By the 93rd anniversary of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
When people talk about the formation of the USSR, it has always stressed that the establishment of the Union was a unique solution of the national question. This is certainly true. To build a society of social equality, it is necessary not only to ensure that there was no exploiter or the exploited classes, not only to refine and grow to a classless society, not only to overcome the differences between town and country, between manual and mental labor. It should also be required to solve the national question. Vladimir Mayakovsky, expressing the attitude of citizens teenager dreamed that in a world without Russia, Latvia to live without one a human hostel.
Less than four months after the formation of the USSR in April 1923, the XII Congress of the RCP (b). We discussed it and issue "National Factors in Party and State Development." IV Stalin launched the eponymous report with these words: "From the time of the October Revolution, we are for the third time discussing the national question: the first time - at the VIII Congress, the second - on X, and the third - in the XII. Is this not a sign that something has changed fundamentally our views on the national question? No, the fundamental view on the national question remained the same as before and after October. " But while its topicality and sharpness preserved.
The search for optimal solutions multifaceted national problems after the USSR continued with even greater intensity. But when in the last quarter of the twentieth century, the creative approach was relegated rigidity in inter-ethnic gaps immediately rushed to the enemies of all stripes, schismatics, careerists, opportunists and other homegrown alien and evil. And the crack of the USSR went exactly where were ethnic joints. It is likely that after the restoration of capitalism to overcome the most difficult will be the formation, in fact, in everyday life, in the life of the fraternal peoples united family.
With regard to the Treaty establishing the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, it was the first in the history of the public (which is public, not royals, diplomats or generals) agreement on the formation of the state - a single and multi-ethnic. But it is not the social contract, which ingeniously fantasized in the XVII century the first great ideologists of the bourgeoisie and conquered by force of arms treaty multinational proletariat, the world's first socialist republics. This cabinet is not an abstraction, not an artistic metaphor, but a direct statement of facts. On the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR in the share of workers accounted for 44% of the delegates, although the population of the republics brings together their share does not exceed 15%. And what about the weapons in their hands, too, is not fiction. Although over 40 years was less than 10% of the delegates to the congress, however 48.8% of people's envoys have a Party standing with pre-October times. The Bolshevik experience up to 3 years were less than 20% of the participants of the congress. This means that at least 80% of the owners of mandates to the proclamation of the Soviet Union (if not 100%) in one form or another member of the Civil War, with the exploiting classes.
Now that the Soviet Union has (yet!) No, we realized that it was the Everest of proletarian internationalism. And the national question in the Soviet Union weakened as solutions to economic, social, political and cultural issues and and stood behind them worsening..
Socialist construction contributed to the development of the people immunity against artificial inflation of the national question. In 1950, on the recommendation of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), first secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Belarus was elected as party leader in the country, NS Patolichev. During World War II he headed the Chelyabinsk Regional Party Committee, then worked as a secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), the Secretary of the Communist Party (Bolsheviks) of Ukraine, the first secretary of the Rostov Regional Party Committee. Wise Belarusians took "an outsider", and it is easy to fit into the party life of the republic.
After Stalin's death, LP Beria put forward the idea that the Communist Parties of the Union republics must necessarily be headed by representatives of the titular nation (in 1960 - 1980 it is quite consistently implemented), and immediately proceeded to put it into practice. Soon there was a Central Committee resolution on Belarus with a serious set of claims to the leadership of her party. Beria went to Minsk to carry out in practice its "national policy." However, although organizational issues was raised, but the sensational decision was not followed. Belarusian Communists strongly rejected the charges against PATOLICHEV "distorting the Leninist national policy." Especially brightly in his defense he made an outstanding Belarusian poet Yakub Kolas. Nikolai Semenovich continued to lead the CC CP (b) guerrilla republic until in 1956 was appointed Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.
Education of the USSR was the clearest example of a fundamental solution of the national question. Just do not forget such "trifles": I Congress of Soviets of the USSR Union signed the merger agreement are not nations and states. Moreover, it was not signed by the so-called national mono-state and multinational republic, including two federations: the RSFSR and TSFSR.
Justifying 26 December 1922 on the X Russian Congress of Soviets need to create a union state, Stalin pointed out "three groups of circumstances that determined the inevitability of the unification of the Soviet republics into a single union state." The first group consisted of the internal factors of the economic condition of the combining states. Among them, the first thing he singled out "the scarcity of the economic resources at the disposal of the remaining republics after seven years of war," historically the economic division of labor between the different regions of the Soviet federation, the unity of the main means of communication and the scarcity of financial resources of the states that have signed the Union Treaty.
The second group of circumstances requiring the union of the republics, the speaker took the "facts relating to our international position": the military danger, the danger of economic isolation of the republics and diplomatic position. In these areas by the end of 1922 already established tradition of cooperation. For example, in February 1922, before the conference in Genoa, Azerbaijani, Armenian, Georgian, Belarusian, Ukrainian, Khorezm, Bukhara and Far Eastern republic transferred their powers of representation of the RSFSR.
After 4 days, the report on the I Congress of Soviets of the USSR, Stalin aptly formulated specific objective unification of the Soviet republics: "Let this Union Congress demonstrate to all those who have not lost the ability to understand that the Communists are able as well to build a new, they are good at destroying the old ".
Lenin's and Stalin's case the Union of Soviet socialist states were specific. Because in the report of Stalin December 26, 1922 the emphasis is on economic and military interests of the association and its international significance. But very erroneous to reduce the formation of the Bolshevik logic of interstate federation only to these factors. Should this occur - and the initiators of the signing of the Union Treaty in 1922 does not differ from the adherents of the capitalist interstate integration. And the difference between them in principle.
Economic integration of the capitalist states - it is nothing like the character of the block foreign policy of exploiting States. Link to the military alliances - exploiting feature at any stage of their development. But if before the victory of capitalism, these blocks were limited to military and diplomatic spheres, capitalism has extended the interstate integration and the economy. Under capitalism, the bourgeois state blocks are called to a life above all objective law of uneven economic and political development of countries and the consequent division of the world. So almost immediately after the NATO (1949) there was the European Coal and Steel Community (1950), after a series of transformations evolved into the European Union (1993). In this sense, the Eurasian Economic Community - is not nothing but a clone of the EU, and this, by the way, recognize the initiators and founders.
Socialist integration, which began with the formation of the USSR, is a historical alternative to the capitalist nature of the bloc's foreign policy. Not by chance, in his report at the Tenth Congress of Soviets, Stalin-Russia was not limited to an indication of the two groups of factors of the USSR. Even more attention he paid to the third group of "factors also call for union and related to the nature of the structure of Soviet power with the class nature of the Soviet regime. The Soviet regime is so constructed that, being international in its intrinsic nature, strongly cultivates the masses the idea of unification, she pushes them on the path of union. "
It is this group of factors is a priority and a key, as it points to the main thing: on the class character of the national question. Not by chance in his concluding remarks on the report on National Factors in Party and State Development at the XII Congress of the RCP (b) for Stalin's first question was "a question that a group of friends, led by Bukharin and Rakovsky, too inflated the value of the national question, I exaggerated it and because of the national question has overlooked the social question - the question of the power of the working class.
For us, as for the communists, it is clear that the basis of all our work is to work to strengthen the power of the workers, and then only rises before us is another question, the question is very important but subordinate to the first - the national question ... The political basis of the proletarian dictatorship are first and foremost the central regions, industrial, rather than the outskirts, which are peasant country. If we fold the stick toward the peasant suburbs, to the detriment of the proletarian areas, we may get a crack in the dictatorship of the proletariat. "
It should be noted that Stalin comes as the faithful disciple, a follower and companion of Lenin.
The fundamentals of Bolshevik theory of the national question VI Lenin began to lay back in 1903, at a time of intense struggle for the preservation of revolutionary Marxism. Even then, he wrote that the Russian Marxists "put in their program not only complete equality of language, ethnicity, and so on., But also recognition of the right of every nation itself to determine its own destiny. If recognizing this right we subject our support for the requirements of national independence interests of the proletarian fight, only a chauvinist can explain our position to the Russian distrust of foreigners, because in reality this position necessarily follow from distrust conscious proletariat to the bourgeoisie. "
Lenin did not casually mentions chauvinists. In the early twentieth century, right-wing forces have used chauvinism as a means of attracting Russian man in the street as an ally. For them, the national question was a "tribal", "marginal" issue and they do not hide it, "tribal issues in Russia should be resolved according to the degree of readiness to serve a separate ethnic Russian and Russian people in the achievement of national goals." When in a state dominated by the system of exploitation of man by man, the urge to serve such a state can only be a hater, not only "marginal peoples", and Russian working people.
100 years ago, when social democracy filled the social-chauvinism, Lenin again emphasized that the national question is a class. He wrote: "It is absurd to oppose the socialist revolution and the revolutionary struggle against capitalism, one of the issues of democracy, in this case a national." But Lenin resolutely opposed and support of interstate blocks bourgeoisie. He therefore opposed the slogan "United States of Europe", because such an interstate unit - is "an agreement between the European capitalists ... what? Just on how to work together to push socialism in Europe, jointly safeguard the looted colonies." He concludes: "The United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary."
The historical significance of the formation of the USSR is enormous. Its result was the Soviet social system, which was developed on the basis of Soviet society. Another of his result was the Soviet state system, outstanding product that can be proudly called the Soviet people, this new historical community of people. Is it possible to forget that, thanks to the Soviet Union successfully evolved Soviet civilization. Its main product - the Soviet people. Even the most bitter opponents of socialism today admit that red state is destroyed, and the red one remains.
So there is a reliable social base to build and strengthen the alliance of the working people of the fraternal peoples. At its base will be sure of the USSR-2.
Trushkov Victor
No comments:
Post a Comment