What contributed to the formation of a one-party state system. Question. the formation of a one-party regime. formation of the ussr

Definition 1

An important component of the mechanism of power is the party system, which is the process of development of the political process itself, its formation in dynamics.

Characterizing the specifics of the party system, it can be noted that the process of its formation takes place under the influence of a variety of factors. These may be certain features. national composition population, the impact of religion or historical traditions, the balance of political forces and much more.

In order to define the character political system it is worth paying attention to the degree of real participation of political parties in the life of the state. An important point is that the decisive role is always played not by the total number of parties, but by the direction and number of parties actually participating in the life of the country. Based on the foregoing, the following types of party systems can be distinguished:

one-party;
bipartisan;
multi-party.

One-party system of the USSR

Special attention should be paid to the one-party political system. This system is considered non-adversarial. Its name already suggests that it is based on only one party. Such a system leads to the emasculation of the institution of elections, since there is no possibility of an alternative choice. The center for making certain decisions is completely transferred to the party leadership. One way or another, but gradually such a system leads to the formation of a dictatorial regime and total control. The USSR in the period from 1917 to 1922 can be called an example of states with this type of system.

The key event that influenced the emergence of a one-party system in the USSR was the events of February 1917, when the monarchy was replaced by an indecisive and weak provisional government, subsequently overthrown by the Social Democratic Party.

The one-party government was headed by V.I. Lenin. The time has come for the "elimination" of all non-Bolshevik parties. The first of the conclusions characterizing the one-party system of the Soviet period is the decisive importance of violence in the formation of one-party system. However, there was another approach on the way to this goal - the emigration of party leaders, their separation from the country.

Remark 1

It is worth noting that the methods of struggle of the Bolsheviks were not distinguished by a peaceful orientation. Quite often, boycotts and obstructions were used: speeches were interrupted, mocking remarks were often heard from the audience, and booed. In those cases when it was not possible to achieve victory, the Bolsheviks resorted to the formation of a similar body in the necessary body, recognizing it as the only legal one. There is an opinion that this method of struggle was invented personally by V.I. Lenin.

Stages of approval of the one-party system of the USSR

There are several stages in the approval of a one-party system:

Establishment of Soviet power. This stage took place in two directions. It is characterized both by the peaceful transfer of government into the hands of the Soviet and by a number of resistances by the anti-Bolshevik forces.
Election of the Constituent Assembly. Following the path of forming a one-party system, unequal conditions were formed for liberal parties. Thus, the results of the elections testify to the inevitable development of the country along the socialist path.
Formation of a coalition government through the unification of the Bolsheviks and Left SRs. However, such an alliance was not destined to last long. Not supporting the Brest-Litovsk Peace and the Bolshevik policy, the Social Revolutionaries left the coalition alliance, which led to their subsequent expulsion from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.
The process of redistribution of powers is becoming obvious, the power of the councils is shifting in favor of party committees, as well as emergency authorities. The stage of the final prohibition of all democratic parties is coming. There is only one party left — the Bolshevik party.

Figure 1. Formation of the one-party system of the USSR. Author24 - online exchange of student papers

The year 1923 is characterized by the collapse of the Menshevik party. The political opposition ceases to exist outside the Bolshevik Party. A one-party political system is finally established in the country. Undivided power passes into the hands of the RCP (b). By this time, as noted above, the transition of small parties, especially those that did not have any political perspective, had long been over. They all came under the leadership of the main party. Individuals did the same.

Results of the one-party system of the USSR

The one-party system of the USSR greatly simplified all the problems of political leadership. It was reduced to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which does not know its rivals. The entire repressive state apparatus and the impact on the people through the means of mass media... The all-pervading vertical that was created carried out its activities exclusively unilaterally towards the public, not accepting any feedback.

The development took place due to the contradictions characteristic of political parties in general, but in our country they possessed a specific form dictated by the one-party system. Thanks to the party system, it became obvious that our society is incapable of development under conditions of monopoly power. In order for the party to dial necessary strength, and at the same time to preserve it, to develop in the mainstream of a free community, the unity of which is based on the unity of not only convictions, but also actions, it is necessary to have the possibility of free competition of doctrines, strategies, the struggle of party representatives before the voters.

Today the political system of Russia is multi-party.

1) Establishment Soviet power in Russia

From the end of October 1917 to February 1918, Soviet power was established (mainly by peaceful means) in most of the territory of the former Russian Empire.

At the end of 1917 - beginning of 1918, simultaneously with the liquidation of the old bodies of power, a new state apparatus was being created. The supreme legislative body was the Congress of Soviets. In the intervals between congresses, these functions were performed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (All-Russian Central Executive Committee). The supreme executive body was the Council of People's Commissars (government), headed by V.I. Lenin.

After the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918, which at its first meeting refused to support the October Revolution, the Third Congress of Soviets was held. At this congress, Russia was declared the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR).

The new organization of power was enshrined in the Constitution of the RSFSR, adopted at the V Congress of Soviets in 1918.

The Left SRs were the only party that entered the government bloc with the Bolsheviks. However, already in March 1918 the bloc disintegrated: the Left SRs withdrew from the government in protest against the conclusion of the Brest Peace.

After the exclusion of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and local Soviets (June 1918), we can talk about the actual establishment of a one-party system in the Soviet Republic.

One of the key questions of the young Soviet power was the question of the conclusion of the Brest Peace Treaty, over which even a big internal party struggle unfolded.

Having embarked on a grandiose transformation of Russia, the Bolsheviks were in dire need of peace on the outer borders. The world war continued. The Entente countries ignored the Bolshevik Peace Decree. It was obvious that the Russian army was not in a position to fight, and mass desertions began.

I had to negotiate a separate peace with Germany. They took place in Brest-Litovsk. The conditions proposed by the enemy were humiliating: Germany demanded that Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Estonia and Livonia be torn away from Russia. Trotsky thwarted the negotiations. On February 18, 1918, the Germans resumed hostilities. On February 23 (the birthday of the Soviet Army), the Germans present even more difficult peace conditions, according to which Finland, Ukraine and some regions of the Transcaucasia are torn away from Russia. Finally, on March 3, 1918, the contract is signed.

I must say that the Brest-Litovsk Peace was nevertheless a necessary measure, it was necessary for the young Soviet republic to keep the Bolsheviks in power.

2) Formation of a one-party system

We can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918, because the Left Social Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Soviets of all levels, the leadership of the people's commissariats and the Cheka , with their noticeable participation, the first Constitution of the RSFSR, the most important laws of Soviet power, were created. Some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets at that time.

The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. Decree "On the arrest of the leaders civil war Against the Revolution "of November 28, 1917, one party was banned - the Cadets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, ties with the commercial, industrial and military circles, and the support of allies. But just this prohibition of the party could not undermine, most likely it was an act of revenge on the once most influential enemy.

The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were the anarchists. They took an active part in the establishment and consolidation of Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. They expressed a spontaneous protest of the peasantry and urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists without exception bandits. Some of the anarchists went underground, while others joined the Bolshevik Party.

On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of more moderate strata of workers and peasants who yearned for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their material situation. The Bolsheviks relied on the further development of the class struggle, transferring it to the countryside, which further increased the gap between them and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, formed in connection with the conclusion of the Brest-Litovsk Peace. As a result, in June, the Mensheviks and Right SRs, and after July, the Left SRs were expelled from the Soviets. The Socialist-Revolutionaries-maximalists still remained in them, however, due to their small number, they did not play a significant role.

During the years of foreign military intervention and the civil war, depending on the change in the policy of the Menshevik and Socialist-Revolutionary parties in relation to the power of the Soviets, they were either allowed or again prohibited, passing to a semi-legal position. Attempts from both sides to conditional cooperation have not been developed.

The course to eradicate political pluralism and prevent a multiparty system was confirmed by the resolution of the XII All-Russian Conference of the RCP (b) in August 1922 "On anti-Soviet parties and trends", which declared all anti-Bolshevik forces anti-Soviet, i.e. anti-state, although in reality most of them encroached not on the power of the Soviets, but on the power of the Bolsheviks in the Soviets. Measures of ideological struggle were to be directed against them, first of all. Repression was not ruled out, but officially had to play a subordinate role.

The process of the Combat Organization of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, organized in the summer of 1922, was intended to play primarily a propaganda role. Held in the Column Hall of the House of Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large public, foreign observers and defenders, and widely reported in the press, the process was supposed to present the SRs as ruthless terrorists. After that, the Extraordinary Congress of ordinary members of the AKP passed easily, announcing the dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their dissolution. In recent literature, facts about the role of the RCP (b) and the OGPU in the preparation and conduct of these congresses have been made public.

Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. the cross was finally put up. It seems that from this time it is possible to date the completion of the formation of a one-party system, a decisive step towards which was taken in 1918.

21. Civil war in Russia: causes, stages, results, consequences.

After October uprising a tense socio-political situation developed in the country, which led to the Civil War. The reasons for the Civil War: the overthrow of the Provisional Government and the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly by the Bolsheviks; internal policy of the Bolshevik leadership; the desire of the overthrown classes to preserve private property and their privileges; refusal of the Mensheviks, Socialist-Revolutionaries and anarchists from cooperation with the Soviet government. The peculiarity of the Civil War in Russia lay in its close intertwining with foreign intervention. Germany, France, England, USA, Japan, Poland and others took part in the intervention. They supplied the anti-Bolshevik forces with weapons, provided financial and military-political support. The policy of the interventionists was determined by the desire to put an end to the Bolshevik regime and prevent the "spreading" of the revolution, return the lost property of foreign citizens and obtain new territories and spheres of influence at the expense of Russia. In 1918, the main centers of the anti-Bolshevik movement were formed in Moscow and Petrograd, which united the Cadets, Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. A strong anti-Bolshevik movement developed among the Cossacks. On the Don and Kuban, they were headed by General P.N. Krasnov, in the South Urals - ataman P.I. Dutov. The basis of the white movement in southern Russia and the North Caucasus was the Volunteer Army of General L.S. Kornilov. In the spring of 1918, foreign intervention began. German troops occupied Ukraine, Crimea and part North Caucasus, Romania captured Bessarabia. In March, the British corps landed in Murmansk. In April, Vladivostok was occupied by a Japanese landing party. In May 1918, the soldiers of the Czechoslovak corps, who were in captivity in Russia, revolted. The uprising led to the overthrow of Soviet power in the Volga region and Siberia. In early September 1918 troops Eastern Front under the command of I.I. Vatsetis went on the offensive and during October-November drove the enemy out of the Urals. The restoration of Soviet power in the Urals and the Volga region ended the first stage of the civil war. At the end of 1918 - 1919. the white movement has reached its maximum scope. In 1919, a plan was created for a simultaneous strike on Soviet power: from the east (A. V. Kolchak), the south (A. I. Denikin) and the west (N. N. Yudenich). However, it was not possible to carry out the combined performance. The troops of S.S. Kamenev and M.V. Frunze stopped the offensive of A.V. Kolchak and drove him to Siberia. Two offensives of N.N. Yudenich against Petrograd ended in defeat. In July 1919 A.I. Denikin captured Ukraine and launched an offensive against Moscow. The Southern Front was formed under the command of A.I. Egorova. In December 1919 - early 1920, the troops of A.I. Denikin were defeated. Soviet power was restored in southern Russia, Ukraine and the North Caucasus. In 1919, the interventionists were forced to withdraw their troops. This was facilitated by the revolutionary fermentation in the occupation units and social movement in Europe and the USA under the slogan "Hands off Soviet Russia!" The main events of the final stage of the Civil War in 1920 were the Soviet-Polish war and the struggle against P.N. Wrangel. In May 1920, Polish troops invaded Belarus and the Ukraine. The Red Army under the command of M.N. Tukhachevsky and P.I. Egorova in May 1920 defeated the Polish group and launched an offensive on Warsaw, which soon collapsed. In March 1921, a peace treaty was signed, according to which Poland received the lands of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus. General P.N. Wrangel, elected "the ruler of the south of Russia", formed the "Russian Army" in Crimea and launched an offensive on Donbass. At the end of October 1920, the troops of the Red Army under the command of M.V. Frunze defeated the army of P.N. Wrangel in Northern Tavria and pushed its remnants back to the Crimea. The defeat of P.N. Wrangel marked the end of the civil war. The Bolsheviks won the civil war and repelled foreign intervention. This victory was due to a number of reasons. The Bolsheviks managed to mobilize all the resources of the country, turn it into a single military camp, international solidarity, the help of the proletariat of Europe and the United States were of great importance. The policy of the White Guards - the abolition of the Decree on Land, the return of land to its previous owners, the unwillingness to cooperate with the liberal and socialist parties, punitive expeditions, pogroms, mass executions of prisoners - all this caused discontent among the population, right up to armed resistance. During the civil war, the opponents of the Bolsheviks failed to agree on a single program and a single leader of the movement. The civil war was a terrible tragedy for Russia. Material damage amounted to more than 50 billion rubles. gold. Industrial production decreased by 7 times. In battles, from hunger, disease and terror, 8 million people died, 2 million people were forced to emigrate.

In January 1918, the III All-Russian Congress of Workers 'and Soldiers' Deputies was held. He supported the Bolsheviks. The congress approved the "Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People", approved the draft law on the socialization of the land, proclaimed the federal principle of the state structure of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic (RSFSR) and instructed the All-Russian Central Executive Committee to develop the main provisions of the country's Constitution.

A one-party political system began to take shape in the RSFSR.

Economic transformation. Before coming to power, the Bolsheviks envisioned a socialist economy as an economy without private property, directive, where the state must take into its own hands all goods and give them to the population as needed.

In December 1917, the Supreme Council was created to guide the public sector in the economy. National economy(VSNKh).

In the spring of 1918, the implementation of the Land Decree began. The peasants were to receive free of charge 150 million acres of land belonging to the landowners, the bourgeoisie, the church, and monasteries.

The agrarian policy of the Bolsheviks caused social tension in the countryside, since the Soviet government supported the poor. This aroused the discontent of the well-to-do kulak peasants. The kulaks began to hold on to marketable (for sale) bread. In the cities there was a threat of famine. In this regard, the Council of People's Commissars switched to a policy of harsh pressure on the countryside. In May 1918, a food dictatorship was introduced. This meant the prohibition of the grain trade and the seizure of food supplies from wealthy peasants. Food detachments (food detachments) were sent to the village. They relied on the help of the committees of the poor (kombeda), created in June 1918 to replace the local Soviets. The "black redistribution" of the land dealt a blow to the large farms of landowners, wealthy peasants (otrubnikov, farmers), that is, the positive aspects of the agrarian reform of P.A. Stolypin. Equal distribution led to a drop in labor productivity and agricultural marketability, and to a worse use of land.

The food dictatorship did not justify itself and failed because instead of the planned 144 million poods of grain, only 13 were collected, and also led to the actions of the peasants against the power of the Bolsheviks.

Social transformations. Soviet power finally destroyed the estate system, abolished pre-revolutionary ranks and titles. Free education and medical care were established. Women were given equal rights with men. The Marriage and Family Decree introduced the institution of civil marriage. The Decree on the 8-hour working day was adopted, a labor code that prohibited the exploitation of child labor, guaranteed a system of labor protection for women and adolescents, and the payment of unemployment and sickness benefits. Freedom of conscience was proclaimed. The church was separated from the state and from the educational system.

National policy The Soviet state was determined by the "Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia" adopted by the Council of People's Commissars on November 2, 1917. It proclaimed the equality and sovereignty of the peoples of Russia, their right to self-determination and the formation of independent states. In December 1917 g. Soviet government recognized the independence of Ukraine and Finland, in August 1918 - Poland, in December - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, in February 1919 - Belarus. The Transcaucasian Democratic Federal Republic also proclaimed its independence; after its collapse (in June), the Azerbaijan, Armenian and Georgian bourgeois republics arose.

The first Soviet Constitution of the RSFSR (adopted on July 10, 1918) consolidated the principle of unitarity of the new state, but the peoples of Russia received the right to regional autonomy. The peoples of the Russian state, within the framework of autonomy, could realize their national interests.

In 1918, the first national regional associations were: the Turkestan Soviet Republic, the Labor Commune of the Volga Germans, the Soviet Socialist Republic of Taurida (Crimea). In March 1919, the Bashkir Autonomous Soviet Republic was proclaimed, and in 1920 the Tatar and Kirghiz autonomous republics became autonomous republics. TO autonomous regions joined Kalmyk, Mari, Votskaya, Karachay-Cherkess, Chuvash. Karelia became the Labor Commune. In 1921-1922, the Kazakh, Gorsk, Dagestan, Crimean autonomous republics, Komi-Zyryansk, Kabardin, Mongol-Buryat, Oirot, Circassian, Chechen autonomous regions were created.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru

Federal Agency for Education of the Russian Federation

Novokuznetsk Branch Institute

state educational institution

higher professional education

Kemerovo State University

Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law

Course work

on the topic: Formation of a one-party system in the USSR in the 20-30s. Consequences and contradictions

Completed:

student of group U-092

Mosolov E.D.

Supervisor:

Cand. history. Sciences, Associate Professor

Lipunova L.V.

Novokuznetsk - 2010

Introduction

3. Contradictions of the one-party system in the USSR

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

As a result of the October Revolution, the Provisional Government was overthrown and a government formed by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets came to power, the absolute majority of whose delegates were Bolsheviks - the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party (Bolsheviks) and their allies, the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, also supported by some national organizations, a small some of the Menshevik internationalists, and some anarchists. This absolute majority gave the Bolsheviks the right to implement their political views and theories.

So, the topic "Formation of a one-party system in the USSR, consequences and contradictions" is of interest and relevant for research because:

The creation of a one-party system influenced the entire history of the Soviet state, laid down the peculiarities of the USSR's policy for all subsequent years of its existence, and influenced the consciousness of people. All this is still reflected in modern Russia.

The object of the research is the state apparatus of the USSR and the Bolshevik party (RCP (b) - VKP (b)).

The subject of this research is the actions of the state apparatus of the USSR in the period from 1918 to 1936, to establish a one-party system.

The purpose of the course work is to consider the formation and evolution of the one-party system in the USSR, its contradictions and consequences.

The goal is revealed through the following tasks:

* Trace the history of the formation of the one-party system in the USSR;

* Establish the consequences of adopting such a system;

* Identify the circle of people who have made the greatest contribution to the establishment of the one-party system;

* Reveal problematic aspects;

* Draw a conclusion from the study.

one-party political conformism

1. The history of the formation of the one-party system in the USSR

The course towards the establishment of a one-party political system (such a system in which the only and, therefore, the ruling party is preserved) fully corresponded to the theoretical ideas about the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The authorities, based on direct violence and systematically applying it against "hostile classes", did not even allow the thought of the possibility of political rivalry and opposition from other parties. Equally intolerable for this system was the existence of dissent, alternative groupings within the ruling party. In the 20s. the formation of a one-party system was completed. The NEP, which allowed elements of the market, private initiative, and entrepreneurship in the economic sphere, in the political sphere retained and even toughened up the military-communist intolerance towards "enemies and hesitants."

The Bolshevik Party has become the main link state structure... The most important government decisions were first discussed in the circle of party leaders - the Political Bureau (Politburo) of the Central Committee of the RCP (b), which in 1921 included V.I. Lenin, G.E., Zinoviev, L.B. Kamenev, I. V. Stalin, L. D. Trotsky, etc. Then they were approved by the Central Committee of the RCP (b), and only after that all issues were fixed in the decisions of the state, i.e. Soviet bodies. All leading government posts were held by party leaders: V.I. Lenin - chairman of the Council of People's Commissars; M.I. Kalinin - Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee; I.V. Stalin - People's Commissar for Nationalities, etc.

By 1923 the remnants of the multi-party system were eliminated. The 1922 trial of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, accused of organizing conspiracies against the Soviet regime and the leaders of the Communist Party, put an end to more than twenty years of the party's history. In 1923, the persecuted and intimidated Mensheviks announced their self-dissolution. The Bund ceased to exist. These were left-wing, socialist parties; monarchical and liberal parties were liquidated in the first years after the October Revolution of 1917.

Political opponents outside the ranks of the Communist Party were done away with. All that remained was to achieve unity within the party. After the end of the Civil War, V. I. Lenin considered the question of the unity of the party to be the key, "a matter of life and death." X Congress of the RCP (b) in 1921. adopted at his insistence the famous resolution "On Party Unity", which prohibited any factional activity. In the equally famous last works of 1922-1923. The seriously ill leader called on his heirs to preserve the unity of the party "like the apple of an eye": he saw the main threat in the split of its ranks.

Meanwhile, the internal party struggle, which had intensified during Lenin's lifetime, flared up with renewed vigor after his death (January 1924). Her driving forces there were, on the one hand, disagreements about which direction and how to move on (what to do with NEP; what policy to pursue in the countryside; how to develop industry; where to get money for modernizing the economy, etc.), and personal rivalry in an irreconcilable battle for absolute power - on the other.

The main stages of the internal party struggle in the 20s.

1923-1924 - "triumvirate" (I.V. Stalin, G.E. Zinoviev and LB Kamenev) against L.D. Trotsky. Ideological content: Trotsky demands to stop retreating in front of the petty-bourgeois element, to "tighten the screws", to tighten the command leadership of the economy, accuses the leaders of the party of degeneration. Result: victory of the "triumvirate", personal strengthening of Stalin.

1925 - Stalin, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov, M.P. Tomsky and others against the "new opposition" of Zinoviev and Kamenev. Ideological content: Stalin puts forward the thesis about "the possibility of building socialism in a single country"; the opposition defends the old slogan of "world revolution" and criticizes the authoritarian methods of leading the party. The result: the victory of Stalin, the rapprochement of the "new opposition" with Trotsky.

1926-1927 - Stalin, Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky and others. Against the "united opposition" of Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky ("Trotskyite-Zinoviev bloc"). Ideological content: the struggle continues around the Stalinist thesis about building socialism in a single country. The opposition demands to speed up the development of industry by "siphoning" money from the countryside. Outcome: Stalin's victory, the removal of opposition leaders from leading posts in the party and state, exile and then the expulsion of Trotsky from the country.

1928-1929 - Stalin against the "Right Opposition" (Bukharin, Rykov, Tomsky). Ideological content: Stalin puts forward a course for forced industrialization, carried out at the expense of the peasantry, speaks of the intensification of the class struggle; Bukharin and others are developing the theory of "growing" into socialism, of civil peace and the support of the peasantry. The result: the victory of Stalin, the defeat of the "right opposition".

Thus, the internal party struggle in the 1920s. ended with the personal victory of Stalin, who by 1929 seized absolute power in the party and state. Together with him, the policy of abandoning NEP, forced industrialization, collectivization of agriculture, and the establishment of a command economy won.

Social and political life of the USSR in the 1930s. was the life of a country that had already become totalitarian. A totalitarian society is a society in which a multi-party system has been eliminated and a one-party political system exists; the ruling party merged with the state apparatus and subordinated it to itself; a single, universally binding ideology was established; there is no society independent of the control of the party and the state, all public organizations. And all social relations are directly controlled by the state; the cult of the leader was formed; there is a ramified police apparatus that carries out repressions against citizens; civil rights, formally recognized, are in fact abolished.

The economic basis of Soviet-type totalitarianism was a command-administrative system built on the stateization of the means of production, directive planning and pricing, and the elimination of the foundations of the market. In the USSR, it was formed in the process of industrialization and collectivization.

The one-party political system was established in the USSR already in the 1920s. The merging of the party apparatus with the state, the subordination of the party to the state became a fact at the same time. In the 30s. The CPSU (b), having gone through a series of sharp battles of its leaders in the struggle for power, was a single, strictly centralized, rigidly subordinate, well-oiled mechanism. Discussions, discussions, elements of party democracy are irrevocably a thing of the past. The Communist Party was the only legal political organization. The Soviets, which were formally the main organs of the dictatorship of the proletariat, acted under its control, all government decisions were made by the Politburo and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) and only then were they formalized by government decrees. Leading party leaders held leading positions in the state. Through the party organs went all personnel work: no appointment could take place without the approval of party cells.

As for the Komsomol, trade unions, and other public organizations, they were nothing more than "driving belts" from the party to the masses. A kind of "schools of communism" (trade unions for workers, the Komsomol for youth, a pioneer organization for children and adolescents, creative unions for the intelligentsia), they, in essence, played the role of party representatives in various strata of society, helping it to lead all spheres of the country's life.

The spiritual basis of the totalitarian society in the USSR was the official ideology, the postulates of which - understandable, simple - were introduced into the minds of people in the form of slogans, songs, poems, quotes from leaders, lectures on the study of the "Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks": the foundations of a socialist society; as one advances towards socialism, the class struggle observes to intensify; "Who is not with us is against us"; The USSR is the stronghold of the progressive public of the whole world; "Stalin is Lenin today." The slightest deviation from these simple truths was punished: "purges", expulsion from the party, repression were called upon to preserve the ideological purity of citizens.

The cult of Stalin as the leader of society was perhaps the most important element of totalitarianism in the 1930s. In the image of a wise, merciless to enemies, simple and accessible leader of the party and the people, abstract appeals took on flesh and blood, became extremely concrete and close. Songs, movies, books, poems, newspaper and magazine publications inspired love, awe and respect bordering on fear. The whole pyramid of totalitarian power was closed on him, he was its indisputable, absolute leader.

In the 30s. the previously established and significantly expanded repressive apparatus (the NKVD, the bodies of extrajudicial reprisals - the "troikas", the Main Department of the camps - the GULAG, etc.) worked at full speed. Since the end of the 20s. waves of repression followed one after another: "Shakhty affair" (1928), the trial of the "Industrial Party" (1930), "Case of Academicians" (1930), repressions in connection with the murder of Kirov (1934), political trials 1936-1939 ... against the former leaders of the party (G.E. Zinoviev, N.I. Bukharin, A.I. Rykov and others), the leaders of the Red Army (M.N. Tukhachevsky, V.K.Blyukher, I.E. .). The "Great Terror" claimed the lives of almost 1 million people who were shot, millions of people passed through the Gulag camps. Repression was the very instrument through which a totalitarian society dealt with not only real, but also with the alleged opposition, instilled fear and humility, a willingness to sacrifice friends and loved ones. They reminded a frightened society that a person "weighed on the scales" of history is light and insignificant, that his life has no value if society needs it. Terror also had economic significance: millions of prisoners worked on the construction sites of the first five-year plans, contributing to the country's economic might.

A very complex spiritual atmosphere has developed in society. On the one hand, many wanted to believe that life is getting better and more fun, that difficulties will pass, and what they have done will remain forever - in the bright future that they are building for future generations. Hence the enthusiasm, faith, hope for justice, pride in participating in the great, as millions of people believed, business. On the other hand, fear reigned, a feeling of one's own insignificance, insecurity, a readiness to unquestioningly carry out commands given by someone was asserted. It is believed that it is precisely this - an inflated, tragically split perception of reality that is characteristic of totalitarianism, which requires, in the words of a philosopher, "an enthusiastic affirmation of something, fanatical determination for the sake of nothing."

The USSR Constitution adopted in 1936 can be considered a symbol of the era. She guaranteed citizens the entire range of democratic rights and freedoms. Another thing is that most of them were deprived of citizens. The USSR was characterized as a socialist state of workers and peasants. The Constitution noted that socialism was basically built, social socialist ownership of the means of production was established. The Soviets of Working People's Deputies were recognized as the political basis of the USSR, and the role of the leading nucleus of society was assigned to the CPSU (b). There was no principle of separation of powers.

2. Consequences of the establishment of a one-party system in the USSR

If we analyze the events described in the previous chapter, and add to them the current state of the Russian Federation, then the following consequences of one-party politics can be distinguished:

* Destruction of enemies within the party

* Full fusion of the party and state apparatus

* Elimination of the system of separation of powers

* Destruction of civil liberties

* Creation of mass public organizations

* Spread of the personality cult

* Mass repression

* great human losses, often the best representatives of various social groups

* technical, economic and selective scientific lag behind developed democratic countries West and East

* ideological mess in their heads, lack of initiative, slave psychology many Russians and residents of some other republics the former USSR currently

one-party political state regime

3. Contradictions

The question of the fate of various political parties before the October Revolution was not even raised theoretically. Moreover, from the Marxist theory of classes naturally followed the thesis about the preservation of a multi-party system in a society divided into classes, even after the victory of socialism. However, the practice of Soviet power came into stark contradiction with this theory.

Repressions against non-Bolshevik parties began immediately after the victory of the October Revolution and did not stop until their complete disappearance, which made it possible to draw the first conclusion: the conclusion about the decisive role of violence in establishing one-party system. Another approach to this problem proceeded from the fact of the emigration of the majority of the leaders of these parties, which made it possible to draw a different conclusion - about their separation from the country and the remaining membership in it. However, the termination of the activity of the CPSU in August 1991 gave us a new historical experience of the death of the party, where repression or emigration did not play any role. Thus, there is now sufficient empirical material to consider the cycle of evolution of a political party in Russia up to its collapse and determine its causes. In my opinion, they are rooted in the contradictions inherent in the party as a historical phenomenon. One-party system facilitates this analysis, ensuring the unity of the research subject.

The dividing line between a multi-party system and a one-party system lies not in the number of parties existing in the country, but in their real impact on its politics. At the same time, it is not so important whether the parties are in the government or the opposition: it is important that their voice is heard, they are considered, the policy of the state is formed with their participation. From this point of view, the existence in the PRB, GDR, DPRK, PRC, Poland, Czechoslovakia in the second half of the 40s - the beginning of the 80s. several parties, and in the USSR, NRA, or Hungarian People's Republic - only one party does not play a role, because the "allied parties" did not have their own political line and were entirely subordinate to the leadership of the communists. It is no coincidence that they rushed to distance themselves from the ruling party as soon as the crisis of the 1980s began.

Therefore, we can talk about the formation of a one-party system in our country since July 1918.

Because the Left Social Revolutionaries, not participating in the government in October-November 1917 and March-July 1918, had seats in the Soviets of all levels, the leadership of the People's Commissariats and the Cheka, with their noticeable participation, the first Constitution of the RSFSR was created, the most important laws of Soviet power ( especially - the Basic Law on the Socialization of the Land). Some Mensheviks also actively collaborated in the Soviets at that time.

In the early 20s. a phenomenon called "party dictatorship" is taking shape. This term was first put into circulation by G.E. Zinoviev at the XII Congress of the RCP (b) and entered the resolution of the congress. JV Stalin hastened to dissociate himself from him, however, in my opinion, this term reflected the real picture: from October 1917, all government decisions were previously made by the governing institutions of the Communist Party, which, having a majority in the Soviets, passed them through its members and formalized in the form of decisions of the Soviet authorities. In a number of cases, this procedure was not followed: a number of decisions of state importance existed only in the form of party decisions, some - joint decisions of the party and government. Through the communist factions (since 1934 - party groups), the party led the Soviets and public associations, through the system of political agencies - power structures and sectors of the economy that became "bottlenecks" (transport, agriculture). Almost all the "top officials" in government agencies, public organizations, enterprises, and cultural institutions were party members. This leadership was consolidated by the nomenclature system for the appointment and approval of managers and responsible employees.

The theoretical justification of the Communist Party's right to leadership was a peculiar interpretation of the idea of classes, put forward, as you know, even before Karl Marx by French historians of the time of the Restoration. Its Leninist interpretation consisted of a consistent narrowing of concentric circles: the bearers of progress, the most important part of the people are only the working people, among them the working class stands out, behind which the future stands. Within it, the leading role belongs to the factory proletariat, and in it, the workers large enterprises... The most conscientious and organized part, which constitutes the minority of the proletariat, unites into the Communist Party, headed by a narrow group of leaders, to which the right to leadership is given "not by the power of power, but by the power of authority, the power of energy, greater experience, greater versatility, greater talent."

In a one-party system, the last part of the formula did not correspond to reality. Possessing all the fullness of state power, the ruling elite maintained its leading position precisely with the "power of power", with the help of repressive organs. But this meant for the party the loss of one of the essential signs of partisanship - the voluntariness of association. All those striving for political activity understood that there was no other way to politics, except for belonging to a single party. Exclusion from it meant political (and often physical) death, voluntary withdrawal from it, condemnation of its policies, and therefore disloyalty to the existing state, at least - the threat of repression.

Political pluralism, which presupposed the rivalry of different parties representing the plurality of interests of social groups, the struggle of parties for influence on the masses and the possibility of one of them losing their ruling status, was the opposite of this system. Its presumption was the tacit assertion that the leaders know their interests and needs better than the masses, but only the Bolsheviks have this all-vision. The suppression of pluralism began immediately after the October Revolution. By the decree "On the arrest of the leaders of the civil war against the revolution" of November 28, 1917, one party was banned - the Cadets. This was hardly justified by practical considerations: the Cadets were never represented in the Soviets, in the elections to constituent Assembly they managed to get only 17 deputies into it, moreover, some of them were recalled by the decision of the Soviets. The strength of the cadets lay in their intellectual potential, ties with the commercial, industrial and military circles, and the support of allies. But it was precisely this prohibition of the party that could not undermine; most likely, it was an act of revenge on the once most influential enemy. Repressions only further weakened the prestige of the Bolsheviks in the eyes of the intelligentsia and raised the authority of the Cadets.

The real rivals of the Bolsheviks in the struggle for the masses were, first of all, the anarchists who stood to the left of them. Their strengthening on the eve of the October Uprising was indicated at an enlarged meeting of the Central Committee of the RSDLP (b) on October 16, 1917. They took an active part in the establishment and consolidation of Soviet power, but posed a threat to the Bolsheviks with their demand for centralism. The strength of the anarchists was that they expressed a spontaneous protest of the peasantry and urban lower classes against the state, from which they saw only taxes and the omnipotence of officials. In April 1918, the anarchists who occupied 26 mansions in the center of Moscow were dispersed. The pretext for their defeat was their undoubted connection with criminal elements, which gave the authorities a reason to call all anarchists without exception bandits. Some of the anarchists went underground, while others joined the Bolshevik Party.

On the other hand, the right-wing Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries competed with the Bolsheviks, expressing the interests of more moderate strata of workers and peasants who yearned for political and economic stabilization in order to improve their material situation. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, relied on the further development of the class struggle, transferring it to the countryside, which further increased the gap between them and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, formed in connection with the conclusion of the Brest Peace. It is characteristic that both the Bolsheviks and their political opponents and even former allies did not think about legal rivalry based on the existing regime. Soviet power was firmly identified with the power of the Bolsheviks, the armed path was recognized as the only method of resolving political contradictions. As a result, in June, the Mensheviks and Right SRs, and after July, the Left SRs were expelled from the Soviets. The Socialist-Revolutionaries-maximalists still remained in them, however, due to their small number, they did not play a significant role.

New, much more solid hopes for the establishment of a multiparty system were associated with the introduction of NEP, when the allowed multi-structure of the economy, it seemed, could receive a natural continuation and consolidation in political pluralism. And the first impressions confirmed this.

At the X Congress of the RCP (b) in March 1921, when discussing the issue of replacing the surplus appropriation system with a natural tax, when the People's Commissar for Food A.D. Tsyurupa spoke out against the revival of free cooperation in view of the predominance of the Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries there, the speaker V. I. Lenin objected to him in a broader sense: are well known. Here it is not necessary to choose between giving or not giving a course to these parties - they are inevitably engendered by petty-bourgeois economic relations- and we have to choose, and then only to a certain extent, only between the forms of concentration, the unification of the actions of these parties. "

However, just a year later, in Final word According to the Political Report of the Central Committee of the XI Congress of the RCP (b), Lenin said the exact opposite: “Of course, we allow capitalism, but within the limits that are necessary for the peasantry. It is necessary! Without this, the peasant cannot live and manage. And without Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik propaganda, he, a Russian peasant, we assert, can live. And whoever claims the opposite, then we say to him that it is better that we all perish to one, but we will not yield to you! And our courts must understand all this ”. What happened this year for the Bolsheviks to radically change their approach to the issue of political pluralism?

In my opinion, the decisive role here was played by two different, but deeply interconnected events: Kronstadt and "smenovekhovstvo".

The rebels in Kronstadt, as before the Left SRs, did not set the task of overthrowing Soviet power, which the Bolsheviks accused them of. Among their slogans were: "Power to the Soviets, not the parties!" and "Soviets without communists!" We can talk about the craftiness of P.N. Milyukov and V.M. Chernov, who suggested these slogans to the Kronstadters, but they themselves evidently believed in them. The implementation of these slogans meant not only the elimination of the RCP (b) monopoly on power or its removal from power, but, taking into account the experience of the just ended civil war, the prohibition of the RCP (b), repression not only in relation to leaders, but also to the mass of members. and non-partisan Soviet activists. The "Russian revolt, senseless and merciless" never knew the magnanimity of the victors. For the Bolsheviks, it was literally a matter of life and death.

Peaceful "smenovekhovstvo" approached this problem from the other side. Having posed the fundamental question: "What is NEP - is it tactics or evolution?", Its leaders gave the answer in the second sense. In their opinion, NEP marked the beginning of the evolution of Soviet society towards the restoration of capitalism. From this, the next step of the Bolsheviks should logically follow: the addition of a multi-structured economy with "political NEP" - the admission of pluralism in politics. This is exactly what the Bolsheviks did not want to do, rightly fearing that in free elections the voters, recalling the "Red Terror", the surplus appropriation system, etc., would be denied support, handing over power to other parties. Moreover, such a vote had an important advantage over an armed rebellion - legitimacy. It seems that this is why “smenaovekhovstvo” frightened Lenin more than the Kronstadt uprising. In any case, he repeatedly spoke about the warning against the "Change of landmarks" in 1921-1922.

Organized in the summer of 1922, the process of the Combat Organization of the Party of Socialist-Revolutionaries was intended to play, first of all, a propaganda role. Held in the Column Hall of the House of Unions in Moscow in the presence of a large public, foreign observers and defenders, and widely reported in the press, the process was supposed to present the SRs as ruthless terrorists. After that, the Extraordinary Congress of ordinary members of the AKP passed easily, announcing the dissolution of the party. Then the Georgian and Ukrainian Mensheviks announced their dissolution. In recent literature, facts about the role of the RCP (b) and the OGPU in the preparation and conduct of these congresses have been made public.

Thus, on a multi-party system in 1922-1923. the cross was finally put up. It seems that from this time it is possible to date the completion of the formation of a one-party system, the decisive step towards which was made in 1918.

Defending its monopoly of power, the Bolshevik leadership defended its life. And this could not but distort the system of political relations, in which there was no place for the traditional means of political resolution of the conflict: compromise, blocs, concessions. Confrontation became the only law of politics. And a whole generation of politicians was brought up in the conviction of the inevitability of this.

Political pluralism threatened to break through in Soviet Russia in another way - through factionalism in the RCP (b) itself.

Having become the only legal party in the country, it could not help reflecting, albeit in an indirect form, the diversity of interests, which intensified even more with the introduction of the NEP. The fact that factions really serve as the basis for the formation of new parties is evidenced by the experience of both the beginning and the end of the 20th century. But it seems that the leadership of the RCP (b) was no longer concerned with this, but with the threat of a "transfer of power" first to the faction closest to the ruling group, and then to the forces of open restoration. It was the fear that the inner-party struggle would so weaken the leading narrow layer of the party that “the decision would no longer depend on it,” and severe measures were dictated against platforms, discussions, factions and groupings, contained in the resolutions of the X Congress of the RCP (b) “On Unity party ". For decades, there was no crime in the Bolshevik Party more terrible than factionalism.

Fear of factionalism led to a deformation of the ideological life of the party. Discussions, traditional among the Bolsheviks, began to be viewed as an undermining of ideological unity. First, in 1922, the activities of party discussion clubs were curtailed, where high-ranking party members had the courage to share doubts in their circle. Then in 1927 the opening of the general party discussion was arranged difficult conditions: the absence in the Central Committee of a strong majority on the most important issues of party politics, the desire of the Central Committee itself to verify its correctness by polling party members or, if it is required by several organizations of the provincial scale. However, in all these cases, the discussion could begin only by the decision of the Central Committee, which in fact meant the termination of any discussion.

The previous struggle of opinions by the end of the 20s. replaced by outward like-mindedness. The only theoretician was the general secretary, the stages of ideological life were his speeches. This led to the fact that the party, which was proud of the scientific validity of its policy, began to call the last instruction of the leaders, whose intellectual level was increasingly declining, as theory. Marxism-Leninism began to be called a set of dogmas and platitudes, which united with it only the ornament in the form of Marxist terms. Thus, the Communist Party has lost another essential attribute of party membership - its own ideology. It could not develop in the absence of discussions both in its own environment and with ideological opponents.

On the contrary, a number of new parties at the beginning of the 90s (Democratic, Republican, Social Democrats, etc.) arose in the depths of the debating party clubs that spontaneously emerged in the CPSU in the late 80s. However, the general decline in the level of ideological life in the country affected them as well. One of the main difficulties of most modern Russian parties: the development of a clear ideological line that would be understandable to the people and could claim their support.

One-party system has simplified the problem of political leadership to the limit, reducing it to administration. At the same time, it predetermined the degradation of the party, which does not know political rivals. At her service were the repressive apparatus of the state, the means of mass influence on the people. An all-powerful all-pervading vertical was created, working in a one-way mode - from the center to the masses, devoid of feedback. Therefore, the processes taking place within the party have acquired self-sufficient significance. The source of its development was the contradictions inherent in the party. In my opinion, they are characteristic of a political party in general, but they took place in our country in a specific form due to the one-party system.

The first contradiction is between the personal freedom of a party member, his own convictions and activities, and belonging to a party whose program, regulations and political decisions restrict this freedom. This contradiction is immanent in any public association, but it is especially acute in a political party, where everyone is required to act together with its other members.

A generic feature of Bolshevism was the subordination of a party member to all its decisions. “After the decision of the competent authorities, all of us, party members, act as one person,” V.I. Lenin. True, he made a reservation that this should be preceded by a collective discussion, after which the decision is made in a democratic way. In practice, however, this became more and more formal.

The iron discipline, which the Bolsheviks were proud of, ensured the unity of their actions at turning points in history, in a combat situation. However, this created a tradition of prioritizing coercion over conscious submission. The majority always turned out to be right, and the personality was initially wrong in front of the collective.

This was very clearly expressed by L.D. Trotsky, in his well-known repentance at the XIII Congress of the RCP (b) in May 1924: “Comrades, none of us wants and cannot be right against our party. In the final analysis, the party is always right, because the party is the only historical instrument given to the proletariat to solve its main tasks ... I know that you cannot be right against the party. You can be right only with the party and through the party, because history has not given other ways to realize rightness. The English have a historical adage: right or wrong, but this is my country. With a much greater historical right, we can say: right or wrong in certain particular specific issues, at certain moments, but this is my party. " Such frank conformism made it possible for JV Stalin to condescendingly object: “The party often makes mistakes. Ilyich taught us to teach the Party leadership from its own mistakes. If the party had no mistakes, then there would be nothing to teach the party with. " In fact, he himself adhered to the thesis of the party's infallibility, which was identified with the infallibility of its leadership, or, more precisely, with its own infallibility. Others were always to blame for mistakes.

Already in the early 20s. a system of strict regulation of the spiritual, social and personal life of a communist was formed. All of it was put under the supervision of cells and control commissions. Created in September 1920 in connection with the raising of the question of the growing gap between the "top" and "bottom" of the party and the demand of the latter to revive party equality, the Central and then local control commissions from the very beginning turned into party courts with all their attributes : "Party investigators", "party members" and "party organizers".

General cleansing and partial checks of party personnel played a special role in instilling conformism in the party. First of all, they hit the party intelligentsia, which could be blamed not only for non-proletarian origin, but also for social activity that did not fit into the framework prescribed from above. "Hesitation in the implementation of the general line of the party", speeches in the course of the discussions that were still being held, simply doubts were sufficient grounds for expulsion from the party. Against the workers, who were officially considered the main support and core of the party, another accusation was put forward: "passivity", which meant non-participation in numerous meetings, the inability to come out with approval of decisions handed down from above. The peasants were accused of "economic growth" and "ties with alien class elements", that is, precisely that which naturally followed from NEP. Purges and inspections kept all categories of the party "lower classes" in constant tension, threatening to be excluded from political life, and from the beginning of the 30s. - repression.

But the "top" by no means enjoyed freedom. They were accused of factionalism. At the same time, as it turned out, the main danger to the unity of the party ranks did not come from factions that possessed platforms and group discipline, which to a certain extent imposed restrictions on their supporters, but from unprincipled blocs, for which Stalin was such a master. First, this was the Zinoviev-Kamenev-Stalin "troika" against Trotsky, then the Stalin-Bukharin bloc against the Trotskyist-Zinovievist bloc, and, finally, the majority in the Central Committee, which had been selected by Stalin for a long time, against Bukharin and his "right deviation." The signs of factionalism determined by the resolution of the X Congress of the RCP (b) "On the unity of the party" did not apply to them. But then reprisals began with the members of the majority, the main charge against whom was the connection with the factionalists, real or imaginary. It was enough ever to work with one of the convicts. Even personal participation in the repressions was not seen as proof of loyalty to the Stalinist leadership; on the contrary, it allowed the organizers to shift the blame for them from the organizers to the performers.

Thus, during the 20-30s. a mechanism for the artificial selection of conformists and careerists was formed. The latter, moving up the career ladder, competed in diligence. Intelligence, knowledge, popularity served as an obstacle rather than a help to advancement, for they threatened the authorities, who had less and less of these qualities. Mediocrity got the best chances of being nominated. (Trotsky once called Stalin "the genius of mediocrity"). Once at the top, the mediocre leader held on to the forces of the repressive apparatus. It was impossible to change it with the help of a democratic election procedure.

However, the Stalinist leadership could not abandon internal party democracy, at least in words: the democratic tradition was too strong, and an open rejection of democracy would destroy the propaganda image of "a democratic society itself." But he managed to reduce the election and turnover to a pure formality: at each election, starting with the district committee and rising higher, the number of candidates exactly corresponded to the availability of seats in the elected body, and the secretaries of the party committees were selected in advance by the higher body. In moments of crises, this election was also replaced by co-optation on the recommendation from above. This was the case during the civil war, at the beginning of the New Economic Policy and in the mid-1930s.

The accumulation of mediocrity in management, in the end, led to a new quality: the inability of leaders to assess the situation themselves adequately, or to listen to competent opinion from outside. This, in my opinion, explains many of the obvious mistakes of the 1920s and 1930s. and later.

Due to the lack of feedback in the party, its members did not exert any influence on politics. They became hostages of anti-democratic internal party relations. Moreover, non-partisans were removed from decision-making and control over their implementation. The second contradiction of a political party is between the desire for sustainability and the need for renewal due to changes in society.

This, first of all, manifested itself in ideology, which was already mentioned above. The result of the frozenness of ideology was a growing gap between the official point of view and reality: persistent indications of the kulak threat contradicted the fact of its insignificant share, as in the country's economy. Likewise, in the size of the rural population, the elimination of antagonistic classes, the thesis about the exacerbation of the class struggle with the advancement of socialism, the growing social differentiation and the growth of interethnic contradictions contradicted - the thesis about the solution of the national question, the achievement of social homogeneity of Soviet society and the emergence of a new historical community - the Soviet people.

In the economic field, the desire to remain faithful to old dogmas led to repeated economic and political crises. In domestic policy the growing diversity and strengthening of the economic base and local power were opposed by traditional centralism. This led to the growth of the executive apparatus and the growth of bureaucracy on the one hand, and the strengthening of local separatism on the other. In foreign policy, the original class approach prevailed over healthy pragmatism. The obsession with old politics was especially dangerous at a turning point: the establishment new government, the transition to the civil war, its end in the mid-20s., on the verge of the 20s and 30s. etc.

The result of the persistent striving for stability was the inertia of thinking of both leaders and those led, a lack of understanding of new trends and processes and, in the end, a loss of the ability to lead the development of society.

The third contradiction is between the integrity of the association and its connection with the society, of which it is a part. In the party, it finds resolution in the definition of membership, the rules of admission, the openness of internal party life to non-party people, the methods of party leadership and relations with mass public organizations. Here, too, more and more, the matter came down to the administrative method of solving the problems facing the party: regulating admission to the party from above, establishing quotas for admitting people from different social categories, commanding non-party organizations, party instructions to writers, journalists, artists, musicians, and artists. In the absence of feedback, this later led to the collapse of the CPSU and the loss of its ability to influence society, as soon as the usual administrative methods of pressure began to fail.

These are the main contradictions of the one-party system, characteristic of both the party itself and Soviet society as a whole. Accumulated and not resolved, they manifested themselves in numerous crises of the 1920s and 1930s, but they were restrained by the hoops of the administrative influence of the authorities. The experience of the one-party system in our country has proved the dead end of the development of society under the conditions of a monopoly on power. Only political methods in an atmosphere of free competition of doctrines, strategic and tactical attitudes, rivalry of leaders in full view of voters could help the party gain and maintain strength, develop as a free community of people united by the unity of convictions and actions.

Conclusion

After analyzing all of the above, we can conclude that despite the statements of the Bolsheviks about the creation of a socialist state, with the ideas of universal equality and democratic rights, actual economic, political and personal factors led to the creation of a one-party system with a police state fictitiously granting democratic rights. The cult of personality and years of pressure from the state influenced the psychology of people, making it more conciliatory, with less manifestation of critical thinking. This makes it difficult to build a democratic state today.

Bibliography

1. Entin E.M. Formation and collapse of the one-party system in the USSR. Gomel Technical book. 1995 506s.

2. Bokhanov A.N., Gorinov M.M., Dmitrenko V.P. History of Russia, XX century. - M., 2001.478s.

3. Munchaev Sh.M. Political history of the Russian state: Textbook. - M., 1998.

4. Pipes R. Creation of a one-party state in Soviet Russia (1917-1918) // Polit. research. 1991. No. 1.

5. N. Vert. History of the Soviet state. M., 1992

6.L.S. Leonova. "Communist Party (1917-1985)" publishing house Moscow. University, 2008.

7. N. Vert. History of the Soviet state. M., 1992

8. Entin E.M. Formation and collapse of the one-party system in the USSR. Gomel Technical book. 1995 506s.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

What contributed to the formation of a one-party state system. Question. the formation of a one-party regime. formation of the ussr

One-party system of the USSR

Stages of approval of the one-party system of the USSR

Results of the one-party system of the USSR

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents