The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921-39

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012 Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012 The...

Author: Elizabeth White

24 downloads 520 Views 4MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!

Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia

The Socialist Revolutionary (SR) Party, which had been the largest and most popular party in Russia in 1917, did not after the October Revolution just disappear into the “dustbin of history”, as Trotsky hoped, but – led by its leadership in exile in the 1920s and 1930s – continued to observe and comment on developments in Russia. In emigration, the SR Party often put forward policy proposals on a wide range of topics: policies which, based on a shrewd understanding of the real situation in Russia, oﬀered realistic alternatives to the policies being pursued by the Marxist Bolshevik regime. This book ﬁlls a gap in examining one of the most signiﬁcant Russian political parties, and is based on extensive original analysis of SR Party materials, shows how it operated, how it formulated and disseminated its ideas, what these ideas were, and how the Party’s ideas developed in response to changing circumstances in Russia and Europe more widely. Far from being agrarian Slavophile romantics, as they are often portrayed, this book shows the SRs were energetic European modernisers who contributed vigorously to the leading debates of their day, and how the SR vision of a populist, socialist regime failed to materialise as state control, dictatorship and the collectivisation of agriculture took hold. Elizabeth White is Lecturer in International History at the University of Ulster.

BASEES/Routledge Series on Russian and East European Studies

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Series editor: Richard Sakwa, Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Kent Editorial Committee: Julian Cooper, Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of Birmingham Terry Cox, Department of Central and East European Studies, University of Glasgow Rosalind Marsh, Department of European Studies and Modern Languages, University of Bath David Moon, Department of History, University of Durham Hilary Pilkington, Department of Sociology, University of Warwick Graham Timmins, Department of Politics, University of Stirling Stephen White, Department of Politics, University of Glasgow Founding Editorial Committee Member: George Blazyca, Centre for Contemporary European Studies, University of Paisley This series is published on behalf of BASEES (the British Association for Slavonic and East European Studies). The series comprises original, high-quality, research-level work by both new and established scholars on all aspects of Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and East European Studies in humanities and social science subjects. 1. Ukraine’s Foreign and Security Policy, 1991–2000

10. State Building in Ukraine

Roman Wolczuk

The Ukranian parliament, 1990–2003 Sarah Whitmore

2. Political Parties in the Russian Regions

11. Defending Human Rights in Russia

Derek S. Hutcheson

3. Local Communities and Post-Communist Transformation Edited by Simon Smith

Sergei Kovalyov, Dissident and Human Rights Commissioner, 1969–2003 Emma Gilligan

12. Small-Town Russia

J.C. Sharman

Postcommunist Livelihoods and Identities A Portrait of the Intelligentsia in Achit, Bednodemyanovsk and Zubtsov, 1999–2000 Anne White

5. Political Elites and the New Russia

13. Russian Society and the Orthodox Church

Anton Steen

Religion in Russia after Communism Zoe Knox

4. Repression and Resistance in Communist Europe

6. Dostoevsky and the Idea of Russianness Sarah Hudspith

7. Performing Russia – Folk Revival and Russian Identity Laura J. Olson

8. Russian Transformations Edited by Leo McCann

9. Soviet Music and Society under Lenin and Stalin The Baton and Sickle Edited by Neil Edmunds

14. Russian Literary Culture in the Camera Age The Word as Image Stephen Hutchings

15. Between Stalin and Hitler Class War and Race War on the Dvina, 1940–46 Geoffrey Swain

16. Literature in Post-Communist Russia and Eastern Europe The Russian, Czech and Slovak Fiction of the Changes 1988–98 Rajendra A. Chitnis

17. The Legacy of Soviet Dissent Dissidents, Democratisation and Radical Nationalism in Russia Robert Horvath

18. Russian and Soviet Film Adaptations of Literature, 1900–2001 Screening the Word Edited by Stephen Hutchings and Anat Vernitski

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

19. Russia as a Great Power

31. Western Intellectuals and the Soviet Union, 1920–40 From Red Square to the Left Bank Ludmila Stern

32. The Germans of the Soviet Union Irina Mukhina

33. Re-constructing the Post-Soviet Industrial Region

Dimensions of Security under Putin Edited by Jakob Hedenskog, Vilhelm Konnander, Bertil Nygren, Ingmar Oldberg and Christer Pursiainen

The Donbas in Transition Edited by Adam Swain

20. Katyn and the Soviet Massacre of 1940

John Russell

Truth, Justice and Memory George Sanford

35. The New Right in the New Europe

21. Conscience, Dissent and Reform in Soviet Russia Philip Boobbyer

22. The Limits of Russian Democratisation Emergency Powers and States of Emergency Alexander N. Domrin

23. The Dilemmas of Destalinisation A Social and Cultural History of Reform in the Khrushchev Era Edited by Polly Jones

24. News Media and Power in Russia Olessia Koltsova

25. Post-Soviet Civil Society Democratization in Russia and the Baltic States Anders Uhlin

26. The Collapse of Communist Power in Poland Jacqueline Hayden

27. Television, Democracy and Elections in Russia Sarah Oates

34. Chechnya–Russia’s “War on Terror”

Czech Transformation and Right-Wing Politics, 1989–2006 Seán Hanley

36. Democracy and Myth in Russia and Eastern Europe Edited by Alexander Wöll and Harald Wydra

37. Energy Dependency, Politics and Corruption in the Former Soviet Union Russia’s Power, Oligarchs’ Profits and Ukraine’s Missing Energy Policy, 1995–2006 Margarita M. Balmaceda

38. Peopling the Russian Periphery Borderland Colonization in Eurasian History Edited by Nicholas B Breyfogle, Abby Schrader and Willard Sunderland

39. Russian Legal Culture Before and After Communism Criminal justice, politics and the public sphere Frances Nethercott

40. Political and Social Thought in Post-Communist Russia Axel Kaehne

28. Russian Constitutionalism

41. The Demise of the Soviet Communist Party

Historical and Contemporary Development Andrey N. Medushevsky

Atsushi Ogushi

29. Late Stalinist Russia

42. Russian Policy towards China and Japan

Society Between Reconstruction and Reinvention Edited by Juliane Fürst

The El’tsin and Putin Periods Natasha Kuhrt

30. The Transformation of Urban Space in Post-Soviet Russia

43. Soviet Karelia

Konstantin Axenov, Isolde Brade and Evgenij Bondarchuk

Politics, Planning and Terror in Stalin’s Russia, 1920–1939 Nick Baron

44. Reinventing Poland

56. The Making of Modern Lithuania

Economic and Political Transformation and Evolving National Identity Edited by Martin Myant and Terry Cox

Tomas Balkelis

45. The Russian Revolution in Retreat, 1920–24

Melanie Ilic and Jeremy Smith

Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite Simon Pirani

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

46. Democratisation and Gender in Contemporary Russia Suvi Salmenniemi

47. Narrating Post/Communism Colonial Discourse and Europe’s Borderline Civilization Nataša Kovacˇevic´

48. Globalization and the State in Central and Eastern Europe The Politics of Foreign Direct Investment Jan Drahokoupil

49. Local Politics and Democratisation in Russia Cameron Ross

50. The Emancipation of the Serfs in Russia Peace Arbitrators and the Development of Civil Society Roxanne Easley

51. Federalism and Local Politics in Russia Edited by Cameron Ross and Adrian Campbell

52. Transitional Justice in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union Reckoning with the Communist Past Edited by Lavinia Stan

57. Soviet State and Society under Nikita Khrushchev 58. Communism, Nationalism and Ethnicity in Poland, 1944–1950 Michael Fleming

59. Democratic Elections in Poland, 1991–2007 Frances Millard

60. Critical Theory in Russia and the West Alastair Renfrew and Galin Tihanov

61. Promoting Democracy and Human Rights in Russia European Organization and Russia’s Socialization Sinikukka Saari

62. The Myth of the Russian Intelligentsia Old Intellectuals in the New Russia Inna Kochetkova

63. Russia’s Federal Relations Putin’s Reforms and Management of the Regions Elena A. Chebankova

64. Constitutional Bargaining in Russia 1990–93 Information and Uncertainty Edward Morgan-Jones

65. Building Big Business in Russia The Impact of Informal Corporate Governance Practices Yuko Adachi

66. Russia and Islam

53. The Post-Soviet Russian Media

State, Society and Radicalism Roland Dannreuther and Luke March

Conflicting Signals Edited by Birgit Beumers, Stephen Hutchings and Natalia Rulyova

67. Celebrity and Glamour in Contemporary Russia

54. Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe

Shocking Chic Edited by Helena Goscilo and Vlad Strukov

Edited by Bernd Rechel

55. Television and Culture in Putin’s Russia: Remote Control Stephen Hutchings and Natalia Rulyova

68. The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–1939 Elizabeth White

The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–1939 Elizabeth White

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

First published 2011 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010 To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk

© 2011 Elizabeth White All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data White, Elizabeth. The socialist alternative to Bolshevik Russia : the Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1921–1939 / Elizabeth White. p. cm. -- (BASEES/Routledge series on Russian and East European studies ; 68) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Partiia sotsialistov-revoliutsionerov--History. 2. Socialist parties--Soviet Union--History. 3. Soviet Union--Politics and government--1917–1936. I. Title. JN6598.S65W45 2010 324.247’02--dc22 2010012399 ISBN 0-203-84244-8 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 13: 978-0-415-43584-0 (hbk) ISBN 13: 978-0-203-84244-7 (ebk)

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Contents

Acknowledgements Introduction: The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Emigration, 1921–1939 1 SRs as Russian Revolutionaries

viii

1 7

2 The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Prague: The ‘Kingdom of the SRs’

19

3 The Soviet Union during NEP: The Commune and the Cooperative

39

4 The Bolshevik Regime, Soviet Society and SR Political Tactics

57

5 The Socialist League of the New East

79

6 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

96

7 The Collectivisation of Agriculture

112

8 The 1930s and the Road to War

128

Conclusion

141

Notes Bibliography Index

149 172 178

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Acknowledgements

This book arose out of my PhD thesis, which I completed at the Centre for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Birmingham. I had wanted to look at the Russian emigration in Czechoslovakia between the wars, and Professor Gerry Smith who had supervised me at Oxford for my M.St in Slavonic Studies suggested I look at the SR Party there as no one had done that yet. I thought I knew about the SRs—utopian agrarian socialists who had made such a mess of things in 1917 and then left Russia in history’s dustbin. I originally conceived of just looking at them as a test case of how émigré political groups operate, rather than evaluating their ideas for their own sake. As I studied them more though, I became more convinced of the interest and signiﬁcance that their ideas held, and more aware of the vital role they played in Russian political life and thought even after 1917. My PhD research altered its focus then, and this book has altered the focus even more. Though the émigré context is stressed and one of the aims of the book has been to show that émigré politics are a worthy topic of study, this book tries to look at the SRs within the wider history of the Russian revolutionary movement from the late Imperial period to Stalin’s ‘Revolution from Above’. I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Jeremy Smith of the Centre for Russian and East European Studies at the University of Birmingham. I would also like to thank the following scholars who read and oﬀered valuable advice and insights on sections of this work: Serguei Glebov, Melanie Ilic, Manfred Hildermeier, David Moon, Teodor Shanin, Michael Melancon, Geoﬀrey Swain, Ian Thatcher and the anonymous reviewers of The Russian Review and Revolutionary Russia. I am grateful to Alexander Novikov of Saratov State University for his generosity in sharing documents regarding Victor Chernov and in helping my orientation around the Russian archives. I am very grateful to all the staﬀ at the diﬀerent archives I worked in during my research, that is, the State Archive of the Russian Federation in Moscow, the International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam, the Bakhmeteﬀ Collection, Columbia University, New York, and the Masaryk Institute in Prague. I would also like to thank the staﬀ of the Slavonic Library in Prague, the Emigration Reading Room at the Russian State Library, and in Birmingham, Nigel Hardware from the Baykov Library for help in tracking down books. For general orientation, reading lists and useful contacts I am indebted to Richard Davies of the Russian Archive at the Brotherton Library in Leeds, Hanno Immonen and Victor Fic. I would like to thank Professor Gerald Smith of New College, Oxford for his original suggestion that I look at the SRs in Prague. It was a great suggestion, and I hope this work is a ﬁtting tribute to it.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Acknowledgements

ix

Material from Chapter 3 was previously published as ‘The Émigré Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Russian Peasantry during NEP’, Revolutionary Russia, vol 18, no 1, June 2005, pp. 47–70. Material from Chapter 5 was previously published as ‘The Socialist Revolutionary Party, Ukraine, and Russian National Identity’, The Russian Review, 66, October 2007, pp. 2–20. I would like to thank both journals for permission to republish this work. Finally, I would like to thank my good friend Neil Porteous who gave me a home to live and work in at Birmingham which made writing the PhD possible, and my beautiful son Gianluca Meneghetti whose arrival into this world in 2007 almost made writing the book impossible.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Introduction

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist Alternative to Bolshevik Russia: The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Emigration, 1921–1939

Introduction This book examines the activities and the intellectual life of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs) in Czechoslovakia in the interwar period. It argues that the work of the political émigrés forms part of the history of twentieth-century Russian political and social thought as well as adding to an understanding of contemporaneous developments in the Soviet Union. It thus seeks to challenge the common idea that Russian émigré politics are of no interest to historians. Little research has been done on the political aspects of the ﬁrst wave emigration, that which took place as a result of the 1917 Revolution and the Civil War. Western historians of the emigration have largely neglected the political aspects while Soviet historians presented it solely as political, but did so according to a pre-determined schema of its political bankruptcy.1 The SRs in particular have received barely any scholarly attention; their main socialist rivals, the Mensheviks, despite their smaller numbers, have fared better.2 A recent Russian collection of documents on the ‘ﬁrst wave’ political emigration contains not a single SR document.3 During the perestroika period inside the Soviet Union during the late 1980s there was a renewed interest in neglected actors and alternatives to Stalinism, yet it was the Bolshevik Nikolai Bukharin and his ideas which were resurrected. The provenance of some of his and his supporters’ ideas in SR categories of thought about Russian development was ignored. Later after the collapse of the Soviet regime, interest focused on the rediscovery of Eurasianist thinkers such as Nikolai Trubetskoi and Petr Savitskii and the so-called Vekhovyi group: religious philosophers such as Nikolai Berdayev and political thinkers on the centre-right such as Petr Struve.4 There has not yet been a serious study of SR activities in Prague. The most recent book on the Russian émigré community there, Russia Abroad: Prague and the Russian Diaspora, 1918–1938 by Catherine Andreyev and Ivan Savický is dismissive of the SRs and their politics (such as they are described), as is the earlier book on Russian Prague by Elena Chinyaeva.5 Both these works rely largely on sources from émigrés who were members of the professorial elite and who had been associated with the Kadet Party.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

2 Introduction

None of these authors show any real understanding of the SR—narodnik tradition or Russian political history. Andreyev and Savický dismiss the notion that any studies of Russia done by SRs could be of value, writing that the SRs were ‘talented ideologues, theoreticians and revolutionaries who, however, had none of the right habits of mind for scrupulous analytical academic work’.6 These works are more concerned with presenting a narrative of how émigrés tried to preserve a ‘Russian’ national and cultural identity, a process that is not subjected to any kind of critique. As will be shown in Chapter 2, the Prague SRs did not participate in the elaboration of a construct of Russianness as nationalist, Orthodox and exempliﬁed by elite literary culture. In fact they sought to challenge such a construct, which is another reason for the lack of interest in them shown by historians of the emigration. Yet a study of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in emigration is of particular importance to an understanding of twentieth-century Russian history, as the Party represents the continuation of one of the most important branches of Russian social and political thought, known as narodnichestvo (Russian populism).7 The Prague SRs saw themselves as the direct heirs to this Russian social and intellectual tradition, which in their view included the Decembrists, Alexander Herzen, Mikhail Bakunin, Nikolai Chernyshevskii and Petr Lavrov as well as the political organisations Land and Freedom (Zemlya i Volya) and The People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya). The SR Party and its theorists formed the main revolutionary opposition to Russian Marxists in late Imperial Russia. They were one of the primary actors in 1917 and during the Civil War, when Party members fought against both the Bolshevik regime and the White dictatorships. The Bolshevik takeover of power caused a fragmentation of the wider Party as some members decided to offer the Bolsheviks political support, while others withdrew from political life altogether. As is well known, the SRs won the majority of votes to the Constituent Assembly which met in January 1918.8 The majority of the central core of the Party leadership did not accept the Bolshevik regime and were forced to emigrate to continue their political opposition abroad. Unfortunately, neither narodnichestvo nor the SR Party have received much attention from historians of Russia, with a few notable exceptions. It has been taken more seriously by those studying theories of development or the sociology of the peasantry.9 This thesis argues that the further history of the SRs and their application of a narodnik analysis to developments in the Soviet Union is part of the history of the Russian Revolution in a wider sense. The typical view of the Russian emigration is that it consisted largely of monarchists who retreated into a nostalgic world of memories of the Russia they had lost. ‘Balalaika Russians’, as the great Austrian Jewish novelist Joseph Roth called them, ‘who have given up their homeland, and now attempt to refashion it with silk and glitter in the vaudeville, in their nostalgia for the good old days of the czar’, part of the ‘crowd of anonymous and desperate opportunists’ gathered in interwar Paris.10 The Russian emigration is usually referred to indiscriminately as ‘White’. Its

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Introduction

3

political ﬁgures are seen as irrelevant in terms of the causes they represented and the meaningfulness of any political activity they were able to practise. Unlike some exiled politicians—the Czechoslovaks Tomas Masaryk and Edvard Beneš for example—most Russian émigrés never returned and the country they left was radically transformed in their absence. Studies of the emigration have therefore tended to focus on its cultural achievements. Raeff, who has produced the seminal book on the cultural history of the interwar emigration, comments that the essence of Russian émigré politics ‘consisted of unending squabbles stemming from inadequate information, helplessness and nostalgic or angry recollections of the past’, and that, cut off from the home country, ‘political life in exile is nothing but shadowboxing’.11 He more recently eloquently restated this belief in the irrelevance of Russian émigré politics as well as commenting speciﬁcally that the SRs ‘did blissfully little to evolve in the light of events in Soviet Russia and the world at large’.12 Likewise, a scholar of the anti-Nazi German exiles points out that ‘the complexities of factional disputes and ideological differences among political exiles, the all too frequent hopelessness of their cause, the petty bickering and personal vendettas tend to discourage objective investigation’.13 While Robert Williams wanted to reclaim this ‘lost subject’ for historians, his desire to do so seems partly based on the suggestion that the émigré experiences of alienation, despair, uprootedness and powerlessness are central motifs of modernity.14 Overall when discussing émigré politics, words such as ‘tragedy’, ‘frustration’, ‘failure’, ‘despair’ and ‘bitterness’ abound. Elena Chinyaeva sums up the prevailing attitude by stating that it is: not very proﬁtable to try to disentangle the complicated and sterile political factionalism of Russia Abroad. Neither the heated discussions about past actions and responsibilities, nor the personal and ideological quarrels over the best tactics or programmes in response to events in the Soviet Union or the world at large, had anything but limited or passing interest … Émigré political struggles, divisions, and alliances took place in the context of a speciﬁcally Russian political and cultural agenda … To understand its implications one had to be a member of Russia Abroad … émigrés might well have hated each other but such hatred was still preferable to the deadening indifference they encountered in the foreign environment where they now had to exist.15 This study of the Prague SRs challenges this view of political émigrés. They were not isolated but welcomed and supported in Czechoslovakia, where they led productive lives, not only politically, but also organising aid to the Russian community and in various cultural activities. They had close relations with political and social groupings in Czechoslovakia. Members of the Socialist International from 1904, they considered themselves part of a Europe-wide socialist movement and received support from this movement. One aim of this book is to show that the SRs had

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

4 Introduction

important insights into developments in the Soviet Union. Their newspapers and journals as well as Party archives which contain material from Russia are a neglected source of information on life in the Soviet Union. Equally importantly, they are a source on what an important group of Russian intellectuals were thinking about Russia, the Revolution and about Europe. The SRs themselves saw the signiﬁcance of the ﬁrst wave emigration in that it produced the only truly free Russian press, where Russia’s present and future could be openly debated. The SRs wrestled with the same questions as their contemporaries did, and as scholars do now; what was the signiﬁcance of the Russian Revolution? What kind of regime was the Bolshevik one and what were the sources of its power? How is socialism possible in a peasant country? What direction was the Soviet Union heading in during the 1920s? Their analyses, interpretations, and answers are important additions to a series of unresolved debates as well as casting light on the outlook and values of the Russian intelligentsia across the revolutionary period. The Bolsheviks were to discover in the 1920s that narodnichestvo and the SR Party had not disappeared ‘into the dustbin of history’. They were frequently evoked by Party leaders during the debates over the New Economic Policy (NEP) and in their internecine struggles. It is hoped to retrieve a dimension of the original intellectual atmosphere of this period which has sometimes been overlooked. It conﬁrms the more recent historiographical picture of NEP as a tension-ﬁlled and unstable period, rather than a ‘golden age’. The SR Party has been criticised for an adherence to a backward-looking agrarian utopia and lacking an ideology capable of providing a framework for Russia’s modernisation.16 While this is not an attempt at a counterfactual history, Prague SR ideas for Russia’s economic and social development will be presented. I hope it will raise some intriguing questions as to whether the narodniki had a better understanding of Russia and its peasants. Had the SRs really guessed ‘the riddle of the peasant sphinx’? The SRs did not believe that the Bolsheviks, Marxists in an agrarian country, could survive during the 1920s and this belief helped them continue an active and productive political life. Overall, it is hoped a more sophisticated picture of a modern European party will emerge, rather than the one sometimes presented of idealistic agrarian romantics. Was narodnichestvo, as Lenin commented, ‘a whole vision of the world whose history begins with Herzen and ends with Danielson’?17 Or did their conceptualisations of Russia and its development still illuminate these subjects in their own time? The role of the agricultural cooperative movement in their programme is highlighted, as well as the peasant commune (obshchina). If this work focuses more on the peasants, this is not because it sees the SRs as only a peasant party, but because they believed that they had something speciﬁc to say about the peasantry and socialism, which was after all the central question of the Russian Revolution.18 The book will also show how the SRs interacted with European socialist movements and ideas and were essentially European political actors as much as Russian. These activities played a role in their thinking about Russia’s future.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Introduction

5

I do not believe it is ‘mythologising’ the emigration to say that the SRs had something interesting to say about the Soviet Union. What is of signiﬁcance about the SRs is their work on the Soviet Union, the information they were receiving, and the analyses they developed as well as the attempts to push forward their own intellectual tradition in the post-revolutionary period. A study of émigré politics should focus on these elements rather than focus on the factionalism and institutional in-ﬁghting. Indeed some of their work, for example that of Chernov on the national question, shows the ﬁrst wave emigration was also a ‘political laboratory of alternatives’ as much as the pre-revolutionary one had been.19 The idea that any analysis of events in the Soviet Union by émigré groups can only have limited or passing interest has been convincingly disproved by Andre Liebich in his study of the Mensheviks in emigration, in which he also points out that factionalism, personal rivalries and ideological degeneration are phenomena common to all political activity. 20 The Prague SRs, Russian émigré political thinkers, were not isolated or irrelevant nor were they suffering a unique form of demoralisation but contributed to and were inﬂuenced by the European political discourses of their time. What is also interesting is how they shared some of the ideas of the Bolsheviks and later the Stalinists, particularly regarding the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union and even some aspects of the collectivisation of agriculture. This book will go on to present and analyse their interpretation of post-revolutionary Russia within the boundaries of their own discourse, Russian narodnichestvo and European socialism. Chapter 1 gives a brief overview of narodnichestvo, the SR Party programme and explanations for the defeat in 1917. Chapter 2 looks at the intellectual and political context in which the Prague SRs operated and their relationship with the Czechoslovak government and the émigré community. Chapter 3 reconstructs the SR analysis of socio-economic and political developments during NEP, particularly the behaviour of the peasantry and the Bolshevik response to it. It also presents the SR programme for Russia’s development. Chapter 4 examines their understanding of the nature of the Bolshevik regime and the social groups which formed postrevolutionary Russia. Their interpretation of the relationship between them produced their political tactics and analysis of how the regime would fall. While the previous chapter showed the strength of the SR conceptualisations of the Russian peasantry, this chapter reveals their weakness in understanding how power operated in the Soviet Union. Chapter 5 looks at the Prague SR proposals for the future structure of the Soviet space after the fall of Bolshevism. The heated debates over this subject are an important addition to our understanding of Russian thinking on this matter. Chapter 6 resumes a narrative of Party life begun in Chapter 2, and then looks at their response to, and evaluation of, the end of NEP and the ‘Great Turn’. Chapter 7 looks at the SR response to collectivisation and the impact it had on their agrarian programme and Party life. It shows how, unlike other observers, they were perceptive about what the Bolshevik regime wanted but naïve about its ability to achieve this. Building on the insights of Chapter 6, it shows how their Party activity

6 Introduction

and ideology was dealt a fatal blow by Stalin’s ‘Revolution from Above’. Chapter 8 will give an overview of the Prague SRs in the 1930s, for which materials are scarcer. In common with other European intellectuals their main concern now was the international situation and the threat of war. It is therefore argued that some Prague SRs’ abandonment of democracy in this period was not a unique form of demoralisation but as a result of another fatal blow, Nazism, and this makes them part of their time rather than irrelevant to it.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Archival Sources The nature of studying an émigré movement meant that research required obtaining material from archives in different European countries as well as the United States. As the émigrés moved around Europe and ﬁnally to America as a result of the outbreak of the Second World War they deposited material as they travelled. The SR Party archive and the personal archives of leading SRs are mainly split between the Institute for Social History in Amsterdam (IISG), the Hoover Institute at Stanford University and the State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF) in Moscow. Note on Usage of Terms This book looks at the Prague SRs, a term used by SRs. This label embraces those on the centre left of the Party who settled in Czechoslovakia with the support of President Masaryk. They regretted the ‘mistakes’ of 1917: the coalition policy and the failure to keep up with the radicalism of the population. In emigration the majority of them stayed faithful to narodnik intellectual traditions such as the nondevelopment of capitalism in agriculture and the socialist potential of the peasantry and they remained committed socialists. Until the 1930s they were overwhelmingly hostile to the Bolshevik regime. Obviously there were differences between them but for the sake of coherence and to allow the emergence of broad views from the nuances of ideological arguments, the overall term ‘Prague SRs’ is mainly used. The editors of Volya Rossii are referred to as the Volrosstsy. They usually represented the majority opinion of the Prague SRs. Chernov and a small faction split off from the main Prague Group in the late 1920s, and it is made clear in the text when his ideas are being referred to. Individual SR voices are also heard though, particularly that of Egor Lazarev, who was based in Prague but to the right of the main group, and also the group in Harbin in order to show how the Prague SRs’ ideas were received in the wider emigration. The other main SR grouping, the ‘Paris SRs’, formed by Alexander Kerensky, Nikolai Avksent’ev, Vladimir Zenzinov, Vadim Rudnev and Mark Vishnyak stood in opposition to the Prague SRs. They moderated their socialist positions, did not reject the coalition policy in 1917 and merged with the mainstream emigration. Their views are occasionally discussed here, but it is made clear in the text when this happens.21

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

1

SRs as Russian Revolutionaries

The narodnik Legacy Narodnichestvo, or Russian populism, was an extremely inﬂuential intellectual, political, social and cultural movement which dominated Russian political debate in the second half of the nineteenth century.1 Its adherents opposed the Tsarist autocracy as well as the idea of the necessary development of capitalism in Russia. They instead called for a broad social revolution to usher in a socialist future based on the popular institutions and beliefs of the mass of Russian people, the peasantry or narod. This worldview was held by a wide range of prominent thinkers, writers, publicists, economists and revolutionaries including Alexander Herzen (1812–70), Nikolai Chernyshevskii (1828–89), Petr Tkachev (1844–85), Nikolai Nekrasov (1821–78), Petr Lavrov (1823–1900), Nikolai Mikhailovskii (1842–1904), Gleb Uspenskii (1843–1902), Nikolai Zlatovratskii (1845–1911), Vasilii Vorontsov (1847–1918) and Nikolai Danielson (1844–1918). As has been noted, in nineteenth-century Russia a narodnik could be anything from a revolutionary terrorist to a benevolent landowner.2 This lack of focus has been judged by historians as one of the reasons for the eventual defeat of narodnichestvo at the hands of Russian Marxism which eventually gained hegemony over the revolutionary movement. This judgement then passed on to the SR Party and their ‘failure’ in 1917 vis-a-vis the Bolsheviks. There were main shared beliefs of the various narodnik movements and thinkers, the most important being that Russia was not foreordained to follow the western European (English) pattern of economic development and could therefore avoid capitalist industrialisation; that the peasantry were at the centre of Russian life and a potentially revolutionary class and that socialism could be introduced into Russia on the basis of the peasant land commune (obshchina). The peasant commune was an object of intense debate in late Imperial Russia on the part of both Russians and foreign observers.3 There was debate over its origins, its speciﬁcity, whether or not it was disintegrating under the impact of capitalist development and most importantly its future role. The vast majority of Russian

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

8 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

peasants lived in self-governing peasant communes, which were also the legal owners of peasant land after the Emancipation of 1861. While households had their own permanent plot of land around their house (dvor), the commune periodically redistributed arable land among peasant households according to the egalitarian principle of either size of household or number of working hands. Livestock, equipment, meadows, forests and pasture lands as well as services such as schools, churches, ﬁre brigades and security were organised communally. The commune was supposed to protect weaker members of the community such as orphans and the elderly. It was also a ‘collective shield and weapon against a hostile external world of squire, policeman, tax ofﬁcer, robber, intruder.’4 Narodniki believed that the commune could potentially hold the key to Russia’s better future. It seemed to produce deep habits of social solidarity and attachment to communal practices. Although primitive in some senses, for example with the reinforcement of patriarchy, in others it was morally superior to capitalist socio-economic formations with their emphasis on the individual over the collective. It was a path away from bourgeois notions of private property and a mechanism for land redistribution. The commune, it was hoped, rather than being a strange vestige of the past could be used as one of the building blocks for a new society enabling Russia to leap over capitalism into the more advanced stage of socialism. Narodniki also had faith that peasants, with guidance and support, could overthrow the Tsarist autocracy in an act of social revolution. Another important element of narodnichestvo was the belief that ideas and individuals can change history. Mikhailovskii and Lavrov in particular challenged the strongly determinist slant to Russian Marxism with their ‘subjective sociology’, arguing that history was not an impersonal and objective process but created partly by autonomous individuals interacting with the world.5 Finally, just as narodniki refused to think of capitalism with its exploitation and suffering as progressive or historically inevitable, they argued that socialism was not just a historically inevitable or economically superior form of organising production, but also a moral choice and an ethical and humanitarian vision. The SR Party would claim all these elements of the narodnik heritage in the twentieth century. Although Richard Pipes has argued that the concept of ‘narodnichestvo’ was actually popularised by Russian Marxists in the late nineteenth century as a kind of slur to link other socialists with Slavophiles and other ‘mystics’, SRs were proud to call themselves narodniki and often referred to their own beliefs as ‘eser-narodnichestvo’.6 Narodnik organisations ﬁrst began emerging in the 1860s. 1874 saw the famous ‘Going to the People’ (khozhdenie v narod) movement when young idealists inspired by Lavrov and Chernyshevskii tried to go and live in Russia’s villages to become closer to the peasants. In 1876 the party Land and Freedom (Zemlya i Volya) was founded, afﬁrming that the ‘basic character of the Russian people is socialistic’ and praising the democratic, egalitarian nature of the peasant commune.7 Its programme called for political and civic freedoms, universal suffrage, a Constituent Assembly,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

SRs as Russian revolutionaries

9

regional devolution, the distribution of landlord estates to peasants and nationalisation of the land, and workers’ control in factories. Disappointment with the meagre results of mass work with peasants led to a re-focus back to St Petersburg and in 1879 the founding of the organisation The People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya). Its members were now prepared to adopt terrorist tactics, assassinating governors, gendarmes and judges in order to destabilise the Tsarist state and hopefully provoke a peasant uprising. Its most notorious achievement, and swansong, was the assassination of the ‘Tsar-Liberator’ Alexander II in St Petersburg in March 1881. After this, narodnichestvo as an organised revolutionary movement was brutally hounded out of existence by an enraged state. The failure of both mass action and terrorism to affect any change led to demoralisation among radicals in late nineteenth-century Russia. In addition to police repression, Russia’s rapid industrial development during the late 1880s and 1890s posed a challenge to narodnichestvo, which had been based on the supposition that Russia could avoid Western-style industrialisation and capitalism with all its attendant horrors. Opponents of the autocracy began turning to Marxism as better able to describe reality and provide a path to revolution. Russian Marxists believed that Russia, subject to objective and universal laws of historical development, was already well on the road to capitalist development. Part of this development was the supposed disintegration of the peasant commune as capitalist relations penetrated the countryside. The role of Marxist revolutionaries should be to support the future bourgeois revolution, work with the newly forming proletarian class developing in Russia rather than peasants and then continue the ﬁght for a socialist revolution. The political passivity of the peasantry in the last decades of the century also gave more credence to Marxism, which seemed to be arguing that revolutionaries should not rely on the peasantry, but the proletariat. In 1883 the ex-narodnik Georgii Plekhanov (1856–1918) formed the ﬁrst Russian Marxist group, the ‘Emancipation of Labour’, and began setting out a Marxist analysis of Russia’s present and future in works such as ‘Socialism and Political Struggles’ and ‘Our Differences’. His interpretation of Marxism, which became the dominant one in Russian political life, ignored Marx’s later writings on the peasant commune and the possibility of differing paths of development.8 The Russian Social Democratic Workers Party was formed in 1898 by Plekhanov, Petr Struve, Julius Martov and Vladimir Lenin. In fact, Marx himself later in life became extremely interested in the Russian peasant commune and expressed in his notorious 1881 letter to Vera Zasulich his agreement with the narodnik belief that it had the potential to be a starting point for social reconstruction. This letter and its full drafts were only published in full in 1924 by émigré Mensheviks, and then by the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow. Needless to say, SR leader Viktor Chernov in emigration was delighted to seemingly have conﬁrmation that Marx had ‘really’ been a narodnik.9 Reports of the death of narodnichestvo during this period have been exaggerated. It continued as an intellectual movement with a more reformist tinge in the work of

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

10 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

economists such as V.P. Voronstov and Nikolai Danielson, Marx’s friend and translator. Danielson and Vorontsov argued that the ‘natural’ development of capitalism as it had taken place in the West was not possible in Russia. The statedirected modernization there was taking place at the expense of the peasantry— destroying the cottage industries and imposing crushing levels of taxation—and thus destroying the internal market on which any industrial economy would have to be based. This blockage could not be overcome. Plants were also large and capital intensive and unable to absorb the surplus labour force from ex-peasants and had no need to pay good wages. This would further destroy the internal market. Russia’s position as a late-comer in a competitive imperial system meant it had no chance of winning external markets, also dooming attempts to develop a modern capitalist economy. Voronstov also argued that Russia’s geography alone made it unsuitable for the large-scale production he identiﬁed with capitalism. Additionally the peasant’s attachment to land rather than money would block the development of capitalism in agriculture.10 The Tsarist regime’s economic and ﬁnancial plans were only aimed at extracting grain from peasants for export, not at creating a balanced modern industrialised economy or increasing the well-being and cultural level of the population. SRs in Prague would direct some similar arguments against Stalin’s Five Year Plans. Only an energetic socialist government could develop a balanced modern economy, increase both industrial and agricultural productivity and preserve Russia’s Great Power status. New revolutionary adherents to narodnichestvo had also been forming in groups across the Russian Empire during the 1890s. While accepting that capitalist development was taking place in industry, these groups still believed in the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and a non-capitalist path in the future for Russian agriculture. In the narodnik journal Russian Wealth (Russkoe bogatstvo) new and old narodniki engaged with Russian Marxists of various shades in the great debate over the path Russia was taking. Future SR leader Viktor Chernov took on Marxists such as Struve and Lenin who were arguing that the full development of capitalism in Russia was now historically inevitable and that the commune was disintegrating. As the historian, Kadet and fellow Prague exile Alexander Kizevetter remembered of those times, ‘Whatever you might be, you were ﬁrst of all asked: are you a Marxist or a narodnik?’11 The Programme of the Socialist Revolutionary Party The Socialist Revolutionary Party was founded in 1901 by these new narodnik groupings and ex-members of Zemyla i Volya and Narodnaya Volya.12 Viktor Mikhailovich Chernov (1873–1952) was a prime mover behind the Party’s formation and the Party’s chief theoretician. Chernov tried to develop narodnichestvo under the new conditions of early twentieth-century Russia and challenge the Russian Marxist attempt to establish ideological dominance over the revolutionary movement. His new theory of neo-narodnichestvo or eserstvo, as SRs described their

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

SRs as Russian revolutionaries

11

thought, has been called a distinctive and original theory which ‘fulﬁlled the requirements of revolution-making in a predominantly agriculturally based economy undergoing rapid capitalist expansion’.13 Russian Marxists insisted that the full expansion of capitalism in agriculture was as inevitable in Russia as it had been in late eighteenth-century England, with the consequent destruction of the smallholding peasant and the creation of a class of large-scale capitalist farmers and the landless poor, the latter of whom would mainly be absorbed into the city and join the proletariat. Most like Lenin argued that this was well underway in Russia and claimed to see the disintegration of the commune and class differentiation everywhere in the Russian countryside. This was considered historically progressive, as socialism could only follow capitalism. Unlike the SRs, Russian Marxists did not support peasant demands for equal land redistribution and viewed the peasant commune as regressive, feudal and doomed. SRs rejected the Russian Marxist stance that all Marx’s thought (and therefore the trajectory of history) could be reduced to the lines in the ﬁrst edition of Das Kapital in 1867: ‘the country that is more developed industrially only shows to the less developed the image of its own future’. Indeed, as noted above, Marx towards the end of his life also reassessed this prediction. While the SRs accepted that capitalist industrial development was taking place in Russia, they denied that a similar process would take place in agriculture. In distinction to Russian Marxism, which placed the peasantry on the side of reaction, neo-narodnichestvo argued that peasants—and not just in Russia—were still a potentially revolutionary class. Peasants and workers formed one toiling or labouring (trudyashchaishsya) class. Peasants were closer to workers than to the bourgeoisie even though theoretically peasants owned the means of production they used. However, they did not exploit the labour of others or live by extracting surplus value and they were exploited by capitalism in the form of taxes and rent. The SRs believed that the future socialist revolution in Russia would be carried out by a triadic alliance of workers, peasants and the radical intelligentsia, not by the proletariat alone. Peasants were not relics of the past but living elements of socialism and part of modern economies and societies. Rather than his programme being ‘native in inspiration’, as it has been described, Chernov drew heavily on the agrarian programmes of European socialist parties, particularly those of France, Belgium and Holland which were also at that time advocating a peasant path to socialism though agricultural cooperatives and communal tenure.14 He would continue this interest in agricultural socialism in exile, frequently visiting and writing on cooperative movements in Denmark, Finland and Belgium and later on the kibbutz movement in Palestine. The agricultural cooperative movement and the peasant commune, then, were the peasant route to socialism for SRs. Agricultural cooperatives formed the largest voluntary movement in late Imperial Russia, with an estimated membership of 8–9 million households, approximately a third to a quarter of all households.15

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

12 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

SRs occupied a leading place within it, particularly in Siberia. The cooperative movement was seen, as it would be at varying times throughout twentieth-century Russia, as a means of achieving a socialist agricultural sector. Much has been made of the SRs’ supposed idealisation of the Russian commune. In fact, sometimes the objective class position of the peasantry was stressed more (revealing the strong inﬂuence of Marx) at other times the subjective importance of peasant attitudes and beliefs which had developed as a result of the commune.16 The commune was not idealised so much as viewed as a mechanism for equal land distribution or socialisation, which was Chernov’s chief theoretical innovation. The theory of the socialisation of the land was the SRs’ programme for how socialism rather than capitalism was to develop in agriculture. This theory was based partly on theoretical developments in European socialism, partly on the narodnik heritage and partly on the common peasant belief, that land belonged to those who worked it (pravo na zemlyu) as elaborated by zemstvo researchers such as the narodnik Karl Kocharovskii.17 The socialisation of land would be enacted after the initial overthrowing of the Tsarist regime. At this point, private property in land would be abolished, land would become the common property of the Russian people and every individual would have an equal right to it. Self-governing communes would be responsible for the regulation of land usage but would not own the land. Land would continue to be worked by individual households, who would have rights of usage but not ownership. In this sense everybody would own the land. Chernov later wrote of how agricultural Russia was to have become ‘a Great All-Russian Land Commune’.18 The socialisation of land did not involve collective agricultural production, however, which would only begin after the socialist revolution as will be outlined below. Most Russian Marxists—particularly the Mensheviks—did not view the peasants as a revolutionary class and made no effort to work with them. Lenin though had a more ambivalent attitude to the peasantry. While his Russian Marxism made him consider peasants petty-bourgeois and destined for historical oblivion, he could only be aware of their signiﬁcance and the need for their support in Russia.19 As a revolutionary activist he was impressed by their radical rejection of landlords’ property rights. Lenin became ﬁnally convinced of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry after 1905. The SRs viewed this change as purely opportunistic, exempliﬁed in his contemporaneous statement that at ﬁrst the Bolsheviks would support the peasantry against the landlords and then support the proletariat against the peasantry in general. The platform of the Russian Social Democratic Workers Party remained to return the ‘cut-offs’ (otrezki) to the peasants (lands they had traditionally used but which had been given to the gentry in the 1861 Emancipation) and to support the growth of capitalism in the countryside. However, Lenin was prepared to go further and in 1917 he responded vigorously and positively to the peasant uprisings and land seizures while the SR leadership opposed them, with fatal consequences for their support.20

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

SRs as Russian revolutionaries

13

Following the traditions of west European socialism, and as noted above in the discussion of the socialisation of the land, the SR Party programme was divided into a maximum and minimum programme. The minimum programme outlined what could be achieved after the ﬁrst revolution, which would be a political revolution overthrowing Tsarism, and the maximum programme outlined what would be achieved after the second, socialist revolution. Like the Russian Marxists, the SRs believed that the revolution in Russia would happen in two telescoped stages. The ﬁrst revolution would not be a pure bourgeois revolution but herald the beginning of a transitional stage. As the Russian bourgeoisie was too weak to keep power, and the combined revolutionary force of the peasantry and proletariat so overwhelming, there would soon be a second, socialist revolution. The SR Party has usually been characterised as a peasant party whose members believed in an agrarian utopia and whose ideology was ‘native in inspiration and agrarian in emphasis’.21 This book also focuses to a large extent on their ideas on the Russian peasantry and agriculture as they felt they had something distinctive and important to say about them, as opposed to the Russian Marxists. This does not mean that their extensive involvement with Russian workers should be overlooked. The SRs, even in emigration in Czechoslovakia, never became a pure peasant populist party such as became common in interwar Eastern Europe. I agree with Michael Melancon, the main current historian of the SR Party, who has called for historians to take seriously the ‘genuinely multivalent nature’ of SR activities.22 Policies on workers and industry in emigration had as much space in their programmes as those on peasants and agriculture, as had been the case before the revolution. The SR Party was a member of the Socialist International and was never viewed by its European counterparts as a party for Russian peasants either before or after the revolution. As will be shown, émigré SRs worked closely with European socialist parties in the interwar period and were seen as an integral part of the international socialist movement. Their policies for workers and industry though were not so distinct from other socialists and they were heavily inﬂuenced by Marxism in these areas. As will be seen, the ‘national question’ assumed great importance in emigration. The SR programme prior to 1917 had called for a democratic federal republic with wide political and cultural autonomy and recognised in theory the unconditional right to self-determination. Although the SRs before the revolution made efforts to grapple with the national question, there was signiﬁcant ambivalence towards this element of their programme. Some SRs did not want to commit to necessarily supporting all calls for self-determination.23 The war pushed SR leaders, as with members of other political groups, towards a more assertive Russian nationalism and desire to protect the Russian state. During the First World War, the party fragmented between ‘defensists’ and ‘internationalists’, a process which continued throughout 1917, with SRs in the Provisional Government refusing to pull out of the war despite its evident unpopularity.24 While Chernov was an internationalist and

14 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

attended the Zimmerwald Conference, the other Prague SRs had been defensists during the war and in 1917; what pushed them later to realign with Chernov was the Allies’ decision to intervene on the side of the Whites and to support the new states formed out of the western areas of Russian Empire. Finally, like earlier narodniki, the SRs generally opposed the economic determinism of the Russian Marxists with a belief in a subjective sociology which argued that individuals and ideas move history forward. They also believed that socialism was not just historically inevitable, but morally just and therefore a choice. The SRs and 1917 Historians have long sought to explain the puzzle as to why the SRs, who seemed to initially gain the most popularity in 1917 as the revolutionary parties emerged blinking into the lights after the long demoralising years post-1905, lost leadership of the revolutionary movement to the Bolsheviks by the end of the year.25 Or put another way, how did a Marxist party win in peasant Russia? The SR Party had the largest numbers of new members in 1917 and dominated the urban soviets until late in the year. In Soviet historiography the defeat of the SRs was presented as the natural outcome of iron historical laws—they had represented the doomed class of the petty-bourgeoisie. Most western historians see the heterogeneous nature of the Party as the long-term cause of its downfall, as well as the failure of individuals (or often the ‘success’ of stronger personalities, such as Lenin) and the vicissitudes of 1917. Others blame the supposedly ephemeral and shallow nature of peasant political support.26 The SRs have often been criticised as utopian day dreamers without any serious programme or plans. Oliver Radkey for example described the programme of the socialisation of land as vague and unrealisable, while Manfred Hildermeier argued forcefully that the SR ‘failure’ was inevitable, as the Party’s programme could never have acted as the agent of modernisation that Russia needed.27 Hanno Immonen on the other hand argues that the mechanics of land socialisation had been quite carefully worked out in 1905–7 by SR agrarian specialists in the SR draft land law presented to the Second Duma in May 1907 and that a lack of realistic policy was not one of the causes of the SR ‘failure’ in 1917.28 In exile Chernov and the SRs continued to defend the socialisation of land as the practical answer to Russia’s agricultural needs, peasant wishes and the gradual introduction of socialism.29 Chernov also pointed to the extensive preparatory work done in 1917 by Panteleimon Vikhlyaev and other specialists on land reform.30 What is questionable though is whether such a painstaking and complex agricultural reform could have ever taken place during a revolutionary period. The ability to introduce the SR programme seems to have been dependent on a calm and rational revolutionary situation, the opposite atmosphere to 1917 or indeed to any revolutionary situation at all. Western historians seem to agree that the SR Party, like the broad narodnik movement it was inspired by, was overly heterogeneous making it weak as a

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

SRs as Russian revolutionaries

15

political force. It never established itself as a united party. Additionally, even though the Party grew rapidly in the revolutionary times of 1905–7 and 1917 it never achieved a proper level of organisation or committed support. During the very First Congress in 1905 a grouping on the right split off to form a more moderate legal party, the Popular Socialists (Narodnie sotsialisty), while a radical leftist group emerged which then formed the Union of SR-Maximalists (Soyuz EserMaksimalistov). The party leadership split irrevocably after the outbreak of the First World War, when some SRs chose to suspend their revolutionary activities and support the general war effort, while others called for Russia’s defeat. As mentioned above Chernov took part in the anti-war socialist Zimmerwald and Kienthal Conferences in 1915. Trapeznik describes a party whose leadership had already split in the war years, and only came together brieﬂy in 1917 for a temporary and ‘uneasy marriage of convenience’.31 Historians have frequently pointed to how rapidly SR radicalism melted away in 1917 and how once in power, the leadership did not want to implement their own programme and went so far as to actively oppose land seizures by peasants. Only a small minority of the leadership (the Left SRs) kept faithful to the Party’s revolutionary roots. This is partly presented as a failure of leadership on Chernov’s part, as he allowed the Party to be hijacked by leading Right SRs who were in thrall to the Kadets (and the Allies) and were fervent supporters of the war.32 At the SR Third Party Congress in May 1917 a resolution supporting the continuation of the war was passed, which Chernov acquiesced in. The Third Congress did not even discuss the agrarian question in any depth, apart from some interim measures pending the convocation of the Constituent Assembly.33 When Chernov became Minister of Agriculture in May 1917 the programme he proposed was limited to the abolition of Stolypin’s legislation on separating from the commune, temporarily halting the sale of land and the establishment of land committees to decide the immediate utilisation of land, again until a Constituent Assembly could be convened. Even these moderate plans were dragged down or sabotaged by other members of the Provisional Government. Chernov allowed himself to be bound by party discipline when it had been completely abandoned by his Right SR opponents (who later emerged as the Paris SRs), and then began withdrawing from active politics in late autumn 1917. It seems that the SR Party leadership became afraid of the revolution that they had tried all their lives to bring about. As well as losing peasant support and continuing the war, others have argued that the Party was not radical enough to keep the support of workers. The deepening crisis, the sense of paralysis and the enormity of events overwhelmed many SRs, who had long seen themselves as part of a vanguardist elite with a special insight into the future. The exception were those who joined the Left SRs, who like Lenin grasped which way the wind was blowing by the summer of 1917 and were ready to go with it. The SRs abandoned their own land policy and Lenin picked it up on behalf of the Bolsheviks. In August 1917 Lenin

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

16 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

afﬁrmed his Party’s willingness to accept the peasants’ desire to divide up the land on an equal basis. The Bolshevik Decree on Land of October 1917 was based on a summary of 250 peasant demands (nakazy) received by the Executive Committee of the Soviet of Peasant Deputies during 1917. This was essentially the SR land programme, although the Bolsheviks did not socialise the land but just temporarily gave the stamp of approval to events on the ground in 1917–19,which was in effect a ‘black repartition’. The difference between Bolshevik-style nationalisation and SR socialisation can be seen in a comparison of the Land Code passed by the SR-dominated Constituent Assembly in 1918 and that passed by the Bolsheviks in 1922. The Russian Land Code passed under the Bolsheviks in 1922 consisted of four articles: land belongs to the Workers’ and Peasants’ State; land is in the keeping of the Commissariat of Agriculture (Narkomzem); the labour principle is the principle of land usage; and that land usage can be communal, collective or individual. This was almost identical to the Land Law passed by the SR-dominated Constituent Assembly. The main difference was that in the Constituent Assembly Land Law (and SR programme) land had been turned into an ‘obshchenarodnoe dostoyanie’ (national patrimony), which did not belong to the state, although the state—at its very lowest levels— would regulate its usage and guarantee the realisation of the right to land that belonged to the individual. Under the Bolshevik regime the state could change the forms of land usage, whereas under an SR government only the Constituent Assembly could have changed it.34 Lenin, while accepting the SR land programme for tactical reasons, had changed its essence from socialisation to nationalisation, so that land was in essence under the control of the Bolshevik Party, in the guise of the Soviet state.35 Some historians date the abandonment of a genuinely revolutionary spirit by the SRs to even earlier than 1917 or 1914. Immonen writes that by 1907 the emphasis of SR agrarian theory had already changed from socialism to a kind of smallholding egalitarianism. He argues that while Chernov had initially sought to offer a radical socialist alternative to the agrarian views of the Russian Social Democrats, later emphasis was on the development of a sophisticated legal framework for the redistribution of land in accordance with peasant norms. This was not the work of Chernov, who was merely a public voice, but of experienced neo-narodnichestvo agronomists led by the SR Panteleimon Vikhlyaev. It was a response to the Kadet Party’s radical agrarian programme and the Stolypin Reforms rather than to Russian Marxist theories of the development of capitalism in agriculture.36 The demand for non-capitalist evolution in agriculture became a ‘juridical demand to promote the creation of a new legal system based on the traditional legal views of the people prevalent in the communes’.37 He thus argues that the SR leadership’s insistence in 1917 on waiting for the Constituent Assembly to pass land legislation rather than supporting land seizures from below and an immediate revolution in the countryside, was in keeping with the Party’s beliefs and not an anomaly which needs

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

SRs as Russian revolutionaries

17

explaining away.38 Radkey also argued that had there been a coalition left government after 1917 the SRs probably would have abandoned socialism and become the party of the ‘democratic smallholder’, presumably the middle peasants.39 Viktor Chernov presented his reasons for the SR failure to consolidate power in his book The Great Russian Revolution, published in 1936. He cited the ﬂood of new members during 1917, many of whom had no real conception of what the Party stood for.40 He felt that the war had torn the Party apart and it just splintered further in 1917. He put a large part of the blame on Alexander Kerensky, who became associated with the SRs although he did not share their views or have any understanding of their ideology. Kerensky captured the allegiance of Party members on the right, who supported the idea of coalition with the Kadets and became afraid of radical social revolution, while Party members on the left became impatient with the theory of a peaceful period of transition to socialism and attracted to Bolshevik radicalism.41 Leading Right SRs became free agents and abandoned all party discipline. Left and Right encouraged each other’s positions and the centre ‘melted away’.42 The demands of the grass roots for radical economic and agrarian legislation had no impact on SRs in the Provisional Government, who helped frustrate radical reforms and supported the Kadets in the coalition. In the end ‘the ﬁnal downfall of the Provisional Government became a catastrophe for it (the SR Party – EW) as well’.43 In emigration, Chernov was prepared to accept some personal blame, while making himself sound as attractive a personality as possible. He admitted he had failed as a practical politician, being too much of the theorist. He described himself as too trusting, particularly of Kerensky. He allowed himself to be ‘bound hand and foot’ by party discipline, which stopped him from pushing forward his own policies, partly due to his ‘typically Russian nature’, democratic tendencies and because he lacked ‘an active love of honour and power’.44 He had not wanted to act as Lenin had and appeal to the mood of ‘the raw recruits of the factories, the primitive and motley crowd, living chieﬂy by emotional impulses’.45 He termed this social grouping the proletarian ochlos, ‘the enormous mass of declasses, chronic paupers, Lumpenproletariat, what may be termed the “capitalistically superﬂuous industrial reserve army”. They reﬂect the destructive, not constructive side of capitalism, and have no future potential. In Russia, they were legion’.46 He presented himself as a man faithful to his beliefs. He argued that those who were pushing for the deepening of the revolution in 1917 were not true revolutionaries. They were evacuees from frontline areas who had nothing left to lose, undisciplined teenage garrison soldiers, deserters, slackers and shirkers who had crept into industry to avoid being sent to the front, those who sought ‘a social miracle, the provision of work, “good money” and general prosperity by government ukase.’47 The Bolsheviks, under Lenin’s direction, were willing to change their rhetoric to appeal to ‘the urban and village poor’, shifting their class basis from the proletariat to the Lumpenproletariat. This, wrote Chernov, was anarchism, not Marxism. Chernov presented himself as naïve

18 SRs as Russian revolutionaries

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

and continually outmanoeuvred by more cynical and immoral political ﬁgures. His nemesis was Kerensky, aided by the Right SRs. He remained ‘true’ to socialism and the real Russian revolution, while Lenin turned to the mob. Chernov accused Lenin of using the anger, the emotional vocabulary, the maximalism of the narod and the intelligentsia to seize power for himself and his Party with catastrophic results for Russia. I may have failed on some levels but at least, Chernov seems to be saying, I did not destroy Russia.

2

The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Prague

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The ‘Kingdom of the SRs’

This chapter presents the atmosphere in which the Prague SRs lived and worked. It also examines their position in debates over the role of the Russian emigration. Most studies of the emigration have focused on how individuals and groups envisaged and played out their role as émigrés.1 The Prague SRs saw the role of the emigration as being to represent Russian interests abroad and produce a free Russian press. The Prague SRs refuted the common view that Russian émigrés had no understanding of the Soviet Union, ‘as though Russians abroad are completely cut off from life, as though they do not see Russia reﬂected in the international press, or meet with those coming from Russia, or correspond with friends and relations or read Russian books’.2 There were about 130 SR émigrés in Europe who belonged to various local groups.3 SRs usually ended up abroad after 1917 because they had been actively opposing the Bolsheviks or the White dictatorships or because they had been sent there to raise support for the SR cause. The SRs were very active in the emigration. They published 96 books in the interwar period.4 SRs played an important role in the cultural and literary life of the emigration. They founded and edited the two most important émigré journals, Sovremennie Zapiski and Volya Rossii, as well as a series of party publications. They contributed to the international socialist press. They sat on émigré charitable bodies, represented the emigration in the League of Nations, were members of the Socialist International and worked with other European socialist parties. The two main SR centres were Prague and Paris, with smaller groups in Berlin, Belgrade, Warsaw, Tallinn, Belgium, Geneva, Harbin, Shanghai and the USA. Fairly unusually for émigrés of this period, who were mostly ﬁercely antiBolshevik, they also tried to act as a bridge between the Soviet Union and Europe. The Prague SRs shared their thoughts in Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya and Volya Rossii. Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya was the ofﬁcial SR Party publication abroad. The SRs claimed that it was distributed to groups of students, workers and peasants inside the Soviet Union, as well as read by ethnic Russian workers and peasants in the limitrofnye gosudarstva.5 A list of subscribers in the 1920s includes Russian émigré organisations, European journals, universities and libraries, Czechoslovak

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

20 The SR party in Prague

government departments, socialists such as Friedrich Adler, Eduard Bernstein, Rudolf Hilferding, and Emil Vandervelde, Gorky, the Menshevik leader Fyodor Dan and eventually a Mr Leon Trotsky, Post Restante, Pera, Constantinople, Turque.6 In the Soviet Union, the Museums of the Revolution in Leningrad and Georgia, Pravda, and the Obshchestvo politkatorzhan i ssyl’no-poselentsev (Society for Tsarist Political Prisoners and Exiles) also subscribed to it.7 Volya Rossii became a monthly journal in September 1922, after being an SR daily for a year. It was a non-party journal, which covered general political, cultural and artistic developments, as well as issues of interest to Russian émigrés or pertaining directly to the Soviet Union. Its editorial ofﬁces were adorned with portraits of Herzen, Chernyshevskii, Lavrov and Mikhailovskii. The editors, Lebedev, Slonim, Stalinskii, Sukhomlin and Postnikov, described the journal as: a direct descendent of Russian revolutionary narodnichestvo, which attempts to travel along that channel, renewing and revealing its basic tenets, and trying with their guidance to comprehend and absorb the experience of the Revolution.8 It published works by Soviet and European writers as well as by European socialist politicians and thinkers and apparently had a limited distribution in the Soviet Union.9 As will become clear, the Prague SRs believed that the Bolsheviks’ ideology and economic programme were so at variance with Russian reality that the Soviet regime had found itself at an impasse under the New Economic Policy. The ‘antinomy of the victory of a Marxist party in agrarian Russia’ could not last.10 The mid 1920s was a period of optimism for the SRs, when they felt that their programme still could have resonance with the Russian population. ‘I believe that Russia’s salvation will be carried out by SR hands’ said one of the editors of Volya Rossii, Vladimir Lebedev in late 1922.11 The SRs moved to Prague with the support of the Czechoslovak President Tomáš G Masaryk (1850–1937) and the Foreign Minister Edvard Beneš (1884–1948). Masaryk and Beneš had long sympathised with the broad aims of the Russian revolutionary movement in late Imperial Russia.12 Masaryk was a Russophile academic who had published studies of Russian history and philosophy and who had personal links with leading Russian academics and intellectuals, many of whom he would later offer support to in Prague. Politically, both Masaryk and Beneš believed that a stable democratic Russia, as well as being a good in and of itself, was essential to counter German inﬂuence in Central Europe. They therefore welcomed the fall of Tsarism in February 1917. As Beneš was to later remember: The situation (in Russia) changed instantly. The ideas, aspirations and outlook of the liberal bourgeois revolution were in complete harmony with the outlook

The SR party in Prague

21

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

and aspirations of us and of Western Europe. At that moment there was an ideal relationship between ourselves and ofﬁcial Russia: ideologically we were struggling for the same thing … it seemed that all misunderstanding between Russia and ourselves had disappeared forever.13 The government led by Masaryk and Beneš, which governed the new Czechoslovak state declared in October 1918, went on to support the SRs and other like-minded groups in emigration, in the hope that in the future Russia would return to the moderate democratic path of the February Revolution and also integrate with the wider European political community. Links between those who would come to rule the new state of Czechoslovakia and the SRs were forged in the vagaries of the Eastern Front and the collapse of the two great eastern European empires of Romanov Russia and the Habsburg Dual Monarchy. Masaryk spent much of 1917 in Russia arranging the formation of an independent Czechoslovak army from Czech and Slovak POWs and deserters from the Austro-Hungarian army on Russian territory as well as ethnic Czechs and Slovaks who were Russian citizens. The Russian Provisional Government helped him in this endeavour and Masaryk’s army became the famous Czechoslovak Legion. Masaryk wanted to deploy this army in Western Europe to ﬁght alongside the Allies, as part of the bid for Czechoslovak independence. After the Bolsheviks took power in late 1917, they gave permission for the Legion to travel across Russia to Vladivostok from where it was meant to set sail for the Western Front. However, a series of conﬂicts and misunderstandings in the chaotic conditions of the nascent Civil War led the Legion’s commanders to turn against the Bolshevik regime in May 1918.14 At this point, they geographically and politically threw their lot in with leading SRs based in Samara in the Volga region, who had gathered there to form an anti-Bolshevik government and their own army. The Czechoslovak Legion and the SRs fought, lived and worked together in the Volga region and then on into Siberia as they were pushed back by the Red Army. During this period the SRs became involved in varying attempts at anti-Bolshevik coalition governments with Kadets and independents in the regions they were ﬁghting in. All these experiments ended in November 1918 when White forces installed Admiral Kolchak as ‘Supreme Leader’ in Omsk. Twenty-seven SRs were shot and mutilated during Kolchak’s coup, while others ﬂed for their lives.15 The Czechoslovak Legion commander Radola Gajda supported Kolchak’s coup but rank and ﬁle Legionnaires helped many SRs, including Chernov, to escape the Whites.16 The evacuation of the Czechoslovak Legion began in 1919 and many SRs in Siberia left with them. The Czechoslovak government helped others leave later as Siberia and the Far East gradually came under Soviet control.17 The Czechoslovak Legion had a decisive impact on their state’s independence and the Legionnaires and the political leaders who had accompanied them became a signiﬁcant force during the First Czechoslovak Republic (1918–1938). They were a source of patronage for

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

22 The SR party in Prague

the SRs and the Russian émigré community in general. They included men such as Václav Girsa (1875–1954), the Czechoslovak Deputy Foreign Minister in the 1920s who headed the programme of help for the Russian émigrés and Jaroslav Papoušek, who was Masaryk’s private secretary during the 1920s. Girsa had been born in Ukraine and was a doctor in Kiev when the First World War broke out. He was a leading ﬁgure on the Czechoslovak National Council, travelled with the Legion and then became the Czechoslovak government’s main representative in Siberia. Jaroslav Papoušek’s wife Natalya was Russian and a well-known literary ﬁgure in Czechoslovakia. She published work in Volya Rossii and often represented the cause of the Russian émigré community. Pre-existing ideological ties between the SRs and Czechoslovakia’s moderate socialists were therefore strengthened by deep personal ties from a shared experience of such intensity and biographical signiﬁcance. When in 1924 the Soviet ofﬁcial representative in Prague complained to Beneš about the continued presence of the émigrés in Prague, Beneš replied that the Czechoslovak government would not abandon them, as they were people ‘with many of whom we have very close links and towards whom we feel morally responsible’.18 SRs apart, Russian refugees came to be émigrés in Czechoslovakia on a much wider scale. After the end of the Civil War, the Czechoslovak government arranged the settlement of Russian students, academics and Cossacks in Czechoslovakia. Masaryk and Beneš were both opposed to further military intervention in Russia but Masaryk did not believe the Bolshevik regime would last. He wanted Prague to become a centre for ‘progressive Russians’ and to help Russia by supporting democratic ideas and training specialists who would return and work for Russia’s political and economic modernisation. Masaryk believed in the power of administration and organisation to overcome backwardness.19 He believed that ‘Russians have not yet learnt about administration, and without administration there is no democracy’.20 He wrote to the American President Herbert Hoover before the Genoa Conference in 1922, which was partly convened to discuss relations between Bolshevik Russia and the west, that ‘the Russian emigration must be allowed to return…A well-thought out plan of assistance to Russia will consist of the choice of those sent to Russia as workmen, engineers, chemists, teachers, etc’.21 In a way, the Czechoslovak government tried to create an emigration in its own image; one that was democratic and pragmatic with an emphasis on training and education in modern agricultural and industrial techniques. Other motivations for helping Russian refugees were always cited, such as basic humanitarianism, pan Slavism, gratitude to the ‘great Northern Slav power’ for its role in the war, but a main rationale was to produce a modern technical intelligentsia for Russia—much as the Bolshevik regime also strove to do. In August 1921 the Czechoslovak government therefore launched the Russian Action (Ruská akce), a large-scale programme of resettlement and support for Russian refugees. Young ex-soldiers of the White armies, then languishing in

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SR party in Prague

23

camps in Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria were offered the chance to study in Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovak ofﬁcials were dispatched to the eastern Mediterranean to select the students with strict instructions to weed out extremists from both right and left and not to allow whole military units in.22 Between 1921 and 1934 about seven thousand students were funded through their education and a wide range of Russian (and Ukrainian) higher education institutes were established.23 Another aspect of the Russian Action was the resettlement of Cossacks as agricultural workers. Overcoming Russia’s agricultural backwardness was seen as the greatest priority and there was a great deal of emphasis on training in modern agricultural techniques.24 Émigrés trained in Czechoslovakia were meant to eventually return as ‘missionaries’ and ‘apostles’ to transform the Russian village.25 The SRs as socialists with a programme of agricultural modernisation encouraged and no doubt beneﬁtted from this attitude. Masaryk also planned to make Prague the leading world centre for Slavonic studies, and as part of this he invited leading Russian academics, many of whom were or had been connected to the Kadet Party, to settle there. Prague thus became known as the ‘Russian Athens’ or the ‘Russian Oxford’. Support for Russian culture in general eventually became the primary justiﬁcation for the Russian Action, as it was for the emigration as a whole. Masaryk even supported Russian émigré writers such as Ivan Bunin (1870–1953), Alexei Remizov (1877–1957) and Aleksandr Kuprin (1870–1938) who lived outside Czechoslovakia.26 As a result of Czechoslovak government actions, there was a numerous and lively Russian émigré community in Prague as well as dispersed around the new state. The Russian Action, and therefore the Russian émigré community, had its opponents particularly among those who disliked Beneš (the Russian Action fell into the remit of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Other critics included the Czech Communist Party, trade unions, some of the more left-leaning intelligentsia and business circles who wanted greater economic links with the Soviet Union and saw the presence of émigrés as an obstacle. However, it was supported by all the major parties which formed the coalition governments of the 1920s: the National Democrats, the National Socialists, the Social Democrats and the Agrarian Party. As noted, due to Masaryk’s personal links and his desire to make Prague the centre of Slavonic learning, there was a signiﬁcant group of Kadets and ex-Kadets in Prague, many of whom worked there as academics. Prague Kadets included at various times Petr Struve (1870–1944), Aleksandr Kizevetter (1866–1933), Pavel Novgorodtsev (1866–1924), Nikolai Astrov (–1934), Ivan Petrunkevich (–1928) and Soﬁa Panina (1871–1956). Pavel Milyukov’s Republican–Democratic Union (RDU) formed in emigration by Kadets and other Russian democratic groupings, had representatives in Prague. Milyukov was close to Masaryk and was a frequent visitor to Prague. Only a few Mensheviks settled in Prague as most gathered together in Berlin or Paris. There were some democratic Cossack groupings, some of whom worked with the Prague SRs. The Czechoslovak government also subsidised a party formed by ex-SR Central

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

24 The SR party in Prague

Committee members Sergei Maslov and Andrei Argunov. It was called Krest’yanskaya Rossiya (Peasant Russia) and its programme rejected socialism and promoted a purely peasant populist ideology. Although Krestyanskaya Rossiya has been linked to the Prague SRs, they were hostile to each other.27 It was closer to Milyukov’s RDU group, with whom they smuggled literature into the Soviet Union. The Prague SRs rejected their sole focus on the peasantry, as well as their activist tactics of trying to provoke an uprising in the Soviet Union. Despite these myriad political groupings and personal links with power, there was one political grouping which enjoyed solid government support and was placed in a powerful position over the rest of the émigré community. This was the SR Party. As well as the ‘Russian Athens’, Prague was also known in the interwar years as the ‘Kingdom of the SRs’. The Czechoslovak government began working with SRs outside Russia ofﬁcially in spring 1920. They funded a body with the opaque name of the Administrative Centre (Administrativnyi Tsentr). This was an SR anti-Bolshevik organisation based in Paris.28 It was really an SR vehicle, although several Mensheviks were members to give the impression that Masaryk was not supporting one particular party. Many of the Prague SRs were involved in it. Only a brief overview is given as it belongs to the history of the Civil War period, rather than the emigration. This body produced a series of publications including one called Volya Rossii which initially came out as a daily paper. It tried to organise opposition inside Russia and to inﬂuence Western governments over the recognition of new states forming out of the western edges of the Russian Empire. It also attempted to win over some of the thousands of Russian prisoners of war and internees in camps in Germany and the former AustroHungarian Empire to the SR cause and it was hoped they would return to Russia prepared to ﬁght for their ideas.29 Documents from the Administrative Centre were stolen by Soviet agents and used at the Moscow Trial of the SRs in 1922 in an attempt to prove that the SR Party had treacherously sought the overthrow of the Soviet regime with foreign help.30 Funding for the Administrative Centre ended in 1921 when it became clear that the Soviet regime had entered a period of stabilisation.31 More open support from the Czechoslovak government was offered through the Russian Action, and Prague became a major SR locus. The SRs received direct funds for party work, and the Zemgor (Zemsko-gorodskoe ob’edinenie), an organisation they had established in Prague in March 1921, was given control over managing the resources of the Russian Action. There was an SR-run Zemgor funded by the Czechoslovak government in Paris and one in Belgrade subsidised by the Yugoslav government.32 Other émigrés, particularly Kadets, were furious about this preference shown to the SRs and carried on a permanent campaign to undermine the Zemgor in Prague and Belgrade. In keeping with the pragmatic attitude of the Czechoslovak government, the Zemgor organised vocational training courses in painting and decorating, electronics, motor mechanics, sewing and cutting and hat-making. It also set up workshops for

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SR party in Prague

25

book-binding, boot-making, manufacturing suitcases and brochure printing. It established hairdressers, a driving school and a High School of Transport Communications.33 It ran a subsidised canteen, organised accommodation, distributed clothing, arranged medical help and opened a sanatorium. It fulﬁlled the functions of a consulate and made loans. It represented the émigré community at the League of Nations and had an employment ofﬁce. The Zemgor distributed Czechoslovak government funds to educational and cultural associations and opened a reading room and a library, to which some of the Prague SRs donated their own books. Another Zemgor institution was the Russian Historical Archive Abroad (RZIA) (Russkii zagranichnyi istoricheskii arkhiv) which collected materials on the First World War, the Revolution and the Civil War from émigrés. Remarkably it gained acceptance from all groups as a preserver of historical memory. As noted, SRs started arriving in Prague in 1919 after Kolchak’s coup along with the returning Czechoslovak Legion. Some came later as the independent governments on the periphery of the Soviet Union collapsed. The Prague Group was ofﬁcially organised in November 1922. It had about 40 members and was considered the leading SR émigré group.34 In 1923 the Foreign Delegation (Zagranichnaya delegatsiya), the ofﬁcial representative of the SR Party abroad, moved to Prague. Most of the Prague SRs were leading party activists with long revolutionary careers. During 1917 they had participated in the major urban soviets, Peasant Congresses and the Provisional Government. They had been elected to the Constituent Assembly and taken part in regional anti-Bolshevik governments. Ekaterina BreshkoBreshkovskaya (1844–1934), ‘the Grandmother of the Russian Revolution’, and Egor Lazarev (1855–1937), the veteran narodovolets were in Prague. They were both well-known ﬁgures in the international socialist movement and they were greeted on their arrival in Prague with large organised public celebrations. Prague SRs formed the editorial board of Volya Rossii, which was one of the most popular and inﬂuential émigré journals. The views reﬂected in it of its editors and main contributors form the basis of a large part of this study. Another main source for this study is the ofﬁcial SR paper which was published in Prague, Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya. The editors of Volya Rossii were Marc Slonim, Evsei Stalinskii, Vasilii Sukhomlin, Vladimir Lebedev and Sergei Postnikov. With the exception of Vladimir Lebedev, they were all members of the Foreign Delegation, so at the heart of the party abroad. Grigorii Shreider, Vissarion Gurevich and Viktor Chernov were the other members of the Foreign Delegation. Chernov edited Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya along with Postnikov, Sukhomlin and Gurevich. These men’s thoughts form the basis of this book, so it would be helpful now to provide brief biographical details, as apart from Chernov, they are not particularly well known. Marc Slonim (1894–1976) had studied in St Petersburg and Florence. He had been a defensist during the First World War and was serving on the Rumanian Front when the Tsarist regime collapsed in 1917. He had been on the right of the Party in 1917 preferring Kerensky’s position to that of Chernov. He moved leftwards as a

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

26 The SR party in Prague

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. V.I. Lebedev, 2. M.L. Slonim, 3. L.V. Rossel’, 4. E.E. Lazarev, 5. E.A. Stalinskii, 6. V.V. Sukhomlin, 7. S.P. Postnikov, 8. V.M. Chernov. Caricatures of SRs published in the monthly journal Volya Rossii, January 1924: Lebedev, Slonim, Stalinskii, Sukhomlin and Postnikov were the editors of Volya Rossii. Rossel’ played a large role in the Prague Zemgor. Lazarev was a famous Russian revolutionary and long standing narodnik. Chernov was the unofﬁcial leader of the SR Party from its foundation in 1901.

result of the Allied intervention in the Civil War, which he disapproved of. He had been elected to the Constituent Assembly, took part in anti-Bolshevik regional governments and then was sent abroad to try to stop Allied recognition of Kolchak after November 1918. Slonim was the literary editor of Volya Rossii and played an important role in the cultural emigration. Vladimir Lebedev (1883–1956) was born in Georgia into a military family. He served in the Imperial Army and fought in the Russo-Japanese War. He joined the SR Party in 1905 and emigrated in 1908. In France during the First World War he helped organise the Republican Detachment of Russian Émigrés which fought alongside the French Foreign Legion. He returned to Russia in 1917 becoming brieﬂy the Naval Minister in the Provisional Government. He was one of the organisers of the SR ‘People’s Army’ which fought the Bolsheviks in the Volga Region during the Civil War. He was sent to America by the SR Central Committee in 1919 to raise support for the SRs. In emigration he worked closely with the Yugoslav Socialist Party and the Bulgarian Agrarian Party.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SR party in Prague

27

Vasilii Sukhomlin (1885–1961) was a ‘hereditary revolutionary’, the son of well-known narodniki, born to them in Siberian exile. He left Russia in 1907, studied in Germany and France and worked as a journalist. During the First World War he was a correspondent for Avanti, the Italian Socialist Party paper. He returned to Russia in 1917. Sukhomlin was the SR representative in the Socialist International and was sent abroad in 1918 by the SR Central Committee to raise support for the SRs among the European socialist parties.35 In the 1920s he was the editor of the Russian section of the Belgian Socialist Party paper Le Peuple and one of the heads of the International Socialist Press Bureau. Evsei Stalinskii (1880–1952) had begun to make his mark as a theorist before the revolution in party debates and articles in the narodnik journal Russkoe Bogatsvo.36 Like the others, he had been a defensist during the First World War, when he had edited the SR journal Volya Naroda. He was in the Kuban during the Civil War and was arrested by the Whites in Ekaterinodar in 1919. He was the deputy representative for the SR Party in the International. Sergei Postnikov (1883–1965) joined the Party in 1908. He was a librarian and archivist by profession. Postnikov edited SR publications in Moscow, including the central party publication Delo Naroda in 1917. He left Russia in the autumn of 1921 when he was sent abroad by the Party. The other two members of the Foreign Delegation were Grigorii Shreider (1860–1940) and Vissarion Gurevich (1876–1940). Grigorii Shreider had edited the narodnik journal Syn Otechestva before the revolution and been elected Mayor of Petrograd in 1917. He had been in the Kuban during the Civil War and was arrested by the Whites in 1918. He was released after the intervention of local Kadets and left Russia. He moved to Prague with the Foreign Delegation in 1923. Vasilii Gurevich was a barrister who had worked for the Peasants’ Land Bank, which had been set up by the Tsarist government in 1882 to help peasants buy land. He had been exiled to Siberia for ﬁve years in 1915. He was involved in the revolution there in 1917 and became Deputy Interior Minister for the Provisional Government, responsible for working on its nationalities policy. After October 1917 he took part in anti-Bolshevik regional governments such as the Siberian oblast’ Duma as well as the coalition government in Primor’e. He left Russia in 1920. Chernov’s revolutionary biography is quite widely known, so will not be repeated here.37 As already noted, he was considered the theoretical leader of the SR Party, but was on the centre-left of the Party and never imposed hegemonic leadership, for which he has received much criticism. He travelled with the Czech Legion through the Volga and Siberia but returned to Moscow after Kolchak’s coup and continued a precarious semi-legal existence. He left Russia for Estonia in the late summer of 1920. In contradiction to the assertion by Elena Chinyaeva that ‘one approach common to all émigré factions was that history should resume its ﬂow from sometime before the Bolshevik coup’, the Prague SRs searched for positive post-revolutionary

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

28 The SR party in Prague

developments in the Soviet Union.38 There were a number of places speciﬁc to Prague which made this possible. The Institute for the Study of Russia (Institut izucheniya Rossii) and the Economic Study of S. N. Prokopovich (Ekonomicheskii kabinet S. N. Prokopovicha) were based in Prague in the 1920s. Sergei Prokopovich was one of Russia’s most talented economists who had been expelled from the Soviet Union with other intellectuals in 1922. The Institute for the Study of Russia was staffed by a range of respected Russian economists and social scientists such as Karl Kocharovskii, Alexei Peshekhonov and Dmitrii Chelintsev, as well as SRs including Chernov, Shreider and Gurevich. The two institutes held joint sessions on topics such as the democratisation of the agrarian structure in Russia, types of peasant economy, the social nature of the peasantry and agricultural cooperatives. They subscribed to 24 Soviet journals and six newspapers.39 The Russian Institute of Agricultural Cooperatives was also in Prague, staffed by well-known economists and theorists of the cooperative movement such as Alexei Antsyferov, S. V. Marakuev, Vakhan Totomiants and Aleksandr Chelintsev. Some of the younger SRs studied in this institute.40 The works of these institutes were considered by contemporaries to be at the forefront of expert opinion on the Soviet Union. Most of the Prague SRs were employed full time by the Zemgor and its institutions or worked in the many Russian higher education institutions established under the auspices of the Russian Action. In 1924 Postnikov wrote to Sukhomlin that he found the atmosphere in Prague: productive, cheerful and interesting. I work in the Archive, mainly in the role of a pawnbroker. Friends, comrades, White Guards, military and state personnel all bring me material to evaluate and purchase. Have you not got anything you wish to sell? The old boots you tramped out of Russia in, for example? (No forgeries now!).41 Others found work as translators or journalists. Yuri Kalyuzhnyi made wooden folk puppets and illustrated children’s books.42 Gurevich worked as a lawyer for the émigré community, as well as heading RZIA. The veteran narodnik Nikolai Rusanov gave English lessons to Czech Senators.43 Chernov, Lazarev and BreshkoBreshkovskaya received personal allowances from the President’s Ofﬁce.44 The Prague SRs were fortunate; unlike many of their compatriots they did not have to do manual work or work in the service industry.45 Marc Slonim later recalled the atmosphere at the editorial ofﬁces of Volya Rossii. They rented rooms in the historic centre of Prague, in a building in which Mozart was reputed to have written Don Giovanni.46 He wrote that there was something ‘romantic and almost gloomy about it. I would insist half in jest, half seriously, that standing on the little square in front of the massive entrance doors under the waning light of the lantern, I was waiting for the Commandante’.47 The SRs also used the famous café Národní kavárna as their ‘general headquarters’.48 Slonim always

The SR party in Prague

29

refused to accept the characterisation of émigré politics as futile. He recalled how their time in the 1920s had been spent at:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

one of Masaryk’s receptions, in conversation with Beneš, at breakfast with Aristide Briand or Vandervelde, at meetings with the leaders of international socialism or in Commissions on Refugees at the League of Nations in Geneva where we were present as representatives of the Belgrade and Prague Zemgory.49 The Prague SRs found Czechoslovakia generally welcoming and shared the sense of pride and optimism in Czechoslovak independence. Their closest political ally there was the Social Democratic Party (Cˇeskoslovenská socialnˇe-demokratická strana dˇelnická), which was a moderate revisionist member of the Socialist International. Social Democrats took part in all the coalition governments of the First Republic. The Prague SRs were close to the Party leaders František Soukup, Rudolf Bechyne˘ and Gustav Habrman, who all occupied senior government positions in the 1920s. The SRs also had allies in the moderate left National Socialist Party (Cˇ eskoslovenská národneˇ-socialistická strana), most importantly the politician Václav Klofácˇ. As well as these links with Czechoslovak political groups, the SRs attended Congresses of the other socialist parties in the International, where they spoke about the situation in the Soviet Union. They were particularly close to the French Socialist Party (Parti socialiste français), reﬂecting the intellectual inﬂuence of its leader Jean Jaurès (1859–1914) on Chernov and the SRs. Stalinskii’s speech about Bolshevik repression at the Socialist Party Congress in Grenoble in 1925 gained him a standing ovation and was reprinted throughout the French press. Postnikov informed Party members in Russia at that time that ‘overall, the attitude of our French comrades is positive and friendly. They offer us moral support in all our European activities’.50 The Prague SRs were also close to the Belgian Workers’ Party (Parti Ouvrier Belge) and its leader Emil Vandervelde, who was possibly the most inﬂuential European socialist leader in the interwar period. The period when the SRs arrived in Prague, however, was also one of political unrest. There were general strikes and hunger riots. Lazarev remembered how struck he had been by the general poverty in Prague and recalled seeing nursing mothers brawling in queues to buy milk.51 The SRs arrived in Prague during the ‘three red years’, when the impact of the Bolshevik Revolution was at its height in Europe, including in Czechoslovakia. Some returning Czech Legionnaires had been ‘bolshevised’ in Russia and formed a radical core for the new Communist Party of Czechoslovakia which was ofﬁcially founded in 1921. Jaroslav Hašek, who posthumously achieved international fame for his picaresque tales The Good Soldier Schweik, was one ‘Czech Bolshevik’ who had served with the Red Army during the Civil War. He later ﬁctionalised his experiences in his book, The Red Commissar. The problems these moods presented to the SRs can be gleaned from Kerensky’s comment in a letter to the Prague SRs in September 1920 that ‘I am extremely

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

30 The SR party in Prague

concerned by the letters of Osip Solom. (Minor) and Slonim. Can the mood of the Czech workers really be such that it could stop our anti-Bolshevik work?’52 Despite the lack of ofﬁcial recognition, there were relatively close relations between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union in the 1920s. Beneš believed that political, diplomatic and commercial links would help the gradual erosion of Bolshevism. A Provisional Treaty was signed in 1922 which established a Soviet Mission in Prague.53 In 1924 Beneš considered establishing de jure relations with the Soviet Union, again in the belief that this could help moderate the Bolshevik regime.54 Lenin’s death and the ensuing power struggle stopped this. Moscow regularly expressed its bitterness over Czechoslovak support for the Russian émigrés, particularly the SRs. In 1924 the Commissar for Foreign Affairs Georgii Chicherin described Beneš as the ‘keeper of a den of state criminals’.55 In the second half of the 1920s the oppositionist and Trotskyist Antonov-Ovseenko was the head of the Soviet Mission in Prague. He promoted an active ‘Soviet’ cultural life and writers such as Mayakovsky and Zamyatin visited Prague. Pro-Soviet émigré student groups sprang up.56 The Prague SRs tried to spy on these organisations as well as on illegal monarchist organisations and passed information on to the Czechoslovak authorities.57 On the whole though, they were sympathetic to the Czechoslovak government’s need to have good relations with the Soviet Union and would become increasingly so by the 1930s. They also believed, like Beneš, that contacts with other European countries would aid in the ‘unmasking’ of the Bolshevik regime in the eyes of Soviet citizens. The Prague SRs tried to recruit new members in Czechoslovakia from among Cossacks and students and insisted that there was a democratic core of émigrés. They also believed it would be possible to recruit new members from ethnic Russians in the Baltic States, Poland and Rumania who now found themselves outside the boundaries of the Soviet Union.58 The SRs also tried to recruit members in Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia in eastern Czechoslovakia. The SRs considered the region important for a number of reasons, including that a number of Russian ex-POWs had stayed on there. Lazarev pushed the Czechoslovak government for the right for SRs to settle there.59 As will be discussed in Chapter 5, the region became a battleground between Ukrainian and Russian SRs, as well as the SRs and Kadets. The Czechoslovak government it seems was generally wary of allowing émigrés to settle in the region.60 Both Russian and Ukrainian historians have expressed resentment over this. Chinyaeva for example complains how the Russian émigrés were deliberately excluded from the region, which could have provided an environment culturally similar to the one they had come from.61 It is highly doubtful, however, that many of the émigrés, particularly the academic elite from Moscow and St Petersburg, would have felt at home in this poor, remote and underdeveloped region. Indeed the SR representative there Nikolai Voronovich wrote back to Prague in 1929 how isolated and depressed he felt without any intellectual company and unable to even obtain any books.62

The SR party in Prague

31

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Paris SR and the Russian Emigration In the interwar period, Paris became the main centre for the Russian emigration, as it had been earlier. The Paris SRs coalesced around Kerensky. They were Nikolai Avksentiev, Vadim Rudnev, Mark Vishnyak, Ilya Fondaminskii and Vladimir Zenzinov, SR leaders on the right of the Party who had ‘held the fate of the party in their hands during the Revolution of 1917’.63 This was the group who had supported the war effort and coalition with the Kadets and participation in the Provisional Government, who seemed to abandon the revolutionary aspects of the SR Party programme. The relationship between the Paris and Prague SRs was extremely tense. Meetings were difﬁcult and mutual recriminations and reproaches over the past easily intruded into proceedings. The groups only worked well together in speciﬁc situations, such as during the Kronstadt Rebellion or the Moscow Trial of the SRs in 1922. As well as different understandings of what had taken place in Russia in 1917, the two groups had different conceptions of their role in emigration. The Prague SRs insisted that the SR Party centre was in Russia and their role was to support it. The Paris SRs claimed that the Party in Russia had been destroyed and that the emigration should take the lead.64 Chernov refused to allow the Paris SRs to represent the Party in the International, claiming he was acting in accordance with the wishes of an SR Central Bureau in Moscow. Rudnev wrote to Chernov in 1923, accusing him of ‘monopolising the party name abroad, using a phantasmal link with the mysterious “Moscow”’.65 Chernov though always refused to allow the Paris SRs to speak for the SR Party. As the Soviet Union seemed to enter a period of stability in the 1920s, the role of the emigration was re-conceptualised from the overthrow of Bolshevism to the preservation of an authentic Russian culture. Orthodoxy was adopted as a deﬁning sign of Russianness among the intelligentsia. In some cases this had deeply reactionary overtones, while for many others it was a genuine response to a spiritual crisis. The religious philosophers Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Georgii Fedotov, Semyon Frank and Fyodor Stepun are widely seen as being inﬂuential in the emigration. Another main constituent of a Russian identity in emigration became language (literature). ‘Russian culture’ in emigration typically meant the literary high culture of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Westernized elites. In 1925 Pushkin’s birthday was adopted by émigré communities across Europe for an annual Day of Russian Culture. The other chief constituent of a Russian identity was nationalism. Many émigrés now regretted what they saw as their previous lack of patriotism and their concern with social, rather than national, issues. The interwar period in Europe in general has been characterised as the age of ethnicity and nationalisms.66 The younger generation of émigrés was part of its time, with the politically active attracted to fascist movements, particularly the Italian variant. These rightist student groups considered the SRs traitors. In 1926 a speech by Lebedev in Liege to Russian students was violently interrupted by Russian

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

32 The SR party in Prague

émigré students who disliked the fact that the meeting was organised by ‘socialists and Jews’ and accused Lebedev of being a Bolshevik agent.67 Rumours were spread at this time that Chernov was Jewish and his real name was Lieberman.68 The Russian identity consciously adopted by many of the émigré intellectuals who were concerned with the promotion of what became known as ‘Russia Abroad’ (zarubezhnaya Rossiya) can therefore be characterised as creative (although often artistically traditional), politically conservative, nationalistic, religious and highly cultured. The Prague SRs tried to challenge this presentation of Russian identity as well as the view that it was the role of the emigration to preserve it. The Paris SRs, in contrast, became totally absorbed into the mainstream, or rather the elite, of the émigré community and shared many of its attitudes. This worsened the already difﬁcult relationship with the Prague SRs. The Paris SRs referred to the Soviet Union as ‘the Kingdom of the Apes’ and were unremittingly hostile towards developments there. They continued to work with non-socialist political groups. This bought down on them the ire of Chernov and Volya Rossii. The Paris SRs dedicated themselves to supporting Russian high culture in emigration. Sovremmennie Zapiski, which they edited, mainly published work by established writers such as Ivan Bunin and Mark Aldanov, as well as by the religious philosophers Stepun, Fedotov, Florovskii and Berdayev. Fondaminskii began publishing a religious– philosophical journal Novyi Grad with Stepun and Fedotov and Rudnev also became more deeply involved with the Russian Orthodox Church.69 The Prague SRs disapproved of all this. At the Paris Congress in 1928 Sukhomlin stated: I must say openly to our comrades at Sovremmenie Zapiski that the goal they have set themselves – the uniﬁcation and salvation of Russian culture – seems to us an affair that is a thousand miles away from the PSR.70 Slonim, who was the literary editor of Volya Rossii, called on émigré writers to strive for unity with literary developments in the Soviet Union as well as interact with European modernism, rather than continue to write in pre-revolutionary traditions. Volya Rossii published the Soviet writers Evgenii Zamyatin, Boris Pilnyak and Isaac Babel’. Slonim encouraged younger experimental émigré writers. Volya Rossii held ‘Literary Tuesdays’ for young writers and also organised writing circles with Czechoslovak writers.71 Slonim and Sukhomlin subscribed to Soviet literary journals and shared their enthusiasm for Soviet literature throughout the 1920s.72 They translated Soviet writers such as Sholokhov into European languages and published the work of European modernists such as Anatole France, Karel Cˇ apek, Thomas Mann and Guilluame Apollinaire in Volya Rossii. The role of émigrés such as Slonim and Sukhomlin as a bridge between Soviet and European culture in the 1920s has been overlooked. Slonim was also a key ﬁgure in the dissemination of Soviet literature in America after the war. Chernov accused the Paris SRs of trying to merge narodnichestvo with Russian Orthodoxy, as a result of which they had no right to be considered Party members.

The SR party in Prague

33

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Postnikov also told the Paris SRs that ‘narodnichestvo has no need to conclude a marriage with metaphysics’.73 The Volrosstsy rejected the introduction of religion into the SR Party programme. They saw no place in Russia for the kind of Christian socialism that had developed in England.74 In 1925 Volya Rossii spoke out against the post-revolutionary religious searching of the intelligentsia: Political rights, humanism, democracy, socialism, human rationality…The stormy doubts of the Russian Revolution have muddied a clear understanding of these concepts and caused them to lose their former appeal. In the dying light of the burnt out ﬂames of the Russian Revolution, mystics of all kinds, Eurasianists, ‘state-conscious’ and ‘nationally-conscious’ thinkers from all sides and with differing approaches come to the problem of the Revolution, trying to deﬁne its universal historical signiﬁcance. They call for a new ‘spiritual transformation’, a ‘city of Kitezh’, a ‘Holy Rus’’ and so on. They call…for a new Orthodox culture.75 Slonim denied that Orthodoxy was the main foundation of Russian culture. Rather, an ethical approach to reality was, of which religion was just one example. He called for a plurality of cultures to be understood under the rubric of ‘Russian culture’.76 Chernov never dropped his hostility to the Orthodox Church, while Sukhomlin described Orthodoxy as the ‘deepest spiritual reaction’.77 There seems, however, to have been sympathy for the spiritual journey of the Paris SRs among other Party members, as a 1928 letter from the Harbin group to Prague reveals: We are also disturbed by the peremptoriness of your negative conclusions about ‘god-seeking’ (bogoiskatel’stvo) and all the other sins of comrades from various foreign groupings. Does not such a response to the general spiritual crisis strike you as insufﬁcient? Perhaps you are made of stronger stuff than we are, and perhaps time and the weight of events has not left such a heavy mark of spiritual doubts on you as it has on us, but dear comrades, all the same a more profound and thoughtful approach to these doubts is required.78 The Prague SRs also criticized Paris SR attempts to make narodnichestvo ‘national’ or move away from class-based socialism. Chernov’s position was that it must remain opposed to general democratic goals and interests.79 Again though, the Paris SR proposal to make the Party more national and the general regret expressed by the intelligentsia that they had been insufﬁciently patriotic did have some resonance among certain SRs in Prague. In debates on the national question at the Prague Congress in 1931 one delegate, Nikolaev, said: The Russian people are the least nationalistic people in the world. The distinguishing characteristic of our people is their submission to others, to the

34 The SR party in Prague

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

West…When I was at school I used to think ‘My God, how good everywhere else in the world is and how awful it is here!’ Tell me, was there any nationalism in that? Not a bit of it! And even when there was an effort to create some kind of national feeling, they went about it in the most dreadful manner. We had no national parties. I would like our party to be a national party, in the way that European socialist parties are also national.80 Others agreed with him. In the 1930s some of the Prague SRs including Egor Lazarev and Ekaterina Breshko-Breshkovskaya published a journal with the Paris SRs, whose stated mission was to preserve the spiritual and cultural values of prerevolutionary Russia. This approach remained unacceptable for Chernov and for the majority of Prague SRs who still adhered to the secular values of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia. As will be shown throughout this book, the Prague SRs considered themselves true to the founding principles of revolutionary narodnichestvo and the SR Party traditions. The Prague SRs interpreted developments in the Soviet Union in the 1920s as evidence that their neo-narodnichestvo had triumphed over Marxism, views they promoted in Volya Rossii and Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya. They often had a positive evaluation of developments in the Soviet Union, while remaining opposed to the Bolshevik regime. Volya Rossii’s editorial stance was that ‘behind the Bolshevik façade, a new Russia lives and develops’.81 The journal’s goal was to: uncover and correctly evaluate those healthy and practical elements in modern Russia. The wish to understand what is happening in Russia and not to lose touch with our homeland has made Volya Rossii take as its slogan ‘facing Russia’ (litso k Rossii), which has been the cause of such sharp polemics.82 However as shall be seen later one area where the Prague SRs were in step with the general émigré mood was on the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union. In 1925 Volya Rossii published a series of articles entitled ‘Why I Chose Not to Emigrate’ by the Russian economist and journalist Alexei Peshekhonov.83 Peshekhonov had been deported from the Soviet Union in 1922 at Lenin’s insistence. In these articles, he denied that the émigré community had any political role to play, accusing it of being ignorant of the new life in the Soviet Union. He referred dismissively to émigré politicians as ‘little Herzens’ and urged émigrés to appeal for the right to return.84 The SRs disagreed fundamentally with Peshekhonov. The Prague SRs saw the role of the emigration in providing support to its members and aiding Russia through journalistic and political activities. In their view, the emigration was made up of more than ‘fanatics of military campaigns, pedantic scholars and organizers of monarchist congresses’.85 Although members of the intelligentsia and Tsarist bureaucrats predominated, there were many ordinary Russians. There were

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SR party in Prague

35

also millions of Russians now living outside the Soviet Union in what the SRs referred to as the limitrofnye gosudarstva, states such as Poland formed partly from the Russian Empire. The Prague SRs insisted there was the possibility of constructive work with émigrés although it was work of ‘small deeds’. They shared Masaryk’s view that ‘the more independent, organized, realistic and educated that the emigration is, the more Russia will be interested in its return’.86 Chernov, though, stayed largely aloof from general émigré affairs calling the emigration the ‘Russian Koblenz’, to which he eventually added most other SRs.87 In the SR view, émigrés should study developments in the Soviet Union in order to be able to put pressure on Western governments and on the Bolshevik regime. Émigrés were well placed to do this as they could utilise their own unique connections. After ﬁve years’ work in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, Lebedev challenged the view that most émigrés were insular and conservative. He claimed that ordinary émigrés did not live in ghettos, reading monarchist papers and dreaming about the past. They were sophisticated consumers of the Soviet press and European press, which published no shortage of material about the ‘Soviet experiment’ during the 1920s.88 Their role was what it would have been in a free Russia; comment, debate, and analysis, and the representation of Russia’s interests to foreign governments. During the Civil War, one SR slogan had been ‘Neither Lenin, nor Kolchak’, earning them the nickname in Prague of the ‘Neither-Nors’ (Ninitsy).89 The most vocal émigrés there were Kadets who as noted resented the Czechoslovak government’s ﬁnancial support for the SRs.90 Masaryk and Beneš did not believe that any individual SRs would play an important political role in Russia’s future, and this became more obvious as time went on. They supported the SRs because their views on Russia’s future were similar to their own (a moderate socialist democracy, fully integrated into Europe) and they hoped that the younger generation of émigrés who might return to Russia could be persuaded to share this view of Russia’s future. Although the image of the SRs in historiography is as native agrarian utopianists, they were viewed as European modernisers at the time by the Czechoslovak leadership. The inability to form a coalition against the Bolsheviks is usually presented as evidence of the failure of émigré politics. When historians write that the SRs were opposed by other émigrés in Prague, they are referring to the professorial elite without explaining that these were associated with the Kadet Party. The SR battle against the Kadet professorship was self-conscious, as a letter from Postnikov to Russia in 1925 reveals: it is important to bear in mind that the majority of the professorship over here are openly monarchist and are turning out the students after their fashion. The monarchist professors are trying to prove to the governments and to the general public of countries where Russians are that it is they and they alone who represent Russian culture. Because of this we have to pay so much attention to

36 The SR party in Prague

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

this upholding of our position in various cultural and academic institutes, which is occupying so much of our time.91 The Prague SR refusal to work closely with Kadet groups was not solely due to the factional nature of émigré politics. Coalition to the right went against their reading of the deep structures of Russian history. There were radically different interpretations over Russia’s identity and who had the right to represent it. Was Russia an Orthodox monarchy or was it the Russia of the ‘labouring people’? Much as monarchists did not want socialists representing Russia, the Prague SRs did not want ‘Black Hundreds to be the ones claiming to speak in Russia’s name’.92 Again, émigré debates shed further light on constructs of Russian identity among the intelligentsia, as will be shown in later chapters. Slonim traced the divisions between the Prague and Paris SRs back to the question of whether it had been possible to form a national front against the Bolsheviks.93 The Prague SRs did not think it had been, and in their view the Kadets did not represent the national cause. The idea that only the people (narod) form the nation and the elite is alien to it can be seen at work here. Vera Tolz identiﬁed this as one of the main blocks for the construction of an inclusive Russian national identity in the late nineteenth century.94 An example of this can be seen in the speech of another Prague SR rejecting the SR Nikolaev’s idea that the SR Party should become a ‘national’ party: The ‘people’ in the understanding of critical narodnichestvo was never a formless mass, an abstractly gathered ‘sum of equal individuals’. The people meant the labouring people (trudovoi narod). Otherwise we would have to acknowledge that the heroic struggle from the Decembrists down to our times for the liberation of the people from the oppression of the landowners and the autocracy was devoid of sense.95 In Prague there was a struggle over control of the People’s University (Narodnyi universitet), which had been set up under the auspices of the Russian Action and where many prominent émigrés worked. The Kadet professorship (including Struve and Novgorodtsev), who formed its board fought to take control of it from the SRs in the Zemgor. The SRs did not want Kadets to control Russian cultural or academic institutions and present their image of Russia to Russian students or Czechoslovak society.96 Volya Rossii wrote that ‘The People’s University has already ceased to be of the people (narodnyi)’.97 They accused the new board of closing infant schools in order to run courses on religious instruction and of only organising classes for the children of the professorial elite. They claimed that when Russian students in Brno requested a lecture on the Decembrists, they were sent the Eurasianist scholar Petr Savitskii who gave a talk on ‘Russia as a Special Historical World’.98 Petr Struve, then living in Prague, referred to SRs there as ‘the enemies of national Russia’.99 Other émigrés insisted that the SRs did not represent ‘real’ Russian society.100

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SR party in Prague

37

Some SRs even disapproved of the work aiding émigrés regardless of their political afﬁliation.101 There was anger when SR Ivan Brushvit took part in a general memorial service to victims of Bolshevik terror in 1930.102 The Prague SRs fought Struve back; they believed they did represent Russia, the Russia of the narod, who had voted for them in their millions in elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Russia of the democratic, socialist and secular intelligentsia. They repeated how they had fought against the Bolsheviks in the Volga region and had also tried to continue the war effort against the Central Powers. It was the Kadets and monarchists, the ‘upper layers’ of Russian society, who had revealed their lack of patriotism when they ﬂocked to German-occupied Ukraine during the Civil War to plot against the Bolsheviks with the Central Powers.103 In an article on Eurasianism in 1922, Slonim rejected the ‘transcendental Russia’ myth that the Whites had been ﬁghting for ‘the abstract idea of the homeland’. They had been ﬁghting for an entirely concrete set of social, economic and political conditions: the restoration of the monarchy and the reinstitution of the landed estates.104 This was not just factionalism but ideology. Narodnichestvo had always seen capitalist development in Russia as less beneﬁcial than it had been in other countries and the Russian bourgeoisie as weak and counter-revolutionary. Unlike in revolutionary France, the Russian bourgeoisie had not been capable of playing its allotted ‘national’ role’; it had not fought against feudal privileges or for a nation state. Instead it had been a parasitic and exploitative class dependent on the Tsarist regime. Stalinskii summed up the SR refusal to enter a coalition saying that ‘the bourgeoisie were never democratic, not before 1917 nor during the Revolution. Quite the opposite, it was always counter-revolutionary.’105 He later wrote that: The idea of Kornilov, the idea of the military dictatorships, the suppression of revolutionary democracy by the gun came from the representatives of the industrial class and received support from certain Kadet leaders.106 For the Prague SRs, socialism was a movement of national liberation. 1917 had seen a radical social revolution when western-style capitalism was rejected by the overwhelming majority of Russian people, whose desire for a socialist polity was produced by their ideals of labour, social equality and justice.107 It has been argued that Russian socialism acted as a substitute for nationalism and that it had such a profound impact in Russia because it was the ideal closest to the views of the majority of the population, the peasants.108 In 1917 non-socialist attempts to construct a Russian identity such as a Christian ideal or West European-style liberal constitutionalism failed. Tolz writes that: Chernov was right about the peasants’ attitude to land; they wanted the abolition of private ownership and land to be given to those who worked it … moreover, the socialist intellectuals’ exclusion of the ‘exploiting classes’

38 The SR party in Prague

from membership was not far off the mark as far as most of the Russian population were concerned.109 One can either agree or disagree with the Prague SR interpretation, but it is a coherent view based on their reading of the deep structures of Russian history. An analysis of these arguments could form the essence of a study of Russian émigré politics rather than its failure to produce unity.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Conclusion In contradiction to the usual image of Russian émigrés as unwelcome and superﬂuous, the Prague SRs were supported in emigration and conceived an active role for themselves. The Russian emigration at the time was not seen as a lost cause, nor did it view itself as one. The SRs saw no reason to ally with the right, as they felt the narodnik worldview had been justiﬁed by post-revolutionary developments. This belief was at the core of their arguments in the 1920s and will be expanded on throughout this book. The success of Volya Rossii, whose editorial stance was progressive and European, may indicate the existence in emigration of signiﬁcant numbers of Russians who shared their views. Recent historical works produced in Russia are also challenging the view of the émigrés as forming an insular conservative community.110 Marc Raeff recently called for more attention to be given to moods in the emigration other than the monarchical one, and rightly noted that in the liberal-left, including SR press, there were articulate discussions on issues of general contemporary relevance such as minority rights, social democracy and the role of the state.111 He also acknowledged that the Russian émigrés were constructively inﬂuenced by the countries they stayed in and their work forms part of that country’s history too. They cannot be studied in isolation from contemporary intellectual developments. The Prague SRs’ modern and pragmatic outlook is at odds with the typical image of SRs as utopian admirers of the Russian peasantry. The Prague SRs saw the signiﬁcance of the emigration not in preserving ‘eternal Russian values’ but in that it produced a Russian press; one that was ‘not merely oppositional, not merely émigré, but the only free Russian press’.112 This press was concerned not about Russia’s past but the present and future. In this sense, like the pre-revolutionary one, the interwar emigration was also a ‘laboratory of political thought’.113

3

The Soviet Union during NEP

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Commune and the Cooperative

In 1927, SR and Volya Rossii editor Evsei Stalinskii claimed that the pre-revolutionary arguments between the Russian Marxists and narodniki over Russia’s future development which ‘seemed at the time so abstract and doctrinaire’, had not in fact been academic.1 They had served as the prologue for the struggle between the people and the Bolshevik regime, which was taking place in the 1920s. This chapter looks at the Prague SR analysis of Soviet agriculture and peasant behaviour during the 1920s. Their programme of development for Russia is outlined as well as their attitude to the Bolshevik Party’s dealings with the peasantry. The SRs believed that the forced abandonment of War Communism and the adoption of NEP showed the regime had completely failed in its approach to the Russian peasants. The SRs also poured over the implications of the fact that by the mid 1920s some Bolsheviks were developing a hybrid theory which mixed the ‘narodnik heresy’ of peasant socialism with Marxism. At the beginning of NEP in 1921, the Prague SRs had set out a series of questions about the relationship between the regime and the economy which they believed would undermine economic development: how is self-activity possible under conditions of a dictatorship and police state? How can the economy be improved with the help of the peasantry when they are deprived of participation in governing the country? What kind of economy is possible in a state where power has no social base?2 These questions provided the framework for their analysis throughout. Chernov noted that the term NEP went from being an acronym for a political manoeuvre to stand for an assumed complete socio-economic structure.3 After an initial left critique of NEP as the Thermidorian introduction of capitalism, the SR focus shifted to the emerging economic, political and social relations in the 1920s. What they saw made them believe that the debate over whether ‘the peasant is king’ or ‘historically invisible’ was being decided in their favour, as were all arguments between the Russian Marxists and narodniki.4 After all, the Russian Revolution had seen for the ﬁrst time in history the peasantry join forces with industrial workers, proving that they were a revolutionary class. Peasant revolutions would of course become the standard in the twentieth century. Developments in the Soviet Union in

40 The Soviet Union during NEP

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

the 1920s seemed to conﬁrm the SR belief that Russian agriculture did not necessarily have to undergo the stage of capitalist development, and that the communal and egalitarian traditions of the Russian peasantry could be the basis for a transition to socialism. The reluctant introduction of NEP had a strong hold on the Prague SRs for it seemed to prove the peasantry could defeat the Bolshevik regime. In 1925, they noted a growth in political activity by the peasantry which they hoped could develop into a peaceful ‘coup’. They still could not imagine the long-term stabilisation of the Bolshevik regime, let alone the success of forced collectivisation in capturing the peasants for the state. Sources of Information Before commencing to discuss the SR analysis of Russia during NEP, I will brieﬂy outline what sources of information they were using. By the mid 1920s many SRs inside the Soviet Union were in prison or exile, while those who remained free were too afraid or demoralised to act. The main leadership had been arrested and subjected to a famous ‘show trial’ in 1922. The SRs abroad, the émigré Mensheviks and European socialists had led an energetic campaign to defend them.5 The Central Committee members had been sentenced to death, but had been reprieved and sentenced to shorter prison terms plus exile on the understanding that any oppositional activity by SRs in Russia could result in their re-arrest and execution. The SR Party in Russia such as remained encouraged members to work in the cooperative movement and other economic institutions. Many ex-SRs continued the work they had been carrying out under the Tsarist regime for the improvement of agriculture.6 It took a committed Party member to prepare or send material abroad. Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya regularly reported harsh sentencing for the preparation, printing or distribution of party material or for contact with the émigré press. Sentences for those who wrote about their work in the new soviet state apparatus were particularly draconian, revealing the general anxiety among Bolsheviks about ‘alien personnel’.7 In 1923 an SR received a 10-year prison sentence, deprivation of rights and conﬁscation of property for writing an article based on his work at the Commissariat of Enlightenment.8 That year members of a Moscow SR group were sentenced to eight to 10 years in prison for having a secret printing press. Death sentences were passed on SRs for preparing material for publication abroad and trying to organise a printing press.9 In 1925 the Party in Russia decided to stop publishing any material as the risks were too high.10 The memoirs of SR Ekaterina Olitskaya show how she spent most of the 1920s in prison or exile. She survived on her revolutionary convictions and the support of fellow Party members.11 There was, however, contact established between SRs inside the Soviet Union and the émigrés. The Prague SRs received reports from SRs in Moscow, Leningrad,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

41

the Volga Region and the Far East. A peasant family who lived by the Finnish border helped smuggle SRs in and out of the Soviet Union.12 In 1924 two SRs escaped across the Polish border and were granted asylum in Czechoslovakia and two Prague SRs secretly visited Leningrad.13 There was little sustained contact though with Russia after 1926.14 Slonim admitted that by the late 1920s they were totally reliant on Soviet sources, despite the fact all émigré groups ‘with mysterious expressions’ gave the impression they were receiving secret information from Moscow.15 Apart from their own contacts, the SRs relied on the Soviet press. The Soviet press in the 1920s was full of debate and statistical analysis. This was the period of the great intra-Party struggles over the future direction of the Soviet Union. SRs used newspapers and journals, reports of congresses and conferences, statistical handbooks and publications from economic institutions, cooperatives and Commissariats, all of which were available in Prague as noted above. SRs claimed their work was for Soviet citizens, citizens of the European countries they settled in as well as governments and non-governmental organisations who dealt with Russia. One speciﬁc other audience for the Prague SRs was the Mensheviks, with whom they carried on a bitter polemic. The Mensheviks had a stronger position in the emigration as they had greater inﬂuence in the International and closer relationships with European socialist parties.16 In the mid 1920s the Prague SRs characterised their relationship with them as ‘an armed peace’.17 The Mensheviks adopted the position of a ‘loyal opposition’ to the Soviet regime and sometimes worked together with the German and Austrian Social Democrats to block SR criticisms of the Bolshevik regime in the International. The SRs and Mensheviks argued furiously over who had more right to represent Russia in the Bureau of the Executive Committee of the International. The Prague SRs were particularly concerned to combat Menshevik theories about the counter-revolutionary potential of the Russian peasantry and the purported danger of a Bonapartist coup in the Soviet Union. The French, the Belgians, Kautsky and the Central European parties usually supported the Prague SR position against the Mensheviks and their allies. A ﬁnal audience was the Bolshevik Party. The Party elite read the émigré press and often reacted to it in speeches. Through their publications, the SRs continued their pre-revolutionary debates with the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Perhaps they got some pleasure from taunting the Bolsheviks that they had failed to impose their view of reality on Russia or that Lenin had experienced a genuine deathbed conversion to narodnichestvo. The Introduction of NEP and the Structure of the Soviet Economy The Prague SRs had seen the period of War Communism as a genuine attempt to implement the Bolshevik maximum programme and Lenin’s economic theories largely in the hope of igniting a revolution in Europe. After the deliberate

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

42 The Soviet Union during NEP

destruction of the market, this had involved a war on the countryside to feed the towns and the growing state apparatus by an army of special militarised institutions with emergency powers—‘prodotryady’, ‘revtribunaly’, ‘osobie otdely’ and ‘cherezvychaiki’, the requisitioning squads, revolutionary courts, special detachments and secret police units.18 The introduction of NEP in March 1921 was viewed very much as a forced retreat caused by the great peasant uprisings of the late Civil War period and the failure of the European revolution to materialise. The Bolshevik programme went against economic rationality as well as being totally unsuited to Russia’s needs. Therefore while the SRs welcomed the alleviation NEP brought, they saw no reason to end their opposition to the regime. During the 1920s, some émigrés dropped their anti-Bolshevik stance. The émigré movement Smena Vekh (Changing Signposts), for example, was a self-generated movement of acceptance of the Bolshevik regime based on the belief that it was evolving into a capitalist state and was protecting Russia’s national interests.19 The Prague SRs did not accept this. An editorial in Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya written in the summer of 1921 states their position clearly: The Bolsheviks have renounced neither their basic theoretical teachings nor their main tactical task; their programme maximum is as before – world Bolshevik revolution and Arakcheev communism; their programme minimum remains the retention of power. It is just that the programme minimum is complicating the programme maximum … after their little ‘breathing space’ they will turn again to the Sisyphean task of communising Russia.20 In terms of the overall structure of the NEP economy, much of the Prague SR ammunition seems to have been eventually taken from criticisms by the various Bolshevik oppositions, that is, that it was insufﬁciently socialist.21 The Prague SRs described the Soviet economy as state capitalist or state bureaucratic.22 They sometimes called it simply sui generis.23 It seemed to be a chaotic mix of the state and the private sector, with the cooperative movement as a third sector. This last sector represented an embryonic socialist system but was deformed by the regime. As far as industry was concerned, the Prague SRs agreed with all the oppositions’ criticisms that state industry, the ‘commanding heights’, was not socialist by structure, management or connection to the market and that it led a parasitical life and was a drain on the economy. However, for the SRs the Bolshevik regime’s priority was not to improve industry as such or introduce real socialism, but to keep the commanding heights in the hands of the state, and gradually expand state ownership. They denied that the Soviet Union was a workers’ state with industry organised in the interests of the proletariat. In theses written in 1928, Chernov wrote that the NEP economy had always been based on the exploitation of labour and was run by and in the interests of a narrow ruling bureaucracy. Industry had

The Soviet Union during NEP

43

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

been nationalised only in the narrowest sense of the word and the socialist sector was not a ‘social economy’ but state-functionary.24 As for the private sector, under NEP it could not play the progressive role that it did in the western capitalist countries as it was deformed by the contradictory attitude of the regime. Russia had the worst of both worlds: the market was not allowed to function freely but it was not substituted by any rational organisation. Under the Bolshevik regime, the instability of the capitalist class contributed further to its non-progressive manner.25 NEP was reminiscent of the beginnings of capitalist development in Russia during the 1880s. Stalinskii wrote that: the Russian bourgeoisie in its ﬁrst phase of existence was the prototype for today’s ‘new bourgeoisie’ … Both of them formed from elements that crawled up from the social depths … coarse, predatory elements with shark-like appetites and without any cultural traditions. The original bourgeoisie, just like today’s, was above all a speculating type.26 Here can be seen a classic restatement of the traditional narodnik dislike of capitalism and capitalists. Stalinskii drew other parallels between economic development in the late Tsarist and Soviet periods. The Bolsheviks were developing industry ‘from top down on the back of the peasant, in the name of their own state calculations’ just as Witte had done in the late nineteenth century.27 They were copying the Tsarist devices of state orders, state subsidies and tariffs. The state under both regimes was forced to develop industry itself due to the weak capacity of the internal market. And in both cases the weakness of the internal market was deliberately formed by politics (that is, fear of the peasantry).28 The Prague SRs continuously pointed out that industrial development could only take place on the basis of a strong internal market. Consumption was the motor of industrial development. Stalinskii’s critique is a direct continuation of the work of Vorontsov and Danielson in the late nineteenth century, outlined in Chapter 1. Agriculture and the Peasantry during NEP: the Commune and the Cooperative The Prague SRs taunted the Bolsheviks that the October Revolution and Marxist rule had resulted not in the industrialisation of Russia but its agrarianisation: Russia remains a country of villages, even more so than under the autocracy. For a long time to come agriculture will be the overwhelmingly dominant force in Russian economic life. Russia is an almost totally peasant country and the peasantry are almost all equal. The Bolshevik attempt to foment class war in the villages was based on their own fantastical notions … The hand of a historical nemesis can be sensed in the fact that despite the seemingly all

44 The Soviet Union during NEP

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

powerful Bolshevik rule in the new Russia, the basic preconditions of the SR revolutionary-narodnik programme are growing stronger and wiping the ground from underneath the Bolsheviks’ feet.29 The SR programme had been based on the ‘communal as well as the labour based views, traditions and ways of life of the Russian peasantry, especially on the widespread conviction among them that the land is no-one’s and that the right to use it is given only by labour’.30 For the SRs, during the Russian Revolution the peasantry had united with the proletariat against bourgeois economic individualism and for socialist principles of land usage. The most signiﬁcant factors of the postrevolutionary period in their view were the survival and strengthening of the peasant commune, the ‘middle peasantisation’ of Russia and the continued growth of the cooperative movement. The SRs used the term cooperative loosely, embracing different kinds of cooperative organisation, for example, marketing, credit, producer. They usually meant agricultural cooperatives, but also discussed workers’ cooperatives. Their goal for cooperation was to link the two. These developments seemed to conﬁrm SR and narodnik theories on the Russian peasantry as potentially socialist, both objectively in terms of their class position and subjectively in terms of the signiﬁcance of peasant attitudes and customary law. Stalinskii asserted that in 1917 Stolypin’s reforms had been ‘wiped from the face of the Russian earth’ and ‘the paths of the revolution, the paths of the peasant revolution went through the commune’.31 The survival of the commune, ‘which has been pronounced dead and buried so many times by Marxist theoreticians, but whose foundations have never been shaken even by policies speciﬁcally directed against it’, conﬁrmed that narodnichestvo had been correct in its understanding of the Russian peasant.32 The SRs drew attention to debates in the chief Soviet theoretical journal Bol’shevik in the mid 1920s, in which agrarian Marxists admitted that ‘the commune is the most wide spread system of land usage for the whole territory of the Union…khutorskie (individual farm) forms of land usage are virtually non-existent and the commune dominates entirely’.33 For some Prague SRs, the peasants’ choice to return to the commune was also economically rational as it was the best way to organise land for production. Stalinskii believed that the commune had been the motor of progress in agriculture after 1905, responsible for the increases in efﬁciency, the campaign against strip farming and the distribution of advanced implements and machinery despite the lack of government support.34 It was also responsible for what progress was being made under NEP. Like Stolypin, the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy the commune not because it kept agriculture backward but because it gave the peasantry its cohesion. The Prague SRs recommended that Party members in Russia should work towards improving the commune.35 This was also the policy of agronomists working in Narkomzem in the 1920s, many of whom were former SRs.36 The SRs were also cheered by the fact that there seemed to be no statistical evidence that class differentiation was taking

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

45

place among the peasantry; by NEP’s height, they felt that had been publically buried by Bukharin and others. They claimed that Marxist theoreticians were now reproducing ‘without a moment’s hesitation, the narodnik heresy of presuming that capitalist development can be avoided in the villages’. In 1924 Volya Rossii quoted from a leading Soviet economic journal, Voprosy sovetskogo khozyaistva i upraveleniya, which stated that ‘we must become narodniki and execute in practise those economic measures in relation to the peasantry which the narodniki put forward in arguments against us thirty years ago’.37 Similarly, they felt their agrarian socialism was justiﬁed by the continued strength of the agricultural cooperative movement in post-revolutionary Russia. SRs inside Russia wrote to them that the agricultural cooperatives were moving towards the socialisation of agricultural production. In their view, this process was spontaneous and reﬂected deep processes in the mentality and consciousness of the peasants.38 The SRs remained cautiously optimistic about the growth of the cooperative movement in Russia despite the Bolshevik ‘distortion’ of it. A 1928 study based on Soviet sources by SR Grigorii Radchenko presented a very positive view of the effect of cooperatives on agricultural development in Russia, claiming that the movement controlled the ‘commanding heights’ in the village.39 When Lebedev travelled secretly back to Russia in 1929, he was impressed by the number of cooperative shops, cafes, banks and organisations. He met with an experienced cooperator who told him that although the Bolsheviks had destroyed the massive cooperative movement after the revolution, they had been forced to allow its return. ‘The Bolsheviks will fall, and the cooperatives will remain’, he insisted to Lebedev.40 For the émigré SRs then, the 1920s initially were a period of optimism. They felt peasant behaviour justiﬁed the narodnik position and that a Marxist party could never stabilise in agrarian Russia. The Bolsheviks, as Marxists, did not have an agricultural policy so much as a food supply one and Chernov wrote that famine and bread—the absence and presence of grain—would be at the regime’s beginning and end.41 As well as appealing to the rationality of ‘life itself ’, Chernov frequently used his favourite folk expression to show how the Bolshevik regime was doomed: ‘If you chase nature out of the door, it will ﬂy back in through the window’ (Gonit’ prirodu v dver’, ona vletit v okno).42 The SR Programme for the Modernisation of Russia One of the main reasons for the failure of the SR Party to consolidate power in 1917, aside from the vicissitudes of the year itself, has been ascribed to its inability to offer a vision of modernisation. In particular Hildermeier argues that ‘once the modern industrial world had become established in Russia, a populist party could no longer fulﬁl its role as an agent of modernisation.’43 A less sophisticated version of this has been to castigate the SR programme—especially the socialisation of the land—as

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

46 The Soviet Union during NEP

representing an unrealisable peasant utopia. It also suited the Bolsheviks—and émigré Mensheviks—to represent the SRs as sentimental anti-industrialists. Narodnichestvo was partly deﬁned by its rejection of capitalist development in agriculture and a belief that capitalism could not play the progressive role in Russia that it had played in Europe. The Paris SRs in emigration argued that the full establishment of capitalism in Russia was historically inevitable and economically progressive. But for the Prague SRs, the Russian Revolution had witnessed the defeat of both orthodox Marxism and liberalism, schemes from Western reality that gave primacy to the development of capitalism. The course of events had conﬁrmed the SR diagnosis that the revolution would be ‘national-labouring’ (narodno-trudovaya) and not bourgeois, producing a transitory type of economy where there would be competition between forms of new economic collectives and the private principle.44 To now accept that the Soviet Union should go through a capitalist stage of development in agriculture after the collapse of the regime would mean abandoning narodnichestvo. In their view, a direct transition to socialism was still possible from the current economic system. Despite the regime, the Soviet economy had progressive elements; the radical Russian proletariat, the potential of the soviet system and the cooperative movement. Development should take place through a mixed economy of private, state and cooperative sectors. Natural resources, the ‘commanding heights’ and land would belong initially to the state. The removal of land as an object of sale was still at the heart of their programme.45 They accepted the need for an economically progressive private principle, but believed that over time private enterprise would be eliminated peacefully due to the superiority of collective economic forms. In common with other European thinkers, they believed that the general world economy in the 1920s had now entered a phase of transition to forms of collectivism, and greater planning and control, partly as a result of the experience of the First World War.46 A move to ‘healthy capitalism’ in Russia would be out of step with general world economic development. Land was seen by the SRs as having been the cardinal issue of the Russian Revolution and the key to Russia’s future economic development.47 Economic policy should be based on strengthening and improving agriculture and social policy on the commune and the cooperative movement. They dismissed Preobrazhenksii’s theory of primitive accumulation as ‘abnormal’: as classic narodniki had argued, the key to development was the intensiﬁcation of agriculture and an economically prosperous peasantry, which could then support the expansion of industry.48 It goes without saying that the Prague SRs wanted industrialist development in Russia. As in pre-revolutionary times, the Prague SRs studied and borrowed from the programmes of European socialist parties to show that the peasantry had a role to play in a modern socialist economy and was a ‘living element’ rather than a vestige of the past. They claimed that by the 1920s, Marxists— even Otto Bauer and Karl Kautsky—had accepted the narodnik theory of the

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

47

non-capitalist evolution of agriculture and a union between the proletariat and the peasantry.49 The Prague SRs did not view their programme as ‘native in inspiration’, but in line with socialism overall. Chernov had always thought of the noncapitalist evolution of agriculture as a general economic theory that was conﬁrmed by the experiences of Western socialist parties.50 The Russian commune had given Russia an advantage in the move towards agrarian socialism, but it had never been the sole or decisive factor. Additionally, the Prague SRs believed the cooperative movement in Russia would be the key to modernisation as well as the transition to socialism. Cooperatives would fulﬁl these two functions in a variety of ways. They would weaken ownership tendencies, take land out of circulation, help with a planned economy and mechanisation and allow freedom of external trade without Russia being overwhelmed by stronger capitalist powers. Agricultural cooperatives could aid the modernisation of the peasant commune by giving it new legal and cultural norms. They could unite individual peasant economies by supplying credit, acting as the main purchasers of peasant labour, distributing inventory and constructing buildings.51 A well-developed cooperative movement would draw the peasant into non-capitalist market relations with the urban economy. It would also allow for the free play of individual creativity and voluntarism that was part of narodnichestvo.52 Cooperatives would then lead to the socialisation of agricultural production, as outlined by Chernov: A socialist theory of cooperation is equally far from the liberal theory as it is from its opposite, the Bolshevik socialist-cooperative utopia, skipping through the whole process of cooperative evolution to a complete ‘agricultural commune’. The socialist theory of cooperation has as its starting point … a cooperation of producers united in the sphere of buying and selling. The co-operatisation of peasant economies begins at its periphery and works its way in towards production.53 Cooperatives should be the basis of the economic system, serving as the link between the socialist, private and state sectors in production and distribution, between industry and agriculture, worker and peasant. This ‘cooperative plan’ is often associated with Lenin and Bukharin, whereas the SRs have been presented as primarily interested in the commune, which is seen as speciﬁcally Russian as well as backwards. Chernov’s attention had been ﬁrst drawn to cooperatives in 1900 by the work of socialists such as Emil Vandervelde, Willem Vliegen and F. Herz on theories of the development of agriculture via cooperatives.54 His interest in the cooperative movement grew further in the post-Stolypin period, when the demise of the commune was widely predicted. Cooperatives in Russia were closely associated with the SR Party before the revolution, which was one of the reasons they were shunned by Russian Marxists.55 The cooperativisation of agriculture was the second point of the SR minimum programme.56 In 1926 Chernov summed up

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

48 The Soviet Union during NEP

the SR programme: ‘from the socialisation of the land through the cooperatives to the socialisation of agriculture’.57 In emigration, he studied the cooperative movements in Belgium, France and Finland.58 Czechoslovakia also had a strong agricultural cooperative movement in the interwar period with a successful scheme of direct exchanges between agricultural cooperatives and urban socialist consumer cooperatives.59 In Europe the 1920s was the peak of cooperative activity, building on the movement’s successes during the war. This was a time when many socialist leaders viewed cooperation as part of a multi-faceted strategy of socialist transformation.60 The cooperative movement in the 1920s was at the centre of working class—and often peasant—culture and politics and radical political and intellectual thought. Whether cooperation was a genuine path of economic modernisation is not the issue; what is argued is that the Prague SR programme for the modernisation of Russia, particularly agriculture, would have seemed modern at the time and in step with general economic trends. Many of the socialist leaders associated with the cooperative movement had entered coalition governments (Albert Thomas, Vandervelde). Belgium was where the socialist movement had gone furthest in integrating cooperatives. Emil Vandervelde, the head of the International, was the leading advocate of allying cooperation with socialism and as has been mentioned, he was the socialist leader the Prague SRs were closest to. Sukhomlin lived in Brussels as the Party’s representative in the International and headed the Russian section of the Belgian Socialist Party’s paper, as well as being an editor for the Socialist Press Bureau in Brussels. As noted, Vandervelde went to Moscow in 1922 to represent the SR Central Committee members in the show trial against them. Chernov went to Finland in 1925 as a guest of the Social Democratic Party to examine the cooperative movement there.61 He describes not only the cooperative enterprises—mainly bakeries—but also the whole culture built up by and for the workers; the nurseries, cultural centres and education projects. This was his vision for genuine grass roots socialism in Russia, built up slowly and bringing the peasants into it through agricultural cooperatives linked to the workers’ cooperatives. Was the Prague SRs’ optimism about the cooperative movement in Russia justiﬁed in terms of both its economic strength and reﬂecting the peasant urge for socialism? There are still unfortunately few studies of Soviet cooperatives in the 1920s.62 The Prague SR Radchenko’s own 1928 study based on ofﬁcial Soviet statistics came up with a very optimistic view of the growth and inﬂuence of cooperatives. He believed that all economic effort in the Soviet Union was being directed towards the creation of cooperative socialism. He estimated that there were 100,000 cooperatives (consumer, credit, agricultural, industrial, housing) that linked 25 million people. In agriculture, the sugar cooperatives alone linked up one million peasants.63 The cooperatives were effecting the modernisation of Russian agriculture. Cooperative trade through consumer cooperatives had grown from 28.2 percent in 1923 to 44.5 percent in 1926–7.64

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

49

Moshe Lewin believes that although the movement was underfunded and bureaucratic, it was making headway and that by 1927 half of all peasant holdings (12 million households) were members of at least one cooperative.65 Robert Miller states that although it looked structurally impressive, with 15 ‘operationaleconomic’ central cooperative unions, 323 secondary and tertiary unions linking 70,600 primary cooperatives, this was misleading as the growth was top-heavy and generated by bureaucratic needs due to state interference.66 However, he argues that even so it bought real economic beneﬁts to its members. Lewin discusses the ‘simple’ (prostye) associations that were formed for speciﬁc goals such as the purchase of a tractor or sewing and tilling land. He describes these associations as ‘an authentic peasant institution, a manifestation of local peasant initiative’.67 Likewise, Miller describes the ‘wild’ (dikie) cooperatives which the peasants organised themselves independently of the state. These apparently accounted for 27% of primary agricultural associations by 1926, ‘suggesting that the idea of cooperation per se had found a solid reception among peasants’.68 Despite the attack on them by the Stalinist leadership in the late 1920s, cooperatives re-emerged to play a role in Soviet economic life. It was to the cooperative movement that Gorbachev turned when he wished to reinvigorate soviet socialism in the 1980s. In the Prague SR view, Russia needed above all foreign capital to modernise. The regime’s isolation was one of the main problems, but it chose this isolation—or at least some of its members did. Others such as the Commissar for Foreign Trade Leonid Krasin and Commissar for Foreign Affairs Georgii Chicherin were more realistic. The Prague SRs reported on these differences. The Bolsheviks could not obtain advanced technology from outside for political reasons and therefore industrial development in the 1920s was based on the physical and ﬁnancial exploitation of the workforce.69 Agricultural development was held back by the lack of imports. Lifting the monopoly of foreign trade was seen as vital for economic regeneration. The Prague SRs frequently called for something similar to the 1924 Dawes Plan, which helped to stabilise the German economy while encouraging foreign investment. They only did so to simultaneously point out the impossibility of this form of international cooperation with the Bolshevik regime.70 The Prague SRs believed that post-war Europe had entered a ‘democratic-paciﬁst era’, led by socialists such as Ramsey MacDonald, who became Prime Minister of Britain in 1924, and Édouard Herriot, the Premier of France in the left coalition government of the mid 1920s, who would welcome and give economic aid to a democratic socialist government in Russia.71 They felt that Europe was on the brink of socialism and therefore Russia and Europe would be travelling together in the same direction.72 There was little change over time in the Prague SRs’ programme. A series of resolutions in early 1928 stated that there was no place for pure capitalism in Russia and further economic progress should go under the slogan ‘Socialisation, municipalisation, cooperativisation and state capitalism’.73

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

50 The Soviet Union during NEP

For the Prague SRs, the Bolshevik regime acted as a break on modernisation; it precluded outside help and crushed or distorted potential motors of economic development. The dictatorship was the root cause of Russia’s economic problems. In their analysis of the 1920s, the Russian ‘labouring people’ were held back by the peasant-hating Arakcheev communists of the United Opposition and mediocre pragmatists such as Stalin. The destructive nature of Bolshevik ideology meant it was incapable of creating economic growth and so relied on extracting surplus resources from a population it simultaneously oppressed. In Chernov’s view Bolshevism was a destructive ideology, opposed to the forms of ‘constructive socialism’ that he propagated such as the cooperative movement, which focused on the accumulation of cultural and political capital before a gradual assumption of power by workers. The Bolsheviks’ Theoretical Retreat and ‘Komnarodnichestvo’ The path marked out by Lenin from the notorious ‘otrezki’, through ‘conﬁscations’, ‘communes of the poor’ and ‘sewing committees’ to ‘agrarian cooperative socialism’ is a path of continuous and badly disguised retreats.74 A theoretical retreat matched the practical retreat of NEP among Bolsheviks. For Prague SRs, Bolshevism as a distinct form of Russian Marxism did not have deep ideological roots. It arose as a reaction to the First World War and was predicated on the belief that the collapse of the capitalist order was imminent. When Europe stabilised after the war, Lenin’s teachings and theories became meaningless. In the 1920s the Bolsheviks were faced with a choice between allowing the development of capitalism or adopting narodnik theories on socialism and the peasantry.75 According to Chernov, Lenin had realised this and had marked out before his death the ‘unclear and confused contours of a general review of the most basic tenets of militant Bolshevism’.76 Chernov was particularly referring to Lenin’s 1923 article ‘On Cooperation’, in which Lenin revised his theory that the cooperative movement was a capitalist mode of economic activity and decided that it could be the path along which the peasants moved to socialism. For Chernov, some Bolsheviks were asking the question ‘how is socialism to be built in Russia?’ and coming up with narodnik answers. The Prague SRs described the product of this intellectual development in the mid 1920s as komnarodnichestvo. This movement was personiﬁed by Nikolai Bukharin who, following Lenin, seemed to have realised the revolution had been agrarian, that the middle peasant could be the cornerstone for further development and the cooperative movement the link between industry and agriculture and the path to socialism.77 SR reports from Russia in 1924 described how a minority in the Bolshevik Party were developing a ‘communist eserism’ and ‘utter SR thoughts, which they consider amazing new discoveries and a new communist ideal’.78 Western historiography also ascribes to Bukharin and Lenin the ‘discovery’ and ‘elaboration’ of the notion of

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

51

peaceful transition to socialism based on a mixed economy with the help of the cooperative movement, and the idea of a harmonious political relationship between peasants and workers, who share the same interests even though they are part of systems with different economic relations. This is sometimes part of the mythologising of Bukharin as the ‘tragic hero’ who developed an alternative to Stalinism.79 In fact the ideas he and his circle espoused had long been part of the Russian socialist tradition.80 It is all the more surprising some historians ignore this provenance, as this was the terms in which his ideas were attacked at the time by the United Opposition, and why they may have been thought to have wider support among state elites.81 The SRs did not support komnarodnichestvo. They accused Bolsheviks like Bukharin of covering up their theoretical collapse by claiming that Lenin had discovered noncapitalist evolution in agriculture and agrarian-cooperative socialism. They were determined to challenge this revision of history by showing how the Bolsheviks were fundamentally incapable of working with the peasantry. The cooperative movement was a way of life whose principles of local initiative and self-management were in total contradiction to Bolshevik norms.82 The SRs pointed to the organic enmity towards the peasantry at the heart of the Bolshevik Party as exempliﬁed by the United Opposition who wanted the Communist Party programme to recognise the differentiation of the peasantry and promote kombedy and communes. They were also insisting there was a dangerous growth in the number of kulaks. In an analysis of Lenin’s theories on the peasantry, they tried to show these were consistently characterised by a dislike and distrust that only ever altered for temporary political expediency.83 According to some SRs, Lenin’s belief in the petty-bourgeois nature of the peasantry had never changed. He had initially wanted to preserve landlord estates, although he accepted supporting peasant land seizures at the III Party Congress in 1905. But this was a manoeuvre; Lenin never believed that the peasantry could develop socialism. The Marxist programme predicted the development of capitalist relations in agriculture and social stratiﬁcation in the village, driven by the peasants’ desire for private property (sobstvennicheskii fanatizm). The essence of Lenin’s attitude to the peasantry was exempliﬁed in the lines he wrote before the revolution that ‘we will support the peasantry against the landlords, and then the proletariat against the peasantry’. After October, he accepted the SR policy of socialisation of the land for purely tactical reasons. Lenin wanted the nationalisation, not the socialisation of the land.84 The period of War Communism had revealed the true nature of Bolshevik attitudes to the peasantry: Kombedy, prodotryady, rekvizitsii, open robbery, punishment expeditions…this was the fulﬁlment of Lenin’s plans. It ended in the collapse of Lenin’s agrarian theories. There was no class war and there was no differentiation. The peasantry acted as one and forced the Bolsheviks to retreat.85

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

52 The Soviet Union during NEP

There was no real change in the underlying attitude towards the peasantry during NEP; they were viewed as a dangerous element needing control or as a resource to be exploited for state industry. The Prague SRs stated that before his death, it only seemed as though Lenin had ‘semi-agrarianised’ his worldview. However, Chernov described Lenin’s views as opportunistic and simplistic; under capitalism, the cooperative is bourgeois; under the dictatorship it is socialist.86 This did not represent a genuine intellectual shift. They pointed to the really important difference in thinking between themselves and Lenin; Lenin and Bukharin’s theories were based on state ownership and state control of the cooperative movement and ascribed only a passive role to the peasants themselves. This negated the very ideas at the root of the cooperative movement of economic self-organisation and grass roots action. Such principles were unacceptable to Bolsheviks who wanted party control and centralisation. Scholars such as Lewin believe that Lenin had indeed changed his viewpoint and was genuinely calling for a non-coercive road to socialism through a ‘cultural revolution’ and the cooperatives, and that Bukharin took up this legacy. Others have also pointed out the fact of state control, which the Prague SRs saw as so important. Van Ree claims that Lenin’s real goal in the last few months was actually greater political centralism and increased control over the peasantry. Speciﬁcally on the cooperatives, Lenin wanted the agricultural means of production to be in the hands of the state. He wrote that cooperatives are to be considered socialist ‘if the land on which they are formed and the means of production belong to the state, that is, to the working class’.87 State ownership was the key to whether or not an enterprise could be called socialist to Lenin, as it would be to Stalin. According to Van Ree, Lenin also wanted his vision of nationalisation and economic centralisation to be completed in as short a time as possible, which puts a non-coercive ‘cultural revolution’ in doubt.88 Miller shows how interference from the Party and state destroyed the cooperative movement’s viability due to the ‘basic incompatibility between agricultural cooperation and the goals and methods of MarxismLeninism’.89 Genuinely autonomous centres of group activity (particularly by peasants) were anathema to the Bolsheviks. In the Prague SRs’ view, the United opposition had nothing to fear from Bukharin’s ‘middle peasant Bolshevism’ (oserednyachennyi bol’shevizm). Komnarodnichestvo was weak within the Party.90 Bolsheviks announcing they were building socialism ‘together with the peasant’ was the same as the pharaohs announcing they were building the pyramids ‘together with the slaves’.91 In a 1926 article Chernov pointed out how the Bolshevik Party had hesitated in its response to ‘On Cooperation’, unsure whether it was the ravings of a dying man or to be treated as further evidence of Lenin’s genius.92 The Prague SRs did interpret the later attacks on the Right Opposition and ex-narodniki in Narkomzem such as Nikolai Kondratiev as evidence of fear of growing narodnichestvo in the Party and state apparatus. They called on the Right to reject forced industrialisation and violence and reach out to the population to destroy Stalin and the secret police.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

53

However, unlike the Mensheviks, they were never optimistic about the possibility of reform from within the Party, although Chernov’s optimism grew, as will be seen later. Alec Nove has written about the temptation to ‘assign to Bukharin our concept of an alternative to Stalinism, which doubtlessly existed – but for which the real Bukharin neither advocated nor formulated’.93 Bukharin’s loyalty to the Party was greater than his interest in agrarian cooperative socialism. In exile, Trotsky realised that the Bukharinists had not been a genuine opposition and had refused to abandon the Party as their framework for action.94 The Prague SRs would have agreed with him. The Prague SRs were correct in their overall analysis that some Bolsheviks’ conversion to the idea of peaceful transition and inclusion of the peasantry would be overridden at a time of crisis by other more solid principles such as the dictatorship, the Party and state control. When NEP was abandoned and forced collectivisation began, Stalin easily broke theoretical and political resistance from Bukharin and other Rightists. The SRs would deny that Bukharin offered any real alternative to Stalin, although they believed that a genuine narodnichestvo would have done. Bolshevism for them had no internal ‘alternative’. The Prague SR rejection of the Bolshevik regime remained unwavering with a few exceptions. Chernov rhetorically posited the idea that they should accept the Bolshevik conversion: Komnarodnichestvo is victorious. The ancient dream of narodnichestvo is being fulﬁlled. Komnarodnichestvo can say to it, in the words of Christ: I have come not to destroy your laws, but to fulﬁl them.95 A report in the right wing émigré press in 1927 after the split in the Prague Group, entitled ‘The Liquidation of the SRs’, claimed that from now on Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya would be ‘orientated more towards Soviet power’ while the group around Volya Rossii were going to form a block with the Mensheviks. It went on to say that Chernov’s ‘old and dear friend’ Bukharin had convinced the Politburo to give Chernov’s group the right to return to Russia.96 It was wrong on all counts. Bukharin was actually one of the Bolsheviks most disliked by the SRs because of his vicious behaviour during the Trial of the SRs in 1922. During Bukharin’s show trial in 1938, Sukhomlin told the International that he did not deserve to be defended by them; Rusanov noted in his memoirs about Bukharin’s execution that ‘those who live by the sword must die by it’.97 The Prague SRs remained opposed to the Bolshevik regime throughout the 1920s with very few exceptions. In an abrupt note to the Party in Russia in 1925 Sukhomlin announced he no longer wished be the representative in the International.98 His resignation was not accepted, but could this have been a sudden collapse in ideological conﬁdence? Earlier that year he had received a letter from his father in Leningrad. Sukhomlin’s widow, who he married after the Second World War, later claimed he told her that this letter had an enormous

54 The Soviet Union during NEP

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

impact on his thinking (Sukhomlin returned to the Soviet Union after Stalin’s death). His father V. I. Sukhomlin was a veteran narodnik and member of the SR Party who had been involved in the revolutionary movement since the 1870s and had spent 15 years in Siberia as well as long periods in emigration. An experienced and wellconnected revolutionary, he clearly believed in the sincerity of the Bolshevik conversion to narodnichestvo. This particular letter he wrote to his son was written at NEP’s height in 1925 during the ‘Face to the Countryside’ (litso k derevne) campaign, the period most conciliatory to the peasants. He wrote that: Although people who consider they are westernisers and Marxists stand at the head of the ﬁrst Socialist Republic…in practice they are carrying out our narodnik programme. Lenin is such a giant that his ﬁrst decree was on the socialisation of land, which was taken in its entirety from narodnik Socialist Revolutionaries. He has created not a proletarian, but a workers and peasants’ government. Trotsky didn’t call Lenin a ‘Chelyabinsk narodnik’ for nothing. Although communist theoreticians continue to assert the peasantry is a petit-bourgeois class, different to the working class…it is not difﬁcult to see that these are only the verbal vestiges of former Social Democratic thinking, and in reality they admit that only a insigniﬁcant layer of kulaks are petit-bourgeois.99 According to the letter, pure Marxists were now being purged from the ranks of the Party and were only to be found among Mensheviks. He cited as evidence of this Zinoviev’s attacks on Preobrazhenskii and his theory of primitive socialist accumulation as well as the destruction of the arch anti-narodnik Trotsky. He wrote that the current Leninist slogan ‘socialism equals Soviet power plus cooperatives’ and the speeches, articles and policies of Zinoviev, Kamenev and Rykov were all entirely within the narodnik spirit.100 One can speculate that these sentiments would have been as unacceptable to some members of the Bolshevik Party as they were to the Prague SRs. The elder Sukhomlin’s letter was conﬁdent and optimistic and he clearly felt a profound change had taken place among the Bolshevik leadership. He wanted his son to return to participate in building cooperative agrarian socialism, writing to him that the Bolsheviks were achieving the kind of results that narodniki could only have dreamt of.101 He seems to have led a comfortable and enjoyable existence in this period, having the time and means to conduct a voluminous correspondence with his son abroad, largely on Soviet literature, spending hours in bookshops and libraries seeking out new literary works to send him.102 Some of his letters were from sanatoria for veteran revolutionaries. The elder Sukhomlin was arrested in 1938 and executed a few weeks later, approximately the same time as his son was in Brussels trying to persuade the International not to criticise the Terror.103 Sukhomlin replied publicly to his father in Volya Rossii.104 He accepted that Bolsheviks like Bukharin were adopting elements of narodnichestvo. However, he

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Soviet Union during NEP

55

warned that one could not take Lenin’s deathbed transformation too seriously. His formula ‘socialism equals Soviet power plus cooperatives’ was meaningless as a genuine guide to Bolshevik thought because Lenin was notoriously ideologically ﬂexible and came up with different versions of the path to socialism depending on circumstances. The Bolsheviks had not changed their attitudes towards the peasants and still saw them as an alien class. Any concessions to the peasantry were made only because of the delay in world revolution, which was where their real interest lay. Should that ever materialise, the Bolsheviks would push through their original programme of Arakcheev communism.105 Another who had doubts was Grigorii Radchenko. Radchenko had joined the SR Party in March 1917. Arrested twice by the Bolsheviks after October, he was mobilised into the Volunteer Army and evacuated to Egypt in 1920. He arrived in Prague in 1922 where he enrolled in the Cooperative–Agricultural Institute and rejoined the SR Party.106 He wrote an analysis of the Soviet economic system in which he stated that socialist émigrés must accept the bitter truth that the system worked.107 He believed the socialist element prevailed in the economy and that the cooperative movement was the heart of the system, working for the good of the whole, taking the peasants to socialism and acting as the link between capitalism and socialism.108 Radchenko believed that the Soviet economy was moving towards real socialism through the cooperative movement, although he estimated this would take 25–30 years.109 Excited by the projected Five Year Plan and the perceived renewed commitment to rationalised and collectivised agriculture he requested permission to return to the Soviet Union in late 1927.110 He believed that the application of scientiﬁc socialist planning would unleash Russia’s productive forces, ending its dependence on Western Europe, and push it into the ranks of the most advanced countries of the world.111 Conclusion The Prague SRs interpreted developments in the Soviet Union within their own intellectual tradition, narodnichestvo. Developments in agriculture and peasant behaviour in the 1920s gave them grounds for optimism about the end of the Bolshevik regime and the validity of their own programme. A strengthening of the commune marked the post-revolutionary period and 97 per cent of peasant agricultural land was held in repartitional tenure by 1927.112 In addition, the SR programme was not based only on a ‘romanticised image of an idiosyncratically Russian ethno-cultural phenomenon – the peasant commune’. It was also based on the cooperative movement. In this way it was in line with European socialist thought on development in the interwar period. The SR analysis of developments in the Soviet Union during the 1920s is of value to historians. Widely shared concepts such as the ruralisation and ‘middle-peasantisation’ of Russia after the Civil War, the strengthening of the commune, as well as the peculiar nature of peasant economies developed by

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

56 The Soviet Union during NEP

historians and sociologists such as Victor Danilov and Teodor Shanin corroborate the SR analysis.113 At the time, some of the SR concepts were recognised as valuable by Bolsheviks such as Bukharin. Bukharin and his ideas became brieﬂy popular again in the Soviet Union during perestroika, a period seen initially by some as heralding a return to the original principles of Leninism. His approach was described as a genuine alternative to Stalinism.114 The path of the peasantry toward socialism through cooperatives was seen as a fundamental idea for Bukharin and Lenin’s ‘testament’ to the Party.115 It has been claimed that Bukharin’s ideas went on to inﬂuence anti-Stalinist reformers after 1953, the intellectuals of the Prague Spring, Eurocommunism and perestroika, as well as echoing down in the dominant economic theory in post-war Yugoslavia and Poland, where the existence of state, cooperative, and private ownership, including some mixed forms, was accepted as a permanent solution.116 The idea that the pace of industrial development should be determined by the agrarian sector’s demand for goods became part of socialist orthodoxy. Bukharin’s rediscovered ‘discoveries’ have some provenance in SR categories of thought about socialist development. Some Prague SRs were inﬂuenced by Klyuchevskii’s concept of historical antinomies: that changes in Russia’s development always led to the opposite of what would have been expected.117 They saw many antinomies during NEP: the emergence and consolidation of dictatorship out of a time of civic equality and freedom; the preservation of the dictatorship despite the crushing of its ideas; the dictatorship of a proletarian party in peasant Russia; and the ‘oppression and enslavement’ of the peasantry yet its overall dominance. The Prague SRs remained steadfast in their opposition to the regime, while accepting elements of the new Russia. They could view the regime separately from society and the economy, because for them it was separate, a parasitic terror dictatorship with no social base. A report from an SR in the Volga region published in 1924 stated that: The people and the Party are two completely separate worlds, which stand in opposition to each other like alien and hostile forces; this is one of the results of the October Revolution.118 These analyses of NEP recreate the historical atmosphere of that period and enrich our understanding of its full complexity. SR categories of thought are a useful tool for analysing Soviet reality and have been used without full acknowledgement of their provenance. The SRs did have a programme for the modernisation of Russia and were not merely agrarian romantics and the usual ‘alternative’ to Stalinism— ‘Bukharinism’—owed something to it. The next chapter will examine the relationship between the regime and society and the SRs’ political tactics—and hopes—for the regime’s downfall.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

4

The Bolshevik Regime, Soviet Society and SR Political Tactics

Introduction This chapter looks at the Prague SR analysis of the Bolshevik regime, the social forces which made up the Soviet Union and the relationship between the two. It goes on to examine how the Prague SRs believed the Soviet regime might end and the tactics they devised for this eventuality. They believed that the peasantry’s role would be decisive. They suggested that SRs in Russia work in institutions which dealt with the peasantry, both to strengthen their own organisation and to encourage the peasants to build up resistance. Again, the strengths that they perceived in the commune and the cooperative lay at the heart of their approach. While the previous chapter showed that they produced useful critiques of economic developments, this chapter argues that they were bad tacticians. The places the SRs identiﬁed as sites of resistance to the regime turned out to be vulnerable when the conﬂict of collectivisation began. These institutions were smashed apart, dismantled or bypassed entirely. The peasantry did not erect barriers to state power and the Bolshevik Party was able to transform the economic, social and cultural life of the peasantry through violence. SR hopes that society could build barriers to state power through independent institutions such as the cooperatives were to be disappointed. Perhaps their weakness, particularly Chernov’s, lay in their failure to understand how power operated in the Soviet Union and that they did not understand the nature of the Soviet state. The SRs underestimated the Bolsheviks yet again as they had in 1917. However, the material they gathered and the analyses they produced enrich our understanding of the period and add to the more recent historiographical picture of NEP as tension-ﬁlled, rather than a ‘golden age’. Bolshevik Ideology and Practice It was common after the Russian Revolution to describe Bolshevism as a ‘Russian disease’. While the Allies wanted to build a cordon sanitaire to keep Europe from infection, some European socialists accepted dictatorship as right for Russia at its

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

58 The Bolshevik Regime

current stage of development. The Prague SRs were bitter at this attitude, believing that these same socialists would never ‘put the fate of their own workers’ movements in the hands of a single powerful individual, or even in the hands of a highly organised, closed, disciplined, political “knightly order” ’.1 The Prague SRs did not agree that Bolshevism was a Russian phenomenon. As noted above, in their analysis, it was a ‘child of war’.2 It was an ideology produced by the Imperialist War and its aftermath, in spirit similar to the other interwar dictatorships in Italy, Poland, Spain and Hungary. It was another example of the cultural pessimism represented by books such as Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, ﬁrst published in 1918 and the Russian philosopher Grigorii Landau’s 1923 book, The Twilight of Europe.3 The First World War produced Bolshevism with its twin poles of destruction and compulsion. It legitimised its violent maximalism, and hypnotised the Bolsheviks with the brutal power of the state. The SR view of the Bolshevik Party as a war machine and its development of a highly militarised culture predates the Civil War, the period to which most historians attribute it. Lenin and Bukharin saw the militaristic, profoundly undemocratic ‘total state’ during the war—the ‘new Leviathan’—as capitalism’s ﬁnal and most brutal manifestation. They believed that the time had arrived for the overthrow of capitalism as predicted by Marx. Yet European stabilisation had proved Lenin wrong. He had overestimated the destructive forces unleashed by war and misread contemporary capitalism and the European workers’ movements. In the new conditions of the 1920s his theories and teachings became meaningless. However, accepting this would have meant abandoning power, so the NEP period saw a desperate casting around for an adjusted Leninism, hence the development of komnarodnichestvo and the later adoption of allout industrialisation. Neil Harding has also argued that Leninism is best understood as ‘an authentically Marxist response to the First World War with its mobilising appeal lying in a plausible (but fatally frozen) analysis of the degeneration of contemporary capitalism’.4 Why did the only successful European revolution take place in Russia, if Lenin had been so wrong? As a result of the war, Russia’s economic and social collapse had been the most complete and its democratic traditions were the weakest. Chernov wrote that: Keynes was ultimately right when he said that Russia had only gone further along the path which opened in front of all of Europe of ‘non-production, unemployment, disorganisation, internecine battles and international hatred, thievery, starvation, plunder and lies’.5 Lazarev and some other Prague SRs saw Bolshevism as the logical culmination of the Marxism of the pre-war International, which was only interested in the well-being of workers and was concerned with economics rather than politics. Moderate SRs like Lazarev began to argue that the SR Party programme should be cleansed of all its Marxist elements.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

59

In the SR view, Bolshevism was also a culture, a psychology, and its essence was maximalism.6 The main elements of the Bolshevik ‘compound’ were dictatorship, maximalism, dogmatism, party discipline, state control, world revolution and the desirability and efﬁcacy of violent change from above.7 While the Bolsheviks could change course tactically, they would not abandon these basic elements. The idea that Bolshevism would evolve or become more moderate, which was common in the 1920s, was self-deluding. Bolshevik ideology, culture and practice meant that a dictatorship was foreordained. The Mensheviks, for example, blamed the SR uprising in the Volga region in 1918 for putting an end to hopes of a socialist alliance and provoking one-party rule. Stalinskii denied the Bolsheviks had ever been prepared to share power with other socialist parties and derided Menshevik utopianism for believing it was possible to act as their ‘loyal opposition’.8 The October coup had been an uprising against socialist democracy and act of civil war, and Kronstadt had shown that no amount of proletarian pressure would make the Bolsheviks abandon their dictatorship. All Bolsheviks were ‘fanatics about dictatorship’.9 The Prague SRs saw the Bolsheviks in the 1920s in a constant search for a justiﬁcation for dictatorship after the failure of the European revolution, one they ﬁnally found in industrialisation. The Prague SRs were critical of parliamentary democracy, but they believed that workers had more rights in capitalist states than in Russia. In reply to suggestions that there was no freedom in capitalist countries Sukhomlin wrote that ‘one would have to be a total sectarian to imagine that the political rights which ordinary people have in the West are mere paper freedoms’.10 Their usual position was that the Soviet regime in the 1920s was closer to European fascist regimes with their principled denial of freedom, and worse than the bourgeois democracies, highly imperfect though they were.11 A study of émigré journals show that fascism and Bolshevism were compared from the early 1920s onwards.12 In 1926 though Chernov quoted approvingly Vandervelde’s statement that Europe was divided into ‘les gouvernements des bandes et des banques’ and implied a moral equivalency between the Soviet regime and European capitalist states. He said that any criticism of the Bolshevik regime should be ‘positive’ and its opponents should stop simply denigrating it.13 They should also stop ‘burning an eternal ﬂame in front of February’.14 He also began asserting that ‘bourgeois criticism’ (that is, in terms of its undemocratic nature and lack of human rights) of the Soviet Union was impermissible for SRs.15 This proved unpopular among other SRs, who angrily denied that freedom was a bourgeois concept. It was seen as another example of his adoption of the Leninist tactic of a ‘critique from the left’. At this time Chernov was increasingly out of step with other SRs for reasons that will be discussed in later chapters. The Prague SRs accepted that the Bolshevik regime still had the support of part of the proletariat, although the Soviet Union was in no way a ‘workers’ state’. They believed it was evident that a group of Party oligarchs and the bureaucracy ruled Russia in the 1920s.16 While émigré Mensheviks still saw ‘Soviet Russia’ as the

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

60 The Bolshevik Regime

avant-garde of the revolution, for the Prague SRs the term was a ‘false sign covering up an oligarchic-bureaucratic system’.17 In 1922 Chernov was already describing the transformation of the regime into an oligarchy as one of the main outcomes of the Revolution.18 The Russian proletariat had lacked the cultural capital to create socialism immediately and the capital it had gathered over the years through production cooperatives, trade unions, educational circles and other forms of autonomous activity had been deliberately destroyed by the Bolsheviks. A new bureaucratic elite had easily taken over the embryonic state and now ruled it in their own interests. One of the many reasons for Trotsky’s defeat, according to Stalinskii, was that his programme was a return to the idea of a self-regulating revolutionary caste, the Jacobin ‘Men of Virtue’, which had no appeal whatsoever to the new Party oligarchs and bureaucrats.19 Volya Rossii pointed to the irony that the ﬁnal defeat of the United Opposition in 1927 coincided with celebrations for the 10-year anniversary of the October Revolution, revealing how much the Bolshevik Party had changed. This military organisation, which threatened to turn the whole world into the trumpet of revolution, has become a bureaucratic caste ruling the country in the ﬁction of an already non-existent partiinost.20 Reports the SRs received from the Soviet Union in the 1920s showed how the regime monopolised public life and attacked independent institutions. It may have temporarily tolerated some, but the aim was Party control of all aspects of public life. SRs in Russia wrote to them that the atmosphere under NEP was different to that of the Civil War. Dissenters were no longer shot but were ‘thrown out of life’; sacked, exiled and denied economic support.21 It was difﬁcult for the members of intelligentsia to survive without state employment, which explained why many of the old radical intelligentsia, including ex-SRs, had decided to accept the dictatorship. The Bolsheviks had destroyed civic society. A letter from Vladivostok in 1923 described how the Bolsheviks had taken over or closed down independent printing presses and bookshops, purged educational institutes and terrorised or demoralised independent institutions, producing a sullen and supine urban population.22 An SR report from Russia in 1924 claimed that: Their (the Bolsheviks) relative force is becoming absolute, which is especially helped by the absence of any other social forces. The Bolsheviks mercilessly crush any sign of social initiative. One must give them total credit for this.23 Another SR wrote to them in 1923 that ‘there is no society; everything has been crushed’.24 The Prague SRs recognised that the regime cultivated support and tried to create a social base. Later in the decade, during Stalin’s ‘Revolution from Above’, they

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

61

recognised the increasing importance to the regime of the vydvizhentsy or vykhodtsy, the new elites being created from promotees from the peasantry and working class. Chernov wrote that the regime survived via a range of devices from paternalism, political infantilism and silencing, up to extreme violence.25 The Prague SRs noted how the Party gave economic concessions to certain favoured groups in order to stop any political activity. One of the functions of the OGPU and the trade unions was ‘reading the mood’ of the workers to identify those who needed to be placated. As Stalin admitted at the time it was a ‘dictatorship limited by popular discontent’.26 The SRs quoted Zinoviev who, noting the growth in political activity by peasants in 1924, said it was necessary to ‘paralyse this with economic measures…salt, petrol, glass, cotton and ploughs for this spring’.27 In her memoirs, the SR activist Olitskaya recounts how recalcitrant skilled workers were promised trips to sanatoria.28 In 1927 Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya reported on the energetic measures the Bolsheviks were undertaking to win support from the Don Cossacks, previously among their ﬁercest opponents during the Civil War and a main target of the Red Terror in 1919.29 Despite this public criticism of the dictatorship, archival documents reveal that at the end of 1923 the émigré SRs felt that the political situation in Russia was beneﬁcial enough for secret negotiations to have the SR Central Committee members in Russia released from prison. They hoped that Emil Vandervelde would intervene on their behalf and believed that the Soviet government would be amenable in private to such a campaign.30 According to Czechoslovak government secret reports, the SRs in prison also believed this and were putting their hopes on Ramsey MacDonald as mediator.31 This optimism may have been due to the fact that the Prague SRs believed that there was still interest among Soviet workers in the European socialist movement and that the Bolsheviks may have felt some pressure to respond to leading European socialists.32 As noted earlier, 1924 and 1925 was the height of the SRs’ general optimism, with the electoral victories of socialist parties in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and Denmark. They knew that the Bolsheviks were hoping for trade agreements with Britain and other European countries. The Prague SRs placed great hope on potential SovietEuropean relations and the beneﬁcial impact this could have. This is probably another reason why, as will be seen, the later period of isolation under Stalin and the growth of fascism in Europe proved so corrosive to their worldview. As narodniki, the SRs had a positive evaluation of the Russian people, their social institutions and potential for self-rule. One of the main tenets of all populist ideologies is that radical social transformation can be effected by the people through their own traditional institutions.33 It was important for them to deny that Bolshevism had real roots in Russian society and see themselves as the true representatives of the Russian people. Bolshevism’s ‘alienness’ to Russia was the basis on which they appealed to the socialist parties in the International to oppose it. While their analysis of the Bolshevik ‘compound’ stands the test of time it is slightly

62 The Bolshevik Regime

contradicted by their belief that the bureaucracy ruled in Russia. They seemed unaware of the contradiction between the descriptions of violent dictatorship and conservative bureaucracy, which led them to underestimate the Bolshevik regime. This contradiction, however, is at the heart of the Soviet regime and has yet to be adequately explained.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Social Forces during NEP Like the Bolsheviks, the Prague SRs believed the best way of analysing social reality was through the construct of class. Chernov’s ‘eserstvo’ had always been an amalgam of Marxism and narodnichestvo. The Paris SRs wanted to abandon class as their major analytical category and substitute the nation or the individual, believing that Russia’s future reconstruction should be a national task.34 Chernov though insisted the Party remain focused on the ‘labouring classes’ and not follow general democratic goals or interests.35 The SRs saw that as a result of the revolution, the landowning class and the old bourgeoisie had been destroyed and would never return. They identiﬁed three privileged groups, all of which had been created by the regime; the Soviet bourgeoisie, the Red Army and the state apparatus. The proletariat, although numerically smaller and weakened by industrial decline, still had political signiﬁcance. But the real change since 1917 was the absolute growth in the signiﬁcance of the peasantry, ‘the muzhikisation of already muzhik Russia’.36 This analysis of the correlation of social forces led the SRs to believe that the peasantry would be able to bring the regime down. The conclusions drawn and tactics chosen by the Prague SRs were the continuation of the narodnik belief that a Marxist party was unsuited to govern an agrarian country such as Russia. ‘Can there be any doubt who is the true master of the Russian land?’ asked Stalinskii in 192537 He believed that the peasantry’s role in post-revolutionary Russia would be decisive. Gurevich wrote that the peasantry was the only social group to emerge intact from the revolution, which had seen ‘the undoubted victory of the peasant over landlord and worker, destroying all proletarian and urban privileges’.38 Life for peasants in the Soviet Union under NEP was portrayed as difﬁcult rather than a ‘golden age’. Reports in the SR press revealed how violence in rural areas continued. The main conﬂict between the peasants and the state was over taxation, which peasants referred to as ‘the red plague’.39 Tax collection was often accompanied by violence as the lower levels of the state apparatus tried to carry out the orders of the centre among a hostile population. The murder of state ofﬁcials was frequent and the SRs debated over whether to support agrarian terror.40 A letter in early 1922 from the SR Central Bureau in Moscow suggested that they should support peasant terror.41 In 1923 an SR in the Soviet Far East wrote that the leader of a tax expedition had told him how ‘a detachment just has to enter a village for all houses and stores to instantly lock themselves up, and no amount of pleading or threats will get us in to them. You just have to break down the doors’.42

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

63

Tax expeditions would not risk going into the more remote villages. In response to taxation, peasants were selling their livestock and reducing their sown area. He claimed there was a growth in partisan movements. The peasants told him that they regretted now ‘believing in just any old passer-by’ and they wanted a Peasant Assembly, as ‘peasants are not enemies to each other’.43 All reports told how the peasants avoided contact with the authorities and were openly hostile due to taxation.44 ‘It wouldn’t be so bad, if only we knew how much and when we had to pay, but three days beforehand they suddenly turn up, and then it’s pay this much and that’s an end to it’, peasants in the Leningrad region told one SR.45 To peasants, towns were places of non-productive consumption and the workers ‘state spongers’ who had been made a privileged class.46 Theses written in 1925 by a group of SRs in the Volga region and published in Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya reiterate these points.47 They claimed that the Communist Party had no genuine support in rural areas, and the peasants saw Party cells as organs of ‘administrative-ﬁscalpolice’ power. Rural Party members were usually local policemen, judges, tax inspectors or other members of the rural administration: as the peasants were economically independent, they had nothing to gain by joining the Party. The taxation system was the chief reason for peasant discontent, rather than any incorrect socialism. The tax burden fell heaviest on the poor and was destroying the economy. Peasants were forced to sell their inventory, cut consumption and focus on the economic struggle for survival rather than any cultural or social goals which had been part of their demands during the revolution. This situation was made more intolerable by the fact that any signs of social organisation or self-help were crushed by the state. Although they admitted there were no signs of active resistance, they claimed that ‘the peasantry are not resigned to their lot and are beginning to search for a way out of the tupik (impasse)’.48 The peasants were doing this by ignoring the regime. The Prague SRs, who deferred to the Russian party in tactics, took this information to heart. Uprising in Amurskaya Oblast’ One peasant uprising in this period, which local SRs did not support, took place in Amurskaya oblast’, in Siberia on the border with China. In May 1924 Volya Rossii published documents from the ‘Provisional Government of Amurskaya oblast’.49 An peasant uprising had taken place there in January 1924. The Soviet government had described this as an attack by ‘White bandits’ from across the Chinese border, although it was actually organised by local peasants and social activists. The main organiser had worked in the Siberian cooperative movement before the revolution and had been a member of the independent government of the Far Eastern Republic, which had been incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1923. Prior to the uprising, its leaders had visited an SR in Sakhalyan across the border in China, who had warned them that their action was premature.50 He later sent their material to Prague.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

64 The Bolshevik Regime

The causes of the uprising were both political and economic; the systematic suppression of local initiative, the arrest and removal of the more articulate and energetic peasants, the arbitrariness and violence of the authorities and the repressions connected with tax collection.51 There had been a poor harvest and local peasants were unable to meet the state-imposed obligations. 60 per cent of the tax was to be paid in January and 40 per cent was to have been collected by May. The local authorities realised that the peasantry would have nothing left by May and decided to collect the tax in February. It was this that triggered the uprising. This situation was inﬂamed by a local Bolshevik ofﬁcial, a ‘cruel monster’ who was guilty of ‘outrageous actions and violence’. He had people beaten for inability to pay taxes and was sexually violent towards peasant women.52 The uprising began with attacks on tax collection units. Several villages rose up simultaneously, attacked and disarmed the militia and formed their own volost’ and village organisations, military detachments as well as a Provisional Government. They published a series of appeals to Red Army soldiers, workers and general citizens.53 GPU detachments were sent to deal with them and the uprising seems to have been easily defeated. The insurgents were forced to ﬂee across the border, where the Chinese government disarmed them. The majority were interned in camps. The SR in China wrote that although most of the peasants were experienced social activists and democrats, others were falling prey to monarchist activists from Harbin who hoped to recruit them for an army to invade the Soviet Union. Retribution by the regime back in the Soviet Union was swift and ranged from conﬁscation of property to the execution of insurgents and their families. These repressions caused more to escape across the border.54 The ﬁrst demand of the insurgents was an end to the Bolshevik dictatorship. They wanted political participation for all classes and secret and direct elections. They appealed to all Soviet citizens to defend their rights: The Communist Party has taken away all the rights fought for during the Revolution and manages to keep its power through all kinds of trickery and deceit. The Communist Party gives nothing away and is reducing the level of the economic and moral well being of the country. All the Communists can achieve is famine.55 They also called for the inviolability of person and property, separation of church and state and full freedom of conscience. The existing land distribution should be upheld with only a National Assembly given the power to make changes to land ownership. Taxation should be related to ability to pay and should not act as a brake on economic growth. The Communists, they claimed, had ‘legalised robbery by nationalising, socialising and taking away your property by other methods’.56 They appealed to the Red Army soldiers: ‘we are your fathers and brothers…and you are an inalienable part of our family’ and claimed they were involved in a ‘Holy struggle

The Bolshevik Regime

65

for pravda’.57 They called on the workers of the nearby town of Blagoveshchensk to rise up in their support. The appeal to them reveals both the fragility and the tangibility of the smychka, the city-village alliance promoted at this time by the Bolshevik regime:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

You know that if this struggle continues until spring we will not be able to sew an extra desyatina of grain and therefore you will go hungry, because we sew this extra desyatina for you.58 The demands of the insurgents conﬁrm some of the Prague SR analysis of peasant discontent; taxation and government arbitrariness. There was also a political element; they wanted an end to the dictatorship and the right to have a voice in their affairs. They also wanted religious, national and regional customs respected. They clearly rejected further land distribution. There was certainly no demand for a ‘genuine’ socialisation of the land as the SRs may have hoped. This meant for these peasants perhaps, the revolution had achieved its goal; it had given land to the peasants. The SRs published the material without comment. It seems the desperate protest of small farmers, attached to their lands, and not a protest of ‘labouring people’ who wanted another revolution led by SRs. The Russian Proletariat The Socialist Revolutionary Party is usually described as a ‘peasant party’. Its members rejected this label and had worked as intensively with workers as it did with peasants before the revolution. Chernov’s theoretical innovation had been that the triad of peasants, workers and the progressive intelligentsia would be the revolutionary forces in Russia and the three groups had common interests. After the revolution their relationship to the workers became slightly more complex. While claiming that the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ was a ﬁction, they realised that this ﬁction was one of the imponderables (nevesomie) by which the regime still survived.59 It seems they secretly felt that the relationship between the Bolshevik regime and Soviet workers was close enough to exclude the SRs. At a party congress in Berlin in 1922, Stalinskii insisted the SRs would not ‘abandon the working class, unlike those in the democratic camp who claim that the Russian proletariat is a parasite drinking the blood of the Russian peasant and there should be a civil war between town and country’.60 His fellow Volrosstsy Lebedev though replied that Russia would be reborn when the peasants were the only class left.61 Some Prague SRs wanted to position the Party as the leader of democratic Slavophile agrarian bloc in the International.62 SRs inside Russia believed they should focus their efforts on the peasantry, as it was the only truly anti-Bolshevik class.63 The workers had been numerically reduced—there were only two million industrial workers left in the early 1920s—but they were also privileged by the

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

66 The Bolshevik Regime

regime. In general though, the Prague SRs, particularly Chernov, rejected the idea of peasant-only parties and the Party did not become a peasant party, as did other interwar European populist parties. They noted with concern the seeming hostility between rural and urban inhabitants in the Soviet Union. Focus on the peasantry in the 1920s was partly practical as the Bolshevik regime was notoriously weak in the countryside. The picture of life for Russian workers in the 1920s painted in SR publications was, inevitably, one of mass unemployment and poverty.64 SR reports claimed that NEP was creating an abyss between the workers and the regime and the workers were disappointed in state capitalism. Those lucky enough to be employed trudged to work in poor clothing while fur-coated ‘sovspetsy’ sped by in sledges. Russia’s industrial decline was tangible, particularly in Leningrad.65 Alcohol abuse was widespread, as was petty crime. The Prague SR concern in presenting these reports was to show how the workers were exploited by the ‘workers’ state’.66 According to SR reports, workers also resented the fact that their already inadequate wages were lessened by continual compulsory deductions for various funds, newspapers, government bonds and other ‘donations’. The average voluntary contribution was eight or nine per cent of wages. Collections for the support of foreign communists were apparently particularly resented.67 Other reports focused on worker anger at lack of genuine political participation.68 One described an election to the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies in Vladivostok in 1923. The election ofﬁcial announced a list of candidates supported by the ‘only genuinely revolutionary workers’ party, the RKP’ and asked who was against this list. The list was elected unanimously. Eighty-two per cent of those elected were Bolsheviks, the rest being ‘sympathisers’ or ‘non-Party’, who the anonymous correspondent claimed were Party members anyway.69 The Prague SRs tried to remain optimistic: Kronstadt in 1921 had shown that workers could oppose the regime. They noted the growing strike movement of 1924–5, particularly in the textile factories of Moscow and Ivanovo-Voznesensk.70 They also believed there was a renewal of debate under the auspices of the Opposition and that more non-Party workers were being elected to representative bodies at this time.71 However the Prague SRs had to confront the fact that there was no visible anti-Bolshevik sentiment among workers, particularly among what was left of what were termed the more ‘conscious workers’. This political passivity was explained as due to a combination of factors; the terror; exhaustion; revulsion towards politics; and demoralisation. In private the SRs admitted the regime still had considerable support among workers, whom it treated preferentially.72 The independence of the trade union movement had been destroyed. The SRs realised that this cooption of all working class institutions as well as worker-orientated policies, education and propaganda meant that workers would not actively oppose the regime. Elena Olitskaya was discouraged from trying to make contacts with workers by other SRs in Russia.73 SRs in Russia complained in 1924 that they needed advanced

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

67

workers’ cells—a tacit admission they did not have any.74 The Prague SRs hoped that Soviet workers would form secret trade unions and that they could work with these.75 In the 1920s SRs in Russia felt that they should try to convince workers that their position would only improve when agriculture improved.76 One can question whether this would really have had any appeal. After all, the regime—theoretically—ruled in their name. As will be seen when Lebedev visited Russia in 1929, the workers he met were indifferent to the harshness of forced collectivisation.77 The Prague SRs acknowledged that the situation was further complicated by Stalin’s industrialisation drive. In Theses on the Worker Question presented to a Party Congress in 1931, Kobyakov stated that workers still occupied the exclusively privileged position in Russia that they had since 1917.78 In all aspects of Soviet life workers were favoured; political advancement, educational and cultural opportunities, more generous state services, housing, favourable terms of military service. Workers repaid the state ‘if not with passionate love, then at least with real support and loyalty’.79 He suggested that the SRs convince workers to reject ‘their ephemeral privileges in favour of a harmonious representation and inﬂuence of all existing groups of the population’.80 Again, could such slogans really have had any appeal? This raises the question posed by Manfred Hildermeier as to whether any single political party in Russia could have appealed to both workers and peasants, or whether the modernisation process had been too fractured and heterogeneous for peaceful development. According to him the impossibility of integrating the city and countryside was the fundamental dilemma of the Russian Revolution and the main cause of the failure of both narodnichestvo and the revolution.81 The Prague SRs were unable to think of a political platform to unite workers and peasants. Kalyuzhnyi recognised this at the Prague Conference in 1931 saying ‘we shouldn’t be talking about the triadic unity of the labouring classes, nor about a united class battle, but about how to extinguish the civil war between these classes’.82 The Intelligentsia SRs in Russia made no attempt to recruit new members from the intelligentsia in the 1920s.83 Reports from Russia largely characterised this group, previously their mainstay, as weak and leaderless, in psychological thrall to the Bolsheviks and economically dependent on the state.84 Many had accepted Bolshevism as the only real power capable of holding the Russian state together. Chernov believed the Russian intelligentsia in the end had revealed itself to be anti-democratic.85 One SR who had left Russia in 1922 described the intelligentsia’s attitude to the regime as one of ‘prostration’.86 According to Moscow SRs in 1924 the ‘stolichnaya obshchestvennost’ (metropolitan elites) claim all is well in Soviet Russia and the regime values talented and educated people and is Russia’s saviour’.87 But this mood was easily unbalanced. Lenin’s death apparently caused panic in Moscow, with some

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

68 The Bolshevik Regime

intelligenty terriﬁed it would herald a return to War Communism, while others were convinced that ‘the Ministries are being given to the spetsy (non-Party specialists) and Milyukov has been invited back to head the government’.88 Olitskaya’s memoirs show how her family and friends, who were prospering working for the state in the 1920s, were bemused and irritated by her principled opposition to a dictatorship. The letter from Sukhomlin’s father discussed in the previous chapter expresses similar sentiments, saying that the police regime was an unfortunate but necessary measure.89 This old narodnik and SR who had stayed in Russia and supported the regime told his son that the Bolsheviks’ class hatred and fanaticism morally justiﬁed them in his eyes, ‘as I myself am ﬁlled with hatred for bourgeois civilisation’.90 Although the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly had left a ‘heavy impression’ on his heart, his theory of revolution meant that he accepted the substitution of the rule of a conscious minority for the ‘unconscious inert masses’.91 The fact that the Party ruled in the name of the proletariat over both the proletariat and the peasantry gave him no particular cause for concern, as this rule was by leading Bolsheviks who were ‘the intelligentsia, in other words, by educated people’.92 While freedom in Russia would have great signiﬁcance, he understood why the ruling party was unable to grant it ‘until the majority of the population are on its side’ and the ‘grumbling of unconscious layers of the workers, ignorance, religious prejudice, in a word, the inheritance of the past – darkness and nekul’turnost’ has disappeared’.93 The elder Sukhomlin believed that the dictatorship would eventually dissolve itself.94 The Prague SRs were disappointed that the majority of the intelligentsia had accepted the Bolshevik dictatorship. They therefore had a fairly unsympathetic attitude to the various trials of the non-party specialists that took place in the Soviet Union during the early 1930s. The Soviet Bourgeoisie Although the Prague SRs described the sovburzhui as the regime’s real supporters, they consistently argued against Menshevik and the various Bolshevik Oppositions’ accusations that this group sought to take power in a coup with the support of the peasantry. The new bourgeoisie were undemocratic but were numerically weak (about half a million by SR estimates) and the role of private capital in the economy was small. During 1925–6 private industry only accounted for 3.8 per cent of industrial production and the majority of workers were employed in state enterprises.95 The new bourgeoisie had no accumulated wealth or property nor did they control the ﬁnancial system. They were interested in the preservation of Bolshevik power, not its overthrow. More importantly, and this was at the heart of the SR arguments with the Mensheviks, the Russian peasantry did not share the same goals as the bourgeoisie. As narodniki, their core belief was that the Russian peasantry was a democratic class who would not link up with counter-revolutionary elements. This was Marxist scaremongering, taking from the history of the French Revolution

The Bolshevik Regime

69

what Shanin has called ‘the peculiar Bonapartist “hieroglyphic” of a conservative rebellion in defence of the myth of a revolutionary past’.96 In 1927 Lazarev wrote to Fyodor Dan, the Menshevik leader in emigration:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

You don’t know the Russian muzhik very well…don’t be afraid of the monarchism of the Russian peasant, or rather the Russian people in general. Even under Tsarism there were millions of peasant-sectarians who called the Tsar ‘Antichrist’.97 The Prague SRs believed post-revolutionary developments justiﬁed their belief in the democratic and socialist potential of the peasantry and that Russians in general could form a stable and progressive polity. Chernov’s ally in emigration, Vissarion Gurevich was one of the few to depart from the orthodoxy of an embryonic peasant democracy, with its concomitant future role for the SRs. He believed that developments under NEP could lead to a coup by the bourgeoisie and the bureaucrats in the state apparatus, which would be supported by the Red Army.98 The important social forces in the Soviet Union were those who had been on the side of the Bolsheviks during the Civil War—the ‘conscious workers’ and the ‘village poor’. They had become the bureaucrats, Red Commanders, new bourgeoisie or landowning peasants of the new order. The re-establishment of capitalism under NEP meant the former bourgeoisie could accept the regime, as smenovekhovstvo showed. The Kadets ‘were already crawling on their bellies to make contacts with Moscow and Petrograd, where there are many a like-minded spets’.99 These forces would merge, force out the Bolshevik regime and introduce full capitalism. Gurevich believed there was potential for a democratic monarchy, if it agreed to keep the land in the peasants’ hands. He also believed that capitalist relations and social differentiation in the countryside had begun, meaning that there would be no ‘third force’ revolution by the peasantry—unless they were threatened with a return to War Communism. There was no social base for socialist power and Russia needed capitalism to rebuild its economy. Where in this scenario was there room for the SRs? They could perhaps participate in a new government as representatives of part of the peasantry. The peasantry, however, had found a new ideology—capitalism. Sukhomlin, on behalf of Prague SR orthodoxy, strenuously rejected this argument. The peasantry would never compromise with the old classes, nor did they have anything in common with the new. The peasantry had fought violently and used passive resistance and now were removing the Bolsheviks from the villages through Soviet elections, and would eventually overthrow the regime.100 Unlike some other émigré groups who put their hopes—or fears—in a Red Army coup, the Prague SRs never questioned the Army’s loyalty or subordination to the Bolshevik Party. They saw also the youth organisation, the Komsomol, as a vital source of support for the regime. SRs in Russia described the Komsomol as a very powerful body in the new Soviet state, claiming it controlled the Red Army and was

70 The Bolshevik Regime

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

more important than many Party structures.101 It embodied the Bolshevik quality of udarnost’ (daring, ability to act), which SRs puzzled over and wished for themselves.102 The Komsomol showed Bolshevism’s recruiting power and its future. No doubt these kinds of reports about the attitude of the younger generation inﬂuenced the ‘Face to Russia’ and ‘positive criticism’ stance, particularly of Chernov. It also caused some suspension of criticism of the Soviet Union during the industrialisation drive, which some SRs believed had captured the imagination of the younger generation. The Bolshevik Party in the 1920s In the mid 1920s, Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya published ‘Letters from Moscow’ by a certain ‘Nenarkom’. There were no sensational revelations or secret material, as in the Menshevik émigré journal Sotsialisticheskii Vestnik, which published Lenin’s Testament and United Opposition documents in the 1920s as well as the ‘Letter of an Old Bolshevik’ in the 1930s. Instead Nenarkom reported on the general Party mood or on events of common knowledge, such as Stalin and Trotsky’s antagonism, Stalin’s potential vulnerability over Georgia at the XII Party Congress and the Platform of the 46.103 Nenarkom remarked on the problems Stalin faced when Lenin wished ‘to destroy him politically’ at the XII Party Congress, commenting that Lenin later sent a handwritten note to the conference ‘rehabilitating’ Stalin. This latter assertion is not in other accounts and perhaps shows the kind of rumours sweeping Moscow at the time. Who was the SRs’ source in Moscow? Their identity taxed Zinoviev who pointed the ﬁnger publicly at a certain group of spetsy.104 These reports shed interesting light on the leadership struggle, as the strengths and weaknesses of the contenders are presented without hindsight. Stalin emerges from these reports as a powerful, key ﬁgure very early on. Prior to Lenin’s death, Nenarkom claimed Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev, who were the ‘Centre of Centres’ of the oligarchy, were considered by the Party to be Lenin’s closest and most trusted followers and his messengers. They controlled all access to him and their assumption of power was unpopular among some in the Party.105 In 1923, the triumvirate were surprised and frightened by the depth of support for the Left Opposition, especially among the Army and students.106 However, these early oppositions never represented a real threat as it was already easy for the Party machine to deal with them. In 1924 Nenarkom identiﬁed Stalin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky, Dzerzhinskii, Bukharin, Radek and Krasin as the most important party oligarchs. The descriptions given of most are familiar from other historical literature. Trotsky’s arrogance, aloofness and rancour were his main characteristics. He was feared by the Party elite and respected in military circles. Zinoviev was considered unpopular and cowardly and Kamenev a weak but ambitious opportunist, Dzerzhinskii a cold killer, and Bukharin a stormy and enthusiastic demagogue. Radek was a sophisticated

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

71

‘westerner’ and Krasin was rising to power through representing the ‘logic of life’, though his practical views were unpopular with many in the Party. The portrait of Stalin painted by Nenarkom in 1924 is far from the self-effacing backroom mediocrity later portrayed by Trotsky.107 Stalin was described as a ‘man with a plan’ of enormous character and personal courage who clearly towered over Zinoviev and Kamenev. Tenacious and cunning, Stalin’s main skill seemed clear enough: knowing how to arrange, organise and mould the Party’s mood. Nenarkom also wrote that Stalin was actually viewed even at this time as one of the main organisers of the October Revolution. He also described him as vain and self-regarding, a dangerous adventurist.108 When Stalin later linked up with Bukharin against his former allies, Zinoviev and Kamenev, Nenarkom described Stalin as ‘the General’, and Bukharin as the theoretician.109 These perceptive observations were an anomaly within the general descriptions of Stalin in the mid 1920s among émigrés. Stalin was generally presented by the Prague SRs as a mediocre realist who would like to carry out radical policies but feared the consequences. His hesitations and reversals of policy, later interpreted as political gamesmanship in a ruthless drive for power, were seen as reﬂecting genuine uncertainty over how to deal with the economic problems facing the country. The mood at the top of the Party was described in SR reports from Moscow in the mid 1920s as nervous and suspicious. Stalin and Trotsky’s dislike was becoming more apparent.110 These were still ‘family struggles’, and more united than divided them. There seemed no foundation for the belief that the Bolshevik Party could split and a moderate wing take over.111 The atmosphere of NEP for the Bolshevik Party in general was bewildering; it was as though the revolution had been derailed. Nenarkom reported on the devastation many Party members felt about the failed German revolution in November 1923.112 The dictatorship was idling. The various Oppositions were motivated by the longing for the heroism and the tempo of the early years of the revolution and War Communism when they had believed they were building socialism.113 SR Political Tactics during NEP Russian revolutionary parties were used to operating illegally, as well as having the party leadership largely abroad. Conditions under the Soviet regime were different to those under Tsarism. Russia’s economic collapse as well as the Bolshevik regime made it difﬁcult for professional revolutionaries to exist. There were no more generous merchant or aristocratic sympathisers to fund activities. The police regime set up by the Bolsheviks was more ruthless and organised than that of late Imperial Russia and was helped by the fact that many SRs ‘converted’ and joined the Cheka and GPU to help ensnare former Party members. But also the Bolsheviks had ridden to power on a wave of popular revolution and this complicated the choice of tactics.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

72 The Bolshevik Regime

In December 1920 two SRs travelled from Prague to Kiev to make contact with local SRs and gather information on peasant attitudes to the Bolsheviks and Soviet power, Ukrainian independence, the Constituent Assembly, the SR Party and the socialisation of the land.114 They were also meant to ask what form opposition should take—should they call for an armed uprising? Should they sabotage Bolshevik attempts to restore the country or collaborate with them? The reports they wrote afterwards show how the divisions among members were still deep. Some felt that the Bolsheviks had shown themselves capable of state organisation and defending Russia’s national interests. This group accepted the necessity of dictatorship. The Bolsheviks were genuinely trying to build socialism and SRs should support them. Bolshevism would ‘evolve’ as it came into contact with real life and in any case a Marxist dictatorship was better than a bourgeois one. Russian success at revolution appealed to their sense of national pride. The SR tactic of the ‘third force’ adopted at the IX Party Congress in 1919 had no basis in reality. In their view, the choice was Bolshevism or reaction. They should try to build up links with the masses through working in state institutions and also democratise the regime from within.115 Other SRs though did not want to abandon the earlier strategy; if there was no ‘third force’ prepared to ﬁght for democracy they should build one. They did not believe that Bolshevism would evolve into a more democratic form of socialism. They felt there was no need to support the regime, as it was already doomed by the inevitable failure of revolution in Europe.116 The Kiev SRs were pessimistic about ﬁnding other groups to work with. The cooperatives had been destroyed by the Bolsheviks.117 Railway workers, traditional SR supporters who they hoped might distribute literature for them, had been replaced by ‘Black Hundreds, anti-Semites and former burzhui’ who were only interested in speculation. All also agreed that the violent overthrow of the regime was out of the question. The Bolshevik state was already too strong and the country was exhausted. The professional classes feared anarchy and banditry and were economically reliant on the state. Most workers still supported the Bolsheviks and blamed poor conditions on the Civil War and peasant unrest. As for the peasants, it would take three to ﬁve years before they would be ready to overthrow the Bolsheviks. Those on the right of the Party were more pessimistic and thought it would take at least 10.118 The opinions of the peasants the Prague SRs met were also disheartening. They summed up the peasant attitude as: ‘It’s all the same to us who has power, as long as there is peace and stability. It could be just one party or all the parties can join together and make up and leave us alone’.119 The peasants considered the SR Party ‘bourgeois’ and so inimical to their own interests. They also dismissed the Constituent Assembly as ‘bourgeois’. Prague SRs returning from a secret trip to Russia in 1924 reported back that the mood was still pessimistic among Party members who described the situation there as ‘not a time for the overthrowing of power, or even preparation for this’.120 They feared any planned uprising against the regime would result in attacks on the

The Bolshevik Regime

73

intelligentsia as well as anarchic pogroms, as according to them there had been a sharp rise in anti-Semitism.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Kto Kogo? The Peasants and the Regime SRs in Prague still supported the resolutions of the IX SR Party Council in 1919 which had ordered an end to armed resistance to the Bolsheviks. While Chernov insisted on reserving the ‘sacred right to revolution’, he and the other Prague SRs felt it was senseless to encourage uprisings in the Soviet Union as they would be easily repressed. They were highly critical of ‘adventurists’ such as ex-SR Boris Savinkov who wanted to carry on the armed struggle into the 1920s.121 The SR tactic was to encourage Party members, the rural intelligentsia and the peasants to work in state institutions, such as the cooperatives, the Commissariat of Agriculture and the rural soviets. This was to have an organisational structure for when the Bolshevik regime ﬁnally collapsed and for peasants to gain practical experience in self-management. Many ex-Party members resumed the work they had done before the revolution as agronomists, economists and statisticians in the regions, although it is uncertain if they retained any loyalty to the SR Party.122 Sukhomlin outlined SR tactics in 1927: We believe that working conscientiously in the cooperatives, in the soviet local self-administration, aiding the evolution and perfection of the peasant commune and carrying out educational work in the reading huts (izby-chitatel’nyi) the narodnik intelligentsia and the SR progressive peasantry can create such ﬁrm foundations of labouring democracy in the villages that no communist ‘advance posts’ will be able to do anything about it. They will simply fall away, despite their riﬂes and hand grenades.123 This tactic was similar to that suggested by SRs after the defeat of the 1905 Revolution: ‘molecular destructive work in the agrarian and economic cooperatives’.124 In the Soviet Union of the 1920s preparation for an armed uprising, genuine conspiratorial work or propaganda inside the Red Army were clearly closed to the SRs. Underlying their tactic was the belief that as the peasantry developed economically and politically it would be strong enough to cast off the dictatorship. Chernov admitted that this approach was fairly unappealing to professional revolutionaries, and expressed relief that most SRs accepted this ‘wait and see’ approach.125 However, this cautious attitude was unsatisfactory to some SRs. Some joined other activist parties which sent agents to the Soviet Union to encourage violent resistance.126 It was also frustrating to members in Russia, who were discouraged from illegal activity. Olitskaya recalled how the Party vetoed her and her partner’s desire to go underground after their release in 1927. ‘Not one

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

74 The Bolshevik Regime

comrade supported this idea. They felt the time was wrong and we should wait… there was an overwhelming belief the Bolsheviks would discredit themselves anyway.’127 In order to escape the Party veto, they asked to be released to the city of Ryazan’ where no other SRs lived. They then slipped away illegally to Serpukhov, a small town near Moscow. They had barely printed their ﬁrst hectographed pamphlet and made hesitant contact with a handful of workers in Moscow and a few inexperienced students in Leningrad before they were rearrested. The Prague SRs put their hopes in the strength of the peasantry and the weakness of Bolshevik rule in the village. According to Soviet statistics published in 1925, there were only 202,000 rural Party members across 20 million peasant households. There were no Party cells at all in 250 of the largest volosty and the average cell consisted of only ﬁve or six members.128 In 1927 Pravda reported that 30 percent of rural communists were politically illiterate and one in 10 had ‘no understanding of the Party whatsoever’.129 Sukhomlin asserted that ‘It is clear that ﬁve or six communists, political illiterates, spread over different settlements on territories with tens of thousands of inhabitants cannot be considered such a serious enemy’.130 The Volrosstsy realised that the Bolshevik XIV Party Congress in 1925 had committed itself to all out industrialisation.131 They also saw that the peasantry could not produce enough to pay. It was apparent that a battle between the state and the peasantry was looming, as industrialisation became the new justiﬁcation for dictatorship. Yet the SRs believed that the peasantry were powerful enough to defeat the regime: NEP brings the Bolsheviks not solace, but a sword. It determines the inevitability of a merciless internal struggle on the economic front and it creates the ground for it. It creates the ground for a struggle that will be reﬂected in the political sphere. NEP poses the question in a sharp form: Kto kogo? (Who will win?)132 In 1924 the Prague SRs claimed their tactic of working in the cooperatives was a success. Chernov reported that ‘there are currently guberniya where they (local SRs) have organised the whole peasantry through the cooperatives so that in fact they are totally in the hands of the SRs and could be reorganised at any moment’.133 The Prague SRs believed that the cooperative movement was a potential way to organise society outside of Party control. GPU reports in the early to mid 1920s reveal distrust of cooperative personnel and regularly reported on SRs working there.134 Nikolai Bespalov, a GPU agent whose task it was to inﬁltrate the SR Party and who defected to Prague in 1924, revealed how the GPU spied on ex-SRs in the cooperative movement.135 When in the summer of 1924 the Bolshevik Central Committee decided on the ofﬁcial promotion of the movement, a purge of SRs within it followed.136 In 1927 Sukhomlin insisted that the cooperative movement was still their best hope for constructive work and that SRs had returned to work there.137

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

75

Major ﬁgures in the Commissariat of Agriculture in the 1920s such as Nikolai Kondrat’ev, Aleksandr Chayanov, Nikolai Makarov, and Albert Vainstein were exnarodniki. Many had been arrested during the Civil War or in 1922 in connection with the Trial of the SRs or Lenin’s expulsion of intellectuals. According to Heinzen, though, it was not only the high-proﬁle economists and agronomists in Moscow that worried the regime, but also ex-SRs in the localities, particularly among the 14,000 agricultural specialists working at the volost’ level. In the early to mid 1920s there were complaints of a signiﬁcant SR presence in the local land administrations, especially in the Central Agricultural, Volga, and Southeast regions.138 In 1929 inspectors from Rabkrin expressed concern that agricultural specialists were a ‘political time bomb’.139 The SRs also encouraged the peasants to take power from below through the soviets. Chernov told the SR Party that: We can see how the power of the Commissars is actually very limited on the ground and how the Bolsheviks have come to terms with this… All these local soviets can be used for the creation of a new power in the localities…Where there are signiﬁcant successes in the natural isolation and progressive pushing out of the Bolsheviks and their replacement in the soviets, there will be the most promising circumstances for our work.140 The hope was that the peasants would pressurise for the democratisation of the electoral system, demanding a secret ballot, direct voting, a voice reﬂecting the true weight of the rural vote and an end to the system of lishentsy, citizens deprived of voting rights.141 Only kulaks, former tsarist police ofﬁcers and priests were meant to be deprived of voting rights, but the SRs claimed that the most politically active and articulate peasants were targeted. During the 1924 elections to the rural soviets, 1.6 per cent of potential electors were disfranchised, about 700,000 citizens. Disenfranchisement was lower in the next year with the conciliatory ‘Face to the Countryside’ policy. The political climate shifted again during 1925–6 and at the XIV Party Congress Stalin announced a new course on the poor peasant and reinforcing Party organisations in the countryside. Instructions for the September 1926 elections contained detailed provisions about disenfranchisement on the grounds of being a kulak-bourgeois. At the XV Party Congress in 1927 it was announced that 3.3 per cent of rural electors in the RSFSR had been disenfranchised.142 This ﬁgure was chosen by Moscow, not based on investigations of individual peasants. Deprivation of voting rights, however, was often ignored in the rural areas, along with other government decrees. Election campaigns in 1924 and 1925 during the ‘peasantisation of the soviets’ (okrest’yanivoranie sovetov) seemed to reveal a growth in peasant political activity. The percentage of Communist Party soviet chairman fell as a result of these elections.143 While urban elections passed off quietly, ‘the village has stopped being afraid’.144

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

76 The Bolshevik Regime

The Prague SRs felt their belief that the peasants would try to take over the regime at the grass roots level was being conﬁrmed. It seemed peasants were attempting to elect their own candidates and were challenging the electoral procedures. The SRs accepted that this political activity was autonomous and did not claim to be directing it. The ‘typically Russian phenomenon’ of the ‘closedness’ of the village, which Russia’s rulers had come up traditionally come up against, was beginning to crack.145 They chronicled the regime’s concerns that, in Zinoviev’s words, ‘the scissors are seeking, or rather, are beginning to seek their political expression’ and their fear of peasant demands for participation and greater democracy, even for the return of Peasant Unions.146 For Prague SRs the growth of the United Opposition and the haste to be done with NEP was partly caused by fear of this peasant self-realisation. However some studies of peasant organisation in the mid 1920s suggest that the peasants were not using the soviets to challenge the distribution of power but ignoring them entirely. The commune gathering, or skhod, continued to run the affairs of the village, and the soviet, such as it had an existence, was dependent on it.147 If this is true, the SR tactic was destined to fail. In addition, the more inclusive ‘Face to the Countryside’ campaign was relatively short-lived. The manifestations of political activity so pleasing to the SRs were not well received by the regime, even if they had seemed to elicit them. From the summer of 1925, emphasis was again put on strengthening the Party in the village soviets and the alliance with the poor peasants, and ‘revitalisation of the soviets’ came to mean, in Molotov’s words, a ‘full seizure of all the state apparatus by the working class’.148 Conclusion The SRs viewed the Bolsheviks as hostage to the paradox of being a workers’ party in a peasant country. They outlined contours of popular resistance and claimed the constellation of social forces would decide Russia’s future. They believed the Bolshevik regime would be forced into an impasse by its inability to deal with the economic crises caused by its policies. ‘Life itself’, as Chernov never tired of saying, would force the Bolsheviks out. Bolshevism was the ‘great myth, the kingdom of social illusions’.149 There would also be a loss of support—‘a sobering up’—by the social groups seduced by its utopianism in 1917.150 The Party was not capable of evolving or abandoning its dictatorship. As the Soviet Union seemed to be collapsing in economic chaos in the late 1920s and the regime began splintering politically, its fall seemed inevitable. The Prague SRs felt that there could be no compromise between the peasantry and the regime, and therefore ‘life itself’ would force Bolshevism’s end. However, the peasantry did not erect barriers to state power. Ultimately the Stalinists forcibly settled the Marxist and narodnik debates. The SRs were to be disappointed in their hopes that the peasantry would be able to defeat the regime, as they had been

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Bolshevik Regime

77

disappointed by the nationalities’ desire to separate from Russia in 1917 and the intelligentsia’s acceptance of dictatorship during NEP. Did the SRs ever have a proper understanding of state power? Shanin comments that ‘the arrogation of authority was the main 1905 tactic of the radical opposition, testing as well as deﬁning anew and extending the frontiers of civil liberty in the face of a retreating government’.151 This suggested tactic of the ‘arrogation of authority’ was no longer appropriate for Russia in the 1920s. The narodnik tradition opposed the mechanistic determinism of Marxism with the belief that the historical process and social transformation is affected by the human will and voluntarism. In emigration Chernov and other SRs carried on in this belief. In a discussion of Chernov’s views up to 1922, Burbank offers a critique of the ‘fantasy of SR politics…denying the force of established power by suggesting that people could act for themselves and by themselves bring abstract principles to life’.152 SR thought saw self-activity (samodeyatel’nost) as the lever of social revolution, but in this period transformation of society took place through the state. The SRs seem to have been hypnotised by the numerical weakness of Bolshevik rule in the villages. It should be remembered perhaps that this is a judgement made with hindsight; after all, as Graziosi writes, the Bolshevik talent for state building was ‘one of the surprises of 1917’.153 As in 1917 the SRs underestimated the Bolsheviks. Despite 10 years of close observation, recognising that the regime survived through its political culture and the creation of revolutionary institutions, such as the Cheka, the GPU and the Komsomol, despite seeing the destruction of independent bases, despite being fully aware of what the regime wanted for itself, they did not believe it could bypass the peasantry and create the economic and social conditions for its own dictatorship. All the places they hoped resistance could grow were quickly dismantled by the Bolshevik regime. The cooperative movement was severely criticised by the Bolshevik Party from 1928 for failing to improve agriculture. Despite the role envisaged for it in Gosplan’s original moderate agricultural Five-Year Plan, it was ‘reorganised’ in the summer of 1929, purged and eventually bypassed in the collectivisation drive with the ‘corpse of Soviet agricultural cooperation…formally buried in December 1930 at the XVI Party Congress’.154 In 1928 the Commissariat of Agriculture was attacked, purged, reorganised and bypassed in the drive for collectivisation. Nikolai Kubiak, the new People’s Commissar for Agriculture, claimed that until the recent purge up to 60 per cent of the leadership of the krai and oblast’ branches of the Commissariat had been staffed by members of other parties, chieﬂy SRs.155 During dekulakisation and collectivisation the majority of village soviets were re-elected. In any case as Lewin points out ‘collectivisation was not carried out by the normal machinery of village administration, but by ad hoc bodies hastily mobilised for the purpose’.156 Thus when collectivisation began the SRs could only watch on as, in Lenin’s expression, the Bolsheviks managed yet again to grab hold of the link which pulls the chain of events.

78 The Bolshevik Regime

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

One can question why the SRs did not adopt a more radical stance. Apart from their assumption that the regime was too powerful, the Prague SRs, apart from Chernov, feared another catastrophic collapse of the Russian state as had happened between 1917 and 1921. As will be made clear in the following chapter, the intellectual and emotional context of emigration was not just revolution, but imperial collapse.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

5

The Socialist League of the New East

This chapter examines the split which happened between Chernov and the other Prague SRs in the late 1920s. The split is usually ascribed to émigré factionalism or to the heterogeneous nature of the Party. While other issues and personalities played a role, the deepest cause of the split was very serious: Chernov’s bold conceptualisation of the geopolitical space of the USSR as a series of independent nation-states. This proposal proved to be so explosive and unacceptable that Chernov became persona non gratis for many SRs and adherence to his Socialist League of the New East was considered incompatible with Party membership.1 The Armenian SR V. Minokhoryan wrote in 1928 that the main reason for the split in the Foreign Delegation had been ‘theoretical differences over the future structure of Russia, principally in relation to the national East’.2 Postnikov claimed that the split began when Chernov introduced Gurevich’s nationalities policy into Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya.3 The Czechoslovak government also disliked Chernov’s League, despite having itself been a prime beneﬁciary of the Wilsonian/Leninist thesis of the right to national self-determination. The position the Socialist League adopted on Ukrainian independence was one of the primary reasons that other SRs rejected it. The question of Ukrainian national identity is intimately bound up with the question of Russian national identity.4 The Socialist League was largely a project between Russian and Ukrainian SRs and it claimed that the Bolshevik regime was a Great Russian colonial oppressor of the other Soviet Republics.The idea that Ukraine had a colonial relationship to Russia was utterly unacceptable to the majority of SRs, as was the idea that Ukrainian separatism was a radical and progressive movement. The Prague SRs equally vehemently rejected the idea of Russia as a nation-state. Their views support the argument that most Russian intellectuals believed that the historical spaces of the empire were the only spaces in which Russians could exist and that the existence of this empire impeded and confused the formation of nationhood.5 The majority Prague SR position regarding the national question and Russian territorial integrity never wavered over time. In memoranda to the 1919 Versailles Peace Conference, appeals to the Socialist International and in articles, theses and

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

80 The Socialist League of the New East

Party meetings up until the Second World War and its aftermath they promoted the view that the Russian state was a unique multinational space that had formed largely organically and given economic and cultural beneﬁts to all the peoples which populated it. Great Russians had not been the dominant nationality in the empire. All separatist movements, but particularly the Ukrainian one, were devised by chauvinistic intelligentsias with the encouragement of foreign powers wishing to destroy Russia and colonise its borderlands. In these views, they barely differed from other political émigré groupings to their right, or from the position of the majority of the Russian intelligentsia of the late Imperial and revolutionary period. Émigré debates such as the one over the League, far from being irrelevant as often portrayed, are part of the history of Russian thought. They are important contributions to debates over Russian (and Ukrainian) national identity and the search for appropriate relations between Russia, its neighbours and its national minorities, a search which since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is as yet unresolved. Russian and Ukrainian émigré SRs were inﬂuenced by the interwar debates on national self-determination and on borders and relations between peoples. As has been argued in this book, they were interacting with general intellectual trends to a greater degree than is usually presented. The Programme of the Socialist League of the New East From the mid 1920s, the national question began to occupy more space in émigré journals, partly in reaction to the Bolshevik korenizatsia programme launched in 1923.6 Being in emigration gave those who wanted it the opportunity to reﬂect on Russia’s imperial past and there were varying attempts to understand the geographical and cultural spaces that made up Russia, the best known of which being Eurasianism. The Russian Empire had fractured violently along ethnic and national lines during the revolutionary period. Imperial collapse was also the context of emigration, not just the Bolshevik takeover and Civil War. The SR belief that the nationalities would voluntarily choose a close federal state structure with revolutionary Russia had proved to be false in 1917–21. SRs in the Provisional Government had been taken aback by the strength of Ukrainian national demands, which remained unsatisﬁed with the abolition of legal discrimination and declarations of equality and called for outright independence. The negative impressions of the deepening national crisis that Egor Lazarev expressed in a letter in 1919 to a friend in Switzerland clearly stayed with him all his life. He was one of the SRs most opposed to the League. A wild unbridledness of thought and passion has seized the nationalist intelligentsia. Finland, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia and even hard-labour (katorzhnaia) Siberia now dream of their independence and separation from ‘Great Russia’ or ‘Moskoviia’. The national struggle has joined the class struggle.7

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist League of the New East

81

In emigration, however, Chernov and Gurevich accepted the idea of working with democratic or socialist separatists, in particular Ukrainians. Many non-Russian subjects of the Empire ended up in emigration. Along with Kharkov, Kiev and Lvov, Prague was one of the main centres of Ukrainian interwar cultural, academic and political life.8 Many of the participants of the Ukrainian governments of 1917–21—the Central Rada, the Hetmanate, the Directory, the Ukrainian National Republic, the West Ukrainian National Republic and the Kuban National Republic—settled there. In 1921 the Ukrainian SR Mykyta Shapoval (1882–1932), then head of the Ukrainian Civic Committee in Prague appealed to Masaryk for the Ukrainian émigré community to be given aid separately from the Russians.9 Ukrainian educational, cultural and charitable institutions were established in Prague and there was sympathy for Ukrainian independence among Czech elites.10 Although the Czechs promoted good relations between the Russian and Ukrainian communities, there was tension between them given the predominance of Kadets in Prague. Most Ukrainian groups in Prague supported Ukrainian independence. The Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary Party (Ukrains’ka Partiia SotsialRevoliutsioneriv), the UPSR, called for a ‘Great Ukraine’ from the Caucasus to Subcarpathian Ruthenia. Another important group of nationalist émigrés were the Georgian Mensheviks who had governed the independent Georgian state until 1921. They had the support of the International, so the Prague SRs had to take them seriously. They had initially joined the League but then quickly withdrew.11 In a 1927 article Chernov rejected their argument that the Bolsheviks drew their support from the Russian heartland and that the Russian people had ‘organised themselves into the soviet system’.12 Noe Zhordaniya, the Georgian Menshevik leader, had written that the Red Army was a Russian army carrying out the goals of Russian imperialism and that all the territories of the Soviet Union apart from the Russian Federation were under occupation. Chernov replied that Bolshevism had been a European phenomenon with Soviet Republics in Germany and Hungary. Russian peasants had fought against the Bolsheviks as well as against the White dictatorships. The Bolsheviks had relied on the Latvian Riﬂemen and Russian sailors, few of who came from the Black Earth regions. In 1917–1921 Russia had become consumed by a kind of ‘Bolshevism of uprootedness (bezpochvennosti) and the déclassé’ during which the socially declassed had merged with the nationally declassed—Latvians, Chinese and Hungarian and German prisoners of war—in support of Bolshevism.13 Russia was also occupied by the Bolsheviks, who drew their membership from across the Soviet Union—not least of all from the Georgians. However, as will be seen below, the Ukrainian SRs in the Socialist League of a New East with whom Chernov aligned himself argued that the Bolsheviks had formed a national government (that is, Russian); this was one reason why the League was so unacceptable to the Prague SRs. In 1926 Chernov formed the Socialist League of a New East (Sotsialisticheskaya Liga Novogo Vostoka) with Russian SRs Vissarion Gurevich and Georgii Shreider,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

82 The Socialist League of the New East

whose biographies were outlined in Chapter 2, and Ukrainian SRs Mykyta Shapoval, Nykyfor Hryhoriiv and Mykyta Mandryka.14 They were joined by a handful of other Russian SRs, Ukrainian and Byelorussian SRs, Byelorussian Socialist-Federalists and Armenian Dashnyaks. The other Prague SRs accused Chernov of organising the League secretly and claimed they had only heard of it when its programme was published in autumn 1927. The League published two editions of a journal, the Vestnik Sotsialisticheskoi Ligy Novogo Vostoka (VSLNV), in 1928 and 1929. It also published a brochure in French that was distributed at the Congress of the International in Brussels in 1928.15 Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya promoted its programme as well. The Socialist League aimed to create a space for dialogue over future relations between the peoples of the ‘New East’ (the Soviet Union and Central Eastern Europe).16 It saw the peaceful resolution of inter-ethnic relations in the region as key to European stability. In their view, the region was trapped between two aggressive imperialist systems; on the one hand Bolshevism, and on the other fascism, which they viewed as the ‘bourgeois-imperialist’ response to it.17 The Socialist League appealed to the peoples of the USSR, including Russians, to overthrow the Bolshevik regime, which was oppressing them nationally. They dismissed the Bolshevik indigenisation policy as a cynical attempt to cover up the regime’s ‘anti-national nature’.18 They called for a complete reorganisation of the Soviet Union on the principle of national self-determination. Each nationality should have: The complete freedom to decide their own political fates, to build their own state and live completely independently, or if they choose, to live in a multiethnic state. The right to full separation and the establishment of their own state is recognised for all the peoples of the former Russian Empire.’19 Russia would be one of those nation states. The formation of their own nation state was in the interests of ethnic Russians, who would beneﬁt from improved relations with the states around them.20 The Socialist League also believed that non-Russian nationalities in the Russian Federation should eventually be given the option of complete separation. They insisted that their aim was not to create new nationalities but to have better relations between those that did exist. In order for independence, a nationality needed to have some viability, although no deﬁnition of this was provided.21 The League’s programme repudiated any revision of the Treaty of Versailles. The Baltic States, Poland and Finland should keep their independence. More controversial was their view that Armenians, Belorussians, Georgians and Ukrainians had clearly expressed a desire for independence during the Civil War and this should be granted unconditionally when Bolshevism fell. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should also be granted independence.22 Nationalities whose territory was currently divided between several states would have the possibility of uniting into a single state

The Socialist League of the New East

83

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

structure (that is, a ‘Great Ukraine’).23 Once the Soviet Republics had achieved independence, it was hoped they would voluntarily reunite in a new form of supra-state organisation, or ‘Free Union’, possibly joined by other states in the region. This Free Union would establish customs treaties, guarantee borders, protect minority rights and formulate a joint foreign policy.24 The League rejected the name ‘Russia’ for this area and suggested instead alternatives such as ‘New East’, ‘Eastern Europe’ or the ‘Free Union of the National Republics of the East’.25 The Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary Party During 1917 the UPSR had adopted an increasingly radical position on the national question, moving from federalism to calling for complete independence. Its members clearly diverged from the Russian SRs in the Provisional Government, which insisted on delaying the question of the future state structure until the Constituent Assembly and opposed Ukrainian independence.26 The Ukrainian SRs in Prague wanted an independent socialist Ukraine, describing their position as anti-Bolshevik and equally opposed to what they termed the ‘bourgeois-nationalist’ (Petliurovshchina) and the ‘bourgeois-democratic, bourgeois-fascist and landowner-monarchical understandings of the Ukrainian movement’.27 They argued that during the revolution ‘the national element in the behaviour of the Bolsheviks was unquestionable’ and that the Bolshevik regime was ‘the executive organ of a united Russian national front’.28 They also argued that because of the Ukrainian social structure, the ﬁght for Ukrainian independence was a radical social struggle against a colonial power, similar to those taking place in Africa and Asia against European imperialism. According to Shapoval, Ukrainians were a ‘socially incomplete’ nation.29 While 90 per cent of Ukrainians worked in agriculture, non-Ukrainians (Poles, Russians, Jews, Rumanians and Hungarians) dominated urban areas and controlled politics and administration, industry, trade, ﬁnance, transport, education and high culture. Ukrainians who did live in towns were usually servants, manual workers, or artisans, lower-level members of the intelligentsia or petty traders. This was classic colonialism; the rural poor working for a metropolis whose population were ethnically and linguistically different. Ukraine was a colony divided between several states (the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Rumania) and in the same position as India or Senegal.30 Ukrainians were ‘a labouring class, socially oppressed by a commanding class’ so their national struggle was also a radical social struggle.31 Shapoval claimed he feared for the extinction of Ukrainians unless they freed themselves from alien rule. In America in the late 1920s he warned Ukrainian immigrants that the fate of their compatriots back home could be that of the Native Americans.32 A 1926 speech to the Socialist League by Mandryka gives a further picture of the group’s thinking. Referring to 1917 as the ‘Great National-Liberation Revolution’,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

84 The Socialist League of the New East

he drew a parallel between the Ukrainian independence movement and the Russian revolutionary movement of the 1860s, ‘because what is an Empire if not a great estate or a dominion?’33 In 1917 the nationalities had been liberated from the Empire, just as the peasants had been liberated from serfdom in the 1860s. He accused those who held to the idea of ‘One and Indivisible Russia’ of having a ‘landowner mentality’.34 This analogy must have been particularly unpalatable to Russian socialists whose identity was bound up with the revolutionary movement and the Russian peasantry. Mandryka expressed Ukrainian SR anger and bitterness at the SRs in the Provisional Government for refusing to grant Ukrainian independence in 1917 and insisted that Ukrainians had been ﬁghting then for their national freedom. There could be no union with Russia until Ukraine ﬁrst became independent.35 Why did Chernov and Gurevich link up with the Ukrainian SRs? Part of the answer seems to be that they drew different lessons from the experiences of the revolution and Civil War. At the 1922 Party Conference they already adopted a different stance on the national question from fellow Party members. Gurevich stated that Ukraine was the main centre of separatism and therefore key to the future of the USSR.36 He warned that ‘processes of Ukrainization within the country (i.e. Soviet Ukraine) correspond to the work of Ukrainians outside for the creation of an independent Ukrainian culture’.37 He urged SRs to accept Ukraine’s right to independence in principle, with the hope that a confederation with Russia would come. If Russians refused to accept Ukraine’s right to independence, they would have no inﬂuence over it.38 Chernov also urged delegates to accept the ‘difﬁcult and painful fact’ that some regions really did want to separate from Russia.39 At this stage, however, Gurevich stressed the historical links between the peoples settling the Russian state as it had existed in 1917. He also still saw Russia’s role as a ‘protector’ over the borderlands, to save them from becoming an economic colony for the industrialized west. In 1924 Chernov and Gurevich met the Polish Socialist Party to discuss relations between Poland and Russia. Their views at this time were still slightly more moderate than those that the Socialist League would adopt two years later. They would accept Ukrainian and Byelorussian independence if it was voted for in a plebiscite but hoped this would not happen and would only support independence if they felt it was in Russia’s interests.40 A federation was their preferred solution. They stated that the three East Slav nations, Russians, Ukrainians and Belorussians, had a unique bond.41 They did not accept the borders established by the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921 and insisted that Russia should be consulted in any decisions on Ukrainian–Polish borders. They hoped that Poland and the Baltic states would one day reunite with Russia in some form.42 Their views clearly shifted to a more radical stance over years of reﬂecting on the past, working with Ukrainian SRs and in response to the korenizatsiia programme in the Ukrainian SSR in the mid 1920s. It should be noted that Ukrainian SRs were moderate compared with other Ukrainian

The Socialist League of the New East

85

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

nationalists. They acknowledged that Russia and Ukraine had close historic ties and the Socialist League advocated good future relations in the form of the ‘Free Union’. The Czechoslovak government ﬁnanced the Ukrainian SR journal Nova Ukraina in the 1920s precisely because of its positive attitude to future relations with Russia.43 The majority of the Prague SRs refused to re-evaluate their positions from 1917 stating even in 1931 that they had been correct to delay the decision on Russia’s new state structure until the Constituent Assembly, and to ‘refuse to go ahead recklessly to meet all unorganised centrifugal forces’ even though this decision had cost them dearly in popularity.44 The SRs, the Russian Imperial Past and the National Question The Socialist League had a hostile reception. The Russian émigré press accused Chernov of working with Ukrainian and Byelorussian separatists for the ‘liquidation of Russia’.45 The Ukrainian press accused the League’s Ukrainian members of collaborating with Russian socialists and betraying the Ukrainian cause.46 The reception from other Prague SRs was also hostile. They characterised the League’s programme as ‘anarchism’, ‘fantastical and arbitrary’ and a ‘declaration of war’ on the federal principle of narodnichestvo and the SR Party programme.47 SRs in Harbin wrote to Chernov in 1927 that the Socialist League was the most difﬁcult of all their many disagreements with him.48 They considered it a radical revision of the Party programme, which he had no right to make.49 They did not understand why he would risk Party unity in favour of an alliance with nationalist separatists, warning him that ‘your “Free Union” will never satisfy their appetites’.50 Lazarev wrote to the Menshevik leader Fyodor Dan that ‘Chernov has fallen in with a real bunch of demagogues, foaming at the mouth…that cannot even bear to hear the word “Russia”’.51 Volya Rossii ridiculed Chernov’s transformation from Zimmerwaldist internationalist to a ‘healthy nationalist who cannot live under the same roof as Ukrainians, Uzbeks and perhaps not even Buriats’.52 At the 1928 Paris Congress the Prague SR Group put forward the thesis that ‘in the current historical circumstances the principle of the self-determination of nations is demagogy’.53 In a rare show of support for the Soviet government they announced that the SR Party ‘considers the national question in Russia has on the whole been satisfactorily resolved’.54 The task for the future was not the break-up of the Soviet Union, but the reincorporation of the ‘Russian’ oblasts populated by Ukrainians, Russians, Byelorussians and Armenians lost in post-war treaties.55 One of the few points that all delegates to the 1928 Congress agreed on was a rejection of the League, ‘whose activity is aimed at the breaking up of Russia as a federation of peoples’.56 Theses on the National Question drawn up by Prague SRs in 1931 supported the structure of the USSR, which ‘despite all the imperfections of dictatorial Bolshevik policy serves the political, cultural and economic development of the many nationalities’.57

86 The Socialist League of the New East

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SRs accepted the right to self-determination in principle, yet believed the future replacement for the USSR should be a democratic federal republic with wide cultural and political autonomy for minorities.58 Why was the SR attachment to federalism so strong? Apart from a socialist dislike of nationalism, behind their attachment was their belief that the Russian Empire had formed largely in a peaceful and ‘natural’ way. Here the inﬂuence of nineteenth-century Russian historiography on their thinking can be seen. A letter from a Party member in London to Gurevich rejecting the Socialist League shows this. The author refused to contemplate the dissolution of the USSR on any grounds. He wrote that: If you start dividing up Russia by historical claims, all that will be left will be Moscow oblast’ and the upper Volga region. You’ve even found yourself some ‘historians’ in Prague who have announced that the Don Cossacks are a separate ‘people’...I also reject all arguments of a sentimental type, by which I particularly mean those connected with habits and ways of life…The question of state independence should not hang on the fact that the khokhol prefers galushki, wears wide trousers and lapti and eats pickled cabbage, but the Siberian eats pelmeni and brondi…Surely even the most ardent samostiiniki must admit that the peoples settling Russia are linked by a thousand different tightly woven threads of communality and a singularity of economic interests…This communality was not the result of the predatory policies of the Tsar and his court… the process was elemental and the ‘Tsars’ were merely its executors.59 The eminent historian Vasilii Klyuchevskii (1841–1911) has been recognised as playing a leading role in the formation of the worldview of the Russian intelligentsia. In his monumental work Kurs russkoi istorii (1904–10), Klyuchevskii downplayed the imperial nature of the Russian state and suggested that the creation of a unitary state within the ‘natural’ boundaries of the Russian Empire was Russia’s ‘manifest destiny’.60 Vera Tolz comments on how Klyuchevskii ‘employed one of the most common myths of imperial European historians—the myth of an organic territorial expansion and of the original emptiness of a colonised area’ and argues that his inﬂuence has been paramount in the creation of Russian (and Soviet) identity.61 As regards Ukraine, Klyuchevskii saw Kievan Rus’ as the antecedent of the Russian state and posited the original national unity of all Eastern Slavs. While acknowledging that territorial expansion elsewhere was driven by colonisation and war, he wrote of ‘re-establishing the national and political unity of the Rus’ lands’.62 He incorporated into his work the thesis of the Pan-Slavist historian Mikhail Pogodin that Great Russians, and not Ukrainians, were the inhabitants of Kievan Rus’ (and therefore the creators of its high culture).63 The London SR referred to this historiography when he ended his letter by lecturing Gurevich: ‘As you are quite aware, all the peoples who became linked with Russia beneﬁtted economically from being united in one state that takes up one sixth of the world’s

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist League of the New East

87

surface; this fact has been conﬁrmed by Russian historical science. It scarcely needs expanding on.’64 The SRs were inﬂuenced by Klyuchevskii. They frequently quoted his famous phrase that ‘the state swelled, while the people grew thin’ (gosudarstva pukhlo, a narod khirel). Stalinskii praised ‘our ﬁnest historian’ Klyuchevskii, ‘whose analytical genius not only shone a blinding light on Russia’s past, but also provided the key to understanding the events of our revolutionary period’.65 Stalinskii wrote that until 1709 the expansion of the Russian state had been peaceful, as ‘the Tsars of the old Muscovite dynasty having uniﬁed Great Russia set themselves the task of restoring the political and national unity of Russia, which had been smashed by the blows of the Tatars and Lithuanians’.66 This is the traditional view that the beginnings of the incorporation of Ukraine into the Empire with the Treaty of Pereiaslav in 1654 had been a natural ‘task’—the ‘gathering of the Russian lands’. Stalinskii elsewhere argued that: over a historical period, various neighbouring nationalities created a single multi-ethnic state, which has given rise to common economic, cultural and political interests…the formation of the Russian state as it existed prior to 1918 cannot be explained simply by the expansionist policies of Moscow and Petersburg, but also by the interests of the peoples themselves who made up that state.67 In a speech to the 1931 Prague Conference, Nikolai Novozhilov promoted similar ideas, stating categorically that ‘Russia was never a prison-house of peoples. It was created organically and its history to a large degree was formed by its geography’.68 Another argument the SRs used in favour of federation was that Russia’s economic wealth and assets were the patrimony of all the peoples of the state and could not be given to newly independent states. Lazarev insisted that Ukrainian nationalists had no right to railways, sugar plantations and factories to which ‘all inhabitants of Russia have contributed’.69 The SRs had described negotiations at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 over the recognition of the new states as ‘the sale of Russia on the free market’, particularly as economic concessions for the West formed a part of these negotiations.70 The League’s members did not believe nationalism could be satisﬁed by cultural or political autonomy, but demanded independence.71 Their stance was similar to that of Lenin during 1917–1921 who adopted the position that the nationalism of the oppressed was progressive, while Great Russian nationalism was chauvinistic. This was also a reason why SRs rejected it; it had been the programme of their nemesis. The SRs also denied that the term ‘colonialism’ was appropriate for the Russian Empire. They insisted that ethnic Russians had not dominated the other nationalities. It was widely agreed among SRs that ethnic Russians were the least nationalistic people in the world. Sukhomlin wrote that imperialism was entirely alien to

88 The Socialist League of the New East

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Russians, who were ‘essentially extremely peace-loving, attached to their own localities, indifferent to glory and totally disinterested in military conquest’.72 Marc Slonim described the patriotism of his fellow editor of Volia Rossii, Lebedev in such a way that presented it as the opposite: He had a “Russian spirit” because he was deeply Russian. However, at the same time I have never known anyone who rejected to such a high degree all differences of faith, race or religion…Lebedev’s patriotism never had the slightest hint of chauvinism or national isolationism. He simply loved Russia, believed in its strengths, delighted in its successes, celebrated the talents and patience of its people and defended their interests and dignity.73 A 1924 article by Slonim encapsulates well the SR viewpoint, with its interpretation of Civil War developments and the inﬂuence of imperial Russian historiography. He wrote that the annexation of Bessarabia by Rumania in 1918 had been an illegal act, devised by the German High Command and endorsed at the Paris Peace Conference to weaken Russia and build a cordon sanitaire around Bolshevism.74 There was no popular support for this act among Moldovan peasants. Intellectuals had invented a ‘Moldovan consciousnesses and Russians who supported them had lost any sense of “personal or national dignity”’.75 The Bolsheviks had encouraged independence in an attempt to create chaos, which they then used to their own advantage. Bessarabia’s incorporation into the Russian Empire had been a progressive act as this had rescued it from Moslem Turks and feudal boyars. ‘Rumania’, a late nineteenth-century invention, had not even existed at this point. Bessarabia owed all its economic development to Russia, the beneﬁts of which could not be handed over to another state to enjoy. All its exports had gone through Odessa and it had made up a single economic region with Ukraine and New Russia. Bessarabia’s mixture of ethnicities would be better off as part of a multi-ethnic federation, rather than as national minorities in a nation-state. Slonim ﬁnished by stating that the SRs did not consider the annexation binding.76 The status of Ukraine was the key issue between the SRs and the Socialist League. The Prague SR programme for Ukrainian–Russian relations was ‘peaceful coexistence under one state roof ’.77 Sukhomlin insisted that ‘Ukrainian and Russian workers and peasants (together with other nationalities) must build a common state and must pursue a common policy…they do not have, and cannot have, any antagonisms, not cultural, nor economic, nor national’.78 He furiously disputed the Ukrainian SR claim that Bolshevism was a Russian phenomenon with no social or psychological roots in Ukraine, ‘as though Ukrainian soldiers, workers and peasants had wanted to continue the war with Germany, and had never even for a second been swayed by Bolshevik demagogy’.79 He also rejected the idea that the Bolshevik regime was an occupying power imposing a colonial regime in Ukraine. The social structure of left bank Ukraine was the same as in central Russia and ‘historical development created the same conditions for Bolshevism by the banks of the Dnepr

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist League of the New East

89

as it did by the banks of the Neva and the Volga’.80 Ukrainian sailors in the Baltic Fleet had supported Bolshevism and ‘the majority of the Ukrainian intelligentsia – including the nationalist part – accepted Leninist political “methods” as easily as part of the “Great Russian” intelligentsia’.81 The SRs generally saw Ukrainian separatists as traitors, willing to ally themselves with Russia’s traditional enemies England, Germany, Poland and Turkey. In a memorandum to the Paris Peace Conference, Paris and Prague SRs had insisted that the ‘phantom’ governments that had arisen on Russian territory as a result of ‘intrigues by German imperialism’ should not be given international support.82 The SRs believed it had only been the Civil War and German intervention that had given strength to a Ukrainian separatist movement. They rejected the idea that ordinary Ukrainians sought independence or that independence was in their interests. They would only accept that there had been popular support for independence in Georgia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finland and Poland.83 In a letter to Masaryk, Lazarev claimed the growth of Ukrainian nationalism was largely a consequence of Tsarist measures against Ukrainian cultural activity such as the Valuev Circular of 1863 and the Ems Decree of 1876, and presumably therefore reversible or containable within the framework of cultural autonomy.84 The Socialist League rejected ‘levelling cosmopolitanism’ in favour of ‘healthy nationalism’ and socialism.85 Other SRs opposed the idea that the Ukrainian independence movement was socialist. Volya Rossii called Shapoval a ‘petty-bourgeois nationalist’, whose message to the Ukrainian people beneath all his leftist anti-colonial posturing, was ‘We’ve got wheat, we’ve got coal from the Don, we’ve got the Black Sea; we’ve got enough to get by without Moskalia’.86 Lazarev warned Masaryk of the dangers posed to Russia and Czechoslovakia by Ukrainian nationalists such as the Ukrainian SRs. He told him that they were not socialists, but the Ukrainian nobility (shlyachta), who want the formation of a Great Ukraine from Subcarpathian Ruthenia all the way to the Kuban and the Caucasus. We should not forget that all these national chauvinists and separatists are concerned not so much with national self-determination, but the oppression of other nationalities in the interests of the creation of a “Great Ukraine”, “Great Belorussia”, and “Great Georgia” and so on.87 Sukhomlin accused Ukrainian separatists of seeking support from foreign powers by promising to break up the USSR and form a separate Ukrainian state to ‘serve the interests of British, Italian, German and general “West European” policy against Russia’.88 The SRs had been furious with Ukrainian SRs for seeking support for Ukrainian independence from European socialist parties in the International in 1919.89 These responses were the typical responses of many Russians towards assertions of a separate Ukrainian national identity. Throughout the history of Russian–Ukrainian relationships, many Russians would see Ukrainians who sought

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

90 The Socialist League of the New East

independence as treacherous, with Mazeppa as the traitor par excellence.90 As the SRs believed the Russian Empire had formed a natural ‘whole’, the Soviet Union would have to be smashed apart in order for an independent Ukraine to come into being. Arguments over the Socialist League took place during the 1927 War Scare between the United Kingdom and the USSR. The SRs felt that the Bolshevik regime had made Russia vulnerable by isolating it internationally and creating enemies who wished to ‘dismember, surround and exploit her’.91 They suspected that Ukrainian nationalists were involved in secret negotiations with the British government.92 Sukhomlin also accused the Georgian Mensheviks of hoping for a war to achieve independence.93 The SRs believed that the Socialist League, far from aiding the resolution of national problems, was encouraging violence. In debates in 1931 they expressed the view that Russia’s enemies were stirring up nationalist feelings and creating an ‘unhealthy psychology’.94 SR fears about Ukrainian separatists and foreign governments were given added urgency with Hitler’s rise to power. In 1932 the Prague SRs issued a warning that Hitler was calculating on using separatism to create an ‘independent’ fascist Ukraine as a platform from which to attack Russia.95 As noted earlier, arguments between Russian and Ukrainian SRs were not entirely abstract in Czechoslovakia. The region of Subcarpathian Ruthenia became an émigré battleground. This impoverished area had been incorporated into Czechoslovakia in 1919. There had long been academic and political disagreement over whether the population was Russian, Ukrainian, Belorussian or formed a fourth East Slavonic group. These debates became caught up in power struggles between Russian and Ukrainian émigrés, who attempted either to ‘Russify’ or ‘Ukrainise’ the region. Russian SRs struggled not only against ‘Ukrainisation’ but also against monarchists, Kadets and Orthodox monks in the region. Lazarev petitioned the Czechoslovak government to allow ‘the Russian democratic intelligentsia’ to settle there.96 The ‘Grandmother of the Russian Revolution’, SR Ekaterina BreshkoBreshkovskaia, moved to Uzhgorod, the regional capital. She ran a publishing house as well as schools for children of Russian ex-POWs. In 1923 Prague SR Nikolai Voronovich was sent there to run a local Zemgor. He hoped to recruit new members for the SR Party.97 While he was trying to convert local Ruthenes into Russian SRs, Shapoval’s ‘Platform of the Sub-Carpathian SRs’ and ‘Program of the SR Party in Sub-Carpathia’ called for total national-territorial autonomy for ‘RuthenianUkrainians’ and for the use of Ukrainian as the ofﬁcial language.98 Ukrainian SRs promoted the region’s future incorporation into an independent Ukraine. Lazarev wrote to Masaryk that Ukrainian nationalists like Shapoval were ‘a fresh danger and source of anxiety for the young Republic’.99 In a burst of Pan-Slav idealism, he insisted that the Ruthenians ‘under Hungarian oppression…preserved the memory that they belonged to the family of Slavonic peoples, the older and more powerful brother of whom is the RUSSIAN people and Russia. This became something almost like a religious faith. This is the source of their sympathy and love towards Russia’.100 While Russophiles were following cultural and educational aims, ‘the “Ukrainophiles”

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist League of the New East

91

strive to teach the Ruthenians in order to later incorporate them into their Great Ukraine’.101 Lazarev tried to persuade Masaryk that Russian should be the ofﬁcial language as it possessed a world literature.102 This is another example of SRs refusing to acknowledge their own nationalism, while being highly critical of others. Relations between Russian and Ukrainian SRs soured further in 1927 when the Ukrainian SRs condemned the assassination of Petliura by a Jewish activist in revenge for Civil War pogroms as a ‘senseless crime’.103 They seemed to put ‘Jewish Ukrainophobia’ on a par with anti-Semitism by claiming that anti-Ukrainian pogroms had also taken place and the Jewish bourgeoisie had proﬁted from them.104 The status of Ukraine mattered because of the implication it had for Russian national identity. To admit that Ukrainians were not Russians would have meant SRs accepting that Russians were only Russians. The SRs rejected the idea of a Russian nation-state and genuinely believed that an ‘all-Russian’ culture or identity had been created. Novozhilov declared that ‘All nations contributed to Russian culture. “Russian” does not mean Great Russian or Little Russian but is an amalgam of very complex elements. I am a Russian and nobody can make me declare that I am a “Great Russian”’.105 Sukhomlin objected to being told by the ‘extreme nationalists of the UPSR’ that he was no longer to be a ‘Russian’ (rossiiskii) socialist but a ‘nationalist-Great Russian socialist’.106 The League described the Prague SR response to their programme as ‘Great Power socialism’ or ‘Great Power lamentations’, which left them barely distinguishable from monarchists and Kadets. Gurevich pointed out that their conception of Russia was not a uniﬁed territory where ethnic Russians and/or Russian speakers formed a majority, but a ‘historical-geographical term signifying the whole complex of lands which found themselves under the sceptre of the Romanovs, although even the Romanovs listed them separately in their ‘Grand’ title’.107 The so-called ‘eternal ties’ between the peoples of the empire had been forged by a series of wars and paciﬁcation and the idea of the Russian state’s natural or organic growth was ‘mystically expressed Imperialism’.108 He accused the other SRs of ignoring the USSR’s structure and the change in national consciousness over the last decade. Federalism was no longer an option. 1917 had seen not the federation of the Russian Empire, but its collapse and a series of independent states had managed to form, while other nationalities had expressed their desire for independence. The Soviet Union as it currently stood was a union of states and republics with (admittedly nominal) juridical independence, a super-state structure, in theory a ‘dismembered whole’. How, asked Gurevich, could one go in the future from this to a closer federation?109 Wanting to keep a single federal state structure with the name Russia (which the SRs refused to give up) was nothing other than ‘the purest form of Russian nationalist imperialism’. National liberation movements could no longer be dismissed as a result of the ‘separatist agitation of the unreliable socialist intelligentsia’.110 Russian socialists must in particular accept that Ukrainians and Belorussians were not the ‘Russian people’.111

92 The Socialist League of the New East

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Conclusion One of the Socialist League’s aims had been to change the way the national question was discussed so that it was no longer an emotional debate ‘for or against separation from Russia’, but about how to achieve good relations between all the nationalities of Eastern Europe.112 Within the SR Party this proved impossible; the implications of the breakup of the Soviet Union into independent nation-states was a step too far for most SRs. The split was bitter and never really healed. The demand that nationalities living in separate states should be united in their own state proved detrimental to Chernov. It was unacceptable to the Czechoslovak government, wrestling with its own minorities’ problem, and in 1929 the Foreign Ministry decided they no longer wished to ﬁnance the publication of Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya because: Chernov is one of the organisers of the so-called League of Eastern Peoples (sic). The League upholds a programme of the consistent self-determination of nations to the point of separation (they of course recommend a federal system but basically accept separation). Chernov ﬁnds himself in sharp disagreement with his erstwhile party of SRs, who have formed a united front against him…from Volya Rossii to Sovr. Zapiski. For us, this programme is awkward as it encompasses Central Europe (in the initial draft of the programme there was the demand for an Anschluss if Germany is democratic and the draft also makes a veiled reference to Sub-Carpathian Ruthenia)…As for Chernov there are no grounds to suppose that he has any reason to go against us. It is a concern though that those who are hostile to us could use the movement.113 Despite the personal and political consequences of the Socialist League’s formation, Chernov, ever the optimist, never gave up his unpopular position. What led Chernov to develop this radical and pluralistic programme? In the interwar period borders, state structures and relations between nations and nationalities were all widely debated in the search for European peace and stability. Both Prague SRs and the League’s members were interested in the models of the British Commonwealth and the League of Nations. Decolonisation was a growing force, although it would not gain decisive inﬂuence until after the Second World War. ‘The twentieth century will resound with the noise of the rebirth of rural nations, including the Asiatic ones’, Shapoval prophesised.114 It was natural for Chernov to see a role for the SR Party as defender and liberator of the colonial peoples, starting with those of the former Russian Empire as well as peasant interwar Central Europe. After all, as Walicki comments narodnichestvo had been: an ideological reﬂection of the speciﬁc features of the economic and social development of the “latecomers”, of the backward agrarian countries, carrying out the process of modernisation in conditions created by coexistence with

The Socialist League of the New East

93

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

highly industrialised capitalist states…it was one of the ﬁrst attempts at a theoretical explanation of the speciﬁc features of economic backwardness.115 As narodnichestvo was an ideology which viewed peasants positively, Chernov may have believed it would have more appeal in these areas than Bolshevism. Other émigrés also responded to European ideas; Mark Bassin has shown how debates on colonialism inﬂuenced Eurasianism.116 The inﬂuence of Chernov’s stay in Czechoslovakia can be taken into account. The Czechs were after all ‘the very inventors of the word “nation”’, as noted by von Trotta in Joseph Roth’s lament for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, The Radetsky March.117 Chernov could see nationalities problems in Central Eastern Europe, which allowed him to look at Russia in a new way, not as totally unique but as part of a larger whole. As argued, Russian émigrés interacted with general political developments more than is usually presented. Chernov’s project is evidence that the emigration, far from being insular, was an ‘alternative laboratory of modernity, whose relative freedom and crossfertilisation of national traditions allowed an intense production of political and social concepts of modernity’.118 Most nationalist movements during the Civil War were inchoate and arose rapidly in response to events. With a few exceptions they achieved their aims because of outside support.119 They took the SRs by surprise and they blamed the Bolsheviks for encouraging them in a push for power. Chernov, however, saw that once these nationalist movements had begun there was no way back. Gurevich had been the Minister of the Interior in the Provisional Government, responsible for nationalities’ policy, so had ﬁrsthand experience of how important this question had become. The impact of the Civil War period on the Prague SRs has been outlined. One speaker at the Prague Conference in 1931 remarked during debates on the national question that: I lived in Georgia for two years when it was independent. There was no socialism there whatsoever, but my God, what nationalism there was! That was a real ‘Great Power’ attitude to their neighbours, the oppression of the ‘small’ nationalities.120 Although the SRs focused on the Civil War, it was in fact the First World War that gave impetus to a new focus on ethnicity and national identity in the Russian Empire (including among Russian SRs) and transformed the political environment.121 Although the SRs were seen usually as traitors by most other émigrés, they were typical in their attitude towards Ukrainian independence. The émigré philosopher Georgii Fedotov noted that ‘the awakening of Ukraine…amazed the Russian intelligentsia and to the end remained incomprehensible’.122 General Denikin wrote in 1930, ‘Where did so many Ukrainians come from?’123 The SRs also shared with other émigrés a sense of betrayal by the Allies. It is clear that this inﬂuenced their attitude to the national question. Russia’s exclusion from the Paris

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

94 The Socialist League of the New East

Peace Conference and Allied recognition of the new states caused anger among many émigrés. The perceived betrayal made some SRs regret supporting the continuation of the war. In 1931 Sergei Postnikov wrote that the SRs should have had the courage to pull out unilaterally as the Bolsheviks had done, ‘instead of playing the noble Don Quixote in relation to the Allies, who as subsequent events showed managed without Russia and very quickly forgot all about her services and her rights’.124 The majority SR position is ambiguous: were they internationalists or Russian nationalists? Was their view of the generally peaceful evolution of the Russian state, and their desire to preserve the territorial integrity of the Soviet Union, masking the violence and exploitation of empire? Were they using the device of ‘defending the Russian Empire by denying its existence?’125 Stalinskii accepted that nationalities had been oppressed under Tsarism while simultaneously claiming that ‘the expansion of Russian (rossiiskii) territory reached its natural borders in the nineteenth century’.126 This ambiguity was another part of their narodnik legacy along with the commune and the cooperatives. The national question became another weapon in the SR battle over who had the right to call themselves representatives of the Party in Russia. The League argued that the 1st Congress in 1906 had called for the right of unconditional self-determination and that the Party had given the impetus to the formation of national socialist movements in late Tsarist Russia.127 All the other Prague SRs strenuously denied that the League’s programme was in the party spirit, or in the spirit of the Russian revolutionary movement. Lazarev wrote that: The Russian intelligentsia from the time of the Emancipation of the Serfs, always fought for the widest village, volost’, uezd’, gubernial and oblast’ SELFRULE, but never allowed for the splintering of the state.128 Elena Hollberg-Hirn writes that although imperial expansion coincided in time with the years of growing radicalisation among the Russian intelligentsia it was ignored by Slavophile, radical democrat, and populist discourse. ‘The paradox of the Russian radicals of the 1840s, 1850s and 1860s placidly accepting the Empire’s continuing expansion has never been explored yet it deserves a separate study’.129 More research should account for ‘the ambiguous position of Russian intellectuals… whose traditionalism, nationalism, individualism and cosmopolitanism formed a single complex amalgam’.130 Marc Raeff comments on how Russian elites thought of themselves as ‘foxes’, supporting cultural pluralism, but in reality were ‘hedgehogs’, defending integration into one ‘all-Russian’ political culture.131 In 1917 the SRs had divided over the nationalities issue, and their development in emigration can be looked at in light of Radkey’s comments about the illusory nature of SR dominance in the Constituent Assembly, as the non-Russian SR parties would have broken with the Russian one over this issue.132 Could they have stabilised the region if they refused to accept separatism, as the Bolsheviks initially did? The editors of Volya Rossii had been defensists and on the centre right of the Party in

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Socialist League of the New East

95

1917; what pushed them over to the left was foreign intervention and the perceived betrayal at the Paris Peace Conference. Sukhomlin wrote in 1919 to the Central Committee in Russia that foreign intervention was an excuse to ‘turn Russia into an object of diplomatic bartering’ and the ‘destruction of Russia’s independent existence and its division’.133 When one looks at émigré debates about Russian space, it is clear that many émigrés, including the Prague SRs, feared Russia being reduced to a colonial status. One can imagine how much their thoughts were shared inside the Soviet Union. Their fears help us to see why the Stalinists’ fear of ‘capitalist encirclement’ and Russia’s need to catch up with and overtake the West (dognat’ i peregnat’) could have resonated so strongly among certain groups in Soviet society during the late 1920s. Many Russians continue to believe that Russia has vital interests in the states of the former Soviet Union. Ukrainian–Russian relations remain highly charged (although peaceful) and relations with Georgia are particularly tense and resulted in war in 2008. It is clear that such émigré debates as outlined here are part of the history of Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet political and intellectual life.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

6

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

In early 1925 what remained of the illegal SR Party in Moscow was discovered by the GPU which resulted in arrests of Party members across the Soviet Union. The collapse of any centre in Russia effectively led to the collapse of the Party centre abroad; it had a demoralising effect, isolated the émigrés from Russia and exacerbated existing tensions within the emigration. The family who lived by the Finnish border who had helped smuggle SRs in and out were also arrested and exiled at this time.1 In 1928 Postnikov insisted that there was still some contact with Party members in Russia and that Party work had recently been taking place in southern Russia, the Urals, the Volga and the Don.2 However, regular relations with Russia were never re-established after 1925 and there was no contact with anything purporting to be a Party ‘centre’ after 1927.3 There were mutual accusations among the Prague SRs that one of them had betrayed details of the Russian Party, in connection with a journey to Moscow by an émigré Armenian from Prague. The Foreign Delegation established a commission to establish whether any émigré SRs had been involved. Relationships deteriorated throughout 1925, with the situation described as one of ‘civil war’.4 In the summer of 1926 the Foreign Delegation split, when the Volrosstsy challenged Gurevich’s right to be a member, stating that he had been included by Chernov without the approval of SRs in Russia.5 The Volrosstsy in the Foreign Delegation, Slonim, Sukhomlin, Postnikov and Stalinskii now formed one group, and Chernov, Gurevich, Shreider and Nikolai Rusanov formed another.6 Chernov tried to force Sukhomlin and Postnikov out of the editorial board of Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya, resulting in their resignation in February 1927.7 As already noted, the Czechoslovak Ministry of Foreign Affairs then stopped funding Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya as they considered it to have become Chernov’s personal publication and because they were annoyed by Chernov’s stance on the national question.8 The Volrosstsy founded a new publication, Sotsialist Revolyutsioner in October 1927. A bitter campaign of accusation and counter-accusation over past and present activities and beliefs followed. Both groups claimed they had the right to represent the SR Party abroad. Chernov set up a Foreign Union (Zagranichnyi soyuz), while the Volrosstsy called themselves the

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

97

Foreign Organisation (Zagranichnaya organizatsiya). Chernov also lost the support of other Prague SRs, who were furious with him, and after a series of stormy meetings he left the Prague Group with a dozen members out of the original forty.9 Chernov now lumped the Volrosstsy together with the Paris SRs, announcing the formation of a ‘Kerenskyite-Avksentievite-Zemgor-Volrosstsy’ bloc and accusing them of betraying the Party ideology, seeking to merge narodnichestvo with Orthodoxy, supporting coalition with liberals and promoting the development of capitalism in Russia. He stated that the division between himself and the Volrosstsy was a continuation of the split within the SR Party in 1917 over the policy of coalition with the Kadets.10 He accused his former Prague allies of having supported the Allied intervention in the Civil War, refused to recognise the independence of Poland and the Baltic states in 1919 and campaigned against trade agreements between European countries and the Soviet Union. He also accused them of a lack of true attachment to narodnichestvo and falling in with the reactionary ‘Russian Koblenz’.11 Chernov’s articles were very intemperate and he was increasingly out of touch with the majority of SR émigrés. At this point, he became involved in the ‘American-Slavonic Colonisation Trust’, an organisation that promoted the resettlement of Russian émigrés in agricultural colonies in Canada, the USA and Mexico. This was the project of Prague SR, Fyodor Mansvetov, and ended in a court case in America over ﬁnancial irregularities. The Volrosstsy used this to accuse Chernov of dragging the Party name into disrepute.12 The Paris SRs had long claimed that Chernov was hiding behind the ﬁction of a Party in Russia to monopolise rights of representation in the emigration.13 If there was no Party centre in Russia, as the Paris SRs had been insisting for years, then there could no longer be any ofﬁcial representatives abroad and all SR émigré groups were equally entitled to represent the Party. Some Prague SRs also wanted to acknowledge that the Party centre was now in the emigration, which meant taking power away from Chernov.14 Even though Chernov had hardly any support, he continued attacking his erstwhile colleagues and claiming that he was the true representative of the SR Party abroad. The Paris SRs saw their chance to weaken Chernov. In April 1928 a Party Congress was held with the Volrosstsy and Avksent’ev, Zenzinov, Kerensky, Rudnev and Vishnyak. The two groups had met in the build-up to the Congress, but had failed to come to any agreement and expectations were not high.15 Chernov’s group were invited to participate, but they claimed the Congress was an attempt to usurp his power and to place the émigrés above SRs in Russia.16 The 1928 Congress was a failure. The Paris SRs wanted the Volrosstsy to say ‘we can and we should work without Chernov’ and to accept that the stance taken by the Paris SRs in emigration was within the SR tradition.17 The Volrosstsy were adamant that the political views expressed by the Paris SRs could not be considered Party ideology. Sukhomlin described their mission of working for the ‘salvation of Russian culture’ as ‘a thousand miles away’ from the SR Party and said that Sovremmennie

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

98 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

Zapiski, the Paris SR journal, published people ‘who have nothing in common with the ideology and politics of the PSR’.18 The Volrosstsy believed the Paris SRs’ attempts to make the Party ideology more national and to move towards a form of Christian socialism would have no resonance in the Soviet Union. The only joint declarations the two groups could issue were a criticism of Chernov’s faction and his nationalities policy and a refusal to recognise Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya any longer as the ofﬁcial Party organ. Chernov was dismissive of the Congress, even though the inability of the two groups to reach an agreement undermined his claims that they were ideologically close.19 In early 1929 Chernov’s faction sent a Memorandum to the International. This made the split in the Foreign Delegation public by asking the International to rescind Sukhomlin’s right to represent the Party in light of his new ‘rightist’ ideology, which it went on to describe in detail.20 Requesting the intervention of the International was an admission that there was no Party organisation in Russia capable of resolving the issue. This made it obvious that the SRs were a purely émigré organisation. There was real fury and outrage among the Prague SRs at Chernov’s actions. They accused him of committing an act ‘unheard of in party history’, whose only goal could be the ‘dissolution and destruction of the PSR in emigration’ and the discrediting of the Party in the eyes of the international socialist movement.21 Participation in the International was one of the few remaining arenas of political action left to émigrés, as well as a source of moral (and ﬁnancial) support. The selfdestructive actions of the SRs caused the Mensheviks to hide the increasingly bitter splits in their Foreign Delegation for fear of losing their place in the International.22 Postnikov wrote ‘in truth, the most implacable enemies of the SR party…could not have dealt a more devastating blow to the party in Russia and abroad’.23 The consequence of Chernov’s actions was the temporary removal of the SR seat in the Executive Committee of the International. The argument over representation dragged on into the thirties, despite the International’s efforts to persuade them to reach an agreement.24 This weakened the ability of the SRs to encourage the European socialist movement to speak out against forced collectivisation and the terror of the early 1930s.25 Attempts to unite the different SR factions continued, but until the Second World War the Paris SRs refused to work with Chernov.26 In 1932 Volya Rossii was forced to close in Prague although there was still funding and its publication never resumed.27 The Czechoslovak government had withdrawn ﬁnancial support from Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya in 1929. After that it received intermittent support from America, but the ﬁnal issue came out in 1931. Rank and ﬁle SRs were angry by the split in the Foreign Delegation and appealed for the rift to be healed. The Prague Group called the split ‘criminal’ and ‘thoughtless’.28 Pressure was put on the two factions to resolve their differences and unite to speak out against the increasing violence in the Soviet Union as the Stalinist revolution began.29 The Harbin group wrote to both factions saying they found the split inexplicable and appealed to

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

99

Chernov to stop his self-destructive actions and devote his time instead to developing a coherent response to what was happening in the Soviet Union:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

When the Bolsheviks talk about the dekulakisation of the village, the material limits of deﬁning kulachestvo are clear. When the Mensheviks talk about a struggle only on the grounds of the Soviet constitution, we can choose to accept that or not but at least it is clear and politically meaningful. But we feel totally lost when you talk about your ‘class-labouring conception’ clashing with the ‘national-state’ position of the Parisians.30 As a reaction to the split and failure of leadership, there was a reanimation of activity with increased correspondence between Prague and groups in Harbin, Shanghai, New York and Belgrade. The Prague Group called a conference in 1931 to discuss changes to the Party programme and to attempt to reanimate émigré life.31 The split in the Foreign Delegation was not just the result of the atmosphere of émigré politics, which have been characterised as still-born, full of factionalism and division and ‘where, in the vacuum of émigré existence, personal issues or likes and dislikes often loom larger than tactics or programmes’.32 As outlined in the previous chapter, there were genuine ideological differences. Personal issues of course did play a large role; much animosity was directed towards Gurevich, a man described as being of ‘unbearable moral character’.33 It was his cooption onto the Foreign Delegation that seems to have provoked the ﬁnal clash. Chernov’s behaviour and lack of leadership qualities clearly alienated many. Postnikov expressed his frustration in a letter to SRs in Harbin in 1929: In emigration our party has the best ‘General Staff’ compared to the others. Despite our miserly number … we have several literary publications, the Chair and a majority in the Prague Zemgor, the same in the Belgrade Zemgor, the Chair in the Paris Zemgor and much else besides … There are many experienced political activists among us, as well as journalists and experienced publishers. A clever leader would have expertly used this personnel for direct party work … Instead our leader, because of his own personal failings, slanders and smears all the émigré SRs, throwing them into one pile with Wrangelites and even calling them proponents of Romanov policies … Chernov, with the active connivance of Gurevich, has managed to paralyse our work…If some secret Bolshevik hand had wanted to destroy us, they could not have done it better than the Chernovtsy have done.34 Chernov had moved further to the left, possibly out of a need to be felt relevant in the Soviet Union, where he realised profound social changes were taking place. His ‘left turn’ was out of a need to appeal to what he imagined were the opinions of social and generational groups in Russia rather than a genuine rapprochement with

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

100 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

the Bolshevik regime.35 Lazarev accused Chernov’s group of ‘agreeing on a policy of silence about the Bolsheviks’.36 In 1929 Postnikov wrote that he had broken with Chernov because he did not ‘wish to go to Canossa’.37 This phrase refers to the actions of Henry IV of Germany who had been excommunicated by Pope Gregory VII. In 1077 Henry reputedly stood for three days dressed as a penitent outside the castle of Canossa in Northern Italy where the Pope was staying. It was widely used in the emigration to describe those who dropped their opposition to the Bolshevik regime. The Volrosstsy had not moved ideologically closer to the Paris SRs and they remained true to their narodnik heritage.38 These pointless attacks can be put down to the unhealthy atmosphere of the emigration. Chernov, despite his ‘left turn’ in the late 1920s, remained an enemy of the Bolshevik regime until his death in 1954. Where there was a genuine difference of opinion, of course, was over Chernov’s involvement in the Socialist League of the New East and his support for the breakup of the Soviet Union. In his book on the Mensheviks in emigration, Liebich comments that the splits in émigré politics can be characterised as ‘politics as usual’; factionalism and power games are the essence of political behaviour.39 The reasons behind the split in the SRs can be put down to an amalgam of ideas, personalities, reactions to events and personal opportunism. The seeming pettiness of this political behaviour does not negate an investigation of their intellectual activities, which shall now be resumed. Volya Rossii believed that NEP was abruptly abandoned in the late 1920s as the Stalinist majority needed to control agriculture to get the resources needed for industrialisation. This required violence as the peasantry would clearly not agree with the regime’s plans. December 1925 was identiﬁed as the beginning of the industrialisation drive. An economic crisis was gathering in the late 1920s which meant a further change in course to the left, dictated by Bolshevik ideology. As the economic situation deteriorated and the relationship between the regime and the peasants worsened, the Volrosstsy hoped that the regime would fall. The various power struggles of the second half of the 1920s were seen as evidence of crisis in the Bolshevik Party. The Bolsheviks seemed to have ﬁnally reached an impasse by 1928 as the SRs had always predicted, caused by ‘the radical contradiction between the politics of Bolshevism, however its forms change, the speciﬁc character of the Russian Revolution and the historic condition of Russia’.40 The Volrosstsy, almost alone of émigré observers, foresaw that the Stalinists would adopt the Left Opposition’s programme. They hoped that this would force a conﬂict with the peasantry, that the Bolshevik Party would fragment under the pressure, and the nascent economic democracy inside Russia—the peasants and the village intelligentsia in the cooperatives, economic institutes and soviets—would join with the workers and take power, possibly along with some Bolshevik Party members who had genuinely abandoned Marxism for narodnichestvo. The Prague SR view is a useful source on the micro-history of the twists and turns of late NEP. The émigrés were a serious source of information and analysis of the Soviet regime. The SRs knew the

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

101

Bolsheviks well and took them seriously as ideologically driven actors, as does the most recent historiographical writing.41

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Volya Rossii and the Abandonment of NEP As noted, the Volrosstsy saw the beginnings of the ‘Revolution from Above’ in the XIV Party Congress in December 1925. It was at this Congress that emphasis was put on reinforcing the Party in the countryside and appealing to the poor peasants (bednyaki). Stalinskii noted that although Stalin had stated that the Party’s main ﬁre would be aimed at the Left Opposition and reconﬁrmed existing policies, in actuality a major shift had been announced.42 He highlighted Stalin’s statements on socialism and the economy: For Stalin, the socialist element of the economy is any area of production, any enterprise or institution that belongs to the state, independent of its internal construction or the economic principles at its foundation. Simply state ownership be it by the state economy or the state apparatus - is, according to the new communist dictator, the criteria of what is socialist, as long as ‘power over the state is exercised by the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, in other words by the RKP.43 The development of socialism had become synonymous with the expansion of state enterprises.44 This meant the appropriation of peasant economic initiative by the state. This was the logic behind Bukharin’s cry of ‘enrichessez-vous!’ and at odds with the peasants’ views of NEP. The regime was now set on industrialisation but had accepted that the failure of international revolution and the unlikelihood of attracting foreign capital meant the necessary resources would have to be taken from agriculture.45 Industrialisation—‘Socialism in one country’—was a political decision. Autonomous economic development was to preserve the Bolshevik dictatorship, which could not have survived links with the outside world. NEP now meant superindustrialisation and control over agriculture.46 As the Politburo were drawing up ‘concessions’ to the peasantry, they were drawing up plans for the industrial development these concessions would be paying for. Yet Soviet agriculture, despite the best efforts of the peasantry to revive it, was underdeveloped. Isolated from the global economy, it would not be able to provide resources for industrialisation. In 1926 Stalinksii predicted that grain exports would be the main source of capital for industrialisation; the state would offer only low prices; the peasantry would then ‘withhold’ grain, and the state would react with violence. Stalinskii was alarmed by Stalin’s aggressive tone, calling for the ‘establishment of a united front and severe purchasing discipline among all purchasing organs’.47 Stalin also reminded the Congress of the old adage that ‘you cannot build socialism in white gloves’.48 It was clear to Stalinskii in early 1926 that government policy was set upon the ‘the open expropriation of peasant labour by the Soviet apparatus of compulsion’.49

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

102 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

This analysis saw nothing peaceful about the ﬁnal years of NEP or unexpected about the adoption of the Left Course in December 1927. Stalinskii initially believed that the ‘general line’ would condemn the Soviet Union to a slow development. Most importantly, the expansion of the state sector over the private, that is, agriculture, and the course set on industrialisation would inevitably lead to large-scale social conﬂict.50 As noted earlier, the Volrosstsy believed the answer to Lenin’s Kto kogo? was that the peasantry would win. All the Prague SRs viewed Stalin as a mediocre pragmatist who wanted industrialisation but initially hesitated to go further through fear of the consequences.51 This fear made him refuse to admit the seriousness of the Soviet Union’s economic problems and why he attacked the United Opposition so ﬁercely. In Volya Rossii’s view the United Opposition was correct in its pessimistic analysis of the economy, although utopian in its programme of super-industrialisation and entirely mistaken about the potential of the peasantry and the Nepmen to ﬁnance it.52 After the defeat of the United Opposition in December 1927, most émigré groups predicted a turn to the right, viewing Stalin as a pragmatist who was ﬁnally liberated from the Trotskyite left. The Mensheviks initially dismissed Stalin’s adoption of ultra-left policies as merely ‘another demagogic tool in the power struggle’.53 Volya Rossii consistently argued that the Stalinist majority would be forced to adopt the Opposition’s programme and turn to the left. The cause of the power struggle was real enough; economic crisis and the yawning contradiction between Bolshevik ideology and Russian reality. The SRs argued that logic in late 1927 would have dictated a right turn in the hope of obtaining foreign assistance; the liquidation of the foreign trade monopoly, the dismantling of the Komintern, the recognition of debts and favourable terms for private capital. A renunciation of the dictatorship could unleash economic initiative and allow the import of foreign capital and technology, particularly agricultural machinery. Yet the Bolsheviks would never do this and by now a moderate right course of concessions or a return to the policies that had characterised the earlier stages of NEP would have been insufﬁcient. A more radical turn to the right would have meant giving up their dictatorship. In a late 1927 article Stalinskii predicted that there would be some more ‘shufﬂing on the spot’ while strenuous efforts were made to receive foreign credits, and when that failed there would be a sharp swing left ‘seriously and for a long time’.54 Once the United Opposition had been defeated, the Soviet press was full of reports on the chronic state of the economy, as were ofﬁcial speeches by leading Stalinists. According to Stalinskii, the Opposition had its posthumous revenge on Stalin by forcing him to admit (albeit not to them) that their warnings about the economy had been correct. The adoption of the Left Course caused the economic crisis to deepen, which then pushed Stalin further to the left.55 In 1928 Stalinskii pointed out: Yes, the foundations of NEP are still in place. The NEP machine remains. But inside it ‘the Party and soviet power’ are smashing up the cogs and pistons

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

103

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

which ﬁrst set the wheels in motion. This is a result of the contradictions, which Stalin, who did not know which way to turn, has blundered into.56 The partial retreats at the Central Committee plenums during the summer and autumn of 1928 were not signiﬁcant; the Volrosstsy refused to see in them a change in course or a defeat for Stalin. They viewed them largely as a result of nervousness about the reaction of the population, as well as a new tactic of blaming the localities for taking unpopular measures that were dictated by the centre.57 Volya Rossii kept to its stated belief that the Party had ‘seriously and for a long time’ adopted the Left Course. As they had always seen the Opposition’s programme as utopian and adventurist, they believed it heralded the end of the regime.58 From 1927/28 Volya Rossii and Sotsialist Revolyutsioner described the crises arising from the industrialisation drive. At the root of all the problems lay the state of Russian agriculture. The Bolsheviks, ‘utopian proletarian socialists’, had always approached Russia the ‘wrong way round’.59 They had neglected agriculture and wasted the opportunities for development opened up by the revolution. Now the agricultural sector could not provide resources for the tempo of industrialisation they sought. While Stalin blamed this on the type of landownership still predominant in Russia, that is small-scale family farms and demanded a faster transition to large-scale agricultural collectives, Kalinin was closer to the truth when he said that the main cause of backwardness was the low intensiveness of Russian agriculture.60 The grain crisis was the clearest manifestation of the overall economic collapse, and it was its scale in late 1927/8 which revealed to Stalin how mistaken he had been in believing that his policies could continue unchanged.61 In Stalinskii’s view the grain crisis of the winter 1927/8 had many causes. It was partly caused by the goods famine, which itself was caused by the poor state of industry. It was also a result of the regime’s mishandling of ﬁnance and the economy. The ‘extraordinary measures’ which Stalin launched to get grain from the peasants were not just manoeuvres to hammer more nails into the cofﬁn of the Opposition, as the Mensheviks believed. The savings of the Russian peasant were the regime’s last hope. This was ‘the politics of desperation’.62 Why, Stalinskii asked, did the state resort to violence instead of regulating the market economically, by releasing goods to the village or by altering prices? The regime had no resources left, only the apparatus of compulsion: Those methods and devices to which Stalinist power has resorted in order to beat ﬁnancial and grain surpluses out of the stubborn village, which is destroying all its plans, are no longer a result of an intra-Party strategy. They have been forced to fall back on them out of necessity. Under current circumstances there is no other way of getting the resources necessary for keeping the Bolshevik state machinery running.63

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

104 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

The aim of the ‘Left Course’ (that is, industrialisation) announced by the Stalinist Politburo was to obtain resources for industrialisation and end the economic independence of the peasantry. This would be done by impoverishing the countryside (lowering consumption) so that it stopped exacting demand on state industry. Volya Rossii seemed to view industrialisation not as an end in itself, but as a way of subduing agriculture in an economically isolated Russia. Although the ‘kulak danger’ was cited the main ideological justiﬁcation for the Left Course, the SRs argued that kulaks were a tiny percentage of the peasantry and they quoted the Bolshevik leaders who agreed with them.64 The battle against the ‘kulak danger’ was a way of delivering a blow to the economically strong (zazhitochnyi) peasantry to break overall peasant economic resistance.65 In the Prague SR view NEP had always been unpopular with the Bolsheviks and changes in attitude toward the peasantry after 1917 had been purely tactical. An organic enmity to the peasantry was at the heart of Bolshevik ideology. It was clear there would be no retreat from industrialisation. The Bolsheviks could not give up their plans without jeopardising their dictatorship. Without heavy industry, there could be no socialism; without socialism there could be no dictatorship. The fact that Russia was an overwhelmingly rural country was fateful to the Bolsheviks; they had to create a larger proletariat to act as the idealised base for their dictatorship. Stalin implied that industrialisation was a matter of life and death, and in Volya Rossii’s view it was, but for the regime, not Russia.66 Stalin was returning to pre-1921 Leninism: The measures of the Left Course…express a new attempt, after the collapse of the preceding ones, to execute the old communist utopia of artiﬁcially transforming Russia into an industrial country.67 A permanent notion throughout Prague SR critiques was that all Bolshevism’s problems arose from its ‘original sin’ of dependence on a world revolution that had never been capable of materialising. ‘Bolshevism appeared in Russia not as a party of the Russian revolution, but as a party of the world revolution. However, the ﬁrst was a real historical fact and the second a wild utopia’, wrote Stalinskii in 1926.68 Ten years after 1917, the Party was adrift. Industrialisation is the surrogate for world revolution in current Bolshevik usage. It contains the false historical justiﬁcation for Bolshevism’s dictatorial power and all hopes for the consolidation of its rule are now tied up with it…it creates the possibility of the third way and supports the illusion that Leninism goes on, that the Party is moving in the basic direction marked out by the ‘teacher’.69 Volya Rossii predicted Stalin’s gamble would fail because of its economic irrationality and the political risk of declaring war on the majority of the population. They

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

105

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

refused initially to acknowledge that there was any popular support for superindustrialisation despite the fact that their own journals carried articles from Russia where workers expressed their frustration at the lack of industrial progress.70 They felt that the ‘heroic’ phase of Bolshevism belonged to the past.71 They did not foresee forced collectivisation. Stalinskii dismissed Stalin’s project of collective farms as a ‘utopia’, a ‘fantastical’ plan, and ‘the foolish and reckless gamble of a losing player who no longer has any connection to reality’.72 The Right Opposition Volya Rossii noted that the crisis caused by the industrialisation drive had led to the formation of a shadowy Right Opposition in the winter of 1928–9. Judging by the amount of vitriol heaped on the Right, they believed a serious struggle was taking place, but admitted they did not know the names of the leaders of the Right nor their strength.73 All their secret contacts with Russia had been broken and the Right Opposition was a menacing but vague ﬁgure in the Soviet press. In 1928 Bukharin was still seen abroad as a mouthpiece for the Left Course and standing with Stalin against moderate Bolsheviks such as Rykov and Kalinin.74 The SRs quoted for example Bukharin’s statement on Stalin’s ‘military-feudal exploitation of the peasantry’, without ascribing it to him.75 They interpreted attacks on former narodnik specialists in Narkomzem as evidence of the growing strength of the Right in the Party and the state apparatus.76 Stalinskii now believed that there was a genuine opposition in the Party grass roots and state apparatus as a result of the disastrous policies pursued by Stalin. Chernov believed that Bolshevism was collapsing into separate parts and he also started to take komnarodnichestvo more seriously.77 From what Stalinskii could gather, the Right were calling for realistic balanced growth, a focus on light industry, a lifting of the trade monopoly and an end to the attacks on the peasantry and were moving towards an acceptance of the economic tenets of narodnichestvo. This could be a radical break with Bolshevism, which was why Stalin attacked it so ﬁercely.78 Volya Rossii characterised it as an attempt to ﬁnally approach Russia ‘the right way round’, and called on any Bolsheviks who supported the Right to break with the dictatorship and appeal for popular support.79 Stalinskii doubted, however, that the Rightists at the top of the Party would make that break and suspected that they wanted to save the dictatorship, rather than end it. ‘Inside Russia’ Vladimir Lebedev, one of Volya Rossii’s editors, travelled secretly to Russia in summer 1929. His account was published in Volya Rossii in 1929 and 1930. At the time many émigrés expressed doubt over whether he did really go to Russia. He was accused of travelling to Finland and writing an account based on impressions

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

106 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

garnered from other people. Lebedev and his supporters insisted until the end of his life that he had made the trip.80 Certainly his biography suggests that he would have been capable of undertaking such a dangerous journey. Chernov described him as a man of ‘superhuman energy’.81 Lebedev had been involved in the revolutionary movement for twenty years, and had a military background having fought in three wars—the Russo-Japanese War, the First World War and the Civil War. He had been the Naval Minister in the Provisional Government and head of the SR People’s Army in the Volga during the Civil War. He would have been in his midforties when the trip took place. Émigrés did travel secretly to Russia, usually members of rightist groups, but also for example the Menshevik Eva Broido who went back in 1927 and was arrested by the Soviet government.82 In 1925 the SRs had managed to send two members to Moscow to try to deal with the collapse of the Party centre.83 According to his account, Lebedev entered Russia in August 1929 across the Finnish border and visited Moscow and Leningrad. In Moscow he passed himself off as one of the many migrants coming into the city seeking work. Moscow, which he had never visited before, struck him as very non-European, with its mixture of Russian and Asian faces. It was a trading city, noisy, busy, and swollen with incomers and clearly the great capital of an enormous continent. However, the crowds were exhausted and preoccupied, and they and the buildings seemed worn out and shabby. Leningrad struck him as much poorer and quite provincial.84 While he was in Moscow, the First All-Union Young Pioneer Gathering was being held. He was struck by how the young people he spoke to were full of ‘healthy patriotism’ and nationalistic pride, sentiments that were shared by the adults he met.85 Volya Rossii’s secret correspondent in Moscow, ‘Gleb Gontsov’, insisted that all Soviet citizens had this feeling of ‘ownership’ over the continent. Gontsov also told him that Bolshevism was now dead as an ideology; what remained of it was ‘power, the machinery of power, the magic of power, the attraction of power’.86 The picture painted of the old intelligentsia was one of demoralisation. Lebedev met with an old friend who told him how the Bolshevik regime had initially given them the enormous responsibility of raising the cultural level of the Russian people, a task they had embraced with all their previous conviction. The Russian people had reacted to the opportunity for education with equal conviction. Now life for the intelligentsia was hard and they lived in an atmosphere of a total lack of freedom. The rate of heart disease among them had apparently reached epidemic proportions. After having been used by the regime, they were now labelled as ‘spets’, hounded out of work and forced into the role of scapegoats for the economic failures of Bolshevism.87 Lebedev listed the rumours he heard in both Moscow and Leningrad; what products were available, war with China, industrialisation, the harvest and grain collections, new factories, the seven-day week, the closure of private enterprises and the eviction of certain suspect categories of the population from the cities. There

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

107

were also rumours that the state had been buying up all spare consumer goods for the Red Army. He heard anti-kulak and anti-Semitic remarks among the urban population.88 Lebedev was struck by the fact that nearly all enterprises belonged to the state or to cooperatives. He remarked on the number of cooperative shops, cafes, banks and organisations. He met with an experienced member of the cooperative movement who told him that although the cooperatives had lost their independence, they would see out the regime. ‘The Bolsheviks will fall, and the cooperatives will remain’, he told Lebedev.89 Lebedev arrived in Russia at the beginning of the ﬁrst Five Year Plan. He reported that many workers ‘cursed Soviet power’ but put all their hopes in ‘the miracle of Industrialisation’. He went to public lectures on the Five Year Plan and found himself swept up in the excitement: New powerful electricity stations, the expansion of the old electrical works, chemical factories, new textile factories, sawmills, glass, metallurgy, machinebuilding, artiﬁcial ﬁbre and gummite works – all these will spring up in Leningrad! 90,000 unemployed Leningraders will disappear into these factories, swallowed up by unprecedented construction. This is not about a stopgap. The demand for working hands will increase. Wages will rise. The cultural level will rise. Labour will be easier. The working day will shrink. Everybody looking at the charts, including myself, is longing for the miracle to occur…longs for our motherland, inherited from the imperial Empire, to be transformed into a powerful Empire of Labour.90 In Leningrad he stayed with an experienced worker who had gained much from the revolution. The family had access to a life that would have been totally unachievable for them before. His son was receiving a good education and his wife was currently resting in the Crimea. Lebedev and his host studied a map of projected industrialisation plans together in the evenings. The host worker understood that industrialisation was being built ‘on the bones of the peasants’ but seemed quite philosophical about this. He was also philosophical about the dictatorship, as he felt that the working class had made many gains, predominantly social mobility, under the new regime.91 Lebedev’s impressions of Russia were favourable, despite the poverty and unemployment, which he believed would be ended by industrialisation. He presented the workers he met as having the life for which he had fought in the pre-revolutionary period. Obviously he was unable to travel into the countryside or meet peasants other than those coming into towns to look for work. Lebedev was one of the mainstays of the émigré defensist movement in the 1930s, which argued for support for the Soviet Union in the event of a war with Germany.92 His visit back perhaps made him able to accept the post-revolutionary society, if not entirely the regime.

108 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Chernov and the Great Turn Chernov and his faction moved further to the left during the second half of the 1920s. Chernov claimed that SRs should avoid ‘bourgeois critiques’ of the Soviet Union in terms of a lack of formal democracy or individual freedom, while Gurevich rejected ‘moral or political evaluations’ of the Soviet economy.93 Shreider meanwhile approved of the disenfranchisement of social groups and defended the principle of dictatorship.94 Chernov’s main focus in this period was the nationality question. He was also spending a lot of time in the United States. Possibly because of this lack of focus, Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya was more positive about the economic situation in the Soviet Union. While Volya Rossii was predicting economic collapse, Chernov wrote in 1927 that despite the dictatorship the Russian people had ‘risen like a phoenix from the ashes and is paving the way for a better, brighter and more joyful future’.95 Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya presented a positive evaluation of the Soviet economy as socialist and in good shape despite the Bolsheviks.96 They barely seemed to notice that NEP was violently ending. In early 1929 Gurevich conﬁdently declared that: It seems that they (the Bolsheviks – E.W.) have not managed to overcome the peasant element, and nor will they. In the end they will have to adapt themselves to the fact that Russia is an agrarian country.97 While they identiﬁed weaknesses in agriculture and industry, they felt that increased economic difﬁculties would strengthen the moderates in the Bolshevik Party who would pull Stalin and Bukharin with them. Unlike Volya Rossii, they did not predict that Stalin would turn to the left.98 Chernov, the chief theorist of the SR programme, believed that his ideology was triumphing over Marxism in Russia.99 He took pleasure in repeating the United Opposition’s accusations that Stalin—‘the Peasant King’—was ‘wearing the SR kaftan’ and ‘chewing the SR cud’ and that ‘SRs can quietly fold their hands, because time and Soviet power are working on their behalf’.100 ‘In this much, the oppositionists are correct: “time” (in other words, reality), and now and then even Soviet power under reality’s dictation, are working for the SRs’, he wrote in 1928.101 Chernov became more conﬁdent about asserting that Bolshevism had always been a mixture of Marxism and narodnichestvo and that Lenin’s late ‘conversion’ to narodnichestvo had perhaps not been purely tactical.102 Bolshevism was now collapsing into its constituent parts centred round Trotsky and Bukharin, with Trotsky representing pre-war classic Russian Marxism. Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya believed that the United Opposition had been cautiously testing the ground for a coup against Stalin, but had received no response from Party members, the Army or the GPU.103 Stalin and Bukharin were unwillingly adopting a distorted version of the SR theory of the cooperative route to socialism, based on the ending of private property in land. The United Opposition

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

109

were genuinely frightened of Bukharin’s ‘oserednyachennyi bolshevizm’ and the implications of socialism in one country. Chernov concluded his article with his favourite folk saying:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

All this shows is that if you drive nature out of the door, it will ﬂy back in through the window (goni prirodu v dver’, ona vletit v okno). And the ‘door’ will be blown open in its time – or it will be torn from its hinges.104 Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya predicted that the Stalinist majority in the Bolshevik Party would be forced to build bridges with the population because of their battle against the United Opposition. They noted with optimism in 1927 that the Soviet press was full of complaints about the state apparatus not carrying out orders. The dictatorship had relied on the state, the ‘physical presence of its power’, being in the hands of the Party but now it seemed ‘this one reliable guarantee has disappeared’.105 They believed that the state apparatus under pressure from below could turn against the Party dictatorship. Gurevich pointed to the Republic Congresses of Soviets and the All-Union Congress of Soviets, which he believed had some space away from Party control. He hoped that the soviet system could detach itself from the dictatorship.106 In an article published at the end of 1930 Gurevich still expressed the belief that the soviets could become a genuine framework for self-government and could be used tactically against the dictatorship.107 Chernov was excited about the defeat of the United Opposition. Chernov’s faction was also more optimistic than the Volrosstsy about the possibility of moderate change originating from the higher ranks of the Bolshevik Party.108 With the appearance of the Right Opposition, he believed that there was a strong possibility the Bolshevik regime would end in a coup d’etat.109 In early 1928 he named a potential opposition around Aleksandr Smirnov, the Commissar for Agriculture, Grigory Sokolnikov and possibly Kalinin and Rykov.110 Chernov believed that the divisions within the Bolshevik Party were now the sharpest since Brest-Litovsk.111 The Volrosstsy were much more cautious in this respect. In early 1929 Chernov sent an urgent memorandum to the US State Department saying that the downfall of the Bolshevik regime was imminent. He appealed to the US government to openly oppose the Bolsheviks, as this could push any vacillating Party members into the arms of the Right, which Chernov said had the support of Kliment Voroshilov and the Red Army. Chernov claimed he could come to an agreement with what he termed the ‘Rykoff Group’. He also wrote that the Russian peasant would be the ‘ultimate arbiter’ of the impending struggle.112 Conclusion Why did Chernov take a more positive stance? Perhaps it can be explained by psychological factors. Despite the hardships of émigré life, his ill health, political

110 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

defeats, estrangement from old friends and colleagues and later his increasing vulnerability in a fascist Europe, Chernov’s correspondence in the 1920s and 1930s reveals an exuberant, Panglossian optimism—about future possibilities for work, for revolution, for achievements. In addition he was a theorist rather than a strategist or analyst. A serious intellectual, he devoted himself to the study of a wide range of topics of contemporary interest. After recovering from a serious operation in the early 1930s he wrote cheerfully to friends: ‘Scribo ergo sum!’ You cannot imagine how wonderful it is for me to sit in a chair not in a bed, and to take a pen up, dip it in ink and so become again a human being – a real living human being! Such is the voice of my secret scribbler’s soul. That is what it means to have spent the majority of your life among books and manuscripts. I am making fun of myself, but all the same it is only now that I am beginning to write again that I am ﬁnally convinced that I will fully recover.113 He interpreted events too theoretically at this time, ignoring the dynamic of action. Chernov’s theoretical weakness, and that of the SRs, lay in an underestimation of how power operates. This is perhaps signalled by his constant references to ‘life itself’. Chernov also realised that the social revolution he had fought for was happening in the Soviet Union, albeit in a distorted way and led by a Marxist party. Chernov and other left-wing émigrés had to ﬁnd a middle course between rejecting Bolshevism and reaching out to the newly forming Soviet society, parts of which—the young, workers—they imagined identiﬁed with the regime. Chernov did not support Bolshevism, but perhaps diminished the power and threat of the regime and was overly positive about the new society in this period. In the SR view, the main reason for the growing economic crisis in the second half of the 1920s was due to the ‘mistake’ of 1917; the victory of a Marxist party in agrarian Russia. The Bolshevik victory, Prague SRs reiterated, had been an exception from the rules of history. In 1929 Stalin burst out of the vicious circle this had created and began to put an end to the antinomies of the 1920s; a proletarian dictatorship in a peasant country and the victory of a Party dictatorship but the defeat of its ideas. With collectivisation and industrialisation he successfully ended the problems that victory had created, much to the surprise and horror of the émigré SRs. Although the Prague SRs believed or hoped that the Stalinists would fail, they were correct in their understanding of what they wanted. The SRs took Bolshevism seriously, which perhaps explains their perspicuity. They saw that the Bolshevik Party wanted to build socialism, and that socialism had become a matter of state power and the creation of a state-controlled economy. Unlike many émigrés and European politicians who saw Bolshevism as moderating and stabilising during the 1920s, the Prague SRs perceived that the dominant trends within the Bolshevik Party of state control and dictatorship would win out. The Volrosstsy were more

The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn

111

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

perceptive than Trotsky and the oppositionists actually inside Russia, who were astonished by Stalin’s left turn. They were also more perceptive than the Smenovekhovsty as well as the members of the intelligentsia inside Russia, who also thought they saw the regime moderating in the 1920s. A focus on their journalistic activities and political thought as can prove fruitful in following events in the Soviet Union, even if examining the twists and turns of their Party institutional life can be frustrating.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

7

The Collectivisation of Agriculture

Historians of the SR Party have speculated what their attitude to collectivisation might have been. The Prague SR sources on collectivisation are not particularly rich. As noted, by the late 1920s they had little contact with the Soviet Union and largely relied on ofﬁcial Soviet sources. Postnikov advised the Volrosstsy to use correspondence from Russia published in other émigré publications to help write their articles on collectivisation.1 The bitter disputes between Chernov and the Volrosstsy were at their height and much of their energy was being expanded on mutual recriminations. The Volrosstsy were now divided between Prague, Paris and Belgrade. Chernov was in America at this crucial juncture in Soviet history partly to promote his colonisation project, causing Postnikov to comment that ‘unfortunately our theoretician on the agrarian question is currently occupied with resolving the agrarian problem in Mexico’.2 Chernov was also occupied with his project of the Socialist League of the New East. The Prague SRs were also ﬁnding it difﬁcult to fund their own publications. The Czechoslovak government stopped funding Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya in 1929, and only a few issues came out after that. The last edition of Volya Rossii came out in 1932, as the Russian Action was wound down. Only ﬁve editions of SotsialistRevolyutsioner came out between 1927 and 1932, mainly paid for by SRs in America. The SR articles are largely reactive and without much analysis. This is partly because of the chaotic nature of collectivisation. Their response was also confused and hesitant as they were unsure of what was happening in Russia—was for example, collectivisation voluntary on any level and were ex-SRs participating in the establishment of collective farms? If collectivisation was voluntary, could this be seen as justiﬁcation of narodnik beliefs? The adoption of a position on collectivisation was complicated by the fact that the collective working of the land had been part of the SR maximum programme, as embodied in the slogan ‘From the socialisation of land to the socialisation of agriculture’.3 Nonetheless, it was vital to the SRs that they responded to the collectivisation drive in the Soviet Union. Postnikov wrote to the other Volrosstsy in May 1930: At the centre of attention of all Russia and indeed the whole world is forced collectivisation, this experiment with the Russian peasantry. This should be of

The collectivisation of agriculture

113

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

particular concern to us as we always considered ourselves as representatives of the peasantry and also pushed for voluntary collectivisation.4 Postnikov recommended that the SR approach should be to defend the individual rights of the peasant and explain the differences between the SR policy of socialisation and Bolshevik collectivisation. The SRs had envisaged the socialisation of agricultural production as the ﬁnal step in an evolutionary process, undertaken voluntarily and when there was an adequate technological basis. A widespread and thriving agricultural cooperative movement was to have prepared the way. Slonim later remembered how tormented they were at the lack of reliable information about what was happening in Russia and this drove Lebedev to travel there in 1929, as discussed in the previous chapter.5 Reports coming out of the Soviet Union were enigmatic. A report from Ukraine published in March 1929 described the queues, bread shortages, rationing, hoarding and the soaring prices. As for the mood of the population, the anonymous author wrote that ‘the others, those who are not Party members are silent and keep their thoughts to themselves. As to what those thoughts are, I cannot say’.6 Some Prague SRs were reluctant to condemn the collectivisation of agriculture, as this would have meant condemning their own Party programme. This hampered their ability to arrive at a clear position. As one exasperated SR in Harbin wrote to Prague in 1930, ‘Stalinskii says that collectivisation is bad, because it is not being carried out by us…Can one say that this is really a position?’7 Collectivisation therefore created fresh bitterness and new divisions among SR émigrés. Some Party members welcomed it as an attempt to enact their own agrarian programme. Kerensky and the other editors of Sovremennie Zapiski accused Volya Rossii of supporting collectivisation and began referring to the editors and the group around them as ‘narodnik kolkhozniks’ and the ‘Don Quixotes of Soviet Achievements’.8 Stalinskii admitted that collectivisation seemed inspired by a kind of ‘supernarodnichestvo’ and premised on a boundless faith in the ability of the muzhik to participate in the building of socialism.9 Others could not believe it was possible for millions of peasants to be forced into collective farms against their will and that the movement had to be voluntary on some level.10 The implications of this were potentially welcome for these SRs. If the movement was voluntary, could this be conﬁrmation of deeply cherished narodnik beliefs about Russian peasant attitudes and Russia’s ‘separate path’?11 Osip Minor, the old narodovolets, voiced these concerns at a meeting in Paris organised by Kerensky in 1930: Having already stolen the SR agrarian programme in 1917, the Bolsheviks have now arrived at its second point, cooperative production. Of course they are executing this part of our programme in an entirely distorted way. But can one say that nothing will come of their attempt? As a socialist, I do not fear measures that lead the peasantry towards collective labour.12

114 The collectivisation of agriculture

In spring 1930 when the ﬁrst wave of collectivisation was at its height Sukhomlin denied that Volya Rossii supported the politics of ‘administrative’ collectivisation and dekulakisation, but defended the stance of those like Minor. He said it was correct for SRs to ask whether:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

despite Stalin and Co’s blunderings, something could remain from the new social forms of the economy and whether or not there is in reality in the peasantry itself a striving to go from the system of individual homesteads to a socialised form of working the land.13 Responding to reports in the Soviet press that ex-SRs were helping to set up the collective farms, Sukhomlin wrote that SRs in Russia should ‘relate positively to honest and genuine attempts on the part of local actors from socialist and cooperative movements to lay the foundations of collective agriculture’.14 It seems that some SRs in the Soviet Union did join in the collectivisation drive, as they initially also saw it as the fulﬁlment of their own Party programme.15 Sukhomlin argued that the idea of collective farms was not something invented by Stalin but arose from traditional Russian institutions such as the tovarishchestva and artely. In debates in Prague in 1931 many SRs stated that it would be impossible for a future government to reverse the policy of collectivisation as it had resulted in such deep-seated structural changes to agriculture. A future SR government would keep those collective farms that were genuinely voluntary and economically viable.16 Lazarev, who was usually extremely critical of the Bolshevik regime, argued that so much of the national income had been spent on the kolkhozy that any future government would have to keep them and as SRs they would not want a return to small-holdings. The SR task after the fall of Bolshevism would be to introduce personal motivation and interest in the success of the farms.17 Nikolai Milashevskii, who described himself as an ex-landowner, also announced that he was entirely in favour of collective farms believing them to be in harmony with peasant legal consciousness. He told the assembled SRs that ‘I would like nothing better than for the whole of Russia to be covered with kolkhozy’.18 This was the Prague SR dilemma: a condemnation of collectivisation would be a condemnation of narodnichestvo, which had argued for collective production in the future. So some felt they had to both defend and attack the policy, which weakened their position and caused dissension as there were those who were prepared to reject the policy outright. The Soviet press triumphantly reported émigré SR support for collectivisation.19 There were also reports of mass arrests of ex-SRs in the Soviet Union, as the regime wanted to minimise resistance.20 This was part of the waves of terror which accompanied Stalin’s Revolution from Above. Stalinskii took a much stronger line against collectivisation than the other editors of Volya Rossii. He wrote that there was clearly coercion in the process, both physical and ﬁscal. How could peasants be said to support it when it was known they were

The collectivisation of agriculture

115

selling off their goods and slaughtering their livestock, rather than hand them over to the kolkhozy? He stated clearly that the Bolsheviks’ latest attempt to introduce class war and violence into the village again and the deliberate impoverishment of the peasants to force them into the kolkhozy should be unacceptable for SR-narodniki, whatever ‘elevated goals’ were being pursued.21

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Responses to Collectivisation: Peasant Rebellion in Russia Some of the SR émigrés rejected collectivisation outright, supported peasant resistance and hoped that the regime would fail and be overthrown. A few SRs in Russia and in the emigration began working with the Prague-based party Krestyanskaya Rossiya, which encouraged violent resistance to collectivisation and was active underground in the Soviet Union.22 Such SRs were frustrated with Chernov’s insistence on abiding by the decision of the IX SR Party Congress in June 1919, which had renounced violence in favour of ‘ideological struggle’ against the Bolshevik regime. In an article written for the Socialist International in 1930, explaining his position, Chernov wrote that: The Party cannot do otherwise than categorically reject any kind of “activist” adventurism, any kind of forcing of events and especially any kind of encouragement of rash outbursts, which could mean the untimely and fruitless diversion of national strength into a blind alley, at the moment when time is maturing a powerful and spontaneous manifestation in keeping with the objective developments of events … The PSR has remained true to the ‘temporising tactic’ adopted at the beginning of the twenties, morally and politically preparing for a new epoch of national-social advance, which is maturing in the bosom of the historical life of the deepest mass of the people, and therefore has the irrepressibility of elemental stikhia.23 He simultaneously castigated the Bolshevik regime in the strongest terms, claiming that it was incapable of evolution. SRs in Harbin wrote to Prague to ask why Chernov bothered to reserve the ‘sacred right to revolution’—at what point would he be prepared to use that right? If he thought that the Bolshevik regime was incapable of evolving, why did he not call for an uprising? They also found the caution of the Volrosstsy unsatisfactory, stating that if Stalinskii believed that collectivisation was a disaster for the Soviet Union and that SR ideas were more relevant than ever, then why was he not calling for revolutionary action?24 Some members of the Prague Group also felt that the leadership should be taking a stronger and clearer line, stating in a memorandum in 1930 that they considered that: the question of the liquidation of the dictatorship, which has prepared the way for the ﬁnal ruin of the labouring peasantry and an inevitable famine, demands

116 The collectivisation of agriculture

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

of SR Party organisations a deﬁnitive outlining of their tactical methods of struggle with the despotic power.25 They called for the Party leadership to give a real and meaningful response to dekulakisation and collectivisation. Despite not wanting to call for actual revolution, Chernov was optimistic about peasant resistance in 1930. He wrote that ‘the bearded foot soldier of the revolution…has already begun to act, hiding in the bushes, in ditches, in the dark night or the wooded thicket’.26 The Volrosstsy did not share this optimism, which they dismissed as a return to the revolutionary idealism of the early 1890s. Sukhomlin stated in mid 1931 that, despite the hopes of those like Chernov and Kerensky, there had been no revolutionary or even organised response to collectivisation, only panicked measures such as the destruction of livestock and individual acts of terror: The destruction of muzhik cattle and settling scores with individual Communists is a long way from the beginning of a revolutionary liberation movement. The chaos that Stalin’s collectivisation drove the village to has nothing in common with the awakening of a political spring.27 Contemporary research supports his view. Peasant opposition to collectivisation took many forms, including rioting and violence, but much of the resistance was localised, expressed through traditional peasant forms of protest, and subsided when the speciﬁc object of protest was removed. After the extreme violence of the initial campaign, when mass uprisings by peasants led to Stalin’s ‘Dizzy with Success’ article in March 1930 and a temporary halt in collectivisation, the two most common forms of peasant opposition to collectivisation were ﬂight (depeasantisation/ urbanisation) and passive resistance (foot-dragging in the collective farms).28 The Volrosstsy also acknowledged that crucially workers were not going to support peasant resistance to collectivisation, therefore isolating and dooming it: The Bolsheviks do not have to fear peasant uprisings as long as they have a secure position in urban Russia, the citadel of their power, as long as the proletariat remains calm and gives them at least passive support.29 Thousands of workers in fact responded enthusiastically to the collectivisation drive, volunteering to go to the countryside to implement the policy. As far as the Volrosstsy could see, the Bolshevik state was moving determinedly forward. Collectivisation and industrialisation ensured the destruction of the independent peasantry and the creation of a heavy industrial base run by the bureaucracy, which would provide the main source of support for the regime; the system, in effect, of Stalinism.

The collectivisation of agriculture

117

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Other Émigré Responses to Collectivisation: A National-Patriotic Coup or Party Reform? The political terror that accompanied the economic and social chaos of industrialisation and collectivisation was seen as a sign that the regime was in deep crisis. In late 1930 the Russian emigration was gripped by rumours that there had been an attempted coup in the Soviet Union. The Mensheviks were the main source of information about the coup. There were rumours that Vasilii Blyukher, the Military Commander of the Soviet Far East, had been arrested by Stalin and that unreliable Red Army units and commanders had been transferred out of Moscow. It was believed there had been serious conﬂict within the Party over collectivisation, with Voroshilov and Marshal Budyonnyi opposing Stalin. There were also rumours about a conspiracy led by Sergei Syrtsov, the Chairman of the Council of People’s Commissars, to overthrow Stalin. Syrtsov, along with Vissarion Lominadze, did criticise Stalin’s increasing dictatorial power in November 1930 and was expelled from the Politburo in December 1930. Some of the Paris SRs placed their hopes on a Red Army coup, supported by the bureaucracy and the non-Party intelligentsia. The Volrosstsy dismissed hopes for revolt or reform. They believed there could have been preparations for a coup against Stalin, but saw the developments around Syrtsov and Lominadze in late 1930 as an attempt to save the Bolshevik dictatorship, which Stalin seemed to have put in jeopardy with the chaos he had unleashed on the country.30 They did not identify any desire for regime change among Soviet elites. Volya Rossii reacted unsympathetically to the trials of ‘bourgeois specialists’, such as the leading economists, statisticians and engineers in the Trial of the Industrial Party (Protsess Prompartii) in late 1930 and the Trial of the All-Union Bureau of Mensheviks in 1931 although they did not believe the allegations of treason, wrecking and espionage. This is probably due to the bitterness they felt over the way many of the intelligentsia, including ex-SRs, had decided to stay in the Soviet Union and work for the Bolshevik regime. These were the ﬁrst Soviet trials where the defendants openly confessed to clearly invented allegations. The Volrosstsy claimed to be disgusted by the self-incriminatory behaviour of the defendants, which to them contrasted the behaviour of revolutionaries in Tsarist political trials, to say nothing of the behaviour of the SR Central Committee members in their own ‘show trial’ in 1922. They wrote that the trials revealed the moral corruption and degradation of those who had continued to work under the Bolsheviks.31 Surely, asked Sukhomlin during the Trial of the Industrial Party, these were not people who could overthrow the regime and build a new Russia: We can judge during this trial not only the strength of state terror, but also … the weakness of the human material on which so many unfounded hopes abroad are openly laid … it is not to these or similar bureaucratic circles organically connected to the state that socialist democracy should look for leadership.32

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

118 The collectivisation of agriculture

The Soviet government planned a trial of the ex-narodnik agronomists and economists such as Kondrat’ev and Chayanov, who had worked in Narkomzem in the 1920s. This was to have been the Trial of the Labouring Peasants Party, the ‘counterrevolutionary kulak-Socialist Revolutionary organisation of Kondrat’ev-Chayanov’, which was supposed to have 200,000 members.33 However, plans for the Trial were dropped without explanation.34 The programme of this supposed Party was similar to the SR one. It called for a federal democratic republic based on an alliance between peasants and workers, with the continuation of a free choice in land usage and a partial denationalisation of the economy with small ﬁrms being run by either cooperatives or private individuals, while the commanding heights remained in state ownership.35 This would have been in some way a trial of the SR Party, as well as the Bolshevik right. Stalin apparently did not feel conﬁdent about taking the struggle against the Right Opposition into the public domain. The defendants were sentenced without a public trial and imprisoned. Kondrat’ev and Chayanov were executed during the Great Terror. The Volrosstsy also cited the growing number of ‘non-returnees’ (nevozvrashchentsy) to dismiss the idea that there could be a revolt against the Bolshevik regime by Soviet elites. These ‘non-returnees’ were diplomats, secret agents or members of Soviet trade missions who defected in the early 1930s because of the growing political repression back home. In the view of the SRs, the nonreturnees were motivated by self-interest and not the suffering of the Russian people. This was revealed by the fact that ‘the moment of their break with Bolshevik power always coincides with the moment they are presented with the demand to go back to the USSR’.36 Until then they supported the regime and remained silent about what was really happening in Russia. The Mensheviks in emigration still hoped for reform from within the Bolshevik Party. The Volrosstsy rejected this as they had done consistently since the Bolsheviks came to power, apart from a slight hopeful wavering at the time of the appearance of the Right Opposition in 1929: Is it really necessary to prove that no democratic forces whatsoever can be born in the depths of today’s dictatorship, whose personnel is methodically ‘purged’ of any kind of independently thinking elements and equally methodically ﬁlled with loyal Stalinist mamelukes?37 This could be surmised by any casual observer watching the 16th Party Congress in 1930, which was dominated by the new Stalin cult and took place without any pretence of policy debate. Stalin’s party was unrecognisable from that of Lenin’s and was not susceptible to outside pressure. Stalinskii wrote that half of Russia could die from hunger and the dictatorship would not be shaken.38 There would be no new NEP and no hope for pressure from nonParty elites in the apparatus. Despite this, the ofﬁcial line of the Volrosstsy, as

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The collectivisation of agriculture

119

well as Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya, was to encourage the formation of a democratic mass movement that could overthrow the regime. Stalinskii wanted the Party to act as a stimulant to revolution. He called for SRs to work out ‘meaningful slogans’ for workers and peasants, which when ‘ﬂung into Russia’ would ignite this revolution.39 Where would the forces capable and willing to overthrow the Stalinist regime come from? The SRs had outlined for years how the Bolsheviks had destroyed centres of political activity and crushed and demoralised the intelligentsia, the traditional leaders of the revolutionary movement, by the show trials and attacks on the spetsy. Sukhomlin mused that possibly the new raznochintsy, the worker and peasant promotees could be a potential support for the overthrow of the regime. The SRs also hoped that the workers would desert the regime as their standard of living dropped and the ‘illusions’ of the Five Year Plans were shattered.40 In an article in 1932 written during the renewed collectivisation drive, Stalinskii wrote that there would yet be a clash between the peasantry and the ‘state-capitalist dictatorship’.41 A correspondent from Russia, reporting on the growing tension between the state and the collective farms over grain, wrote that ‘the battle will end with the victory of the peasants over the hated Bolshevik regime’.42 These optimistic prescriptions were sounding ever hollower. The Volrosstsy saw that collectivisation was introduced for political and economic reasons, but as a reaction to circumstances. They had initially dismissed Stalin’s idea of state grain factories as a chimera and evidence of how removed from reality the regime was.43 Now they felt that the fate of the dictatorship hung on collectivisation’s success, on ending the economic and political independence of the peasantry and ensuring the resources for industrialisation. It was an enormous gamble for Stalin. The SRs saw collectivisation as the result of Bolshevik hatred of the peasantry. Stalinskii reiterated yet again the genesis and forms this had taken throughout Lenin’s political life and beyond. The peasantry had always been alien to the Marxists and their predominance in Russia had been used to justify the dictatorship: From the moment of their accession, the Bolsheviks, due to their doctrine and the nature of their power, have carried on an interminable war with the peasantry, accompanied by retreats and attacking ‘manoeuvres’, but always pursuing one unchangeable strategic task – the mastery of the peasant ‘citadel’, in accordance with the well-known Leninist formula.44 With collectivisation, ‘the battle of the Bolshevik dictatorship with the peasantry has entered its sharpest phase’.45 The Bolsheviks wanted to control agriculture, and to do this they had to destroy the village and the commune, the source of its independence. Collectivisation was not based on a genuine belief in the socialist potential of the peasantry, as evident from the regime’s priorities:

120 The collectivisation of agriculture

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Covering themselves with the smokescreen of the ‘socialist’ reconstruction of the village, the authorities do not even think about introducing ‘socialist’ order into the collective farms. They are currently concerned with only one task – ‘the proper organisation of labour’: piece work, norms, tariffs, the abolition of the division of the harvest ‘by souls’, and organising the collective farm workers for permanent or seasonal work.46 The collective farms had nothing in common with the cooperative principles supported by the SRs. Representatives of the state managed them and norms and targets were set from above, in the interests of the state. The SRs eventually characterised them as similar to domestic capitalist industry or serfdom. The peasant had been reduced to the level of a prisoner, or at the very best, a hired labourer.47 Stalinskii warned that one should not be distracted by collectivisation’s ‘false narodnik gleam’.48 The immediate motivations for the introduction of collectivisation were economic. It had only been undertaken after the exhaustion of NEP and as a result of the economic crisis and the clash with the peasantry over grain. The Bolsheviks had neglected collective forms of agriculture during the 1920s, but by the decade’s end Stalin had no choice but to force the peasants into the collective farms, as ‘his self-appointed task was the preservation of the dictatorial power of communism’.49 The alternative to collectivisation would have been concessions to the peasantry in order to increase grain marketing. This would have been unacceptable to many in the Party and could have ended the dictatorship. While Stalin was acting in the regime’s overall interests, power politics played a role; collectivisation was Stalin’s bid for control over the Party, his answer to ‘the Cassandras of the Right Opposition’, showing that he could continue the Left Course.50 The Prague SRs accepted that Stalin genuinely believed in the superiority of large-scale agricultural production and wanted to put an end to the economically unviable splintering of farms. His ‘grain factories’ would be dependent on the state, and allow it to extract the greatest possible surpluses for industrialisation. Another advantage was that it would turn peasants into state workers.51 Stalinskii believed that industrialisation was being carried out for collectivisation, which was the more important policy for the regime. The aim of industrialisation was to put the peasants under the control of the state. Industrialisation was carried out by the expropriation of the better-off peasants and the impoverishment of the rest, as well as being funded by the retarding of agriculture. Industrialisation was the expansion of the state sector, creating a social base of support for Stalinism. This had been the plan outlined at the XIV Party Congress in 1925. In theses on ‘The Industrialisation of the USSR and the Five Year Plan’, Stalinskii wrote that the pyatiletka was: ﬁrst of all a plan for the rapid collectivisation of Russia … Industrialisation is not a goal. It is merely a means in the hands of dictatorial Bolshevism for the

The collectivisation of agriculture

121

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

carrying out of collectivisation, on which today’s Kremlin rulers have laid their bets. For collectivisation … must provide a powerful unassailable base for the Bolshevik dictatorship and guarantee its survival.52 The rapid tempo of industrialisation was dictated by the need to ‘more easily and more rapidly deprive the Russian peasantry of its economic independence and weaken its overall weight in the economy of the USSR’.53 Stalinskii also rejected the idea that Stalin’s regime was carrying out the policies needed to overcome Russia’s backwardness, a thesis that was gaining ground in both émigré and European circles at this time. Stalinskii restated that Stalin was building a power base for the Bolshevik regime: Stalin is not building industry on behalf of Russia and has no intention of doing so. He is building ‘socialism’ in its Bolshevik sense on the basis of industrialisation, which is not the same thing at all. The Five-Year Plan is being carried out for the purpose of collectivisation and only for it and not for anything else. It is dictated purely by the Party political interests of the Bolshevik dictatorship and fulﬁls the task of its preservation and strengthening. For Stalin, industrialisation is not a goal, but a means; it must serve as the instrument for the reconstruction which he has undertaken and which he calls ‘socialist’. That is the totality of its meaning for Bolshevism.54 Towards the end of the NEP, the Bolshevik policy had returned to its original Leninist formulation of class war, the ‘stavka na bednyaka’, the wager on the poor peasant. In this respect Lenin and Stalin’s policies were identical.55 The failure of agriculture caused by Bolshevik policy led to impoverishment, unrest and the grain crisis. Collectivisation was Stalin’s way out.56 The Prague SR analysis is similar to that of those for who the key to collectivisation is in the Bolshevik Weltanschauung. Summing up the recent historiography, Chris Ward writes of: Deep-seated ideological predilections which united all Bolshevik intellectuals: a preference for ‘large-scale’ solutions, an instinctive aversion to all things backward and rural, and an emphasis on ‘will’ … Stalin stumbled into a bloody civil war with the peasants, but he stumbled along a path which the Party, increasingly reﬂecting his own ideological proclivities, was already inclined to take.57 The Prague SR view is also close to that of Soviet historians such as Viktor Danilov and Zhores Medvedev, who agreed that a transition to agricultural collectives was necessary and possible but should have been carried out gradually and voluntarily and with a proper technological base. They saw a missed opportunity for the cooperative movement, which if it had received support could have prepared the

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

122 The collectivisation of agriculture

way for a genuinely socialist agriculture.58 They associated this path not with narodnik socialists but with the faction of the Bolshevik Party associated with Bukharin. The tragedy of collectivisation in the Soviet Union did not turn the SRs away from the idea of collective production in agriculture. In 1934–35 Chernov spent six months in Palestine as a guest of the Workers’ Party of Eretz-Israel. In unpublished notes for a book, he recorded his observation that the Jewish socialist émigrés in Palestine, many of whom came from Russia, were achieving what European socialists had hesitated to do; turning the land into an inalienable fund (that is, ‘socialising’) for the kibbutzim or moshavim.59 A cooperative movement there also was helping develop a successful agricultural economy. It seemed possible to Chernov that ‘Jewish socialism could achieve the old dream of Russian narodnichestvo’.60 He wrote that this was true agrarian socialism, as compared to the ‘lie’ of Stalin’s collective farms.61 The Land Question at the 1931 Prague Conference In early 1931 the Prague Group held a conference to revise the SR Party programme, which ofﬁcially was unchanged from the one adopted in 1906. There were a number of important questions to discuss; had the ‘cardinal issue of the Revolution’—land—been resolved and if not should they demand its socialisation? Should they still support the commune? What was the correct form of land usage and what should their attitude be to the collective farms? Chernov did not attend the conference. He was probably not invited as his attitude and leadership came under ﬁre throughout. He would not have enjoyed it; some of the speakers wanted a revision of the programme, suggesting that the word ‘revolutionary’ should be dropped from the Party’s name, and that the much loved SR slogan ‘In struggle you will gain your rights’, be jettisoned.62 Chernov later was to dismiss it as a ‘tower of Babel’.63 ‘Theses on the Land Policy of the PSR’, presented by Petr Klimushkin proved controversial.64 He stated that the principle that land can only belong to those who work it must remain at the heart of the programme.65 They should oppose Bolshevik attempts to bring class war into the village with the slogan ‘Free and equal labour in agriculture of all wishing to work on the land, and full rights to the products of that labour’. Their politics should be based on all the ‘labouring elements’ of the village, ‘independent of the level of their prosperity at the given moment’, perhaps reﬂecting the inﬂuence of the interpretation of the cyclical nature of peasant household economies developed by Chayanov. Klimushkin went on to state that: The agrarian problem which confronted the Party in pre-revolutionary times has to a signiﬁcant decree been resolved by the current government: the removal of land from those who do not work it and its passing to the peasants.66

The collectivisation of agriculture

123

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

He stated that a future government would have to live with the collectivisation of agriculture for some time. Its task would be to raise Russian agriculture to European levels so that it could compete on the world market. This could be done within the collective farm system. They would not dissolve the collective farms, ‘where they are well-established and where they wish to continue their existence’, but would also permit individual farms until these too eventually evolved to a superior form of agricultural production.67 The SR Party should promote the beneﬁts of cooperative and collective farming to individual farmers. Klimushkin spoke out against the commune: I am not in favour of the idealisation of the commune. I consider the question of how to evaluate its positive and negative sides from the economic point of view far from resolved. Essentially, the commune has as many negative as it does positive sides. The positive features are: communality of interest, solidarity, the possibility of work agreements and the presence of a ready-made apparatus. The negative sides are that the commune by force of habit encourages inertia … and acts as a block to the intensiﬁcation of agriculture.68 In his view, land should be taken out of circulation as an object of exchange and the best form of landownership was family ownership.69 Nesterov, who also presented theses at the conference, argued that they should jettison the socialisation of the land for the nationalisation of land, as one single form of land usage could not resolve agriculture’s complex problems. Some land should be socialised, but if private groups or individuals wanted to have rights of usage they could. The state could reserve important estates or land for agricultural experimentation. In addition, the nationalisation of land would mean that some of the collective farms could remain intact.70 Klimushkin stated that, aided by the Bolshevik state apparatus, the proletariat now lived at the expense of the peasantry, just as the landowning class had done under Tsarism.71 Nesterov claimed that Russia would always be an agrarian country and therefore their politics should be the politics of the peasantry. He suggested the SR Party adopt the slogan ‘Through the well-being of the peasantry to the well-being of the state’.72 More controversially, Nesterov called for the right to use hired labour.73 Stalinskii spoke on behalf of the Volrosstsy. As throughout the 1920s, he laid out the classic SR-narodnik position, which nothing in the years following the revolution had given him reason to moderate. He expressed surprise that Klimushkin and Nesterov questioned the SR policies of socialisation of the land, instead of attacking collectivisation, which ‘has taken the land away from the peasantry and given it into the ownership of the Party-state, or more correctly, to the Communist Party’.74 Stalinskii angrily defended the commune and reafﬁrmed SR commitment to it, which had been given because it was:

124 The collectivisation of agriculture

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

the basis for the resolution of economic questions. Even the Decembrists put it to the foreground of their programme in this sense…It is well known why narodnichestvo gave such prominence to the commune; it was the basis on which should have been built the new order. Reaching socialism through the commune, by-passing the capitalist system.75 The most important aspect of the commune was its equalising principle and its ability to regulate land relations. The commune and communal landownership was the best way to achieve collective production. An attack on it was therefore an attack on the whole SR programme. He did not believe that the commune acted as a block to progress; what agricultural recovery had been made during the 1920s had been made through the commune which had become the overwhelming form of land usage: In the days of the Revolution, the peasants returned to the commune and without it the division of land would have turned into chaos and complete anarchy. Why were the peasants so unanimously in favour of the socialisation of the land? Because it was based on their communal principles.76 Once the Bolsheviks had stabilised their rule, they distorted the principle of socialisation expressed in the peasant nakazy in 1917, as it was incompatible with a dictatorship. Now they were totally destroying it with collectivisation. The SRs should still stand for the socialisation of the land in opposition to the Bolshevik policy of collectivisation and to the Kadets’ bourgeois private ownership. Other delegates also denied that the land problem had been resolved; the Bolsheviks had taken away the land from the peasants and given it to their own Party.77 They also spoke in favour of socialisation and the commune: The February Revolution of 1917, and before that the entire ﬂow of history, determined the triumph of the labouring principle in agriculture. The territory of all Russia saw the triumph of the commune equalising order, which ﬂows from and is dictated by the historically created real circumstances of the communal life of the Russian village and the labouring legal consciousness of the Russian peasant.78 Why should they abandon the commune now, when even the Bolshevik Commissar for Agriculture had admitted in 1927 that 99 per cent of land usage was in the form of the repartitional commune, and there was evidence that in places such as Byelorussia where individual farms had been more numerous, repartitional land usage was increasing?79 The Bolsheviks had ‘thrown off their SR kaftan’ and decided to put an end to the commune for political control of the village.80 The path to agricultural recovery for these SRs still lay through the commune, but it would be

The collectivisation of agriculture

125

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

more modern, progressive and ﬂexible. During the transitional period there should be freedom of choice of land tenure with government support for all types as there had been throughout NEP. There was general agreement that the labour principle should remain at the heart of their agrarian programme and that land should only be distributed to those who worked on it. Land should not be an object of exchange. They were passionately convinced that this was what the Russian people wanted, as shown by all developments since 1917. Conclusion In 1931 when Stalinskii and others were insisting the Russian commune remain at the heart of their programme, the Russian commune had disappeared in the transition to collectivisation, ‘a casualty of an economic campaign in a politically inspired social war’ as a result of ‘an aggregation of concerns about productivity, procurement, planning and political power’.81 The land, its products and the labour of those who worked on it were in the hands of the state. This makes their debates seem irrelevant. As will be outlined in the next chapter, while during the 1920s the Prague SRs had reasons to be hopeful, the ‘Revolution from Above’ ended an optimistic political life. For the Prague SRs, the 1920s had still been a time of hope. The period between 1929 and 1932 was a time of demoralisation, as they realised that a state, a system and a society (Stalinism) was being put into place, which was new and unique and to which powerful groups were attached. In 1930 Sukhomlin wrote that: The Bolsheviks have created a consummate state system, a new super-police state…They have developed and perfected their bureaucratic, police and military apparatus and transformed themselves into a colossal soulless machine for the repression not just of civil society (obshchestvennaya samodeyatelnost’) but also independent thought. They have moved a new ruling stratum into the commanding posts, a unique amalgam of military, political and bureaucratic personnel – promotees from the workers and intelligentsia (and occasionally the peasantry) who secured ‘Soviet power’ during the Civil War…The founders of the regime, its ideologues, its leaders, and the entire ruling stratum of ‘self-satisﬁed bureaucrats’, to use Trotsky’s expression, see it as a most perfect type of state which should carry on for a very long time … Even in a ‘classless’ society there will be no reason to alter the unlimited power of the Communist Party.82 These remarks concede that the regime had not lost the support of those who helped it win the Civil War—the workers, and to a lesser extent, the intelligentsia. In an article written for the International in 1930, Chernov stated that the economic structure of the Soviet Union was a new and unique form of capitalism,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

126 The collectivisation of agriculture

‘regulated production by a bureaucratic industry in the interests of the state, controlling the relationship of supply and demand’ and exploiting the ‘labouring population’ as producers and consumers.83 The Soviet Union was ruled by a ‘hidden corporation’, which acted in the guise of the All-Union Communist Party. Society was split into two groups—‘those managing the hidden corporation and the atomised mass of the managed’.84 The dictatorship, ‘which had arisen at the time as a temporary measure of preserving Bolshevik minority power, has transformed itself to an organic form of power of a new social layer – the monopolistic, indivisible one party-state of the organisers and utilisers of state-capitalism’.85 The SR Party programme had been overtaken by events, not only in Russia. There was a desire to update it in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Postnikov wrote to the SRs in China in 1929: We have an enormous amount of ideological capital, which at the current moment does not give any interest. Our forebears, beginning with the Decembrists and Herzen, and continued by the narodniki and SRs, developed an original conception of Russian socialism. Many of our ideas are now accepted by West European socialists (the Belgian De Mann, the German Strebel), who used to be totally under the inﬂuence of Marxism. But, to our misfortune, we are not keeping our theory at the height of modern intellectual developments.86 The changes in Russian and European society were too profound to leap from 1906 to 1931 and in the context of emigration it proved impossible to formalise one single Party programme. The SRs did not have enough information about what was happening in Russia. They no longer had their own publications and even though they had much in common, had splintered into factions. The situation in Europe had changed from when they ﬁrst came into exile. The Prague SRs could no longer continue believing that they were living in a ‘democratic-paciﬁst’ era as the 1930s moved on. However, the failure of the Prague SRs to produce a Party programme or survive as a coherent whole during emigration does not mean that their ideas are of no interest. Far from being a view of the world which belonged to the past, neonarodnichestvo proved resilient and produced useful critiques in the 1920s. However, it could not survive the blow of the Stalinist reconstruction of Russia and it would be further weakened by the establishment of the Nazi regime in Germany and worsening international relations. Debates about landownership re-emerged in the 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many agricultural workers resisted de-collectivisation as much as earlier generations had resisted collectivisation. The attempt to pass a law allowing for the buying and selling of agricultural land on the free market proved to be traumatic for Russian society and lasted almost a decade. Some such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the Moscow Patriarch put their objections in nationalist or

The collectivisation of agriculture

127

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

religious terms while collective farm workers were concerned with protecting their economic position. Many of the arguments would have been familiar to the SRs, and the passions which the law provoked indicate that the narodniki had grasped a deepseated element in the make-up of Russian peasant culture. The ﬁrst bill passed in the Russian Federation allowing for the free sale of agricultural land was in Saratov oblast’ in 1997. This was appropriately enough the project of the Governor of Saratov, which had been the position that Stolypin had occupied before he became the Prime Minister of Russia in 1906.87

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

8

The 1930s and the Road to War

This chapter looks at Prague SR political activities in the 1930s and covers brieﬂy their fates during the Second World War. As noted, the previous level of party political activity came to an end at the beginning of the 1930s. This was for a number of reasons including the various splits within the Prague SRs, the withdrawal of funding by the Czechoslovak government and the momentous changes in the Soviet Union that accompanied industrialisation and collectivisation. The growth of fascism in Europe, the heightened international tensions and the general disillusionment with democracy had the most signiﬁcant impact on the lives and thoughts of the SRs. A study of the Russian émigrés’ full involvement in European political life enriches our understanding of general European, as well as Russian, experiences in this period. The SRs shared the fates of many of their European contemporaries. Collectivisation and industrialisation wrought such changes in Soviet society to which SR activity abroad could not adjust. A completely new society and new socioeconomic system—Stalinism—had come into being in the Soviet Union. Many SRs felt they could oppose Stalinism from a position of democratic socialism, but that the old SR Party programme offered no speciﬁc guide to how to deal with this phenomenon. In conditions of emigration, with only slender contact with Russia, it proved impossible to revise the programme. Gurevich wrote to Chernov in 1936 that he felt he no longer belonged to any political party and that: Speaking honestly, I do not believe in the resurrection of the SR party. It seems to me that it already belongs in its entirety to history, since even the speciﬁc elements of its programme have become almost without object (nepredmetnoi) In Russia itself such new conditions have been created that even if the regime were to democratise there would be no place for the old parties.1 All hopes for a popular revolution under Stalin had to be abandoned. In early 1932, Chernov received a clandestine letter from a group of SRs in the Soviet Union.2 The letter described the Soviet population as exhausted, impoverished and hungry. The atmosphere which prevailed in industry was one of chaos and fear. The Bolsheviks,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The 1930s and the road to war

129

in their view, had abandoned their previous ideology and all that remained was ‘the problematics of power, the organisation of administration, the apparat, the effectiveness of various methods of pressuring the population’.3 Stalin and the Politburo were popular with the ruling cadres they had put into positions of power, while the rest of the population remained indifferent to politics. The letter’s authors emphasised the importance of the vydvizhentsy, the worker and peasant promotees, whose role as a support base for the regime the Prague SRs had already grasped. Prerevolutionary parties, the émigrés, the Constituent Assembly were never mentioned according to the authors of the letter; after all, a new generation had now grown up in the Soviet Union.4 The authors describe travelling through abandoned villages, where ‘part of those absent have been dekulakised and driven to the north (mainly to work in the forests), part have gone to the towns, part have gone God knows where’.5 The peasants who remained in the collective farms carried on the ‘struggle for grain’ with the state. One can see here that the social categories such as the village intelligentsia and the ‘conscious peasants’ on whom the SRs relied for their support, had gone. Although the Russian SRs claimed a partisan war was taking place in the countryside, they stated that organised opposition was pointless. As in the 1920s, it was impossible to publish leaﬂets because basic materials such as gelatine or paper were unavailable. While the intelligentsia were guarded, ordinary people openly cursed the regime and longed for ‘an external war to turn into a Civil War’, as Lenin had once urged. There was clearly no role for the SR Party in this picture and Chernov admitted that he could see no way out of the situation, telling the émigrés that ‘we must have the courage to look reality in the face, however gloomy it may be’.6 While they disagreed with the tempo and ‘fantastical’ nature of the Five Year Plan, the SRs believed the industrialisation drive was genuinely popular among key groups of workers and the new Soviet generation. This too led to a drop in their political activity. Kobyakov noted in a speech to the 1931 conference that with the Five Year Plan, the Bolsheviks had moved from a ‘destructive to a constructive phase’ and that the SRs should view this as positive.7 The Prague SRs could only express the hope that the difﬁcult conditions of industrialisation would turn the workers against the regime. In debates on the situation of the proletariat in 1931 they agreed that Russian workers occupied a privileged position, and repaid the state ‘if not with passionate love, then at least with real support and loyalty’.8 This led some SRs to moderate their public criticism of what was happening in the Soviet Union and was in keeping with Volya Rossii’s earlier ‘Facing Russia’ stance. Lebedev, for example as we have seen, claimed to have been swept up in the excitement of industrialisation when he returned in 1929. Slonim wrote in 1934 that: There is no doubt that the years 1929–32 saw the birth of a special ‘Five-Year Plan Mysticism’. This mysticism implied a belief in the possibility of

130 The 1930s and the road to war

constructing socialism in a single country by means of great and heroic efforts, which were to create a mighty industry, the basis of Socialist prosperity.9

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The abandonment of a revolutionary ideology in some aspects during the 1930s, the ‘Great Retreat’ which followed on from the ﬁrst Five Year Plan period, also changed the nature of the debates between the émigrés and the regime. Émigrés on the right found the conservatism of the Stalinist regime more palatable. Slonim wrote to Postnikov from Paris in the mid 1930s that: Actually I preferred the Bolsheviks in the time of their insanity; then you could curse them all you liked and there was no end of ﬁghting and yelling. And now it’s just all petit-bourgeois morality with a socialist tinge. A cosy little ﬂat with all mod cons: two rooms and a kitchen …10 Not only had socio-economic conditions inside Russia changed, but of course the international situation was very different from the 1920s. The Prague SRs could quite clearly see that they were no longer living in a ‘democratic-paciﬁst era’. The military threat to the Soviet Union from Germany and Japan meant that some Prague SRs were no longer willing to criticise the Soviet regime. This selfcensorship means that their true thoughts about the Stalinist regime and Soviet society in the 1930s are not really available. The international situation occupied most of their thoughts and political activity after 1932, not just as Russians. In common with other Europeans, some Prague SRs were prepared to stop criticising the Soviet regime as they saw it as the only power capable of taking on and defeating fascism, which they believed was by far the greater threat to world civilisation. They hoped to draw the Soviet Union closer to the European democracies and the United States and feared any anti-Soviet campaigns by émigrés could now act as a block to further rapprochement. Their changing behaviour, rather than being further evidence of the demoralisation endemic to émigré politics, was consistent with their socialist ideology and also shows how involved the Prague SRs were in the political atmosphere of their time. Prague SR Émigré Life after 1932 1932 saw the beginning of a lull in activity by the Volrosstsy. They could no longer publish Volya Rossii even though Lebedev had found funds.11 Publication of the journal SR stopped in 1932 as well. Slonim wrote to Postnikov in a low mood at the end of December that: The loss of Volya Rossii is dispiriting, as is the whole weight of past mistakes and the fact that you cannot correct what’s done and live one more time. It’s time to pay in full for all our transgressions … they say it’s miserable in Prague as

The 1930s and the road to war

131

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

well. I don’t even feel like going there. I wish my friends would come to Paris. It seems to me that in Prague your mood is becoming gloomier and gloomier.12 The Volrosstsy were dispersed at this time. Lebedev divided his time between Belgrade and Paris. He had moved to Belgrade in 1928. He headed the Zemgor there and edited a Serbian-language journal about the Soviet Union called Russkii Arkhiv. He worked closely with the Yugoslav Socialist Party. Postnikov remained in Prague, running the Historical Archive. He was a leading and well-liked member of the émigré community there. Slonim, Stalinskii and Sukhomlin were all in Paris. Slonim and Sukhomlin carried on publishing on Russian culture, literature and politics for the radical French press as well as translating Soviet literature. They were considered fairly inﬂuential ﬁgures in this regard by the other émigrés.13 Sukhomlin was also the editor of the foreign section of the French left wing newspaper Le Quotidien as well as writing on foreign affairs for La Lumière. He translated into French Mikhail Sholokhov’s Quiet Flows the Don and Alexei Chapygin’s Sten’ka Razin along with works by other Soviet writers such as Valentin Kataev, Aleksandr Tvardovskii, Maxim Gorky and Isaac Babel’. In the mid 1930s Marc Slonim set up a literary agency, The European Literary Bureau, with George Reavey.14 Reavey (1907–76) had grown up in the Russian Empire where his Northern Irish father had run a ﬂax mill. He had left with his family during the Civil War. He became a surrealist poet and was close to Samuel Beckett. Slonim and Reavey’s literary agency represented Samuel Beckett, whose work they were the ﬁrst to publish. They also represented the French writers André Malraux and Louis-Ferdinand Céline and the French philosopher Jacques Maritain. Slonim also represented Russian émigré writers and managed to get their works translated and published in the major European languages. In a shift of viewpoint from the 1920s, he even acted as Nikolai Berdyaev’s agent.15 In 1934 Slonim and Reavey edited one of the ﬁrst ever English language anthologies of Soviet literature. As well as such well-regarded modernist authors such as Boris Pilnyak, Andrei Bely, Babel’, Boris Pasternak, Mikhail Zoshchenko and Andrei Remizov, they included in the collection the ‘Five Year Plan’ authors Fyodor Gladkov and Aleksandr Fedeev.16 Stalinskii was working as a waiter in this period and maintained a distance from the others.17 There were still periodic attempts for Chernov and the Volrosstsy to work together in the 1930s, but nothing concrete came of this. As noted, the 1930s saw the end of the Russian Action in Czechoslovakia. In 1931 grants to students were stopped and in 1935 funding to Zemgor ended.18 The Historical Archive, where some SRs worked, survived though. Life became increasingly hard for the émigrés, as it did for most European citizens and thoughts were occupied with the ﬁnancial struggle for survival. In December 1932, the Prague Group appealed to New York for money for a publication, saying that the ‘as yet unextinguished lamp of eserstvo in emigration can only continue through a printed

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

132 The 1930s and the road to war

party publication’.19 Nothing came of this request. Some of the more moderate Prague SRs—Lazarev, Arkhangel’skii and Nikolaev—edited a periodical called Svoboda with Kerensky, Avksentiev, Vishnyak, Zenzinov and Rudnev in the mid 1930s. The 1930s saw a shift in the relationship between Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union due to the ascension to power of Hitler in Germany. The Soviet Union now looked like a potential protector, rather than a threat. In 1934 Czechoslovakia ﬁnally ofﬁcially recognised the Soviet Union and a Czechoslovak-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance was signed in May 1935. As a result of Czechoslovakia’s increasing closeness to the Soviet Union, émigré activities were curtailed and government ofﬁcials were requested not to attend certain émigré functions.20 In 1934 it was extremely difﬁcult for the émigré Union of Russian Writers and Journalists in Prague to get permission for the Civil War General Denikin to give a series of lectures on Russia and the First World War. Permission was ﬁnally granted although ‘excluding any kind of debate after the lecture, and under the condition that the lecturer will adhere to the declared topic in a strictly historical sense, and will in no way whatsoever touch upon the government of the USSR and its politics in any respect’.21 Despite Soviet pressure, the Czechoslovak government did not entirely repudiate the Russian émigrés, as they did the German socialists and communists ﬂeeing Hitler whom Beneš asked to leave Czechoslovakia in 1937.22 When Beneš was trying to initiate combined military preparations with the Red Army in 1938, Moscow made one of the conditions that Prague ban several Russian and Ukrainian émigré organisations. However, Beneš refused this request.23 After the Second World War, they did stop protecting the Russian émigrés as they allowed the NKVD to arrest and take back members of the Russian community, including SRs, many of whom actually had Czechoslovak citizenship by then.24 Chernov kept busy writing and publishing in the 1930s, though he was separate from any organised SR group. He still represented the Party in the International along with Sukhomlin, as the old arguments were quietly shelved. His interests in the 1930s included projects in support of European colonisation in the Middle East and Central America. He worked on a project of Fyodor Mansvetov with the Mexican government for the agricultural resettlement of Russian émigrés in Mexico, which also ended in a scandal over ﬁnancial irregularities. In the case of Palestine, he expressed the hope that progressive European Jewish migrants would help to emancipate the local Arab population from Ottoman oppression.25 Chernov loved his visits to Palestine, where he went several times in the mid 1930s as a guest of the Workers’ Party of Eretz Israel. He felt constructive work was being carried out in the kibbutzim, which he greeted as the embodiment of his socialist beliefs about collective agriculture.26 He found the positive atmosphere there refreshing in comparison to that in Europe, and enjoyed meeting old comrades and socialists who had recently been allowed to leave the Soviet Union.27 As the decade wore on and his position became more precarious, he and his wife considered moving to

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The 1930s and the road to war

133

Palestine.28 He wrote to friends in 1937 that he wanted to leave Czechoslovakia which was surrounded by fascist states, writing that ‘Hitler, the heirs to Dolfus, Horthy and Pilsudski – there you have our neighbours. In the eventuality of any international complications it will be simply impossible to run away’.29 Chernov suffered from ill health in the 1930s. He also experienced personal tragedy. In 1933 his son Boris died in Siberia from a brain haemorrhage.30 He had been arrested for underground activities in Petrograd in 1921 and been sentenced to prison and exile for 12 years. As the decade went on Chernov found it increasingly hard to publish in Czechoslovakia; the German press was closed to him because of the inﬂuence of the Nazis, and the Czech press out of fear of offending the Soviet Union.31 There was no longer an SR press. He managed to keep producing theoretical works on European socialism as well as writing about the international situation, although much of it remains unpublished.32 He carried on lecturing to Russian-speaking audiences in the limitrofnye gosudarstva. He was also negotiating with the Institute of Social History in Amsterdam to write a history of the SR Party. He was fortunate in having a devoted and intelligent wife, Ida Samoilovna, who exhausted herself arranging their private life in increasingly impoverished and dangerous situations and acting as his secretary, leaving him free to concentrate on intellectual matters. Chernov remained optimistic and kept his faith in the possibility of narodnichestvo becoming the leading socialist movement in the world. He wrote in a letter in 1939 that he was hoping to attract to the SR Party both disillusioned ex-Bolsheviks such as Ante Ciliga and Boris Souvarine, as well as the various disappointed Marxists who had dominated the pre-war Socialist International such as Rudolf Hilferding. In this way, he hoped the SR Party would become the head of a genuinely international movement which he had always wanted it to be.33 The Defence of the Soviet Union The international situation was foremost in the SRs’ minds in the 1930s, as it was for most politically committed Europeans. The rise of fascist or military dictatorships encircling the Soviet Union—Germany, Poland and Japan—wrought a change in attitude among some. One of the last public actions of the Prague Group took place in 1932 after the seizure of Manchuria by the Japanese. They appealed to all Party members to support the Soviet Union in the eventuality of war with Japan, and to work to inform Western governments that Japan and Germany were planning imperialist attacks on Russia in the guise of anti-communism.34 Organised work between some of the Volrosstsy resurfaced in 1934. Lebedev began publishing a journal called Problemy, along with two other ex-Prague SRs, Fyodor Makhin and the Armenian V. Minokhoryan.35 This was an early harbinger of what became known as the defensist movement (oboroncheskoe dvizhenie).36 This émigré movement adopted a similar platform to the defensist movement of the First World War, which had argued that socialists should support the Russian war effort,

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

134 The 1930s and the road to war

regardless of the Tsarist regime. Lebedev believed that Hitler would attack the Soviet Union and predicted that many émigrés on the right would support him. These views were not widely accepted at the time.37 Problemy called for the suspension of all criticism of the Soviet government. Slonim joined Lebedev and worked with him on formulating the platform of defensism. In early 1936 in Paris they helped found the Russian Émigré Defensist Movement (Rossiiskoe Emigrantskoe Oboroncheskoe Dvizhenie) and Slonim edited its newspaper. In an article in 1936 Slonim now criticised opposition to the Soviet Union, saying that defensists should strive for spiritual unity with the Russian people and should be faithful not only to the: idea of Russia but to that living country which, in labour and in suffering, is creating a new life. The defensist joyfully greets all tidings of the internal and external successes of Russia. When a new factory is built in the Soviet Union, when a strong army is created, when a heroic ﬂight is made, when important discoveries are made and when a talented book is written, the defensist feels a sense of pride.38 Slonim contributed to spreading the ‘joyful tidings’ from the Soviet Union for the French public in other ways. In 1935, he published L’Odysee de Tchéliouskine, a translation of a Soviet book about the dramatic fate of the Chelyuskin steamship. The Chelyuskin had left Murmansk in 1933 in an attempt to navigate the North Sea Route from Murmansk to Vladivostok. It became trapped in the Bering Straits and the stranded crew members were eventually saved by a Soviet aviation mission after a month. Media coverage of the rescue was intense both inside the Soviet Union and internationally and the rescue pilots were the ﬁrst to be awarded the title ‘Hero of the Soviet Union’. In 1937 Slonim published a book on the Soviet Union in 1937, L’onze republiques sovietiques, which was so positive that Intourist recommended it to potential visitors. Meanwhile Fyodor Makhin published L’ Armee Rouge in 1938, a celebratory depiction of the Red Army. The forward to the ﬁnal issue of Problemy in 1936 gives an idea of the dangers the defensist movement saw: Europe and Asia have been turned into armed camps. War rages in China. The Italian-Abyssinian clash is the prologue for even more threatening events…In Spain there is a vicious Civil War, a natural consequence of Mussolini’s military successes and Hitler’s unpunished ﬂouting of treaties.39 In the view of Slonim and Lebedev, formal democracy had failed to contain fascism; in fact it had allowed fascism to spread across Europe and turn it into a military camp. Democracy seemed ﬁnished in Europe: what remained were fascism and the Soviet system. In 1922 the GPU had already been trying to weaken SR resistance to the Bolshevik regime by persuading them that the choice for Europe was either

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The 1930s and the road to war

135

communism or fascism.40 They now no longer rejected that position as they once had with their slogan of the ‘third force’. The situation in Europe gave great pre-eminence to Russia and therefore ‘the strengthening of Russia’s military might is the best guarantee of general peace’.41 The journal argued for the support of the Red Army, which ‘guarantees the independence and integrity of our Homeland’.42 In 1936 Lebedev moved to the USA, claiming that there was no longer any positive political work to be done in Europe by the Russian émigrés. Europe’s eclipse was inevitable; he predicted that war would break out there and bring with it a universal catastrophe. In his view, anybody who wished to survive should move to America.43 Chernov was also concerned about Czechoslovakia’s fate, which he accepted was linked to the Soviet Union. He was also concerned with the nature of the fascist regimes, the clear threat to Europe’s Jewish population and the inevitability of a catastrophic war.44 In a letter in 1936 he wrote that the atmosphere was reminiscent of 1914, when it was clear there was an inexorable slide to war.45 Chernov did not become involved with the defensist movement, and remained highly critical of the Stalinist regime up to, during and after the Second World War. He wrote that the logical outcome of wishing to defend the Soviet Union was to ask the regime for the right to return.46 He was not prepared to defend the regime. It was up to Stalin to create real conditions for unity (that is, freedom) among the Soviet peoples, including the émigrés. Chernov believed the defensists would become a weapon in Stalin’s hands to use against internal dissent. His position was of conditional defensism; the desire for the Soviet Union to defeat Germany was always to be expressed along with demands for reform and criticism of the regime. The defensist movement became linked with the Union of Returnees (Soyuz vozvrashchenstva), which was a NKVD base in Europe. Slonim and Lebedev both broke with the movement in 1938, although they did not revise their defensist views.47 In 1941 in America, Slonim was investigated by the American SR organisation and was found to have been incautious in his praise of the Soviet Union and in some of his actions. He had knowingly mixed with the Soviet agents in the Defensist Movement, and only left the movement in July 1938, long after its penetration by the NKVD had become public. However, the investigation concluded that he had not been a Soviet agent.48 Sukhomlin and the Show Trials Postnikov, Stalinskii and Sukhomlin did not participate in the defensist movement. Sukhomlin’s behaviour though caused even more consternation among SRs and other émigrés. In 1967 Sukhomlin’s widow claimed that the letter he had received from his father, referred to earlier, had convinced Sukhomlin of the correctness of the Bolshevik regime.49 There is no evidence to support this from his public writings in the second half of the 1920s and early 1930s. By the second half of the 1930s he

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

136 The 1930s and the road to war

was clearly in the pro-Soviet camp. In 1936 he became the editor of a weekly journal L’Europe Centrale, which was rumoured to be funded by the Soviet regime. The journal was meant to introduce East European culture and politics to a West European audience. As a result of his new position, Sukhomlin moved back to Prague in 1936 until the German occupation in March 1939 when he watched Hitler’s troops enter and escaped for Paris. Sukhomlin caused a scandal at the Executive Committee of the Socialist International in March 1938, which was held during the Bukharin-RykovPyatakov show trial in Moscow. Both the Paris SR Zenzinov and the Menshevik Rafael Abramovich wrote to Chernov to criticise Sukhomlin’s conduct at the meeting. When the Mensheviks suggested a condemnation of Stalinist terror, Sukhomlin spoke out against this, as well as against Adler’s proposal to send a telegram speciﬁcally condemning the trial. He said that the main ﬁre should be concentrated against fascism ‘and not against those who could help the ﬁght against fascism’.50 He also said that the defendants had been accused of spying for Germany and the telegram would allow Stalin to accuse the International of offering support to those it considered traitors, spies and counter-revolutionaries. In addition, Bukharin and Pyatakov had behaved no differently during the Trial of the SRs in 1922 to the way Stalin was behaving now.51 In his view these Old Bolsheviks did not deserve the defence of the International. He felt the political message of the trial was a warning to England to adopt a more pro-Soviet position and therefore should not be condemned outright. (The third show trial had moved on from internal antiSoviet conspiracies to present an international pro-fascist conspiracy in its indictment.) Sukhomlin expressed the belief that a union between France, Great Britain and the USSR was the only way to defeat Hitler.52 The International and its constituent parties, rather than criticising the Soviet government, should try to arrange some conﬁdential meetings with the leading members of the Stalinist regime towards this goal.53 He told the audience that ‘the Russian tragedy (the Terror) is more painful for me than for anyone else here, because we are not only talking about a crisis of ideology, a party or revolutionary sympathy, but about my native land and its fate’.54 In fact at this time, unknown presumably to Sukhomlin, his father had already become a victim of the Terror. He had been arrested in February 1938 and executed a few weeks later.55 Zenzinov was furious at Sukhomlin’s action of ‘protesting against a protest against Soviet terror’.56 He was concerned for the safety of their comrades in Russia believing that they would be involved in the next planned show trial, as the SR Party had been mentioned in the indictment of the third trial and one of the accusations against Bukharin was that he was in touch with SR leaders in Russia and abroad.57 Chernov agreed with Zenzinov, writing to him that: One can observe a hidden ‘seriality’ in the Moscow trials: each one provides the pretext for the following one. The appearance of Kamkov, Karelin, Osinskii

The 1930s and the road to war

137

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

and Yakovleva as witnesses, just like the spectre of Iuda-Semenov-Vasil’ev, cannot be a coincidence.58 To combat this concern, Sukhomlin apparently spread the rumour that the SR Central Committee members were living openly in Moscow and were in no danger.59 This was in total contradiction to the known facts. In fact, those Central Committee members still alive after all their years of prison and exile had all been rearrested in 1937 and would be shot after the German invasion. In general the Prague SRs expressed little sympathy for the Old Bolsheviks in the show trials. The old narodovolets Rusanov wrote about Bukharin in his unpublished memoirs in 1938 that ‘there is logic in human affairs: those who live by the sword die by it’.60 Chernov commented that ‘it is difﬁcult not to feel sorry for them on a human level, although nobody but they are responsible for the ﬁnale which has crowned their fateful deeds’.61 He came to see Stalinist terror as a logical development of the actions and beliefs of Lenin, who had exchanged ‘democracy for dictatorship, expansiveness (shirota) for an unbearable narrowness, freedom for bloody government terror’ and who had ‘ordered the crushing of everything vital outside the Party’.62 The Menshevik representative in the International, Rafael Abramovich also wrote to Chernov criticising Sukhomlin. In his reply, Chernov did not deny the presence of Sovietophile tendencies among a small number of SRs in emigration (Slonim, Lebedev, Makhin) who he said were infected with the ‘secret sickness of vozvrashchenstva’.63 Chernov explained Sukhomlin’s behaviour differently though. Sukhomlin’s position, according to him, was explained by the fact that he had now moved to Prague where the need for help in the unequal battle against ‘Heinlein-Hitler’ was paramount. Chernov wrote that: One must be in Prague to get a sense of the strength of feeling here – the disappointment and the loss of hope in their Western allies and patrons. There is a dangerously hypnotic atmosphere: with rare exceptions neither the bourgeois nor the socialist press criticise Stalin … and Sukhomlin it seems has become mildly infected by all this.64 Chernov viewed the Munich Agreement in 1938 as a separate peace between the Anglo-French and German-Italian blocs at the expense of the Slavs.65 Another source who met Sukhomlin in 1938 wrote that Sukhomlin had pointed out the situation of Czechoslovakia under threat from Hitler and its need for a close relationship with the Soviet Union. He believed that the SRs should ‘for tactical reasons put aside, or at least soften their criticism of Stalin’s government’.66 When Chernov met Sukhomlin in February 1940, Sukhomlin told him that the Czechoslovak government had offered to arrange a legal return to the Soviet Union ‘without any kind of conditions which would be damaging to his political honour, and that he had not objected to these discussions’.67 He spoke to Chernov

138 The 1930s and the road to war

about ‘the weakness shown by democracy and the signiﬁcance for the fate of Europe of the battle between two genuine antagonists, Bolshevism and fascism’.68 Like others in Europe including Slonim and Lebedev, Sukhomlin saw fascism and communism as the dominant ideologies battling for Europe, and democracy as a destroyed force.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The Prague SRs and the Second World War In October 1938, while in Brussels for a meeting of the International, Chernov received a series of letters and telegrams from Prague warning him not to return as his safety could not be guaranteed.69 SRs still there felt that although Czechoslovakia was not yet occupied, it no longer could afford an independent political line. One Prague SR had already been arrested and sent to an internal prison camp.70 Chernov went to Paris instead where after considerable hardship his wife managed to escape and join him in early 1939. They were distraught to leave Czechoslovakia, which after almost 15 years they had come to view as a ‘second homeland’ and they feared for the friends they had left behind, although his wife wrote in a letter that when she was ﬁnally reunited with Chernov in Paris she found him ‘cheerful and upbeat as usual’.71 When war ﬁnally broke out, Chernov sent a memorandum to France and the UK offering his services as an intermediary between them and the Balkan Slav countries, from where he felt it would be best to attack Nazi Germany.72 After the fall of Paris in 1940 he ﬂed to the south of France and after considerable tribulations managed to sail to America from Portugal in spring 1941, as American trade union leaders had obtained visas for hundreds of Russian and Jewish socialist émigrés, including the SRs. The Paris SRs, with the exception of Fondaminskii who died in Auschwitz, also all went to America this way. Slonim was arrested in France for his contacts with communists and spent some time in a concentration camp before going to New York, where Lebedev had moved in 1938. Stalinskii and Sukhomlim reached the safety of New York as well. The Volrosstsy, reunited, all adopted a ‘super-defensist’ policy in the USA, while Chernov adhered to a conditional defensist line. The SR Party in America investigated Slonim and Sukhomlin for their defensist activities. In common with other émigrés, the Prague SRs believed that the Soviet population’s heroic resistance would impact on political changes in the post-war period. In Europe, Makhin the defensist joined the Yugoslav Communist Party in 1939. He was a General Lieutenant at Tito’s headquarters during the war and visited the Soviet Union in 1944. He died in combat in 1945 and was buried in Yugoslavia as a national hero.73 The other defensist Minokhoryan also died ﬁghting in Yugoslavia with the partisans. Chernov described these deaths as ‘shameful’ as Makhin and Minokhoryan had died ﬁghting in a Bolshevik movement.74 Despite his prominent position in the Russian community, Postnikov survived the war in Prague. In May 1945 along with the Red Army SMERSH, the NKVD and other military intelligence

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The 1930s and the road to war

139

units arrived with prepared lists of émigrés to arrest. Around 215 members of Czechoslovakia’s Russian community who survived the war were arrested and taken back to the Soviet Union for trial. Of those, 138 died there and 68 returned to Czechoslovakia.75 SRs were among those arrested. They were charged with belonging to a counter-revolutionary organisation or having taken part in an SR government (Komuch) and ﬁghting against the Soviet regime during the Civil War.76 They usually received ﬁve-year sentences in camps. Some died there, victims of the regime they had escaped 20 years before. Those who died there include Brushvit. Others such as Klimushkin, Nesterov and Nikolaev survived and returned to Prague after their release. Postnikov was also arrested by the NKVD and spent ﬁve years in prison. He was released in 1950 and settled in Nikopol’ where he worked as a tearoom attendant before being allowed to return to Prague in 1957. He resumed his work in the Slavonic Library and died in 1965. All the Prague SRs who had been arrested were rehabilitated in the late 1980s and early 1990s.77 Like other Russian émigrés SRs also fought with the French Resistance. Some died in concentration camps. Voronovich went to New York after the war, where he published works on the Imperial Russian Army and wrote for the émigré journal Novoe Russkoe Slovo. Lazarev had died in 1937 in Prague. Gurevich died in America in 1940. Shreider died of natural causes in France in 1940. The remaining Mensheviks and SRs worked together quite peaceably in post-war America. What remained of the parties more or less merged into one.78 Chernov also worked with the Paris SRs, trying to raise support in America for the Russian war effort and Red Army POWs.79 He edited a party journal Za Svobodu (1941–7) with Avksentiev, Vishnyak and Zenzinov. Victor Chernov died in 1952, Lebedev and Stalinskii in 1956. Chernov’s eldest daughter and second wife returned to the Soviet Union in 1960. Slonim had a successful academic career and published widely on Soviet literature in the United States. He died in Switzerland in 1976. During his stay in America, Sukhomlin began writing under a pseudonym for pro-Communist newspapers. In 1947 he took Soviet citizenship. In 1951 he was expelled from France as a Communist agent, as he was believed to be connected with Klaus Fuchs, the atomic spy.80 He moved back to Prague and ﬁnally returned to the Soviet Union in 1956, where he managed to establish himself well. He joined the Union of Writers and wrote pro-Soviet articles for the European press, for which he was satirised in Solzhenitsyn’s First Circle.81 He condemned his émigré past. He married a woman who had spent 20 years in the gulag and who also came from a revolutionary intelligentsia family who, like his own, had been destroyed by the Terror. He died in 1963. Conclusion The Volrosstsy position was in keeping with their patriotic feelings about Russia, outlined in detail in Chapter 5. It was also a response to events. Some of their

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

140 The 1930s and the road to war

political belief in democracy broke under the experience of fascism. But this was not unique for Europeans, and therefore not evidence of either demoralisation or a slightly ‘ﬂexible ideology’. Chinyaeva criticises the inability of the pre-revolutionary parties in exile to offer a coherent alternative to Bolshevism, which then resulted in the emergence of post-revolutionary movements which were close to fascism.82 The inability of the SRs to articulate a compelling democratic socialist vision and to attract the younger generation should not be seen as the failure of émigré politics but as part of the broader pattern of European political behaviour in the interwar period when the appeal of fascism and the rejection of democracy was strong across many European societies.83 It is clear from their letters and articles that the Prague SRs genuinely saw fascism as a threat to all humanity and to world civilisation and saw that it would unleash a terrible war on Europe, including on the Soviet Union. Because of their connection to Czechoslovakia, the Munich agreement had a strong impact on them. Therefore they were prepared to suspend their criticism of the Soviet regime to bring it closer to the anti-fascist cause and also out of a desire to protect their country from attack. As Russians, as socialists and as Europeans this seemed like a logical choice. Sukhomlin’s position is the most ambiguous. The articles he wrote after the war describing life as he found it in the Soviet Union are written in a crude formulaic style very different to that in which he wrote for Volya Rossii.84 The Terror had killed his father, and no doubt others he knew, and he married a woman who had spent 20 years in the gulag. However, his public writings and the position he occupied in post-war Russia celebrated the system. One can only speculate as to what his real feelings were. The Prague SRs’ journey in the 1930s and 1940s tells us much about the experience of being a European in the interwar period. They lived—and died—at the heart of events, wrestling with the concerns that faced all active European citizens. Their private letters and articles are a valuable source of information on the mood of European intellectuals at this time. The move to a defensist position was not through weakness or demoralisation, but was a common response at the time and in their case made more likely by patriotism. Despite the increasing hardships and risk, the Prague SRs also continued their political activity and their contribution to the dynamic life of the free Russian press.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Conclusion

The aim of this book has been to recreate and analyse the intellectual development and political activities of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in emigration, in particular those SRs known as the Prague SRs. It has shown that the study of émigré politics can be a subject of interest in its own right and can make an important contribution to understanding the political and intellectual life of any given period. The post-revolutionary development of the SRs has been almost entirely neglected, despite the fact that the Party and the intellectual tradition and social movement it represented was so signiﬁcant in Russian history. The Prague SRs and the Emigration The Prague SRs represented and continued one of the most inﬂuential and important Russian social movements and intellectual traditions, narodnichestvo. Forced to leave Russia and unable to return, they conceived a role for themselves as representing the interests of Russian émigrés and proved to be energetic and productive managers of the community. In opposition to the picture usually presented of the émigrés as tragic and ill-adjusted ‘aliens’, Joseph Roth’s ‘balalaika Russians’, the Prague SRs, presumably like many of the unknown refugee mass, were pragmatic survivors. In 1950 Postnikov reminisced with remarkable equanimity, after personally surviving revolution, Civil War, two decades years of emigration, the Second World War, German occupation and incarceration in a Soviet gulag that ‘the Russian, thrown by fate to the four winds, always manages like a cat to right himself and stand on his own feet’.1 He pointed to proudly as evidence of this that by 1938 there were 1,200 Russian doctors and 1,500 Russian engineers in Prague.2 Through their work with the Zemgor, the Prague SRs helped thousands of Russian refugees with clothing, food, medical care, accommodation and work. They helped Russian refugees in the Balkans as well. In founding the Russian Historical Archive Abroad they preserved invaluable resources in a time of chaos and uncertainty, which could have been lost or scattered over the world. The Prague SRs saw their role as producing the only completely free Russian press in the interwar period. For many scholars, the main achievement of the ‘ﬁrst

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

142 Conclusion

wave’ emigration is that, as Marc Raeff wrote, it succeeded in ‘reconstituting and preserving a Russian identity and lived an intense, meaningful and creative cultural life’.3 The role played in that by the SRs, both Prague and Paris, through Volya Rossii and Sovremennie Zapiski and the support they gave to literary circles is widely acknowledged, even by those who have no sympathy with their politics.4 The press was perhaps the most important aspect of émigré life which gave ‘Russia Abroad’ its coherency. Volya Rossii also kept émigrés informed about what was happening in the Soviet Union as well as intellectual and cultural trends within the emigration and Europe. Its progressive tone and content gestures to the existence of a readership in emigration different to that usually imagined by focusing on the inﬂuence of conservatives or religious thinkers such as Struve and Berdyaev. The Prague SRs believed that serious study of Soviet literature was a key to an understanding of the Soviet Union and they played an important role in disseminating it to émigré and Western audiences, as well as encouraging Russian writers in the emigration to develop their art in contact with Soviet and European modernism. Komnarodnichestvo and the Cooperatives The Prague SRs interpreted developments in the Soviet Union within the intellectual tradition of narodnichestvo. Their understandings are a rich conceptual source for historians. They saw the 1920s as a struggle between Marxism and narodnichestvo. Many of the Prague SR categories of thought are now widely accepted ways of looking at Russian development, most speciﬁcally concerning the peasantry. Studies by scholars such as Shanin, Lewin and Danilov showed that the Bolsheviks had an inadequate theoretical understanding of the dynamics of peasant society. Those who see Bukharinism as a ‘third way’ should acknowledge the provenance of his thinking in neo-narodnichestvo. The SR programme for agricultural development and for integrating the peasantry into a closer relationship with the state and urban society was through the development of agricultural cooperatives. The SR leaders acknowledged the ambivalence in the peasants’ ‘labour-based views’ as put forward by the narodnik scholar Karl Kochorovskii in his 1906 study Narodnoe Pravo. Kochorovskii gave a systematic analysis of the unwritten law as expressed in the peasant way of life and in the commune. This ‘unwritten’ law consisted of two different but mutually related elements: one that stressed the importance of the individualistic right given by labour (prava truda) and one that stressed the collectivist right to labour (pravo na truda). The ﬁrst could be democratic, but was not collectivist. The second was collectivist. In Kocharovskii’s view, the Russian commune had developed as a compromise between these two elements, and gave it its dynamic.5 The Prague SRs hoped that agricultural cooperatives could be balanced on this dynamic, allowing for the interplay of individualism and collectivism in farming and in the peasant way of life. Had the SRs come close to guessing the ‘riddle of the peasant sphinx’? Was their programme for development executable? Did the SRs represent a real alternative to

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Conclusion

143

Bolshevism or were they just utopian romantics who idealised the peasantry and would have proved unable to provide political leadership for any programme of modernisation? Was this a genuine path to socialism? One can say that through the SR Party a conceptual alternative for the modernisation of agriculture did exist which would then provide the investment needed for industrialisation; that this programme was based on popular institutions rooted in Russian society such as the commune, a cooperative movement which had been the largest in the world by 1914, trade unions and other forms of worker self-organisation; and that the only way the Bolshevik Marxist reconﬁguring of Russia’s socio-economic development could be achieved was through extreme violence. SR ideas were more modern and less heterogenous than usually presented. After all, Gorbachev also tried to save late socialism by attempting to reinvigorate the cooperative movement. Walicki described the pure narodnik programme as formulated in the 1880s: ‘a curious blend of heterogeneous elements: the idealisation of the peasant commune… combined with a programme for industrialisation; a high appreciation of the “independence” of small producers…and the postulate of the “socialisation” of labour’.6 The SR programme, however, had moved on. The Prague SRs did stay faithful to the basic tenet of narodnichestvo that peasants and small producers could avoid capitalism in agriculture. This search for an alternative path of development does not make them old fashioned. It animated interwar life, the kibbutz movement in Israel and still forms the basis of a search by peasant groups in Africa, India and Latin America. The Prague SRs believed that, had the Bolsheviks not seized power for themselves in 1917, a democratic government in Russia would have received capital for modernisation from the United States and Western Europe. This was the programme of aid for Russia’s reconstruction that Masaryk and Beneš, inﬂuential ﬁgures on the world stage in the 1920s, had campaigned for. Whether this money (a ‘Dawes Plan’ for Russia) would have been forthcoming is open to debate. Certainly the economic depression at the end of the decade would have ended it, and if Russia had been more closely intertwined with the world economy at that time any future economic development would have been put into jeopardy. The reports and other material that were smuggled out and published by the SRs are a surprisingly underused resource, which add to a growing knowledge of the conditions inside Russia and peasant and working class mentalities during the 1920s, now increasingly available from other new sources. The Prague SRs and Narodnichestvo in the Age of Extremes After Lebedev’s death in 1956, Slonim wrote that: I think one of the traces of his inﬂuence can be seen in the independent relationship to Moscow many modern Yugoslav political ﬁgures have now,

144 Conclusion

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

having gained their ﬁrst accurate information about the Soviet regime precisely from Lebedev’s journal.7 This may well be wishful thinking, but likewise one cannot dismiss the Prague SRs as failures because the Soviet regime did not fall; their hopes that Soviet citizens could develop a civil society or economic and social institutions strong enough to limit and defeat dictatorship were disappointed for reasons which are still open to historical debate. The ‘failure’ of their predictions to materialise was not due to émigré isolation or to the futility of émigré politics. The Prague SRs were for the most part astute observers of the Soviet scene. For them, the main features of Bolshevik ideology were a principled belief in dictatorship, a belief that the peasantry were an alien class, that state ownership equalled socialism and that socialism could be imposed by state power, with no other preconditions. These views stand the test of time. Many SR observations such as that the Civil War produced the ruralisation of the country and the strengthening of the commune are now commonly accepted. They predicted many of Stalin’s actions, contrary to other émigré observers. Yet despite all this accuracy of observation, perhaps where the Prague SR analysis was weakest was in its failure to develop a proper understanding of the power of the Bolshevik state. When they ﬁrst arrived in emigration during the Civil War, the Prague SRs had been optimistic that their cause was not hopeless. They believed that a Marxist party could never put down deep roots in an agrarian country such as Russia. The Prague SRs hoped to repeat in the post-revolutionary era the tactics as they had used against the Tsarist regime, but these were unworkable. Support for the regime among workers did not waver enough and was reinvigorated by the Five Year plans. The regime was able to create a social base for its power through industrialisation and the creation of promotees from the lower classes. Narodniki had opposed the often mechanistic determinism of Russian Marxism with the belief that non-economic factors such as the human will act as the motor of history. The SRs believed that the creative work of ordinary people through unions and cooperatives and the local government organs of a democratic state could bring about social transformation. Their positive evaluation of the Russian people and their social institutions is a reminder that the idea of dictatorship was not seen as inevitable in Russia. Lazarev praised the zemstva, writing that ‘many people in the West have no idea how original, progressive and even radical’ they had been.8 They, along with free soviets, the cooperatives and the mir could have formed the popular basis for a devolved and democratic rule across the Russian state. Did neo-narodnichestvo still have a place in the ‘Age of Extremes’, as its philosophy was based on the idea of a mixture of egalitarianism and self-activity as the lever of social revolution?9 In the twentieth century the transformation of society has taken place through the state, rather than traditional popular institutions. The period they worked in was marked by a growing cult of state power and ‘the étatisation of

Conclusion

145

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

thought’.10 In this sense Chernov and the SRs were out of their time. We can see this particularly in Chernov’s over-optimistic analyses in the second half of the 1920s, where he seems to ignore the Soviet regime and focus on the population. The SR belief in the ‘logic of events’ and the power of people expressed through ‘life itself’ proved false. In the 1930s, Chernov comforted himself with the idea that history is sometimes illogical.11 However, the violent state dictatorships of the interwar period were something new, so it is understandable that the SRs failed to foresee their power of transformation, for example, in the case of collectivisation. The SRs: Romantics or Pragmatics? What does their development in emigration tell us about the nature of the SR Party itself? The most common critique of the SR Party was that it was overly heterogeneous. This is perhaps answered by the fact that this book has only focused on one group in emigration. Hildermeier has posited that late Imperial Russia’s socioeconomic development was so staggered and uneven that a party that tried to include the interests of both workers and peasants was unviable as an agent of modernisation. Certainly in emigration tension did exist between the peasant and the worker parts of the SR programme. Through collectivisation the Bolsheviks destroyed the village intelligentsia and the conscious peasant. With this, the SR ideology seemed to lose its speciﬁc base and critical standpoint towards the Soviet regime. On the other hand study of the Prague SR programmes for economic and social development and their links with other European socialist parties and thinkers, presents a picture of a more pragmatic and rational party than is sometimes assumed. This group of Russian political actors were extremely talented representatives of what was an extremely talented generation of Russian intellectuals in the prerevolutionary period. The SR analysis of developments in the Soviet Union as expressed in their books, articles and correspondence show them to have been pragmatic, ﬂexible and broadminded thinkers who could have contributed much to Russia’s development. They did not have a ‘romantic’ view of the Russian people, as so often accused, so much as a positive view. This stands in favourable contrast to the Bolsheviks who regarded the majority of the Russian people with suspicion and hostility. Peasant behaviour and economic developments in the 1920s were in accordance with the SR worldview, leading one to conclude that they had a deeper understanding of the complex dynamics of Russian peasant society. The SRs could have worked constructively with the peasantry in the 1920s and thus aided a genuine and progressive modernisation process for Russia. Their vision for the peasants was to make them ‘modern’, not to preserve a utopian rural idyll. Their programme of development for Russia, based on processes they observed there and in keeping with European developments overall, would have been to improve agriculture, through the cooperative movement with the help of imported

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

146 Conclusion

agricultural machinery from Europe. The resources for industrialisation would have been obtained from a viable agriculture and a healthy domestic market for the consumption of goods. This was a realistic alternative to Bolshevik policies and a programme founded on real phenomena observable in the 1920s (the cooperative movement, peasant behaviour and advances in agricultural technology). The Bolshevik modernisation alternative of collectivisation was a disaster for Russian agriculture. In addition, the SRs’ links with leading European socialists, who had entered the post-war governments in many countries, could only have brought beneﬁt to Russia had they been allowed to participate in a socialist coalition government. Had Russia had such a government, it could have received aid from the outside world for its development, as Masaryk and Beneš were calling for. There would have been no need for ‘socialism in one country’ with all its attendant consequences. The establishment of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ and the concomitant loss of the SRs as a political force in Russia is part of the tragedy of the history of the Russian Revolution. Study of the Prague SRs also shows us that émigré political activists were more outward looking and interconnected with general European developments than commonly assumed. The Prague SRs had support from different groups in Czechoslovak political life, including the President of the Republic and the Foreign Minister, the Social Democratic Party and the Czech Legionnaires. They moved easily around European capitals and had close contacts with leading political ﬁgures; this was the period when leading European socialists had moved into coalition governments. Sukhomlin was the editor of the Russian section of the Belgian Workers’ Party paper and was one of the leaders of the International Socialist Press Bureau. He wrote on Russia for the radical European press. The Prague SRs were as inﬂuenced by Jean Jaures and the Belgian cooperative movement as they were by the Russian commune. In the 1920s, it was not just the Soviet Union that was in a state of transition and uncertainty; the whole of Europe was. State borders, political concepts, economic systems were all in a ﬂux of deﬁnition and redeﬁnition. Whether ﬁghting for the legal rights of refugees in the League of Nations, campaigning for a federation in the Balkans or protesting about terror and censorship in the Soviet Union, the Prague SRs were shaped by changing European political discourses as well as forming part of the environment which was shaping these discourses. Clearly the fact of the emigration can determine this perception to a large degree; the Prague SRs may appear more European because of the fact that they were forced to live in Europe. Nonetheless, the picture is still more of a party of Europeanorientated modernisers than sometimes assumed; they were welcomed into emigration in this light by Masaryk, and their contacts with European socialists built on already existing links. After all, the Russian revolutionary movement had also been part of the European socialist movement. These émigrés were neither isolated, nor insular or ‘alien’ in Europe.

Conclusion

147

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The National Question The emigration took place in the context of the collapse of empire. The new approach that Chernov adopted as regards the national question, and the alliances he formed, reveal the emigration to have been a ‘laboratory of modernity’, where bold mental re-conceptualisations could take place. It underlines the importance of the emigration as a space where Russian intellectuals were able to translate their thoughts into text in the 1920s presenting us with a rich resource. On the other hand, the theoretical—and emotional—resistance to the programme of the League of the New East add to debates over Russian identity that went on before and after the revolution. Focus should not be on what the émigrés were unable to do (achieve unity, overthrow the Soviet regime) but what they were able to do; analyse developments in the Soviet Union, debate the revolution and the meaning of Russian history and generate blueprints for Russia’s future. The intensity of the debates illuminates the experience of the revolution and Civil War, with its inchoate mix of shifting identities of class and nation in the Russian Empire. One can also surmise from the Prague SR debates that they did not incite uprising against the Bolsheviks because of fear of the re-collapse of the space they called Russia. We are aware of what the Prague SRs were thinking because they transformed their thoughts into texts; this material can be used as the basis to conjecture how many people in the Soviet Union would have shared some of their thoughts. Before the Storm The political development in the 1930s of the Volrosstsy matched that of many Europeans, who re-evaluated their relationship to the Soviet Union as the reality of a devastating war in Europe moved closer. This shift in their views was not a sign of the dissolution and demoralisation endemic to émigré politics, or their inability to match the ideological cohesion of Bolshevism, but a manifestation of the fears and confusion felt by many European intellectuals. These were life and death issues; many Russian émigrés fought in the Spanish Civil War on both sides. The Volrosstsy’s attitude was inﬂuenced by their connection with Czechoslovakia. The SR colony in Prague was closely connected to Czechoslovakia, its existence being coterminous with the beginning and ending of the First Republic. The relationship was forged in the experiences of Civil War, revolution and national independence. The SRs’ letters to each other and to Czech leaders are full of warmth towards their refuge. The Munich Agreement and events leading up to it hardened them against the West and parliamentary democracy. Most of the émigrés came to have deep affectionate feelings for Czechoslovakia not just the SRs. Struve later remembered his days there as the happiest he spent in emigration.12 The Russian poet Marina Tsvetaeva, who lived there in the 1920s was devastated by the betrayal at Munich and the German attack on Czechoslovakia. At that time in Paris preparing for her return to the Soviet Union, she wrote a cycle of

148 Conclusion

poems about the invasion. On her journey back she expressed her feelings in a letter to her friend Anna Tesková in Prague:

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

The happiest period of my life – remember this – was Mokropsy, Všhenory and my very own mountain … I dream of a meeting in your native land, which is more native to me than my own. I turn around at the sound of it as if it were my own name … I think that Czechia is my ﬁrst such grief. Russia was too great and I was too young.13 Raeff’s widely accepted characterisation that émigré politics ‘consisted of unending squabbles stemming from inadequate information, helplessness and nostalgic and angry recollections of the past … political life in exile is nothing but shadow boxing’ does not hold true.14 Russian political émigrés could be extremely well informed and active and pragmatic producers of important analyses and conceptualisations of Russia’s present and future. This forms part of Russian intellectual and political history during the twentieth century. Narodnichestvo was a constantly evoked category and underlying presence in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, as it had been in the decades before. I hope it has been demonstrated here that a history of a Russian émigré political grouping is part of European political history and can recreate the atmosphere of political life in interwar Europe and the Soviet Union with the struggle over deﬁnitions, economic development, social groups and borders and over the political future of the entire continent.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes

Introduction 1 See for example L. K. Shkarenkov, Agoniya beloi emigratsii, Moscow: Mysl’, 1981. 2 The US Inter-University Project on the History of the Menshevik Movement began in 1959 and was directed by Leopold Haimson. It aimed to produce a history of Menshevism and to present the remaining Mensheviks with the opportunity to examine their life and beliefs in print and produced a number of works. Also see A. Leibich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. 3 A. F. Kiselev (ed), Politicheskaya istoriya russkoi emigratsii 1920–1940 gg: Dokumenty i materialy, Moscow: Vlados, 1999. The ‘second wave’ emigration was formed of Displaced Persons and nonreturnees after the Second World War. The ‘third wave’ refers to intellectuals and Russian Jews who left in the Brezhnev period. 4 The term Vekhovyi refers to the contributors to the famous 1909 collection of articles Vekhi which called for a rejection of the intelligentsia’s revolutionary outlook. 5 C. Andreyev and I. Savický, Russia Abroad. Prague and the Russian Diaspora, 1918–1938, London: Yale University Press, 2004; E. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia: the Émigré Community in Czechoslovakia 1918–1938, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001. 6 Andreyev and Savický, Russia Abroad, p. 107. 7 Modern Russian scholarship refers to SR theories as neo-narodnichestvo. The SRs used this term as well as the term eserstvo, but usually used the word narodnichestvo and often referred to themselves as ‘SR-narodniki’. 8 For the SRs in 1917 and the Civil War see O. H. Radkey, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism: Promise and Default of the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries, February to October, New York: Columbia University, 1958 and The Sickle under the Hammer, New York: Columbia University, 1963. 9 See for example the discussion of Russian populism in G. Kitching, Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective; Populism, Nationalism and Industrialization, London: Meuthen, 1989. 10 J. Roth, The White Cities. Reports from France 1925–39, London: Granta, 2005. 11 M. Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990, pp. 9–10; see also R. H. Johnston, New Mecca, New Babylon: Paris and the Russian Exiles, 1920–45, Ontario: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. 12 M. Raeff, ‘Recent Perspectives on the History of the Russian Emigration (1920–1940)’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 6, 2 Spring 2005, p. 327. 13 L. J. Erdinger, German Exile Politics: The Social Democratic Executive Committee in the Nazi Era, Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1956, ix. 14 R. C. Williams, ‘European Political Emigrations: A Lost Subject’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 12, 1970, pp. 147–148. 15 Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, p. 103.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

150 Notes 16 See M. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party Before the First World War, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000; O. Radkey, ‘An Alternative to Bolshevism: The Program of Russian Social Revolutionism’, The Journal of Modern History, vol. 25, no 1, March 1953, pp. 25–39. 17 A. Walicki, ‘Russia’, in G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds) Populism. Its Meaning and National Characteristics, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969, p. 66. 18 Michael Melancon’s research challenges this ‘peasant’ label. See ‘The Socialist-Revolutionaries from 1902–1907: Peasant and Workers’ Party’, Russian History, no 12, Spring, 1985, pp. 2–9; The Socialist-Revolutionary Party and the Anti-War Movement, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1990; ‘Neo-Populism in Early Twentieth Century Russia: The Socialist-Revolutionary Party from 1900 to 1917’, in A. Geifman (ed), Russia under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion 1894–1917, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, pp. 73–90. 19 S. Glebov, ‘Granitsy imperii i granitsy moderna. Antikolonial’naya ritorika i teoriya kul’turnykh tipov v evraziistve’, Ab Imperio, no 2, 2003, p. 268. 20 A. Liebich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997, p. 3. 21 For the Paris SRs see the memoirs of M. Vishnyak, Dan Proshlemu, New York: Chekhov, 1954; Gody emigratsii, Stanford, CA: California University Press, 1970. 1 SRs as Russian Revolutionaries 1 For narodnichestvo see F. Venturi, The Roots of Revolution, London: Phoenix, 2001; R. Wortman, The Crisis of Russian Populism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967; A. Mendel, Dilemmas of Progress in Tsarist Russia. Legal Marxism and Legal Populism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961; A. Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism. Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. 2 T. Shanin, ‘Marx, Marxism and the Agrarian Question: Marx and the Peasant Commune’, History Workshop, 12, 1981, p. 108. 3 For the peasant commune in the late Imperial period see T. Shanin, Russia as a ‘Developing Society’: The Roots of Otherness: Russia’s Turn of Century, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1985. 4 Shanin, ‘Marx, Marxism and the Agrarian Question’, p. 113. 5 L. Chamberlain, Motherland: A Philosophical History of Russia, London: Atlantic Books, 2004, pp. 64–78. 6 R. Pipes, ‘Russian Marxism and Its Populist Background: the Late Nineteenth Century’, The Russian Review, 19, no 4, October 1960, pp. 316–77. 7 Wortman, The Crisis of Populism, p. 21. 8 See J. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996 and E. Kingston-Mann, In Search of the True West: Culture, Economics, and Problems of Russian Development, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999 on the development of Russian Marxism. 9 V. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925, p. 128. 10 Wortman, Crisis of Populism, pp. 161–72; White, Karl Marx, pp. 256–58; 293–95; G. Kitching, Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective; Populism, Nationalism and Industrialization, London: Meuthen, 1989, pp. 34–39. 11 Mendel, Dilemmas of Progress, p. 127. 12 For the SR party theory, see A. Trapeznik, V.M. Chernov: Theorist, Leader, Politician, Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2007; M. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party before the First World War, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000; H. Immonen, The Agrarian Programme of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party 1900–1914, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988; M. Perrie, The Agrarian Policy of the Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party from its Origins through the Revolution of 1905, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. 13 Trapeznik, Chernov, p. 4. 14 O. Radkey, ‘An Alternative to Bolshevism: the Program of Russian Social Revolutionism’, The Journal of Modern History, vol 25, no 1, March 1953, p. 25. 15 Y. Kotsonis, Making Peasants Backward. Agricultural Cooperatives and the Agrarian Question in Russia, 1861–1914, New York: St Martin’s, p. 1.

Notes 16 17 18 19

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

20 21 22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

151

Trapeznik, Chernov, p. 70. Immonem, Agrarian Programme, pp. 149–51. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, p. 129. See E. Kingston-Mann, Lenin and the Problem of Marxist Peasant Revolution, New York: Oxford University Press, 1983. Kingston-Mann, Lenin, pp. 3–6. Radkey, ‘An Alternative to Bolshevism’, p. 25. See M. Melancon, ‘The Socialist-Revolutionaries from 1902–1907: Peasant and Workers’ Party’, Russian History, 12, Spring, 1985; The Socialist-Revolutionary Party and the Anti-War Movement, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, 1990; ‘Neo-Populism in Early Twentieth Century Russia: The Socialist-Revolutionary Party from 1900 to 1917’, in A. Geifman (ed), Russia under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion 1894–1917, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, pp. 73–90; ‘The Neopopulist Experience. Default Interpretations and New Approaches’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 5, 1 (Winter 2004), pp. 195–206. O. Radkey, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism. Promise and Default of the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries February to October 1917, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958, pp. 37–40; R. Pipes, The Formation of the Soviet Union, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, pp. 29–31. Radkey, Agrarian Foes, pp. 88–126. For SRs in 1917 see Radkey, Agrarian Foes; F. King (ed), The Narodniks in the Russian Revolution. Russia’s Socialist-Revolutionaries in 1917 – a Documentary History, Socialist History Society, Occasional Paper 23, 2007. Radkey, ‘Alternative to Bolshevism’, p. 25. For a recent analysis of the SR failure in these terms see S. Badcock, Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia: A Provincial History, Cambridge: CUP, 2007. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party. Radkey, ‘Alternative to Bolshevism’, p. 26; Immonen, Agrarian Programme, p. 128. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, pp. 110–33; 277–310; vol II, Moscow: ROSSPEN, pp. 405–31; 432–55. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 2, pp. 417–19. Trapeznik, Chernov, p. 88. King, The Narodniks in the Russian Revolution, p. 4. Trapeznik, Chernov, p. 109. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 94. See V. Kolodezhnii, ‘Evolyutsiya zemel’noi politiki sovetskoi vlasti’, in D.F. Ayatskov (ed), Sobstvennost na zemlyu v Rossii: istoriya i sovremennost’, Moscow: Rosspen, pp. 348–99. Immonen, Agrarian Programme, pp. 88–108. Immonen, Agrarian Programme, p. 158. Immonen, Agrarian Programme, p. 159. Radkey, ‘Alternative to Bolshevism’, p. 38. V. Chernov, The Great Russian Revolution, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1936, p. 393. Chernov, Russian Revolution, p. 394. Chernov, Russian Revolution, p. 398. Chernov, Russian Revolution, p. 396. Chernov, Russian Revolution, p. 401. Chernov, Russian Revolution, pp. 413–14. Chernov, Russian Revolution, pp. 413–14. Chernov, Russian Revolution, p. 415.

2 The Socialist Revolutionary Party in Prague: The ‘Kingdom of the SRs’ 1 See R. C. Williams, Culture in Exile: Russian Émigrés in Germany 1881–1941, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972; R. Johnston, ‘New Mecca, New Babylon’: Paris and the Russian Exiles 1920–45, Ontario: McGill University Press, 1988; M. Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991; E. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia: the Émigré Community in Czechoslovakia 1918–1938, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

152 Notes 2 V. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya i Rossiya’, VR, 12, 1925, p. 84. 3 S. Postnikov, Politika, idiologiya, byt i uchenie trudy russkoi emigratsii 1918–1945, New York: Norman Ross, 1993, p. 5. 4 Postnikov, Politika, idiologiya, byt, p. 10. 5 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 131, l. 101. 6 IISG, PSR, 1019. 7 IISG, PSR, 1019. 8 ‘Pyatiletie Volya Rossii’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 150. 9 ‘Pyatiletie Volya Rossii’, p. 152; Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 152. 10 Stalinskii, ‘Chto dal’she? (Yubilei i oppozitsiya)’, VR, 11–12, 1927, p. 4. 11 IISG, PSR, 949, p. 71. 12 See TGM, Rusko a Evropa. Dílo-Vize-Pˇritomnost. Sborník pˇríspˇevku z mezinárodní vˇedecké conference, Prague: Masaryku v ústav, 2002. 13 E. Beneš, ‘Inostrannaya politika chekhoslovatskoi narodnoi revolyutsii. Nase otnoshenie k Rossii’, VR, 6–7, 1923, p. 45. 14 For the complex tale of revolution, war, independence movement and civil war see G. Swain, Russia’s Civil War, Stroud: Tempus, 2000; B. Unterberger, The United States, Revolutionary Russia, and the Rise of Czechoslovakia, Texas: Texas A&M University Press, 2000. 15 Swain, Russia’s Civil War, p. 63. 16 V. Chernov, Pered burei. Vospominanie, Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenie, 1993, pp. 359–87. ˇ 17 Z. Sládek and L. Bˇeloševksá, Dokumenty k dˇejinám ruské a ukrajinské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice (1918–39), Prague: Euroslavica, 1998, p. 32. 18 E. Serapionova, Rossiiskaya emigratsia v Chekhoslovatskoi respublike, Moscow: RAN, 1995, p. 24. 19 See the interviews with Czechoslovak political ﬁgures in ‘Voprosy russkoi emigratsii’, VR, 18, 1922. 20 J. Firsov, ‘K receptci osobnosti a díla T.G.Masaryka v Rusku’, in TGM, Rusko a Evropa. Dílo-VizePˇrítomnost. p. 203. 21 TGM, R, k. 500, 18, Help for Russia from Europe and America, p. 3. 22 Sládek Dokumenty, pp. 23–26. 23 S. Postnikov, Russkie v Prage, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1928, p. 72. 24 L. Beloshevskaya (ed), Khronika kulturnoi, nauchnoi i obshchestvennoi zhizni russkoi emigratsii v Chekhoslovatskoi respublike, Prague: Slavyanskii Institut, 2000 reveals the large number of émigré agrarian organisations. 25 ‘Voprosy russkoi emigratsii’, VR, 18, 1922, p. 16. 26 Sládek, Dokumenty, pp. 76; 147–48; 164; 182. 27 For Krestyanskaya Rossiya’s programme see C. Andreyev, Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement. Soviet Reality and Émigré Theories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987, pp. 177–80. 28 The relevant ﬁles are in GARF, f. 5893 Administrativnyi tsentr vnepartiinogo ob’edineniya. 29 GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 191–201 contains thousands of letters from Russian POWs to the editorial board of Volya Rossii. It would be interesting to research these as indication of opinions on the revolution and the Civil War from Russian soldiers outside Russia. 30 M. Jansen, A Show Trial Under Lenin: The Trial of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Moscow 1922, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982, pp. 95–6. 31 GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 2, l. 26. 32 ‘Russkaya zhizn’ zagranitsei. Zemgor v Belgrade’, VR, 4, 1925, pp. 119–203. 33 Postnikov, Russkie v Prage, p. 12. 34 GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 33. 35 RGB, f. 573, k. 1, ed. khr. 10. 36 GARF, f. 5847, d. 2, op. 114, l. 1a; H. Immonen, The Agrarian Programme of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, 1900–1914, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988, pp. 153–4. 37 Rossiya na rubezhe vekov: istoricheskie portrety, Moscow: Izd-vo polit. Lit-ry, 1991, pp. 296–334; V. M. Chernov: Chelovek i Politik. Materialy k biographii, Saratov: Avkarius, 2004; Chernov, Pered burei, A.Novikov (ed.). 38 Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, pp. 107–8. 39 A. V. Rukhin, ‘Russkie ucheny-emigranty v 1920-e gody. (Na primere ekonomicheskogo kabineta S N Prokopovicha)’ in Istoriya Rossiiskogo Zarubezh’ya. Problemy adaptatsii migrantov v XIX-XX

Notes

40 41 42

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

73 74 75 76 77 78

153

vekhakh, Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii, 1996, pp. 115–25; see also Beloshevskaya, Khronika, vol 1. V. L. Telitsyn, ‘Russkie ekonomisty-emigranty v Prage 1920–30x godov’, in Problemy adaptatsii migrantov, pp. 125–33. IISG, PSR, 918, Dorogoi V. V, 29 October 1924. V. N. Chubakov (ed), Nezabitie mogily. Rossiiskoe zarubezhie: nekrologi 1917–1997, Moscow: Ros. gos. b-tka 1999, vol 3, p. 159. RGB, f. 678, k. 4, ed. khr. 5, l. 21. Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 153; p. 181. ˇ 85 per cent of émigrés in Czechoslovakia did manual work. Roˇcenka Ceskoslovenské republiky 1926, p. 266. The ofﬁces were at Uhelný trh, no 1. G. A. Aronson et al (eds), Pamyati V. I. Lebedeva, New York: Chekhov Publishing House, 1958, p. 22. Aronson, Pamyati Lebedeva, p. 23. Aronson, Pamyati Lebedeva, p. 33. Hoover, Nicolaevsky Collection, b. 9, f. 6, ZD – TsB 28 February 1925, p. 1. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 37. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 94, l. 20. I. Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler: the Diplomacy of Edvard Benes, Oxford: OUP, 1996, p. 10. Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler, p. 16. TGM, Coll Rusko, kr. 34, Pravda, 7 February 1924. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, p. 131. GARF, f. 5789, op. 1, d. 127, l. 2. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 131, l. 101. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 2. Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 124. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, p. 146; 179. IISG, PSR, 983, 14 February 1929, Gruppe VR. M. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party before the First World War, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000, p. 273. M. Slonim, ‘Nashe raznoglasie’, VR, 18, 1923, p. 22. M. Jansen (ed.), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, p. 714. E. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Programme, Myth, Reality, Cambridge: Canto, 1990. W. Coudenys, ‘Between Them and Us – the Construction of Community Borders by Russian Émigrés in Belgium’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, p. 200. A. Novikov (ed.), V. M. Chernov: Chelovek i politik, Saratov: Avkarius, 2004, p. 198. J. Glad, Russia Abroad. Writers, History, Politics, Washington, DC: Birchbark Press, 1999, p. 140. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 15a. Postnikov, Russkie v Prage, p. 141. Sukhomlin carried on an intense correspondance with his father, a veteran narodnik and SR in Leningrad. This was predominantly about developments in Soviet literature, and his father regularly sent him works by Soviet authors and literary journals. This correspondence can be found in the manuscript department of the Russian State Library, f. 573, Sukhomliny, k. 20. M. Vishnyak, “Sovremennye Zapiski”: Vospominaniya redaktora, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1957, p. 267. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 14. V. Arkhangel’skii, ‘O religioznom fronte v emigratsii’, VR, 12, 1925, p. 91. M. Slonim, ‘Evraziitsii’, VR, 12, 1922, p. 15. V. Sukhomlin, ‘Russkaya Revolyutsiya i Evropa’, VR, 11–12, 1927, p. 175. IISG, PSR, 983, Dorogie tovarishchi, 14 December 1928, Harbin.

154 Notes 79 80 81 82 83 84

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

103 104

105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 48, ll. 1–5. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 76. Slonim, ‘Nashi raznoglasiya’, VR, 18, 1923, p. 39. Postnikov, Russkie v Prage, pp. 202–03. A. Peshekhonov, VR, 7–11, 1925. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya i Rossiya’, VR, 12, 1925, p. 79. Peshekhonov was never allowed to return to the Soviet Union, although he was employed in Soviet trade missions abroad. He died in Riga in 1933. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya’, p. 78. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya’, p. 82. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 140. Koblenz was the Rhenish city to which Royalist émigrés ﬂed at the time of the French Revolution. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya’, p. 84. C. Andreyev and I. Savický, Russia Abroad: Prague and the Russian Diaspora, 1918–1938, London: Yale University Press, 2004, p. 96. I. Savický, Osudová Setkaní, Prague: Academia, 1999, pp. 144–46, 152. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 9, f. 6, ZD-TsB, 28 February 1925. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 171, l. 3. Slonim, ‘Nashi raznoglasiya’, VR, 18, 1923, p. 36. V. Tolz, Russia, London: Hodder, pp. 130–31. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 35. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 131, ll. 99–101. For the Kadet view on this affair see Andreyev and Savický, Russia Abroad, pp. 76–9. L. Rossel’, ‘K pyatiletiyu Prazhskogo Zemgora’, VR, 3, 1926, p. 162. Rossel’, ‘K pyatiletiyu’, p. 162. B. Aratov, ‘Dela emigrantskie. Prazhskii ‘Zemgor’i ego oppozitsiya’, VR, 4, 1927, p. 157. Aratov, ‘Dela emigrantskie’, p. 161. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 204. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 9, f. 6, 17 December + 23 December 1930 letters to Slonim from Postnikov. Ivan Brushvit (1890–1946) had been a party member since 1901. He worked with the Czechoslovak National Council in Russia and left with the Czech Legion. He was Chair of the Zemgor between 1922 and 1928. E. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925, p. 123. Slonim, ‘Evraziitii’, VR, 12, 1922, p. 14. The SR Siberian Committee wrote to the Foreign Delegation in 1921 that ‘The experience of the governments of Kolchak, Vrangel’ and Chaikovskii should be sufﬁcient to convince anyone who is interested that people love their homeland in their own fashion. Milyukov’s love is not the same as ours and vice versa’, Jansen, Documents from the PSR Archive, p. 668. IISG, PSR, 949, p. 35. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 123. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 121. Tolz, Russia, pp. 98–9. Tolz, Russia, pp. 98–9. I. Martynyuk, ‘Potusknevshee ‘zoloto’ russkogo zarubezh’ya: opyt kriticheskogo ocherka noveishei istoriograﬁi mezhvoennoi evropeiskoi emigratsii’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, pp. 541–91. M. Raeff, ‘Recent perspectives on the history of the Russian emigration, 1920–1940’, Kritika, 6, 2, 2005, pp. 319–34. Lebedev, ‘Emigratsiya’, p. 79. S. Glebov, ‘Granitsy imperii i granitsy moderna. Antikolonial’naya ritorika i teoriya kul’turnykh tipov v evraziistve’, Ab Imperio, no 2, 2003, pp. 265–87.

3 The Soviet Union during NEP: The Commune and the Cooperative 1 E. Stalinskii, ‘“Novoye eserstvo” i komnarodnichestvo’, VR, 7, 1927, pp. 125–26. 2 ‘Evolyutsiya ili bezprintsipnost’?’, RR, 9, 1921, p. 1.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes

155

3 Chernov, ‘Novaya diskussiya i “komnarodnichestvo”’, RR, 46, 1926, p. 8. 4 T. Shanin, The Awkward Class. Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910– 1925, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972, p. 203. 5 M. Jansen, A Show Trial under Lenin: The Trial of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Moscow 1922, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982. 6 M. Wehner, ‘The Soft Line on Agriculture: The Case of the Narkomzem and its Specialists’, in J. Pallot (ed), Transforming Peasants. Society, State and the Peasantry, 1861–1930, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998, pp. 210–37. 7 See J. W. Heinzen, Inventing a Soviet Countryside. State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917–1929, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2004. 8 ‘Partiinaya zhizn’’, RR, 44, 1925, p. 24. 9 ‘Partiinaya zhizn’’, p. 24. 10 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 58, l. 6. 11 E. Olitskaya, Moi vospominanie, Frankfurt: Posev, 1972. 12 IISG, PSR, 913: ZD PSR Perepiska i drugie materialy 1925–1927. 13 IISG, V Cernov, 14, Zayavlenie chlena delegatsii PSR na marsel’skoi kongresse I.S. Alko. 14 GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, ll. 6–11. 15 G. Aronson et al. (eds), Pamyati Lebedeva, New York: Chekhov Publishing House, 1958, p. 27. 16 See A. Liebich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy After 1921, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. 17 IISG, PSR, 962, Chastnoe soveshchanie gruppy partiinykh rabotnikov, p. 5. 18 ‘Na temy dni’, RR, 6, 1921, p. 1. 19 See H. Haardeman, Coming to Terms with the Soviet Regime; The Changing Signposts Movement, Illinois: De Kalb, 1994. 20 ‘Evolyutsiya ili bezprintsipnost’?’, p. 17. 21 Stalinskii, ‘Put’ Nepa: iz itogov XIV-go s’ezda RKPa’, VR, 2, 1926, p. 133. 22 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 8–9, 1924, pp. 179–97; Memorandum to the International, RR, 44, 1925, pp. 8–11; Pis’mo iz podpol’ya’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 167; Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 214. 23 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, p. 141. 24 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 98, l. 62. 25 Sukhomlin, ‘Reaktsionna li sovetskaya burzhuaziya?’ VR, 4, 1927, pp. 127–39. 26 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 38. 27 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 43. 28 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 43. 29 Stalinskii, ‘Kakim putem? Krizis bol’shevizma i revolyutsionnoe narodnichestvo’, VR, 8–9, 1926, p. 196. 30 H. Immonen, The Agrarian Programme of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988, p. 106. 31 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 252. 32 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 96. 33 Kviring, quoted in Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 3, 1927, pp. 123–38. 34 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 223. 35 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 137. 36 See Heinzen, Inventing a Soviet Countryside, for the work of Narkomzem in supporting the commune. 37 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, pp. 123–38. 38 ‘Tezis o derevne’, RR, 41, 1925, p. 16. 39 G. Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, Prague: Nové Rusko, 1928, p. 30. 40 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. V shapke-nevidimke’, VR, 12, 1929, p. 10. 41 ‘Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, p. 400. 42 ‘Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, RR, 63–64, 1928, p. 8. 43 M. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party Before the First World War, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000, p. 343. 44 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 48, l. 1.

156 Notes 45 46 47 48 49

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83

IISG, PSR, 950, Berlinskoe soveshchanie, p. 18; Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 232. IISG, PSR, 950, Berlinskoe soveshchanie, p. 18. Stalinskii, ‘Kritiki es-erov’, VR, 1, 1924, p. 191. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 12, 1925, p. 129. See Immonen, Agrarian Programme, pp. 68–72; Stalinskii, ‘Sotsializm i krest’yanstvo’, VR, 1, 1926, pp. 121–41. Immonen, Agrarian Programme, p. 157. IISG, PSR, 997, 22 February 1928, Rezolyutsiya prinyataya Prazhskoi organizatsiei, pp. 1–3. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 260, l. 3. Chernov, ‘Sotsializatsia zemledeliya’, VR, 1, 1926, p. 118. Immonen, Agrarian Programme, pp. 42–5. R. Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy in the Twenties: The Failure of Cooperation’, Soviet Studies, 27, 2, 1975, p. 224. M. Perrie, The Agrarian Policy of the Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party, from its Origins through the Revolution of 1905, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, p. 184. Chernov, ‘Sotsializatsiya zemledeliya’, VR, 1, 1926, p. 31. Chernov, ‘Nedelya v Finlandii’, VR, 6, 1925, pp. 152–8; Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, Chapter 5. G. Ionescu, ‘Eastern Europe’, in G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds), Populism: Its Meaning and National Characteristics, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969, p. 111. C. Strikwerda, ‘Alternative Visions and Working Class Culture: the Political Economy of Consumer Cooperation in Belgium 1860–1980’, in E. Furlough and C. Strikwerda (eds), Consumers against Capitalism? Consumer Cooperation in Europe, North America and Japan 1840–1990, Lanham: Rowman and Littleﬁeld, 1999, p. 79. Chernov, ‘Nedelya v Finlandii’, pp. 152–8. See M. Lewin, Russian Peasants and Soviet Power. A Study of Collectivisation, New York: Norton, 1985, pp. 93–102; Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy in the Twenties’, pp. 220–44. Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, p. 29. Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, p. 34. Lewin, Russian Peasants, p. 97. Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy’, p. 233. Lewin, Russian Peasants, p. 100. Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy’, p. 239. Stalinskii, ‘Put’ Nepa: iz itogov XIV-go s’ezda RKPa’, VR, 2, 1926, pp. 130–48. Chernov, ‘Russkya zhizn’, VR, 5, 1925, p. 187. Chernov, ‘Russkaya zhizn’, p. 189. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 305. IISG, PSR, 997, 22 February 1928, Rezolyutsiya prinyataya Prazskoi organizatsiei PSR, pp. 1–3. Sukhomlin, ‘Zadachi sotsialisticheskogo dvizheniya v derevne’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 121. Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, VR, 12, 1928, pp. 82–98. Chernov, ‘Bezvychodnie protivorechie’, RR, no. 43, 1925, p. 13. See M. Lewin, Lenin’s Last Struggle, London: Faber, 1969 for this view. Chernov, ‘Novaya diskussiya i komnarodnichestvo’, RR, 46, 1926, pp. 6–12. M. Jansen, The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, pp. 306–12. S. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution. A Political Biography 1888–1938, London: Wildwood, 1974. Moshe Lewin discusses the impact of the Menshevik economists on Bukharin’s thought in Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates: From Bukharin to the Modern Reforms, London: Pluto Press, 1974, pp. 47–50. See I. Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed. Trotsky 1921–1929, London: Verso, 2003, Chapters IV and V. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 195. Stalinskii, ‘“Novoye eserstvo” i komnarodnichestvo’, VR, 7, 1927, pp. 108–26.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes

157

84 See V. N. Kolodezhnyi, ‘Evolyutsiya zemel’noi politiki sovetskoi vlasti’, in D. Ayatskov (ed), Sobstvennost’ na zemlyu v Rossii. Istoriya i sovremennost’, Moscow: Rosspen, 2002. 85 Stalinskii, “Novoye eserstvo’’, p. 109. 86 Chernov, ‘Novaya diskussiya i komnarodnichestvo’, RR, 46, 1926, p. 10. 87 V. I. Lenin, On Cooperation, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1964, pp. 8–9. 88 E. Van Ree, ‘“Lenin’s Last Struggle” Revisited’, Revolutionary Russia, 14, 2, 2001, pp. 85–122; also R. Service, Lenin: A Biography, London: Pan, pp. 466–7. 89 Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy’, p. 243. 90 Chernov, ‘Novaya diskussiya’, p. 10. 91 Stalinskii, ‘Novoye eserstvo’, p. 113. 92 Chernov, ‘Tekushchaya zhizn’. Romantika i proza bol’shevizma’, RR, 54, 1926, p. 7. 93 A. Nove, ‘Bukharin as an Economist’, in A. Kemp-Welch (ed.), The Ideas of Nikolai Bukharin, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992, p. 38. 94 P. Broué, ‘Bukharin and Trotsky’, in Bukharin in Retrospect, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1994, pp. 19–20. 95 Chernov, ‘Novaya diskussia’, RR, 46, 1926, p. 10. 96 IISG, PSR, 997, ‘Likvidatsiya eserov’. 97 RGB, Rusanov f. 678, k. 1, ed. khr. 13, l. 67. 98 IISG, PSR, 918, Perepiska s otdel’nymi chlenami ZD 1923–1925. 99 RGB, f. 573, ka. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 6. 100 RGB, f. 573, ka. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 8. 101 RGB, f. 573, ka. 20, ed. khr. 14, 1. 43. 102 RGB, f. 573, ka. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 6. 103 RGB, f. 573, ka. 1, ed. khr. 8; GARF, f. 543, op. 8, d. 11, l. 306. 104 Sukhomlin, ‘Pobediteli ne sudyat’’, VR, 7–8, 1925, pp. 129–53. 105 Sukhomlin, ‘Pobediteli ne sudyat’’, p. 145. 106 IISG, PSR, 994, Anketa G I Radchenko, 25. IV. 1923. 107 Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, p. 14. 108 IISG, PSR, 997, Tezisy k doklady Radchenko. 109 Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, p. 47. 110 IISG, PSR, 981. 111 Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, p. 47. 112 A. V. Chalyanov, Itogi desyatiletii sovetskoi vlasti v tsifrakh 1917–1927, Moscow: Tsentr.stat.upr. S.S.S.R., 1927, pp. 100–101. 113 Shanin, The Awkward Class; V. Danilov, Russia Under the New Regime, London: Hutchinson Education, 1988. 114 See the essays in T. Bergmann et al., Bukharin in Retrospect, and A. Kemp-Welch (ed.), The Ideas of Nikolai Bukharin. 115 V. P. Danilov, ‘Bukharin’s Alternative for the Countryside’, Bukharin in Retrospect, pp. 133–45. 116 J. Kosta, ‘Bukharin’s Changing Economic Thought in the 1920s’, Bukharin in Retrospect, p. 116. 117 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, ch. 1; also Gurevich, ‘Problemy vlasti v novoi Rossii’, VR, 3, 1922, p. 24. 118 Statistik, ‘Sovremmennaya derevnya, kommunisty i nasha programma’, RR, 39–40, 1924, p. 34. 4 The Bolshevik Regime, Soviet Society and SR Political Tactics 1 V. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, p.196. 2 Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, Chapters VIII and XIV; IISG, PSR, 949, Tezisy Stalinskogo i Chernova. 3 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 33, l. 19; GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 33, ll. 16–21. 4 N. Harding, Leninism, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996. 5 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 33, l. 21. 6 Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, pp. 134–63; M. Slonim, Russkie predtechi Bolshevizma, Berlin: Russkoe universal’noe izdatelstvo, 1922, pp. 8–9. The Prague SR codeword for the Bolsheviks was ‘the Orthodox priesthood’.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

158 Notes 7 The term ‘compound’ is used by R. Service in A History of Twentieth Century Russia, London: Penguin, 1997. 8 Stalinskii, ‘Men’sheviki i revolyutsia’, VR, 6, 1924, pp. 83–95. 9 Stalinskii, ‘Men’sheviki i revolyutsia’, p. 88. 10 Sukhomlin, ‘Pobediteli ne sudyat’. Razgovor s otoshedshim’, VR, 7–8, 1925, p. 149. 11 ‘Evropeiskie i amerikanskie pisateli o podavlenii svobody’, VR, 2, 1927, p. 43. 12 See V. Bulatov (Slonim), ‘Vrazhduyushchie bliznitsy (fashizm i kommunizm’)’, VR, 14–15, 1924: Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami partiinoi diskussii’, RR, 33–34, 1924, p. 30. 13 Chernov, ‘Litsom k zhizni’, RR, 54, 1926, p. 3. 14 Chernov, ‘Litsom k zhizni’, p. 3. 15 IISG, PSR, 983, 14 December 1928, Harbin – Prague. 16 Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, p. 194. 17 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 32, l. 13. 18 IISG, PSR, 949, Berlin Congress, p. 29. 19 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 8–9, 1924, pp. 179–97. 20 Stalinskii, ‘Chto dal’she? (Yubilei i oppozitsia)’, VR, 11–12, 1927, p. 204. 21 Nenarkom, ‘Novaya faza krizisa diktatury. Pis’mo iz Moskvy’, RR, 51–52, 1926, p. 30. 22 IISG, PSR, 924, Dorogoi tovarishch, 3 August 1923. 23 M. Jansen (ed), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, p. 306. 24 IISG, PSR, 924, 7/8/1923 Dorogoi tovarishch. 25 Chernov, ‘Mir, mech i mir’, VR, 8–9, 1925, p. 173; Chernov, ‘Uroky kommunisticheskogo opyta’, VR, 17, 1923, p. 29. 26 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 183. 27 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, pp. 185–6. 28 Olitskaya, Moi vospominaniya, vol 2, p. 74. 29 ‘S Dona’, RR, 57–58, 1927, p. 43. 30 IISG, PSR, 918, 13 November 1923, Dorogoi V.V. 31 TGM, SSSR, Kr 3, k. 148363 II 2HKPR. 32 Hoover, Nicolaevsky Collection, box 9, f. 6, Moscow Dec 1924. 33 See essays in G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds), Populism. Its Meaning and National Characteristics, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. 34 IISG, PSR, 949, Berlinskii soveshchanie, p. 29; GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 594, ll. 1–7. 35 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 48 ll. 1–5. 36 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 43. 37 Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 190. 38 Gurevich, ‘Problemy vlasti v novoi Rossii’, VR, 3, 1922, p. 24. 39 Dal’nevostochnyi, ‘Primorskoe zhit’e (pis’mo s Dal’nego Vostoka)’, VR, 10–11, 1924, p. 114. 40 Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 3, 1925, p. 14. 41 IISG, PSR, 993, Protokol’ sobraniya prazhskoi gruppy es-erov, 15 January 1922. 42 IISG, PSR, 924, 3 August 1923, Dorogoi tovarishch. 43 IISG, PSR, 924, 3 August 1923, Dorogoi tovarishch. 44 Statistik, ‘Sovremmenaya derevnya, kommunisty i nasha programma’, RR, 39–40, 1924, pp. 32–9. 45 Pis’mo iz podpol’ya’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 164. 46 ‘Voprosy programmy i taktiki’, RR, 44, 1925, p. 9. 47 ‘Tezisy o derevne’, RR, 41, 1925, pp. 2–15. 48 ‘Tezisy o derevne’, p. 12. 49 ‘Vooruzhennaya bor’ba krest’yan Amurskoi Oblasti s 14 po 28 yan. 1924 g.’, VR, 8–9, 1924, pp. 257–62. 50 IISG, PSR, 924, Dorogie tt, 10/2/24. 51 ‘Vooruzhennaya bor’ba krest’yan Amurskoi Oblasti’, p. 258. 52 ‘Vooruzhennaya bor’ba’, pp. 258–9. 53 ‘Vooruzhennaya bor’ba’, pp. 260–2. 54 IISG, PSR, 924, Dorogie tt, 10/2/24.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes

159

55 ‘Vozzvanie k grazhdanam Amurskoi, Primorskoi i zabaikal’skoi oblastei i ko vsemu naseleniyu Rossii’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p, 260. 56 ‘Vozzvanie k grazhdanam’ p. 261. 57 ‘Obrashchenie k grazhdanam krasnoarmeitsam’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 261. 58 ‘Obrashchenie k grazhdanam rabochim vsekh professii goroda Blagoveshchenska’, VR, 8–9, 1924, p. 260. 59 Stalinskii, ‘Revansh oppozitsii’, p. 105. 60 IISG, PSR, 950, Berlinskoe Soveshchanie, p. 18. 61 IISG, PSR, 950, Berlinskoe Soveshchanie, p. 38. 62 Egor Lazarev was the prime example of this. 63 ‘Perevybory v sovety i nashi ocherednie zadachi’, RR, 43, 925, p. 11. 64 ‘Pis’mo iz podpol’ya’, VR, 8–9, 1924, pp. 164–79; ‘Kak zhivut’ rabochie v krasnom Petrograd’, RR, 37–8, 1924, pp. 9–15; ‘Iz Severnoi oblasti’, RR, 59–60, 1927, pp. 30–1. 65 ‘Iz Leningrada’, VR, 6, 1924, p. 97. 66 ‘Pis’mo iz Verkhneural’sk’, RR, 59–60, 1927, pp. 31–2. 67 IISG, PSR, 924, 3 August 1923, Dorogoi tovarishch. 68 Selkor, ‘Raboche-krest’yanskie organizatsii’, RR, 57–58, 1927, pp. 42–3. 69 IISG, PSR, 924, 3 August 1923, Dorogoi tovarishch. 70 Sukhomlin, ‘Klassovaya bor’ba proletariata pri Bol’shevizme’, VR, 12–1, 1926/7, pp. 141–7. 71 Sukhomlin, ‘Klassovaya bor’ba’, p. 145. 72 Sukhomlin, ‘Klassovaya bor’ba’, pp. 130–47. Jansen, Documents from the PSR Archive, pp. 301–7. 73 Olitskaya, Moi vospominaniya, vol 2, p. 16. 74 Jansen, Documents from the PSR Archive, pp. 301–7. 75 Jansen, Documents from the PSR Archive, pp. 301–7. 76 Arnol’d, ‘Iz Severnoi oblasti’, RR, 59–60, 927, p. 31. 77 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. Volshebnyi palets’, VR, 4, 1930, pp. 314–19. 78 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 244–6. 79 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 161. 80 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 245. 81 Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, p. 343. 82 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 26. 83 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 58, l. 42. 84 ‘Otchet ZDPSR o deyatel’nosti Partii v Rossii’, RR, 44, 925, p. 12. 85 IISG, PSR, 949, p. 30. 86 IISG, PSR, 949, p. 33. 87 ‘Zakat Bol’shevizma. Pis’mo iz Rossii’, VR, 10–11, 1924, pp. 110–11. 88 Nenarkom, ‘Novaya faza krizisa diktatury. Pis’mo iz Moskvy’, RR, 51–52, 1926, pp. 25–52. 89 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, ll. 15–16. 90 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 3. 91 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 4. 92 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 9. 93 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 9. 94 RGB, f. 543, Sukhomliny, k. 20, ed. khr. 13, l. 15. 95 Sukhomlin, ‘Klassovaya bor’ba, pp. 141–7. 96 T. Shanin, Russia 1905–7: Revolution As a Moment of Truth, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1986, p. 3. 97 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 260, l. 13. 98 Gurevich, ‘Problemy vlasti v novoi Rossii’, VR, 3, 1922, pp. 20–32. 99 Gurevich, ‘Problemy vlasti v novoi Rossii’, p. 25. 100 Sukhomlin,‘Politicheskaya algebra. Po povodu stat’i V Ya Gurevicha’, VR, 3, 1922, pp. 31–40. 101 Jansen, Documents, p. 309. 102 Jansen, Documents, p. 309. 103 Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami partiinoi diskussii’, RR, 33–34, 1924, p. 27. Nenarkom also reported on the contents of the ‘Declaration of the 46’ in October 1923, which the Mensheviks had erroneously attributed to Trotsky.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

160 Notes 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148

Nenarkom, ‘Novaya faza krizisa diktatury’, RR, 51–52, 1926, p. 30. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, RR, 33–34, 1924, p. 27. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, p. 30. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, p. 24. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, p. 24. Nenarkom, ‘Novaya faza’, p. 26. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, p. 27. Nenarkom, ‘Vokrug sovetskogo “Tsentra tsentrov”’, p. 26. Nenarkom, ‘Za kulisami’, p. 28. Nenarkom, ‘Novaya faza’, pp. 27–28. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, ll. 10–55. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, ll. 14–15. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, ll. 18–20. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, l. 41. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, l. 45. GARF, f. 5893, op. 1, d. 20, l. 34. Jansen, Documents, p. 306. Lebedev, ‘Konets Savinkova’, VR, 10, 1924. M. Wehner, ‘The Soft Line on Agriculture: The Case of the Narkomzem and its Specialists’, in J. Pallot (ed.), Transforming Peasants. Society, State and the Peasantry, 1861–1930, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998, p. 213. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 36. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party, p. 318. IISG, PSR, 949, p. 29. IISG, PSR, 1002, Dorogie tovarishchi, Harbin, 19 September 1930, p. 2. Olitskaya, Moi vospominaniya, vol. 2, pp. 16–19. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie zametki’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 36. Pravda, 10 February 1927 in Sukhomlin, ‘Zadachi sotsialisticheskogo dvizheniya v derevne’, VR, 3, 1927, p. 132. Yacheika i sovety v derevne, Moscow: VKP, 1925 in Sukhomlin, ‘Zadachi sotsialisticheskogo dvizheniya’, p. 132. Stalinskii, ‘Put’ Nepa: iz itogov XIV-go s’ezda RKPa’, VR, 2, 1926, pp. 130–48. Stalinskii, ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 147. Jansen, Documents, p. 310. See various reports in G. N. Sevostianov (ed.), ‘Sovershenno sekretno’: Lubyanka-Stalinu o polozhenii v strane (1922–1934 gg), vols I and II, New York: Edward Mellon, 2001. Bespalov, Ispoved’ agenta GPU, pp. 160–2. A. Stanziani, ‘Political Elite and Agrarian Specialists in the Soviet Union in the Twenties’, in Bergmann et al, Bukharin in Retrospect, pp. 146–56; Sovershenno Sekretno, vol 1, August 1924. Sukhomlin, ‘Zadachi sotsialisticheskogo dvizheniya v derevne’, pp. 123–38. James Heinzen, ‘“Alien” Personnel in the Soviet State: The People’s Commissariat of Agriculture under Proletarian Dictatorship, 1918–1929’, Slavic Review, 56, 1 (Spring 1997), pp. 73–100. Heinzen, ‘“Alien” Personnel’, p. 92. IISG, PSR, 949, p. 73. GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 48, ll. 1–5. D. Atkinson, The End of the Russian Land Commune 1905–1930, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983, p. 239. Y. Tanuichi, The Village Gathering in Russia in the Mid 1920s, Birmingham: CREES, 1968, p. 29. ‘Perevybory v sovety i nashi ocherednie zadachie’, RR, 43, 1925, pp. 10–11. ‘Perevybory v sovety i nashi ocherednie zadachie’, p. 10. Pravda, 11 January 1924. Y. Tanuichi, The Village Gathering in Russia in the Mid 1920s, Birmingham: CREES, 1968, p. 72. Tanuichi, The Village Gathering, p. 73.

Notes 149 150 151 152 153 154

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

155 156

161

Slonim, Russkie predtechi bol’shevizma, p. 8. IISG, PSR, 950, Berlinskoe Soveshchanie, p. 75. Shanin, Russia 1905–7. Revolution as a Moment of Truth, p. 45. J. Burbank, Intelligentsia and Revolution. Russian Views of Bolshevism 1917–22, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, pp. 66–112. A. Graziosi, The Great Soviet Peasant War. Bolsheviks and Peasants 1917–1933, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 14. Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy in the Twenties’, p. 243; Lewin, Russian Peasants and Soviet Power, pp. 406–407. Heinzen, Inventing a Soviet Countryside, p. 199. Lewin, Russian Peasants, pp. 406–7.

5 The Socialist League of the New East 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9

10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

GARF, f. 5897, op. 2, d. 137, 1. 3. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 114, l. 2. IISG, PSR, 1002, Prague, 19 March 1929, p. 10. See A. Kappeler, Z. E. Kohut, F. E. Sysyn and M. von Hagen (eds), Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600–1945, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Historical Studies, 2003. See V. Tolz, Russia, London: Hodder, 2001 and G. Hosking, Russia: People and Empire, 1592–1917, London: Fontana, 1998. This refers to the policy of allowing cultural and national autonomy while preserving a unitary state. See J. Smith, The Bolsheviks and the National Question, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 255. S. Vidnyanskii, ‘Ukrainskaya emigratsiya v mezhvoennoi Chekhoslovakii: rezul’taty i perspektivy nauchnykh issledovanii na Ukraine’, in S. Vidnyanskii (ed.), Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian ˇ Emigration between the World Wars in Czechoslovakia, Prague: Národní knihovná Ceské respubliky, 1995, p. 144. ˇ Z. Sládek and L. Bˇeloševksá (eds), Dokumenty k dˇejinám ruské a ukrajinské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice (1918–39), Prague: Euroslavica, 1998, p. 30. Shapoval was a co-founder of the UPSR. In 1918 he was a minister in Vynnychenko’s government, jointly organised the uprising against the Hetman Government and was Minister of Agriculture in the Directory. He left Ukraine in 1919 as an envoy for the Ukrainian People’s Republic. See V. A. Osadczuk-Korab, ‘Prague – Secret Capital of Ukraine between the Two World Wars’, in Vidnyanskii, Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian Emigration, pp. 42–53. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 203, l. 3a. Chernov, ‘Rossiya, bol’sheviki i limitrofy’, RR, no 65, March 1928, pp. 15–19. Chernov, ‘Rossiya, bol’sheviki i limitrofy’, p. 16. Nykyfor Hryhoriiv (1883–1953) joined the UPSR in 1917 and was a member of the Central Rada, President of the Council of Military Deputies for Kiev and involved in the drive to ‘Ukrainize’ the army. He was Minister of Education in Holubovych’s government. Mykyta Mandryka (1886– 1979) had been a member of the Central Rada and was sent abroad to represent the Ukrainian National Republic. M. Jansen (ed.), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, p. 739. The League used the terms narod, natsiia and national’nost interchangeably. ‘Deklaratsiia initsiativnoi gruppy’, RR, no 61, 1927, p. 18. ‘Deklaratsiia initsiativnoi gruppy’, p. 18. GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 126, l. 2. GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 126, l. 2. Gurevich, ‘Nashi iskhodnie pozitsii’, VSLNV, 1928, p. 2. V. Gurevich, ‘Nashi iskhodnie’, p. 3. GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 126, l. 2. GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 126, l. 4.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

162 Notes 25 Gurevich, ‘Nashi iskhodnie’, p. 3. 26 See S. Guthier, ‘The Popular Base of Ukrainian Nationalism in 1917’, Slavic Review, vol. 38, no. 1. 1979, pp. 30–47 and I. Majstrenko, Borot’bism. A Chapter in the History of Ukrainian Communism, New York, 1954 for the UPSR in 1917–19. 27 ‘Pis’mo glavnogo komiteta ukrainskoi partii s.-r.’, RR, no 65, 1928, p. 20. 28 Shapoval, ‘Razvitie i sovremmenoe sostoianie ukrainskoi sotsialisticheskoi dvizhenie’, VR, no 1, 1926, p. 98. 29 Shapoval, ‘Razvitie’, p. 98. 30 Shapoval, ‘Sotsial’naia sushchnost’ ukrainskogo voprosa’, VSNLV, 1929, pp. 9–12. 31 Shapoval, ‘Razvitie’, p. 98. 32 J. Reshetar, The Ukrainian Revolution, 1917–1920. A Study in Nationalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952, pp 324–5. 33 GARF, f. 5847, d. 2, op. 173, l. 2. 34 GARF, f. 5847, d. 2, op. 173, l. 2. 35 GARF, f. 5847, d. 2, op. 173, l. 3. 36 IISG, PSR, 950, p. 51. 37 IISG, PSR, 950, p. 51. 38 IISG, PSR, 950, p. 51. 39 IISG, PSR, 950, p. 51. 40 IISG, PSR, 1006, p. 3. 41 IISG, PSR, 1006, p. 3. 42 IISG, PSR, 1006, pp. 2–4. 43 Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 152. 44 GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 49b. 45 ‘Veer’, RR, 62, 1927, pp. 19–24. 46 A. Motyl, The Turn to the Right: The Ideological Development of Ukrainian Nationalism 1919–1929, Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1980, p. 147. 47 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 280, ll. 164, 168; GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 76. 48 IISG, PSR, 983, p. 15. 49 IISG, PSR, 983, p. 15. 50 IISG, PSR, 983, p. 17. 51 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 280, l. 64. 52 V. Sukhomlin, ‘Liga novogo vostoka’, VR, 5, 1928, p. 113. Note the reverse hierarchy of ethnic groups. 53 IISG, PSR, 997, p. 3. 54 IISG, PSR, 997, p. 3. 55 IISG, PSR, 997, p. 4. 56 IISG, PSR, 997, p. 4. 57 GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 75. 58 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, 1.72. 59 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 58, l. 82. Émigré Cossack organisations in Czechoslovakia attempted to prove that Cossacks were an East Slavonic people with the right to their own state. Khokhol is a Russian term for a Ukrainian. Although derived from the male Cossack hairstyle of a lock of hair on a shaven head, it has the derogatory connotation of an uncultured peasant. Galushki is a Ukrainian dish, lapti are peasant bast footwear. Pelmeni are Russian dumplings, often associated with Siberia and brondi is a Siberian dish. Samostiinik is a term for someone who supports Ukrainian independence. 60 Tolz, Russia, p. 72. 61 S. Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process: A Survey of the Interpretations of Ukraine’s Past in Polish, Russian and Ukrainian Historical Writing from the Earliest Times to 1914, Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1992, pp. 97–110; Tolz, Russia, pp. 236–7. 62 Velychenko, National History, pp. 97–110. 63 O. Andriewsky, ‘The Russian-Ukrainian Discourse’, in Culture, Nation and Identity, pp. 203–7. 64 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 58, l. 82.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

163

E. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925, pp. 5; 8. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 10. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 74. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 182. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 280, l. 168. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 161, ll. 13–21. Shapoval, ‘Sotsial’naia sushchnost’, VSNLV, 1929, pp. 9–12. Sukhomlin, ‘Russkaya Revolyutsiya i Evropa’, VR, 11–12, 1927, p. 179. G. Aronson (ed), Pamyati V. I. Lebedeva, New York, 1958, p. 33. Slonim, ‘Bessarabskii vopros’, VR, 6, 1924, pp. 67–81. Slonim, ‘Bessarabskii vopros’, p. 74. Slonim, ‘Bessarabskii vopros’, p. 81. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, SR, 1, 1927, p. 4. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 5. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 4. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 5. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 5. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 161, ll. 13–21. The SRs referred to the new states as ‘limitrofyi’, from limitrofnie gosudarstva, that is, the states on the geographical limits of Russia. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 49b. One gets the impression they only accepted Georgia’s right to independence because the Georgian Mensheviks had a strong position in the Socialist International. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 5. The Minister of the Interior Valuev banned all publications in Ukrainian except belles-lettres. The Ems Decree also banned the import of Ukrainian books, Ukrainian language theatre and teaching in Ukrainian in schools. Gurevich, ‘Nashi iskhodnie pozitsii’, p. 2. Sukhomlin, ‘Liga novogo vostoka’, VR, 5, 1928, p. 111. Moskalia was a Ukrainian word for Russia. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. l. Ironically Shapoval had originally been converted to the SR cause after reading Lazarev’s Zemlya i Volya in prison in 1906. Majstrenko, Borot’bism, p. 29. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, pp. 3–4. Jansen, Documetns, p. 595. A. Kappeler, ‘Mazepintsy, Malorossy, Khokhly: Ukrainians in the Ethnic Hierarchy of the Russian Empire’, in Culture, Nation and Identity, pp. 162–181. Sukhomlin, ‘Russkaya Revolyutsiya i Evropa’, p. 5. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 3. Sukhomlin, ‘Ukrainskie separatisty’, p. 4. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 76. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 134, l. 55. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 2. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 171, l. 3. Mironets, ‘Dokumenty fonda Nikity Shapovala’, in Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian Emigration, p. 567. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 3. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 4. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 4. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 4. ‘Pis’mo glavnogo komiteta ukrainskoi partii s.-r.’, RR, 65, 1927, pp. 19–21. ‘Pis’mo glavnogo komiteta ukrainskoi partii s.-r.’, p. 21. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 182. Sukhomlin, ‘Liga novogo vostoka’, p. 112. Gurevich, ‘Velikoderzhavnyi sotsialism’, VSLNV, 1929, pp. 2–9. ‘Pechat’ i zhizn’’, VSLNV, 1928, p. 11. ‘O Platforme Sotsialisticheskoi Ligy Novogo Vostoka’, RR, 70–71, 1929.

164 Notes 110 111 112 113 114 115 116

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133

‘Velikoderzhavnyi sotsialism’, VSLNV, 1929, p. 2. ‘Velikoderzhavnyi sotsializm’, VSLNV, 1929, p. 6. ‘Pechat’ i zhizn’’, VSLNV, 1928, p. 10. Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 153. Shapoval, ‘Sotsial’naia sushchnost’’, pp. 9–12. A. Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism. Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, p. 91. M. Bassin, ‘“Classical” Eurasianism and the Geopolitics of Russian Identity’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, pp. 257–66. J. Roth, The Radetsky March, London: Penguin, 1995, p. 228. I. Gerasimov and S. Glebov, ‘Border Crossings’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, p. 19. See R. G. Suny, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993 and A. Roshwald, Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empire. Central Europe, Russia and the Middle East, London: Routledge, 2001. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 181. M. Von Hagen, ‘States, Nations and Identities’, in Culture, Nation and Identity, pp. 364–6. Radkey attributed the failure of the SR Party to consolidate support in 1917 to its leaders’ war-time adoption of Russian nationalism. Tolz, Russia, p. 218. Quoted in Andriewsky, p. 214. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 181. Glebov, ‘Granitsy imperii i granitsy moderna. Antikolonial’naya ritorika i teoriya kul’turnykh tipov v evraziistve’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, p. 267. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, p. 25 Gurevich, ‘Velikoderzhavnyi sotsializm’, VSLNV, 2, pp. 2–9. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 230, l. 34. E. Hellberg-Hirn, Soil and Soul: The Symbolic World of Russianness, Farnham Ashgate, 1998, p. 215. Hellberg-Hirn, Soil and Soul, p. 215. M. Raeff in Culture, Nation and Identity, p. 376. See Radkey, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism, p. 21. Jansen, Documents, p. 650.

6 The SRs and Stalin’s Great Turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

IISG, PSR, 913, V obshchestvo pomoshchi politicheski i syl. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 11c. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 6a; RGB, f. 589, k. 4, ed. khr. 5, l. 7. GARF, f. 5789, op. 1, d. 49, l. 12. ‘Istoriya odnogo raskola’, SR, 2, 1929, p. 10. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 134, ll. 37–8. RGB, f. 678, k. 4, ed. khr. 5, l. 7. ˇ Z. Sládek and L. Bˇeloševksá (eds), Dokumenty k dˇejinám ruské a ukrajinské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice (1918–39), Prague: Euroslavica, 1998, p. 150. ‘Istoriya odnogo raskola’, SR, 2, 1929, p. 10; GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 10, l. 10. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 140. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, ll. 108; 140. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 32, l. 1. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l1. 3–14. IISG, PSR, 911, Lazarev to ZD, pp. 2–3. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 10, ll. 8–9. RR, 65, 1928, pp. 1–4. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 14a. GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l1 5–16. GARF, f. 5487, op. 2, d. 147, l. 1. ‘Istoriya odnogo raskola’, SR, 2, 1929, p. 10.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes

165

21 GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 12, ll. 6–7. 22 A. Liebich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999, p. 233. 23 GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 12, l. 62. 24 See for example ‘Iz zhizhni partii’, RR, 77–78, 1931. 25 ‘Delegatsia PSR i ‘russkii vopros’ na Venskom Kongresse’, SR, 5, 1931, p. 17. 26 GARF, f. 5487, op. 2, d. 147, l. 1. 27 G. Aronson et al. (eds), Pamyati Lebedeva, New York, 1958, p. 32. 28 IISG, PSR, 983, Protokol OK 20/11/1930, pp. 1–2. 29 M. Jansen (ed), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, pp. 682–3. 30 IISG, PSR, 983, Protokol OK 20/11/1930, pp. 1–2. 31 GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 33; IISG, PSR, 1002, perepiska partiinykh grupp, pp. 1–12. 32 M. Raeff, A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 8. 33 GARF, f. 6108, op. 1, d. 11, l. 14a. 34 IISG, PSR, 1002, Prague, 19 March 1929, Postnikov – Harbintsy. 35 Gurevich, ‘Chto dol’zhno i chego nel’zya’, RR, 61, 1927, p. 1. 36 IISG, PSR, 983, Prazhskaya gruppa PSR, p. 5. 37 IISG, PSR, 983, Prazhskaya gruppa PSR, p. 5. 38 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 134, l. 48. 39 Liebich, From the Other Shore, p. 3. 40 Stalinskii, ‘Kakim putem?’, VR, 8–9, 1926, p. 191. 41 See for example D. Priestland, Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization: Ideas, Power and Terror in Interwar Russia, Oxford: OUP, 2009; K. McDermott, Stalin, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2006. 42 Stalinskii, ‘Put’ NEPa’, VR, 2, 1926, pp. 130–48. 43 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 133. 44 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 136. 45 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 138. 46 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 140. 47 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 142. 48 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 142. 49 ‘Put’ NEPa’, p. 144. 50 ‘Put NEPa’, pp. 146–147. 51 Stalinskii, ‘Krizis V.K.P.’, SR, 1, 1927, p. 9. 52 Stalinskii, ‘Krizis V.K.P.’, pp. 8–12. 53 Liebich, From the Other Shore, p. 184. 54 Stalinskii, ‘Chto dal’she? (Yubilei i oppozitsiya)’, VR, 11–12, 1927, pp. 204–7. 55 Stalinskii, ‘Revansh oppozitsii’, VR, 2, 1928, p. 91. 56 Stalinskii, ‘Revansh oppozitsii’, p. 105. 57 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, VR, 10–11, 1928, p. 170. 58 Stalinskii, ‘Krizis V.K.P.’, SR, 1, 1927, p. 11. 59 Stalinskii, ‘Chto dal’she’, p. 189. 60 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, p. 178. 61 Stalinskii, ‘Revansh oppozitsii’, pp. 95–96. 62 Stalinskii,‘Sumerki leninizma’, VR, 12, 1928, p. 89. 63 Stalinskii, ‘Revansh oppozitsii’, p. 98. 64 Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, p. 91. 65 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, p. 181. 66 Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, p. 95. 67 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, p. 174. 68 Stalinskii, ‘Kakim putem?’, VR, 8–9, 1926, p. 19.1. 69 Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, p. 88. 70 Rabkor, ‘Pis’mo Moskovskogo rabochego’, SR, 1, 1927, pp. 20–1.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

166 Notes 71 Stalinskii, ‘Chto dal’she’, p. 200. 72 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, p. 182; Stalinskii, ‘Narodnicheskaya oppozitsiya (po povodu ‘pravogo uklona’ v bolshevizme)’, VR, 4, 1929, p. 70. 73 Stalinskii, ‘Narodnicheskaya’, p. 62. 74 Stalinskii, ‘Levyi kurs’, p. 184. 75 Stalinskii, ‘Narodnicheskaya’, pp. 61–78. 76 Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, p. 82. 77 Stalinskii, ‘Narodnicheskaya’, pp. 61–78: ‘Chto dal’she’, p. 206. 78 Stalinskii, ‘Narodnicheskaya’, p. 75. 79 Stalinskii, ‘Sumerki leninizma’, p. 98. 80 Aronson, Pamyati Lebedeva, p. 3.1. 81 A. Novikov, V.M. Chernov: Chelovek i politik, Saratov: Akvarius, 2004, p. 127. 82 Liebich, From the Other Shore, p. 207. 83 IISG, PSR, 983, p. 5. 84 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. Lik Leningrada’, VR, 5–6, 1930, pp. 407–13. 85 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii’, VR, 10–11, 1929, pp. 14–16. 86 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii’, VR, 10–11, 1929, p. 22. 87 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii’, pp. 27–29. 88 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. V shapke-nevidimke’, VR, 12, 1929, pp. 3–6. 89 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. V shapke-nevidimke’, pp. 8–10. 90 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. Volshebnyi palets’, VR, 4, 1930, p. 310. 91 Lebedev, ‘V Rossii. Volshebnyi palets’, pp. 314–19. 92 For the defensist movement see P. Robinson, The White Russian Army in Exile, 1920–1941, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. 93 Gurevich, ‘Budushchee sotsializma v Rossii’, RR, 72, 1929, p. 13. 94 GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 15. 95 ‘Razlozhenie diktatury’, RR, 62, 1927, p. 3. 96 Gurevich, ‘Budushchee sotsializma’, pp. 11–17. 97 Gurevich, ‘Budushchee sotsializma’, p. 12. 98 ‘Konets oppozitsii’, RR, 63–64, 1928, p. 2. 99 Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, RR, 63–64, 1928, p. 6. 100 Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, p. 6. 101 Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, p. 6. 102 Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, pp. 3–8. 103 ‘Konets oppozitsii’, p. 2. 104 Chernov, ‘V mire pereotrazhenii’, p. 8. 105 Gurevich, ‘K desyatiletiyu revolyutsii. Perspektivy kommunisticheskoi diktatury’, RR, 59–60, 1927, p. 27. 106 Gurevich, ‘K desyatiletiyu revolyutsii’, p. 31. 107 Gurevich, ‘Kakoi dolzhna byt’ demokratizatsiya sovetov’, BAFPSR, 1930, pp. 4–15. 108 ‘Konets oppozitsii’, RR, p. 3. 109 Chernov, ‘Razlozhenie diktatury’, pp. 1–3. 110 ‘Konets oppozitsii’, RR, p. 2. 111 IISG, PSR, 92, 19 Briefe von ostgruppen der SRP in den USA. To the Honourable Frank B. Kellogg, State Department, Washington DC, pp. 2–3. 112 IISG, PSR, 92, 19, pp. 2–3. 113 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 249.

7 The Collectivisation of Agriculture 1 2 3 4

Hoover, Nicolaevsky, Box 9, f. 16, Dorogoi Vasilii Vasil’evich, 23 May 1930, Praga. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, Box 9, f. 16, Dorogoi Vasilii Vasil’evich, 23 May 1930, Praga. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, VR, 1, 1930, p. 67. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, Box 9, f. 16, Dorogoi Vasilii Vasil’evich.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Notes 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

167

G. Aronson et al. (eds), Pamyati Lebedeva, New York: Chekhov, 1958, p. 28. ‘Chto delaetsya u nas?’, RR, 73, 1929, p. 21. IISG, PSR, 1023, 9 May 1930, Kharbinskaya organizatsiya PSR – Oblastnoi Komitetu, Praga, p. 2. Sukhomlin, ‘Kollektivizatora poimali!’, VR, 4, 1930, p. 385. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 64. Rudnev, ‘O sovetskoi kollektivizatsii’, Svoboda, 1, 1933, p. 4. Sukhomlin, ‘Kollektivizator’, p. 392. Sukhomlin, ‘Kollektivizatora’, p. 388. Sukhomlin, ‘Kollektivizatora’, p. 388. Sukhomlin, ‘Kollektivizatora’, p. 394. E. Olitskaya, Moi vospominaniya, Frankfurt: Posev, 1997, vol 2, pp. 20–2. See GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 123–24. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 112–121. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 118. Rudnev, ‘O sovetskoi kollektivizatsii’, Svoboda, p. 3. IISG, PSR, 1002, Dorogie tovarishchi, p. 1. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, VR, 1, 1930 pp. 61–75. IISG, PSR, 1002, Dorogie tovarishchi, Harbin, 19 September 1930, p. 2. M. Jansen (ed), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989, p. 13. IISG, PSR, 1023, Kharbinskaya organizatsia PSR – OK, 9 May 1930. IISG, PSR, 1023, Dorogie tov., Praga, 12 September 1930, p. 3. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie perspektivy i nashi zadachi’, SR, 4, 1931, p. 2. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie perspektivy’, p. 2. The classic work is L. Viola, Peasant Rebels under Stalin: Collectivisation and the Culture of Peasant Resistance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. For a recent analysis of a speciﬁc incidence of peasant resistance which was successfully localised see T. McDonald, ‘A Peasant Rebellion in Stalin’s Russia: The Pitelinskii Uprising, Riazan 1930’, Journal of Social History, 35, 1, 2001, pp. 125–46. Stalinskii, ‘O tret’ei emigratsii, bonapartizme, stalinizme, koalitsii i demokratiya’, VR, 10, 1930, p. 871. Stalinskii, ‘Zagovory i prognozy’, VR, 11–12, 1930, pp. 1026–40. Sukhomlin, ‘Diktatura i zagovory’, SR, 3, 1931, p. 2. Sukhomlin, ‘Politicheskie perspektivy’, p. 2. Sukhomlin, ‘Diktatura i zagovory’, p. 2. V. Barnett, Kondratiev and the Dynamics of Economic Development: Long Cycles and Industrial Growth in Historical Context, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998, p. 93. Liebich, From the Other Shore, p. 213; Barnett, Kondratiev, pp. 189–93. Barnett, Kondratiev, p. 191. Stalinskii, ‘O tret’ei emigratsii, bonapartizme, stalinizme, koalitsii i demokratiya’, VR, 10, 1930, p. 864. Stalinskii, ‘Na povorote sobytii’, SR, 3, 1931, p. 4. Stalinskii, ‘Pod znakom sotsializma. 16-ogo s’ezda VKP’, VR, 7–8, 1930, p. 662. Stalinskii, ‘Na povorote’, p. 5. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 244–6. Stalinskii, ‘Plody kollektivizatsii’, SR, 6, 1932, p. 8. Volzhanin, ‘Konﬂikt sovetskoi vlasti s kolkhozami’, SR, 6, 1932, pp. 10–11. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, pp. 61–75. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 63. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 63. Arkhangel’skii, ‘Kollektivizatsiya sel’skogo khozyaistva’, SR, 4, 1931, pp. 5–6. Arkhangel’skii, ‘Kollektivizatsiya sel’skogo khozyaistva’, p. 7. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 64. Stalinskii, ‘O tret’ei emigratsii’, p. 871.

168 Notes

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64

65 66 67 68 69 70

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87

Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 72. Stalinskii, ‘Stalin i derevnya’, p. 73. Stalinskii, ‘Industrializatsiya SSSR i pyatiletnyi plan’, SR, 4, 1931, p. 6. Stalinskii, ‘Industrializatsiya SSSR’, p. 6. Stalinskii, ‘O tret’ei emigratsii’, p. 872. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 95–6. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 97. C. Ward, Stalin’s Russia, London: Arnold Press, 1999, pp. 98–9. See V. P. Danilov, ‘Bukharin’s Alternative for the Countryside’, in T. Bergmann, G. Schaefer, M. Selden (eds), Bukharin in Retrospect, New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1994, pp. 133–45. Novikov, V.M. Chernov, pp. 57–9. Novikov, V.M. Chernov, p. 57. Novikov, V.M. Chernov, p. 59. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 5. GARF, f. 5824, op. 2, d. 134, l. 48. Klimushkin (1888–1960) took part in the SR anti-Bolshevik uprising in the Volga and came to Prague in 1919 with the Czech Legion. He was a party worker and a journalist. He was arrested in 1945 by the Red Army and imprisoned in the Soviet Union. He returned to Czechoslovakia in 1956. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, ll. 48–9. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 47. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 47. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 99. GARF, f. 5871, op. 1, d. 112, l. 48. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 100–101. I. P. Nesterov (?–1960) participated in the SR anti-Bolshevik uprising in the Volga during the Civil War and came to Prague with the Czech Legion. He was an agronomist and worked for the Zemgor in Prague. He was arrested in 1945 and imprisoned in the Soviet Union until 1956. He returned to Prague after his release. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 97. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 100. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 103. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 110. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 110. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, ll. 111–12. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 119. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 113. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 113. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 114. D. Atkinson, The End of the Russian Land Commune 1905–1930, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983, p. 377. Sukhomlin ‘Obrashchat’sya s ostorozhnost’yu: Diktatura!’ VR, 11, 1930, p. 1047. Jansen, Documents, p. 10. Jansen, Documents, p. 10. Jansen, Documents, p. 11. IISG, PSR, 1002, Prague 19 March 1929, Postnikov – Harbin. N. V. Vladimirov, ‘Sovremmenyi opyt resheniya zemel’nogo voprosa’, in D. Ayatskov (ed.), Sobstvennost’ na zemlyu, Moscow: Rosspen, 2002, pp. 522–81.

8 The 1930s and the Road to War 1 GARF, f. 5910, op. 1, d. 58, l. 19a. 2 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, ll. 185–95. 3 GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 186.

Notes

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

169

GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 190. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 192. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 192. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 166. GARF, f. 5824, op. 1, d. 589, l. 161. M. Slonim, Soviet Literature: An Anthology, London: Wishart & Co, 1933, p. 43. Bakhmeteff, Ms Coll. Slonim, Slonim – Postnikov, undated letter. G. Aronson et al. (eds), Pamyati Lebedeva, New York: Chekhov, 1958, p. 23. The funding possibly may have come from Yugoslav socialist groups. Bakhmeteff, Ms Coll. Slonim, M. Slonim – S.P. Postnikov, 20 December 1932. R. Gul’, Ya unos’ Rossiyu, vol 2, Moscow: BSG Press, 2001, p. 216. See the Journal of Samuel Beckett Studies at //English.fsu.edu/jobs/num02/InMemoriam. Gul’, Ya unos’ Rossiyu, p. 343. M. Slonim (ed), Soviet Literature, London: Wishart & Co, 1933. Bakhmeteff, Ms Coll. Slonim, M Slonim – S.P. Postnikov, 18 July ? Paris. E. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia: the Émigré Community in Czechoslovakia 1918–1938, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001, p. 66; E. Serapionova, Rossiiskaya emigratsia v cheskoslovenskoi respublike, v godakh 20–30, Moscow: RAN, 1995, p. 31. IISG, PSR, 998, T. Sekretar’ N’yu-yurkskoi gruppy PSR Dec 1932. ˇ Z. Sládek and L. Bˇeloševksá (eds), Dokumenty k dˇejinám ruské a ukrajinské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice (1918–39), Prague: Euroslavica, 1998, pp. 138–41. Sládek, Dokumenty, p. 139. L. Erdinger, German Exile Politics: The Social Democratic Executive Committee in the Nazi Era, Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1956, pp. 200–4. I. Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Hitler and Stalin: the Diplomacy of Edvard Benes, Oxford: OUP, 1996, p. 196. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 391, f. 77–44, 1945, New York. IISG, Cernov, 21, Palestinskii opyt. Jansen, Documents, p. 742. Hoover, Box 390, f. 9–15, I Chernova – Munvis, Tel Aviv, 29 April 1935. IISG, Cernov, 16, 22 January 1938, I. Chernova to Ts. Savel’evna. GARF, f. 5847, op. 2, d. 24, l. 142. Hoover, b. 390, f. 9–15, Prague, 10 November 1933. IISG, Cernov, 18, 18 March 1938 letter to Zenzinov. See ‘V Chernov o demokratii i sotsializme’, in Istoricheskii Arkhiv, no 4, 2001, pp. 3–10 for his unpublished works. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 379, f. 10, Shapiro, March 1939. GARF, f. 5824, op. 2, d. 134, ll. 153–154. Makhin had been a Colonel in the Tsarist Army and fought against the Bolsheviks in the Civil War. See P. Robinson, The White Russian Army in Exile, 1920–1941, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002 for the defensist movement. Aronson, Pamyati Lebedeva, p. 32. Jansen, Documents, p. 745. ‘Vmesto predisloviya’, Problemy, no 3, 1936, p. 2. N. Bespalov, Ispoved’ agenta GPU, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925, p. 134. ‘Vmesto predisloviya’, p. 3. ‘Vmesto predisloviya’, p. 3. Aronson, Pamyati Lebedeva, p. 35. IISG, Cernov, 16, 27 July 1938, Chernov to Gurevich. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 388, f. 25 V. Chernov - Ts. Savel’evna, 30 December 1936. Hoover, Nicolaevsky, b. 388, f. 25 V. Chernov. Jansen, Documents, p. 746. Jansen, Documents, p. 745. Jansen, Documents, p. 743. IISG, Cernov, 18, 20 May 1938, R. Abramovich – V. Chernov.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

170 Notes 51 Pyatakov had presided over the Trial of the SRs in 1922. Bukharin, then still in his ‘stormy’ stage had campaigned for the death sentence and had organised violent demonstrations against the members of the International who initially came to defend the SRs, Vandervelde and Walter Liebknekht. 52 RGB, f. 545, k. 8, ed. khr. 11, l. 4. 53 RGB, f. 545, k. 8, ed. khr. 11, l. 8. 54 IISG, Cernov, 18, 20 May 1938, R. Abramovich – V. Chernov. 55 RGB, f. 573, k. 8, ed. khr. 8, l. 5. 56 IISG, Cernov, 16 June 1938, Chernov to Zenzinov. 57 Jansen, Documents, p. 183. 58 IISG, Cernov, 16 June 1938, Chernov to Zenzinov. Kamkov, Semenov, and Yakovleva were all ex-SRs who had appeared as witnesses against their former party members in the Trial of the SRs in of 1922. Liebich comments that there were rumours in 1938 that a second Menshevik and a new SR trial were being planned, From the Other Shore, p. 214. 59 Jansen, Documents, p. 748. 60 RGB, f. 678, Rusanov, k. 1, ed. 14, l. 445. 61 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 53, l. 3. 62 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 53, l. 3. 63 IISG, Cernov, 18, 17 June 1938, Chernov – Abramovich. 64 IISG, Cernov, 18, 17 June 1938, Chernov – Abramovich. 65 Hoover, b. 379, f. 10, Chernov – Shapiro, March 1939. 66 Jansen, Documents, p. 748. 67 Jansen, Documents, p. 751. 68 Jansen, Documents, p. 751. 69 Hoover, b. 379, f. 10–12, Chernov – Savel’evna, Paris 1940. 70 Hoover, b. 379, f. 10–12, Chernov – Savel’evna, Paris 1940. 71 Hoover, b. 379, f. 10–12, Chernova – Savel’evna, Paris March 1939. 72 A. Novikov (ed) V.M. Chernov: Chelovek i politik, Akvarius: Saratov, p. 60. 73 Novikov, V.M. Chernov, p. 142. 74 Novikov, V.M. Chernov, p. 143. 75 Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, pp. 219–20. 76 See V. Bystrov, Z Prahy do gulagu aneb pˇrekáželi, Prague: Bystrov a synové, 1999. 77 Bystrov, Z Prahy do gulagu aneb pˇrekáželi, pp. 220–2. 78 Liebich, From the Other Shore, pp. 271–317. 79 Novikov, V.M. Chernov, p. 62. 80 Jansen, Documents, p. 755. 81 Jansen, Documents, p. 755. 82 Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia, p. 26. 83 See V. Varshavskii, Nezamechennoe Pokolenie, New York, 1956 for a description of the émigré ‘sons’, written by one of their number. 84 RGB, f. 543, k. 5, ed. khr. 1. Conclusion 1 S. Postnikov, Politika, ideologiia, byt i uchenie trudy russkoi emigratsii, 1918–1945, New York: Norman Ross, 1993, p. 5. 2 Postnikov, Politika, ideologiia, byt, p. 6. 3 M. Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 15. 4 Raeff, Russia Abroad, p. 82. 5 H. Immonen, The Agrarian Programme of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party 1900–1914, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, pp. 149–51. 6 A. Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969, p. 88. 7 G. Aronson et al. (eds) Pamyati Lebedeva, New York, 1958, p. 26.

Notes

171

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

8 GARF, f. 5834, op. 1, d. 230, l. 3a. 9 Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism, p. 452. 10 A. Graziosi, The Great Soviet Peasant War: Bolsheviks and Peasants, 1917–1933, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996, p. 9. 11 GARF, f. 5847, op. 1, d. 53, l. 4. 12 R. Pipes, Struve, Liberal on the Right, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980, p. 366. 13 E. Feinstein, Marina Tsvetaeva, London: Penguin, 1989, p. 189. 14 Raeff, Russia Abroad, p. 9.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Bibliography

1 Archives State Archive of the Russian Federation, Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Rossisskoi Federatsii, Moscow (GARF) The Archive of the Hoover Institute, Stanford University Bakhmeteff Collection, Columbia University, New York. International Institute for Social History, Amsterdam (IISG). The T G Masaryk Institute, Prague (TGM). Russian State Library, Russkaya Gosudarstvennaya Biblioteka, Moscow (RGB).

2 Periodicals Volya Rossii. Revolyutsionnaya Rossiya. Sotsialist-Revolyutsioner. Byulleten’ amerikanskoi federatsii PSR. Problemy. Svoboda.

3 Secondary sources C. Andreyev, Vlasov and the Russian Liberation Movement: Soviet Reality and Émigré Theories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. C. Andreyev and I. Savický, Russia Abroad: Prague and the Russian Diaspora, 1918–1938, London: Yale University Press, 2004. G. Aronson, M. Weibaum, N. Kalashnikov and M. Slonim, (eds), Pamyati V.I. Lebedeva, New York: Chekhov, 1958. D. Atkinson, The End of the Russian Land Commune 1905–1930, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1983. D. Ayatskov (ed), Sobstvennost’ na zemlyu v Rossii: istoriya i sovremennost’, Moscow: Rosspen, 2002. S. Badcock, Politics and the People in Revolutionary Russia: A Provincial History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. M. Bassin, ‘“Classical” Eurasianism and the Geopolitics of Russian Identity’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, pp. 257–66.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Bibliography

173

ˇ L. Bˇeloševská (ed), Kronika kulturního, vˇedeckého a spoleˇcenského života ruské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice, 1919–1929, 2 vols, Prague: Slovanský ústav, 2000–. T. Bergmann, G. Schaefer, M. Selden (eds), Bukharin in Retrospect, New York: M.E. Sharpe, 1994. N. Bespalov, Ispoved’ agenta GPU, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925. J. Burbank, Intelligentsia and Revolution. Russian Views of Bolshevism 1917–22, New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. V. Bystrov, Z Prahy do Gulagu aneb pˇrekáželi, Prague: Bystrov, 1999. L. Chamberlain, Motherland: A Philosophical History of Russia, London: Atlantic Books, 2004. V. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 1, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925. V. Chernov, Konstruktivnyi sotsializm, vol 2, Moscow: Rosspen, 2001. V. Chernov, Pered burei. Vospominaniya, Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenie, 1993. V. Chernov, The Great Russian Revolution, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1936. E. Chinyaeva, Russians outside Russia: the Émigré Community in Czechoslovakia 1918–1938, Munich: Oldenbourg, 2001. S. Cohen, Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution, London: Wildwood House, 1975. W. Coudenys, ‘Between Them and Us – the Construction of Community Borders by Russian Émigrés in Belgium’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, pp. 186–202. V.N. Chubakov (ed), Nezabytye mogily: rossiiskoe zarubezh’e, nekroliki 1917–1997 v shesti tomakh, Moscow: Ros.gos. b-tka, 1999–. V. Danilov, Russia under the New Regime, London: Hutchinson Education, 1988. I. Deutscher, The Prophet Unarmed, Trotsky 1921–1929, London: Verso, 2003. L. Erdinger, German Exile Politics: The Social Democratic Executive Committee in the Nazi Era, Berkeley, CA: California University Press, 1956. E. Furlough and C. Strikwerda (eds), Consumers against Capitalism? Consumer Cooperation in Europe, North America and Japan 1840–1990, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littleﬁeld, 1999. J. Glad, Russia Abroad: Writers, History, Politics, Washington, DC: Birchbark Press, 1999. S. Glebov, ‘Granitsy imperii i granitsy moderna. Antikolonial’naya ritorika i teoriya kul’turnykh tipov v evraziistve’, Ab Imperio, no 2, 2003, pp. 265–87. A. Graziosi, The Great Soviet Peasant War: Bolsheviks and Peasants, 1917–1933, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. R Gul’, Ya unos’ Rossii, 3 vols, Moscow: BSG Press, 2001–. S. Guthier, ‘The Popular Base of Ukrainian Nationalism in 1917’, Slavic Review, vol 38, no 1, 1979, pp. 30–47. H. Haardeman, Coming to Terms with the Soviet Regime: The “Changing Signposts” Movement among Russian Émigrés in the Early 1920s, Illinois: De Kalb, 1994. J. Heinzen, ‘“Alien” Personnel in the Soviet State: The People’s Commissariat of Agriculture under Proletarian Dictatorship, 1918–1929’, Slavic Review, vol 56, no 1, Spring 1997, pp. 73–100. J. Heinzen, Inventing a Soviet Countryside. State Power and the Transformation of Rural Russia, 1917–1929, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2004. E. Hellberg-Hirn, Soil and Soul: The Symbolic World of Russianness, Farnham: Ashgate, 1998. M. Hildermeier, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party before the First World War, New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000. G. Hosking, Russia: People and Empire,1592–1917, London: Fontana, 1998. H. Immonen, The Agrarian Programme of the Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party 1900–1914, Helsinki: Finnish Historical Society, 1988. G. Ionescu and E. Gellner (eds) Populism: Its Meaning and National Characteristics, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1969. Istoriya rossiiskogo zarubezh’ya. Problemy adaptatsii migrantov v XIX–XX vekakh, Moscow: Institut rossiiskoi istorii, 1996.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

174 Bibliography M. Jansen, A Show Trial under Lenin: The Trial of the Socialist-Revolutionaries, Moscow 1922, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1982. M. Jansen (ed.), The Socialist Revolutionary Party after October 1917: Documents from the PSR Archive, Amsterdam: Stichting Beheer IISG, 1989. R.H. Johnston, ‘In Defence of the Defeated: Sovremmennye Zapiski and the February Revolution’, Canadian Slavonic Papers, vol 24, no 1, 1982, pp. 11–24. R.H. Johnston, ‘New Mecca, New Babylon’: Paris and the Russian Exiles 1920–45, Kingston: McGillQueen’s University Press, 1988. A. Kappeler, Z.E. Kohut, F.E. Sysyn and M. von Hagen (eds), Culture, Nation and Identity: The Ukrainian-Russian Encounter, 1600–1945, Toronto: Canadian Institute of Historical Studies, 2003. A. Kemp-Welch (ed.), The Ideas of Nikolai Bukharin, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. T. Khordina (ed.), Politicheskie partii Rossii Konets XIX – pervaya tret’ XX veka. Partiya sotsialistovrevolutsionerov. Dokumenty i materialy, Oktyabr’ 1917–1925, Moscow: Rosspen, 2000. F. King (ed.), The Narodniks in the Russian Revolution. Russia’s Socialist-Revolutionaries in 1917 – a documentary history, Wyndmondham: Socialist History Society, 2007. E. Kingston-Mann, Lenin and the Problem of Marxist Peasant Revolution, Oxford: OUP, 1983. E. Kingston-Mann, In Search of the True West: Culture, Economics, and Problems of Russian Development, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999. A.F. Kiselev (ed), Politicheskaya istoriya russkoi emigratsii. 1920–1940 gg. Dokumenty i materialy, Moscow: Vlados, 1999. G. Kitching, Development and Underdevelopment in Historical Perspective, London: Meuthen, 1982. ˇ A. Kopˇrivová, Ruská, ukrajinská a bˇeloruská emigrace v Praze. Adresáˇr, Prague: Národní knihovna Ceské republiky, 1999. Y. Kotsonis, Making Peasants Backward. Agricultural Cooperatives and the Agrarian Question in Russia, 1861–1914, New York: St Martin’s. E. Lazarev, Lenin-Ulyanov, Prague: Legiograﬁya, 1924. E. Lazarev, Iz perepiska s druzyami, Uzhgorod, 1935. M. Lewin, Russian Peasants and Soviet Power. A Study of Collectivisation, London: Norton, 1968. M. Lewin, Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974. A. Liebich, From the Other Shore: Russian Social Democracy after 1921, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999. A. Lindemann, The Red Years: European Socialism vs. Bolshevism, 1919–1921, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1974. I. Lukes, Czechoslovakia between Stalin and Hitler: the Diplomacy of Edvard Benes, Oxford: OUP, 1996. I. Majstrenko, Borot’bism. A Chapter in the History of Ukrainian Communism, New York: 1954. D. Male, Russian Peasant Organisation before Collectivisation: A Study of the Commune and Gathering, 1925–1930, Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 1971. I. Martynyuk, ‘Potusknevshee ‘zoloto’ russkogo zarubezh’ya: opyt kriticheskogo ocherka noveishei istoriograﬁi mezhvoennoi evropeiskoi emigratsii’, Ab Imperio, 2, 2003, pp. 541–91. T. McDonald, ‘A Peasant Rebellion in Stalin’s Russia: The Pitelinskii Uprising’, Riazan 1930, Journal of Social History, 35, 1, 2001, pp. 125–46. D. Meisner, Mirazhi i deistvitel’nost. Zapiski emigranta, Moscow: Novosti, 1966. M. Melancon ‘The Socialist-Revolutionaries from 1902–1907: Peasant and Workers’ Party’, Russian History, no 12, Spring, 1985, pp. 2–9. M. Melancon, The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Russian Anti-War Movement 1914–1917, Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1990.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Bibliography

175

M. Melancon, ‘Neo-Populism in Early Twentieth Century Russia: The Socialist-Revolutionary Party from 1900 to 1917’, in A. Geifman (ed), Russia under the Last Tsar. Opposition and Subversion 1894–1917, Oxford: Blackwell, 1999, pp. 73–90. M. Melancon, ‘The Neopopulist Experience. Default Interpretations and New Approaches’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 5, 1, Winter 2004, pp. 195–206. A. Mendel, Dilemmas of Progress in Tsarist Russia. Legal Marxism and Legal Populism, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961. R. Miller, ‘Soviet Agricultural Policy in the Twenties: The Failure of Cooperation’, Soviet Studies, vol 27, no 2, April 1975, pp. 220–44. A. Motyl, The Turn to the Right: The Ideological Development of Ukrainian Nationalism 1919–1929, Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1980. A. Novikov (ed), V. M. Chernov: Chelovek i politik. Materialy k biograﬁi, Saratov: Avkarius, 2004. E. Olitskaya, Moi vospominanii, Frankfurt: Posev, 2 vols, 1972–. M. Perrie, The Agrarian Policy of the Russian Socialist-Revolutionary Party from its Origins through the Revolution of 1905, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976. R. Pipes, ‘Russian Marxism and Its Populist Background: the Late Nineteenth Century’, The Russian Review, vol 19, no 4, October 1960, pp. 316–77. V. Podaný and H. Barviková (eds), Ruska a ukrajinska emigrace v CSR 1918–1938. Materialy k dejinam, ˇ Archiv Akademie vˇed Ceské republiky: Prague, 1995. ˇ V. Podaný and H. Barviková (eds), Emigrace z Ruska v meziváleˇcném Ceskoslovensku. Prameny v cˇeskych, ˇ moravských a slezských archivech: Archiv Akademie vˇed Ceské republiky: Prague, 2000. S. Postnikov (ed), Russkie v Prage, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1928. S. Postnikov, Politika, ideologiia, byt i uchenie trudy russkoi emigratsii, 1918–1945, New York: Norman Ross, 1993. ˇ ˇ Z. Rachu nková and M. Reháková (eds), Práce ruské, ukrajinské a beloruské emigrace vydané v Ceskoslovensku ˇ 1918–1945, 3 vols, Prague: Národní knihovna Ceské republiky, 1996–. G. Radchenko, Sotsial’no-ekonomicheskaya struktura SSSR, Prague: Nové Rusko, 1928. O. Radkey, ‘An Alternative to Bolshevism: the Program of Russian Social Revolutionism’, The Journal of Modern History, vol 25, no 1, March 1953, pp. 25–39. O. Radkey, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism: Promise and Default of the Russian Socialist Revolutionaries, February to October 1917, New York: Columbia University Press, 1958. O. Radkey, The Sickle under the Hammer, New York: Columbia University Press, 1963. M. Raeff, Russia Abroad: A Cultural History of the Russian Emigration, 1919–1939, New York: Oxford University Press, 1990. M. Raeff, ‘The Swansong of a Russian Émigré Journal’, The Russian Review, no 43, July 1984, pp. 277–83. M. Raeff, ‘Recent Perspectives on the History of the Russian Emigration (1920–1940)’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 6, 2 Spring 2005, pp. 319–34. E. Van Ree, ‘“Lenin’s Last Struggle” Revisited’, Revolutionary Russia, 14, 2, 2001, pp. 85–122. J. Reshetar, The Ukrainian Revolution, 1917–1920. A Study in Nationalism, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1952. P. Robinson, The White Russian Army in Exile, 1920–1941, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002. A. Roshwald, Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empire. Central Europe, Russia and the Middle East, London: Routledge, 2001. J. Roth, The White Cities. Reports from France 1925–39, London: Granta, 2005. Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian Emigration between the World Wars in Czechoslovakia. Results and Perspectives of Contemporary Research, Holdings of the Slavonic Library and Prague Archives, Prague: ˇ Národní knihovná Ceské respubliky, 1995. ˇ v Rusku a Rusové v Cechách ˇ I. Savický, Osudová setkáni: Ceši 1914–1938, Prague: Academia, 1999.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

176 Bibliography E.P. Serapionova, Rossiiskaya emigratsia v cheskoslovenskoi respublike v godakh 20–30, Moscow: RAN, 1995. G.N. Sevostianov (ed), ‘Sovershenno sekretno’: Lubyanka-Stalinu o polozhenii v strane (1922–1934 gg), vols I–IV, New York: Edward Mellon, 2001. T. Shanin, The Awkward Class. Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910–1925, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972. T. Shanin, ‘Marx, Marxism and the Agrarian Question: 1 Marx and the Peasant Commune’, History Workshop, 12, 1981, pp. 108–28. T. Shanin, Russia as a ‘Developing Society’: The Roots of Otherness: Russia’s Turn of Century, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1985. T. Shanin, Russia 1905–7. Revolution as a Moment of Truth, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1986. Z. Sládek, ‘Russkaya i ukrainskaya emigratsiya v Chekhoslovakii’, Sovetskoe slavyanovenie, 6, 1991. ˇ Z. Sládek and L. Bˇeloševksá (eds), Dokumenty k dˇejinám ruské a ukrajinské emigrace v Ceskoslovenské republice (1918–39), Prague: Euroslavica, 1998. M. Slonim, Russkie predtechi bol’shevizma, Berlin: Russkoe Universal’noe Izdatel’stvo, 1922. E. Stalinskii, Puti Revolyutsii, Prague: Volya Rossii, 1925. R.G. Suny, The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution and the Collapse of the Soviet Union, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993. G. Swain, Russia’s Civil War, Stroud: Tempus, 2000. Y. Tanuichi, The Village Gathering in Russia in the Mid 1920s, Birmingham: CREES, 1968. A. Tartakovskii, T. Emmons and O. Budnitskii (eds), Russia and the Russian Emigration in Memoirs and Diaries. An Annotated Bibliography of Books and Publications in Magazines and Newspapers Issued Abroad 1917–1991, Moscow: Rosspen, 2003. TGM, Rusko a Evropa. Dílo-Vize-Pˇrítomnost. Sborník pˇrispˇevku z mezinárodní vˇedecké konference poˇrádné ve ˇ 2002. dnech 12.–14. záˇrí 1997 v Praze, Prague: Masarku v ústav AV CR, V. Tolz, Russia, London: Hodder, 2001. A. Trapeznik, V.M.Chernov: Theorist, Leader, Politician, Cambridge Scholars Press: Newcastle, 2007. B. Unterberger, The United States, Revolutionary Russia and the Rise of Czechoslovakia, Texas: Texas University Press, 2000. ˇ v letech 1918–1945, 3 vols, Prague: Charles University, V. Veber (ed), Ruská a ukrajinská emigrace v CSR 1993–. S. Velychenko, National History as Cultural Process: A Survey of the Interpretations of Ukraine’s Past in Polish, Russian and Ukrainian Historical Writing from the Earliest Times to 1914, Edmonton: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 1992. F. Venturi, Roots of Revolution. A History of the Populist and Socialist Movements in 19th Century Russia, London: Phoenix, 2001. L. Viola, Peasant Rebels under Stalin: Collectivisation and the Culture of Peasant Resistance, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. M. Vishnyak, Dan proshlemu, New York: Chekhov, 1954. M. Vishnyak, Gody emigratsii 1919–1969. Parizh-New York, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970. M. Vishnyak, “Sovremennye Zapiski”: Vospominaniya redaktora, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, 1957. A. Walicki, The Controversy over Capitalism: Studies in the Social Philosophy of the Russian Populists, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1969. M. Wehner, ‘The Soft Line on Agriculture: The Case of the Narkomzem and its Specialists’, in J. Pallot (ed), Transforming Peasants. Society, State and the Peasantry, 1861–1930, Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1998, pp. 210–23.

Bibliography

177

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

B. Wheaton, Radical Socialism in Czechoslovakia: Bohumír Šmeral, the Czech Road to Socialism and the Origins of the Czechoslovak Communist Party 1917–1921, New York: Columbia University, 1986. R.C. Williams, Culture in Exile: Russian Émigrés in Germany 1881–1941, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1972. R.C. Williams, ‘European Political Emigrations: A Lost Subject’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, no 12, 1970, pp. 140–48. R. Wortman, The Crisis of Russian Populism, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1967. G. Yaney, The Urge to Mobilise: Agrarian Reform in Russia 1861–1930, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press,1982.

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Index

Adler, F. 20 Administrativnyi Tsentr 24 Antonov-Ovseenko, V. 30 Argunov, A. 24 Arkhangel’skii, V. 132 Astrov, N. 23 Avksentiev, N. 31, 97, 132, 149 Babel’ Isaac 32, 131 Bauer, O. 46 Bechyneˇ, R. 29 Belgian Workers’ Party (Parti Ouvrier Belge) 27, 29, 48, 146 Beneš, E. 3; and Russia 20–3, 29–30, 35, 143, 146; World War II 143 Berdayev, N. 1, 32, 131 Bernstein, E. 20 Bolshevik Party 41, 69; and leadership struggle 70– 1, 100, 108–10; the peasantry 16, 39, 50–52, 54, 57, 77; political culture 58, 60, 110 Breshko-Breshkovskaya, E. 25, 28, 34, 90 Briand, A. 29 Brushvit, I. 37, 139 Bukharin, N. 1, 58; leadership struggle 70–1, 105, 108–9; the peasantry 45, 47, 50–7, 101, 122, 142; trial of 53, 136–7. Bunin, I. 23, 32 Chayanov, A. 75, 118, 122 Chernov, V. 9 , 14–15 ; biographical details 21, 25, 27–9, 109–10, 132; Bolshevism 50, 60–1, 81, 108; cooperatives 47–8, 52, 74 ; Lenin 17–18, 50, 52; narodnichestvo 10–11, 47, 57, 62, 65–6, 77, 93, 108–110, 122, 133, 145; national question 5, 78–9, 81–2, 84–5, 92–3, 147; NEP 39, 42, 45, 53; Palestine 122, 132–3; Paris (Right) SRs 17, 31–5, 62, 97–98, 139; political tactics 73–6,115–16;

Right Opposition 105, 109; Russian Marxism 10, 108–9; Russian revolution 14, 17–18, 58; Show trials 136–7; socialisation of land 12, 14, 16, 38, 122; split within Prague SRs 6, 59, 96–100, 112, 122, 131; Stalinism, 125, 129; World War II 135, 137–39 Chelintsev, D. 28 Chelintsev, A. 28 Chernyshevskii, N. 2, 7–8, 20 Chicherin, G. 30, 49 cooperative movement 28, 48; Bukharin 50–53, 56; Lenin 50–2, 56; SR party programme 4,11–12, 40, 44–8, 50, 55, 58, 73–4, 100, 113, 120, 122–3, 142–6 ;in Soviet Union 40, 42, 44–9, 54–5, 72, 74, 77, 107–8, 121 Czechoslovak Legion 21–2, 25, 27, 29, 146 Dan, F. 20, 69, 85 Danielson, N. 4,7,10, 43 Danilov, V. 56, 121, 142 Decembrists 2, 36, 124, 126 Denikin, A., General 93, 132 Eurasianists 1, 33, 36 Fedotov, G. 31–2, 92 Fondaminskii, I. (Bunakov) 31–2, 138 French Socialist Party (Parti socialiste franc¸ais) 29 Gajda, R. 21 Girsa, V. 22 Gorky, M. 20, 131 Gurevich, V: biography 24–5, 27–8, 128, 139; national question 79, 81, 84, 86, 91, 93; NEP 62, 69, 108–9; split in Prague SRs 96, 99

Index Habrman, G. 29 Hašek, J. 29 Herriot, E. 49 Herz, F. 47 Herzen, A. 2, 4, 7, 20, 34, 126 Hildemeier, M. 14, 45, 67, 145 Hilferding, R. 20, 133 Hoover, H. 22 Hryhoriiv, N. 82

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Jaure` s, J. 29, 146 Kadet party: coalition with SRs 15, 17, 21, 31, 97; in emigration 1, 23–4, 30, 35–7, 69, 81, 90–1; land programme 16, 124 Kalinin, M. 103, 105, 109 Kalyuzhnyi, Y. 28, 67 Kamenev, L. 54, 70–1 Kautsky, K. 41, 46 Kerensky, A: in emigration 6, 25, 29–30, 97, 113, 116; during Revolution 17–18 Kizevetter, A. 10, 23 Klimushkin, V. 122–3, 139 Klofácˇ, V. 29 Klyuchevskii, V. 56, 86–7 Kobyakov, I. 67, 129 Kocharovskii, K. 12, 28, 142 Kolchak, A., Admiral 21, 25–7, 35 Kondrat'ev, N. 52, 75, 118 Krasin, L. 49, 70–1 Krestyanskaya Rossiya (Peasant Russia) 24, 115 Lavrov, P. 2, 7–8, 20 Lazarev, E. 6, 25–9, 34, 58, 69, 100, 132, 139, 144; collectivization 114; national question 30, 80, 85, 87, 89–91, 94 League of Nations 19, 25, 29, 92, 146 Lebedev, V. 20, 25–6, 31–2, 65, 129–31, 139; on emigration 35; national question 88; trip to Russia 45, 67, 105–7; 113; World War II 133–5, 137–8; Yugoslavia 143–4 Lenin, V. 9, 34–5, 41, 58, 75, 79, 129; death and leadership struggle 30, 67, 70 ; in 1917 14–18; narodnichestvo 4, 9–11, 41, 54–5, 108; national question 86–7, 89; peasantry 12, 47, 50–2 56, 102, 119; Stalinism 104, 118, 121, 137 Makhin, F. 133–4, 137–8 Mandryka, M. 82–4

179

Masaryk, T. 3, 29, 81, 89–91; and Russian emigration 6, 20–4, 35 MacDonald, R. 49, 61 Mensheviks 1, 5, 9, 23–4, 40–1, 46, 53–4, 59, 98–100, 102–3, 117– 18, 136, 139; Georgian Mensheviks 81, 90; peasantry 12, 68; Mikhailovskii, N. 7–8, 20 Milyukov, P. 23–4, 68 Minor, O. 30, 113–4 Minorkhoran, V. 79, 133, 138 Nesterov, I.P., 123, 139 Narodnaya Volya (People's Will) 2, 9–10 Novozhilov, N., 87–91 Olitskaya, E. 40, 61, 66, 68, 73 Paris (Right) SRs 6, 15; in emigration 31–36, 46, 62, 97, 100, 117; World War II 98, 138–9 Peshekhonov, A. 28, 34 Postnikov, S.P. 20, 25–9, 33–35, 94, 96, 126, 130–1, 141; collectivization 112–13; split in Prague SRs 79,99–100; World War II 135, 138–9 Radchenko, G. 45, 48, 55 Radek, K. 70 Rudnev,V. 6, 31–2, 97, 132 Rusanov, N. 28, 53, 97, 137 Rykov, A. 54, 105,109, 136 Shanin, T. 56, 69, 77, 142 Shapoval, M. 81–3, 89–90, 92 Savitskii, P. 1, 36 Slonim, M. 20, 25–6, 28, 30, 33, 36–7, 41, 97, 113, 129, 143; and literature 32, 130–1; national question 88; World War II 134–9, 142 Stalin, J. 50, 54, 61; collectivization 116–22; leadership struggle 70–1, 108, 114; regime 128–9; ‘Revolution from Above’ 6, 10, 52–3, 60, 67, 75, 101–5, 110–11; World War II 135–6 Stalinskii,E. 20, 25–7, 29, 65, 96, 131; Bolshevism 59–60; collectivization 113–15, 119–21, 125; narodnichestvo 37, 39, 43–4, 62, 124; national question 87, 94; NEP 101–105; World War II 135, 138–9 Stolypin, P. 15–16, 44, 47, 127 Struve, P. 1, 9–10, 23, 36–7, 142, 147 Sukhomlin, V.I. 54, 68, 136

180 Index Sukhomlin, V. V. 20, 25–8, 48, 54, 59, 69, 132, 146; collectivization 114–16; literature 32, 131; national question 87–91, 95; Orthodox Church 33; political tactics 73–4, 119; return to Soviet Union 53–4, 135–40; Terror 53, 117, 135; split in Prague SRs 96–98; Stalinism 125; World War II 137–40, 146

Downloaded by [INFLIBNET Centre] at 05:05 29 August 2012

Trotsky, L. 20, 53–4, 60, 70–1, 108, 111, 125

Ukrainian Socialist Revolutionary Party (Ukrains’ka Partiia Sotsial–Revoliutsioneriv) 81, 83 Vandervelde, E. 20, 29, 47–8, 59, 61 Vikhlyaev, P. 14, 16 Vishnyak, M. 6, 31, 97, 132,139 Voronovich, N. 30, 90, 139 Vorontsov, V. 7, 10, 43