In the famous fairy tale of the German writer Hoffmann "Little Tsakhes", its protagonist possessed an amazing ability: no one noticed the negative actions he committed and responsibility for them was assigned to others. There was an equally amazing party in our revolution - the party of the Socialist Revolutionaries. The mass public consciousness still associates the sad consequences of the revolution exclusively with the actions of the Bolsheviks or whites (depending on political views), and the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, like little Tsakhes, simply does not notice, or draws a blissful image of the party - an unfortunate victim of history that has suffered defeat. due to the dishonest, self-serving behavior of the Bolsheviks.
Amazing batch
In fact, the Socialist-Revolutionaries were far from such an image. The party consisted not of modest intelligent people, but rebels who had gone through the crucible of revolutionary battles with the autocracy. Terrorists who did not spare either their enemies or themselves. The Social Revolutionaries, with no less reason than the Bolsheviks, claimed victory in the course of the revolution.
The ideology of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was initially built on the division of Russian society. Although the Social Revolutionaries claimed that they expressed the interests of almost the entire people and that only the ruling elite, which constituted an insignificant part of society, opposed them, they made a serious split in the social and political life of Russia, harshly raising the question of the incompatibility of the interests of the mass social classes (the peasantry, the proletariat and the intelligentsia), the defenders of which the socialist revolutionaries were officially dressed up, with the parasitic classes of society, to which they attributed the social groups that dominated at the beginning of the 20th century - the nobility, the higher bureaucracy and the bourgeoisie.
The political program of the Social Revolutionaries was not only utopian, but also extremely dangerous for Russia. In fact, it was a semi-anarchist program, which assumed the almost complete destruction of the state. "Socialist society," wrote the Socialist-Revolutionaries, "is primarily not the state, but a self-governing union of productive associations, agricultural communes, communes and syndicates of industrial workers …" that communicate with each other on a voluntary basis in order to exchange their products.
The Social Revolutionaries did not realize what danger they were exposing the country and themselves, inciting revolutionary sentiments in the people and inciting them to fight with the entire former elite. The most famous prime minister of pre-revolutionary Russia P. A. Stolypin believed that the only way to prevent the coming of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to power was through certain internal changes.
"While I am in power, I will do everything in human power to prevent Russia from going to war, until a program is fully implemented that gives it internal recovery. We cannot measure ourselves against an external enemy until the worst internal enemies of Russia's greatness are destroyed - Socialist-Revolutionaries. Until … the agrarian reform is completely carried out, they will be in force, as long as … they exist, they will never miss a single opportunity to destroy the power of our Motherland, and what can create more favorable conditions for unrest than war " 4.
1917 leaders
The events of 1917 confirmed the supremacy of the Social Revolutionaries in the political life of the country. If in the February events the role of the Socialist-Revolutionaries was insignificant, then, in the spring of 1917, the leading role in the moderate socialist bloc passed to them. The strategy of the Socialist-Revolutionary-Menshevik bloc in the spring of 1917 was to fight the Cadets at the provincial, provincial-district level. By the summer, almost all power in the provinces had passed to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
In Central Russia, the confrontation between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Cadets in Vladimir took on a dramatic character. The conflict took place at the congress of representatives of public security committees (KOBs - the main government bodies in 1917 at the regional level) and the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, which took place from 15 to 17 April. Then the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks achieved the re-election of the provincial committee, which changed the balance of forces in the governing bodies of the province. A month later, on May 30, the new provincial committee re-elected the head of the province. Instead of cadet S. A. Petrov, the protege of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, M. A. Brothers (Menshevik-internationalist), his deputy was approved by the Socialist-Revolutionary N. F. Gorshkov. The cadets were ousted more smoothly from the power structures of the Kostroma province. On April 27-28 in Kostroma, an organizational meeting of the county KOB took place. The overwhelming majority of the elected seats went to the Socialist-Revolutionaries.
The propaganda poster of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Photo: Homeland
The strengthening of the socialists in the provinces was not slow to show itself, and soon the socialists entered the new government. An alliance with the socialists was concluded by a group of liberal ministers who are not members of the Cadet party and who are ready to deepen the revolution beyond the bounds of the Cadet program. Each of these forces received 6 portfolios, with only three secondary ministerial posts remaining for the cadets. As a result, the SRs concentrated colossal political resources in May 1917. In the political struggle, they relied on the most numerous class of Russian society - the peasantry, whose share reached 80% of the total population. According to some information, in 1917 the Socialist-Revolutionary Party in its best period had up to 1 million members. Peasants often enlisted in the party in whole villages, and soldiers in whole companies.
Fighting ambitions
The Social Revolutionaries had to compete with the Bolsheviks in a difficult situation. If the Bolsheviks prepared in advance for the fact that they would have to rule, being in the minority (strict discipline was maintained in the party), then the Social Revolutionaries, who had the opportunity to rely on the support of the majority of society, did not have any coordination. The party was dominated by people with a sense of petty ambition, who wanted only as much personal power as possible.
Throughout the period from February to October, the country was characterized by an atmosphere of sharp, irreconcilable, but petty and unprincipled struggle. It got to the point that these or those authorities, in which the Socialist-Revolutionaries were represented, repeatedly entered into a struggle with each other. So, having seized the majority in the KOBs in March-April, the Social Revolutionaries began to expand their representation in pre-revolutionary structures - zemstvos and city councils. Socialist-Revolutionary KOBs actively intervened in the work of city councils and zemstvos, as in Mologa (Yaroslavl province), where the local KOB expressed distrust of the city council. Later, in the summer of 1917, after elections to city dumas and zemstvos, at which the Socialist-Revolutionaries, in alliance with the Mensheviks, usually won a victory, moderate socialists switched to them and there began the reverse process - the elimination of the KOBs.
This struggle shook the local authorities. Frequent conflicts gave rise to new contradictions already within the provinces. In the provinces, the provincial-uyezd struggle and the struggle within the counties flared up, conflicts also penetrated to the lowest level - the volost. The Social Revolutionaries, increasing their influence in the province and gaining more and more powers in it, kindled an atmosphere of hatred in society.
The consequence of this atmosphere was the strengthening of the population's demands for an early implementation of social reforms. And the Socialist-Revolutionaries fell victim to their double position. Since almost all local authorities were under the influence of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the demands of the people are increasingly turning to the Socialist-Revolutionary Party: it is the Socialist-Revolutionaries who are now associated with power.
And then the Socialist-Revolutionaries faced a serious problem: from the outside it seemed that the party, starting in July, was taking control of the Provisional Government - it was headed by a party member A. F. Kerensky. In reality, everything was different. Kerensky, as the head of the government, was rather a factor that alienated the party from the central government. In his activities, he was guided by a group of liberal ministers who had previously worked in contact with Prince G. E. Lvov.
The Socialist-Revolutionaries considered Kerensky's lack of disposition to their party as one of the reasons for the defeat in 1917. The claims of the SRs against Kerensky had been accumulating for a long time. Until the fall of 1917, they tolerated the willfulness of this peculiar member of their party, except for a small episode when Kerensky was not allowed into the party's Central Committee in the summer, having outlawed his candidacy in the elections held at the Third Party Congress.
III All-Russian Congress of the Socialist Revolutionary Party. 1917 Photo: Homeland
The conflict broke out in September at the Democratic Conference convened by Kerensky to resolve the issue of power. Then the leaders of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, headed by V. M. The Chernovs attempted to form a government composed exclusively of moderate socialists. The presidium of the conference, which consisted of adherents of the socialist parties, on September 20 made a decision to create a homogeneous socialist government - an SR-Menshevik, without liberals and Bolsheviks. The proposal was approved by 60 votes against 50. Upon learning of the decision, Kerensky announced that if a Socialist-Revolutionary government was created, he would resign. In response, the leaders of the conference gave Kerensky the right to form the government himself, but they did not forgive the demarche and went over to the opposition.
Inevitable clash with the Bolsheviks
In the October days, the Socialist-Revolutionaries deliberately did not oppose the desire of the Bolsheviks to take power from Kerensky. They were convinced that the Bolsheviks, having displaced Kerensky, would still be forced to turn to them when forming a new government, and the power would inevitably pass under the control of the Social Revolutionaries. But you need to know the Bolsheviks! They did not take power for the same, in order to give it back. The Socialist-Revolutionaries and Bolsheviks fought on the same field, betting not on a narrow agreement with the "upper classes", but on broad strata of the population.
The Socialist-Revolutionaries, claiming to express the interests of the most numerous class, the peasantry, would not have tolerated another equally influential party next to them. The Bolsheviks, who claimed to express the interests of a less mass stratum - the workers, could all the more be successful only if they were alone at the top of power.
Moscow railroad workers hold a demonstration of protest against the terrorist acts of the Social Revolutionaries. Photo: Homeland
A clash between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks was inevitable. And therefore, the attempts of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to form a government in October with the participation of all socialist parties, including the Bolsheviks, were only a postponement of this clash, gave the Bolsheviks time to consolidate their power and did not allow the Socialist-Revolutionaries to use against the Bolsheviks the significant resources that they retained. By dissolving the Constituent Assembly in January 1918, the Bolsheviks dealt with those institutions in which the Social Revolutionaries prevailed (city councils and zemstvos, the institute of provincial and district commissars).
The dissolution of the Constituent Assembly negatively affected the popularity of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and the revival of the Socialist-Revolutionary ambitions in the summer of 1918 was associated mainly with the support of the West, the interest of the allies (the governments of England and France) in weakening the White movement, focused on the revival of a strong Russia.
Today, the public opinion has established a point of view according to which the Bolsheviks were traitors to the Motherland, and the Socialist-Revolutionaries were defencists, and therefore patriots. Such an idea of the Socialist-Revolutionaries is far from the truth - the position of the Socialist-Revolutionaries on the question of the war can hardly be called patriotic. February did not stop Russia's participation in the war, therefore, the Social Revolutionaries did nothing to alleviate the suffering of the people. But these sufferings were now pointless, since the Socialist-Revolutionaries believed that at the end of the war, in case of victory, Russia should not receive from the enemy as compensation for the losses incurred, either any territories or any monetary rewards. This was called a world without annexations and indemnities. Under the conditions of the Russian revolution, this meant nothing more than a unilateral refusal of Russia from compensation for the losses incurred - Russia's allies, Great Britain and France, were not going to give up annexations.
Uprising of the Czechoslovak Corps
A serious base for starting an armed struggle against the Bolsheviks among the SRs appeared in connection with the uprising of the Czechoslovak corps. A participant in those events, the Czech V. Steindler, wrote: "Our victories became an impetus for local anti-Bolshevik coups under the leadership of socialist revolutionaries …" On June 8, a detachment of Czechoslovakians and Socialist-Revolutionary squads occupied Samara. The authority of the Committee of Members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (Komucha) was declared in the city. Its purpose was declared to be the restoration of the Constituent Assembly dispersed by the Bolsheviks. In Samara, where about 100 deputies arrived, the real power was in the organizational structures of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.
At the same time, other anti-Bolshevik governments were formed in the Urals and Siberia. They relied on a wider party coalition, with the main force in them on the side of the Cadets and the more right-wing forces. As a result, a tense relationship was established between them. Only in September, the Directory was formed in Ufa - the highest body of state power in the territory free from Bolshevism.
Within the Directory, a parity balance of forces developed between the Socialist-Revolutionaries and more right-wing circles. But the general position of the socialist-revolutionaries in the anti-Bolshevik camp became noticeably complicated, therefore the November coup in Omsk (where the Directory that had moved from Ufa was located), which brought Admiral A. V. Kolchak and the arrest of members of the Directory, who were part of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, was a natural consequence of the internal evolution of anti-Bolshevik forces.
Admiral A. V. Kolchak Photo: Homeland
Against Kolchak
Nevertheless, the Social Revolutionaries challenged Kolchak by issuing an "Appeal to the Population", in which they qualified the Omsk events as counter-revolutionary, and in a telegram sent personally to Kolchak, it was stated that "usurper power" would never be recognized. It was an open challenge to a force that was superior to the Socialist-Revolutionaries. What were they hoping for in this case? Exclusively for allies! Although the First World War had just ended, the Social Revolutionaries believed that the allies would not support the Kolchak coup, since, in their opinion, there were monarchists behind Kolchak - and Western democracies cannot have anything to do with reactionary monarchists (in fact, Kolchak's program was liberal).
In an urgent telegram addressed to the diplomatic missions of the USA, England, Italy, Belgium, Japan, the Social Revolutionary leaders gave an extremely biased assessment of what happened in Omsk: “The remnants of the reactionary monarchist forces, gradually rallying in Siberia, … dictatorship of Admiral Kolchak, they are trying to seize power over all of Russia to restore the obsolete and hated by all democracy monarchical system."
The telegram to the American President W. Wilson followed the development of this idea. Monarchist Russia, wrote the Social Revolutionaries, "will serve as an eternal threat of international intrigue and temptations of conquest."They asked Wilson "to raise his voice in defense of the rights and legality violated by the Omsk monarchist adventure."
V. M. Chernov Photo: Homeland
It was an open call for intervention. On November 24, at a rally in Ufa, the Socialist-Revolutionaries called to hold out "until support from Western democracy." Kolchak, of course, made a decision to eliminate the SRs, which was carried out in December 1918. And although the SR top, headed by V. M. The Chernovs managed to escape, this was no longer of fundamental importance. The very fact of the fall of the Directory brought to an end all the hopes of the Socialist-Revolutionaries to come to power in Russia.
By November 1918, it became clear that all attempts by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks to restore their power were doomed to failure. For a year and a half, the Social Revolutionaries were the most influential party in the country. They had sufficient resources at their disposal to establish firm authority in the country and to bring about the implementation of the decisions they considered necessary. Instead, their activities resulted in a ruined country. There was a weakening of the central government, a split between the central and local authorities, the collapse of the army, and a complete loss of Russia's prestige in the international arena. The Social Revolutionaries led the country to a national catastrophe and are responsible for it.
A paradoxical situation developed: the Civil War was provoked by the inept actions of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, a deeply non-state party, and it had to be led mainly by other, statist forces. It was necessary to restore order in the country and the parties of disorder - the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks - suffered a crushing defeat.
Two forces claimed the role of the parties of order. On the one hand, the Bolsheviks, who gained power in October and began to restore the unity of the central and local authorities. On the other hand, this role was taken on by whites.
The contradictions between the Socialist-Revolutionaries on each of these sides proved to be irreconcilable. It was obvious that February brought down the country and only those who restore order could become parties to the civil war. This dilemma was obvious to contemporaries. And then they formulated it as follows: either Kolchak or Lenin.
