The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Party of Social Revolutionaries and the All-Russian country union in 1905-1917

a lyayushchy part of all population of the province, about 86%, i.e. the province remained agrarian — country. The expanded type of reproduction when high mortality was blocked by higher birth rate was characteristic of the Novgorod peasants, as well as of all population of Russia. On the last indicator the Novgorod province took the leading position among other provinces of the Northwest. High mortality among peasants was promoted by difficult working conditions and climate, ignorance and poor development of territorial medicine. Annual increase in population was slightly higher, than gain of all population of the province, but below, than on average in the European part of Russia. In general the natural movement of the country population in the Novgorod province of the post-reform period had the features, but followed in line with the all-Russian trends.

List of sources and literature

1. P. Gryaznov. Experience of comparative studying hygienic conditions of country life and medico-topography of the Cherepovets county. SPb., 1880.
2. The memorable book of the Novgorod province for 1863. Novgorod, 1863.
3. The memorable book of the Novgorod province for 1875. Novgorod, 1875.
4. The memorable book of the Novgorod province for 1903. Novgorod, 1903.
5. The memorable book of the Novgorod province for 1906. Novgorod, 1906.
6. Russian A.G. Naseleniye of Russia in 100 years (1811 — 1913). M, 1956.
7. The arch of the statistical materials concerning an economic situation of country people of the European Russia. SPb., 1894.
8. N.S. Fedoruk. General information about the population of the Novgorod province in the 19th age//Last of Novgorod and the Novgorod earth. Novgorod, 1998.
9. L.P. Harchenko. Demography. M, 2006.

About the author

D.V. Zolotov — asp., RGU of I. Kant.

UDC 947: 329

A.V. Timofeychev


In 1905 — 1917

Relationship of the mass country organization of the All-Russian country union and party of revolutionary socialists are considered, their evolution is traced.

The article examines the relationship between the Russian peasant union, mass peasant organization and the Party of socialist-revolu-tionaries.

A subject of the relations of party of Social Revolutionaries and the All-Russian country union (further — Aerospace Forces or the Country union) — mass peasants -

and during the period after the February revolution — still remains to the sky organization in 1905 — 1907 poorly studied. The country union "was not really lucky": in a historiography only several works are devoted to it [1 — 3; 8]. Separate aspects of history of the Country union, it, for example, as relationship of party of Social Revolutionaries and the Country union, researchers practically did not concern. In the mentioned researches on the history of Aerospace Forces, raising this question, approach a perspective from exclusively Country union, but not party of Social Revolutionaries. At the same time the relation of Social Revolutionaries to an issue of interaction with this organization is important for understanding of course of action of the Party of Social Reforms in the country environment in general. In this article the task to consider how the party of Social Revolutionaries built up the relationship with the Country union during the revolution of 1905 — 1907 and during the period after the February revolution is set.

Modern researchers note exaggeration of a role of Social Revolutionaries, characteristic of our historiography, in creation and activity of the Country union whereas in fact the main merit in it belonged to representatives of the territorial liberal intellectuals [3, page 26]. To a social profile of founding fathers also the organizations, "initially focused on the mass, but peace pressure upon the power" which main goal was an overthrow of autocracy answered the purpose [3, page 14].

About the nature of the relations between party of Social Revolutionaries and the Country union and about the contradictions taking place between them during the first Russian revolution it is possible to get an idea having addressed materials of congresses of the most Country union (1905) and the second congress of Social Revolutionaries which took place in 1907

During the Constituent congress of the Country union on July 31 — "quite moderate tactics of fight in the form of the prigovorny movement" was taken on August 1, 1905 advantage [3, page 61]. It is obvious that such moderation did not answer the moods reigning then in party of Social Revolutionaries. It was distinctly shown in disagreements between representatives of party of Social Revolutionaries and the managements of Aerospace Forces on the following, so-called Delegate, a congress of the union on November 6 — 10, 1905

The relations between Social Revolutionaries and the Country union were discussed at the second congress of the Party of Social Reforms, taken place in 1907 on which the special representative of Aerospace Forces Volgin acted. It designated what did not suit the Country union in the eserovsky attitude towards him. The attempt of the revolutionary socialists entering into Aerospace Forces, a message in its framework party promotion became the main claim. The main emphasis in Volgin's performance was put that Aerospace Forces represented the non-party organization "all labor peasantry on the basis of the narrowed program, elementary requirements which already became clear and available to the most broad masses" [3, page 586]. Volgin claimed that the partisan position of eserovsky members of the Country union had negative consequences for the organization.

Concerning this performance the hot debate erupted. Among participants of a congress various approaches to the solution of a question about came to light


nature of interaction of party and Country union. According to E.K. Breshkovskaya, "peaceful" coexistence of these organizations was improbable. It was defined by that circumstance that representatives of the Country union and Social Revolutionaries appealed to various groups of the peasantry: the first addressed the broad low-prepared masses of the peasantry while the last worked with the peasantry dividing the party program [6, page 589 — 590].

On behalf of the Central Committee N.I. Rakitnikov who disowned from the words of the veteran of party acted. He said that they do not coincide with a position of the Central committee which was that the line on cooperation with the Country union should not be broken. At the same time the arisen crisis in the relations between the Country union and party of revolutionary socialists of the Central Committee wanted to use for strengthening of the influence in the union.

However not all delegates agreed with the line which was offered by the Central Committee. A number of party members actually supported E.K. Breshkovskaya and spoke against interaction with the Country union. The acting speakers suggested to leave Aerospace Forces [6, page 590 — 593]. However as a result the congress approved the line offered by the Central committee and directed to strengthening of party influence in Aerospace Forces. Despite conflictness of the relations with the Country union during this period, subsequently Social Revolutionaries were positive to the interaction with the organization those years [5, river 2].

Having quitted the political scene together with defeat of the First Russian revolution, the problem of relationship with the Country union arose again after the February revolution when before Social Revolutionaries there was a question of the choice of forms of the country organization. There were two models of the possible organization: within the recreated Country union or on a sample of councils of working and soldier's deputies. The first model in the capital practically at once was unpopular though representatives of party in the province and "worked on creation of committees of the union in Siberia, in Voronezh, Saratov and other provinces" [4, page 17].

Why during formation of country policy of the party of Social Revolutionaries the country unions as a form of the organization of the peasantry became unclaimed by party? Defining the relation to a problem with the Country union, V.M. Zenzinov in the report at one of party meetings in March, 1917 called him self-appointed [7, page 74]. Apparently, here the main claim of eserovsky leaders to attempt of brothers of Mazurenko to revive the idea, popular in days of the First Russian revolution, also disappears: the organization is created not from below, it is not a direct initiative of masses, but attempt of certain persons to impose to the peasantry organizational forms. Could not suit Social Revolutionaries and those policy statements which were made by leaders of the Country union.

The appeal published on March 12, 1917 "To all peasantry" contained an appeal to support Provisional government and not to encroach on someone else's property, having postponed the solution of the land question

to the Constituent assembly [4, page 15]. The similar moderation could not impose Social Revolutionaries. They could not accept also the option of convocation of the All-Russian congress offered by organizers of the country organization: according to the plan of organizers, it had to take place with direct participation not only Petrosoveta, but also Provisional government [4, page 16].

If concerning the Petrograd council the party of Social Revolutionaries at that time had no prejudices, then concerning their bourgeois government there was enough. A role was played also that after February, 1917. The country union considered the main mission executed as the autocracy was liquidated, and social and economic transformations were not included into the next agenda [3, page 14].

Nevertheless in the first spring months of revolution there was no full clarity on what way the process of the organization of the peasantry will go. Party leaders of Social Revolutionaries considered rather probable that it will take the form of associations within the Country union. What were they going to do in this case? V.M. Zenzinov and N.Ya. Bykhovsky in the reports spoke about need to arrive as representatives of party in days of the First Russian revolution arrived. V.M. Zenzinov urged to enter "into the non-party organization, gradually turning it into party" [7, page 74].

Experience of relationship of party of Social Revolutionaries with the Country union allows to draw some conclusions. For expansion of the influence in the country environment the Social Revolutionaries willingly cooperated with the organization, ideologically close, but not dividing party program. They allowed a possibility of nonparty work with the peasantry, at least at the declarative level. At the same time it was staked on the broadest coverage of country masses. At the same time desire of revolutionary socialists to actively use organizational structure of the Country union is obvious, whenever possible subordinating its activity the tasks. Comparing approaches of Social Revolutionaries to interaction to the Country union in 1905 — 1907 and during the period after the February revolution, one may say, that their change — refusal after February actively to interact with the Country union and the choice for country councils — is defined mainly by the environment which developed then: unpopularity of Aerospace Forces in broad country masses.

List of sources and literature

1. E.I. Kiryukhina. The All-Russian Country union in 1905//Historical notes. M, 1955. T. 50.
2. D.A. Kolesnichenko. The All-Russian country union in 1905 — 1907 of M., 2006.
3. A.A. Kurenyshev. All-Russian Country Union 1905 — 1930: myths and reality. SPb., 2004.
4. V.M. laurels. "Country parliament" of Russia. M, 1996.
5. Party of revolutionary socialists and non-party organizations of the peasantry, 1921//Herbert Hover Institution Archives. Nicolaevsky Collection. Ser. 7. Box 8. Folder 16.
6. Party of sotsialisgov-revolutionary: Documents and materials. M, 1996. T. 1.
7. Party of revolutionary socialists: Documents and materials. M, 2000. T. 3. Part 1.
8. A.V. Shestakov. All-Russian Country union//Historian Marxist. 1927. T. 5.

About the author

A.V. Timofeychev is an engineer of research works on development of scientific capacity of the higher school, RGU of I. Kant,

UDC 947: 329.7

R.V. Koroleva


Position in the I and II State Dumas of the Russian Empire of fraction of deputies from the Kingdom Polish — "The Polish stake" is considered. The policy of the Polish stake and its influence on a coup is lit on June 3, 1907

The article describes the position of the deputy group & #34; Polsko Kolo"

(Polish Reign) of in the work of the first and second State Duma of the Russian Empire. Special attention is given to the & #34; Polsko Kolo" policy and its influence on coup d&etat of the 3rd of June 1907in Russia.

At the system of new state institutes of Russia of the beginning of the 20th century the main object of study for historians is the State Duma [1; 5; 10; 12; 14; 24; 25]. However in a historiography the noticeable disproportion in a research of this establishment is observed: the electoral law on June 3, 1907 and elections to the III State Duma are considerably deprived of attention of historians in comparison with history I and II of Thoughts [18]. Among the modern researchers touching to a degree on an issue of the Third of June coup the point of view that it was predetermined by work of the first two Thoughts and their position on the main questions of position of the country prevails. Special attention is paid to a role of the peasantry and revolutionary forces acting through representatives of the Russian social democracy in this process [1; 10; 16]. Meanwhile in the events preceding the Third of June coup also the position of representatives of the national outskirts in I and II State played a role

* Article is prepared with assistance of RGNF, project No. 07-01-00071 and "S.E. Kry-zhanovsky is a statesman of the Russian Empire the beginning of the 20th century".

Lisa Davis
Other scientific works: