opposition: The nature of government Flashcards
overview of opposition from political parties throughout the course
Prior to 1905 political parties were illegal under the Autocratic Tsarist system. Where they did emerge, they tended to be one of two groups: either radical revolutionaries, often using tactics such as terrorism; or pressure groups calling for reforms. Between 1905-1917 they were legalised and tolerated, to an extent, but they were also marginalised when genuine opposition was expressed. During the Provisional Government political parties worked in coalition as part of the Progressive Bloc. After 1921 only one Party was legal: the CPSU. The others had been repressed brutally in the Civil War. However, ‘internal party opposition’ continued in the Communist era.
political party opp. to A2
populists
who were the populists
Populists were people [usually in the intelligentsia] who claimed to represent the interests of the ordinary people. Their leading proponents, Herzen, Lavrov, and Chernyshevsky all assumed that the Russian masses were eager to overthrow their Tsarist oppressors.
motivations of the populists
They assumed that a form of rural/agrarian socialism was their preferred style of government. The populists believed the Mir, the unique peasant commune which organised village life in a collectivist manner predisposed the Russian peasantry to socialism. They thought the commune would provide the route to a ‘good’ society without the evils of capitalism and industrialisation.
The start of significant populist opposition can be dated back to Alexander II’s reforms. Groups generally felt ‘let down’ by the limited nature of reforms, most notably the unwillingness to reform the Tsarist system.
Ironically, the reforms themselves actually helped the populists. Due to the reduction in censorship revolutionaries were able to publish more radical texts. Chernyshevsky was able to publish, In 1863, a novel what is to be done? The novel followed the story of a young student who lived an ascetic lifestyle, practiced body-building, and prepared for the coming revolution. The book inspired many, including Lenin.
Similarly, the greater freedoms universities were granted meant that the populist movement was extremely popular amongst students.
methods of the populists
* 1874- ‘going to the narod’ [people] movement. Lavrov’s teachings inspired approximately 4,000 university students and lecturers [the intelligentsia] to disperse to the Russian countryside with the aim of educating and encouraging the peasants to join a revolution. The intelligentsia’s message was not well received by the peasants. By 1877 around 1,000 revolutionaries had been reported to state officials by the peasants and arrested.
* 1876 – formation of Land and Liberty. Land and Liberty brought the Narodnik movement under a centralised ‘party’. Land and Liberty formed ‘cells’ in towns and cities.** It’s declared aim was to inspire revolution and the establishment of agrarian socialism. **
* In 1879 the populist movement split into two camps primarily over the issue of tactics:
- Firstly there was the ‘peaceful’ group known as Black Repartition which sought to continue the Narodnik mission of* educating and encouraging* the peasants.
- Secondly, there was a more violent populist wing known as the People’s Will. The People’s Will believed the peasants belief in a divinely-ordained Tsar could only be broken by illustrating that it was wrong. Hence, they *believed by assassinating the Tsar, the peasants would be inspired to achieve a revolution. *
effectivenesss of the populists
Overall the populist movement had a significant impact on the reign of Alexander II, most significantly with his** assassination in 1881**.
Yet, the populist movement failed in their broader aim of inspiring a revolution. The ‘to the narod’ movement failed catastrophically and undermined their message of being ‘for the people’. Furthermore, their actions stopped the reforming nature of Tsarism and returned Tsarism to repression.** During Alexander III’s reign the People’s Will was repressed effectively. The *Statute of State Security allowed the Okhrana to arrest people arbitrarily, and those associated with the People’s Will were targeted. There were **10,000 arrests in 1881*. After 1881 the group effectively died along with those who were hanged for assassinating Alexander II. **
Perhaps their most significant issues was their divisions: political parties or movements are rarely effective when they are divided over their aims and methods – this is something Lenin certainly recognised.
Geoffrey Hosking, the author of A History of the Soviet Union (1985), wrote that ultimately the efforts of the People Will ended in failure: “In 1881 it actually succeeded in assassinating the Emperor Alexander II. But setting up a different regime, or even putting effective pressure on Alexander’s successor - that proved beyond their capacities. Their achievement pyrrhic victory: all it produced was more determined repression.”
political party opp to N2
SD’s
SR’s
who were the SR’s
The Socialist Revolutionaries were, in terms of their methods and broad beliefs, a revived Populist movement. They formed the party illegally in 1901. Their organisation and was very loose by comparison with the Bolsheviks, and they were not such sticklers for doctrinal purity. Their movement was so broad, in fact, that it is hard to characterise except in terms of one generally accepted belief: the peasants would be the deliverers of revolution, rather than the workers. They believed in agrarian socialism – the notion that land should be redistributed to the peasantry.
the 2 branches to the SR’s
- black partition
- people’s will
what was the terroristic section of the SR’s
the SR combat organisation
how successful were the SR combat organisation +exampkles
was** remarkably successful,** and provided the movement with publicity. In the first years of the twentieth century, it was responsible for a large number of assassinations them high-profile: Plehve, the Interior Minister (1904), and Grand Duke Sergei (1905), the tsar’s uncle, were among the victims. They assassinated a **remarkable 2,000 government officials between 1901-1905. **
successfullness of the SR’s
election
the SRs achieved enough support by 1917 to gain in that year the majority of votes in a national election. The way they achieved this popular support was by supporting peasants and helping them achieve their goals. It was with SR leadership that peasants began targeting landlords in about 1905.
The impact of the SRs on developments
is surprisingly small, given the level of popular support they eventually achieved. Being focused on peasants, whose interests are naturally associated with the country rather than the all-important urban centres, their role in shaping revolutions was always doomed to be relatively small. In and about 1905, their biggest contribution, if it can be called that, was to assassinate leading members of the establishment. Occasionally this did have an impact on developments. **The assassination of the unpopular Plehve in 1904, for example, gave the Liberals an opportunity to press their agenda, with some success. **
overall effectiveness of the SR’s
There is no doubt that the SRs caused the authorities very serious trouble, but this in itself doesn’t mean they were particularly promising as revolutionaries. The terrorist branch had to be treated as a powerful threat, and much of the Okhrana’s energies were absorbed in trying to infiltrate the movement and predict its actions
who were the SD’s
The Social Democrats formed in 1898 by Plekhanov, inspired by Marxism. Their cause was to encourage the growing working class to become class conscious – ie. Aware of their exploitation under the capitalist system – and in the long term to inspire revolution. Yet, this aim extraordinarily challenging. Few working men had the time and inclination to master Marxist theory, and there was a wide cultural gap between them and their instructors.
divisions in SD’s
. By 1903 it was split in two camps: Bolsheviks and Mensheviks
mensheviks view
Martov advocated economism - the view that Marx had been wrong about the future course of human development. Instead of fighting for a proletarian revolution, the movement should fight to improve workers’ conditions, support the liberals’ attempts to achieve a constitution, and eventually strive to use constitutional developments to bring about socialism
bolshevik view [lenin]
by the early 1900s, Lenin had developed a vision for the movement which was different enough from classic Marxism that it would later be given a distinct name: Marxism-Leninism (sometimes also called Bolshevism). He set out this vision in his 1902 book, What Is To Be Done? He argued in favour ‘system change’ rather than minor reforms and believed a revolution to be the only way of achieving this. With that in mind, the party needed to be composed of professional dedicated revolutionaries –** the vanguard. **
what is the vanguard
professional dedicated revolutionaries
overalll successfullness of marxist movement under tsars
With these internal disagreements, the Russian Marxist movement was utterly ineffective in the Tsarist period. They had no major influence on the Dumas, no influence in either 1905 or the February 1917 revolution. Indeed, the state’s repression of them had been successful. The party had been infiltrated by Okhrana double-agents and Lenin was in exile. Furthermore, they had failed to convince the masses.** SD membership actually decreased from 20,000 in Ukraine in 1906 to just 200 in 1912**. In Moscow it decreased from 7500 to 40 over the same period.
who were the liberals
The Liberals were not a very cohesive group, but they can be defined as groups and people who sought to reform the Tsarist system peacefully by encouraging the Tsar to rule in a manner more similar to Western countries. They were known as ‘Westernisers’. Although classic Liberalism involves commitments to principles such as the right to property, freedom of speech, civic freedoms, democracy etc., Russian Liberals of the tsarist period were** only really united in their commitment to non-violence** and a general sense that tsarism needed at least to be restrained by the advice of respectable sections of society.
origination of the liberals
Liberal opposition initially originated in the Zemstva [the local government]. The Zemstva called for** political reform **in 1895, but Nicholas rejected this in his ‘senseless dreams’ speech. The speech expressed Nicholas’ “firm and unflinching” devotion to the “principle of autocracy” in a manner similar to his father’s Manifesto of Unshakable Autocracy in 1881. Frustrated by the lack of progress liberals form the ‘Union of Liberation’ 1904 (an illegal union publishing newspapers). It called for the **replacement of Tsarism with a constitutional monarchy. **
division of the liberals during 1905 revolution
the Kadets and the Octobrists.
sucessfullness of the liberals
The liberals did gain a significant concession from the Tsar:** the October Manifesto. The introduction of a national Parliament in the Duma and the legalisation of political parties marked a significant liberal reform. Yet they failed to fundamentally change Tsarism. Furthermore, within the Dumas the parties had minimal impact. After voicing their opposition to the Fundamental Laws,* many leading Kadets were barred from the Dumas*** – clear evidence of failure even though they were now elected representatives.
However, it is worthwhile noting that the **liberals would later make up the key members of the Provisional Government.
**
summary pf political party to the Tsars
** **Opposition was divided between reformers / revolutionaries as well as moderates / radicals within the movements.
** Opposition was ineffective in that it failed to achieve its aims.
** **Alexander III’s repression was effective in removing political parties.
** **Nicholas II’s introduction of the Duma ‘contained’ opposition and generally made parties less violent
*** **The secret police were effective in their repression of these groups.
who was the political party opp to the PG
bolsheviks
why did bolsheviks dominate opposition to the PG
- The ‘Progressive Bloc’ which made up the Provisional Government was a broad coalition of Kadets, Octobrists, Progressists, SRs, Mensheviks, Trudoviks. **The Bolsheviks were the only real opposition from the left. **
- The Bolsheviks were the most vocal critics of the Provisional Government. The Provisional government was relatively moderate, pursuing policies which did not really represent ‘revolutionary’ change one might expect after regime change. For instance they made no attempt to redistribute land or end the War. The Bolsheviks campaigned for Bread, peace, and land’ and ‘all power to the Soviets’ – proposals in opposition to Provisional Government policies.
- Lenin’s April Theses condemned the Provisional Government for being ‘bourgeois’.
3 strengsth of the bolsheviks against the PG
- Firstly, The Bolsheviks had grown enormously. In 1914 membership was approximately 10,000 nationally. By October 1917 it had reached 250,000. As a result, the October revolution was made possible. Support had been gained by Lenin’s genuinely popular policy proposals.
- Furthermore, the Bolsheviks gained control of the Petrograd Garrison in October 1917. By October 20th the Petrograd Garrison had pledged allegiance to Trotsky’s Military Revolutionary Committee – the precursor to the Red Army. With this the Bolsheviks had approximately **150,000 soldiers under their control. **
- Secondly, unlike any other party before this stage, the Bolsheviks were highly centralised and under the control of an able politician: Lenin. Lenin managed to convince a reluctant party to pursue an insurrection in a ten-hour meeting on the 10th of October. In the meeting the Bolshevik Party’s Central Committee are convinced by Lenin that an insurrection was desirable, but internal resistance continued. The vote was ten in favour and two opposed. Zinoviev & Kamenev still thought the course of actions was too risky. Nevertheless, **Lenin had convinced his party of the need for a further revolution an, under the principle of democratic centralism, they followed his orders.
**
two types of opposition to the communists
- internal
- external
most significant opposition under the commi
internal. external could only operate prior to 1921.
who was external opp to commi
the white’s
who were the whites
was the white armies in the Civil War, 1918-21. They were composed of a variety of individuals from a variety of backgrounds and political leanings. In their midst they had former tsarist, military commanders, and also other political parties. Their primary motivation for opposing Communism was their ideological stance. They were predominantly Anti-Bolshevik. Yet, they presented no clear alternative to Communism and had no clear leadership structure. This can primarily be explained by the fact that the ‘**whites’ were a coalition of pro-monarchists, socialists, republicans, capitalists, and peasants. **
3 reasons the whites emerged
- The October Revolution, 1917 and the establishment of a One-Party Dictatorship.
- Lenin’s dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918. Lenin refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the constituent assembly where the SRs won 40% of the vote. The parties who sat here – SRs, Mensheviks, Kadets, etc became part of the Whites.
- Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The peace with Germany which sparked the Civil War was a costly one for Russia:* Lenin had effectively dismantled the Russian Empire and given up most of Russia’s land.* Those involved in the army and the Provisional Government were opposed to this settlement.
effectiveness of the whites
In terms of their effectiveness, they had little real impact. To the Communists, the Whites were counter-revolutionaries harking back to a pre-Revolutionary past. There could be no room for negotiation or compromise and so a bloody Civil War and repression. The Communist Red Army effectively crushed the ‘Whites’ in the Civil War. The Red Army was effectively organised by Trotsky who was able to re-introduce conscription effectively. In October 1918 the Red Army had over 450,000 men, the Whites never had more than 250,000, despite having support from a number of foreign countries, including Britain.
Crucially, too, the whites were divided militarily, geographically, and politically. Unlike the Reds, the whites had no coherent leadership and were effectively an alliance of geographically distinct former Tsarist armies. This severely limited their opportunity for success.
hwo did lenin removed external opp
instituted a ruthless policy of ‘Red Terror’ in order to reinforce communist authority and eradicate opposition. Red Terror was carried out by the Cheka, Lenin’s secret police. In essence Red Terror was a policy of mass repression in order to rule by fear
what was involved in the red terror
* Mass execution. Between 500,000-1,000,000 executions for bourgeois activity (for instance, withholding grain, selling private goods, involvement in non-communist parties, working as merchants, having aristocratic titles, refusing to give up land, refusing communist orders, etc).
* Gulags. Suspicious people arrested and put in gulags (forced labour camps)
* Torture. Gruesome stories of the use of torture. For instance, in Kharkov there are stories of the Cheka putting victim’s hands in boiling water until the skin peeled off. In Kiev, victims were tied down whilst heated cages of rats were placed around their body. Once the rats cages became hot they would begin to eat their way through the victim’s body.
* Cheka expansion.** By 1921 the Cheka employed 143,000 people. **
divisions under lenin
internal opp
* ‘Left communists’ who regarded the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk [i.e. peace with Germany] as a threat to party purity. They sought to promote international proletariat revolution across Europe.
* ‘Worker’s opposition’ who believed workers were not receiving just rewards for their involvement in the revolution. Sought trade union freedoms and more autonomy for the workers.
methods of internal opp under lenin
Internal opponents used legitimate means to call for change. They held debates within the party’s framework. For instance, Trotsky opposed the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the central committee supported him 9 to 7 (only for Lenin to over-ride their vote). Worker’s opposition called for change in the Tenth Party Congress in 1921.
effectiveness of internal opp under lenin
opposition was not effective. The party was too tightly controlled by the elites around Lenin for a significant shift in party policies. Furthermore, the Politburo’s ‘ban on factions’, 1921 meant that once the party’s elite had made a decision there would be no room for debate or compromise. Also, the party purged around 200,000 party members who were deemed ideologically impure (‘radishes’) in 1922.
what are the phases under the power struggle
1924-25: the defeat of trotsky
1926-27: defeat of left opposition
1928-29: defeat of right opposition
when was the defeat of trotksy
stages of the power struggle
1924-25
when was the defeat of left opposition
stages of the power struggle
1926-1927
