The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Masses and parties in 1917: mass consciousness as dominant of the Russian revolution



Studying revolutionary events of 1917 remains exclusively significant for understanding of the past, the present and the future of Russia. The greatest interest raise the questions connected with various interpretations of the incident then of the fatal choice between the concrete political forces fighting for the right to define the future of the country. For judgment of historical logic of this choice the research of mass consciousness of a revolutionary era in which depths the answer to a question of historical alternatives was formed is key. Within the present article the attempt to briefly present the research model allowing to see the regularities which defined the comparative sequence and unity of the all-Russian shift behind contradictory political process of February-October becomes: from powerlessness of democracy which remained the myth - to establishment by the become reality of dictatorship. As istochnikovy base of a research the materials reflecting rivalry of cadets, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks and Bolsheviks are chosen. "the general degree of revolution was defined by their interaction, the gravitational fields existing around them involved numerous and intermediate parties" 1. Sociocultural judgment of party and political alternatives of liberalism, social democracy, neopopulism and Bolshevism allows to approach complete understanding of success of Bolsheviks and defeats of originally larger and popular parties.

In the analysis of interference of masses and parties in the conditions of the distemper which shook bases of the Russian Empire it is necessary to consider backbone ideological and psychological parameters of the empire. It is important to realize that the empire not to eat simply the form of the state other than other forms only with technical features of the device. The idea of service to the imperatives uniting the people for achievement of the prime targets personified by the emperor for realization of Good and opposition to the Evil is the cornerstone of existence of the empire. The state education applying for an empire role proceeds from monopoly for the original idea (complex of the ideas) offered masses as the truth capable to serve as the anti-entropy ideological base of society at this stage of history. A condition of historical stability of the empire is existence of the ideologems implanted in mass consciousness as semantic,

standard and value elements of ideology (the instructions and symbols sending to a complex of the basic principles by which the state and society has to be guided). Empire life, its historical cycles can be considered as superficial manifestation of the hidden processes which latently are growing ripe in the thickness of public consciousness.

The times of troubles come when actions of elite enter the conflict with fundamental values of the people. When under the threat there is empire life as the special subject of history having own margins of safety, protective mechanisms and ways of ensuring civilization identity on the stage of history the people at large in "normal" historical time relating to policy forcedly enter it is indifferent. The negativism which is manifestation of immunity of an imperial organism acts as force moving them. The leading role in this mechanism belongs to mass consciousness which becomes more active in a crisis situation as "the most real form of practical existence" public soznaniya2. In it mainly there is also a fight for the empire. Norm of existence of the empire is existence of the idea capable to unite and conduct masses. A semantic core of the empire is its ideokratichesky component, and race for power (as well as fight for masses) there is a fight for the idea (just as fight of empires is fight of the ideas), which we weed mass consciousness is. In its structure it is accepted to allocate ideological (rational) and psychological (emotional and effective) levels. From this point of view, historical wellbeing and prospects of the empire during any given concrete period it is possible to judge on real existence of the ideas recognized by society the and on psychological readiness these ideas to defend, pay for them high (up to self-sacrifice) the price.

To spring of 1917 the Russian society appeared before the fact: in the empire disappeared the emperor. The autocracy performing backbone function in national history capitulated to calls of the Latest time. Revolution raised on the agenda a question of a possibility of preservation of Russia in an imperial format. The official and imperial Russian idea in its triune formula was devaluated: crash of autocracy was followed by crisis of Orthodoxy and loss of national "soil". Eight months - of February by October pressed the whole era: at once several historical alternatives got a unique chance to prove the right for inheritance behind the tsarism which during lifetime became a corpse. In the conditions of an unprecedented resonance of global "sotsiotryaseniye" (wars, modernizations, revolutions) it is possible to call all alternatives participating in this competition of successors to a degree utopian. It was a peculiar competition of utopias. But there is also a historic fact:

at the auction of utopias organized by history the convincing victory was gained by the Bolshevism which competitors first did not take seriously.

V.V. Rozanov figuratively described the situation which developed after autocracy crash: "Russia slipped away in two days. The biggest - in three. Even "Modern times" could not be closed so soon as Russia was closed. It is amazing that it was at once scattered everything, to details, to particulars. And, actually, similar shock never happened, without excluding "great resettlement of the people"... There is no Kingdom left, there is no Church left, there is no army left, and there is no working class left. What remained? Oddly - literally anything. There were mean people" 3. And these discomposed "mean people" should choose consciously who will take the place of the imperial power which was vacant. History was managed by the masses needing the organizing force capable distinctly to formulate their politically vague requirements and hopes. Mass consciousness in which explosive contradictions of a revolutionary era accumulated and resounded according to many eyewitnesses and researchers, was a decisive factor of history of revolution. Some of them introduce the idea that as a result of "a victory of mass consciousness" the weight which soul always filled with anarchical instincts" 4 came to the power ". "In the conditions of the Russian life of 1917, in the absence of quite accurately developed and orderly constructed social base of the government, only the "masses" which is consciously rallied by demagogical slogans could replace such base: not a certain class, namely "masses"" 5.

The party wishing to win needed to designate firmly the position on the most sensitive issues of revolution expected by masses - about the earth (because "the land question is that central point about which the attention not only parties, not only separate groups, but the most important - a wide people at large" 6) and about the world (because a question of the world - "as Alladin's lamp who took it to that is concentrated and spirits serve, that is given also the power in hands" 7). That not "to hang in mid-air", it was necessary to attend to introduction in mass consciousness of the ideologems capable to provide continuity of historical tradition. So, obratyas to "soil", party could find "the soil underfoot". But neither the earth, nor the world, nor the idea available to masses able to consolidate society, forces which succeeded autocracy did not manage to offer. Elite underestimated masses, and it became a fatal flaw of the new power and its largest parties.

The fundamental question of the times of troubles - about legitimacy or "samozvannost" of forces applying for the power - was solved in mass consciousness, in the system of archaic coordinates "-others". A key to

sociocultural codes of the Russian Empire should look for in community, sources of features of manifestation of mass consciousness in Russia - in communal soznanii8. A country revolt in imperial history - it is not simple "a form of self-defense country obshchiny9. Considerably it is a form of self-defense of all imperial body. In 1917 as a basis of political and legal culture of the people, despite "democratic" scenery, century traditions of an obshchinnost, with her authoritative collectivism, categorical rejection of a private property on the earth, denial of the positive law which is not corresponding to the truth and is not provided with the effective repressive and imperious mechanism continued to serve. Having realized that "to one - a bagel, to another - the whole lot of nothing. It is also the democratic republic" (V.V. Mayakovsky), masses started active illegal actions for realization of the expectations by traditional methods. And they proved to be not a passive object of policy and the right, and the powerful force on which nobody could rely quite. Impact of masses on life of the country was shown in all significant events, affected a position and actions of the power, parties and various organizations. By fall the movement of masses, by estimates of analysts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Provisional government, accepted "antistate character" 10. The entered freedoms, having appeared in a contradiction with national ideas of "the correct order", were not supported with either the appeal to traditional imperial symbols, or the developed legal system, or unity of power institutions, or activity of security agencies - and were swept away by elements of a mass revolt.

In a historiography of revolutions there is a set of the researches devoted to fight of parties for masses which methodological basis is the myth about existence of direct interrelation between texts of party programs and original success of concrete parties in masses. In line with such approach the subject of mental compliance of imperious elite of Russia to notorious "people at large" and, respectively, questions of organic compatibility of the Russian politicians and Russians, long time were behind the roadside of relevant interest of domestic historians. Why Bolsheviks managed to become as a result party of winners, and their opponents turned into "enemies of the people" and for many decades disappeared from the Russian history? Perhaps, it is the most important and debatable question for all historians of revolution. Being engaged in studying programs of parties out of refraction of party ideologems in mass consciousness, it is hardly possible to give on it the answer. It is represented obvious that the answer to the question posed in principle cannot be found on pages of programs. At least because the vast majority of the population them was not read (as do not read them and now).

It belongs not only to broad masses, but also to the intellectuals. One of the cleverest people of Russia, Rose trees, so described the reasons and degree of mindfulness of the personal choice between various parties: "-Give, Vasily Vasilyevich, for Octobrists, - Borya, popykhivy a tubule shouted. - Your Octobrists, Borya, blockheads; but as at your wife surprising shoulders, and your sister is chaste and unapproachable, I will give for Octobrists. Also gave for them... as apartments of Dr. Sokolov (foreman of esdek... somewhere on Grechesky Avenue) could not find, and damned "bulletin", of course, lost on the same day as it received" 11. Let's notice that it is about the choice made in rather quiet pre-revolutionary time. It is clear, that in revolutionary polyphony of party speeches to decide on political sympathies by comparison of party documents and the press to the unsophisticated Russian voter it was very difficult. The poet M.A. Voloshin famous for the mystical insight who was sincerely trying to make consciously a party choice in May, 1917 complained that he is not able to define for himself in what party "would be expressed what could wish Russia", and admitted: "Reading newspapers, I in turn agree with the most opposite opinions" 12.

Such attempts represented an exception, but did not govern. Even party figures often were not interested in party programs. So, A.F. Kerensky remembered: "It was very tiresome to listen to never-ending discussions of scientific and absolutely impractical programs. I in every way avoided it... At that moment I least of all was interested in political programs. I was too captured by grandiose mysterious uncertainty to which we were uncontrollably attracted by the dizzy course of events. Also told itself that neither programs, nor discussions will accelerate the future and will not cancel the incident. Revolution is generated not only by a thought, it results from depths of human souls and consciousness. And it is valid, all projects, programs, theories were rejected and forgotten before authors who moved further in the opposite way" 13 managed to embody them practically. And the popular lawyer F.N. Plevako in peace time, "consciously" entering a party, in response to a question of acquaintance to its program frankly answered: "The program is not interesting to me, this forward to the book. Who reads it?" 14.

If people brilliantly educated and party, then what was to expect from illiterate and non-party peasants, the soldiers and workers (that is more from peasants, a soldatok and workers) for the first time called for participation in policy in conditions when, according to the cadet publicist A.S. Izgoyev, "each party of the neighbors were not interested in programs

abuses bourgeoises"? Social democrats call revolutionary socialists bourgeois party, revolutionary socialists do not recognize as the real socialists either national socialists, or the party fellows who demand war to a victory over Germans. Among social democrats too mezhdousoby: Bolsheviks abuse Mensheviks bourgeoises, and Mensheviks prove that Bolsheviks - petty-bourgeois party" 15. Even several months of "democratic multi-party system" later "in provincial district small towns absolutely it is impossible to establish to what party any given public figure belongs. Yesterday there was a social democrat, today - the revolutionary socialist, and tomorrow he will be, probably, a cadet. Any party discipline and purity. Social democrats enter the block with the obvious Black Hundreds, revolutionary socialists with some non-party subjects" 16. Politically not prepared people were offered to choose "the" party in a situation when, under their puzzled certificate, "all these parties in different ways praised the programs and, standing up for freedom, offered workers, soldiers and peasants the management, and in words made a promise to arrange all good life and full content" 17.

According to programs of parties it is difficult to judge not only the relation to them of voters, but also parties. M. Dyuverzhe so describes specifics of life of the party organization: "The organization of parties is based mainly upon practical installations and unwritten rules, it is almost completely regulated by tradition. Charters and internal regulations always describe only an insignificant part of reality if they in general describe reality; in practice they are seldom followed strictly. And on the other hand, parties willingly surround the life with a secret and therefore it is hard to get about them exact data, even elementary. Here you face a primitive legal system where laws and rituals are confidential, and devoted fanatically cover them from wordly looks. To veterans alone of party all peripetias of the organization of party and a subtlety of intrigues which are tied in them are well-known. But they seldom have scientific mentality that prevents them to keep necessary objectivity; and they so reluctantly speak" 18. Let's notice that it is about parties of rather safe West having the long history of development of multi-party system and the settled traditions. And "parties in Russia in the concentrated look expressed a set of intellectual utopias, doctrinal starry-eyed idealism or a sectarian ogoltelost, but were not pragmatic registration of interests of any given societies", "the Russian multi-party system really looks the embodiment of a peculiar doctrinal schizophrenia of the intellectuals, and not national consolidating constructive and dynamic

to whole. It is peculiar, generated by imperial paternalism "barren flower" capable, however, to provoke a distemper", and "if in the times of troubles someone wins, someone is more often irrevocably - loses, then from this does not follow that someone's program lips - triumphed

novka" 19.

Parties "were the living organisms with difficult internal life and which are not closed at all, held down by a rigid disciplinary armor of the organization" 20. Therefore "it is necessary to pay attention not only to party programs, but also to mentality of the people entering into parties. Perhaps, there is a certain dividing border between carriers of one mentality and another regardless of program installations... In some situation the people with different programs can find a common language, and people with one program can not find this common language... Especially great value at assessment of any given party buys the module of behavior peculiar to it" 21.

Similar conclusions of modern researchers have vividly something in common with opinions of political figures of the past. Also. I. Petrunkevich considered that Russian "liberals, radicals and revolutionaries differed not with political goals, but temperament" 22. And according to V.A. Maklakov, "the political force of each party not among her written-down members, and in trust which it inspires nonparty, i.e. narrow-minded, in weight. This trust is based not on the program, not on resolutions of congresses in which only the party press, and on independent judgment which is made to himself about party by the inhabitant is interested. It often does not coincide with opinion which the party, with that which it about itself seeks to inspire has about itself. Judgment of the inhabitant is simpler" 23.

Therefore if we want to solve a secret of popularity and unpopularity of any given parties, it is necessary to analyze not so much program installations of parties as means of fight for masses, how many "modules of behavior" of these parties and their relation with "modules of behavior" of masses. Not degree of compliance of party projects to the "objective" interests of electorate, but its direct relation to parties which mythologized image develops in mass consciousness regardless of doctrinal artful designs inaccessible to it becomes a subject of study. Concrete results of fight of parties were defined to a great extent by as far as ideological and value, psychological and behavioural vectors of political forces coincided or conflicted to prepotent installations of the mass consciousness situationally derivative of archetypic characteristics of the people. The behavior of the party wishing to lead the people had to correspond to features of national mentality and consider mechanisms of mass consciousness and behavior. The efficiency of party promotion depended not so much on quality of expression of group consciousness how many from ability "to cling" collective unconscious. Success of party

was defined by as far as its practical activities answered psychology of masses as far as its tactics was corresponded to their behavioural stereotypes as far as the slogans of party were clear to "the Russian man" and are agreed with his basic paradigms and also with specifics of their refraction in weight.

In the conditions of "barren flower" of post-February multi-party system on defeat any party incapable was doomed to position itself adequately to masses. The greatest chances of success were got by the party which is most using resources of national psychology. Let's give a characteristic example. "The Saratov bulletin" recreates the authentic picture of "a competition of village of of minnezinger" typical for any Russian province. The dispute of two local figures - the Menshevik (Mayzel) and the Bolshevik (Mgeladze) is described:

"-With what you explain our success in masses? - victoriously questioned a mgeladzevsky falsetto. - Unless we are so talented or clever? - Oh, is not present, - the Menshevist bass rattled, - you are not talented and are not clever... It seems to you that you direct weight, throwing into it your demagogical slogans, in fact - you follow it... About what here talents or mind can the speech be? And when the citizen of the Top market shouts to the citizen in a hat who offered to it instead of 60 to. - 40 for cherry pound: "Damned bourgeois! To you to have the guts for garters!", in fact not comrade Mgelad-z is her teacher, and she prompts to companion Mgeladze how literaturno to formulate a slogan" 24.

But even quite good knowledge of psychology of crowd and ability to use a situation with the help of selectively verified slogans could not guarantee long-term effect of hypnotic impact of propaganda on masses if the propagandist had no continuous feedback from audience and his slogans did not eat continuously energy of masses. In the press of 1917 it is possible to meet such, for example, descriptions of impact of promotion in the village: "If you are eloquent and know the psychology of the peasant taking the force from a nightmare, fantastic and roughly real world if you can stop by force of the voice not only a loud conversation, but also whisper if you can get into the heart of this honest and mysterious savage, then success is provided. You turn all this mass of individuals into one enormous, resolute and truly yours being. This being - your slave and the deadly enemy of your opponent. And if some daredevil is to state which - that not in your advantage, then, at best, he will not be let speak. The province is full of suspiciousness and mistrust. And if any of companions after such successful performance thinks that here everything is made that the people share with it the same opinions that he time forever proved case of the fact that he stated to listeners, then such companion inexcusably is mistaken. What happened today - happened in a wonderful way. Tomorrow many will recover and

will tell, scratching a nape: "Fooled". The interlocutor thinks at once what it is about, and in tone answers: "Great, kumanek, fooled"..." 25.

So, only considering realities of mass consciousness, it is possible to comprehend paradoxicality of discrepancy of programs and real fruits of party activity.

It is possible to note surely that the Constitutional democratic party in 1917 calling itself precisely People's Freedom Party had no chances of a victory in fight for masses as had nothing in common neither with the people, nor with his understanding of freedom. As the leader P.N. Milyukov recognized it, "nobody will deny that the party still did not manage to get on the ideas into wide groups of the population" 26, "without support on masses we not force, therefore it is impossible to count on us..." 27. Without wishing to make concessions even on the most sore points of mass consciousness - about the world and the earth, cadets irreparably missed time of initial trust and iridescent expectations of masses. Demanding "the victim and a feat" from the people, they offered nothing in exchange, except "the sweet word "freedom"". Having found the insolvency in implementation of the liberal recipes of reorganization of Russia, the liberals who were long coveting an opportunity "to make happy" the distressful Russian people began to reproach these people that it is insufficiently good for their ideas. They "suddenly" found out that the ideas, effective for the western society, are not effective in the "dark" domestic environment. So, Milyukov the main factor of failure of democracy in Russia declared "unconsciousness and darkness of the Russian national weight which, actually, and made utopian application to our reality even of such ideas which are quite timely, and a part even carried out among the people which were more prepared for direct participation in the state activity" 28.

Performances of cadets and projects offered by them were unacceptable for masses neither according to contents, nor in a form. Even the appearance of representatives of this party restored masses against it because "our population has the most vague concepts about the bourgeois: who is slightly better dressed - that and the bourgeois, and it is impossible to trust him" 29. In conditions when, according to contemporaries, "crowds of the inhabitants equally far from socialism, democratism, liberalism announced themselves... socialists", "to be a socialist... became just the requirement of a bonton, decency, it was necessary to be nearly the paradoxical daredevil and the cynic to dare to otmezhevyvatsya from socialism" 30, the cadet in mass consciousness became the visible embodiment of the enemy. The answer of the people to speakers cadets on their muffled, in terms of masses, a performance (as if for completeness of absurdity, it is frequent also "Misters beginning with odious!" what immediately and predictably provoked violent aggression of crowd) becomes: "We are peasants, and you are a bourgeois" 31. In the atmosphere of "meeting democracy" the cadets had no chances of understanding of crowd. "You do not wag as a dog, a tail, speak

directly! Do you have working peasants, workers in your list? Is not present at them, brothers, labor people, all at them merchants, Ali's landowners their sonnies or their henchmen, - shout soldiers Bolsheviks from different sides". So the former soldier transfers in the memoirs a picture of a typical meeting. On attempts of speakers to start talking about the constitutional way that "without law it is impossible", immediately was distributed: "To you to hurt a muzzle for such speeches!. It should fill a muzzle! Give it to the back and that flew from a tribune-headed down!" 32 One of cadet activists so remembered rivalry with Bolsheviks on a meeting in barracks of leyb-guard of the Grenadierial regiment: "Alas! Zinovyev "beat" both old Deycha, and A.I. Shingarev who ventured to make the cadet theses in this hornet's nest. Our shouts, our applause and whistles could not change anything in "a ratio of forces", and soldiers imposed us with strong language from which we had to understand that bourgeois sonnies are on the lam whole from a meeting "conscious" the grenadier last time. Leaving (it is necessary to tell, very hasty) this stadium, we carried away the same feeling of rage and powerlessness and desire from words to pass to actions" 33.

Cadets, however, not only did not manage to pass from words to actions, but also the words available to weight, did not find. And false "fighters for national freedom" to talk to the people in language clear to it did not want. "Democrats without democracy", they also did not try to adapt the promotion, to make it adequate to consciousness of the addressee. The elementary misunderstanding by the mass of meaning of cadet speeches aggravated by "anti-bourgeois" promotion of other parties promoted that the spring, unconscious and trustful relation of the people was replaced by thirst of the punishment which reached apogee to fall of 1917 when extremist crowds pursued liberals everywhere where met. It is characteristic that mass acts of violence in relation to members of the party of cadets often happened just during "implementation of democratic procedures". Bulletins and notes with their candidates "triumphantly tore to pieces", to activists of party promised "to have the guts for garters", and happened, as beat directly on polling precincts selective urnami34.

It is not surprising that cadets, these "blind guides" of the Russian revolution, were "appointed" by other parties to a role of a whipping boy. Party members on which the fate of the liberal alternative in Russia depended showed that they can destroy, but not govern. In words playing for the constitutional state, in practice they proved to be incapable to apply the right, having been in the opinion of the people the favourites, political charlatans usurping the place of "tsar-father" and, at last, "guilty werewolves in a distemper".

Instructive was also a fate of Mensheviks who, like cadets, and in a question of the earth, and in a question of the world showed as "they are scary far from the people". Without having own political will,

Mensheviks called all "democratic forces" for unity, and among themselves agreed, according to G.V. Plekhanov, unless only that "the Menshevism is better than the Bolshevism" 35. This party essentially refused use of elements of masses for coming to power (for which, according to them, historical conditions did not ripen) and categorically did not wish to find a support in consciousness of the multimillion peasantry (because as the member of its Central Committee N.A. Rozhkov said, "the social democracy proceeds from one - for reasons of interests of the proletariat" and if "the peasantry still does not understand it, we will not be afraid to divorce here him" 36).

By Yu.O. Martov's recognition, they did not want to weaken "proletarian socialist revolutionism country rebelliousness and country, allegedly socialist, illusions" 37. The party which was considered as a brain of revolutionary democracy (in this connection it is difficult to keep from temptation to remember the known words of V.I. Lenin that in Russia the intellectuals are not a brain of the nation at all), continued to announce loudly the Russian peasantry (more than 3/4 population of Russia!) "immoral class" 38. Whether it is worth being perplexed why this party in mass consciousness approached "image of the enemy" and only the little shared a fate of liberals and their place later "at history pillory"? As with satisfaction stated cadet editions in May, "life put social democrats, Mensheviks and cadets, closely to each other: these are two next parties on uniformity of some points of the program, and, above all - ideologies" 39. In the fall Bolsheviks had all reasons to sum up the results of "circulation in the power" of party of Mensheviks and results of their "cooperation" with liberals: "In 6 months the banners at Mensheviks turned white, and their leaders disappeared" 40.

Orthodox Marxists of Menshevist sense forgot K. Marx's precept that acting through the peasantry "proletarian revolution will receive that chorus without which it it solo in all country countries will turn into the swan song" 41 (It was perfectly remembered, on the contrary, by much less dogmatic leader of the Bolshevism. Lenin, by own recognition, did not wish to assimilate at all to those "unfortunate Marxists" about whom Marx wrote: "I sowed dragons, and collecting a harvest gave me fleas" 42). Martov so explained the rejection of the Bolshevism: "Matter not only in deep confidence that to try to spread socialism in economically and culturally backward country - a senseless utopia, but also in organic my inability to reconcile with arakcheevsky understanding of socialism and pugachevsky understanding of class fight which are generated... the fact that the European ideal is tried to be got on the Asian soil" 43. What offered the raged Russian elements Menshevism? To wait until "soil" from "Asian" regenerates in answering to "the European ideal"? To move to Europe?. Postponing for abstract future implementation of the concrete, demanded by weight transformations, Mensheviks as a result naturally remained in the past. Tactics which was chosen Russian

social democrats, became political suicide. Declaring that their time did not come, positioning the ideals as European to which Russia is not ready, Mensheviks jumped out on the roadside of a historical way of the Russian civilization.

Also the party of Social Revolutionaries caused a stir in not less self-destructive character. Having passed from rabble-rousing propaganda of "The earth and will" to attempts to resolve issues of the state value in the constitutional way, neopopulists lost control over the elements untied in many respects by their actions. Pointing by one hand to the desired earth, Social Revolutionaries shook the enormous force released from the depths of the peasantry, another tried to hold the growing radicalism of the woken masses. Even Mensheviks, being allies of Social Revolutionaries in their coalition with the bourgeoisie, emphasized: "Revolutionary socialists have two persons, two positions, two tactics: one - unshakable, loud - for masses, on the left, another - evasive, opportunistic, soivchivy - for the bourgeoisie, to the right... For broad masses - the simplified slogans which will be never carried out, for transformation of these slogans into life absolutely other tactics unstable and lax" 44. And by mischievous assessment of cadets, "it was not difficult to wake crowd instincts, to turn it back, at least it was dictated by the most essential requirements party, not to mention state, politicians, it appeared to our populists it cannot do" 45.

On well-aimed observation of the Social Revolutionary G.A. Landau, in a sermon of socialism and simultaneous attempts to keep masses from its implementation "the hopeless, self-destructive discrepancy" 46 was concluded. Mutually exclusive efforts to reconcile the flooded banks elements of masses with need of stage-by-stage constitutional reform which, on malicious expression of Lenin, reminded attempts "to take seat between two chairs" 47, were unsuccessful: country masses objectively adopted Bolshevist recipes of the immediate solution of sore problems. Having understood that lost even the primordial social base, Social Revolutionaries, by own overdue recognition, fondly tried to undermine authority of the Bolshevism "promises almost the same, as he promised, but only - it is slightly less" 48. But, as peasants spoke, without having kept for a mane, for a tail will not keep. The discrepancy of policy of the Party of Social Reforms aggravated with lack of unity of party against the background of universal animosity of masses and disappointment in legitimate procedures led them to the fact that the Bolsheviks who were consistently encouraging growth of mass violence on agrarian (and not only) the soil, managed to turn the peasantry from a source of forces of Social Revolutionaries into the temporary, but decisive ally, having gathered, on Lenin's revelation, "the main reserve from the camp of yesterday's allies of the enemy" 49. Having intercepted a source of their power at krestyanofilstvuyushchy competitors, Lenin disarmed those more reliably, than the bible Delilah who cut Samson. And like Samson, Social Revolutionaries understood,

that their power is illusive, only when defeat became already obvious.

The huge role in reconquest of masses at Social Revolutionaries was played by use by Bolsheviks, along with the slogan of immediate occupation of the earth, the slogan of the immediate termination of war. Memoirs of the soldier of the Samara garrison are characteristic: "Soldiers masses went to the city to enter a party. The moment when our group went to the city is remembered to issue the introduction in RSDRP (b). We look, we are met requirements by the same group of soldiers brother-soldiers. Met, they ask us: "Where you go?" We answer: "To the city to be made out in party". They grinned and say: "Ek, overslept, we already entered!" We ask: "And what party you joined?" Answer: "In, country, in party of revolutionary socialists". Our group sprinkled with laughter and added: "Means you for the slogan "Earth and Will, and War to a Grave, that is to a Victory"". Our friends were stunned: "As! - they scream, - unless so? And Bolsheviks have what slogan?" - ask. "And at Bolsheviks, - we answer, - a slogan such: "Down with war!"" Our brother-soldiers immediately went away back and together with us went back to the city where all of them to one were discharged from eserovsky party and joined the ranks of Bolsheviks" 50.

So Bolsheviks were the only, uncontested, political force in Russia 1917, capable to turn mass consciousness into the tool for achievement of the purposes. Instead of the depreciated old idea the Bolsheviks offered the idea, acceptable for masses, Novaya Gazeta, having not just replaced the ideokratichesky complex "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, Nationality" with similar "Communism, Dictatorship, Party membership", but also having mobilized all main forms of national utopias and messianic expectations. They best of all were able "to work with weight". Curiously in this regard the confession made about the "an author's method" of verbal hypnosis of weight, L.D. Trotsky. He explained the suggestion mechanism to crowd "not simply, and it is very simple": from a tribune it is necessary to choose the most stupid physiognomy and to speak until you notice in it a spark osmyslennosti51. Even more "the feeling of weight" was inherent in Lenin whose N

Fosse Ingve
Other scientific works: