Monument
A notable feature of Maslov’s reasoning should be recognized as the lack of understanding of the meaning of fundamental concepts (theory, state ideology, party ideology), ignorance of the history of the creation of this collective work by Marxist historians of the first generation, the role of I.V. Stalin - editor and author of the second section of the fourth chapter “ On dialectical and historical materialism" (pp. 99-127).
75 years after the release of this historical monument, one can objectively assess the history of its appearance, content and influence on historical science, public consciousness, and the worldview of many generations of Soviet people. It is also necessary to understand the real goals of his discrediting after the 20th Congress by the so-called “scientific community”, which played a lackey role in relation to the authorities and was still proud of it. For some reason, this phenomenon is not taken into account when studying and assessing large groups of intelligentsia, whose position and behavior may contain elements of potential betrayal in the struggle for a “place in the sun.” It was this factor that played the main role in the reprisal of Stalin’s entire legacy after the 20th Congress, in the confiscation of extensive historical literature and, above all, the “History of the CPSU (b)”.
The multimillion-dollar circulation of the book is explained not only by propaganda, political and ideological reasons. For the first time in the country and the world, the historical, complex and heroic path of the Communist Party, its consistent policy of building socialism, and the results of the enormous creative activity of the people, freed from the shackles of exploitation and lawlessness, were outlined in a concentrated form accessible to the general public. It is no coincidence that some of the modern analysts call the period 1917-1956 the most passionate in the history of the USSR, Russia, when the potential forces of peoples in real social creativity, awakened by the October Revolution, fully manifested themselves.
And when the successes of Tsarist Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the growth of the economy, the harvest of grain are constantly being exaggerated, questions arise: what equipment did Russia fight with in the Russo-Japanese and First World Wars, why artillery shells exploded in the bores, why wounded Russian soldiers died in hospitals in greater numbers compared to English ones? And the main question: why did the army support the October Revolution? The answers to these questions were given by “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, published in 1938, on the eve of the Great Patriotic War.
The appearance of this work can also be assessed as ideological preparation for war - the aggressiveness of fascism was increasing. In a popular form, it explained what values, created during the years of Soviet power, were called upon to protect the peoples of the USSR.
It is worth mentioning several of the most important features characteristic of this historical monument, which has not yet lost its informational value and conceptual significance for the education of leaders and ordinary communists of all countries.
The book contains enormous factual material reflecting the process of development of the USSR and Russia over the twenty years of Soviet power. It contains a clearly stated concept of the history and politics of the Communist Party and the Soviet state, revealing its scientifically based content. The popular explanation to the broad masses of all stages and real results of the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution and the construction of socialism convinced the reader that sacrifices and deprivations in consumption were necessary to create the foundations of socialism, its powerful industrial base. And when fascism already really threatened Europe and directed its aspirations to the East, the country had the necessary prerequisites to repel aggression in the event of a German attack on the USSR, creating a national, independent military industry.
The most important criterion for all the achievements of the Communist Party was the victory over fascism in 1945. Then the USSR was recognized as a Great Power.
When modern historians of different directions talk about the USSR’s preparation for war, for some reason a number of important aspects of this complex process are missed. These include the formation of the Soviet state ideology, the elimination of mass illiteracy, millions of copies of newspapers, brochures, and magazines, the reading of which influenced the formation of the worldview of the Soviet citizen and patriot, the education of political culture, socialist consciousness and activity. In this regard, “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” was not only the final milestone, but also a new stage in the activities of the party, all its links in the creation of a unified party-state system of political education. All these complex processes have remained outside the scope of scientific study, although in modern conditions they retain real practical significance in relation to the activities of left parties suffering from the virus of “parliamentary fever” to the detriment of theoretical, ideological and educational work.
“History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” teaches and educates. It fosters an understanding of the importance of ideological work at all levels of party activity associated with influencing public consciousness.
The appearance of the “History of the CPSU(b)” in the form in which it happened is associated with a number of significant points that determined the purpose and content of this publication. Firstly, from the beginning of the 1920s, extensive literature was distributed in the country in which the activities of the Bolshevik Party were covered from biased positions by its opponents. The authors of these publications, pursuing political and ideological goals, created a distorted picture, disoriented not only ordinary citizens, but also party members, negatively influencing the formation of mass consciousness and the worldview of individual people. This situation was especially dangerous at the initial stage of the formation of Soviet ideology. It was necessary to overcome the influence and eliminate monarchical, liberal, petty-bourgeois, populist, Trotskyist ideas of various kinds. Their bearers were former members of organizations and movements, certain layers of the intelligentsia who enjoyed a low level of literacy among the population.
Explaining the history and policies of the Communist Party has become a fierce battleground not only in our country, but also abroad. In Europe, with the financial support of bourgeois governments, literature was created by white emigration, which fought against Soviet power. Anti-Soviet publications were distributed not only in the West, but were also transported to the USSR, turning into a tool for mobilizing anti-Soviet forces with the aim of destabilizing and overthrowing the workers’ and peasants’ government (see: “Top Secret”: Lubyanka to Stalin about the situation in the country. (1922-1934) T. 3. Part 1. 1925 - M., 2002. P. 47, 307, 418, 463, etc.).
By the mid-1930s, a new situation had arisen when real opportunities arose to create a work dedicated to the history of the party over the years of its existence. The implementation of an extensive program for the publication of historical sources, especially on the history of the party and the October Revolution, made it possible to form a factual basis for covering the history of all stages of the party’s activities. Marxist historians, trained at communist universities and the Institute of Red Professorships, could study and cover the history of the country and the party from a Marxist-Leninist position at a high scientific level.
In the mid-1930s, significant, or rather colossal, successes in socialist construction became apparent, which needed generalization, a popular explanation not only to the citizens of our country, but also to foreign figures of the communist and labor movement, leftist, educational intelligentsia in a number of European countries and America.
A notable feature of this publication was the absence of arrogance, pretentious pride, which always causes doubt and rejection of large groups of readers with different political orientations. Psychologically and didactically, the most faithful, calm and convincing tone was chosen for covering specific events and processes of world-historical significance. The entire style of presentation was determined by the principle: read, study, delve into it, draw your own conclusions. In this regard, the Russians fulfilled their international duty, and in fact exercised real influence on communists around the world by promoting the ideas of Leninism about socialism.
In the 1930s, mass consciousness underwent quite radical changes. In connection with the threat of invasion, the priority tasks became confronting the ideology of Nazism, social democracy, and all types of liberalism, whose representatives often played into the hands of fascism, encouraging its active actions, including the invasion of the East. The popularly presented history of the creation of socialism in the USSR, real economic, political, social successes turned into a means of mobilizing all the forces and resources of the country to repel fascist aggression, which was then already really threatening Europe. Therefore, the publication of such a work can be assessed not only as a struggle in the global ideological space in order to protect socialist values, but also as ideological preparation to repel possible fascist aggression.
Poisoned by the anti-Soviet infection, acting in alliance with Western Sovietologists, Russian opponents of socialism and Leninism, armed with ignorance, anger, hatred and thirst for profit, participating in the robbery and duping of the masses, turned into detractors not only of Soviet power, but of the entire people. Particularly active in this were people like Yu.N. Afanasyev, A.N. Sakharov, N.N. Maslov, M.Ya. Gefter and others. Having received a university education at the expense of the people, they used their knowledge as a means of achieving goals not only Russian traitors, but also Western enemies of Russia who dream of its enslavement. Unfortunately, punishments for such acts in our country are not provided for by the Criminal Code. It's a pity!
The current situation in historical science and ideology, for various reasons, makes it relevant to turn our attention to the study of this outstanding monument of theoretical, economic, and political thought. The book not only enlightens and educates, but also instills faith in the inevitable victory of socialism in the world.
Let us turn to the analysis of the content of this great work, which, unfortunately, is underestimated even by communists, who could use it more widely in agitation and propaganda work when highlighting the achievements of Soviet power. Without the success of science and education, it is impossible to create an economic base for the further development of the country.
And this is convincingly revealed in the chapters on socialism.
In an accessible form for readers of various social groups, the book outlined the most important milestones and events in the history of Russia, starting in 1861, that is, with the abolition of serfdom. Although the reform opened the way for the development of capitalism, the growth of industry and the proletariat, feudal forms of exploitation and robbery of the people remained. It was not by chance that this prehistory was covered in collective work, since it made it possible to explain the type and essence of the contradictions between actually surviving feudal forms of dependence, the exploitation of peasants and the growth of capitalism, the growing antagonism between the owners of the means of production and the proletariat, between different groups of the population and, most importantly, between the unlimited monarchy semi-feudal power and robbed, disenfranchised, illiterate people.
Under these conditions, the proletariat was formed as a “class for itself.” Various forms of collective protest appeared (more than 48 strikes involving 80 thousand people in 1881-1886) (p. 9).
Already in 1875, workers' organizations emerged - the Northern and Southern Workers' Unions. Objective conditions were created for the spread of Marxism in various organizational forms: the “Emancipation of Labor” group of G.V. Plekhanov and others (pp. 14-17). Such facts made it possible to clarify that V.I. Lenin and Leninism arose in specific Russian historical conditions, when the scientific ideas of the struggle of the proletariat and its alliance with the peasantry received theoretical understanding in Lenin’s works. They determined the content of all activities of the Social Democratic Party.
The first chapter examines in detail the various forms of organization of the proletariat, the role of the party press (Iskra) in uniting disparate Marxist organizations and workers' unions into a single party (p. 26).
Special sections within the chapters highlight issues of theoretical and organizational preparation for the creation of a party, analysis and assessment of various forms of proletarian struggle (“Obukhov defense”, political strikes in the Caucasus, Ukraine, etc.) (pp. 27-28). These numerous facts convince the reader that all the activities of the RSDLP, since 1903, were organically connected with the development of the labor movement and the growth of peasant protest in the countryside. The same chapter covers in detail Lenin’s principles of creating a party, the means of its ideological and organizational unity (p. 33), the need for a systematic struggle against the opponents of Marxism, with all “obstacles on the path to socialism” (p. 36).
Modern historians and politicians, not poisoned by the poison of liberalism and false democracy, getting acquainted with these sections of the “History of the CPSU (b)”, understand not only the essence of that distant era, but also get the opportunity to extend the principles of this analysis to the facts and processes of our time. The existence of many small communist parties, the lack of clear ideas about the current state of the country - industry, agriculture, the working class, the protest movement, petty-bourgeois nationalism - are destroying the common front of the struggle. Some communists and socialists of various stripes turned into multi-colored opportunists. Without knowing modern Russia, the social structure and type of social connections, the real “support points,” they proceed from separate, disparate, and sometimes extremely contradictory facts. The Leninist principles of a comprehensive study of events throughout the country are often violated; there are no theoretical assessments necessary for the development of scientifically based strategies and tactics, and effective practical actions. Many who call themselves communists have long stopped reading the works of K. Marx and F. Engels, V. I. Lenin and I. V. Stalin, even such a popular publication as “History of the CPSU (b)”. This means that entire areas of knowledge disappear from the consciousness of party members - the theory of social development, strategy and tactics of struggle and, most importantly, an understanding of the importance of studying historical experience, its real content and role. That is why we pay attention to this work, which helps us understand and evaluate the patterns of modern class struggle, since we live in the conditions of gangster capitalism with all its “charms” and “achievements” of thieves-oligarchs, bribe-taking officials and ideologues-scoundrels who help rob the people .
In modern conditions, not only the first (I-VII) chapters of this wonderful work are relevant, but also those that relate to the building of socialism - from 1927 to the mid-1930s. A fastidious reader may ask: do we, in our conditions, need knowledge about how our grandfathers created a new society? It doesn't take much knowledge to explain this question. The process of creating a new system contains certain general principles of formation, protection, and management of complex social systems and subsystems.
Let us turn to the text of the following (VIII-XII) chapters. Let us list the sequence of the main stages of the party's policy and the results obtained then. Chapter VIII - protection of conquests from counter-revolution and foreign intervention. The answer to the question about the factors of victory over the combined forces of the Anglo-French-Japanese-Polish intervention and the bourgeois-landowner White Guard counter-revolution is contained at the end of the chapter. “The first military attack of international capital on the country of socialism ended in its complete collapse.” Why? The Bolshevik Party raised "workers and peasants in a patriotic war against foreign invaders and the bourgeois-landowner counter-revolution." And further: “The Soviet Republic and its Red Army are defeating the proxies of the Entente one after another... repulsing, expelling its troops from the borders of the Soviet country” (p. 236).
The following chapters highlight the main stages of the economic policy of the Communist Party. Its main features were determined by a clearly stated goal with an understanding of the real situation in industry, agriculture, relations between classes, the most important political processes, confrontation between the authorities and the opposition, the nature of the internal party struggle...
The content of the chapters allows you to see the sequence determined by the logic of the development of events, the complexity of the approach to the most complex tasks. Their progress made it possible to achieve specific results, which are reflected in the conclusions of each chapter. Restoration of the national economy in 1921-1925 (Chapter IX), the struggle for socialist industrialization (Chapter X), collectivization of agriculture in 1930-1934 (Chapter XI), completion of the construction of the foundations of socialism and the adoption of the new Constitution of the USSR (1935- 1937) (Chapter XII).
This successive change in the stages of the party’s policy reflected a clear understanding of the real situation in the country. Based on this, strategy and tactics were developed, comprehensive programs for solving the intended problems, and means were allocated to solve them. The policy of the Bolsheviks was devoid of any subjectivity or the influence of individual leaders, since it was the result of collective thinking and action, in the development of which, along with politicians, economists, sociologists, lawyers and others from the Communist Academy took part. It existed from 1918 to 1936. And it was the main center of social science knowledge in the country, actively participating in the creation and implementation of all significant programs: from the first Soviet Constitution to the USSR Constitution of 1936, in planning the national economy, studying and regulating social-class and national relations, Soviet construction, international relations, including the study of modern history and other issues. After the liquidation of the Communist Academy, its divisions and specialists moved to the USSR Academy of Sciences, which began to perform the same advisory functions. Unfortunately, from the mid-1950s they began to decline noticeably, and in the 1970s and 80s they completely disappeared in many areas, giving way to subjectivism, voluntarism and the arbitrariness of ignorant leaders and their consultants.
We needed an excursion into the past in order to explain the changing role of science in relation to social practice, which was losing its scientific foundations, turning into a chain of ill-conceived innovations and theoretical errors. They manifested themselves in the rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its replacement by a state of the whole people, in the liquidation of the MTS, in various kinds of fictions about public property, in the facts of the revision of the Marxist-Leninist theory of the world historical process and others.
The principles of the policy of the Communist Party, set out in the conclusions of the “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, began to be violated. They summarized the experience of the revolutionary party and the most important requirements of the country's leadership. For the successful struggle of the proletariat, they noted “the need for a new party, a militant party, a revolutionary party, bold enough to lead the proletarians in the struggle for power, experienced enough to understand the complex revolutionary situation, and flexible enough to get around everything and all sorts of pitfalls on the way to the goal” (p. 338).
The second condition is mastery of Marxist-Leninist theory, which “gives the party the opportunity to navigate the situation, understand the internal connection of surrounding events, foresee the course of events and recognize not only how and where events are developing in the present, but also how and where they should develop in the future..." (P. 339).
The third conclusion relates to another condition for the party’s successful activity: “the defeat of the petty-bourgeois parties operating in the ranks of the working class, pushing the backward layers of the working class into the arms of the bourgeoisie” (p. 343).
The fourth condition for victory is “an irreconcilable struggle against opportunists in one’s own ranks” with the goal of “preserving unity and discipline in one’s own ranks” (p. 343).
Fifth, the party has no right to get carried away by successes, become arrogant, or not notice shortcomings. She is obliged to admit her mistakes and “correct them openly and honestly” in time (p. 345).
Sixth, the party must “constantly strengthen connections with the masses”, “listen to the voice of the masses and understand their urgent needs” (p. 345).
Section 2 of Chapter IV, “On dialectical and historical materialism,” deserves close attention. For that time, the late 1930s, this section acquired special significance for several reasons.
In science and propaganda at that time, sufficiently objective and stable ideas about the complex content of Marxist-Leninist philosophy had not yet been formed; there was no popular explanation of it, accessible to the broad masses of communists. Taking this into account, Stalin’s presentation of the foundations of Marxism should be recognized as arch-relevant, in demand not only by the party education system, but by many specialists in various fields of knowledge, far from the theory of social development.
Marxists of subsequent times often accused Stalin of primitivism, misunderstanding and ignorance of important problems. However, these reproaches appeared after 1956, that is, after the 20th Congress, when the fashion came to attribute all mortal sins to Stalin. Often these statements by “critics” were ahistorical, subjectivist, and sometimes paranoid.
It should be taken into account that in the 1930s there were few educated specialists in the field of Marxism-Leninism in the country, and a system of knowledge related to understanding, teaching and promoting the foundations of scientific theory had not yet been formed. In addition, as V.I. Lenin believed, Marxism is quite difficult to master. To this we can add unconventionality, novelty of approaches, fundamentality of both the content and the new conceptual apparatus. They demanded new principles for the popularization of difficult-to-understand ideas, which were then absent. From this point of view, Stalin’s section was not only innovative, but to some extent experimental, since such texts did not appear in any textbook on the history of the party of those and subsequent years.
It was simply and clearly explained why communists should know the basics of Marxism. “...Dialectical and historical materialism constitute the theoretical foundation of communism, the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party, and knowledge of these foundations and, therefore, their assimilation is the responsibility of every active figure in our party” (p. 99). Stalin explains why this worldview is called dialectical materialism: “...Because his approach to natural phenomena, his method of studying natural phenomena, his method of knowing these phenomena is dialectical, and his interpretation of natural phenomena, his theory is materialistic” (C 99-100).
Next comes an explanation of the content of materialism. “Historical materialism is the extension of the tenets of dialectical materialism to the study of social life, the application of the tenets of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of social life, to the study of society, to the study of the history of society” (p. 100).
Noting the differences between Marx’s dialectics from the Hegelian understanding, from metaphysics (four features are highlighted), Stalin concludes these discussions with the conclusion about the importance of the dialectical method for understanding social life and applying these principles “to the practical activities of the party of the proletariat” (p. 104).
The second problem that has received equally significant attention is Marxist philosophical materialism. It is the opposite of idealism. “In contrast to idealism,” the book says, “which asserts that only our consciousness really exists, that the material world, being, nature exists only in our consciousness, in our sensations, ideas, concepts, Marxist philosophical materialism proceeds from the fact that matter, nature, being represents an objective reality that exists outside and independently of consciousness, that matter is primary, since it is the source of sensations, ideas, consciousness, and consciousness is secondary, derivative, since it is a reflection of matter, a reflection of being, that thinking is a product of matter that has reached a high degree of perfection in its development, namely, a product of the brain, and the brain is an organ of thinking...” (pp. 106-107).
Further, the idea is substantiated that with the advent of Marxism, “the study of the history of society turns into a science” capable of exploring and explaining the laws of social development, drawing practical conclusions from these laws, and explaining that “socialism from a dream about a better future for humanity turns into a science” ( P. 109).
If our false democrats and neoliberals declare all these ideas to be delusions, myth-making and mythology, then why are they so afraid of them. Why is it prohibited to distribute them in our country, Marxist literature is destroyed, and ignorant slander is spreading.
In presenting the main features of dialectical and historical materialism, scientific objectivity was preserved; logical and political models fashionable in the West, which modern Marxists persistently use in their assessments of the “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)”, were not used. However, despite all their efforts, this book remains a remarkable monument to Marxist thought, a reliable means of protecting the interests of the masses in their struggle for a better future. It is not obscurantism, ignorance, lies and slander that ultimately determine the progress of society, but science, its real achievements in the study, explanation, and promotion of advanced ideas.
Stalin characterized all the conditions for the successful activity of the Bolsheviks noted in the “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” as “the key to the invincibility of the Bolshevik leadership” (Stalin I.V. Soch. T. 14. - M., 1997. P. 185), assessing them in the Conclusion in the form of “the main lessons of the historical path traversed by the Bolshevik party” (p. 346).
It is natural to raise the question: how outdated are the basic principles for their use by communists in modern conditions, why are they sometimes ignored in the specific situation of the 21st century. The natural answer to the first question is: no, they are not outdated.
In the second, the traditions and principles of real revolutionary struggle have been forgotten, new ideas have not been created to replace those that do not work in modern conditions, when a new strategy and tactics of mobilizing the masses to repel anti-people policies is in demand.
Even within the framework of compliance with modern constitutional, civil and criminal law, communists do not use all opportunities to weaken Russophobic propaganda, nationalist views that displace real patriotism and citizenship, and do not sufficiently resist attempts to destroy national culture, language, life, family, Russian literature and other forms of artistic creativity , weakly protest against the liquidation of memorial museums, libraries, archives, and children's art centers.
If we evaluate the “History of the CPSU (b)” from the point of view of systemology, that is, the theory of complex organic and social systems by A.A. Bogdanov (Textology. Vol. 1-2. - M., 1989), then a number of important conclusions can be drawn. The basis of the “History of the CPSU(b)” was the theory of socialist construction, which has a number of significant features. Its basis was Marxism-Leninism, the main ideas of which were used to substantiate theoretical approaches to solving complex problems of those years. The theory developed in the process and on the basis of specific practice, which became the main tool for testing the truth of its application, taking into account the specific characteristics of each historical period. It made it possible to clearly formulate the tasks, strategy and tactics of governing the country, analyze and evaluate the development process and results. Often this happened in the form of reports at party congresses and Plenums of the Central Committee, which were addressed by I.V. Stalin (see: pp. 275-277, 296-298, 305-309, etc.).
Reproaches against Stalin about the creation of his cult during the Soviet years using the history of the party are devoid of any basis. They are built either on the ignorance of the “critics” or on malicious intent, the purpose of which is to form a false picture that does not correspond to reality in place of a complex ideological process. Most often this is the result of a primitive understanding of the essence of ideology, which was an organic part of Soviet public consciousness.
Its functions are related to the strengthening of the social system, purposeful influence on the complex spiritual processes of formation and preservation of the worldview of a particular individual. This principle exists in all countries of the world, including the USA, Germany, etc. “Enlightened minds” who often visit a great power called “USA” should know this. There, ideology plays a vital role, which they try to preserve and introduce into the consciousness of not only their citizens, but also the peoples of other countries. In this regard, “History of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks)” became a means of preventing the influence of various types of anti-Soviet forces that still remained in the USSR in the form of traitors, dissidents, and “critics.”
Even in the names of Russian parties there is uncertainty, there are no clear goals and orientation towards certain social strata, and the meaning of their activities is clear, and not always, only to their organizers. If in the West the names prevail: liberals and conservatives, democrats and republicans, socialist, communist, people's, social democratic and other parties, then in the Russian Federation: “Democratic Choice”, “Unity”, “Our Home is Russia”, “Our choice”, “Motherland”, “Fatherland - all Russia”, “United Russia”, “Fair Russia”, “Civic Platform”... In these names, often composed by illiterate organizers, in the absence of clear goals, programs, ideology, which they do not understand and ignore; the approach initially laid down is one that defines a lack of perspective and a quick disappearance from the political arena. Many of them declare themselves only in election races, crawl out of their holes, promise everything to everyone, without knowing the price and the real possibilities of their implementation.
This indicates that the majority of “players” in the political arena lack basic political culture and understanding of the role of a political party in the 21st century.
It seems that the leaders of such parties and their members live on some other planet, dealing only with their own problems, without bothering to know the real situation and prospects for the development of the country, without understanding the real problems and possibilities for solving them.
And finally, the last question: about the significance of the historical experience of the Bolsheviks for other, especially left, parties that appear, disappear, rush between different poles of the modern struggle.
From studying the “History of the CPSU (b)” one can draw the most important lesson. No party can exist and work successfully in the political field without theory, without ideology, realistic goals, a clear, meaningful and consistent program, without a Charter that defines its organizational principles and interaction with other political forces, including the state and government.
The leaders and ideologists of the numerous associations that arose in Russia after 1991 do not understand the complexity of these problems. They cannot even be conventionally called parties. Initially, all these ephemeral associations are doomed to collapse and disappear from the first steps of their appearance.
We appeal to thinking and searching youth with advice: sometimes look into the wonderful monuments of past years, which include “History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks”. Short course." Then you will know the history of the construction of socialism in the USSR and will be able to defend it from attacks.
All-Union Communist Party
(Bolsheviks)
SHORT COURSE
INTRODUCTION
The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has come a long and glorious way from the first small Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the 80s of the last century to the great Bolshevik Party, which now leads the world's first socialist state of workers and peasants.
The CPSU(b) grew out of the labor movement in pre-revolutionary Russia from Marxist circles and groups that connected with the labor movement and brought socialist consciousness into it. The CPSU(b) was and is guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Its leaders, in the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.
The CPSU(b) grew and strengthened in a principled struggle with petty-bourgeois parties within the labor movement - the Socialist Revolutionaries (and even earlier with their predecessors - the populists), Mensheviks, anarchists, bourgeois nationalists of all stripes, and within the party - with the Menshevik, opportunist movements - the Trotskyists , Bukharinites, national deviationists and other anti-Leninist groups.
The CPSU(b) grew stronger and became more tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all the enemies of the working class, against all the enemies of the working people - landowners, capitalists, kulaks, saboteurs, spies, and all the mercenaries of the capitalist encirclement.
The history of the CPSU(b) is the history of three revolutions: the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905, the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917 and the socialist revolution in October 1917.
The history of the CPSU (b) is the history of the overthrow of tsarism, the overthrow of the power of landowners and capitalists, the history of the defeat of foreign armed intervention during the civil war, the history of the construction of the Soviet state and socialist society in our country.
Studying the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) enriches us with the experience of the struggle of the workers and peasants of our country for socialism.
Studying the history of the CPSU(b), studying the history of the struggle of our party against all the enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all the enemies of the working people helps take over Bolshevism, increases political vigilance.
Studying the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party equips with knowledge of the laws of social development and political struggle, knowledge of the driving forces of the revolution.
Studying the history of the CPSU (b) strengthens confidence in the final victory of the great cause of the Lenin-Stalin party, the victory of communism throughout the world.
This book briefly outlines the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).
THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CREATION OF A SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC WORKERS' PARTY IN RUSSIA
(1883-1901)
1. Abolition of serfdom and the development of industrial capitalism in Russia. The emergence of the modern industrial proletariat. The first steps of the labor movement.
Tsarist Russia entered the path of capitalist development later than other countries. Until the 60s of the last century, there were very few factories and factories in Russia. The serf-dominated economy of the noble landowners predominated. Under the serf system, industry could not truly develop. Forced serf labor resulted in low labor productivity in agriculture. The entire course of economic development pushed towards the abolition of serfdom. The tsarist government, weakened by military defeat during the Crimean campaign and intimidated by peasant “revolts” against the landowners, was forced to abolish serfdom in 1861.
But even after the abolition of serfdom, the landowners continued to oppress the peasants. The landowners robbed the peasants, taking away and cutting off from them during the “liberation” a significant part of the land that the peasants had previously used. The peasants began to call this part of the land “cuts.” The peasants were forced to pay the landowners a ransom for their “liberation” - about two billion rubles.
After the abolition of serfdom, peasants were forced to rent landowners' land under the most difficult conditions. In addition to the monetary payment for rent, the landowner often forced the peasants to cultivate a certain amount of the landowner's land with peasant tools and horses for free. This was called “works off”, “corvee labor”. Most often, the peasant was forced to pay the landowner for the rent of land in kind from the harvest in the amount of half of his harvest. This was called work "ispol".
Thus, the situation remained almost the same as under serfdom, with the only difference that now the peasant was personally free, he could not be sold or bought like a thing.
The landowners squeezed the last juice out of the backward peasant economy using various predatory methods (rent, fines). The majority of the peasantry, due to the oppression of the landowners, could not improve their farming. Hence the extreme backwardness of agriculture in pre-revolutionary Russia, which led to frequent crop failures and famines.
The remnants of serfdom, huge taxes and redemption payments to landowners, which often exceeded the profitability of peasant farming, caused ruin and impoverishment of the peasant masses, forcing peasants to leave the villages in search of work. They went to factories and factories. Factory owners received cheap labor.
Above the workers and peasants stood a whole army of police officers, police officers, gendarmes, policemen, and guards who defended the tsar, capitalists, and landowners against the working people, against the exploited. Before 1903, corporal punishment existed. Despite the abolition of serfdom, peasants were flogged with rods for the slightest offense, for failure to pay taxes. Workers were beaten by police and Cossacks, especially during strikes, when workers stopped work, unable to withstand the oppression of factory owners. Workers and peasants had no political rights in Tsarist Russia. The tsarist autocracy was the worst enemy of the people.
Tsarist Russia was a prison of nations. Numerous non-Russian peoples of Tsarist Russia were completely without rights and were constantly subjected to all kinds of humiliation and insults. The tsarist government taught the Russian population to view the indigenous peoples of the national regions as an inferior race, officially called them “foreigners,” and instilled contempt and hatred for them. The tsarist government deliberately incited national hatred, set one people against another, organized Jewish pogroms and Tatar-Armenian massacres in Transcaucasia.
In the national regions, all or almost all government positions were occupied by Russian officials. All cases in institutions and in courts were conducted in Russian. It was forbidden to publish newspapers and books in national languages, and schools were prohibited from teaching in their native language. The tsarist government sought to stifle any manifestation of national culture and pursued a policy of forced “Russification” of non-Russian nationalities. Tsarism acted as an executioner and tormentor of non-Russian peoples.
After the abolition of serfdom, the development of industrial capitalism in Russia proceeded quite quickly, despite the remnants of serfdom that still delayed this development. In 25 years, from 1865 to 1890, the number of workers in large factories, factories and railways alone increased from 706 tons to 1,433 thousand, that is, more than doubling.
Capitalist large-scale industry began to develop even faster in Russia in the 90s. By the end of the 90s, the number of workers in large factories and factories, in the mining industry, and on railways in only 50 provinces of European Russia increased to 2,207 thousand, and throughout Russia - to 2,792 thousand.
It was a modern industrial proletariat, radically different from the factory workers of the serf period and the workers of small, handicraft and all other industries, both in its unity in large capitalist enterprises and in its fighting revolutionary qualities.
The industrial boom of the 90s was associated primarily with increased railway construction. Over the decade (1890-1900), over 21 thousand miles of new railway tracks were built. The railways required a huge amount of metal (for rails, locomotives, wagons), and required more and more fuel, coal and oil. This led to the development of metallurgy and the fuel industry.
As in all capitalist countries, in pre-revolutionary Russia the years of industrial growth were followed by years of industrial crises and industrial stagnation, which hit the working class hard and doomed hundreds of thousands of workers to unemployment and poverty.
Although the development of capitalism after the abolition of serfdom in Russia proceeded quite quickly, Russia still lagged far behind other capitalist countries in its economic development. The vast majority of the population was still engaged in agriculture. In his famous book “The Development of Capitalism in Russia,” Lenin cited important figures from the general population census carried out in 1897. It turned out that about five-sixths of the total population were employed in agriculture, while only about one-sixth of the population was employed in large and small industry, trade, railway and water transport, construction, forestry, and so on.
This shows that Russia, despite the development of capitalism in it, was an agrarian country, economically backward, a petty-bourgeois country, that is, one in which small-proprietary, unproductive individual peasant farming still predominated.
The development of capitalism took place not only in the city, but also in the countryside. The peasantry, the largest class in pre-revolutionary Russia, was disintegrating and stratifying. In the village, among the wealthiest peasants, the kulak elite, the village bourgeoisie, stood out, and, on the other hand, many peasants went bankrupt, the number of poor peasants, village proletarians and semi-proletarians increased. The number of middle peasants decreased every year.
In 1903, there were about 10 million peasant households in Russia. In his pamphlet “To the Village Poor,” Lenin calculated that of this number of households there were no less than three and a half million households horseless peasants These poor peasant households usually sown a small piece of land, handed over the rest of the land to the kulaks, and they themselves went to work. In terms of their position, the poorest peasants were closest to the proletariat. Lenin called them village proletarians or semi-proletarians.
On the other hand, one and a half million rich, kulak peasant households (out of a total of 10 million) took into their hands half of all peasant crops. This peasant bourgeoisie grew rich, oppressing the poor and middle peasantry, profiting from the labor of farm laborers and day laborers and turning into agricultural capitalists.
Already in the 70s and especially the 80s of the last century, the working class in Russia began to awaken and began to fight the capitalists. The situation of workers in tsarist Russia was unusually difficult. In the 80s, the working day in factories was at least 12.5 hours, and in the textile industry it reached 14-15 hours. Exploitation of female and child labor was widespread. Children worked the same hours as adults, but, like women, received significantly lower wages. Wages were prohibitively low. Most of the workers received 7-8 rubles a month. The highest paid workers in metalworking and foundry factories received no more than 35 rubles per month. There were no labor protections, which led to widespread injury and death of workers. There was no insurance for workers, medical care was provided only for a fee. Living conditions were unusually difficult. 10-12 workers lived in small “closets” and workers’ barracks. Factory owners often shortchanged workers, forced them to buy food at exorbitant prices in their owners' shops, and robbed workers through fines.
The workers began to conspire among themselves and jointly present demands to the owner of the factory to improve their unbearable situation. They quit work, that is, they declared a strike, a strike. The first strikes in the 70s and 80s usually arose due to exorbitant fines, cheating, deception when paying workers, and price reductions.
During the first strikes, the workers, driven out of patience, sometimes broke machines, broke windows in factory premises, and destroyed their owners' shops and offices.
Advanced workers began to understand that to successfully fight the capitalists they needed organization. Workers' unions began to appear.
In 1875, the South Russian Union of Workers was organized in Odessa. This first workers' organization lasted 8-9 months, then was destroyed by the tsarist government.
In St. Petersburg in 1878, the “Northern Union of Russian Workers” was organized, headed by the carpenter Khalturin and the mechanic Obnorsky. The program of this union stated that in its tasks it was aligned with the social-democratic workers' parties of the West. The ultimate goal of the union was to carry out a socialist revolution - “the overthrow of the existing political and economic system of the state, as an extremely unjust system.” One of the organizers of the union, Obnorsky, lived abroad for some time, where he became acquainted with the activities of Marxist social democratic parties and the First International, led by Marx. This left its mark on the program of the Northern Union of Russian Workers. This union set its immediate goal to win political freedom and political rights for the people (freedom of speech, press, right of assembly, and so on). Among the immediate demands was also a limitation of the working day.
The number of members of the union reached 200 people, and the same number of sympathizers. The union began to take part in workers' strikes and led them. The tsarist government also crushed this workers' union.
But the labor movement continued to grow, covering more and more new areas; the 80s gave a large number of strikes. During the five-year period (1881-1886) there were more than 48 strikes with 80 thousand striking workers.
Of particular importance in the history of the revolutionary movement was the big strike that broke out in 1885 at Morozov’s factory in Orekhovo-Zuevo.
About 8 thousand workers worked at this factory. Working conditions worsened every day: from 1882 to 1884, wages were reduced five times, and in 1884, prices were immediately reduced by one quarter, that is, by 25 percent. But, in addition, the manufacturer Morozov tortured the workers with fines. As it turned out in court after the strike, from every ruble earned, under the guise of fines, 30 to 50 kopecks were taken from the worker in favor of the manufacturer. The workers could not stand this robbery and went on strike in January 1885. The strike was organized in advance. It was led by the advanced worker Pyotr Moiseenko, who was previously a member of the Northern Union of Russian Workers and already had revolutionary experience. On the eve of the strike, Moiseenko, together with other most conscious weavers, developed a number of demands for the manufacturer, which were approved at a secret meeting of workers. First of all, the workers demanded an end to extortionate fines.
This strike was suppressed by armed force. More than 600 workers were arrested, several dozen of them were put on trial.
Similar strikes took place in 1885 at factories in Ivanovo-Voznesensk.
The following year, the tsarist government, frightened by the growth of the labor movement, was forced to issue a law on fines. This law stated that fine money should not go into the pocket of the manufacturer, but for the needs of the workers themselves.
From the experience of the Morozov and other strikes, the workers realized that they could achieve a lot through organized struggle. The labor movement began to identify from its midst capable leaders and organizers who firmly defended the interests of the working class.
At the same time, on the basis of the growth of the labor movement and under the influence of the Western European labor movement, the first Marxist organizations began to be created in Russia.
2. Populism and Marxism in Russia. Plekhanov and his group "Emancipation of Labor". Plekhanov's fight against populism. The spread of Marxism in Russia.
Before the emergence of Marxist groups, revolutionary work in Russia was carried out by populists, who were opponents of Marxism.
The first Russian Marxist group appeared in 1883. This was the “Emancipation of Labor” group, organized by G.V. Plekhanov abroad, in Geneva, where he was forced to leave from persecution by the tsarist government for revolutionary activities.
Before this, Plekhanov himself was a populist. Having become acquainted with Marxism in emigration, he broke with populism and became an outstanding propagandist of Marxism.
The Liberation of Labor group did a lot of work to spread Marxism in Russia. She translated the works of Marx and Engels into Russian: “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, “Wage Labor and Capital”, “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science” and others, published them abroad and began to secretly distribute them in Russia. G.V. Plekhanov, Zasulich, Axelrod and other members of this group also wrote a number of works in which they explained the teachings of Marx and Engels, explained the ideas scientific socialism.
Marx and Engels, the great teachers of the proletariat, in contrast to the utopian socialists, were the first to explain that socialism is not an invention of dreamers (utopians), but a necessary result of the development of modern capitalist society. They showed that the capitalist system will fall in the same way as the serfdom fell, that capitalism itself creates its own gravedigger in the person of the proletariat. They showed that only the class struggle of the proletariat, only the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie will save humanity from capitalism, from exploitation.
Marx and Engels taught the proletariat to be aware of their strengths, to be aware of their class interests and to unite for a decisive struggle against the bourgeoisie. Marx and Engels discovered the laws of development of capitalist society and scientifically proved that the development of capitalist society and the class struggle in it must inevitably lead to the fall of capitalism, to the victory of the proletariat, to dictatorship of the proletariat.
Marx and Engels taught that it is impossible to get rid of the power of capital and transform capitalist property into public property peacefully, that the working class can achieve this only by using revolutionary violence against the bourgeoisie, by proletarian revolution, by establishing its political dominance - the dictatorship of the proletariat, which must suppress the resistance of the exploiters and create a new, classless communist society.
Marx and Engels taught that the industrial proletariat is the most revolutionary and therefore the most advanced class of capitalist society, that only a class like the proletariat can gather around itself all the forces dissatisfied with capitalism and lead them to storm capitalism. But in order to defeat the old world and create a new classless society, the proletariat must have its own workers' party, which Marx and Engels called the communist party.
The first Russian Marxist group, Plekhanov’s “Emancipation of Labor” group, began to spread the views of Marx and Engels.
The Emancipation of Labor group raised the banner of Marxism in the Russian foreign press at a time when there was no Social Democratic movement in Russia. It was necessary, first of all, to pave the way for this movement theoretically and ideologically. The main ideological obstacle to the spread of Marxism and the Social Democratic movement at that time was the populist views that then prevailed among the advanced workers and revolutionary-minded intelligentsia.
With the development of capitalism in Russia, the working class became a powerful progressive force, capable of organized revolutionary struggle. But the Narodniks did not understand the leading role of the working class. Russian populists mistakenly believed that the main revolutionary force was not the working class, but the peasantry, and that the power of the tsar and landowners could be overthrown through peasant “revolts” alone. The Narodniks did not know the working class and did not understand that without an alliance with the working class and without its leadership, the peasants alone would not be able to defeat tsarism and the landowners. The populists did not understand that the working class is the most revolutionary and most advanced class of society.
The populists first tried to rouse the peasants to fight against the tsarist government. For this purpose, the revolutionary intelligent youth, dressed in peasant clothes, moved to the village - “to the people,” as they said then. This is where the name “populists” came from. But the peasantry did not follow them, since they did not properly know or understand the peasants. Most of the populists were arrested by the police. Then the populists decided to continue the struggle against the tsarist autocracy on their own, without the people, which led to even more serious mistakes,
The populist secret society "People's Will" began to prepare the assassination of the Tsar. On March 1, 1881, the Narodnaya Volya managed to kill Tsar Alexander II with a thrown bomb. However, this did not bring any benefit to the people. It was impossible to overthrow the tsarist autocracy by killing individuals; it was impossible to destroy the class of landowners. In place of the murdered tsar, another appeared - Alexander III, under whom life became even worse for the workers and peasants.
The path chosen by the populists to fight tsarism through individual murders, through individual terror, was erroneous and harmful to the revolution. The policy of individual terror was based on the incorrect populist theory of active “heroes” and a passive “crowd” expecting heroic deeds from the “heroes.” This false theory said that only individual outstanding individuals make history, and the masses, the people, the class, the “crowd,” as populist writers contemptuously expressed it, are incapable of conscious, organized actions; they can only blindly follow the “heroes.” Therefore, the populists abandoned mass revolutionary work among the peasantry and working class and switched to individual terror. The populists forced one of the largest revolutionaries of that time, Stepan Khalturin, to stop working on organizing a revolutionary workers' union and devote himself entirely to terror.
The populists distracted the attention of the working people from the fight against the oppressor class by killing individual representatives of this class, which was useless for the revolution. They hindered the development of revolutionary initiative and activity of the working class and peasantry.
The populists prevented the working class from understanding its leading role in the revolution and delayed the creation of an independent working class party.
Although the secret organization of the Narodniks was crushed by the tsarist government, populist views persisted for a long time among the revolutionary-minded intelligentsia. The remnants of the populists stubbornly resisted the spread of Marxism in Russia and interfered with the organization of the working class.
Therefore, Marxism in Russia could grow and strengthen only in the fight against populism.
The Emancipation of Labor group launched a struggle against the erroneous views of the Narodniks and showed how harm the teachings of the Narodniks and their methods of struggle brought to the labor movement.
In his works directed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov showed that the views of the Narodniks had nothing in common with scientific socialism, although the Narodniks called themselves socialists.
Plekhanov was the first to give a Marxist critique of the erroneous views of the Narodniks. While delivering pointed blows to populist views, Plekhanov simultaneously launched a brilliant defense of Marxist views.
What were the main erroneous views of the populists, to whom Plekhanov dealt a crushing blow?
Firstly, the populists argued that capitalism in Russia is a “random” phenomenon, that it will not develop in Russia, and therefore the proletariat will not grow and develop.
Secondly, the populists did not consider the working class to be the advanced class in the revolution. They dreamed of achieving socialism without the proletariat. The populists considered the main revolutionary force to be the peasantry, led by the intelligentsia, and the peasant community, which they considered as the embryo and basis of socialism.
Thirdly, the populists had an erroneous and harmful view of the entire course of human history. They did not know or understand the laws of economic and political development of society. They were completely backward people in this regard. In their opinion, history is made not by classes and not by the struggle of classes, but only by individual outstanding individuals - “heroes”, who are blindly followed by the masses, the “crowd”, the people, the classes.
Fighting against the populists and exposing them, Plekhanov wrote a number of Marxist works, on which Marxists in Russia studied and were educated. Plekhanov’s works such as “Socialism and the Political Struggle”, “Our Differences”, “On the Question of the Development of a Monistic View of History” cleared the way for the victory of Marxism in Russia.
In his works, Plekhanov outlined the main issues of Marxism. His book “On the Question of the Development of a Monistic View of History,” published in 1895, was of particular importance. Lenin pointed out that this book “brought up a whole generation of Russian Marxists” (Lenin, vol. XIV, p. 347).
In his works directed against the Narodniks, Plekhanov proved that it is absurd to pose the question the way the Narodniks posed it: should capitalism develop in Russia or not? The point is, Plekhanov said, proving this with facts, that Russia has already joined on the path of capitalist development and that there is no force that could turn it off this path.
The revolutionaries' task was not to detain the development of capitalism in Russia - they would not have been able to do this anyway. The task of the revolutionaries was to rely on the powerful revolutionary force that is generated by the development of capitalism - on the working class, to develop its class consciousness, to organize it, to help it create its own workers' party.
Plekhanov also smashed the second main erroneous view of the populists - their denial of the leading role of the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle. The populists viewed the emergence of the proletariat in Russia as a kind of “historical misfortune” and wrote about the “ulcer of the proletariat.” Plekhanov, defending the teachings of Marxism and its full applicability to Russia, argued that, despite the quantitative predominance of the peasantry and the comparative small number of the proletariat, it is on the proletariat, on its growth, that revolutionaries should place their main hopes.
Why specifically the proletariat?
Because the proletariat, despite its current small number, is a working class that is associated with most advanced form of economy - with large-scale production, and has a great future in mind.
Because the proletariat, as a class, growing from year to year, develops politically, easily amenable to organization due to working conditions in large-scale production, and most revolutionary due to its proletarian position, for in the revolution it has nothing to lose except its chains.
The situation is different with the peasantry.
The peasantry (we were talking about the individual peasantry - Ed.), despite its large number, is a working class that is associated with most backward form of economy - small-scale production, which is why it does not and cannot have a great future.
Not only is the peasantry not growing as a class, but, on the contrary, disintegrates from year to year on the bourgeoisie (kulaks) and the poor (proletarians, semi-proletarians). In addition, it is more difficult to organize due to its dispersal and is less willing to join the revolutionary movement due to its petty property status than the proletariat.
The populists argued that socialism would come to Russia not through the dictatorship of the proletariat, but through the peasant community, which they considered the embryo and base of socialism. But the community was not and could not be either the base or the embryo of socialism, since the community was dominated by kulaks, “world eaters” who exploited the poor, farm laborers, and weak middle peasants. The formally existing communal land ownership and the occasional redistribution of land by hearts did not change matters at all. The land was used by those members of the community who had draft animals, equipment, seeds, that is, wealthy middle peasants and kulaks. Horseless peasants, the poor and those with little power in general were forced to give the land to the kulaks and become hired laborers. The peasant community was in fact a convenient form for covering up kulak dominance and a cheap means in the hands of tsarism for collecting taxes from peasants on the principle of mutual responsibility. That is why tsarism did not touch the peasant community. It would be ridiculous to consider such a community the embryo or basis of socialism.
Plekhanov also shattered the third main erroneous view of the populists regarding the primary role in social development of “heroes,” outstanding personalities, and their ideas, and about the insignificant role of the masses, “crowds,” people, and classes. Plekhanov accused the populists of idealism, proving that the truth is not on the side of idealism, but on the side materialism Marx – Engels.
Plekhanov developed and substantiated the point of view of Marxist materialism. According to Marxist materialism, he argued that the development of society is ultimately determined not by the wishes and ideas of outstanding individuals, but by the development of the material conditions of the existence of society, changes in the methods of production of material goods necessary for the existence of society, changes in the relationship of classes in the production of material goods, and the struggle of classes for the role and place in the field of production and distribution of material goods. It is not ideas that determine the socio-economic status of people, but the socio-economic status of people that determines their ideas. Outstanding personalities can turn into nothing if their ideas and wishes run counter to the economic development of society, contrary to the needs of the advanced class, and, on the contrary, outstanding people can become truly outstanding personalities if their ideas and wishes correctly express the needs of the economic development of society, the needs advanced class.
LEADER'S ORDER
I think that our textbooks on the history of the CPSU(b) are unsatisfactory for three main reasons. They are unsatisfactory either because they present the history of the CPSU(b) without connection with the history of the country; or because they are limited to a story, a simple description of events and facts of the struggle of currents, without giving the necessary Marxist explanation; or because they suffer from incorrect design, incorrect periodization of events.
It is necessary to preface each chapter (or section) of the textbook with a brief historical background on the economic and political situation of the country. Without this, the history of the CPSU(b) will look not like history, but like an easy and incomprehensible story about the affairs of the past.
It is necessary, secondly, not only to present the facts demonstrating the abundance of trends and factions in the party and in the working class during the period of capitalism in the USSR, but also to give a Marxist explanation of these facts, pointing out a) the presence in pre-revolutionary Russia of both new, modern from the point of view view of capitalism, classes, and old, pre-capitalist classes, b) on the petty-bourgeois character of the country, c) on the heterogeneous composition of the working class - as conditions that favored the existence of many trends and factions in the party and in the working class. Without this, the abundance of factions and movements remains incomprehensible.
It is necessary, thirdly, not only to present in the tone of a simple story the facts of the fierce struggle of movements and factions, but also to give a Marxist explanation of these facts, pointing out that the struggle of the Bolsheviks with anti-Bolshevik movements and factions was a fundamental struggle for Leninism, which in the conditions of capitalism and in general in the presence of antagonistic classes, intra-party contradictions and disagreements are inevitable, that the development and strengthening of proletarian parties under these conditions can only occur in the order of overcoming these contradictions, that without a principled struggle with anti-Leninist trends and groups, without overcoming them, our party would inevitably degenerate as The Social Democratic parties of the 11th International have degenerated and do not accept such a struggle. It would be possible to use Engels’ famous letter to Bernstein in 1882, cited in the first chapter of my report to the VII Enlarged Plenum of the ECCI “On the Social Democratic Deviation” in the CPSU(b), and my comments to it. Without such clarifications, the struggle of factions and trends in the history of the CPSU(b) will look like an incomprehensible squabble, and the Bolsheviks will look like incorrigible and restless squabblers and brawlers.
Finally, it is necessary to introduce some order into the periodization of events from the history of the CPSU (b).
I think that the diagram below, or similar to it, could form the basis.
I. The struggle for the creation of a Marxist, social democratic party in Russia. (From the formation of Plekhanov’s “Group for the Liberation of Labor” - 1883 to the appearance of the first issues of Iskra - 1900-1901).
II. The formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and the emergence of Bolshevik and Menshevik factions within the party. (1901-1904).
III. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks during the Russo-Japanese War and the First Russian Revolution. (1904-1907).
IV. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks during the Stolypin reaction and the formation of the Bolsheviks into an independent Social Democratic Labor Party.
(1908-1912).
V. The Bolshevik Party during the years of the rise of the working class before the first imperialist war. (1912-1914).
VI. The Bolshevik Party during the period of the imperialist war and the second Russian, February revolution. (1914 - February-March 1917).
VII. The Bolshevik Party during the preparation and conduct of the October Socialist Revolution. (April 1917-1918).
VIII. Bolshevik Party during the Civil War. (1918-1920).
IX. The Bolshevik Party during the transition to peaceful work to restore the national economy. (1921-1925).
X. Bolshevik Party in the struggle for socialist industrialization of the country (1926-1929).
XI. The Bolshevik Party in the struggle for collectivization of agriculture (1930-1934).
XII. The Bolshevik Party in the struggle to complete the construction of a socialist society and implement a new Constitution (1935-1937).
"LONG AND GLORIOUS JOURNEY"
The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has come a long and glorious way from the first small Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the 80s of the last century to the great Bolshevik Party, which now leads the world's first socialist state of workers and peasants.
The CPSU(b) grew out of the labor movement in pre-revolutionary Russia from Marxist circles and groups that connected with the labor movement and brought socialist consciousness into it. The CPSU(b) was and is guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Its leaders, in the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.
The CPSU(b) grew and strengthened in a principled struggle with petty-bourgeois parties within the labor movement - the Socialist Revolutionaries (and even earlier with their predecessors - the populists), Mensheviks, anarchists, bourgeois nationalists of all stripes, and within the party - with the Menshevik, opportunist movements - the Trotskyists , Bukharinites, national deviationists and other anti-Leninist groups.
The CPSU(b) grew stronger and became more tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all the enemies of the working class, against all the enemies of the working people - landowners, capitalists, kulaks, saboteurs, spies, against all the mercenaries of the capitalist encirclement...
Studying the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) enriches us with the experience of the struggle of the workers and peasants of our country for socialism.
Studying the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks), studying the history of our party’s struggle against all the enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all the enemies of the working people, helps to master Bolshevism and increases political vigilance.
Studying the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party equips with knowledge of the laws of social development and political struggle, knowledge of the driving forces of the revolution.
Studying the history of the CPSU (b) strengthens confidence in the final victory of the great cause of the Lenin-Stalin party, the victory of communism throughout the world.
History of the CPSU(b). Short course. Introduction
IDEOLOGY AND SOCIETY
People themselves, without prompting from above, came up with the desired rationale for events, sometimes going further into the field of falsification than the authors of the books they read. The only difference was that the falsifications from above were thoughtful and purposeful, while the falsifications from below did not, as in this case, have any practical benefit for their author and depended only on his sincere emotional impulse. “I had to come across a book where portraits of Lenin and Trotsky were placed on the cover, and at the bottom it was written “Long live our leaders.” Children are reading this book... we need to quickly eliminate this,” said the Stakhanovist Muravyov in October 1936. Before us is a clear example of the effective, successful operation of a formed stereotype. A person does not think about why Trotsky is named a leader there along with Lenin himself. The stereotype “Trotsky is the worst enemy” works flawlessly, sweeping away other questions. However, even representatives of this layer, the most susceptible to the influence of propaganda means, sometimes noticed the difference between the provisions of the old and new historical party textbooks.
The majority of the Soviet intelligentsia studied the history of the party according to the “Short Course” and from primary sources - the works of Lenin and party documents, and, of course, they had many more questions in this regard. Teachers were primarily concerned about the possibility of using the “Short Course” as a teaching aid. “I can’t help but point out one very major drawback. The fact is that the book is proposed for mass use by the public with approximately secondary education. But Chapter IV is full of scientific expressions and it’s impossible to understand it,” wrote national teacher S.I. Pugachev to the commission for the publication of the “Short Course,” confirming the thesis expressed by Yaroslavsky in 1935 in a letter to Satalin and Stetsky about the need to issue three types textbook (for the grassroots party network, for college students and propagandists).
Disciplined party members, who diligently studied the new textbook, also noticed the “innovations” that had appeared: “Lenin teaches that R.S.D.R.P. was formed in 1903 at the II Congress. What is this: a typo or an amendment to Lenin. Please clarify,” wrote Muscovite A.M. Pavlov to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. Leading party workers at the lower and middle levels mainly drew attention to the discrepancy between the digital data of the primary sources and the “Short Course”. Worker of the political department of the North Caucasus Railway Adamenko, propagandist of the Lenin district committee of the CPSU (b) Ordzhonikidze Dorogov and others wrote about the discrepancy in the quantitative composition of the Central Committee of the IV Congress.
These people studied the history of the party, by their own admission, “deeply,” “persistently,” “deeper and deeper again,” comparing what they read with primary sources, and shared their comparisons with those who, they believed, could dispel the doubts that had arisen. It is noteworthy that the letters were addressed, as a rule, to the top party leadership, which shows the inability (or unwillingness) of local propagandists to fully answer emerging questions due to both the low level of training of the propaganda apparatus and the fear of workers of the “ideological front” to give answers to sufficient questions. responsible and sensitive questions. One of the letters to the Central Committee directly states: “I am turning to you... since our consultants could not clearly explain anything to me on the spot.”
However, there were more serious questions to the authorities in society. R.V. Rubanovich from Kharkov asked the editors of the magazine “Proletarian Revolution” in the summer of 1940 to send him Lenin’s letters, which the author in the first message does not directly call the “will” of the leader. The lengthy and confusing response eventually included references to two published letters from Lenin. Rubanovich’s repeated letter is more categorical and serious: “Dear comrade! Your answer to my request about V.I. Lenin’s letters addressed to the XIII Party Congress did not satisfy me: 1) Lenin’s letters, which you pointed out to me... were written by V.I. back in 1917 and were not addressed to the XIII Party Congress. I read these letters a long time ago, I knew about them well...
I ask you... specifically about the letters written in the last year of V.I.’s work and addressed to the XIII Party Congress, [about which] Comrade Stalin said at the plenum of the Central Committee in 1926 that in party circles it is called “testament” "...
By the way, such handling of inconvenient questions was practiced quite widely at that time. Standard formulations such as “the answer was drafted unsatisfactorily”, “the answer is outdated”, “archive” are found in many letters to the central party authorities. Thus, we see that a part of society that has a higher educational level or experience in party work and, therefore, a certain amount of knowledge about the history of the party, did not ignore the changes made in the “Short Course”.
edited by the commission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
approved by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks
The 1938 edition mentions some names that were deleted from the later text of the 1945 edition; also, in the 1945 edition, surnames were sometimes added. In such cases, the crossed out text is given in angle brackets.
Workers of all countries, unite!
Introduction
The All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) has come a long and glorious way from the first small Marxist circles and groups that appeared in Russia in the 80s of the last century to the great Bolshevik Party, which now leads the world's first socialist state of workers and peasants.
The CPSU(b) grew out of the labor movement in pre-revolutionary Russia from Marxist circles and groups that connected with the labor movement and brought socialist consciousness into it. The CPSU(b) was and is guided by the revolutionary teachings of Marxism-Leninism. Its leaders, in the new conditions of the era of imperialism, imperialist wars and proletarian revolutions, further developed the teachings of Marx and Engels and raised them to a new level.
The CPSU(b) grew and strengthened in a principled struggle with petty-bourgeois parties within the labor movement - the Socialist Revolutionaries (and even earlier with their predecessors - the populists), Mensheviks, anarchists, bourgeois nationalists of all stripes, and within the party - with the Menshevik, opportunist movements - the Trotskyists , Bukharinites, national deviationists and other anti-Leninist groups.
The CPSU(b) grew stronger and became more tempered in the revolutionary struggle against all the enemies of the working class, against all the enemies of the working people - landowners, capitalists, kulaks, saboteurs, spies, and all the mercenaries of the capitalist encirclement.
The history of the CPSU(b) is the history of three revolutions: the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905, the bourgeois-democratic revolution in February 1917 and the socialist revolution in October 1917.
The history of the CPSU (b) is the history of the overthrow of tsarism, the overthrow of the power of landowners and capitalists, the history of the defeat of foreign armed intervention during the civil war, the history of the construction of the Soviet state and socialist society in our country.
Studying the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) enriches us with the experience of the struggle of the workers and peasants of our country for socialism.
Studying the history of the CPSU(b), studying the history of the struggle of our party against all the enemies of Marxism-Leninism, against all the enemies of the working people helps take over Bolshevism, increases political vigilance.
Studying the heroic history of the Bolshevik Party equips with knowledge of the laws of social development and political struggle, knowledge of the driving forces of the revolution.
Studying the history of the CPSU (b) strengthens confidence in the final victory of the great cause of the Lenin-Stalin party, the victory of communism throughout the world.
This book briefly outlines the history of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks).
The struggle for the creation of a Social Democratic Labor Party in Russia
(1883–1901)
1. Abolition of serfdom and the development of industrial capitalism in Russia. The emergence of the modern industrial proletariat. The first steps of the labor movement.
Tsarist Russia entered the path of capitalist development later than other countries. Until the 60s of the last century, there were very few factories and factories in Russia. The serf-dominated economy of the noble landowners predominated. Under the serf system, industry could not truly develop. Forced serf labor resulted in low labor productivity in agriculture. The entire course of economic development pushed towards the abolition of serfdom. The tsarist government, weakened by military defeat during the Crimean campaign and intimidated by peasant “revolts” against the landowners, was forced to abolish serfdom in 1861.
But even after the abolition of serfdom, the landowners continued to oppress the peasants. The landowners robbed the peasants, taking away and cutting off from them during the “liberation” a significant part of the land that the peasants had previously used. The peasants began to call this part of the land “cuts.” The peasants were forced to pay the landowners a ransom for their “liberation” - about two billion rubles.
After the abolition of serfdom, peasants were forced to rent landowners' land under the most difficult conditions. In addition to the monetary payment for rent, the landowner often forced the peasants to cultivate a certain amount of the landowner's land with peasant tools and horses for free. This was called “works off”, “corvee labor”. Most often, the peasant was forced to pay the landowner for the rent of land in kind from the harvest in the amount of half of his harvest. This was called work "ispol".
Thus, the situation remained almost the same as under serfdom, with the only difference that now the peasant was personally free, he could not be sold or bought like a thing.
The landowners squeezed the last juice out of the backward peasant economy using various predatory methods (rent, fines). The majority of the peasantry, due to the oppression of the landowners, could not improve their farming. Hence the extreme backwardness of agriculture in pre-revolutionary Russia, which led to frequent crop failures and famines.
The remnants of serfdom, huge taxes and redemption payments to landowners, which often exceeded the profitability of peasant farming, caused ruin and impoverishment of the peasant masses, forcing peasants to leave the villages in search of work. They went to factories and factories. Factory owners received cheap labor.
Above the workers and peasants stood a whole army of police officers, police officers, gendarmes, policemen, and guards who defended the tsar, capitalists, and landowners against the working people, against the exploited. Before 1903, corporal punishment existed. Despite the abolition of serfdom, peasants were flogged with rods for the slightest offense, for failure to pay taxes. Workers were beaten by police and Cossacks, especially during strikes, when workers stopped work, unable to withstand the oppression of factory owners. Workers and peasants had no political rights in Tsarist Russia. The tsarist autocracy was the worst enemy of the people.
Tsarist Russia was a prison of nations. Numerous non-Russian peoples of Tsarist Russia were completely without rights and were constantly subjected to all kinds of humiliation and insults. The tsarist government taught the Russian population to view the indigenous peoples of the national regions as an inferior race, officially called them “foreigners,” and instilled contempt and hatred for them. The tsarist government deliberately incited national hatred, set one people against another, organized Jewish pogroms and Tatar-Armenian massacres in Transcaucasia.
In the national regions, all or almost all government positions were occupied by Russian officials. All cases in institutions and in courts were conducted in Russian. It was forbidden to publish newspapers and books in national languages, and schools were prohibited from teaching in their native language. The tsarist government sought to stifle any manifestation of national culture and pursued a policy of forced “Russification” of non-Russian nationalities. Tsarism acted as an executioner and tormentor of non-Russian peoples.
After the abolition of serfdom, the development of industrial capitalism in Russia proceeded quite quickly, despite the remnants of serfdom that still delayed this development. In 25 years, from 1865 to 1890, the number of workers in large factories, factories and railways alone increased from 706 tons to 1,433 thousand, that is, more than doubling.
HISTORY OF THE ALL-UNION COMMUNIST PARTY (Bolsheviks). SHORT COURSE.
UNDER THE EDITION OF THE COMMISSION OF THE Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. APPROVED by the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. 1938
Reprint reproduction of a stable publication of the 30-40s: M.: “Pisatel”, 1997.
In 1938, after many years of efforts by a team of authors, one might even say the entire propaganda apparatus of the party, including Stalin himself, after numerous edits, a truly world-famous work, “History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks. A Short Course,” was published. Stalin became so accustomed to its text, honed it in his own way, that he convinced himself that he could lay claim to authorship. It was easier to “convince” others. Therefore, in the official biography it is stated: “In 1938, the book “History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks” was published. A short course", written by Comrade Stalin and approved by the commission of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Bolsheviks)."
Already on September 12, immediately after the release of the course, Pravda published the resolution of the plenum of the Moscow State Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks adopted the day before, which ordered “... to develop a network of circles and courses for the study of the history of the party.” Notes from the “Party Life” section are published under the titles “First classes of circles for studying the “Short Course”, “Collective readings of the “Short Course”. In the next issue, dated September 13, 1938, the Leningrad Skorokhod factory reports: “Circules for studying the history of the party have already been organized in the monolithic shoe shops, in the cutting and blanking shops, in the chief mechanic’s department. Clubs are being created at the factory secondary school for high school students.” From this issue, the column “Party and non-party Bolsheviks begin an in-depth study of the Short Course” appears in Pravda. Soon there will be information about the creation of new circles in Moscow and Leningrad, about readings in Smolensk, Nikolaev, Kolomna, Stalingrad, Baku and other cities of the country. The union newspapers were echoed by local ones, whose articles differ from the central ones only in the names of settlements in which “working people enthusiastically study the “Short Course” during lunch breaks and after work,” creating study circles.
The “Short Course” itself was published 301 times from 1938 to 1953 in the amount of 42,816 thousand copies in 67 languages.
Format: doc/zip
Size: 4 10 KB
/Download file
Introduction
Chapter I. The struggle for the creation of a Social Democratic Labor Party in Russia (1883-1901)
1. Abolition of serfdom and the development of industrial capitalism in Russia. The emergence of the modern industrial proletariat. The first steps of the labor movement.
2. Populism and Marxism in Russia. Plekhanov and his group "Emancipation of Labor". Plekhanov's fight against populism. The spread of Marxism in Russia.
3. The beginning of Lenin’s revolutionary activity. St. Petersburg "Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class."
4. Lenin’s struggle against populism and “legal Marxism.” Lenin's idea of the union of the working class and peasantry. I Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party.
5. Lenin’s struggle against “economism”. The appearance of Lenin's newspaper Iskra.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter II. Formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The emergence of Bolshevik and Menshevik factions within the party (1901-1904)
1. The rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia in 1901-1904.
2. Lenin’s plan for building a Marxist party. Opportunism of the "economists". Iskra's struggle for Lenin's plan. Lenin's book "What is to be done?" Ideological foundations of the Marxist party.
3. II Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. Adoption of the program and charter and creation of a single party. Disagreements at the congress and the emergence of two currents in the party: Bolshevik and Menshevik.
4. The schismatic actions of the Menshevik leaders and the intensification of the struggle within the party after the Second Congress. Opportunism of the Mensheviks. Lenin's book "One Step Forward, Two Steps Back". Organizational foundations of the Marxist party.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter III. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks during the Russo-Japanese War and the first Russian Revolution (1904-1907)
1. Russo-Japanese War. Further rise of the revolutionary movement in Russia. Strikes in St. Petersburg. Demonstration of workers at the Winter Palace on January 9, 1905. Shooting of a demonstration. The beginning of the revolution.
2. Political strikes and workers' demonstrations. The growth of the revolutionary movement of peasants. Mutiny on the battleship Potemkin.
3. Tactical differences between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. III Party Congress. Lenin's book "Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution". Tactical foundations of the Marxist party.
4. Further rise of the revolution. All-Russian political strike in October 1905. The retreat of tsarism. Tsar's manifesto. The emergence of Soviets of Workers' Deputies.
5. December armed uprising. The defeat of the uprising. Retreat of the revolution. First State Duma. IV (Unification) Party Congress.
6. Dispersal of the First State Duma. Convocation of the Second State Duma. V Party Congress. Dispersal of the Second State Duma. Reasons for the defeat of the first Russian revolution.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter IV. Mensheviks and Bolsheviks during the Stolypin reaction. Formation of the Bolsheviks into an independent Marxist party (1908-1912)
1. Stolypin reaction. Decomposition in the opposition layers of the intelligentsia. Decadence. The transition of part of the party intelligentsia to the camp of the enemies of Marxism and attempts to revise the theory of Marxism. Lenin's rebuke to the revisionists in his book "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" and defense of the theoretical foundations of the Marxist party.
2. About dialectical and historical materialism.
3. Bolsheviks and Mensheviks during the years of the Stolypin reaction. The struggle of the Bolsheviks against the liquidators and otzovists.
4. The struggle of the Bolsheviks against Trotskyism. August anti-party bloc.
5. Prague party conference in 1912. Formation of the Bolsheviks into an independent Marxist party.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter V. The Bolshevik Party during the years of the rise of the labor movement before the First World War (1912-1914)
1. The rise of the revolutionary movement in 1912-1914.
2. Bolshevik newspaper "Pravda". Bolshevik faction in the IV State Duma.
3. Victory of the Bolsheviks in legal organizations. Further growth of the revolutionary movement. The eve of the imperialist war.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter VI. The Bolshevik Party during the imperialist war. Second Revolution in Russia (1914 - March 1917)
1. The emergence and causes of the imperialist war.
2. The transition of the parties of the Second International to the side of their imperialist governments. The disintegration of the Second International into separate social-chauvinist parties.
3. Theory and tactics of the Bolshevik Party on issues of war, peace and revolution.
4. Defeat of the tsarist troops at the front. Economic devastation. The crisis of tsarism.
5. February revolution. The fall of tsarism. Formation of Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. Formation of the Provisional Government. Dual power.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter VII. Bolshevik Party during the preparation and conduct of the October Socialist Revolution (April 1917 - 1918)
1. The situation in the country after the February revolution. The emergence of parties from underground and the transition to open political work. Lenin's arrival in Petrograd. Lenin's April Theses. The party's orientation towards the transition to a socialist revolution.
2. The beginning of the crisis of the Provisional Government. April conference of the Bolshevik party.
3. The successes of the Bolshevik party in the capital. Unsuccessful offensive of the Provisional Government troops at the front. Suppression of the July demonstration of workers and soldiers.
4. The course of the Bolshevik Party towards preparing an armed uprising. VI Party Congress.
5. General Kornilov’s conspiracy against the revolution. The defeat of the conspiracy. The transition of the Soviets in Petrograd and Moscow to the side of the Bolsheviks.
6. October uprising in Petrograd and arrest of the Provisional Government. II Congress of Soviets and the formation of the Soviet government. Decrees of the Second Congress of Soviets on peace and land. Victory of the socialist revolution. Reasons for the victory of the socialist revolution.
7. The struggle of the Bolshevik Party to strengthen Soviet power. Peace of Brest-Litovsk. VII Party Congress.
8. Lenin’s plan for the start of socialist construction. Combeds and curbing the kulaks. The rebellion of the "left" Socialist Revolutionaries and its suppression. V Congress of Soviets and adoption of the Constitution of the RSFSR.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter VIII. The Bolshevik Party during the period of foreign military intervention and civil war (1918-1920)
1. The beginning of foreign military intervention. The first period of the civil war.
2. Military defeat of Germany. Revolution in Germany. Education of the Third International. VIII Party Congress.
3. Strengthening the intervention. Blockade of the Soviet country. Kolchak's campaign and its defeat. Denikin's campaign and his defeat. Three-month respite. IX Party Congress.
4. Attack of the Polish lords on the Soviet country. General Wrangel's sortie. Failure of the Polish plan. The defeat of Wrangel. End of intervention.
5. How and why did the Soviet country defeat the combined forces of the Anglo-French-Japanese-Polish intervention and the bourgeois-landlord-White Guard counter-revolution in Russia?
Brief conclusions.
Chapter IX. The Bolshevik Party during the transition to peaceful work to restore the national economy (1921-1925)
1. The Soviet country after the liquidation of intervention and civil war. Difficulties of the recovery period.
2. Discussion in the party about trade unions. X Party Congress. Defeat of the opposition. Transition to the New Economic Policy (NEP).
3. First results of the NEP. XI Party Congress. Formation of the USSR. Lenin's illness. Lenin's cooperative plan. XII Party Congress.
4. Combating the difficulties of restoring the national economy. Increased activity of Trotskyists in connection with Lenin’s illness. New discussion in the party. Defeat of the Trotskyists. Death of Lenin. Lenin's call. XIII Party Congress.
5. Soviet Union towards the end of the recovery period. The question of socialist construction and the victory of socialism in our country. "New opposition" of Zinoviev-Kamenev. XIV Party Congress. The course towards socialist industrialization of the country.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter X. Bolshevik Party in the struggle for socialist industrialization of the country (1926-1929)
1. Difficulties during the period of socialist industrialization and the fight against them. Formation of the Trotskyist-Zinoviev anti-party bloc. Anti-Soviet protests of the bloc. Defeat the block.
2. Successes of socialist industrialization. Lagging agriculture. XV Party Congress. The course towards collectivization of agriculture. The defeat of the Trotskyist-Zinoviev bloc. Political double-dealing.
3. Offensive against the kulaks. Bukharin-Rykov anti-party group. Adoption of the first five-year plan. Socialist competition. The beginning of the mass collective farm movement.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter XI. Bolshevik Party in the struggle for collectivization of agriculture (1930-1934)
1. International situation in 1930-1934. Economic crisis in capitalist countries. Japanese capture of Manchuria. The rise of the Nazis to power in Germany. Two centers of war.
2. From the policy of limiting kulak elements to the policy of eliminating the kulaks as a class. The fight against the distortions of party policy in the collective farm movement. Offensive against capitalist elements along the entire front. XVI Party Congress.
3. Setting for the reconstruction of all sectors of the national economy. The role of technology. Further growth of the collective farm movement. Political departments at machine and tractor stations. Results of the implementation of the five-year plan in four years. Victory of socialism along all fronts. XVII Party Congress.
4. The degeneration of the Bukharinites into political double-dealers. The degeneration of Trotskyist double-dealers into a White Guard gang of murderers and spies. The villainous murder of S.M. Kirov. Party measures to strengthen the vigilance of the Bolsheviks.
Brief conclusions.
Chapter XII. The Bolshevik Party in the struggle to complete the construction of a socialist society and implement a new Constitution (1935-1937)
1. International situation in 1935-1937. Temporary easing of the economic crisis. The beginning of a new economic crisis. Italian capture of Abyssinia. German-Italian intervention in Spain. Japanese invasion of Central China. The beginning of the second imperialist war.
2. Further rise of industry and agriculture in the USSR. Early implementation of the second five-year plan. Reconstruction of agriculture and completion of collectivization. The meaning of frames. Stakhanov movement. Rising people's well-being. The rise of folk culture. The power of the Soviet revolution.
3. VIII Congress of Soviets. Adoption of the new Constitution of the USSR.
4. Elimination of the remnants of Bukharin-Trotskyist spies, saboteurs, traitors to the motherland. Preparations for elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The party's course towards expanded internal party democracy. Elections to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
Conclusion
SELF-EDUCATION OF A TEACHER AS A KEY REQUIREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL STANDARD Municipal general education budget...
Triode. The flow of electrons moving in a vacuum tube from the cathode to the anode can be controlled using electrical and...
Monument At the end of 1938, a book appeared dedicated to the history of the Communist Party - RSDLP (b), RCP (b), All-Union Communist Party (b) -...
In this lesson we will take a detailed look at the function y = sin x, its basic properties and graph. At the beginning of the lesson we will define...
The Estonian Armed Forces or the Estonian Defense Army (Estonian Eesti Kaitsevägi), the military structure of the executive...
Topic: Writing words that end in tsa, tsya, tsya Motivation for learning activities. Hello children!...
Yaroslav the Wise, the son of Grand Duke Vladimir Svyatoslavich and the Varangian princess Rognida, carried out an active external...
(from some event date, ruler, sage or phenomenon), but when the people were captured, a stranger was introduced...
GENETICS - THEORETICAL BASIS OF SELECTION. BREEDING AND ITS METHODS. Selection is the science of breeding new and...
There are two types of plurals: “whole” and “broken”.1. Integer plural. During education...
More than once, raising our eyes to the night sky, we wondered - what is in this endless space?...
The novel "The Stand" is considered one of Stephen King's best books and is his most voluminous...
The origins of radio engineering troops began before World War II. To detect enemy aircraft,...
Open any newspaper or magazine and you will find terms coined by Sigmund Freud. Sublimation,...
Triode. The flow of electrons moving in a vacuum tube from the cathode to the anode can be controlled using...
Monument At the end of 1938, a book appeared dedicated to the history of the Communist Party - RSDLP(b), RCP(b),...