One of the most massive socio-political movements in the modern world, uniting in its ranks various socio-political groups and organizations that oppose environmental pollution, the harmful effects of nuclear, chemical, biological and other types of industrial production, for the creation of a democratic society, for reduction of military budgets, the number of armies, for detente of international tension. The movement was started by small groups that performed in Western Europe in the 60s. on specific environmental issues. In the 70-80s. Green parties were created and began to actively operate in almost all Western European countries, including Austria, Great Britain, Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland, Denmark, as well as in Canada, Japan, New Zealand.
The policy provisions of the Greens include a wide range of issues. These include requirements for the protection of nature and the human environment in the conditions of a modern industrial society; social provisions that criticize capitalist ownership of the means of production, suggesting the liquidation of large economic structures and the development of small and medium-sized production; measures for full employment and the participation of workers in the management of plants and factories; calls for the democratization of the state, the establishment of various forms of direct democracy, primarily in the form of various "civil initiatives"; demands for the defense of peace, the affirmation of the principles of peaceful coexistence, the complete destruction of atomic, chemical and bacteriological weapons, the renunciation of the use of outer space for military purposes, the dissolution of military blocs, the free development of all peoples. The "green" movement objectively reflects the growing desire for change in broad sections of the population, the search for an alternative.
Movement in different countries has its own characteristics. Thus, the program of the Environmental Protection Party (Sweden) is based on four principles of solidarity. The first is solidarity with nature. You can’t take more from her than she can then recover. It is necessary to fight for the creation of environmentally friendly production. The second principle is solidarity with future generations: we must leave the Earth to our children and grandchildren in such a state that they can live no worse than we do. The third principle is solidarity with third world countries, providing them with the necessary support in the fight against hunger, infectious and other diseases, etc. The fourth principle is helping those who are in difficulty, who are poor, the formation of strong social programs, the fight against bureaucratization and centralization authorities.
What tactics of action do the “greens” propose? It is based on a number of general provisions based on the principle of non-violence. Neither revolution nor reforms are suitable for achieving the goals of the Greens. So what in that case? “Replacement, gradual displacement,” the leaders of this movement answer. At the same time, a "double strategy" should be implemented - to act not only within the parliament and other state bodies, but first and foremost - outside them.
According to the “greens”, it is necessary to expand the “front of refusal” of the population from products and industries that are especially dangerous to human health and the environment, destroying valuable raw materials, to carry out work to disseminate alternative projects, using all the possibilities of the “green” party to support them.
"Greens" point to the need for industrial and trade union struggle of workers. They believe that such a struggle should be aimed primarily at reducing working hours, creating human working conditions and a possible change in income policy. Moreover, parliamentary activity must be coordinated and coordinated with the "basic movements", that is, with the actions of the masses. Demonstrations, sit-ins, pickets, distribution of leaflets, theatrical performances with political overtones, including concerts of rock bands - all this is taken by the "greens" into service. The combination of various forms of struggle testifies to their flexible adaptability to the most diverse conditions.
Recently, the Blues have emerged from the Green movement. If the former are primarily concerned with the salvation of nature, then the latter are concerned with the salvation of man's spirituality. The main activities of the Blue Movement are the practical solution of humanitarian-educational, spiritual-educational and initiative-organizational tasks. The movement originated in Russia, but is addressed to all the people of the Earth, since the entire civilization is experiencing a spiritual crisis. In Russia, the Blues are represented by the public organization For the Social Ecology of Man. Within the framework of its programs, youth clubs "Blue Bird" are being created, where young men and women join the beautiful, learn the history and traditions of their peoples, develop a new, humanitarian entrepreneurship - a type of business that combines commercial interest and attention to man and nature, clubs are formed The Blue Movement - the humanitarian protection of man, the all-Union program "Lyceum" is being implemented, the English Club in Moscow is being revived, etc. In 1990, the Blue Confederation was created - an alliance of forces concerned about the spiritual and moral situation of man. It includes more than a hundred different cultural, educational, scientific, and business organizations that are ready to work together to solve specific problems of human humanitarian protection.
The social base of the "green" movement is made up of young people, intellectuals, various sections of workers and entrepreneurs, progressive army circles, and religious figures. It acquired the greatest scope in Germany, where in January 1980 it took shape in the Green Party, which has authority in the general public. In the parliamentary elections of 1987, the Green Party received more than 3 million votes, its faction in the Bundestag (German parliament) has 42 deputies. In 1984, representatives of the parties of 9 countries created the “Coordinating Committee of the Greens in Europe”. Considering parliamentary activity to be complementary to the mass democratic movement, the "greens" entered the parliaments of Belgium, Portugal, Germany, and Switzerland. In 1989, 24 representatives of various European environmental parties formed a joint faction in the European Parliament to pursue a common policy in it. In the 1989 European Parliament elections, the Greens won 38 seats.
Young people are actively involved in the Green movement. She is attracted by the progressive anti-war and environmental programs of this movement, calls for a society without exploitation and violence. Young people are also attracted by the focus of a number of Green parties and organizations on specific positive deeds, the rejection of the traditional orientation of bourgeois society towards the well-known triad “work - career - consumption”, orientation towards such values as mutual assistance, rejection of consumerism, promotion of spiritual values (less money , less stress, more humanity, more time for self-education), the search for harmony between nature and man, support for the disadvantaged. Young people are of some interest in the concept of life in harmony with nature, put forward by some “green” ideologues, in small ecologically clean agricultural communities that exist without damaging flora and fauna, switching to renewable energy sources, taking care of the natural renewal of biological resources.
Among the "greens" there are supporters of the so-called ecological socialism, which is understood as a kind of democratic decentralized society with extremely limited consumption of resources, waste-free technology, consisting of rural communes, environmentally friendly cities. From a social point of view, this is a utopian society, but there are rational grains in the idea of "ecological socialism". This is a protest against environmental pollution as a result of the unreasonable development of science and technology, calls for the creation of democratic, environmentally friendly societies.
The movement of the "greens" is gaining a wide scope in the CIS and countries of Eastern Europe. For example, the Ecological Union and the Ecological Fund have been created in Russia, and numerous societies are actively fighting to solve acute environmental problems. The speeches against the construction of the Volga-Don-2 and Volga-Chogray canals were widely known, since the implementation of these plans could lead to the death of the Caspian Sea; for the ecological safety of Lake Baikal, the Aral Sea, the ban on the construction of nuclear power plants in resort areas (Crimea), in those areas where earthquakes and soil movements are possible. In fact, the movement to assist in the elimination of the consequences of the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has become nationwide. Thanks to the daily telethon, held on April 26, 1990 - the fourth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, voluntary donations were collected to eliminate its consequences in the amount of more than 50 million rubles. Almost every state has its own environmental movements. In the future, it is possible to transform some environmental movements into political parties. The number of joint actions of "green" different countries is increasing. These include actions such as "Caravan without shores", telethons, international peace marches, etc.
The international environmental organization Greenpeace (Green World) has gained worldwide fame. Today it has more than 30 branches in 18 countries, 2 million members and many millions of supporters. Greenpeace is headquartered in Amsterdam. Greenpeace deals with the following issues: ocean ecology, the state of the atmosphere and energy, toxic chemicals, and disarmament. Representatives of this organization have electronic and satellite communications, which enables them to quickly respond to cases of environmental disasters or disasters. The contribution of Greenpeace to the development of the anti-nuclear movement in the Pacific region and to the formation of modern environmental thinking is widely known.
The youth of many countries of the world support this progressive organization. A number of well-known musicians and composers speak in its defense and promote its ideas. At the initiative of Greenpeace, an album of records was prepared on an international basis: in Eastern Europe it was released under the name "Breakthrough", and in the West - "Rainbow Warriors". The album helped promote the ideas of this organization in those regions of the world where there are no branches yet.
Broad circles of the international community are becoming more and more aware of the need to unite the efforts of all people of good will in defense of the existence of civilization. This requires cooperation on a global scale: both at the interstate level and at the level of mass movements in the struggle to preserve peace, life, and nature on our planet. Young people, who make up more than half of the world's population, are called upon to play a special role in this movement.
The role of peasant uprisings in the Civil War is one of the most poorly covered aspects in educational literature. Meanwhile, many researchers saw in it an alternative way of the country's development - the "Third Way", as opposed to the policy of the Bolsheviks and the White movement. The "Green Movement" is commonly understood as mass peasant uprisings during the Civil War, more often under the slogans "for free Soviets".
Since the peasants constituted the overwhelming majority of the country's population, the course of the Civil War depended on their position, on their hesitation, fronts moved, entire regions passed from hand to hand. In general, the position of the peasants of Central Russia was determined: they mainly supported the Bolsheviks, who secured the seized landowners' land for them, but a significant part (the middle peasants, the wealthy) were against the food policy of the Soviet government. This dual position of the peasants was reflected in the course of the Civil War.
The villagers rarely supported the White movement, although significant masses of peasants served in the White armies (recruited by force). In the places where the anti-Bolshevik forces were based, the peasants, on the contrary, more often supported the Bolsheviks. The main anti-Bolshevik speeches occurred precisely because of dissatisfaction with the policy of the surplus appraisal; these speeches acquire the greatest intensity in 1919-1920. In Stavropol, isolated actions of peasants under the leadership of the Socialist-Revolutionaries against the food policy of the authorities began at the end of April 1918, but anti-Bolshevik actions were restrained by the proximity of the White Volunteer Army, which the Stavropol peasants were very afraid of. In March 1919, an uprising of peasants began in the Volga region, which engulfed 100 - 180 thousand people. In total, in 1918 - the first half of 1919, 340 uprisings were noted in 20 provinces.
The expansion of the Civil War, the polarization of forces, the coup in Siberia in favor of A.V. Kolchak - all this forced the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik parties to develop a new policy towards the Soviet government. It was proclaimed in December 1918. The Socialist-Revolutionaries declared a struggle simultaneously on two fronts: both against the Bolsheviks and against A.V. Kolchak and A.I. Denikin, or, as they said, against the reaction of both the left and the right. This was the so-called "third way". On the whole, the Socialist-Revolutionaries failed to gather significant forces around themselves under the slogan of the "third way." But uprisings under similar slogans broke out all over the country.
In 1919, on the Southern Front, about 40,000 "greens" (who called themselves so in contrast to the "reds" and "whites") put forward slogans: "Long live the Constituent Assembly! Death to the commune! Power to the people!" But they did not support the white movement.
The desire for a "third way" was also observed among the Cossacks. In 1918, the rebel Cossacks wanted to fight the Bolsheviks, but had nothing against the Soviets. Some were ready to "reconcile, as soon as the Soviet government agrees not to disturb their stanitsa life."
The greatest degree of self-organization under the slogans of the "third way" was shown by the peasants in Ukraine, where the peasant rebel army of N.I. Makhno. The greatest political activity during the years of the Civil War was shown by those areas that in 1905-07. were the most revolutionary. This was due to the level of economic development of these regions. The Makhnovist peasants lived more prosperously than the inhabitants of the rest of the territory of Ukraine, they had more agricultural machines, actively traded in bread.
The restraining factor in the development of their economic activity was the landownership. Therefore, with the beginning of the October Revolution, they massively joined the "black redistribution" and successfully carried it out. The peasantry of the region became the primary object of requisitions by successive authorities - German, Ukrainian, white and red. As a response, peasant resistance arose. The poorest strata became activists, but different categories of the population participated in the struggle, and middle-class families became the strike force of the rebels.
The special nature of the movement determined anarchism. Anarchists participated in the insurgent movement, led the cultural and educational commission of the Revolutionary Insurgent Army, published Makhnovist newspapers, various leaflets and appeals. The Military Revolutionary Council also included anarchists, as did the Makhnovist headquarters. Anarchists were part of the commanders. Such a strong popularity of anarchist ideas was due primarily to the strength of the personal example of the “father”. In anarchism, Makhno was attracted by the idea of a popular "social" revolution and the destruction of state power. The key idea, the program setting of Makhno and the peasant movement led by him was the idea of self-government of the people, peasant initiative, rejection of the dictates of any government: "let the peasants arrange their lives the way they want."
The ability of the peasants to self-organize was due to the practice of their economic activities and the traditions of the rural community. In this context, the ideas of anarchism were intertwined with the communal consciousness of the peasants and their practical experience. However, the real influence of the anarchists on the Makhnovists had its own clear boundaries: they were assigned the role of political workers. From anarchism and anarchists, the movement took only what corresponded to its requirements and goals. V.A. Antonov-Ovseenko testified that Makhno himself considers himself a "free communist" and not an anarchist, and that the Bolsheviks are closer to him than the "anarchs."
The program of the Makhnovist movement provided for the creation of a Soviet system based on the idea of popular self-government. The Soviets were unconditionally recognized by Makhno as a form of practical implementation of the people's social revolution - the liberation of the working people from the oppression of capital and the state. The main difference between Soviet power in the Makhnovist interpretation is in the principles of the formation and activity of the Soviets. These were "free Soviets" (powerless), elected by the entire working population, and not appointed "from above".
Such were the many Soviets that arose in Russia and Ukraine in 1917, immediately after the fall of the autocracy (including in Gulyai-Pole). The Bolshevik Soviets, according to Makhno, distorted their essence. They became bureaucratic and separated from the people. And Soviet power itself turned into the power of appointees, commissars and officials, and, ultimately, into the dictatorship of one party. Therefore, the main slogan of the Makhnovist movement was the struggle for a genuine Soviet system, "free labor Soviets", freely elected by the peasants and workers. On the territory controlled by the Makhnovists, they tried to organize this "real Soviet power." Congresses of Soviets were convened, the practice of general meetings, volost gatherings was widespread.
The Makhnovist movement also developed its own version of the solution of the agrarian question - the main issue of the peasant revolution in Ukraine and Russia. In February 1919, at the district congress of insurgent peasants in the Aleksandrovsky district, the delegates adopted a resolution that the issue should be finally resolved at the All-Ukrainian Congress of Peasants. It was assumed that the land would be transferred to the use of the working peasantry free of charge, according to an equalizing labor norm. The delegates opposed private ownership of land - they called for the spread of free collective cultivation of the land.
Such political attitudes rather quickly turned N.I. Makhno and his supporters into "enemy No1" for the Soviet government. Three times during the Civil War, the Makhnovist formations were outlawed, however, in the most difficult times for the Red Army, the alliance with the Makhnovists was renewed and they participated along with the Red Army in battles with A.I. Denikin and P.N. Wrangel. V.A. played a significant role in these agreements. Antonov-Ovseenko, who amazingly knew how to get along with the Makhnovists and considered them by no means bandits (as, for example, L.D. Trotsky treated them), but "real fighters of the revolution." After the defeat of Baron P.N. Wrangel and the evacuation of the remnants of the white formations from the Crimea, it was decided to eliminate the Makhnovshchina. Having withstood a series of stubborn battles, a small detachment led by N.I. Makhno managed to break into Romania, where they surrendered to the local authorities. The experiment with the creation of a "powerless anarchist society" in Ukraine ended there.
The largest and most fierce in terms of resistance peasant uprisings also took place in the Volga region and in the Tambov province. Especially large-scale and fierce was the performance of the peasants in the Tambov region, known as " Antonovshchina". The reasons for the development of events in the Tambov province according to a similar scenario with the south of Ukraine (with the Makhnovshchina) are in many ways similar, but there are also some peculiarities. In the Tambov region, the problem of lack of land was especially acute, the province was a region of powerful landownership, which maintained a semi-serf regime in the countryside. The peasants did not support the Stolypin agrarian reform, showing their readiness for an uprising, since the state clearly did not meet their social expectations.
The economic policy pursued by the Soviet government from mid-1918 to March 1921 is usually called the policy of "war communism". This is the first experience of socialist management and the first historical model of socialism in our country. A number of researchers understand by "war communism" only measures of an economic nature, while others use this term to designate the socio-economic and political system that developed during the years of the Civil War. The very term "war communism" was applied to it only in 1921, when, with the introduction of the "new economic policy", the comprehension of the previous economic course began.
The question of the periodization of "war communism" is quite controversial, since it was not introduced by any decree and did not have a specific starting point. "A Brief History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks" promoted the idea that this policy was proclaimed by the party in the summer of 1918. In fact, the system evolved gradually from various administrative-command measures caused by the specific circumstances of wartime. The “Red Guards attack on capital”, which is quite in the spirit of this policy, has not yet become the beginning of “war communism”.
Another debatable question is whether this policy was the only possible one in the context of the civil war. Many European countries during the First World War imposed similar restrictions on the economy (state monopoly on the sale of certain types of products, centralized supply, regulation of production and marketing). However, nowhere did these measures go as far as in Soviet Russia, and nowhere did they have a class character.
Economic measures of the Bolsheviks in autumn 1917 - spring 1918. had certain similarities with the policy of "war communism", but they still fit into the mainstream of the adopted Leninist tactics of gradual socialist transformations. Until the summer of 1918, the policy of the Soviet state took into account the specifics of commodity-money relations, combining them with administrative intervention in the economy. The deterioration of the food supply by the summer of 1918, sabotage in industry, and a decline in production led to a tightening of the economic course and the strengthening of administrative and repressive methods of regulating economic life, as well as strict regulation of production and consumption.
As characteristic features of the formed system, one can single out:
Extreme centralization of management (Glavkism);
Nationalization of industry (including small-scale)4
Introduction of a state monopoly on bread and other agricultural products (surplus appraisal);
Prohibition of private trade, curtailment of commodity-money relations;
egalitarian distribution;
militarization of labor.
The event that opened the policy of "war communism" is traditionally considered the May decrees of 1918, which introduced the state monopoly on bread. On June 28, 1918, a decree was issued on the nationalization of large-scale industry, which was supplemented in the autumn by a decree of the Council of People's Commissars on the nationalization of private trading firms and wholesale warehouses.
The transformation of the country into a "besieged camp" led to a further deepening of such economic policies. Nationalizations already medium and even small enterprises were subjected. If in the autumn of 1918 the state owned 9.5 thousand enterprises, then in 1920 - more than 37 thousand. The system of management of the national economy has changed, where the leading trend has become centralization .
In the structure of the Supreme Council of National Economy, "head offices" were created - purely proletarian governing bodies of the corresponding sectors of the economy. According to the instructions of the head office, enterprises subordinate to him received raw materials, semi-finished products, and handed over all manufactured products to state bodies. By the summer of 1920, there were 49 central offices, centers and commissions. Their specialization is characterized by the names: Glavmetal, Glavtorf, Glavtekstil, Glavtop, Tsentrokhladoboynya, Chekvalap (Extraordinary Commission for the Procurement of Felt Boots and Bast Shoes), etc. Their activities were focused primarily on meeting the needs of the front.
One of the central elements of the policy of "war communism" was surplus appropriation , introduced by decree of the Council of People's Commissars of January 11 and representing the development of a food dictatorship. According to her, the provinces were taxed depending on the ideas about their reserves. These tasks were "unfolded" to counties, volosts, and communities. In practice, the seizure of bread according to the allotment was carried out without taking into account the real possibilities of the owners, which caused their discontent and resistance. Procurement plans were constantly frustrated, and this, in turn, intensified the repression of the procurement authorities (surplus appropriation was carried out by the People's Commissariat of Food, food detachments, committees). In addition to bread, by the end of 1919, according to the apportionment, they began to collect potatoes and meat.
The growing food crisis led to the organization of a rationed supply of the population through card system . Ration supply was based on the class principle, the size of the ration also depended on the scope of work. In total, there were four categories of supply: in May 1919 in Petrograd, according to the first, highest, category, 200 grams were issued, and according to the third - 50 grams of bread per day. All major types of consumer goods, including clothing and footwear, were subject to distribution by cards. The norms were constantly changing, but all the time they were very low. The collection and distribution of food and industrial goods were entrusted to the People's Commissariat for Food, to which the Prodarmia (in 1920 - 77.5 thousand people) and the apparatus of consumer cooperation (as of January 1, 1920 - 53 thousand societies) were subordinate.
The rationed supply led to restriction of free trade , and, as a consequence of the shortage of essential goods, to the flourishing of trade on the "black" market. The systematic struggle against speculators did not lead to tangible results. As a result, the authorities resigned themselves to the fact that the city workers received about half of the products they consumed at the state price from the People's Commissariat of Food, the rest they bought on the private market at speculative prices. Moreover, the transactions were mainly in the form of an exchange: due to the low purchasing power of money, industrial goods were much more important for the peasants. Workers, under the conditions of centralized rationing, received no more than a tenth of their wages in money.
Rising prices and rations led to the approval egalitarian distribution , in which, regardless of experience and skills, workers received the same rations, which became an integral part of the current economic system. The impossibility on the part of the authorities to provide financial incentives for labor productivity led to the replacement of economic levers of influence with non-economic (compulsory) ones.
Already in October 1918, all able-bodied citizens from 16 to 50 years old had to register with the labor distribution departments, which could send them to any necessary work. Since the end of 1918 militarization Labor intensified: the authorities resorted to conscription (like the army) of workers and employees in the civil service and in certain sectors of the economy. Workers were forcibly assigned to enterprises and institutions, unauthorized leaving was equated with desertion and punished according to the laws of war (tribunal court, imprisonment, concentration camp).
It should be noted that if initially the elements of the military-communist policy were introduced spontaneously, in response to the conditions dictated by the war, then over time the Bolshevik leadership began to regard the current system as fully consistent with the requirements of peacetime.. Supporters of an immediate transition to socialism - the "left communists" led by Bukharin - even before the start of the Civil War, demanded a general immediate nationalization of industry, the rejection of piecework pay and bonuses for high productivity, and the introduction of "equalization" in pay. Now their ideas were fully realized.
The results obtained in two years largely coincided with the theoretical ideas of the Bolsheviks about what a socialist society should be like. This historical coincidence gave rise to a certain euphoria in relation to military, command, administrative measures, which began to be regarded not as forced, but as the main instrument of socialist construction. The totality of these ideas Lenin later called "military-communist ideology." Not being at the beginning of 1918 a supporter of such harsh measures in the economy, Lenin by the end of the Civil War succumbed to the general mood.
The same is happening with another generally recognized leader - L. D. Trotsky. In the autumn of 1919, he proposed to significantly limit the surplus appraisal, seeing its inefficiency. The offer was not accepted. In March 1920, under the leadership of L. D. Trotsky, a Commission was created to prepare a plan for the construction of socialism in peaceful conditions. Her recommendations were clearly military-communist in nature. Provided for the expansion of food requisitioning, the nationalization of the economy, the development of a national plan, the expansion of universal labor service, the creation of labor armies and the militarization of the entire system of government.
The Ninth Congress of the RCP (b), held in March - April 1920, approved the indicated course, which led to the spread of food requisition for almost all types of agricultural products and the further militarization of labor in the form of the creation of "labor armies" from the Red Army units liberated from the front. The egalitarian distribution system has become all-encompassing. Payments for the use of housing, transport, and other utilities were abolished. In 1919-1920. the campaign for the abolition of money acquired a wide scope.
Despite the consistency of the "military-communist" course, at the turn of 1920-1921. he crashed more and more. Railway transport has sharply reduced transportation, which was due to a shortage of fuel and depreciation of rolling stock. As a result, the supply of food to industrial centers has decreased. The reduction in supplies was also influenced by mass peasant uprisings; their participants not only did not give bread themselves, but also prevented others from delivering it. The traditional support of the Bolsheviks - the army - became increasingly unstable. The leadership of the country was faced with a choice: either in the name of the idea to continue “war communism” and risk power, or to make concessions and wait for a more convenient moment for further offensive. The decisive factor in choosing the path of further policy was the Kronstadt rebellion.
The results of "war communism"' are valued differently. Its creators themselves recognized its absolute necessity in wartime conditions, speaking of "individual mistakes." Lenin, after the end of the Civil War, seriously stated that the policy of war communism was " a condition for victory in a blockaded country, in a besieged fortress". L. D. Trotsky, speaking about the fallacy of the policy " from the point of view of abstract economic', stated that ' in the world situation and in the situation of our situation, it was absolutely necessary from the point of view of the political and militarily". Justified "war communism" and one of its most ardent supporters, N. Bukharin: " military-communist policy had as its content, first of all, the rational organization of consumption ... the system fulfilled this historical role».
In many respects, "war communism" was indeed a success. Undoubtedly, he contributed to the victory of the Bolsheviks in the Civil War. It made it possible to test in practice earlier only the alleged provisions on the principles of operation of a non-commodity economy. Economically, the system was initially irrational. However, the curtailment of "war communism" followed not as a result of its inevitable failures, but primarily as a result of mass protests by the population.
Most Russian historians agree that "war communism" has become an erroneous model of the communist system, where theory followed practice. The main mistake was the continuation of the course in peacetime, which led to a large-scale crisis in the country's economy, the elimination of which required an immediate transition to the NEP. According to V.P. Buldakov, the main result of "war communism" was the formation of an administrative-command system, which began to develop according to its own laws. The transition to a new economic policy could not fundamentally change the established attitudes; they persisted throughout the history of the existence of the Soviet regime.
The civil war in Russia, during which the forces of the Bolsheviks and the anti-Bolshevik front clashed, unfolded in 1917-1922/23. In addition to the main warring parties, there was a "third force" that acted differently at all stages of hostilities. The role of the "third force" is ambiguous. Researchers have not come to a consensus on the role and significance of the "green rebels".
Historians have disagreed about the nature of the Green Movement. Historian R. Gagkuev described the appearance of the "third force" as a defense mechanism of the common people, who tried to protect peace, at least in a small area. The driving force of the "greens" were the peasants, the Cossacks.
Soviet historiography considered the "greens" as bandits, illegal formations that acted on the principle of partisan detachments. The "greens" fought both the "whites" and the "reds", sometimes entering into alliances with each force if it suited their interests. The "Greens" were hiding from mobilization in the Red Army.
The opinion about the formations of the "third force" was expressed by the "white" general A. Denikin in his work "Essays on Russian Troubles". Denikin wrote that these formations received the name "green" on behalf of one of the leaders of the movement - Ataman Zeleny. In addition, the work emphasizes the lack of sympathy among the “greens” for both the “reds” and the “whites”. Geographically, the general localized the rebels in the western part of the Poltava region (the territory of modern Ukraine).
It is believed that initially the peasants who evaded military service were called “green”, later this name became common to all paramilitary peasant detachments.
Memories of the "greens" are contained in essays written by foreign interventionists, based on what they saw on the territory of Russia during the Civil War. H. Williamson, a Briton, fought in the Don Army, wrote that he saw a detachment of such fighters - an eyewitness described the meeting in "Farewell to the Don": they were without uniform, in ordinary peasant clothes, a green cross was sewn on their hats. The author was impressed by the army as a strong, united army. The "green" detachment refused to join the battle on the side of the "whites", but throughout the fighting, the main parties to the conflict tried to win over the peasants to their side.
The peasants had experience in combat operations: participation in skirmishes between villages, in the battles of the First World War, where many stocked up with three-rulers and even machine guns. It was not safe to enter such villages. Historians note that regular troops asked the local headman for permission to pass through the village - they were often refused. In 1919, the situation changed, which forced the peasants to hide in the forests and organize close-knit paramilitary units. The “greens” were hiding from mobilization into the Red Army - if in 1918 the Bolsheviks did not cause concern, then in 1919 they became a powerful force that was difficult to resist with the few forces of peasant detachments.
The most prominent leaders of the “greens” were A.Antonov, a socialist-revolutionary, one of the leaders of the uprising in the Tambov province, P.Tokmakov, the head of the Tambov uprising, and N.Makhno, an anarchist, one of the most famous personalities of the liberation movement in the southern part of Ukraine.
Among the "greens" there were also ordinary bandits and adherents of the ideology of anarchism. With the latter, the "third force" is most often associated. This ideology has been developing on the territory of Russia since the end of the 19th century. Anarchism developed in the form of several currents: anarcho-syndicalists, anarcho-individualists, Chernoznamentsy, beznachaltsy. During the February and October revolutions, the movement experienced several splits. The most active were the anarch-syndicalists, from which the anarcho-federalists split off. There was also a split among the anarcho-communists - a group of anarcho-cooperators stood out, who believed that there were no barriers to the transition from capitalism to communism and this process should take place at once.
After the overthrow of the monarchy, anarchists called on the people to build a just society based on universal freedom. In view of the peculiarities of the situation in the country, the anarchists noted that in order to finally overthrow the old government, they would act together with the Bolshevik revolutionaries. At the first stage of the Civil War, the anarchists sought, first of all, for an early social revolution. In addition, the anarchists demanded freedom of speech and the press, reprisals against representatives of the old government, the provision of material assistance to like-minded people who were released from prisons - who became “victims” of the harsh monarchical regime, and the issuance of weapons to all groups.
Groups operating under the slogans of anarchism marched under green, black, black-green, green-red flags. The most famous flag is that of Nestor Makhno's rebels: a black flag with a skull and crossbones has become a generally accepted symbol of anarchism.
A characteristic feature of the "greens" is the absence of a single center. In the modern territories of Russia and Ukraine, there were several groups - each had its own leader, its own rules and goals: some gravitated towards the aforementioned anarchism (opposed to any government), some - to the ideas of the Bolsheviks (the power of the Soviets and the socialist society were considered the ideal), separate groups defended national-democratic interests (demanded the convocation of the Constituent Assembly and the building of a law-based state, acted on the territory of the Krasnodar Territory). Nor did they support the foreign interventionists operating on the territory of Russia during the years of the Civil War.
One of the most famous uprisings of the “greens” is the Tambov rebellion or “Antonovshchina”. As a result of large-scale hostilities, the Bolsheviks won, for the first time in history, using chemical weapons against the rebels.
The Green movement was completely suppressed by the end of the Civil War.
The civil war in Russia was a tragedy for the entire population of the country. The confrontation embraced all segments of the population, entered every home. The Kuban was no exception, where the confrontation involved the Cossack and nonresident population. The first battles took place in early January 1918 near the city of Ekaterinodar and ended in the defeat of the Bolsheviks. January 2018 marks the 100th anniversary of this tragedy.
I do not pretend to consider in detail all the aspects related to those distant events, but I will try to consider the preparedness of the military units of the warring parties at the initial stage of the confrontation. It should be noted that in this period of time, the confrontation embraced the masses of soldiers, who stood mainly on the side of the Bolsheviks, and the Cossack formations, who tried to resist the aspirations of the Bolshevik leaders. The Kuban Cossacks did not yet understand the threats that arose before them as one of the classes to be eliminated, and tried to defend their traditional rights. Unfortunately, this came at a high cost.
The Black Sea region was the first to come under the rule of the Bolsheviks. In this regard, the Kuban regional food committee refused to send trains with grain to Novorossiysk, which served to strengthen anti-Cossack sentiment, although the committee was not Cossack in composition.
The Bolsheviks, guided by the decisions worked out at the first conference of the party organizations of the Kuban and the Black Sea, held on November 25-26, 1917 in Novorossiysk, focused on the formation of Red Guard detachments and the strengthening of work in military units returning from the front. Bolshevik leader A.A. Yakovlev offered to go to Trebizond for troops in order to immediately move to the Kuban. This decision was unanimously adopted.
At the end of December 1917, meetings of military workers were held in the villages of Krymskaya and Primorsko-Akhtarskaya. They make decisions on the transition to an active struggle against the regional government. By the end of 1917, the power of the Kuban government extended only to Yekaterinodar and the villages closest to it.
The events of 1917-1918 showed the inability of the democratic forces of the region to resolve economic and political issues peacefully. Passions boiled around the issue of land, but it was resolved only in favor of the Cossack part of the population, which meant attempts to establish a dictatorship. Land lease speculation deepened the split in society. The intensity of political passions led to the fact that most political parties and movements saw the possibility of their existence only in support on an armed basis. The process of militarization of parties began. From local clashes, the parties moved on to a large-scale civil war.
On January 12, 1918, in the village of Krymskaya, the Bolsheviks made a decision to storm Yekaterinodar. Their forces, according to the ataman Vyacheslav Naumenko, amounted to 4,000 people. The regional government could oppose them with about 600 fighters with four guns.
The opposing side did not sit idly by. I will give an assessment of the historian D.E. Skobtseva: “N.M., a member of the government for military affairs, finally arrived from the Caucasian front. Uspensky and began to put together parts of the Kuban volunteers. In a hurry, he passed through the Government Council the regulation on service in the Kuban volunteer detachments. The volunteers were given a decent allowance, the military regulations were adjusted, the regulations on rank-keeping, discipline, revolutionary field courts, etc. were revised.
The phase of active formation of the first units began. The author mentioned above noted: “By the end of Christmas time, there were already several Kuban volunteer detachments that took the name of their chiefs: military foreman Golaev, Colonel Demenik and others. At the same time, the initiative and popularity of the bosses were of great importance.
At the end of January 1918, near Enem and Georgi-Afipskaya, the struggle took on a large-scale character. Skobtsev noted: “... three directions of the Bolshevik offensive on Yekaterinodar were determined: Caucasian, Tikhoretsk and Novorossiysk - along the main railway lines. At first, Novorossiysk turned out to be the most stormy - led by the "Minister of War of the Novorossiysk Republic", Ensign Seradze. The battle began at the very approach to Yekaterinodar, at the Enem junction. Seradze was opposed by Galaev and Pokrovsky.
In the first battle near Enem station, the Bolsheviks suffered a serious defeat. During the battle, the military foreman P.A. Galaev shot the commander of the Red Guard Junker Alexander Yakovlev and was immediately killed himself. An interesting fact is that during the First World War, Yakovlev served as a supplier of uniforms for the needs of the army and was not a professional commander. During one of the trips near the city of Molodechko, a grenade flew into the window of the car where he was, the cadet was wounded, after which he underwent treatment on the Black Sea coast. After the events of 1917, he was sent by the Bolsheviks to Novorossiysk.
The second fight was also not successful. The Left Socialist-Revolutionary Ensign Seradze, who was appointed to replace Yakovlev, was captured and died from his wounds in a military hospital.
In Novorossiysk, several armored trains were prepared for an attack on the capital of the Kuban. The number of Red Army soldiers, according to Soviet and émigré specialists, was about 4,000 people. Supporters of the regional government threw no more than 600 Cossacks against this group. Cossack cavalry and several guns were thrown against the armored trains.
The result of this operation is impressive. The Red Guard on armored trains with artillery was defeated, and most of its members fled: “The Bolsheviks fled, leaving numerous trophies on the battlefield and their commander-in-chief Seridze, mortally wounded. Here, in a battle near the Enem junction, a girl, ensign Barkhash, died. Pokrovsky was given a triumph like the Caesars.
Thus, it turned out that the Cossacks were more prepared for the conduct of hostilities, and the motive for defending their land among the Cossacks was much higher. In addition, the level of command training among the leaders of the Bolsheviks was highly questionable.
The population of Kuban reacted negatively to the performance of the Bolsheviks. The gathering of the inhabitants of the village of Pashkovskaya condemned this action. The Cossacks of the villages of Voronezhskaya, Platnirovskaya, Novotitarovskaya and others spoke out in support of the regional government. The villagers of Kushchevskaya refused to submit to the authority of the Soviets.
The first attempt by Bolshevik supporters to seize power in the Kuban capital failed. A new stage in the escalation of the civil war began. To replenish supplies, the Novorossiysk executive committee continued to disarm parts of the Caucasian front that were moving through the city.
An attempt to agitate among seven thousand soldiers in the capital of the Black Sea province about a second speech led to a split in their ranks. The soldiers of the 22nd Varnavinsky Regiment and the 41st Artillery Battalion agreed to participate in the fight against the regional government. The sailors of the Black Sea Fleet played an active role. At the request of the Novorossiysk Bolshevik Committee, a detachment of F.M. Karnau-Grushevsky.
The Kuban-Black Sea Military Revolutionary Committee received weapons from the Military Revolutionary Committee of the Caucasian Army, the Central Executive Committee of the Navy from Kerch, Sevastopol, and Odessa. Contact was established with Armavir and Tikhoretskaya to form a new front against Yekaterinodar.
The base of armed resources for a new assault on the Kuban capital was created. Moreover, support was provided in all directions. Supporters of the Cossacks did not have such a broad base, the industrial regions of Russia were under the control of the Bolsheviks. There were no ammunition, small arms, cartridges, military equipment and ammunition.
On the one hand, we see excellent command cadres among the opponents of the Bolsheviks, and on the other, the lack of material support for hostilities.
The situation among the supporters of the Bolsheviks was absolutely opposite. And time was not long in coming, the next stage of the armed confrontation began, which ended in the spring of 1918 with the defeat of the anti-Bolshevik coalition in the Kuban. The process of accumulation of forces began again, which grew into a confrontation in the summer of 1918, when the Volunteer Army, together with units of the Kuban Cossacks, took full control of the territory of the former Kuban region.
"White-green" 20s
Most of the Kuban, tired of the war, supported the Bolsheviks in the spring of 1920. The peasants and workers joyfully greeted the Red Army, and the Cossacks maintained a benevolent neutrality. Pilyuk and Savitsky, the leaders of the "Green Army" who rebelled against Denikin, hoped for the moderation of the Bolsheviks, the agreement of the socialist parties, the granting of autonomy to the Cossack regions. It seemed to them that the Bolsheviks would not introduce the system of war communism in the Kuban. A peculiar situation arose in the Sochi and Tuapse districts, where the Committee for the Liberation of the Black Sea, headed by the Social Revolutionary Voronovich, created the Black Sea Peasant Republic, fighting against both the Volunteer and the Red Army.
In the spring of 1920, only a few continued to fight against the Bolsheviks. But by May 1920, the introduction of labor duties and surplus appropriation, the redistribution of Cossack lands and lawless reprisals, the ban on the participation of kulaks in elections heated up the atmosphere. At the end of April, the 14th Cavalry Division of the 1st Cavalry Army, formed mainly from former whites, revolted. Knowing about the direction against Wrangel, the division raised a riot in the village of Umanskaya with the call "Down with the war, down with the commune!" Near the village of Kushchevskaya, the rebels, led by Colonel Sukhenko, were defeated and dispersed.
The anti-Bolshevik movement represented a wide range of forces. Agents of foreign states and criminals acted, a protracted war demoralized many and devalued life. But it is wrong to neglect the heterogeneity and complex alignment of the forces of the rebels. The reason for reflection gives the opinion of the political worker of the 1st Cavalry Army Stroilo: "Pure banditry is a property of very few small detachments that have nothing to do with large political organizations."
The social composition of the “white-greens” was complex. Usually, the detachments were led by officers or Cossacks, there were many former soldiers of the Volunteer Army, refugees from Central Russia. During the capture of the villages, all Cossacks of military age were subjected to mobilization. Relations between the White-Green groups are contradictory, they were united by hatred of the Soviet regime.
An accurate assessment of the number of insurgents, their deployment and equipment is difficult. A special department of the Caucasian Front believed that the number of large detachments of the "white-green" in June-July 6, 1920 increased in the south from 5,400 to 13,100 people in 36 detachments with 50 machine guns and 12 guns. The historian Stepanenko summarized the data, according to which in August 1920 the counter-revolutionary forces in the Don, Kuban and Terek reached 30,000 people. Military operations had a seasonal rhythm, fading during the sowing and harvest seasons, flaring up in autumn and early spring. The next peak of speeches falls on February-March 1921, a period of exacerbation of the food crisis and a turning point in the policy of the RCP (b).
The main centers of the insurgent movement were the Trans-Kuban region (deployment of the Russian Renaissance Army), the Sea of \u200b\u200bAzov (Wrangel landings), and the Sochi District.
In mid-April 1920, General Fostikov began to create a plastun regiment and a cavalry brigade near Maikop. In July, a spontaneous revolt, caused by surplus appropriation and the seizure of ¾ of hay stocks, swept the villages of the Labinsk department. On July 18, Colonel Shevtsov, with a detachment of 600 sabers, captured the village of Prochnookopskaya and announced the mobilization of the Cossacks. The total forces of the "white-green" Labinsk, Batalpashinsky and Maikop departments reached 11,400 people in mid-July with 55 machine guns and 6 guns.
On July 23, the military foreman Aprons restored ataman rule in the mountainous strip of the Maikop department.
Growing rebellions forced to ask for military assistance. On August 1, the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and the Cheka received a telegram from the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee: “The entire Kuban is engulfed in uprisings. Detachments are operating, led by a single hand - the Wrangel agents. Green squads grow and expand significantly with the end of the hot season of field work - around August 15th. If Wrangel is not liquidated within a short time, we risk temporarily losing the North Caucasus.”
The authorities have taken drastic measures. On July 29, 1920, Order No. 1247 was issued for the troops of the Caucasian Front, signed by Trifonov and Gittis. By August 15, residents were ordered to hand over their weapons under pain of confiscation of property and execution on the spot. The same punishment was set for joining gangs, assisting the "greens" or harboring them. The rebellious villages were subject to pacification "by the most decisive and merciless measures, up to their complete ruin and destruction."
