1905, and then in 1916, having received confirmation, for example, during the uprising in Central Asia and Kazakhstan or in a noticeable activation of the Ukrainian movement. [12] But there has never been a rise like that in 1917 in Russia. Therefore, to limit oneself to those attitudes that were before meant dooming oneself to an inevitable political defeat. In modern literature, referring to the example of Ukraine, the influence of the systemic crisis in the country on the increase in the number of independentists and the increasing radicalization of their demands is rightfully emphasized. [13] And similar trends are observed in a number of other national regions of Russia. Under these conditions, the old national programs proved to be clearly insufficient.

The insufficiency of the pre-February program of the Bolsheviks on the national question, in particular the rejection of federalism or political autonomy, was noted as early as 1917 and later. [14] The very practice of national movements suggested new provisions that were part of the general program of the Bolsheviks on the national question. [15] Back in the spring (May) of 1917, Lenin, in his “Order to the deputies elected by factories and regiments to the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies,” dwelling on the position of the Bolshevik Party on the national question, emphasized that it was necessary to grant the right to “all peoples without It is entirely free for the exceptions to decide whether they want to live in a separate state or in an allied state with anyone.” [16]

In the summer of 1917, Lenin, sharply criticizing the policy of the Provisional Government in the field of national relations and, in particular, categorically disagreeing with its actions in relation to Finland and Ukraine, emphasized again, already at the 1st All-Russian Congress of Soviets: “This is politics, which represents a desecration of the rights of the people, who suffered torment from the kings because their children want to speak their native language. This means being afraid of individual republics. From the point of view of the workers and peasants, this is not terrible. Let Russia be a union of free republics.” [17] Thus, Lenin became more and more convinced of the idea not only of the necessity, but also of the possibility of the future structure of Russia as a union of republics. "Union of Republics" is the term of the spring-summer of 1917. They understood the Union of Republics as a union of free or, in other words, Soviet republics.

As researchers of ethnic relations in Russia have long written, in 1917 Lenin addressed the national question more than once. This is clearly seen in such articles as "Finland and Russia", "A Straw in Another's Eye", "Not Democratic, Citizen Kerensky!", "Whom are you laughing at? Laugh at yourself!”, “Ukraine”, “Ukraine and the defeat of the ruling parties of Russia!” These articles proclaimed the equality and unity of all nations and called them to fight for the victory of the socialist revolution. [eighteen] Lenin directly touched on the issues of federalism and centralism in The State and Revolution, analyzing the attitude to this issue from Marx and Engels. Here Lenin emphasized their adherence to democratic centralism and a single indivisible republic, but he also drew attention to the fact that Engels, even in England, recognized the national question as inexhaustible and saw a step forward in the federal republic. At the same time, Lenin emphasized the insufficient attention in party literature to the question of "a federal and centralist republic and local self-government." [nineteen] The national question, in general, at that time was nevertheless of an auxiliary nature, but attention was constantly paid to it, and the development of the views of the Bolsheviks on the national question in 1917 was very significant even before the October Revolution. Even in the pre-October period, Lenin developed the concept of a multinational socialist state on the territory of the former autocratic Russia.

The national liberation movement in Russia in 1917 was not uniform and of the same type, just as the general situation in that year was not simple. After a period of complete confusion, around the end of August 1917, even the monarchists, who planned to return Nicholas II to the throne, revived both in Russia itself and abroad. [twenty] Usually, two forms of the national liberation movement are distinguished. This division into bourgeois-nationalist and revolutionary-democratic did indeed take place. But such a division of national forces is still not enough for a detailed account of national characteristics on the Russian outskirts. Among the representatives of the so-called nationalists, one can single out both supporters of a centralizing, even assimilationist installation, that is, people who have switched to Russian chauvinist positions (P. Krushevan, V. Purishkevich, etc.), and supporters of secession from Russia, by all means. The third trend in the national movement was the federalists, who declared themselves back in the 19th century. Under these conditions, the Bolshevik party had to decide with which of the currents of the national movement to establish close contact or, in general, refuse direct ties with the various peoples of the country. In Russia, where Russians made up only 43% of the country's population, an underestimation of the moods of the national outskirts would inevitably lead to defeat.

Naturally, the Bolsheviks could not support either the centralist-assimilators or the supporters of secession. Therefore, the installation of cooperation with the federalists was the only correct one. Federalists, that is, supporters of the Russian Federal Republic among the leaders of the national movements in 1917, constituted the majority, and this once again emphasized the correctness of the decisions of the Bolshevik Party. In addition, it was impossible not to take into account that the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, the largest Russian political party in 1917, had already introduced the principle of federation into its program. Soon after the revolution of 1905-07. in this party the principle of autonomy and federalism was proclaimed even in its organizational structure. In general, as noted, Georgia had its own Party of Socialist-Federalists, collaborating with the Social Revolutionaries and anarchists and supporting the Provisional Government, believing that it would give Georgia territorial autonomy. The Labor People's Socialist and Russian Radical Democratic Parties, small parties but represented in the interim government, also declared their commitment to the federal structure of the state. The federalist program was adopted by the Congress of Peoples and Regions of Russia, held in Kyiv on September 8-15, 1917.[21]

Stalin, commenting in December 1924 on his article "Against Federalism" and dwelling on the evolution of the views of the Bolsheviks on the question of a state federation, explained it by three reasons. First of all, the isolation from each other of a number of nationalities at the time of the October Revolution and in such conditions, the federation was a step forward in rapprochement between them. Secondly, the Soviet form of federation, according to him, did not contradict the goals of the economic rapprochement of the working people, as it seemed before. And Stalin saw the third reason in the fact that the proportion of the national movement turned out to be more serious, and the path of uniting nations much more difficult than it seemed before, in the period before the First World War and even on the eve of the October Revolution. [22]

Thus, as noted in the literature, “on the basis of an analysis of the national liberation movement, Lenin in the spring of 1917 came to the conclusion that a federal structure of Soviet Russia was possible.” [23] At the same time, one can add, not only the possibilities, but also the necessity of the federal principle of building the country. The practice of 1917 led Lenin to this, which was noted earlier [24] and in modern literature on national relations. [25] Although the term federation itself is used by Lenin in 1917 quite rarely [26] and he prefers the installation of a union state, which could be understood as both a federation and a confederation. In general, after the socialist revolution, Lenin allowed both a single unitary state, and union into a federation on the basis of autonomy, and the organization of a union of independent socialist republics. [27]

In general, he recognized the correct line for federalization. Later, in June 1920, in the “Initial Outline of Theses on National and Colonial Questions”, intended for the II Congress of the Comintern, V.I. (Hungarian, Finnish, Latvian in the past, Azerbaijani, Ukrainian in the present), and within the RSFSR in relation to nationalities that had neither state existence nor autonomy before (for example, the Bashkir and Tatar Autonomous Republics in the RSFSR, created in 1919–1920 years)". [28] Stalin, as one of the main developers of the national program of the Bolsheviks, in an article dated August 13, 1917, published under the title "Counter-revolution and the peoples of Russia" in the newspaper "Proletary", again spoke out against the splitting of large states into small ones, but with all certainty spoke out for the voluntariness of the unification, while emphasizing that "only such an association is valid and lasting." [29]

The voluntariness of the unification was prompted by the specific conditions of 1917, when the emphasis on the creation of independent states on a number of outskirts of the country increased noticeably. A striking example of this process is the situation in Ukraine. The literature quite convincingly shows the aggravation of relations between the Provisional Government and the Central Rada, created on March 20, 1917 in Kyiv. The Central Council implicitly proclaimed the priority of its own power over the central one, forming its own governance structures and even publishing its own laws. Even before the October Revolution, there was a process of creating an independent, Ukrainian statehood. [30] Under these conditions, the central government especially needed an attractive and unifying national program, and the Bolsheviks had such a program.

By the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik Party had a fairly well-defined program on the national question. First of all, it was built on the principle of internationalism (“Proletarians of all countries, unite!”), the principle of the right of nations to self-determination up to secession, and the principle of federalism or a union state. At that time, it was the best option for building relationships with the numerous nationalities of a huge country called Russia. The Bolshevik Party, which at the end of 1917 in terms of its social composition consisted of more than 60% of the workers, and in terms of the national composition of more than 66% consisted of Russians, managed to win over to its side significant masses of the non-Russian population of the country. It is no coincidence that the so-called nationals gave the Red Army a number of outstanding commanders: I. Vatsetis, M. Frunze, G. Guy (Bzhishkyan), A. Imanov, V. Kikvidze, A. Kork, G. Kotovsky, Y. Kotsiubinsky, Slazo, A. Nemitz, A. Parkhomenko, R. Sievers, S. Timoshenko, I. Uborevich, J. Fabricius , N. Shchorsa, I. Yakir and others. Neither whites, nor pinks (Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries), nor greens, nor blacks (anarchists) gave such prominent commanders representing various nationalities of the country. And this is one of the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in both the October Revolution and the Civil War, since it was necessary to create, and in the shortest possible time, a new army in extremely difficult conditions. representing various nationalities of the country were not given. And this is one of the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in both the October Revolution and the Civil War, since it was necessary to create, and in the shortest possible time, a new army in extremely difficult conditions. representing various nationalities of the country were not given. And this is one of the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in both the October Revolution and the Civil War, since it was necessary to create, and in the shortest possible time, a new army in extremely difficult conditions.[31]

The subsequent regulation of national relations took place under the dominant influence of the Great October Socialist Revolution and the resolutions and decisions of the Soviet government. At the II All-Russian Congress of Soviets, it was stated that the new leadership of the country "will ensure to all the nations inhabiting Russia the true right to self-determination." [32] As early as October 21, 1917, at a meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b), among several important questions that the Bolsheviks were going to raise at this congress, the national question with Stalin's report was also supposed, but there was no such special question at the congress, however. [33]

The Decree on Peace, which proclaimed a complete rejection of the policy of annexations and called for the abandonment of the bloody imperialist war, emphasized: “To continue this war over how to divide the weak nationalities captured by them between strong and rich nations, the government considers it the greatest crime against humanity.. .". [34] The attention of the young Soviet state to national relations in the country was also confirmed by the fact that the first Soviet government included the People's Commissariat for Nationalities (Narkomnats), which was headed by I. Stalin, and which existed until 1923. There was nothing like this in autocratic Russia and could not be. In parallel, in November 1917, among the departments created in the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, a department for national issues was also created, headed by M. S. Uritsky. Somewhat later, at the end of December 1917, this department merged with the Narkomnats. [35]

Narkomnats contributed to the organization of national republics and regions, carried out work with national cadres. The People's Commissariat consisted of various commissariats (Polish, Lithuanian, Muslim, Jewish, Armenian, Belorussian, etc.) and Departments (Kyrgyz, Mari, Ukrainian, Estonian, etc.), published a special journal "The Life of Nationalities", published literature in various languages, prepared program documents on national relations, participated in the formation of the national units of the Red Army. The number of the People's Commissariat for National Affairs increased from a few people in November 1917 to 875 employees in 1921, not counting the local departments and educational institutions that existed under it. [36]

On the second day after the October Revolution, Lenin emphasized that Soviet power "will ensure to all the nations inhabiting Russia the true right to self-determination." [37] At the same time, the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets, which took power into its own hands, did not yet provide for the federal structure of the new state. There was still a long road ahead of Soviet nation-building.

Indeed, the secession of Poland and Finland was immediately accepted. Poland was then occupied by German troops, and the recognition of its independence was of a formal nature, although it was of great importance in the future. The example of Finland showed that the Soviet government was going to fulfill its pre-revolutionary promises. It is curious that the Finnish delegation arrived in Petrograd on purpose to receive from the hands of the Soviet government a document recognizing the country as an independent and independent state. The delegation was received by Lenin and one of the witnesses of this meeting, People's Commissar A. Schlichter, who was among those who on December 18 (31), 1917 signed the "Decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the State Independence of Finland", recalled: "So the Council of People's Commissars gave Finland, without any kind of huckstering and slyness, honestly, openly and sincerely,[38]

In parallel, the process of creating many republics was going on both according to national (Ukrainian, Belarusian, Moldavian, etc.) and territorial (Odessa, Donetsk-Krivoy Rog, etc.) principles. The question of creating a Soviet federation or a union state moved into the practical plane. In many respects, it was necessary to regulate relations with the already established national entities. Among the most important documents of the Soviet government in 1917 is the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia" dated November 2 (15), 1917. Referring to the decisions of the congresses of Soviets on the right of nations to self-determination, the Declaration, which was signed by Lenin and Stalin, in pursuance of them, proclaimed, that the following principles will form the basis of their activities on the question of the nationalities of Russia:

1) Equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia.

2) The right of the peoples of Russia to free self-government, up to secession and the formation of an independent state.

3) Cancellation of all and any national and national-religious privileges and restrictions.

4) Free development of national minorities and ethnographic groups inhabiting the territory of Russia. [39]

In general, evidence of how much importance Lenin gave to the national question at the end of 1917 is his work of that time. While in Finland from 24 to 27 December, which has already been emphasized in the literature and pointed out the underestimation of the work that Lenin carried out at that time, [40] he prepared an article "From the diary of a publicist (Topics for development)". It outlines 43 questions that, according to Lenin, required urgent development. At the same time, Lenin himself distributed these questions into the following groups:

"Economic Issues:

National Question:

Political issues:

Organizational matters

International politics:" [41]

The national question in this program of Lenin was in second place after economic questions - evidence of how much attention Lenin gave to the settlement of interethnic relations at that most difficult time, when it was necessary to deal with many other problems, seemingly, at first glance, more important for the young Soviet countries. The problem of the Soviet federation is becoming more and more urgent, requiring daily attention. The increasingly growing Civil War played a special role in this respect.

Soviet construction on the ground was accompanied by the demolition of the old and the creation of a new administrative apparatus, faced with the need to search for and promote national personnel - one of the most difficult issues facing the young Soviet state. The creation of national republics was accompanied by a lot of work on the organization of local self-government and changes in the administrative division. Already on December 24, 1917, the People's Commissariat of Internal Affairs adopted an appeal "On the organization of local self-government", and a little later, on January 27, 1918, a decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On the procedure for changing the boundaries of provincial, county, etc." reorganization of the territorial division. [42]

[1] Stalin I. V. Works. T. Z. M., 1946, p.25.

[2] Tadevosyan E. Lenin, federalism and our time // Kommunist. 1990. No. 6, p.18.

[3] Ibid., p. 54–55.

[4] Seventh (April) All-Russian Conference of the RSDLP (b): Verbatim report. M., 1958, p. 211–212; 282–283.

[5] Basalai A. The development of nations and their relationships in the USSR. M., 1998, p. 106–107.

[6] Lenin V.I. Poli. coll. op. T. 31, p. 436–437.

[7] Lenin V. I. Poly. coll. op. T. 31, p. 439–440.

[8] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 32, p. 154.

[9] Tsimbaev N. I. Russia and the Russians (the national question in the Russian Empire) // Russian people: historical fate in the XX century. M., 1993, p. 39–50; Kappeler A. National movements and national policy in the Russian Empire: the experience of systematization (XIX century-1917) // Russia in the XX century. Problems of national relations. M., 1999, p. 100–109; Trepavlov V. V. Formation of a system of relations between the center and national outskirts in Russia (XVI–XX centuries) // Russia in the XX century, p. 115–120; Starodubova A.L. Features of national-state building in the liberal model of 1917 / / Liberal conservatism: history and modernity. M., 2001 p. 272–282.

[10] GARF, f. 102 OO, op. 226, file 11, part 1, 2, 3, 5.

[11] GARF, f. 102 OO, op. 226 (1916), d. 231, vols. 1–2.

[12] See: Tursunov H. T. The 1916 uprising in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Tashkent, 1962; Mikhutina I. V. Decree. op., p. 229–230.

[13] Marchukov A.V. Ukrainian national movement. Ukrainian SSR. 1920-1930s. Goals, methods, results. M., 2006, p.127.

[14] Zhuravlev VV The national question in the programs of all-Russian political parties of the early XX century // History of national political parties in Russia, p.88; Mikhutina I. V. Decree. op., p. 250; see also: Shulzhenko Yu. L. From the history of the federation in Russia. M., 2005.

[15] Basalai A. Decree. op., p. 107–108.

[16] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.32, p. 41.

[17] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.32, p. 286.

[18] Azizyan A. K. Leninskaya national policy in development and action. M., 1972, p. 175.

[19] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.33, p. 72–73.

[20] Ioffe G. Z. Great October and the epilogue of tsarism. M., 1987, p. 188–189.

[21] Zhdanova IA. The problem of the federal structure of the state in the February Revolution of 1917//Voprosy istorii. 2007, no. 7, p. 25; Buldakov V.P. September 8-15. Congress of Peoples and Regions of Russia // Politicians of Russia. M., 1993. Applications p. 382–383.

[22] I. V. Stalin. Works. T. 3, p. 30–31.

[23] Yakubovskaya S.I. Development of the USSR as a union state in 1922–1936. M., 1972, p. 9. See also Tadevosyan E. V. Soviet federalism: theory, history, modernity // History of the USSR. 1991, No. 6, p.49.

[24] History of national-state construction in the USSR. 1917–1936... V.1, p. 12.

[25] Shishkin V. A. Foundations of Soviet federalism during the formation of a single union state (1922–1929) // Russia in the XX century. Problems of national relations. M., 1999, p. 292–293.

[26] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 33, p. 72–73.

[27] Zevin V. Ya. The triumph of Lenin's ideas on the construction of a multinational socialist state // Kommunist. 1973, no. 5, p. 33.

[28] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.41, p. 164.

[29] I.V. Stalin. Works. T. Z, p. 208.

[30] Marchukov A.V. Decree. op., p. 127–129.

[31] M. A. Molodtsygin, Red Army. Birth and formation 1917–1920 M., 1997, p. 203–206.

[32] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 35, p.11; On the personal composition of the new leadership of the country, including its national composition, see: Gimpelson E.G. Soviet managers 1917–1920. M., 1998, p. 66–119.

[33] The Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies (October 25–26, 1917). Collection of documents and materials. M., 1997, p.23, 26–33.

[34] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T.35, p. fourteen.

[35] Makarova G.P. People's Commissariat for Nationalities of the RSFSR 1917–1923. Historical essay. M., 1987, p.12.

[36] For more details, see the mentioned monograph by G. P. Makarova.

[37] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 35, p. 116.

[38] Shlikhter A. G. Ilyich and Finland // Shlikhter A. G. Issues of revolution in Russia and some problems of the theory of social thought. M., 1983, p.156.

[39] Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Sat. doc. M... 1972, p.22.

[40] Mints I.I. Year 1918. M., 1982, p. 198–199.

[41] Lenin V.I. Poln. coll. op. T. 36, p. 174.

[42] History of nation-state construction in the CCCP... T. I, p. 24.