Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Formation of the USSR (1917-1924)

Foreword
The problem of regulation of national relations is a constant for the Russian state and it arose in the pre-state era. promotionThe expansion of the Slavs to the east and southeast gave rise to the need to establish relations with the Bants, Utro-Finns, Turks and Volokhi even before the formation of the Old Russian state. The appearance of this state on the expanses of the East European Plain set from the very beginning the task of protecting its borders literally from all sides, more precisely, in their circle, and thereby left a serious imprint not only on the foreign, but also on the domestic policy of the leadership of the young country. Referring to those peoples who lived next to the Rus, the author or authors of The Tale of Bygone Years list Chud, Merya, Murom, All, Mordovians, Zavolotsk Chud, Perm, Pechora, Yam, Ugra, Lithuania, Zimegol, Kors, Setgolu, Liv , Poles, Prussians, Volokhov, etc. [1] According to researchers of Russian feudalism, Ancient Rus' already included more than 20 nationalities. [2] The Russians not only knew their neighbors by name, but were also familiar with their way of life and well understood that it was futile to establish relations with them by force alone. The need to combine different methods in the regulation of interethnic relations was recognized long ago and has been well traced for many centuries.

In this regard, the methods of centralization were combined with the recognition of the characteristics of a particular nationality with the preservation or granting to them of one form or another of autonomy. Accordingly, the issue of admission of representatives of certain nationalities to the central leadership of the country was also resolved. Rejecting long-term discussions about the role of the Varangians in the creation of the Old Russian state, one cannot help but see their presence in the leadership structures of the young state and the role they played in the merger of various tribes of the Eastern Slavs. For all the perniciousness of the Tatar-Mongol conquest and the foreign domination that followed it, the Tatars played a significant role in the transformation of the Russian state into a Eurasian state and even a khan's label, with which the Grand Duke received the right to collect tribute from Russian lands, with all the severity of this tribute,

Subsequently, already in the imperial period, a special role will be played by the so-called "German Party" or "German grouping", which was quite significant for almost two hundred years and exerted its influence on the domestic and foreign policy of the country. The Soviet period showed a significant role in the leadership of the country of Caucasians, Jews, Latvians, Ukrainians. Without taking into account the involvement of representatives of various nations and nationalities in the leadership of the country, it is difficult to understand the important features of the Soviet national policy, which for decades proved its viability and requires its study not only in its entirety, but also in its many details. Just as the first chroniclers saw the ethnic diversity of Eastern Europe,

It is no coincidence that both the management of the outskirts and, in general, the regulation of national relations within the framework of old Russia or the Soviet Union were already objects of special study [3] and will repeatedly attract the attention of not only specialist researchers or real politicians. Differences in national policy at different stages of the history of the Russian state are also traced, for example, a cautious policy towards the outskirts in the 16th–17th centuries, the Petrine trend towards forced integration, the border policy of the government of Anna Ioannovna, characterized by the use of milder forms of relations with the outskirts, etc. [ 4]

When creating the USSR, of course, the centuries-old traditions of cohabitation on the same territory of the numerous peoples of Russia were taken into account, by no means did they turn a blind eye to those methods that were used in the interethnic settlement by the former government, but the national policy of the Soviet state, of course, was largely based on the denial of those principles that were characteristic of tsarist Russia and were declared to be fundamentally different from them. Primary attention was paid specifically to Marxist approaches and the revolutionary Russian tradition. A. N. Radishchev, who is considered the first Russian revolutionary and who emphasized that “autocracy is the most opposite state of human nature” in his ode “Liberty”, expressed confidence that the peoples of Russia:

“Unshakable their fed

Decorate friendship with a crown,

For the benefit of all, the rook will be sent

And the ravenous wolf will be crushed."

The Decembrists became the heirs of Radishchev, including in the understanding of the national question. However, in designing the future structure of their country, they differed markedly in their views. P. I. Pestel was an outspoken centralist and even a unifier. Noticeably different from him was one of the leaders of the Northern Society of the Decembrists, N. Muravyov, who in his constitution provided for the division of Russia into powers and regions according to the geographical principle - the Baltic, Western, Black Sea, Caucasian, Ukrainian, etc. Members of the most leftist Decembrist organization - Societies of united Slavs - built this federation on a national basis and believed that, together with Russia, it would include Poland, Serbia and other countries, including non-Slavic ones, such as Hungary, Moldova and Wallachia. Thus, centralist and federal approaches to the future structure of the country in the revolutionary movement originated in the 20s. 19th century

The Decembrists were generally aware of the existence of the national question in Russia, demanded that it be resolved by granting all peoples equal rights, local development of the economy, education, etc. [5] But, as on other issues, their views on the national structure of the country, often , were markedly different.

The Cyril and Methodius Society paid great attention to the national question in Russia. In the draft state structure that emerged from this society, one can see the influence of both the constitution of N. Muravyov, and especially the projects of the Society of United Slavs. But there were also significant differences. The composition of the republic projected in this society was not supposed to include the central provinces of Russia. [6] Only a few members of this society considered a future democratic federation along with Russia, but led by Ukraine. In addition to the Slavic countries of Europe, this federation was supposed to include Lithuania, Moldova with Bessarabia and Wallachia. [7]

The main ideologists of the raznochintsev revolutionaries were A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky, who developed the revolutionary-democratic program of the Russian revolutionary movement in the post-reform period. For all the differences in the views of these two greatest Russian revolutionary thinkers for their time, they had more in common. Like Herzen, Chernyshevsky believed that every nation has every right to arrange its own destiny at its own discretion. [8] Chernyshevsky wrote: “To keep in its dependence a foreign tribe that is indignant at foreign domination, not to give independence to the people just because it seems useful for military power and political influence on other countries is vile.” [nine] Both Herzen, and Ogarev, and Chernyshevsky, and Dobrolyubov sharply opposed the colonial policy of the tsarist government, against its wars with the Caucasian highlanders, against suppressing the will of any people.

Their program on the national question had a decisive influence on the revolutionaries operating under the conditions of post-reform Russia. A few months after the promulgation of the provisions on the peasant reform of 1861, three issues of the illegal leaflet Velikorus appeared in St. Petersburg, the authors of which, considering it necessary to grant freedom to Poland and southern Rus', declared: “We can fully recognize the rights of nationalities. We must do this in order to bring in and strengthen our freedom.” [10]

The publishers of Young Russia, the most radical proclamation of the 1960s, the main author of which was P. Zaichnevsky, went even further. They not only proclaimed the right of Poland and Lithuania to independence, but essentially approached the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination and called for the creation of a socialist federal Russian republic. At the same time, they wrote: “We demand that all regions be given the opportunity to decide by a majority vote whether they want to become part of the Russian Federal Republic.” [eleven] Thus, the compilers of "Young Russia" were staunch supporters of the Russian socialist federation. The leaders of the “Land and Freedom” of the 1970s called for taking into account local features, emphasizing in October 1878 that “each locality and each nationality has its own individual physiognomy, and in accordance with it, the methods of action in each of them should change.” [12] And in the “Programme of the workers of the members of the Narodnaya Volya party”, relating to November 1880, contained the following provisions:

“2) The Russian state, according to the nature and living conditions of the population, is divided into regions that are independent in their internal affairs, but connected in one all-Russian union ...

3) The peoples forcibly annexed to the Russian kingdom are free to secede or remain in the All-Russian Union. [13]

This program was the most left-wing of the populist programs on the national question. It, although not completely, reflects the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination and, moreover, provides for the right of peoples forcibly annexed to Russia to secede. But along with the supporters of the federation, there were also centralists among the populists, and the most prominent of them was the ideologist of the so-called Russian "Jacobins" P. N. Tkachev. In general, the raznochintsy revolutionaries went further than the Decembrists, not only in the theoretical development of the national question, but also in concrete revolutionary work. There were significantly more populist circles and organizations than the Decembrist ones, and their composition was noticeably more multinational.

At the Raznochinsk stage of the Russian revolutionary movement, the national outskirts produced such prominent revolutionaries as the Ukrainians A. Potebnya, S. Rymarenko, F. Volkhovsky, the Poles Z. Serakovsky, I. Grinevitsky, L. Dmokhovsky, the Moldavians L. Dicheskul, Z. Ralli, N. Zubku-Kodreanu, Latvian P. Ballod, Armenian M. Nalbandyan, Belarusian K. Kalinovsky and many others.

The development of capitalist relations in Russia, the increase in the size of the Russian proletariat, the growth of its role in the economic and social life of the country, its ever-increasing struggle against the autocracy and the bourgeoisie, showed the limitations of populist theories and, at the same time, the vitality of the theories of Marxism. It is curious in this regard to trace the evolution of one of the most prominent populist economists, V.P. Vorontsov, in his book of 1882, The Fate of Capitalism in Russia, which denied the existence of capitalism in Russia, and in his other book, published already in 1907, "The fate of capitalist Russia", forced to admit it. Russian Marxists already in the 80s. saw and analyzed capitalist relations in Russia, they developed their own concepts on the national question. G. V. Plekhanov, a supporter of the right of nations to self-determination, was, however, staunch centralist. In general, the views of Russian Marxists on national relations in Russia were directly influenced by the writings of K. Marx and F. Engels.

Already the first major program document of Marxism, the Communist Manifesto, was permeated with the ideas of proletarian internationalism. It emphasized that “to the same extent that the exploitation of one individual by another is destroyed, the exploitation of one nation by another will be destroyed. Together with the antagonism of classes within nations, the hostile relations of nations among themselves will also fall. [14] The combat call “Proletarians of all countries, unite!”, put forward by K. Marx and F. Engels and which became the motto of the Communist League, and then of the entire revolutionary proletariat, meant a call to unite the working people of all countries under the banner of the revolutionary struggle for the liberation not only from social, but also national oppression.

K. Marx and F. Engels showed that the elimination of national oppression is in the interests not only of the oppressed nation, but also of the oppressor nation, that the strengthening of the class solidarity of the working masses, the proletarians of different nationalities, multiplies their strength in the common struggle to achieve their goals. The young F. Engels, full of optimism, emphasized: “... The proletarians in all countries have the same interests, the same enemy, they face the same struggle; the mass of the proletarians, by virtue of their very nature, are free from national prejudices, and their entire spiritual development and movement is essentially humanist and anti-nationalist. Only the proletarians are capable of destroying national isolation, only the awakening proletariat can establish brotherhood between different nations. [fifteen] Marx and Engels were opponents of federation in principle, and this was their fundamental difference from the anarchists, who idealized federation and attributed it to almost the only form of social organization.

However, Marx and Engels were by no means unconditional opponents of any federation. Marx, for example, allowed the creation of a federation of England and Ireland, [16] and Engels, in his well-known response entitled “On the Criticism of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891”, advocating for a single centralized republic, admitted, under certain conditions, the possibility of federation.

K. Marx and F. Engels closely followed the events in Russia, they were personally acquainted with a number of Russian revolutionaries, who at that time were mainly on populist positions. Passing on to the Russian revolutionaries their rich experience and knowledge, the founders of scientific communism drew their attention to the national question in Russia as well. It is no coincidence that the touchstone of the true revolutionary spirit of the Russian revolutionaries was the attitude of the latter towards the fate of Poland. The Russian revolutionaries, having adopted the theory of Marxism, thus received the key to understanding the national question in general and the national question in Russia in particular. The shift of the center of the world revolutionary movement to Russia, the multinational character of the Russian state, the particular sharpness of interethnic relations in the conditions of the development of capitalism into imperialism demanded from the Russian revolutionaries the further development of the Marxist theory on the national question and its application in specific historical conditions. The most important role in solving this problem belongs to VI Lenin. Understanding the development of his views on the national question is also extremely important for understanding the future principles and specific practice of state building in the country after 1917 and, in particular, in 1922, when the USSR was created. Their effectiveness is especially realized when comparing the national program of the Bolsheviks with the program and specific practice of the tsarist authorities, who were defeated for many reasons, including ideological ones. Neither the bet on assimilation worked,[17] no hope for tsarist illusions, no support for the church. The tsarist government also failed the test of the First World War. General N. N. Golovin, examining the reasons for Russia's defeats in this war, saw them both in the inability of the government, accustomed only to command, and in the low culture of the masses, and in the fact that "all representatives of the Russian intelligentsia were rejected by the end of 1916 by the government to the opposition camp. [18] The impending turbulent events demanded the mobilization of other forces capable of saddling these events and solving the most difficult questions facing the still united country.

[1] Complete collection of Russian chronicles. L., 1926. T. I, issue. 1, p. 270–280.

[2] Pashuto V. T. Foreign policy of Ancient Russia. M., 1968, p.20.

[3] National outskirts of the Russian Empire. Formation and development of the control system. M., 1997; Azizyan A. K. Lenin's national policy in development and action. M., 1972.

[4] Petrukhintsev N. N. The reign of Anna Ioannovna: problems of the formation of the internal political course (1730–1740). Abstract doc. ist. Sciences. M., 2001, p.15, 23–27.

[5] Mukhina SL. Literature of the Decembrists about the non-Russian peoples of Russia. Frunze, 1972, p. 74–75.

[6] Zaionchkovsky PA. Cyril and Methodius Society (1846–1847). M., 1959, p. 134.

[7] Ibid.

[8] N. G. Chernyshevsky, Poln. coll. op. T. VI. M., 1949, p. 105.

[9] N. G. Chernyshevsky, Poln. coll. op. T. X. M., 1951, p. 302.

[10] Bell. 1861, October 15, No. 109, p. 914.

[11] Revolutionary radicalism in Russia: the nineteenth century. M., 1997, p.148.

[12] Ibid., p. 411.

[13] Revolutionary populism in the 70s of the nineteenth century. T.P. M. - L., 1965, p. 188.

[14] Marx K. and Engels F. Soch. T. 4, p. 445.

[15] Marx K. and Engels F. Soch. T. 22, p. 238.

[16] K. Marx and Engels. F. T. 32, p. 531.

[17] Miller A. I. “The Ukrainian Question” in the Politics of the Authorities and Russian Public Opinion (second half of the 19th century). SPb., 2000, p.237.

[18] Golovin N. N. Military efforts of Russia in the world war. Zhukovsky-Moscow, 2001, p.331.