Democratic Movement. social democratic movement. List of global issues
The French bourgeois revolution made a great impression in England.
The Whig chief Fox praised it as "the greatest and most salutary event that ever took place in the world." The greatest English writers - Wordsworth, Robert Burns, Coleridge, Sheridan - enthusiastically welcomed the revolution.
True, as early as 1790, the pamphlet Reflections on the Revolution appeared in England, which became a banner for all the enemies of revolutionary France. The pamphlet was written by the former Whig Burke, who called the revolution a "satanic cause" that threatened the death of all European civilization.
But Burke's pamphlet provoked violent protests and gave rise to a whole literature, including the book of the participant of the American Revolution, Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", which was sold in a few years in a circulation unprecedented for England - about a million copies. Except Payne, in defense French Revolution The publicist Price, the famous chemist, the writer Godwin, and others also spoke. Burke's ideas were condemned by a significant part of the Whigs, who resumed their agitation for electoral reform.
The most important feature of the democratic movement in England in the 1990s was the broad participation in it of the masses of the people, and above all of the workers. Along with the societies created by the Whigs, and often in opposition to them, new centers of movement arose - not for liberal electoral reform, but for a decisive, radical democratization of the entire political system of England. Of greatest importance was the "London Correspondent Society", which was formed at the beginning of 1792 and had a number of branches.
Shoemaker Thomas Hardy was its chairman. The mass agitation launched by the society, the sending of delegations to France seriously alarmed the British government, headed by William Pitt the Younger (1759-1806) since 1783. Already at the end of 1792 repressions began; in particular, T. Payne, elected a member of the French Convention, was convicted in absentia.
In the war with France that began in February 1793, Pitt proved himself to be the most resolute and ardent enemy of the revolution. “We must be ready for a long war,” he declared, “an irreconcilable war, up to the extermination of this scourge of mankind.” In accordance with this, the Pitt government waged a sharp struggle against the democratic movement within the country.
The "British Convention of People's Delegates, United to Achieve Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments", which met in November 1793 in Edinburgh, was dispersed, and its leaders were exiled to Australia for 14 years.
But the democratic agitation continued to intensify. Burke believed that out of 400,000 people interested in politics in England, at least 80,000 should be classified as "resolute Jacobins." The "London Corresponding Society" announced the convening of a new Convention. Then Pitt achieved a temporary repeal of the law on "personal rights" (the so-called Habeas corpus act).
The leaders of the Correspondent Society, led by Hardy, were arrested and put on trial. The court did not dare, however, uphold the charge. Hardy's acquittal day was celebrated by English democrats for half a century thereafter.
In 1795, a wave of food riots swept over: flour warehouses, ships with grain, etc. were seized. In October, on the eve of the parliamentary session, the London Correspondent Society organized huge rallies.
On the opening day of Parliament, about 200,000 Londoners took to the streets of the capital. Pitt was booed. Stones were thrown at the royal carriage, it was surrounded by a crowd shouting “Bread! Peace! Pitt responded with "rebellious assembly" laws that effectively abolished freedom of assembly and the press.
Dissatisfaction with the Pitt government did not abate in later years. The successes of the French armies and the collapse of the first coalition, as well as the deteriorating food situation, increased tax oppression and other internal difficulties, made the government more and more unpopular.
In 1797, there was almost no county where petitions were not filed demanding an end to the war and the resignation of Pitt.
The "pseudo-republic" formed in 1902 not only did not meet, but even contradicted the interests of the absolute majority of the Cuban people. This was understood by many prominent public and political figures of Cuba. famous philosopher Enrique José Varona, criticizing conservatives for their admiration for the United States, wrote: “They ask others for an effective medicine, but I think it would be reasonable to look for it in the vital forces of our social organism. If there are no such forces, or if they are so insignificant that they are not able to make us recover, then no political potion will save us.” Of course, the people, who had been fighting for their national liberation for several centuries, had such forces. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to name the working class, whose struggle, in its objective historical content, coincided with the national ones and, despite the ideological and organizational weakness noted above, influenced political life.
IN late XIX- at the beginning of the twentieth century. the formation of the class consciousness of the Cuban proletariat was influenced by anarchism, reformism and Marxism. Reformist tendencies were characteristic primarily of the Socialist Party of Cuba formed on March 29, 1899.
The first parties on the island, as a rule, did not represent the established political organizations any one class; they sought to win over to their side the most diverse sections of society, which made them amorphous and short-lived, and program documents vague and contradictory.
The Socialist Party was such an organization. In the manifesto "To the People of Cuba", the founder of the party, Diego Vicente Tejera, and his associates called for a fight to alleviate the plight of the working people, and drew the attention of legislators to the "monstrous relationship between labor and capital". However, elements of the liberal bourgeoisie who found themselves in the leadership of the party did not share such radicalism. Tehera and some other leaders of the Socialist Party did not see concrete ways of liberation from capitalist exploitation. After a few months, the party broke up.
On September 8, 1899, the General League of Cuban Workers was formed by anarchists Enrique Meissonier and Enrique Cracci, guided in its activities by the following principles:
1) all Cuban workers should enjoy the same benefits as foreign workers in various enterprises in the country;
2) to promote in every possible way the involvement of Cuban emigrants, whose return to their homeland is becoming increasingly necessary, to work in the workshops;
3) launch a campaign to protect the moral rights and material interests of Cuban women workers;
4) to do everything possible to give work to all orphans roaming our streets, regardless of whether they are the children of independence fighters or not;
5) to be ready to fight against any subversive elements seeking in any way to slow down the successful development of the Cuban Republic.
Despite the frank economism of the League's basic demands, its activities had a number of positive aspects, and the most important of them was the awakening of the broad proletarian masses of the island to the struggle for the improvement of their position. At the same time, the anarcho-syndicalist tendencies in the activities of this organization significantly hampered the development of the labor movement, adversely affecting its organizational cohesion and discipline, dooming the workers to oblivion of political demands. The anarcho-syndicalists' denial of the role of the peasantry in the revolutionary movement significantly narrowed the social base of the struggle on a national scale.
A certain amount of disorientation introduced by anarchists into labor movement, did not prevent the Cuban proletariat from showing its class solidarity during the period of the first American occupation of the island. Builders, tobacco workers, railroad stokers, bakery workers, printers, etc. went on strike.
The hopes of the workers that with the proclamation of a republic their situation would improve,
were not justified. As a result, less than two months after T. Estrada Palma assumed the presidency, unrest broke out in various parts of the country. They took a special swing in November
1902, when the first general strike in the history of Cuba took place. Havana, Cienfuegos and Cruces became centers of the strike movement. Barricades appeared on some streets of the country. The strikers demanded: to establish an 8-hour working day, to increase wages, to provide Cuban teenagers with equal rights with Spanish ones when applying for a job. The army and police brutally suppressed this nationwide uprising of the proletariat, and the General League of Cuban Workers declared its self-dissolution.
We know that a working-class movement that develops independently, without leadership from the proletarian party, inevitably leads to trade unionism, to a purely economic struggle.
In Cuba, Carlos Balino (1848 - 1926), the first Cuban Marxist, a prominent figure in the Cuban communist and labor movement in Cuba, gave a lot of strength and energy to the creation of such a party. Returning from the United States in 1902, the following year he founded the Socialist Propaganda Club in Havana, the first Marxist circle on the island, and in 1905 published the pamphlet The Truth about Socialism, in which he outlined the most important provisions of Marxism.
In 1904, the Cuban Workers' Party was formed, which had a reformist character. K. Balino joined its ranks in order to rely on the proletarian core to fight for a new party. In 1905 this goal seemed to have been achieved. In the adopted program documents based on the principles of Marxism, for the first time in the history of the labor movement of the island, the question of the proletariat seizing power in the country and the destruction of private ownership of the means of production was raised, and the party itself became known as the Workers' Socialist Party of the Island of Cuba.
The party was outlawed. To the difficulties of the illegal struggle, sharp contradictions were soon added between C. Balino and the leadership of the Socialist Union International, which joined the party in 1906 - organizations consisting of Spanish socialists living in Cuba and adhering to anarcho-syndicalist views.
Of course, with general weakness at the beginning of the twentieth century. of the political movement of the proletariat in Cuba, the ideas of scientific socialism were close and understandable only to a small number of workers. This circumstance, along with the irreconcilable ideological and political struggle between the supporters of Marxism and anarchism, as well as the chauvinism introduced by the Spaniards from the Socialist Union of the International, were the main reasons that the Workers' Socialist Party of the Island of Cuba could not become a unifying and guiding center expressing the class interests of the entire proletariat .
With the outbreak of the First World War, the European socialist parties of the Second International found themselves in a deep crisis, which also engulfed the socialist parties of Latin America, mainly created in the image and likeness of the German Social Democracy and using the Erfurt Program as a model for their policy documents. The Workers' Socialist Party of the Island of Cuba did not escape this fate and found itself on the verge of collapse. At the same time, individual detachments of this party, for example in the city of Manzanillo, enjoyed considerable influence and authority among the working class. The years of struggle against anarchism enriched C. Balino and his associates with the experience of working with the masses and contributed to the spread of Marxism. In turn, some anarchist leaders, in particular,
A. Lopez, in the crucible of class battles, overcame their class delusions and moved to the position of scientific socialism.
In 1907, 2,048,980 people lived in Cuba. 43.9% was urban population, and in 20 cities the number of inhabitants exceeded 8 thousand; 355 thousand people lived in Havana and its environs. A characteristic phenomenon of the first six years of the republic's existence was a high level of immigration. An average of 35 thousand people arrived on the island annually, of which 82% were Spaniards and 5% were from the United States. According to the 1907 census, a detachment of factory workers numbered 126 thousand, 135 thousand were employed in trade and transport, in agriculture, in fishing and mining - 375 thousand.
In 1906-1908. a significant step in the development of the labor movement was the creation of large trade unions, such as the Union of Tobacco Workers, the Union of Bricklayers and Apprentices, the Cuban League of Railway Workers and Employees (in Camagüey), and the Union of Railway Workers (in Havana).
An important link in the development of the consciousness of the Cuban proletariat was the movement of solidarity with Russian class brothers during the years of the revolution of 1905-1907. great job C. Balino, who published a number of articles on events in Russia in the newspaper La Vos Obrera, was responsible for explaining the aims and tasks of the struggle of the Russian workers. “The hearts of millions of socialists in all parts of the world,” he wrote in 1905, “are today in the small towns of Russia, where a grandiose workers' movement of a revolutionary nature is gaining strength.
Along with the revolutionary events in Russia during this period, the Cuban press paid much attention to the demands of the world progressive intelligentsia for the release of the great proletarian writer A.M. Gorky. Prominent figures of Cuban culture addressed the Russian consul in Havana with a similar demand, and the leadership of the Association of Cuban Journalists sent a letter to the tsarist government in which they protested against the arrest of the writer. One of the influential Havana magazines, El Figaro, published an article about the life and work of A.M. Gorky, who noted first of all " the greatness of his soul and the rare beauty of his talent".
The heroic example of the Russian workers gave new impetus to the strike movement in Cuba. Many workers, as noted above, opposed the occupation of Cuba by American troops. In addition, tobacco workers, railroad workers, loaders, carters, food workers went on strike, putting forward mainly economic demands.
Characteristically, the American occupation authorities, in an effort to beat down the strike wave, repeatedly attracted scabs brought from the United States to work in certain sectors of the Cuban economy, such as rail transport. The immigration of cheap labor from China, Haiti, Jamaica, stimulated in every possible way by the owners of foreign companies, helped them maintain low wages and, if necessary, resort to lockouts. Under such conditions, the scattered actions of the Cuban workers rarely led to even partial success.
As already noted, racial discrimination was not eliminated with the formation of the republic. Moreover, the US control over Cuba has led to increased persecution of people of color. This caused a mass protest of blacks and mulattoes. In 1908, the Independent Colored Union was formed, later known as the Independent Colored Party. Of course, it cannot be considered a political party, since it was based on the principle of race.
This organization, which included a large number of workers, had significant forces due to the fact that yesterday's fighters of the National Liberation Army, led by General Evaristo Estenos, entered it. The "Colored Party" was supported by 12 more generals, 30 colonels and hundreds of junior officers, and the number of its members was about 60 thousand people. The goals of the struggle of the "party" were quite progressive: the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the abolition of the death penalty, free university education, the provision of greater benefits to Cubans compared to foreigners in employment, the distribution of state lands among peasants, an 8-hour working day, the creation workers' tribunals, which would become the main arbiters in resolving the problems that arose between capitalists and workers.
Such radicalism of the colored population seriously disturbed the Cuban bourgeoisie. The Senate outlawed the Colored Party. In response to this, on May 20, 1912, she took up arms against the government. The uprising, which engulfed mainly the province of Oriente and part of the province
Las Villas, was brutally suppressed.
The struggle between labor and capital gradually deepened and intensified. An important milestone in its history could be, but did not become the first workers' congress in the years of the republic, held in Havana in August
1914. Its originality consisted in the fact that in fact it was prepared and organized by the government of Menocal, who thus tried to put the proletarian movement in the country under his control.
More than 1,300 delegates paid for the travel and stay in Havana, and Cristobal de la Guardia, Minister of Justice, who opened the congress, urged the workers of Cuba to strive for a standard of living achieved by most civilized nations, but "while not causing too much damage bourgeois class."
The work of this "strange" (as defined by the Cuban historian S. Aguirre) congress proceeded in line with bourgeois reformism; Menokal's government attempted to bribe the leaders of the largest trade unions and create "yellow" trade unions. At the meetings of the congress, the speeches of almost all speakers (with rare exceptions) were of a conciliatory nature, which was influenced primarily by the system for selecting delegates, many of whom had nothing to do with the working class.
At the same time, the workers who got to the congress did not comply with the “script” provided by government officials and criticized the high cost and against forgetting the ideals of H. Marti, they said that colonial orders were preserved in Cuba and that, despite the constitution of 1901 ., “everything remains as it was before. The congress did not take any decisions on the labor question and limited itself to a resolution against the war and German militarism.
First World War boosted demand for Cuban sugar. However, a significant influx of foreign currency into the country did not improve the situation of workers. Food prices (mostly imported from abroad) increased sharply during the war years, and wages were "frozen", which led to an aggravation of the class struggle during this period.
A new wave of strikes broke out. Sugar workers were at the forefront of the struggle. Of particular note is the strike in the Guantanamo and Cruces regions. Their courage and determination to fight to the bitter end (they put forward demands of an economic nature) forced the government to send 1,500 soldiers to the eastern provinces to intimidate the workers and restore order during the safra of 1915. But the bayonets of the punishers did not shake the workers, unrest in these zones continued throughout 1915
Literally the whole island flew around the words from the manifesto of the workers of Cruces: “We, the workers, produce everything necessary for life, and all crimes are committed against us. Our life is an eternal hell that never ends and never disappears. From birth to death, we lead a miserable existence. Why are we doomed to this suffering and this poverty at a time when next to us in orgies they burn what we urgently need? Why do those who produce nothing have mountains of everything, while we working people do not have the most essential? Why do we tolerate such injustice and endure this pain?
The manifesto called for the unity of all the workers of the island. Thus, the harsh school of life and the inexorable laws of the class struggle have opened the eyes of the workers to the possibility of freeing themselves from the fetters of capital by uniting the efforts of the proletariat on a national scale. But on the way to this unity, the Cuban working class still had to go through many trials.
The weakness of the labor movement during this period was the underestimation of the struggle of the peasants for their rights. The struggle of the peasants was waged primarily against the expulsion from the occupied lands. Depriving the guajiro of the basis of its existence - the allotment of land - has become an integral part of the "agrarian policy" of the Cuban government since the birth of the "pseudo-republic". As more and more latifundia owned by foreign companies appeared in Cuba, an increasing number of Cuban peasants went bankrupt and tried to defend their rights. But the protests of the guajiros were even more fragmented and spontaneous than the workers' movement.
The class battles of the first 15 years of the existence of the republic did not bring tangible success to the revolutionary democratic forces of Cuban society. Nevertheless, they were of great historical significance, since they laid the foundation for the struggle of the Cuban people to resolve the main contradiction of "independent" Cuba, the contradiction between the interests of the Cuban nation, on the one hand, and American imperialism and its allies on the island - latifundists, sugar refiners and representatives of the trade. bourgeoisie associated with import and export operations, on the other. The struggle to destroy this contradiction became the dominant feature of Cuban history until the victory of the revolution in 1959.
The main types of modern democratic movements directed against monopoly capital and imperialism have been discussed in previous chapters: the struggle of the peasant masses against the remnants of feudalism preserved by imperialism and their anti-monopoly movement, the national liberation movement of the peoples of colonial and dependent countries, the patriotic struggle for the preservation of sovereignty , the struggle to defend democracy, the movement of peoples for world peace, the humanistic movements of the intelligentsia, their speeches in defense of culture. Democratic movements also include the struggle for the nationalization of the property of the capitalist monopolies, which meets the interests of the working people, for the expansion of the rights of women and youth, and other demands of the broad masses of the people that have become relevant under the domination of monopolies.
Some features of modern democratic movements
These movements are called democratic or general democratic, since they are fighting not for socialist, but for democratic demands. In itself, such a struggle does not represent anything fundamentally new. It was conducted, and very actively, already in the era bourgeois revolutions when the masses defended the demands of freedom and democracy, the elimination of landownership and noble privileges, the separation of church and state, etc. But, unlike the current movements of the past, they wore bourgeois-democratic character, i.e., they demanded transformations that fit within the framework of bourgeois democracy, and were connected with the victory of the bourgeois revolution. With their point they were directed against feudalism and his survivals.
Modern general democratic movements retain their anti-feudal character only in economically underdeveloped countries and in those developed bourgeois states where vestiges of feudalism still remain. However, even there they are already both anti-imperialist and anti-monopoly in nature (for example, the national liberation struggle of the peoples of the colonies, the struggle for agrarian reform in southern Italy).
In our era, the ground for democratic movements exists not only in underdeveloped countries or states where there are still strong remnants of feudalism, but also in the most developed capitalist countries. Here these movements are directly aimed against the ruling circles of the bourgeoisie, against imperialism, the rule of monopolies.
This,Of course, this does not mean that all such movements are anti-capitalist in character. They, as can be seen from the far from complete list given above, can be very diverse both in terms of their driving forces and socio-political content; they may orient themselves towards socialism or reject it, be under the leadership of the working class or democratic elements from among the bourgeoisie, etc.
And yet these movements can no longer be characterized as bourgeois-democratic. For to satisfy such demands as the elimination of the military threat, formal and actual national liberation, the nationalization of the property of the monopolies, the restriction of their political omnipotence, etc., ordinary (even the most developed) bourgeois democracy cannot. Only a new type of democracy, reflecting the interests of the broad masses of working people and other progressive sections of the people, can do this.
Thus, modern democratic movements, although they have predecessors, as a rule, are closely connected with the modern historical stage, in particular with the deepening of the general crisis of capitalism and with the growing resistance of the popular masses to the domination of capitalist monopolies.
These movements have reached their greatest extent in recent decades. The turning point in this respect was the period that came shortly after the world economic crisis of 1929-1933. The crisis has exacerbated social contradictions in the capitalist world to an unprecedented degree. The ruling groups of the big bourgeoisie sought an outlet in fascism and war. In 1933 fascism came to power in Germany; the fascist threat also hung over Austria, France, and Spain. In response, a powerful anti-fascist movement arose in many capitalist countries, finding
neck a vivid expression in such events as the formation of the Popular Front in France and Spain, the support of the world democratic community for the just struggle of the Spanish people in 1936-1939. But the anti-fascist democratic struggle reached its greatest scope during the Second World War. This war owes its liberation character to the active participation in it of the masses of the people, who merged their efforts with the liberation struggle of the Soviet Union.
After the Second World War, a new period of upsurge of democratic movements began, which, along with the class struggle of the working class, became the main social movements in the capitalist world.
Modern democratic movements thus have deep roots in capitalist reality itself, which determines their vitality and invincibility. These movements are generated primarily by one of the most important contradictions of modern capitalism - the antagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people.
Chapter 10 discussed the economic basis of this antagonism. It lies in the fact that a handful of monopolies, having subjugated the state, rob the whole of society either by exploiting the labor of other classes and strata (this applies not only to workers, but also to working peasants, artisans, employees, an increasing part of the creative intelligentsia), or on the other hand, by converting into their own property a part of the surplus product appropriated by other capitalists (this is typical for the relations of monopolies with medium and small capitalists and the kulaks).
But besides the economic basis, the antagonism between the monopolies and the overwhelming majority of the people also has an important political basis.
Monopolies can profit at the expense of society as a whole only by subordinating the entire internal and foreign policy states. For the sake of this, they pursue a policy of restriction and. the elimination of democratic rights, the policy of an arms race, aggressive foreign policy adventures, colonial robbery, etc. It is clear that such a policy is deeply contrary to the interests of not only. working class, but also the peasantry, the middle strata of the urban population, the intelligentsia and a certain part of the middle bourgeoisie. It gives rise to the resistance of all these classes and strata, which takes the form of various democratic movements.
All such movements are therefore directed in one way or another against the dominance of big capital, which in a number of countries already has the character of a dictatorship of monopolies.
This dictatorship comes under various guises; In Hitlerite Germany it was established in the form of undisguised fascist barbarism and was accompanied by the liquidation of parliament and all institutions of bourgeois democracy. In modern France, the reactionary dictatorship is introduced by the gradual emasculation of real content from traditional parliamentary institutions. In some other countries, in particular in the United States of America, the parliamentary regime is formally preserved, although there the real dictatorship of the largest monopolies prevails. To varying degrees, essential elements of the dictatorship of monopoly capital are also developing in other bourgeois countries.
It is clear that the struggle against this dictatorship is becoming more and more urgent for all democratic and progressive forces. This struggle may take various forms, depending on the severity of the antagonism separating the monopolies and the people, as well as on the internal and international situation.
It is possible that, under certain conditions, democratic movements against the policy of the imperialist bourgeoisie may result in democratic revolutions.
These revolutions would antimonopoly, because they would aim at overthrowing the dictatorship of the biggest monopolies. Their driving forces would be the working class, the peasantry, the middle strata of the urban population, and the democratic intelligentsia. In other words, it would be about democratic people's revolution, revolution in which the widest sections of the people would participate.
On the development of democratic revolutions into socialist ones
As historical experience has shown, democratic revolutions in the era of imperialism are not limited to the solution of purely democratic tasks, but show a tendency to develop further, to rise to a higher level.
This trend was brilliantly caught by V. I. Lenin, who during the years of the first Russian revolution (1905) came up with a scientifically substantiated theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one.
In doing so, Lenin relied on valuable indications already available in the works of the founders of Marxism. In the Manifesto Communist Party” Marx and Engels, noting that the bourgeois revolution in Germany would take place under conditions of a more developed capitalism and with a much more prepared proletariat than the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century and the French revolution of the 18th century, concluded: “The German bourgeois revolution, therefore, can be only the direct prologue of the proletarian revolution.
Then, in a letter to Engels in 1856, Marx expressed an interesting idea about the combination of the proletarian revolution with the peasant movement. “The whole thing in Germany,” wrote Marx, “will depend on the possibility of supporting the proletarian revolution with some second edition of the peasant war.”8
The opportunists of the Second International did not attach any importance to these ideas of Marx. Only Lenin saw in them the germ of a new revolutionary tactic. Proceeding from the analysis of reality and relying on the thoughts of Marx, he developed his theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist one.
The main thing in this theory is the idea of the hegemony (leading position) of the working class in the bourgeois-democratic revolution. This idea was new, it went against the usual ideas.
The Western European Social Democrats (and after them the Russian Mensheviks) reasoned according to a stencil: since the revolution is bourgeois-democratic, then the bourgeoisie should lead it. So, they say, it was Western Europe, so it will be in all bourgeois revolutions, wherever they take place. Only after more or less long interval, when capitalism has completely fulfilled its mission of ruining the middle strata, and the proletariat constitutes the majority of the population, the turn of the proletarian revolution will come, the leader of which can be the working class.
Lenin broke this petrified scheme, which did not meet the needs of the time and the possibilities of the labor movement. He showed that in the imperialist epoch, between the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions, a period of bourgeois rule is not necessary, that a bourgeois-democratic revolution in a more or less developed country can develop into a proletarian revolution.
The epoch of imperialism provided sufficient grounds for such a conclusion.
First, the world capitalist system as a whole is ripe for the transition to socialism. Under these conditions, the well-known backwardness of the countries of the East could not serve as an insurmountable obstacle to the transition to socialism.
Secondly, any struggle against the remnants of feudalism, in a situation where imperialism preserves and maintains obsolete feudal relations, sooner or later develops into a decisive struggle against imperialism, i.e., leads to a socialist revolution.
Thirdly, in the era of imperialism, a new factor appeared, which did not exist during the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in the West: in a number of countries that were on the eve of the anti-feudal revolution, numerous and
militant working class, which created its own independent political party.
Under these conditions, if the working class leads the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it can develop into a socialist one.
In a certain sense, Lenin believed, the workers are more interested in the bourgeois-democratic revolution than the bourgeoisie itself, which finds it advantageous in its struggle against the proletariat to rely on the remnants of antiquity, for example, on the monarchy.
A new type of bourgeois-democratic revolution, led by the working class, gives rise, according to Lenin's theory, to a new type of state power - revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. It puts into practice those measures that correspond to the common interests of these classes: it abolishes the monarchy and proclaims a democratic republic, transfers land to the peasants, introduces an 8-hour working day, etc.
At the same time, while in power, the working class takes all measures to ensure that the democratic revolution develops into a socialist one. Under the conditions of Russia, this required a regrouping of class forces: the working class is carrying out the socialist revolution in alliance not with the entire peasantry, but with its poorest part, which is no less interested in the transition to socialism than the workers.
The development of the revolution in Russia, Lenin later wrote, confirmed the theory of the Bolsheviks. The bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia really grew into a socialist one.
Basically and chiefly, Lenin's theory of the development of the bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution is applicable. to all democratic revolutions our time. This means, of course, not that every democratic revolution necessarily develops into a socialist one, but only that it may outgrow into one if the working class succeeds in occupying a leading position in it. This is evidenced, in particular, by the experience of anti-fascist people's democratic revolutions, unfolded at the end of World War II in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe, as well as the experience of national liberation democratic revolutions in such Asian countries as China, Korea, Vietnam.
Here and there, the revolutions that began on a general democratic basis did not linger at the democratic stage, but more or less quickly, with greater or lesser difficulties, developed into socialist ones. This once again shows how great is the significance of Lenin's theory of overgrowth, which unleashed the revolutionary activity of the working class and opened up a broad prospect for the transition to socialism as
in economically backward as well as in developed capitalist countries.
It should, of course, be borne in mind that the modern era has introduced a lot of new things in comparison with the times of the first Russian revolution. At that time, the democratic type of revolution was mainly anti-feudal in nature. Now, in a number of countries, from the very beginning it is aimed not only and not so much against the survivals of feudalism, but against the extremely reactionary, monopoly wing of the bourgeoisie itself. In other words, the democratic revolution is now essentially directed against the same enemy as the socialist revolution of the working class. This means that the next convergence two types of revolution. Under these conditions, the struggle for the solution of democratic and socialist tasks may not develop into two separate revolutions, but will amount to only two stages in a single revolutionary process.
This is exactly how things went in the people's democratic revolutions in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. The struggle against the survivals of feudalism had no independent significance here. it did not determine the character of the revolution. The edge of the revolution was directed against foreign imperialism and the local big bourgeoisie and landlords who had joined forces with it. From the very beginning, this gave it a new character and created especially favorable opportunities for it to develop into a socialist revolution. That is why in some countries one can clearly trace the change from the democratic to the socialist stage, in others there is no such sharp division; in some, the development towards socialism proceeded more smoothly and met with less resistance, in others it was accompanied by a sharp intensification of the class struggle. But at the same time, the general patterns of the outgrowth of the revolution, discovered by Marxism-Leninism, were also fully manifested.
In the European countries of people's democracy, at the first stage, a democratic power of the people arose, directed against fascism, national traitors from among the big bourgeoisie, landowners, and high officials. The working class was the guiding force of the people's power.
The people's power, firstly, completed the liquidation of the consequences of the Nazi occupation regime and destroyed the political domination of the accomplices of the invaders - the landowners and the monopoly bourgeoisie, thus completed the liberation of these countries from the yoke of imperialism 1 ensured national independence, carried out broad democratic transformations. Secondly, the people's power eliminated the remnants of feudalism that remained in a number of countries, carried out a democratic agrarian reform,
as a result of which the class of landowners was eliminated, and the position of the working peasants improved significantly.
Although the content of this first stage was mainly transformations of a general democratic nature, nevertheless, from the very first days of people's power, a number of measures were taken that went beyond these limits. Among such measures is the nationalization of enterprises, carried out to one extent or another, which were previously in the hands of the occupiers and the monopoly bourgeoisie closely associated with them.
After the democratic tasks had been solved, the working class and the communist parties set a course for the transition from the democratic stage of the revolution to the socialist one. The transition was facilitated in these countries by the fact that there were strong communist parties, hardened in many years of underground struggle. The revolution in the European countries of people's democracy proceeded uninterruptedly, the democratic and socialist stages constituted two phases of a single revolutionary process, led throughout its entire course by the working class.
A characteristic feature of the overgrowth was that there was no radical regrouping of class forces. The overwhelming majority of those who marched with the working class at the democratic stage of the revolution - the majority of the peasantry, the middle strata of the city, a significant part of the intelligentsia, and in some countries even certain sections of the bourgeoisie - supported the course of building socialism. Here such political steps as the neutralization of the middle strata of the peasantry were not needed. In connection with this peculiarity, the transition from the democratic stage to the socialist one proceeded in the European countries of people's democracy mainly by peaceful means, without armed uprising and civil war.
This does not mean that there were no contradictions in the ranks of the general democratic bloc. The bloc consisted of class heterogeneous forces, so it was to be expected that after the general democratic tasks were resolved, class contradictions would be revealed. Indeed, the development of the revolution from the first stage to the second took place not in the order of a smooth and calm course, but in the order of class clashes, which in some countries (Czechoslovakia, 1948) at times took on an acute character.
The extreme right-wing leaders of the Social Democracy and the reactionary representatives of the bourgeois parties have more than once tried to retard the development of the revolution and organize counter-revolutionary putschs with the support of international reaction. The calculation was made to wipe the working class out of the leadership of the general democratic bloc and to direct development along the bourgeois-democratic path. However, the right-wing elements were thrown away by the revolutionary people, and the transition from the democratic
crowned with complete success.
The People's Republic of China, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam provided a clear example of a revolution growing from a democratic stage to a socialist one. The revolutions that unfolded in these countries primarily solved the problems of liberation from the yoke of foreign monopolies and the elimination of feudal systems and survivals. But since here the democratic bloc was headed not by the national bourgeoisie, but by the working class, the revolution in these countries did not get stuck at the bourgeois-democratic stage I, and the peoples immediately switched from democratic to socialist transformations.
Currently great importance For the working-class movement, it acquires the question of the development into a socialist revolution of those democratic people's revolutions that can grow out of general democratic movements in the developed capitalist countries.
Where can these revolutions move after the overthrow of the political and economic domination of the monopolies?
In the past, democratic revolutions opened the stage of capitalist development of society. Anti-monopoly people's revolutions in the countries of developed capitalism, which are possible in the future, cannot face such a task. They will not put forward such a reactionary-utopian goal as, say, a return to the order of pre-monopoly capitalism!
Consequently, the most probable path for the development of such revolutions is their development into a socialist revolution.
The overthrow of the dictatorship of the capitalist monopolies in the course of a democratic revolution would lead, first, to the removal of the proteges of the big monopolies from power and its transfer into the hands of the people, i.e., a coalition of democratic forces, which could include the working class, all sections of the peasantry; the middle strata of the urban population, the democratic intelligentsia. This would mean that main forces of reaction would have been isolated and overthrown already at the first, democratic stage.
Secondly, the overthrow of the political domination of the monopolies would make it possible to nationalize the property of large trusts and concerns. In the developed countries of capitalism, this would have led already at the democratic stage of the revolution to the creation of a powerful state sector of the national economy, which would include 60-80% of industrial enterprises.
Thus, already at the very beginning, the democratic, anti-monopoly revolution in the developed capitalist countries
talism would lay firm foundations for the transition to socialism. This means that the democratic and socialist revolutions, which were not separated from each other by the Chinese wall before, even closer.
The development of a democratic revolution into a socialist one would also be facilitated by other objective and subjective prerequisites that have taken shape in the countries of developed capitalism: the more or less ready-made material base of socialism, a developed working-class movement, etc.
In addition, we must take into account the incomparably more favorable balance of forces in the international arena than ever before.
Of decisive importance for the development of democratic people's revolutions into socialist ones is the existence of strong Marxist-Leninist parties enjoying broad support in all sections of the people, and the flexible and skillful policy of these parties. No matter how close the democratic and socialist stages may be, the transition from one to the other cannot be accomplished without conscious leadership, without the active participation of the Marxist-Leninist Party.
All this, of course, does not give grounds to turn a blind eye to the specific difficulties that a democratic and socialist revolution may encounter in the developed capitalist countries. First of all, it will have a stronger opponent than previous revolutions. The big capitalist monopolies now have at their disposal a powerful military and police apparatus and numerous means of ideological influence on the masses. They have accumulated considerable experience in political combinations and fooling the masses. Therefore, the conclusion of V. I. Lenin that it was easier for us (ie, Russia) to start, but then it is more difficult to continue, remains valid today. On the contrary, it is more difficult for them (i.e., Western countries) to start, but then it will be easier for them 9.
Other forms of transition of the masses from the struggle for democratic demands to the socialist revolution
The democratic anti-monopoly revolution is a possible but not inevitable stage in the struggle for socialism in modern capitalist countries. It is possible that general democratic movements will not lead to such revolutions (or at least not in all countries), and the socialist revolution will take place immediately, bypassing the general democratic stage.
How, then, to evaluate modern democratic movements in the light of such a possibility?
Will they be a hindrance to the struggle for socialism? Wouldn't it be better to fight "immediately" for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and for the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would at the same time serve as the
a reliable guarantee of the satisfaction of the general democratic interests of the working class and all working people?
Such assertions are usually made by dogmatists and sectarians.
In fact, the struggle for general democratic goals does not weaken but, on the contrary, strengthens the positions of the working people in the struggle for socialism. It strengthens them primarily by the fact that the victories won by the working people in the struggle for democracy, peace, etc., create more favorable conditions for the struggle for socialism.
At the same time, the struggle for general democratic interests weakens the reactionary bourgeoisie. Although this is not yet a struggle for socialism, it is already a struggle against the main forces of capitalism, its shock detachments. By defeating them, the working people inevitably undermine the foundations of the rule of the capitalist class as a whole.
Further, on the path of struggle for general democratic goals, it is easiest to arouse and rally the broadest masses of the people against imperialism, to establish a firm alliance with them, to win the prestige necessary for the working class and its revolutionary vanguard in order to stand at the head of the masses.
And, finally, the struggle for general democratic goals is a good school of political organization, rallying and tempering the working masses. This struggle is bringing the broadest masses to an understanding of the significance of the question of power, of in whose hands the state will be. And this, as you know, is the main question in the socialist revolution.
But the link between democratic movements and the socialist revolution is not exhausted by the fact that they create more favorable conditions for the liberation struggle of the working class and all working people.
Of decisive importance is the fact that under certain conditions directly Under democratic slogans, large contingents of working people can go over to the struggle for socialism, to an alliance with the working class in the socialist revolution.
We know, for example, what an enormous role in the transition of the broad masses of the working people of Russia to the socialist revolution was played by the general democratic aspirations of the masses, their struggle for peace and land. When the peasantry became convinced that the bourgeois government would not give them either peace or land, in October 1917 they went over to the side of the Bolsheviks, which ensured the victory of the socialist revolution.
It is clear that similar situations cannot be ruled out in the future.
There is no point in guessing in what way and with what democratic requirements this can happen. let down
masses to a decisive struggle for socialism can any of them, depending on the specific situation. In the face of the immediate threat of an atomic war being prepared by the reactionary bourgeoisie, this could be a mass uprising for peace. Under other conditions, the working people may be led to the path of socialism by a broad anti-fascist movement, or a struggle in defense of national sovereignty, or a whole series of such movements merged into one stream of democratic struggle.
In any case, one thing is important here: under present-day conditions, the general democratic movements of the masses, directed against imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie, are becoming more and more closely linked with the struggle for socialism.
Realizing this, one cannot at the same time treat democratic movements as mere means of leading the masses to the socialist revolution.
It is impossible, first of all, because they have a huge independent significance for peoples in general, for the working class in particular. Can the struggle for peace, against atomic hydrogen extermination be regarded only as a sort of reserve means? Isn't this one of the main goals of all democratic and progressive humanity? The same applies to the struggle against fascism or against the shameful practice of colonialism, from which until recently a large part of humanity suffered.
At the same time, the Marxist-Leninist approach to general democratic movements requires complete clarity of the class position. No matter how important this or that movement may be, every communist, every class-conscious worker does not lose sight of the ultimate goals of the labor movement. But this does not make him any less conscious and selfless fighter for the immediate interests of the masses of the people, for such demands as peace, democracy, national independence and sovereignty.
Not every democrat is a supporter of socialism. But any conscious fighter for socialism is a consistent defender of democracy, of all the democratic interests of the working people.
The beginning of the formation of the radical-democratic direction of social thought in Russia dates back to the 40-50s. XIX century, its most prominent representatives were V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. The development of the revolutionary democratic theory, which was based on the latest philosophical and political (mainly socialist) teachings that had spread in Western Europe, also belongs to the same years. The revolutionary-democratic trend in the Russian liberation movement in the mid-60s and early 70s. XIX century was represented by the activities of various circles of raznochintsy intelligentsia in Moscow, St. Petersburg and a number of provincial, mostly university cities.
The most significant among them was the circle of "Ishutins", which operated in 1863-66. in Moscow and Petersburg. Its founder was N.A. Ishutin. The "Ishutins" considered themselves students of N.G. Chernyshevsky and following the example of the heroes of his novel What Is to Be Done? tried to organize various kinds of production and household artels. However, in 1865, the "Ishutins" came to the idea of the need for more vigorous activity. In February 1866, they formed a secret society called "Organization", and one of the founders of the circle, D.V. Karakozov, on his own initiative, made an attempt on Alexander II, after the failure of which Karakozov was executed, other members of the circle were sent to hard labor or exiled.
The assassination attempt on the tsar served as a pretext for a noticeable turn towards political reaction. By a decree of May 13, 1866, the power of the governors was strengthened, censorship persecution of the democratic press began - the magazines Sovremennik and Russian word". Deviations from the reforms followed, in particular, the rights of zemstvos were limited and the preparation of the City reform was delayed. . However, the reaction could not stop the development of the revolutionary-democratic movement. In the autumn of 1868-1869. a wave of student unrest swept through the higher educational institutions Petersburg and Moscow. There were new student circles. One of them was organized in the capital of S.P. Nechaev, who later created the secret organization "People's Reprisal", which planned to use large-scale terror in its activities. Nechaev's activities attracted the attention of the police, and the organization was uncovered. In order to discredit the revolutionary movement, in 1871 the government staged a show trial over the "Nechayevites".
Representatives of the revolutionary underground for the most part condemned the methods of "nechaevshchina", circles were created that practiced other methods of struggle (propaganda and education among the workers and intelligentsia). The most famous of these circles was the circle of "Chaikovites", named after the student of St. Petersburg University N.V. Tchaikovsky, one of the founders. The organization was engaged in the promotion of socialist ideas, planned the creation of a "single workers' organization." In 1874, it was discovered by the police and destroyed, some members of the circle later joined the populist organizations Land and Freedom and Narodnaya Volya.
From the beginning of the 70s. In the 19th century, populism became the main direction in the liberation movement. As a public direction, it began to take shape at the turn of the 60-70s. XIX century, when its founders set themselves the task of transitioning to the struggle for the interests of the people, while they were convinced that a radical solution to all social problems could be achieved by revolutionary means and by the forces of the masses, led by a revolutionary (populist) organization.
Anarchism(from the Greek apagshia - anarchy, anarchy) - the doctrine of society, which is based on the idea of anarchy, statelessness.
In a broad sense - theory of unlimited freedom and equality of people. The anarchist way of thinking is found already in the ancient world. The scientific theory of anarchism arose in modern times. The father of this theory is called P. J. Proudhon, although it received its inception in the writings of the English philosopher William Godwin. The main principles of this theory were the provisions on the elimination of classes, the equalization of the rights of all people, the absence of a government, the replacement of private property with possession, which means that everyone will have some property that cannot be transferred or assigned to anyone. As a guiding principle, this theory recognizes only the will of an individual. As a political movement, anarchism aims to destroy the state and replace it with a voluntary association of citizens.
A significant role in the development of this ideological trend was made by Russian thinkers M.A. Bakunin and P.A. Kropotkin. With the growth of revolutionary sentiments in Europe, the idea of collectivist anarchism is being formed, the theorist of which was M.A. Bakunin. It was he who advocated the immediate destruction of the state by revolutionary means. He defined the personal freedom of a person as a derivative of the collective freedom of the whole society. He saw the freedom of society in the self-government of the people through free federation and the union of peasant and workers' associations. Bakunin's ideas were developed in the works of P.A. Kropotikna: "Speeches of a Rebel", "The Conquest of Bread", "Her Philosophy, Its Ideal", "The State and Its Role in History". Kropotkin became the founder of the doctrine of anarcho-communism, an anarchist movement that became most widespread in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anarchist communists considered the strike and individual terror to be a universal means of struggle, the general strike to be a social revolution. They imagined the future society as a union (“federation”) of free communities (“communes”), united by a free contract, where the individual receives unlimited opportunities for development.
The anarcho-communist movement dominated Russia until the middle of 1905, and the first anarchist organization in the country arose in 1903 in the city of Bialystok. In 1904, there were 15 anarchist organizations in Russia, and during the years of the revolution of 1905-1907 . their ranks have grown markedly. Over the years of its existence, almost all Russian anarchist associations have been supporters of the class struggle and social revolution. They declared themselves opponents and destroyers of every state and private property. Anarchists fundamentally refused any cooperation with political parties. The most influential in Russian anarchism were the following movements: anarcho-communist, "Chernoznamenskoye" (after the name of the Black Banner press organ, which preached the most active, terrorist methods of struggle), anarcho-syndicalist (moderate, offering to rely on non-party workers in the fight against the state trade unions. The anarchist movement experienced a real upsurge in 1917, when two trends especially manifested themselves - anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists. Many of the anarchists later found themselves in the ranks of the Bolsheviks. In practice, anarchism did not lead to the implementation of the principles laid down in its basis, provisions .
"Ishutins"(1863 - 1866) - a revolutionary-democratic circle, founded in 1863 by N. Ishutin and operating in 1863-1866. in Moscow. It included D. Karakozov, who made an attempt on Alexander II in 1866, after which the organization was crushed by the police.
Populism- the main direction of the Russian revolutionary movement in the second half of the XIX century. Its ideological foundation was the theory of "communal socialism", developed by A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky. The ideological formation of populism takes place at the turn of the 1860s - 1870s. The period of his greatest influence fell on the 1870s - early 1880s. IN AND. Lenin (an ardent opponent of populism) described its essential features as follows:
1. recognition of capitalism in Russia as a decline, a regression;
2. recognition of the originality of the Russian economic system in general and the peasant with his community, artel, etc. in particular;
3. ignoring the connection between the “intelligentsia” and the legal and political institutions of the country with material interests certain classes.
The Narodniks believed that the most powerful political force was the working people (primarily the peasantry), which must carry out a socialist revolution. They saw their mission in organizing the masses and rousing them to a struggle that would enable Russia to bypass the stage of capitalism and establish a new system based on the principles of equality and social justice. Despite the fact that revolutionary populism was a unified trend of socio-political thought, in it at the turn of the 1860s - 1870s. three main trends emerged.
Propaganda. Its creator and main ideologist was a professor of mathematics P.L. Lavrov(1823 - 1900). He outlined his views in Historical Letters. The main idea of P.L. Lavrov lies in the fact that an "educated society" is indebted to the common people, since the latter, living in poverty and ignorance, with their work for centuries provides a decent life for the privileged classes. "Critically thinking individuals" must be imbued with a sense of responsibility to the people. There is only one way they can repay the debt, by preparing the people for the revolution. However, for this, the revolutionary youth themselves must be ready to fight. It needs to acquire the appropriate knowledge and develop its character, and only then "go to the people" in order to propagate socialist ideas and a new way of life, in order to awaken the "revolutionary consciousness of the masses" in this way.
Rebellious. Its creator was the founder of scientific anarchism M.A. Bakunin(1814 - 1876) - a comrade-in-arms of K. Marx in the First International and ... a staunch opponent of Marxism. In the work "Statehood and anarchy" M.A. Bakunin develops the idea that any state (even a socialist one) is based on violence. He categorically rejected the Marxist idea of a proletarian dictatorship and declared that any "top-down" management of society is detrimental to the people. M.A. Bakunin proposed to create instead of the state a free federation (“from the bottom up”) of peasant communities, workers' unions, professional associations, regions and peoples. In such a society, private property is unacceptable, and it is based on collective labor. It is possible to go to this social structure only as a result of a spontaneous popular revolt. Russia is a country traditionally rebellious and therefore ideally suited to start a world revolution. Only the lumpen (beggars, vagabonds, etc.) can become the hegemon of the revolt, and not the working class, as K. Marx believed. It is the outcasts who truly have "nothing to lose" in public life and they are always ready to rebel. The main task of the revolutionaries is to coordinate the actions of the people, and after the revolution, to prevent a return to the old state order.
conspiratorial (Blanquist - named after the French revolutionary O. Blanqui). Its ideology was developed by a lawyer and a talented publicist P.N. Tkachev(1844 - 1885). Unlike P.L. Lavrov, he did not want to deal only with the "preparation" of the revolution, but worked out ways to implement it. P.N. Tkachev also opposed the anarchism of M.A. Bakunin, believing that the state should play a crucial role in the renewal of society. P.N. Tkachev declared that a "social revolution" could only be carried out by a small but well-trained and cohesive party of conspirators. They will seize power, carry out the transformations necessary for the people, after which they will retire, transferring the reins of government into the hands of society itself. According to P.N. Tkachev, a revolutionary conspiracy is quite feasible, since Russian state has not enjoyed the support of the general public for a long time. However, to be completely sure of success, power should be weakened. One of the most effective means"loosening" of the old regime of P.N. Tkachev considered political terror.
Nihilism (from lat. nihil - nothing, nothing) - the idea of total denial, a form of self-consciousness of a significant part of the Russian intelligentsia in the 1860s and 70s. The term, which became widespread in Russia in the 1860s, meant, firstly, the denial of social values, norms, principles, traditions created by mankind, sheer skepticism. Secondly, the direction among the Russian commoners of the sixties, who were sharply negative towards the bourgeois-noble traditions and customs. The most prominent representative of nihilism in Russia in the 1860s. is considered a publicist and literary critic D.I. Pisarev. He saw the main force in the reorganization of society in the activities of "critically thinking realists" armed with the latest achievements of science. Pisarev had a significant influence on the formation of the ideology of populism, although he himself was not a populist. He did not call himself a nihilist. For the first time this term was introduced into circulation by I.S. Turgenev in the novel "Fathers and Sons", which embodies the image of the "Russian nihilist" of the early 60s.
"Tchaikovsky" (1869 - 1874) - members of the propaganda and educational circle, created in 1869 in St. Petersburg by student M. Natanson.
The name of the organization was given to one of the active members of the circle, student N. Tchaikovsky. The goal of the participants is “to counteract non-chaev methods of activity”. Branches were formed in Moscow, Kyiv and Odessa. In the future, it was planned to create a "single working organization". The circle program was written by P.A. Kropkin. In total, the organization consisted of up to 60 people. Disclosed by the police and ceased to exist in 1874. Subsequently, many members of the circle became active participants in the "going to the people" and joined the populist organizations "Land and Freedom" and "Narodnaya Volya".
"Land and Freedom"(1878-1879) - secret revolutionary populist society of the 1870s ., was formed in St. Petersburg, the name of the society was given in 1878 by analogy with the society of the 1860s.
The “Land and Liberty” included the “Northern Revolutionary Populist Group”, the “Narodnik Society”, the survivors of the arrests of the participants in the “going to the people”, the older generation of young revolutionaries. A.D. participated in the founding of the society. Mikhailov, G.V. Plekhanov, A.D. Oboleshev, M.A. and O.A. Natansons, A. A. Kvyatkovsky, O. V. Aptekman, V. A. Osinsky, D. A. Lizogub, S. M. Kravchinsky, N.A. Morozov, S.L. Perovskaya, M.F. Frolenko, L.A. Tikhomirov, all members of the circle N.V. Tchaikovsky. According to the social composition, the society was raznochinskiy. In contrast to the earlier populist circles, this was already a broader and well-hidden organization. Together with its branches, it had up to 200 members. It was led by the "Center", or "Administration". He was elected by the "main circle", which in the amount of 30 people formed the core of the organization. The Society had its own printed editions: "Leaf of "Land and Freedom"" and "Land and Freedom".
The founders of the organization took into account the experience of "going to the people", so it was planned to create permanent "settlements" of revolutionaries in the villages to prepare the "people's revolution". The members of "Land and Liberty" set themselves the task of uniting the revolutionary circles operating in Central Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Transcaucasia, and the Volga region. They managed to create a well-organized St. Petersburg center (O.V. Aptekman, D.A. Lizogub, A.D. Mikhailov, V.A. Osinsky, G.V. Plekhanov, etc.), which rallied around itself several groups that performed various functions.
When the society was formed, a program was adopted, the most important point of which was "the transfer of all land into the hands of the rural working class", and a number of democratic demands were put forward, which could be achieved "only through a violent revolution." To prepare a coup, according to the "landlords", followed by constant propaganda and agitation in the countryside, the creation of strongholds there. The structure of the organization assumed the existence of several groups, divided by the nature of their activities. The group of "villagers", the most numerous, conducted propaganda among the peasants. Attention was also paid to work in "centers of accumulation of industrial workers, factory and factory" - for this a "working" group was created. However, the workers were regarded only as a force capable of supporting the uprising of the peasants. The agitation activity of the "landlords" was also carried out among the discontented students and intelligentsia, attempts were made to attract conscious progressive officers and officials.
In addition to propaganda, the "landlords" were engaged in "disorganization of the state", in particular, the destruction of "the most harmful or prominent persons from the members of the government." The main forces and means of "Land and Freedom" were directed to the creation of "settlements" in the countryside (colonies in Samara, Saratov, Tambov and other provinces), which did not bring noticeable success. Nor did the attempt to unleash "agrarian terror" in the countryside, to rouse the peasants to armed actions, yield any results. In an environment of hopelessness, mass political trials and brutal reprisals, the attitude of the "landlords" to the methods of achieving immediate goals began to change. There was a growing conviction that terrorist methods of fighting the government were necessary.
Gradually, two trends emerged in society - propagandists and terrorists. In June 1879, at a congress in Voronezh, a split took place in the "Land and Freedom", but the participants found a temporary compromise for the coexistence of the two directions. In August 1879, at a congress in Lipetsk, "Land and Freedom" broke up into "Narodnaya Volya" and "Black Repartition" (see the diagram "The revolutionary movement in Russia in the 60s and 70s of the 19th century").
"People's Will" (1879-1887) - revolutionary populist organization (1879-1887), formed in August 1879 as a result of the split of the Land and Freedom.
The program of the organization contained demands for democratic reforms, the introduction of universal suffrage, permanent popular representation, freedom of speech, the press, conscience, the replacement of the army with a militia, and the transfer of land to the peasants. At the head " People's Will» standing Executive committee, which included: A. D. Mikhailov, N. A. Morozov, A.I. Zhelyabov, A. A. Kvyatkovsky, S. L. Perovskaya, V. N. Figner, M. F. Frolenko, L. A. Tikhomirov, M. N. Oshanina, A. V. Yakimova and others. and groups located in fifty cities. In 1879 - 1881. the organization united up to 250 circles (over 2000 people), had 10 underground printing houses. "Narodnaya Volya" was a well-hidden organization, had its own print organ - the newspaper "Narodnaya Volya", published from October 1, 1879 to October 1885.
The Narodnaya Volya distinguished between an "organization" - a disciplined community of revolutionaries, subject to a program and a charter, it included about 500 people - and a party - a circle of like-minded people not connected with the "organization" obligations, there were up to 2 thousand people. In the context of the democratic upsurge of the late 70s of the XIX century, the organization was actively involved in the political struggle. The program provisions of the organization included the seizure of power by the revolutionary party and the implementation of democratic reforms in the country. According to the ideas of the Narodnaya Volya, the Russian government had no support and could easily be disorganized as a result of a series of terrorist attacks. In 1880-1881. Narodnaya Volya carried out a number of assassination attempts on Alexander II (on February 5, 1880, S. Khalturino carried out an explosion in the Winter Palace). In total, 8 unsuccessful attempts were made on the emperor.
The struggle of the Narodnaya Volya against the Russian autocracy, which ended with the assassination of Alexander II (March 1, 1881), was of great political importance, but led to the opposite results - the autocracy abandoned attempts to reform society and switched to reaction. The expected public performances did not follow. Soon most of the Executive Committee was arrested, only a few were able to hide abroad. In April 1881, the participants in the preparation of the regicide were executed. Repressions in the case of the Narodnaya Volya continued in 1882, in total, up to 6,000 people were subjected to various kinds of repressions. Despite this, "Narodnaya Volya" continued its struggle until 1887, the last act of its terrorist activity was an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Alexander III, after which new repressions completed its defeat. Members of the organization who managed to avoid repression in the 1890s. played a prominent role in the formation of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.
"People's massacre" (1869) - a secret society formed among St. Petersburg students by S. Nechaev in 1869
Support in the organization of society was provided to him by M.A. Bakunin, together with Nechaev they released the Catechism of a Revolutionary - a kind of presentation of the ideology of revolutionary extremism. Nechaev managed in a short time to attract several dozen people to his organization. Its members were divided into fives, each of them acted independently, not knowing about the existence of the other, and obeyed the "Center", that is, in fact - Nechaev. He acted like a dictator, demanding unquestioning obedience to himself. By the summer of 1870, Nechaev planned to launch "destructive activities": to create combat detachments, involving "robber" elements in them, to destroy representatives of the authorities by means of terror, to confiscate "private capital". However, the expansion of the organization's activities was prevented by the murder in November 1869 of student Ivanov, an active member of the Reprisal, who did not want to obey Nechaev's demands and was committed by order of S. Nechaev. As a result of the investigation, the organization was uncovered by the police in the winter of 1869-1870, 80 people were involved in the case. Nechaev managed to escape abroad. In order to discredit the revolutionary movement over the “Nechaevites”, a show trial was arranged in 1871, its materials were widely published in the government press. The Nechaev "case" served as the plot for the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky "Demons".
"Northern Union of Russian Workers" (1878 - 1880) - an illegal workers' organization of a socialist persuasion, which arose at the end of 1878 by uniting several disparate workers' circles in St. Petersburg. The leaders are V. Obnorsky and S. Khalturin. Has up to 200 members. In January 1879, his program document came out of the illegal press, emphasizing the importance of winning political freedom for the proletarians. The ultimate goal was proclaimed "the overthrow of the existing political and economic system of the state as extremely unjust." The demands included freedom of speech, the press, freedom of assembly, the abolition of class distinctions, etc. It also provided for “the establishment of a free people’s federation of communities on the basis of Russian customary law” and the replacement of land ownership by communal land tenure. In 1880, the Soyuz published the only issue of the illegal newspaper Rabochaya Zarya, which led to the arrest of members of the organization and the termination of its existence.
In workers' circles and "unions" in the 70-80s. a very narrow circle of workers was also involved. The strike movement had not yet gone beyond the limits of economic demands. However, both entrepreneurs and the government were already forced to reckon with such a phenomenon in the life of the country as the labor movement.
Labor movement. One can speak about its emergence as a social phenomenon in post-reform Russia in relation to the 70s. 19th century
In the 1860s only 51 performances of workers were recorded, and the number of strikes did not exceed ten, the rest of the performances differed little from ordinary peasant unrest. But already in the 70s. the number of strikes increased to 326, the press started talking about the emergence of a "labor question". The most significant performances were the strikes at the Neva Paper Spinning Mill (1870) and the Krenholm Manufactory (1872). Long working hours, low wages, a system of fines and the absence of labor legislation led to ever-increasing conflicts between workers and factory management. In the second half of the 1870s. the number of strikes increased markedly, which was associated with the manifestations of the industrial crisis that had engulfed all of Europe since 1873.
The tsarist regime turned out to be unable to develop legal norms of labor legislation adequate to the time and the natural desire of workers to organize themselves and defend their interests, as was done in the industrial countries of Europe and the USA. Bourgeois reforms of the 1860s and 70s little impact on the working class. This was a consequence of the fact that the formation of capitalist relations was still taking place in the country, the formation of the main capitalist classes of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat had not been completed. But the main elements of the future protective and guardian labor policy took shape precisely in these years, in the process of the beginning development of labor legislation. Already then, in the 1870s, the liberal-bourgeois principle of freedom of relations between labor and capital and the freedom of strikes and workers' organizations associated with it, and workers' representation in elected organizations, was determined to be abandoned.
And yet in the 70s. attempts to form the first independent workers' organizations begin. In 1875, in Odessa, E. Zaslavsky created the “South Russian Union of Russian Workers”, and in 1878 in St. Petersburg S. Khalturin and V. Obnorsky opened the “Northern Union of Russian Workers” by combining workers' circles. Both organizations did not exist for very long, were uncovered by the police, and the members were arrested. Work performances continued in the 80s, and at that time the most ambitious ones took place, in particular the Morozov strike of 1885. It was under the influence of this strike and the subsequent trial of the workers that a special Factory Law of 1886 was issued, which regulated the relations of workers with the administration .
At the end of the 19th century, the Russian proletariat became the main driving force in the liberation movement. The number of workers grew rapidly, from 1870 to 1900 it tripled and reached 3 million people. In the 90s. the demands put forward by the workers are still dominated by economic demands (shortening the working day, increasing wages, abolishing the system of fines, limiting the work of minors), but gradually political ones also appear. This was due to the spread, thanks to the formation of the Emancipation of Labor group in Geneva, of the ideas of Marxism, as well as with the appearance in the 1880s. Marxist circles: Brusnev in Moscow, Blagoev in St. Petersburg. The members of these circles were mostly students. They studied Marxist literature and tried to explain the ideas of class struggle and social revolution to the workers. However, they performed this task poorly: propaganda was sluggish, circles did not exist for long and were opened by the police. To strengthen the work in 1895, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class", founded by V.I. Lenin with the assistance of L. Martov. He united 20 Marxist circles and established contact with the workers of St. Petersburg enterprises. In December 1896, the leaders were arrested, but the ordinary members of the organization who remained at large continued their activities.
In the late 1890s Social-democratic unions arise in the form of this organization in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Odessa, and Nikolaev. At the turn of the XIX - XX centuries. the formation of social democratic parties. First of all, they appear in the national outskirts of Russia - in Finland, Armenia, Poland. An attempt to create a Russian Social Democratic Party - the RSDLP - was made at the beginning of 1898 on the initiative of the remaining free members of the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class. But the final formalization of the RSDLP as a party took place only in 1903.
Denying the working class and the bourgeoisie freedom of relations in the field of labor contracts, tsarism inevitably took the path of state guardianship, interference "from above" in labor relations between workers and industrialists. One of the directions of such a policy was the creation of government-controlled workers' organizations. The creation of such associations was associated with the activities of the head of the Moscow Security Department S.V. Zubatov and was called the policy of "police socialism".
"Work Question" in the classical sense - the conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, caused by various economic demands on the part of the working class in the field of improving their socio-economic situation.
In Russia, the labor issue was particularly acute, as it was complicated by a special government policy aimed at state regulation of relations between workers and entrepreneurs. Bourgeois reforms of the 1860s and 70s little impact on the working class. This was a consequence of the fact that the formation of capitalist relations was still taking place in the country, the formation of the main capitalist classes had not been completed. The government also until the beginning of the 20th century refused to recognize the existence in Russia of a "special class of workers" and even more so the "labor question" in the Western European sense of it. This point of view found its justification in the 1980s. XIX century in the articles of M. N. Katkov on the pages of the Moscow Gazette, and since then has become an integral part of the general political doctrine.
"Walking to the people" - the first major action of revolutionary populism in the 1870s, undertaken in the summer of 1874
It was a spontaneous movement, although previously there were talks about its organization and coordination of forces. Several thousand propagandists took part in the movement. Basically, it was young students, inspired by the idea of M.A. Bakunin about the possibility of raising the people to a "general revolt". The impetus for the beginning of the action was the severe famine of 1873-1874. in the Middle Volga. It was there that a significant force of propagandists was sent. As the Narodniks themselves hoped, the traditions of Razin and Pugachev, the major uprisings of the peasants in 1861, who were dissatisfied with the conditions of the reform, were still alive here.
In fact, it turned out that the peasants did not support the idea of a rebellion against the tsar, they themselves handed over some propagandists to the police. In total, more than 4,000 people were arrested in 26 provinces. The Narodniks failed to find a common language with the peasants, who were mostly foreign to socialist ideas. It was concluded that planned, systematic propaganda should be carried out in the countryside, for which the Narodniks, under the guise of teachers, doctors, and artisans, settled in the countryside. This "second going to the people" in the form of permanent settlements was also unsuccessful. A certain result was achieved among the workers who temporarily came to the factories from the countryside. So it was possible to attract A. Zhelyabov, S. Khalturin to the populist movement.
"Black redistribution" (1879 - 1882) - populist organization headed by G.V. Plekhanov (it also included P.B. Akselrod, P.G. Deutsch, Ya.V. Stefanovich and others).
It was formed after the split of "Land and Freedom" in 1879. Members of the organization declared their rejection of the tactics of individual terror and set the goal of "propaganda among the people" in order to prepare an "agrarian revolution." The views of the organizers of the "Black Redistribution" in this did not differ fundamentally from the views of the peasants, and the program largely repeated the program provisions of "Land and Freedom". The group carried out propaganda mainly among workers, students, and the military. In organizational terms, it was built on the principle of a “federation of circles”. The main part of the organization (up to 40 people) was located in St. Petersburg. Provincial circles existed in Moscow, Kazan, Kyiv, Kharkov.
In 1879, the organization had its own printing house, but almost immediately the police became aware of it, and arrests began. Plekhanov emigrated abroad with a small group of Black Peredelites. After the assassination of Alexander II and the defeat of Narodnaya Volya, the persecution intensified. Attempts to continue propaganda in the village ended in failure and led to more arrests. After 1882, the "Black Repartition" broke up into small independent circles. Some of them joined the "Narodnaya Volya", the rest ceased to exist. In general, "Black Repartition" did not play significant role in the populist movement, however, a number of its members, headed by G.V. Plekhanov in 1883 in exile, in Geneva, organized the Emancipation of Labor group, which greatly contributed to the spread of Marxism in Russia.
"South Russian Union of Workers" (1875) - a labor organization founded in 1875 in Odessa by a former student, a professional revolutionary E. Zaslavsky.
The first workers' organizations take shape in the 1970s. XIX century. The core of the organization consisted of 50-60 workers, divided into 5-7 circles. They were joined by up to 200 workers. The charter of the organization was adopted. He envisaged the idea of liberating workers from the oppression of capital, the need to "unify the workers of the South Russian Territory." Revolution was actually declared as a means of achieving these goals. The union lasted less than a year, already in December 1875 it was identified by the police and all the leaders were arrested, after a trial 15 of its leaders were sentenced to hard labor.
In Russia itself, almost simultaneously with the Emancipation of Labor group, in 1883 a student of St. Petersburg University, Dimitar Blagoev, founded the first social democratic organization. Uniting mainly students of the university, technological and forestry institutes in order to promote the ideas of socialism among the workers. The group called themselves "Party of Russian Social Democrats". From 1885, she established close contacts with the Emancipation of Labor group and announced the recognition of the second draft of her program. For 3 years of their activity, the members of the group created 15 working circles for conducting classes on the basics of natural science, history, culture, political economy and scientific socialism. With the goal of educating the workers as conscious fighters for liberation from political and economic oppression, the group published two issues of the newspaper Rabochy. In the second issue of the newspaper, an article by G.V. Plekhanov "Modern Tasks of the Russian Workers" (a letter to the St. Petersburg workers' circles) and other materials imbued with the idea of creating a single Social Democratic Labor Party.
In 1885–1888 Petersburg, another social-democratic group was also active - "Association of St. Petersburg craftsmen", created by P.V.Tochissky to raise the material, intellectual and moral level of workers. Members of the group, including workers V.A. Shelgunov, E.A. Klimanov (Afanasiev), I.I. Timofeev, V.V. Buyanov and others, conducted revolutionary propaganda at the largest enterprises of St. Petersburg beyond the Nevsky Zastava, on Vasilyevsky Island, in the workshops of the St. Petersburg-Warsaw railway. Paying mainly attention to cultural and educational activities, they at the same time promoted socialist ideas, arguing with the populists.
The process of creating Social Democratic groups and circles embraced the industrial centers and a number of national suburbs of Russia. In total, during this period, about 60 social democratic circles and organizations operated in 24 provinces (there were more than 50 in total). Among them are the Fedoseev circles in the Volga region, Y. Melnikov's circles in Ukraine, the Proletariat party in Poland, headed by L. Varynsky, social democratic circles in Vilnius, Minsk, Rostov-on-Don, Tiflis, Gomel, and others.
M.I. Brusnev. The organization was predominantly labor in composition and called itself "Workers' Union" although it also included representatives of the intelligentsia and students. The group set as its main goal the training of developed and conscious social democrats from the working environment.
The social democratic circles that existed in Russia in the 1980s and early 1990s, although they had contacts with each other, acted mainly in isolation, paying the main attention to political studies and the cultural development of a narrow circle of class-conscious workers. Being under constant police control, they could not work for a long time. And yet they played a big role in the formation of Russian social democracy, and other social movements in Russia. The foundations of the theory and program of the Social Democratic Party were laid.
By the 90s. populism basically evolved from revolutionary-democratic to moderate-liberal. Narodniks put forward reform programs during this period, still believing in the special historical destiny of the Russian people. They considered it necessary to improve the condition of the peasantry, called for the reorganization of the Peasants' Bank, the introduction of cheap credit, etc.
The theoretical activity of Russian Marxists was inseparable from practical work. To replace the circles defeated by the secret police arise new social democratic organizations: "Workers' Union" in Moscow (1894), St. Petersburg "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class"(1895), organizations in Tula, Ivanovo-Voznesensk, Kostroma, Samara, Kyiv, Yekaterinoslavl, in Transcaucasia. In Vilna, in 1892, the Bund (“General Jewish Workers' Union in Lithuania, Poland and Russia”) was formed, in Warsaw - the Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland (1893).
At this time, the Social Democrats in their activities are moving from propaganda among a narrow stratum of active workers to agitation among the broad masses. This work was first Russian Empire began the Polish Social Democrats, and then organizations in Lithuania and Belarus, Moscow and St. Petersburg. One of the most powerful and influential social democratic organizations was the St. Petersburg Union of Struggle. His leadership included V.I. Lenin, Yu.O. Martov, A.N. Potresov, A.A. Vaneev, P.K. Zaporozhets, G.M. Krzhizhanovsky, A.L. Malchenko, S.I. Radchenko and others. The fate of these people was different: some went with Lenin to the end, others turned into ideological opponents of the Bolsheviks and did not accept the October Revolution.
The "Union" was a citywide, strictly centralized organization. At the head of it was the leading center - the citywide committee. He directed the work of three district links and 20-30 working circles. The "Union of Struggle" operated on the principles of strict secrecy, firm discipline and a clear distribution of functions. Members of the Union of Struggle held discussions in workers' circles, issued leaflets, and led strikes. There were constant contacts with the workers of 70 enterprises. Proclamations of a general political content were published: "Working holiday on May 1", "Address of St. Petersburg workers to French workers" (on the 25th anniversary of the Paris Commune). The newspaper Rabocheye Delo was prepared for publication, although it was not possible to publish it in connection with the arrests.
The growing scope of the labor movement, new organizational tasks and new phenomena in the economy and politics inevitably caused serious discussions in the ranks of Russian Marxists. These disputes were also stimulated by the speeches of one of the leaders of the German Social Democracy, a student and ally of Marx and Engels, E. Bernstein. He called for the development of society, the accumulation of new knowledge about it, to "revise" Marxism, promoted a phased reformist path of the proletariat to the socialist future, putting forward the slogan "movement is everything, the ultimate goal is nothing." The presence of different approaches to the questions of the relationship between spontaneity and consciousness in the labor movement, the economic and political struggle, the role of revolutionary theory, the essence and purpose of the political party itself was revealed. Started back in the 80s. differentiation in the Russian social-democratic movement deepened more and more. Two main directions were clearly identified: revolutionary and reformist, although each of them had its own shades. In the second half of the 90s. Three trends emerged among Russian Marxists: "legal Marxists", "Economists", and orthodox (revolutionary) Marxists.
"Legal Marxists" (Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky), taking in general economic theory Marxism, did not agree with his political and philosophical positions on the role of the revolution, the essence of the state, the inevitability of the socialist revolution P.B. Struve at the beginning of the 20th century. moved to the positions of bourgeois liberalism, gradually taking more and more right-wing positions. ON THE. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov eventually came to a complete rejection of Marxism in its materialistic shell and became the ideologists of the famous Russian idealism.
In the mid 90s. "economism" is formed. Its ideologists were E.D. Kuskova, S.N. Prokopovich and others. They strongly spoke out for the priority of economic agitation, for reforms. As an ideological trend, Economism was not homogeneous. He was characterized by a wide range of shades: from the enthusiasm of some of his supporters for the ideas of bourgeois reformism to direct merging with anarchism. In the press - the newspaper Rabochaya Mysl, the journal Rabocheye Delo, in the program document Credo - the "economists" made calls for political support for the liberals, for the protection of the professional interests of the workers.
Under these conditions, the Social Democrats of St. Petersburg, Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Kiev, Yekaterinoslav, Kharkov, Vilna, and the Union of Russian Social Democrats abroad began active preparations for the creation of a party. The Kiev Social Democratic group took the initiative to convene the party congress. The main goal was to unite individual social democratic organizations into a party. The congress delegates were representatives of four "Unions of Struggle" (St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Yekaterinoslav), representatives of the Bund and the "Workers' newspaper", created to prepare for the congress.
The congress worked on March 1-3, 1898 in Minsk. A unanimous decision was made to merge the Unions of Struggle, the Rabochaya Gazeta group and the Bund into a single organization. The discussion unfolded on the question of the name of the party. The options "Russian Social Democratic Party", "Russian Workers' Party", "Russian Workers' Union" were discussed. By five votes to four, the congress approved the name - "Russian Social Democratic Party". The term "working" was included in its name when drawing up the party manifesto with the consent of two members of the Central Committee. Discussing the question of attitudes towards the Polish Socialist Party (PPS), the congress spoke in favor of recognizing the right of nations to self-determination. The congress delegates also listened to reports from the localities, paying serious attention to the issues of transition from circle propaganda to mass agitation. Organized principles for building a new party were also determined. The congress elected a Central Committee of three members: S.I. Radchenko, V.L. Eidelman, A.I. Kremer - and declared Rabochaya Gazeta the official organ. S.I. Radchenko and A.I. Kremer was instructed to organize the compilation, publication and distribution of the Manifesto, which set out general principles the activities of the party and its tasks. According to V.I. Lenin, all the documents of the congress were based on the program of the Emancipation of Labor group. The work of the First Congress aroused considerable interest among Social-Democrats in almost all groups of European countries. At international socialist congresses and in the executive bodies of the Second International, the Social Democrats of Russia now began to speak as representatives of the RSDLP.
The First Congress of the RSDLP became an important milestone in the history of the creation of the Social Democratic Party, a natural stage in the development of the Russian labor movement. In the historical literature, there is still no unambiguous assessment of the results of the work and the significance of this congress. He was a product of his time. Social democracy in this period was still being formed. Tendencies of ideological and organizational disunity were quite strong in its ranks. There were no recognized theoreticians of the Social Democratic movement at the congress itself. Owing to these circumstances, in the decisions of the congress the questions of the party's attitude to the agrarian, national question were omitted, state structure Russia, about the future allies of the proletariat. The congress did not adopt either a program or a party charter. The ideological and organized disunity in the ranks of the Social Democracy persisted after the congress.
Early 20th century in Russia marked by a powerful upsurge of the labor movement. In 1900–1903 a wave of large demonstrations and strikes of workers swept through many industrial centers. These events showed that the proletariat in Russia had become a large and independent social force, led by the intelligentsia. During this period, the Iskra newspaper played an important role. She came out under the guidance of V.I. Lenin, was published abroad and illegally transported to Russia, where it was distributed in underground circles and among workers. In 1903, the Second Congress of the RSDLP met (first in Brussels, and then in London). He adopted the party program, in which the immediate tasks were defined - the overthrow of the autocracy, the establishment of democratic republic(minimum program), as well as the ultimate goal of the struggle - the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat (maximum program). During the discussion of the clause of the statute on membership in the party, a split occurred. The majority of votes were received by L. Martov's proposal on the sufficiency of "personal assistance" to the party organization, as opposed to the wording of V.I. Lenin about the obligatory "personal participation" in the work of the party organization. In the elections to the central bodies of the party, Lenin's supporters received a majority of votes, which from that time began to be called "Bolsheviks", and their ideological opponents in the RSDLP - "Mensheviks".
Thus, the complex socio-economic structure of Russia has led to an extraordinary alignment of forces in the socio-political arena. In Western Europe, during the replacement of feudalism by capitalism, the nationwide struggle against absolutism was led by the bourgeoisie with its slogans of political freedoms, the establishment of a republic, or the limitation of the power of the monarch by legislative acts. Something else happened in Russia. Three main political camps began an irreconcilable struggle in it: liberal, government and revolutionary-democratic. The inability of their ideologists to compromise threatened the country in the future with serious shocks. Russian Revolution 1905-1907 refers to the number of late bourgeois revolutions. So, from the English revolution of the XVII century. it was separated by more than 250 years, from Great French - more than a century, and from the European revolutions of 1848-1858. - 50 plus years. Moreover, the bourgeois revolution in Russia was different from its predecessors in the West. This was due primarily to the fact that the level of its development by the beginning of the 20th century, the sharpness of class contradictions and the degree of maturity of the proletariat were higher than in Western countries on the eve of the first bourgeois revolutions. Being bourgeois in its objective content, the Russian revolution of 1905-1907. united two social wars - the struggle against the remnants of feudalism and the struggle between labor and capital. At the same time, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the European revolutions was rather episodic, while in Russia the working class by 1905 was a completely independent political force.
