The XXth Century Political History of Russia: lecture materials
During the months of February and March 1917, the cruel chaos grew: there were corpses of gendarmes with ripped open bellies in Petrograd, the mad chase of officers in Kronstadt, vigilante justice in Yelets. An officer Fyodor Stepun, a future philosopher and sociologist, described Petrograd of 1917:
«I thought that I would find it exasperate, magnificent, filled with revolutionary romantics… My impression was indeed strong but the opposite of what I expected. Petrograd – from the outside to the inside – presented an utter picture of dissoluteness, monotony and platitude. The town looked unusual and was definitely going through rough times. Endless red flags were fluttering in the air, but not as banners and colors of revolution, but, instead, they were hanging down along grey walls as dusty red pieces of cloth. A crowd of grey soldiers wearing shirts and greatcoats was drilling around grand squares and wide streets of the city, a picture obviously contradicting the scale and grandeur of the event. Occasionally, armored cars and trucks full of soldiers and workers passed by with noise: guns atilt, tumbled hair and angry, mad eyes. No, this is not the great idea of the revolution that I had heard about at the front, neither is it the nation desire to justify freedom, but its vile antithesis… This is a drunken joy that «the day is ours,» that we are making merry and not going to have to explain anything to anybody.»
«The source of true folk-spirit of the people» often produced something that didn’t comply with the primary ideas of the revolutionaries. The spontaneous socialism of the opposed contained not only constructive but also destructive principles. Those who had faced it were ready to put testify that the revolution «evokes in a person not only a beast but also a fool.» (Emigrant Sociologist Pitirim Sorokin).
One of the Bolsheviks’ leaders – while complaining about the economical crisis after October, 1917 – admitted regrettably that a worker turns into a pensioner of the state, into a parasite sponging on it. But this remark as well as many others was lost in the overall appetence to a new culture, a new man. Few indeed thought about the consequences and the costs of the revolution. There was no need to think about the past and the present when the old was being replaced by the new, when the «new man» was being formed.
The Russian Revolutions of the XX century have not avoided the destiny of The French Revolution: some people glorify them as a historical landmark in humanity’s liberation from oppression, others curse them as a catastrophe and crime; some consider the revolutionaries as saints, while for others they are monsters.
Is it Possible to Control a Revolution?
Sometimes a revolution is compared to an abdominal surgical operation, the charge that one has to pay for having rejected preventive routine treatment. At the same time drastic intervention can sometimes be the only guarantee of recovery.
The Twentieth century produced two paths towards revolution: either the current power regime quickly intercepts the initiative from revolutionists and extinguishes as soon as possible the flames of popular indignation, or revolutionists themselves fully bring their slogans to life. The revolution of 1905 made the government cast away its endless hesitation and doubts, stop talking and start doing. At that, a more radical reform project of a larger scale was chosen. The two greatest Russian reformers, Sergey Witte and Pyotr Stolypin, headed the Council of Ministers. During the revolution situation, they worked to simultaneously suppressed popular anger and rebellion, while conducting reform measures. In short, they followed the classical rule: if all forces are spent fighting the revolution, its consequences can be temporarily eliminated. But while, relying on force, if fundamental changes and reforms are implemented, the revolutions causes can be eliminated.
In 1905–1907, personal immunity, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of unions were declared, agrarian reform was put into practice, redemption of payments for peasants were cancelled, duration of military service was reduced, universities received their autonomy, fines for participating in economic strikes were abolished. But at the same time, there were dragoons and drum-head court martial to stifle mass rebellions.
After February Revolution of 1917, along with democratic changes the Provisional Government also initiated an institutional basis for forced measures. To settle the summer crisis of 1917 the Provisional Government instigated, for instance, armed food detachments, which withdrew bread from peasants in the villages. The Provisional Government based itself on the brutal examples of the recent past: food requisitions, on the basis of set prices in 1914; a bread allotment of November of 1916 on the initiative of Rittikh, the tsar’s land minister; and «soldier groups» for compulsory agricultural tasks. Thus brutality led to brutality.
The Bolsheviks having taken power in Russia continued orienting themselves towards world revolution – the new era, in which working people all over the world would unite in a single world-commune. From October 1917 until March 1918, Lenin and his entourage took pains to indicate the form of the new Soviet State system and its regime. This led not only to anarchy, but massive armed rebellions of an absolutely anarchical mood and vision.
A bewildering number of different institutions appeared («labor communes», federations of «labor communes»). Many of these institutions enjoyed some autonomy; they had their own councils of people’s commissars. Soon each of them considered itself the legitimate local power, accepting the decrees of the central power as they saw fit. The same slogan of expropriation of expropriators was understood as «steal what has been stolen», as an appeal to take piece by piece all national property back to one’s own houses, attics and cellars.
All of this could have been predicted. But in that case Nikolay Berdyaev could not have been amazed by the «superhuman efforts» of Lenin, who in the span of five months came from being a marginalized party functionary to leading a massive national transformation. He called for the communization of all property, discipline, responsibility, and a complete restructuring. He exposed revolutionary phrase mongering, anarchic tastes and making «conjurations over an abyss.»
Indeed the most pitiless truth was discovered in the spring of 1918: it was impossible to overcome the crisis in the situation when each province represented «an independent republic,» while there was individual and group egoism, and anarchy ruled the market. Nothing but strong central power was able to reestablish lost economic ties and revered tries with the countryside rehabilitate a broken financial system, establish order and discipline.
In their practical activity the Bolsheviks too resorted to force, but on a much more massive scale then ever before witnessed in Russian history. At first forced was used systematically only in the limited patches of the most critical areas of supplying food. These methods continued the authoritarian tendencies of the war period. However, from May-June 1918 – a period, when there was a threat of restoration and counter-revolution, the Bolsheviks openly choose the way of defending soviet «strength» by any available means.
It is clear that the gradual retreat of both revolutionaries and their adversaries into «emergency» policy of force and violence was preceded by a long chain of events. The question «Who was the first to start?» usually leads nowhere. It is important to define the logic of the escalation violence itself because only that type of knowledge can inform politicians of the dangers in their decisions and actions. Perhaps we could accept the thesis «any violence is evil.» But when social confrontation reaches the point of civil war, society disintegrates. At such moments enemies and adversaries are kept beyond the moral, they are considered «inhuman», to which common human standards don’t apply. Then mere statements on the immorality of violence cannot stop anyone.
Long lasting extreme conditions were beneficial for the bureaucracy and state machinery because they received ever increasing power. This was the situation in 1905–1907, but it was even more evident after October 1917, when the old party Guard consisting of professional revolutionists exhausted itself. When new groups, led by «the common man,» arrived, the question of whether Russia was actually ready for a new regime became acute. Holding important posts, «the common man» introduced a whole range of new understandings to professional revolutionary activity, most notably the golden age of bureaucracy.
When directly connected to different social groups, bureaucracy is not dreadful. It’s not dreadful even when people infected by some anarchical illnesses come to the front. But when «the common man» is in charge, bureaucracy, the eternal problem of Russia comes to the fore. In fact, as Nikolay Osinskiy wrote to Lenin in October 1919: «the people actually bringing the dry algebraic formulas (created by Lenin) into practice are either poor managers or good functionaries (and often even bad functionaries). Only «bureaucrats» work at the most important posts. For important jobs we have a large amount of those who «know how to be on good terms with others», without hurting them.»
In bureaucracy form dominates over content. Bureaucracy in Russia became not only archaism but in a way a compensating machine in conditions when superficial forms do not have a proper support in industrial or technological potential. The efforts to artificially maintain sagging quasi-socialistic forms required social power. It was the Bureaucracy and national security forces which came to embody this power.
Is it Possible to avoid the Catastrophe of Revolution? Often the history of revolution turns out to be nothing more than a code of notions about revolutions. These histories characterize the mentality of those who reconstruct history, rather than the real history of the revolution itself. It seems clear enough, however that the «mystery» of Russian revolutions lies in the passion for extremes, a hope and belief that at in one stroke all problems can be solved, that unwanted past stays buried, and right away something new will be created.
Only smart policy can resist the logic of Russian radicalism and maximalism. Where there isn’t enough of it, an extraordinary commissar or commissioner appears. Yes, Russian revolutionaries along with Saint-Just might: the nature of events themselves leads us to results that we never had in mind. However, before 1905 as well as before 1917, reality contained a large diversity of evolutionary paths. But most importantly, history demonstrates that Russia could have been reformed. These are the true reforms that can prevent catastrophic situations; they represent the best way to break the spirit of revolution and lead its energy in a peaceful direction without turning towards radicalism.
However, nowadays most historians admit that the link between revolution and reform is more complicated, than it was once believed. Reforms can prevent a revolution but in certain cases they can give it an incentive. Late or half-completed reforms may stoke the flames of revolution. To avoid this, one shouldn’t be scared into not recognizing defects in the system and the need for corrections. By looking for excuses – functionaries are to blame, local officials are to blame, overzealous bureaucrats are the problem – sooner or later the blame will inevitably concentrate on the state itself.
Revolutionary forces can be held in check not only by the state, but also by society. Society is not a rival of to the state but a partner equally responsible for finding solutions in critical situations. It is society that is able to exercise pressure on the authorities; society can bring about timely renovation of the political elite, create a system of renovation and control its functions.
Revolution cannot be cast away, no matter how much someone wishes to do so. The heritage of revolution is still in institutions of the present. The revolution is no longer seen as infallible. Yes, it is true that its image is now vague and unclear, but the symbols of revolution have not disappeared, have not lost their value, regardless of subjective intentions of those who wish to control the past and the present. The Revolution will always have adherents, who see in it the realization of such ideals as freedom, equality and fraternity of people and nations. The revolution will also have adversaries unwilling to forget radical tendencies. The question posed by great humanist Jean-Jaures remains unanswered: «Revolution is a barbaric form of progress. Will we have a chance to see the day when the form of human progress will be truly humane?»
Theme 4
EMERGENCY MEASURES AND THE «EXTREME EMERGENCY REGIME» IN THE SOVIET REPUBLIC AND OTHER STATE FORMATIONS ON THE TERRITORY OF RUSSIA, 1918‒1920
In 1917, a democratic republic with maximum political legality began to take shape. It was the first time that the state began to reject authoritarian mechanisms; retributive policies declined; police and the secret political police force «Okhranka» were disbanded. That was the moment when two alternative forms of democracy came into sight on the political arena: one of them was Petrograd Soviet of Workers and Soldiers Deputies, an unofficial but highly legitimate body elected by workers, soldiers, and sailors to represent their interests – but it was untested. The other was the Provisional Government, which based itself on Duma (that is, parliamentary) traditions and embraced European models. This government promised to convene a «Constituent Assembly» in order to establish a new form of government for Russia. The holders of both types promised people to pull the country out of World War I and overcome the extreme crisis the country found itself in. Moreover, all sides promised to do so without resorting to a regime of so-called «high state of alert» based on the Statute on Measures to Protect State Order and Public Peace (the security law of August 14, 1881), the rules of which were so intimately known to the majority of territories of the Russian Empire since 1881.
History gave the possibility to test this crucial statement both to the Bolsheviks and their political opponents. Soon the idea of democracy lost widespread public support. The Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government failed compromise or find agreement on basis issues, and subsequently found themselves in the state of crisis. Both sides turned to seemingly outmoded forms of authoritarian politics. The country had to choose between two kinds of dictatorship: «the Whites» and «the Reds», and not between two forms of democracy, based on either the Provisional Government or the Petrograd Soviet. Soviet democracy was transformed into a one-party militarized dictatorship.. The members of the All-Russian Constituent Assembly began to cooperate with, and later knuckled under to, the «white» restorationist generals.
In the Soviet Republic and new state formations that appeared on the territory of Russia during 1918–1920, this process was accompanied by the establishment of «firm authority.» Extraordinary forces played a certain role in this, but more than anything else the «emergency regime» that was announced by the ruling circles – quite consciously but without any real need – was put in place for the sake of keeping power in their hands. There was a certain synchronicity in this process, with both sides exhibiting similar tendencies. In addition, this process occurred despite doctrinal statements from each of the opposing forces that rejected such a regime.
What set apart the regime of emergency measures? First of all, it began the turn to mass terror as a form of governance, as a means of liquidating enemies, moral intimidation and suppression of any resistance. This process was inevitably cloaked in some appropriate ideological language («a threat of counterrevolution», «radicalization of the class struggle», «a threat to democracy», etc.). Part of the population was declared to be «enemies of the people»: they were double-dealers, betrayers, spies, diversionists, saboteurs. It meant that they were not «friends» but «foes,» and so any means were admissible in the fight against them. The «extreme emergency» regime also meant the suppression of regular governing bodies by extraordinary ones, and the simplification of justice through bypassing legal proceedings. In general, it enabled a particular style of leadership and empowered certain social groups.
The emergency situation (withdrawal from the World War, accompanied by demilitarization of the economy and demobilization of the army, famine, the threat of the restoration of the former regime, etc.) objectively called into existence the idea of a «firm authority.» This idea entailed a system of extraordinary bodies, which, according to Lenin’s order, were vested with full dictatorial powers; as well as progressive delegation of some emergency functions to a number of the regular state forces (for instance, to the People’s Commissariat of Communications and Provisions). At first this process was perceived as a temporary phenomenon, which no one associated with the Bolsheviks’ basic prescriptions. The staff of the extraordinary bodies was not numerous; their creation came with a proviso on the observance of certain conditions – they were to function under broad local control; they were to be temporary, local, and finally subordinated directly to Lenin, who was not seen as dictatorial.
The decree of The Council of People’s Commissars on November 22, 1917 confirmed the principles governing the activities of people’s courts and revolutionary tribunals, which had under their jurisdiction special committees of inquiry fighting against counterrevolution. They were elected by the Soviets, consisted of the chairman and two members and considered cases of counterrevolutionary misdeeds, speculation and anti-regime agitation. On May 29, 1918, under the jurisdiction of All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK), the Revolutionary courts martial (Revtribunal) was founded. It investigated cases of special importance. It was not unusual that the Soviets carried out judicial functions since the «bourgeois principle» of the separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial branches was totally abandoned.
By the term «revolutionary justice» most Bolshevik chairmen did not mean equal justice for everybody, because, according to their opinion, there was no and could not be any justice in a class society. At the same time, until the summer of 1918, when the Civil War re-intensified, people witnessed mild sanctions being applied to the most evident oppositionists to the Revolution, such as release from custody on parole and conditional sentences, even as they also witnessed cruel lynchings, pogroms and slaughter. For example, in January 1918, Moscow courts passed out thirteen percent suspended sentences, while in the second part of the year, the number of such sentences mounted to 40 %.
On December 7, 1917, the decree of The Council of People’s Commissars established All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution, Speculation and Sabotage (the Cheka) to protect the gains of the Revolution. Felix Dzerzhinsky became the Cheka’s head. He made the relationship of these organs to law enforcement agencies clear in his inaugural address: «Do not think that I am seeking any forms of revolutionary justice; we do not need justice today. Now we have to fight, face to face, it is a struggle for life or death, who will win out?! I propose – indeed, I insist on organizing revolutionary slaughter of counter-revolutionary agents».
However, only three months later did the Cheka obtain the right to found local Extraordinary Commissions in provincial and district centers. The decree of the Council of People’s Commissars of February 21, 1918 – «The Socialist motherland in danger» – gave it the right of extrajudicial killing of «enemy agents, speculators, housebreakers, hooligans, counter-revolutionary propagandists as well as German spies.»
It goes without saying that there was nothing unusual in the formation of extraordinary agencies. However, there was one condition – that their activity should have been based on the people’s self-activity; emergency measures and corresponding bodies should have compensated for the failures and weaknesses of the Soviets. Under an authoritarian administration, special governing bodies take a different meaning and play a different role in the power structure.
In May 1918, the Bolshevik government found itself at an impasse regarding economic policy. It was impossible to establish a bread monopoly gently. External as well as internal military pressure had reached its critical point. In such conditions for their own sake the authorities made a conscious decision to go beyond the limits of simple emergency measures. They plunged themselves and the society into the «extreme emergency» regime. The commissars believed that only extreme measures, and not planned legal activities, could solve acute contradictions and transform them into something new. Provisional dictatorship was imposed; the VTsIK began to expel the Mensheviks, right orientated social revolutionaries and then left orientated social revolutionaries from the Committee. In his speech at the rally in Butyrsky district of Moscow, after the attempted assassination of Lenin, which took place on August 30, 1918, Nikolai Osinskii said: «All the bourgeois elements placed on record and taken under public supervision must be divided into three groups. We will annihilate the active ones and those who constitute a threat. The others will be clapped by the heels. The third group will be subjected to hard labor, and those who are not able to work will go to camps.
Little by little, such methods assumed an uncontrollable character. Moreover, extraordinary agencies did not yet have strictly determined prescriptions and legitimate principles regulating their activity. The committees of the poor (kombeds), food brigades (prodotryads), blocking troops (barrier troops), revolutionary tribunals and local authorities were becoming almost uncontrollable. Quite soon the Cheka formed its net in all guberniyas and uyezds (provincial centers); it gained the right of peremptory judgments on questions of life and death. In a number of offices it could even exercise control over the activity of local judicial bodies and subordinate local committees of the ruling party.
In their letters people asked Lenin avowedly and harshly: «Why has the dictatorship of the proletariat in local offices turned into a criminal dictatorship of lower class criminals?» «How come, that even on this great day, the day of the anniversary of the Great October Revolution, working people do not have any real rights and possibilities but have to fear the Cheka agents and their searches?»
The «extreme emergency» regime did not manage to strengthen the communist government. On the contrary it weakened it and generated a situation of anarchy. Neither the upper class, nor the lower class could control the activity of the other. A weak system of power was rapidly losing its social foundation. All classes of the society tired of the anarchy engulfing the country. Peasants and ordinary citizens had only one dream: order. The destiny of the Bolsheviks depended on the transformation of the «extreme emergency» regime into a strictly organized form of dictatorship.
Beginning in September 1918, one could record the reining in of some manifestations of the «extreme emergency» regime, first and foremost the use of mass terror as a form of governing. The emergency measures and agencies were also brought within bounds of the law and strict regulatory activity. Only with this strategy could they manage to win over the majority of the population and form a firm rear echelon.
The decrees of the IV All-Russian Extraordinary Congress of Soviets in November 1918 proclaimed amnesty. Local extraordinary committees lost the right to seize hostages, and consequently only the central office of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission was authorized to do so. A considerable number of hostages who had been seized before were freed. The committees of the poor (the kombeds) were eliminated. «Revolutionary law» came into force. All these decisions manifested the readiness of the Bolsheviks for a long-term war, as well as comprehension that they could not make war in the conditions of disorder and instability that marked the «extreme emergency» regime. In justifying the necessity of the aforementioned decrees, and primarily of the one concerning amnesty, the authorities wanted to demonstrate that they were sufficiently strong, and that they were ready to reconcile with all their enemies who would agree to submit to Soviet power.