Kitabı oku: «The XXth Century Political History of Russia: lecture materials», sayfa 3
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.
On February 17, 1919, with reference to the decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, the VTsIK declared the transfer of the right of adjudication from the extraordinary commissions to revolutionary tribunals. But this did not mean that these measures put an end to the manifestations of the «extreme emergency» regime. The Cheka kept its full powers in the regions where Soviet power had proclaimed martial law, and in 1919 such regions prevailed. Revolutionary tribunals were not, and could not be, a model of justice. Extraordinary commissions issued their judgments at the end of a trial, and revolutionary tribunals examined the cases on the basis of these judgments. Moreover, members of extraordinary committees were required to be members of the revolutionary tribunals. Standing orders on the revolutionary tribunals, which were adopted by VTsIK on April 12, 1919, prescribed that they were to be governed only by the conditions of the case and revolutionary conscience while judging.
Revolutionary tribunals were formed in the Military Revolutionary Councils at the fronts, and in the armies and corps as well; they were called Military Revolutionary Tribunals. Not only military men and prisoners of war were under their jurisdiction, but all criminals who had committed crimes within the zone of military operations as well. The sentences were enforced immediately. Death sentences were executed after two days; their enforcement could be stopped by the corresponding Military Revolutionary Council.
All extraordinary committees underwent organizational changes. This was, perhaps, the main sign of a return to the regime of regular emergency measures. Indicative in this context were the warnings by Petr Kropotkin, the anarchist theorist, in his letter to Lenin dated September 17, 1918, that the extraordinary bodies were on the eve of a serious trial. Like all other theorists of the revolution, Kropotkin appealed to the experience of the French Revolution. He tried to show how the terrorists of the Committee of General Security (the National Guard) became its grave-diggers in 1794. His studies of the literature made Kropotkin conclude that along with the Committee of General Rescue and particularly with the Paris Commune founded in 1793, «along with this revolutionary force, which was already partly constructive, another type appeared that was a police force, presented by Committee of General Security and its police departments. At first, this police force that had achieved momentum during the Reign of Terror, demolished the Sections (agencies of the People’s Revolution that appeared in large cities – G. B.), then the Commune and finally the Committee of General Security itself,» he wrote to Lenin.
Kropotkin did not conceal from Lenin the reason why he needed to examine this period of history: «Your comrades/terrorists are about to do the same in the Soviet Republic.» The Russian people have a great reserve of creative potential. Hardly had these forces begun to rebuild life on a new foundation from the complete ruin brought on by the war and revolution, when «the police, with their duties imposed on them by the Terror, commenced their corrosive and pernicious activity». They paralyzed any kind of construction and appointed completely inadequate people. Police cannot be a «builder» of a new life. But nevertheless it was the police who were becoming the supreme power in all small towns and villages. «Where will such a situation lead Russia?» asked Kropotkin. «I believe it will provoke the fiercest reaction.» The first signal of understanding this danger was «The decree on the All-Russian and local extraordinary committees» adopted by VTsIK in October 28, 1918. The document stipulated the controlled status of the local Chekas and their subordination to the Soviets and executive committees. In January 1919, Political Bureaus replaced local extraordinary committees in the districts. They were headed by the chiefs of the local police departments. Beginning February 17, 1919, in accordance with the decree of VTsIK, the All-Russian Extraordinary Committee had the right to administer punishment only in regions under martial law.
However, regulation of the activity of all extraordinary committees as well as of revolutionary tribunals had an ambiguous character and in reality its effect was minimal. Their activity was directly subordinate to Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party through Dzerzhinsky’s office; to be more precise, it was subordinated to Lenin personally.
All of these contradictions in reforming the structure of the extraordinary bodies caused new surges of the «extreme emergency regime» throughout the Civil War. It would be enough to mention how they tried to solve the food problem of February and April of 1919, the summer punitive expedition of 1919 to Ukraine, the Crimean events in late 1920, and the events in Tambov guberniya in 1920–1921.
The dissolution of the Ukrainian Rada at the end of 1918 and the foundation of the Ukrainian State in place of the Ukrainian People’s Republic signaled the dictatorial tendency of numerous newly organized state formations which were out of Bolshevik control. «The law on the interim state structure of the Ukrainian government» vested hetman Skoropadski with dictatorial authority.
The situation in the North of Russia was almost the same. At the end of 1918, in Archangelsk, Soviet power was overthrown and a «socialist» supreme government of the North region was formed. The city was opened to the troops of interventionist countries. However, after a failed military coup undertaken by the «Rightists», contradictions between «democratic» authorities and the occupation administration finally led to the formation in early October of a new «neosocialist» Provisional government. Socio-political powers were reorganized toward the «Rightists» and a regime of «hard power.»
In August, political organizations such as «The Unity of Renaissance» and «The National Center» – masterminds of the «White cause» – formed a consolidated platform, the meaning of which was articulated in the following statement: «In the process of state formation and until the moment the state structure is completed, authority […] must be vested in an authorized, strong, and independent supreme body capable of acting. Its structure will consist of a directorate of three: a Commander-in-Chief of counterrevolutionary armies and two representatives of socialist and non-socialist movements».
When in September the destiny of the Committee of Russian Constituent Assembly members was called in question due to the activity of the Red Army, state power started to concentrate in Omsk. The Council of Ministers was deprived of its decision-making function, which was delegated to the Administrative Council. It embodied the heads of all ministries of the Siberian regional government and their deputies. On September 8, the Siberian regional Duma came under full jurisdiction of the Administrative Council, which even had the right to dissolve it.
At the same time Grishin-Almazov, a moderate defense minister, was removed from office and replaced by Ivanov-Rinov. The latter did not just quickly restore the signs and symbols of the former regime but also gave the army absolute freedom of action by his directives. The army was permitted to do with civilians whatever it wished. Any semblance of civilian control over the military was eliminated.
The Directory of Ufa shared the same fate. Finally, in September 1918, during a meeting of merchants and manufacturers in Omsk the following statement was announced: «We’ve seen all the political parties in power, but the only result has been the destruction of Russia. We need a strong reasonable authority with a heart of stone to keep Russia alive. Russia is at war, every piece of its territory is a theater of operations, so there cannot be two ruling powers, there has to be only one, and that one should be the military.»
It was Admiral Kolchak who was entrusted with the mission of creating a strong power structure. As a consequence of the coup d’etat of November 1918, he became Supreme Leader of the Russian State. He stated then: «They call me a «dictator» – so be it… I’m not afraid of this word and I always remember that from the earliest times dictatorship has been a republican institution. As well as the Senate of ancient Rome, which appointed a dictator to rule the country passing through hard times, the Council of Ministers of Russia named me to the Supreme Governor during the most difficult period of the state.»
The extraordinary bodies formed in Kolchak’s administration (under such generals as Denikin, Yudenich and others), strongly resembled «state power,» though under the generals’ jurisdiction. Military bodies played a particular role in the machinery of punishment and repression. Those military bodies were represented by front-line and military field courts, but particularly by the counter-intelligence agencies that appeared haphazardly and everywhere. These departments of military control never were as much applied as during the Civil War. They were created by the main headquarters, military governors, in almost every military unit, political organization and governmental authority. Like extraordinary committees in the Soviet Republic, they symbolized the lack of trust and suspiciousness that reigned all over the country.
Apart from a counterintelligence service, Kolchak formed special purpose police units. In March 1919, the agencies of «state security» were founded under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Interior. They were attached to the regional governors; their purpose was to fight against political criminals. According to the law enacted in April, an enterprise or any other establishment using their private funds could hire «police teams» for their own protection.
The creation of special extraordinary bodies, such as Osvag (agencies controlling a web of informants under the jurisdiction of the head of the special Council affiliated to the Commander-in-Chief), was a peculiar feature of the southern armed forces. Besides fulfilling counterintelligence functions, it had to supervise the political moods of the population. Special committees of the Volunteer armies (the generals’ extraordinary agency) were also founded to examine the pre-revolutionary background of the officer corps.
«The Whites» exercised judicial authority as strangely as the Reds, despite official separation of powers. «Regular» law enforcement agencies of the new state formations as well as of regions freed from the «Reds» went by pre-revolutionary legislation, though with certain alterations. But they acted only after military field courts. According to the «white» court procedure, an arrested person’s case was to be examined within 24 hours. Then the prisoner, whoever he might be, was either released (in this case he was supplied with an appropriate paper) or executed by shooting.
According to the legislation of war time, the list of grounds for prosecution included such causes as Bolshevik party membership or a top rank or political post in the Red Army. However, according to G. William’s (a «white» emigrant) recollections about the activity of the Novorossiisk counterintelligence agency, it was «so very easy to get in that dreadful place that might as well lead you to the grave». All an agent needed to do to start a classic counterintelligence prosecution was to find out that somebody living in the Volunteer Army region had a nice (in the agent’s opinion) sum of money. Political loyalty of all common people was «questioned.» At the same time, senior officers at the front were above any suspicion. They were supported and protected by counterintelligence, the criminal investigation department, and state guards. From William’s point of view, it was that «throng» of protected officers that finally brought the Volunteer Army to destruction.
