Формирование российской партийной элиты на примере партии Российской социал-демократической рабочей партии (РСДРП)

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Формирование российской партийной элиты на примере партии Российской социал-демократической рабочей партии (РСДРП)

Кирякова Оксана Григорьевна

Кандидат исторических наук, доцент кафедры государственного и муниципального управления (Высшая школа государственного управления) Балаковского филиала РАНХиГС

Прудникова Надежда Николаевна

Кандидат педагогических наук, доцент, доцент кафедры государственного и муниципального управления (Высшая школа государственного управления) Балаковского филиала РАНХиГС

Аннотации

Formation of the leadership of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP)

Oxana G. Kiriakova

Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor at the Department of Public Administration (Graduate school of Public Administration), Balakovo branch of RANEPA

Nadezhda N. Prudnikova

Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Docent, Associate Professor at the Department of Public Administration (Graduate school of Public Administration) of Balakovo branch of RANEPA

В данной статье рассматриваются проблема формирования Российской политической элиты, на примере партии большевиков (РСДРП). Проблемы власти, элиты, в частности политической элиты, анализируются на основе использования исторических архивных документов. Детализированы процессы происхождения, становления, трансформации политической элиты.

Ключевые слова и словосочетания: элита, власть, политическая партия, политическая элита, политическое руководство.

The paper is devoted to the analysis of the Russian political elite formation on the example of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). The issues of power, elite and political elite are viewed from different angles based on the historical documents. The origin, formation, transformation of the political elite are detailed. политический элита власть

Keywords: elite, power, political party, political elite, political executives, political leadership.

Recently Russian researchers (politicians, scientists, sociologists, historians) have been studying the issue, relevant for Italian economists and sociologists V. Pareto [1] and G. Moska [2].

According to their opinion, the elite, that is the minority, specific group of people endowed with exceptional traits, is ruling the society.

The theory became widespread in the Russian Federation and survived ideology of Karl Marx.

Modem scope of this research is determined mostly by the pragmatic interests in the origin, formation, transformation and function of post-perestroika groups of the upper executives comprising the unified social and political community.

There are many papers revealing this issue but to our opinion, the notion "elite" bearing certain connotation is still used in a different sense comparing with its original meaning.

The word "elite" means best, selected part of the society. However, the global history faced many examples proving that this definition is not quite right.

The leadership of the political party in the Russian Federation has lacked elicit characteristics for some period of the modern history.

The majority of the leaders of the party lacked elite traits, but the members of underground organization possessed such characteristics (i.e. higher education, experience of managing complex structural systems and so on).

We imply social democrats that came to power in October 1917. That is why we are sure that the term "executives" is more suitable to the scope of our research. Moreover, there are few papers dedicated to the study of origin of the revolutionary Bolshevik leadership and this research does not detail the historical period of revolution [3]. The goal of our paper is to fill a gap in this overview.

Communists' ideology was the expression of the interests of proletariat, and this fact presupposed workers' promotion to the administrative posts. V. Pareto considered socialism the most convenient means of appointment and promotion of public officials with proletarian social origin [4]. However, Bolsheviks had never admitted existence of elite circle within socio-democratic movement and in socialistic society. Neither Lenin, nor his comrades used this term. Meanwhile it is clear that the founder of Bolshevism understood that the most intelligent peop le with managerial talents must head the party, and the ordinary party members had no such characteristics.

Lenin disagreed with Y. Martov (the leader of the Mensheviks) on the issue of selection and promotion of the party leaders to the ruling group. He stated that proletariat must rely on the selected minority for the mutual benefit: "No class in history became ruling without promoting its best representatives to the managing circle." [5]

Lenin created a revolutionary party with certain ideology and demands to the humankind, and he understood that implementation of doctrines was impossible without proper organization. That is why he aspired to building such a leading group, which could implement the will of the party.

According to his beliefs, governing body of the party must be composed of professional revolutionaries devoted to their views and eager to overthrow existing political regime, though a bit earlier he had viewed party organization as solidary group of equal stakeholders [6].

Lenin as a real political figure thought that representatives of the party leaders had to influence the circumstances, to change the mass mentality and to alter the course of history. His wish was to form a disciplined, well-organized militarized group ("provide organization of revolutionaries for us and we will make a revolt"), which he considered even more important than political program [7].

Lenin joined revolutionary movement when it had already been headed by G.V. Plekhanov, the patriarchy of the Russian social democracy, the leader of the first generation of fighters for socialism. His political group "Liberation of labor" consisted of several dozens of people.

Lenin was 15 years younger and represented the second generation of revolutionaries, that joined the political fight in the beginning of the 1890-s.

Social democrats numbered in hundreds and thousands.

The third generation, which Lenin led after himself, was even ten years younger. Later they formed "Lenin's Guards".

Lenin became the indisputable leader during the construction of centralized underground organization and he moved aside Plekhanov and the other "old people".

Party relied on expansion of worker's revolutionary movement that stirred up the generation of the people much younger than Lenin. "The chief task of "Iskra", - according to Trotsky, - was to select the most talented people from the local workers and build a central apparatus capable to lead the revolutionary fight in the whole country" [8].

In 1901, Lenin wrote to S. Tsederbaum, the brother of Y. Martov: "After a year of efforts we are just starting to compose Headquarters of the leaders and managers in Russia (this group is small and we need dozens of such energetic collaborators for the country") [9].

Actually, Lenin had few followers capable of writing. Having decided to organize the political party, he needed such people who could express their thoughts in a written way. This feature is one of the most important for the professional revolutionary.

Lenin tried to concentrate the progressive social democrats in the avant-guard of his party. Those people thought that revolutionary movement could become successful in fighting autocratic state if it relies on solidary illegal organization with strong, literally, cast-iron discipline.

The youth taking the path of revolutionary fight tried not only to participate but also to lead the struggle. The older generation of the social democrats treated the youth in a patronizing and supercilious manner. Thus, in order to meet Plekhanov, for example, it was necessary "to ask for an appointment". Revolutionary A. Troianovsky recollected one of such meetings: "Georgy Valentinovich was begaving in a kinglike way. It was not just heart-to-heart conversation but delivering a lecture" [10]. Any interlocutor, especially a young person from the Russian province, disliked such a manner of communication and remained vexed and disappointed.

Lenin avoided edifying tone peculiar to the chiefs; he was a very lively, communicative, dynamic person with boundless energy. His talent was many-sided.

Troianovsky noted that Lenin attracted young revolutionaries by his eloquence, "but his manner of speech was not characterized by fine words and pretentiousness, it was something simple, logical, powerful and even imperious" [11]. Lenin had extremely attractive charismatic personality magically influencing the people in informal way. Even his drawbacks could not spoil the strong impression of his personality: "Lenin liked polemics and in such a discussion he could use tactless expressions and even low blows" [12].

For the majority of the revolutionary migrants even in the first years of the XX century it became clear that Lenin is more important for revolution than Plekhanov who felt the ground slipping away from under his feet.

Gradually Lenin seized the central apparatus of the party by his own hands and as a "selectionist" kept his eye on the activity of the young leaders. He saw all the talented social democrats, both at local and national levels. Being a leader of the "compact majority", he exchanged letters with them, mentioned them in his letters to a third addressee and in his articles.

The list of names mentioned in Lenin's letters and articles is extremely interesting from this point of view.

The list contained 4-5 names in the 1903, about 40 names in 1903 - 1904, and about 60 names in 1904 - 1905. However, after failure of revolution in 1905 the number of the names is falling as many people stepped revolutionary fight aside. There are few new names but some of them recur.

This fact proves that a certain circle of revolutionary party staff was created and remained solidary as a part of underground organization even after the mass activity decline.

The list of Lenin's correspondents and those people that are mentioned in the letters is very important from the point of view of studying of the process of Bolsheviks' executives' formation and the role of Lenin in this process.

Learning ideological priorities of the candidates to the posts of his political circle, he rejected all the people who demonstrated difference in opinion. Moreover, if the correspondent made an ideological mistake he became excluded [13].

Lenin never admitted any advantages of the opposite party. Speaking about the Mensheviks, he told: "This statement is not aimed at not convincing or correcting the mistakes but at crushing the enemies, at wiping their organization off the face of the earth" [14]. Lenin retained only those people who shared his worst thoughts and worst suspicions about his opponents.

Theoretical divergences in opinions of two fractions of Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were not the main obstacle to their reunion. The main hindrance was Lenin's craving for dominance, letting any cooperation with him only through subordination. Ideological discussion was a disguised fight for leadership. Lenin valued sharp criticism of his "Guard" as the main advantage, but they leveled criticism against "imaginary" friends and not against obvious enemies. Such Machiavellianism influenced the fate of the party.

Lenin valued fanaticism as the best quality of the professional revolutionary, and S.G. Nechaev reflects it in "Catechism of revolutionary". Lenin knew this famous document of the Russian conspirators [15]. Nechaev wrote: "Revolutionary is the person who is doomed. He has no personal interests, business, feelings, affections, property and even the name.

Any revolutionary believes that revolt is his only aspiration, thought and passion" [16].

Lenin demanded fanatic devotion to ideology and intolerance to different views and aspirations. He held with Plekhanov's statement: "When they say that social democracy must provide freedom of opinions to its members, they forget that a political party is not an Academy of Sciences... Freedom of opinions within the party must be limited because a party is the union of associates: as people start to think in a different way, the divergence of opinions occurs within the party, and it disintegrates" [17].

They forbade dissent and suppressed such phenomena. When Lenin suspected that Axelrod communicated with the Liberals, he sent Potresov a very harsh letter: "If P.B. (Axelrod) stopped to be Genosse, so much the worse for him. This will be a loss for all the Genossen because he is a very intelligent and talented person but friendship is friendship as well as a duty is a duty, and the necessity of war is still urgent." [18]. V.I. Zasulich noticed harshness of Lenin. According to her words, she told Lenin: "George (Plekhanov) - is a greyhound: he torments the prey and leaves, but you are a bulldog, you seize it by death grip". When Vera Ivanovna told Trotsky about this dialog she added: "Lenin liked the comparison a lot. - Death grip? - he asked with pleasure" [19]. The Bolsheviks' leader overestimated managerial abilities of the professional revolutionaries. N.K. Krupskaya remembered his enthusiasm about Natanson, who "stroke him by managerial talents". "Lenin has been talking about Natanson for several weeks", - she confirmed [20]. According to Trotsky "Lenin had many such passions before and after revolution" [21].

Lenin had always kept an eye on promotion of the staff: "I am against appointment of Smidovich, I am sure he does not deserve to become an agent of "Iskra" [22] I ask for reconsideration. He is unstable, he will desert several times, and he will compromise us by his stupidity and so on. Let him work in the Committee but he cannot become an agent <...>. Please write about Stanislav [Volsky] and tell me about him in details. I would recommend appointing Lalaiants as an agent. He demonstrated remarkable managerial abilities and organized work in Odessa South Bureau in a perfect way." [23].

Characterizing members of the group, the leader of Bolsheviks did not conceal their weak points: "Pankrat (Krasikov) is lazy and negligent, but he is smart, skillful, and brave, people are on good terms with him" [24].

Lenin often made wrong conclusions about certain people; he could not discern their drawbacks and even neglected them sometimes. The main criterion was the benefit he could get of the people. He wrote: "a political party is not a school. And sometimes even a villain can be of use just because he is a villain" [25]. Lenin was pragmatic and it helped him to use even unsuitable material in his work.

The most scandalous matter in the history of the party was an episode with R. Malinovsky. Roman Malinovsky had three imprisonments for robbery and thefts. He became a counterspy because of his need and political ambitions. Lenin was impressed by Malinovsky and described him as a "good chap" and "a prominent working leader" [26], and made him a member of Central Committee, adding him to the cohort of Bolsheviks' leadership.

Malinovsky demonstrated vanity and lust for power, those factors hindered political work but Lenin did not prick up his ears. According to his words, Lenin did not worry because he knew the fact that many workers looked for opportunities to rise to ones' feet and to improve one's social status with the help of policy. [27].

Lenin ignored the fact that conferring the rank of the member of the State Duma turned people's heads and spoiled many representatives of the working class. He did not assume that in the near future similar people lacking educational background and upbringing would corrode the top management of the ruling party as rust.

There appeared collision of experienced, clever, well-educated, cultured intellectuals with powerful stratum of the party members from lower classes and the consequences were sad [28]. Envy, anger and hatred penetrated the party.

Members of the Committees played an important role in the party hierarchy. They headed regional part y organizations, dominated among the delegates at the party congresses and conferences. "Promising workers with practical experience" were proposed from this circle [29] to the Central Committee and other authorities of RSDLP.

However, the behavior of such people was not assessed in an adequate way. They did not want to become dependent on anything, as they had recently freed themselves from the chains of capitalism.

They became upholders of freedom and wanted complete independence. The researchers note [30], that proletarian leaders of the working movement were stubborn and intractable as all parvenus.

They felt that had no right for their current position and there were more merited people, who would replace them. However, at the same time they were crazy about preserving their authority. Such people found depreciation of their merits in every criticism.

Intelligence of such people had always remained below their will. In the most difficult situations, they preferred to keep silent, to wait for an opportunity, to hide behind the most competent leader's back. This situation was convenient for Lenin and Martov because it helped them to become stronger leaders of the party.

The well-known researcher S. Stiven wrote: "Revolutions give birth to many revolutionaries but few competent executives. Complicated psychological complex making people sacrifice their health, material well-being, social position and even life is not inherent in the people capable of effective management of the state". [31]. This conclusion is relevant to the majority of the Bolsheviks' party that was meant for destroying and not creating.

References