Anarchists in the postwar USSR. How in the Soviet Union again appeared supporters of "powerless"

20
History Anarchism as a socio-political movement is a series of bright highs and equally devastating failures. In 1903-1909 and in 1917-1922 Anarchist movement played a significant role in the political life of Russia. During the years of the first Russian revolution 1905-1907, the revolutions of 1917 of the year and the Civil War, anarchists acted as an independent and rather active force, attracting significant layers of both the urban proletarian and semi-proletarian population and the inhabitants of the countryside. However, at the beginning of the 1920s as a result of the repressive policies of the Soviet government, the anarchist movement entered a period of deep crisis and by the end of the 1920s almost ceased to exist.

Separate illegal circles of students and intellectuals sympathizing with anarchism continued to exist in the 1930, and in the 1950 — 1960. But only in the 1980-ies did the real rebirth of the anarchist movement in the Soviet Union begin, connected with the process of gradual liberalization of political life in the country. As a result, by the end of the 1980 in a number of republics of the USSR, there was a rather active anarchist movement, represented by a number of organizations, groups and publications of various ideological orientations - from the “right” market anarchists who recognized the capitalist economy to the left-most anarcho- Communists who denied, in addition to the state, private property, wage labor and commodity-money relations.



The anarchist movement, which was quite numerous and influential in Russia before the October Revolution 1917 of the year and during the Civil War, was actually destroyed in the second half of the 20s as a result of the repressive policies of the Bolshevik government. First of all, the repressions followed against the directions that posed a real danger to the new government - the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-communists. But the groups of "mystical anarchists", "anarcho-biocosmists", "extarchists", etc. they used the condescending attitude of the Soviet leadership as discrediting the anarchist movement and confirming the conclusions of Bolshevik theorists about the degradation of anarchism and the loss of the revolutionary component. But in the second half of the 20-ies repression touched and these extravagant and small sects. By the beginning of the 30s, the anarchist movement in the Soviet Union had de facto ceased to exist. Some of the former prominent figures of anarchism went over to Bolshevik positions and even received posts in the Soviet state apparatus, some managed to leave the country, the rest were in prisons and camps. During the years of Stalin’s repressions, even those former anarchists who had long recognized the Soviet government and worked in the Soviet state institutions were arrested and destroyed.

Up until the middle of the 1950s, until the famous “Khrushchev Thaw”, there was practically nothing heard about anarchists in the Soviet Union. The situation changed with the death of Stalin and some weakening of the totalitarian regime in the country. The debunking of the personality cult at the 20th CPSU Congress, the rehabilitation of politically repressed citizens and the amnesty for political prisoners did their job. The country has begun to increase the number of people who are critical of the practice of state socialism and are looking for an alternative to it among the teachings opposed to the official Soviet ideology. So, in the middle of the 1950-s, among young Moscow historian students who gathered at the monument to Vladimir Mayakovsky, an illegal anarcho-syndicalist orientation group led by Vladimir Osipov (in the future - a well-known nationalist), whose members were going to "remove" the general secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, acted. N.S. Khrushchev.



Anarcho-syndicalist group at Moscow State University - “Osipov-Ivanov group”

One of the most vivid examples of clandestine leftist radical groups that existed in these years is the group formed in the autumn of 1957 in the third year of the full-time department of the history department of Moscow State University. Its informal leader was twenty-two-year-old Anatoly Ivanov, who stood out because he was not a member of the Komsomol. His comrades Vladislav Krasnov and Vladimir Osipov, on the contrary, were former Komsomol activists (Krasnov - the secretary of the Komsomol organization of the course, and Osipov - the participant of numerous trips to the “virgin land”). Studying in the library literature on ethnography and linguistics, Anatoly Ivanov came across the works of M. A. Bakunin, began to study them, and soon became a supporter of anarchist teaching. Almost at the same time, as Ivanov became interested in anarchism, an emergency occurred at the history department of Moscow State University - the VLKSM bureau of the faculty was arrested on charges of creating an anti-Soviet organization. Thus began the famous case of the left-radical Krasnopevtsev circle (Lev Krasnopevtsev then became a prominent historian). Ivanov, who did not communicate with Krasnopevtsev and his associates, nevertheless, fell under the general wave of repression and was expelled from the faculty, but after the requests of the parents, he was reinstated in the correspondence department.

After the monument to V. Mayakovsky was opened in 1958 and regular meetings of youth critical to the policies of the country's leadership and the party began near it, Ivanov and Osipov began to regularly appear at the monument and recruit sympathizers. It can be said that the actual formation of the circle was in October of 1958, when several key activists joined it: Ivanov, Osipov, Anatoly Ivanovich Ivanov (nicknamed Rakhmetov, b. 1933), poet and translator Alexander Nikiforovich Orlov (pseudonym Nor, Born 1932), Evgeny Shchedrin (born 1939), Tatyana Gerasimova. The circle basically gathered at the apartment of Anatoly Ivanov and was engaged in reading and discussing reports, preparing materials for the release of a theoretical publication. However, law enforcement agencies managed to quickly get on the trail of "underground workers" - already 20 December 1958. Ivanov’s apartment was searched. State security officers seized the manuscript of the "Working Opposition". In this work, Ivanov tried to justify the incorrectness of the "Soviet" version of socialism, coming from Marx and Lenin, and opposed to him "democratic socialism", going from anarchists and the "Workers' Opposition" to the 1956 revolution. in Budapest. As it turned out as a result of investigative actions, at the beginning of 1958, Ivanov got acquainted with Igor Vasilievich Avdeev, born 1934, a last year student at the Moscow Power Engineering Institute. At the request of Avdeev, Ivanov wrote an article "Waiting for" in which he spoke about the case of the circle of Lev Krasnopevtsev. Avdeev took the article with him to Novokuznetsk (then - Stalinsk-Kuznetsky), but there he came to the attention of the state security organs. On December 5, a search was conducted on Avdeev, the authorship of Ivanov was found out, and information about the anti-Soviet agitator was reported to Moscow. January 31, 1959 Ivanov was arrested. Osipov 9 February 1959 spoke before the course, protesting against the activities of the KGB, after which he was expelled from the Komsomol and the university. 5 May 1959 city the court sentenced Avdeev to six years in prison, after which he was transferred to Mordovia. As for Ivanov, he was sent to the Leningrad special psychiatric hospital, since Ivanov had previously received a “white ticket” through a mental hospital. In August, the 1960 Ivanov was released, after which he again gathered a circle around him, which included Ivanov himself - this time under the nickname “New Year’s”, Osipov - “Skvortsov”, as well as Ivanov-Rakhmetov, Viktor Khaustov, Edward Kuznetsov (1939 .), student Vyacheslav Senchagov (born 1940), Yuri Galanskov (born 1939), poets Appolon Schucht, Anatoly Schukin, Victor Vishnyakov (pseudonym Kovshin). These people gathered at the monument to Mayakovsky, but gradually in the company there was a disengagement into “poets” and “politicians”. Poets preferred a purely artistic and literary, and politicians - social activities. Anarcho-syndicalism became the ideology of the “politicians” circle; activists obtained ideas about the essence of anarchist and left-socialist ideologies from the works of Georges Sorel, Karl Kautsky, Mikhail Bakunin and Asher Deleon. The gatherings of the circle began in the winter of 1960-1961, and, as a rule, they gathered at night. Often, anti-Soviet speeches were heard at meetings of the group, but mostly young people who came to meetings preferred to listen and discuss poems. 28th of June 1961 Osipov read out his program to create an anarcho-syndicalist militant organization. A single draft of the organization was read out to Ivanov, Kuznetsov, Khaustov, Senchagov and Anatoly Viktorov. After reading the program paper was immediately burned. Practically in the same days mass riots took place in Murom - 30 June 1961. and in Aleksandrov - 9 July 1961, as a result of which groups of marginal citizens stormed the buildings of city departments of internal affairs. After the events in Murom, it was decided to send Kuznetsov and Senchagov with familiarization purposes. Having traveled to Murom, they also learned about the events in Aleksandrov. Osipov, Kuznetsov and Khaustov went to Alexandrov to interview the eyewitnesses of the events and compose a leaflet. In October 1961 Osipov, Ivanov and Kuznetsov were again arrested - this time in the Bokstein case.

Anarchists in the postwar USSR. How in the Soviet Union again appeared supporters of "powerless"
- Vladimir Osipov.

Distrust of the Soviet government, discontent with the existing order in the country permeated the entire Soviet society, and not just representatives of the young capital of the intelligentsia. During the period of the end of 50-x - the beginning of 60-s there are a huge number of spontaneous riots and riots, which resulted in the protest activity of the population of the country. The most famous are the performances on Temir-Tau, in Murom, Aleksandrov, Krasnodar, Biysk. These riots tended to start all of a sudden, at the most insignificant, at first glance, occasions to reach a certain climax, and then cease either as a result of the actions of the police and army units, or because of the pacification of the majority of participants. The main driving force behind the 50-X-60 spontaneous riots was the urban marginal strata, most disadvantaged by the Soviet system. Almost everywhere, rebellious marginalized people put forward the same slogans that exposed the Soviet system as the “power of the new bourgeois”.

Against the backdrop of all these events, among Soviet citizens, primarily among students and young representatives of the intelligentsia, people began to appear sympathizing with anarchism and even ready to propagate his ideas by disseminating literature and creating circles. They were greatly influenced by the echoes of mass youth performances taking place abroad, which in the 60s covered not only the USA and Western Europe, but also Japan, Latin America, Africa and even some socialist countries. As a result, the first circles and groups of left-wing radical orientation appeared in the Soviet Union. They existed, as a rule, in large urban centers, being in an illegal situation. The ideology of these groups, mainly youth in their composition, was, most often, not “orthodox” anarchism, but a kind of mixture of anarchism and Marxism, which corresponded to the spirit of the times - after all, the West European and American “new left” also combined elements of these two ideological directions.

Leningrad "new left" in the late 1970-x - early 1980-x

In 1970, the beginning of 1980, illegal left-radical groups were most active in Leningrad. In Leningrad, the control of state security bodies was weaker than in Moscow, but there were more educated and politically active young people here than in provincial cities. It was in Leningrad at the end of 1970 that two significant illegal groups emerged - the Left Opposition and the Union of Revolutionary Communards. The group, which in the domestic literature on the history of the dissident and left-wing radical movement is called the “Left Opposition”, emerged at the end of 1976. Its core was made up of former students of the 121 of the Physics and Mathematics School of Leningrad, Andrei Reznikov, Arkady Tsurkov and Alexander Skobov, Alexei Havin. The average age of the group members at the time of its creation did not exceed 20 years. About how the group was born, its former member Alexander Skobov says: “On December 14 on 1976, we came to Senate Square to see if there would be an attempt to repeat the dissident dispersed by the authorities a year ago on the anniversary of the Decembrist uprising. We talked. They turned out to be in many ways like-minded ... ” But the first "combat outing" of future comrades occurred even before that. 24 February 1976, on the opening day of the 25th CPSU Congress, from the gallery of Gostiny Dvor on Nevsky Prospect, four young people dropped 100 handwritten leaflets “Long live the new revolution! Long live communism! ” They were detained. After identification of the first-year students, Andrei Reznikov, Arkady Tsurkov, Alexander Skobov, and tenth-grader Alexander Fomenko were excluded from the Komsomol and from educational institutions. However, these measures not only did not stop the fervor of the young left, but even more convinced them of the "bourgeois rebirth" of the USSR and the need for a more radical struggle with the existing system. There was a design circle, called the first Leningrad school, and later - the Left Opposition.
The band members were influenced by youth speeches in the West. This, in many ways, determined their ideology. The group considered itself the successor of the West European "new left" and sought to popularize their ideas in the Soviet Union. The main principles on which the group stood were: 1) rejection of "Western" bourgeois values ​​and faith in the triumph of communism; 2) recognition of the need for a revolutionary struggle to change the existing system in the USSR; 3) disbelief in the possibility of correcting the Soviet system in an evolutionary way. It is interesting that, like the Western “new left”, the participants of the “Left Opposition” sought not to share political convictions and everyday life. In the same year, 1976 members of the group organized a youth commune, removing half the house on the outskirts of Leningrad. There were discussions on political issues, visitors stopped.

In 1978, the Leningrad school adopted a new name - “Left Opposition”. In order to propagate their ideas, the group decided to launch the issue of its own organ - a magazine. The first issue of the magazine was unnamed, since the group members could not come to a consensus about the name. By the release of the second issue, everyone agreed on the choice of the name "Perspective". A typewritten magazine, Perspective, with a volume of 30-40 pages was published in copies of 10-12 and distributed among a circle of friends. The content of the first issue of the journal was purely theoretical; the second one, in addition to a selection of theoretical texts, contained eyewitness accounts of youth riots in Leningrad on July 4 of 1978.

Here it is necessary to tell in more detail about the events. 4 July 1978, the authorities have promised to hold on the Palace Square of Leningrad, in the open air, a concert of several Western rock bands. At the very last moment the concert was canceled, but the audience still managed to get together. Basically, those gathered were young fans of rock music - hippies and sympathizers. There was a spontaneous demonstration, which came out on the Nevsky, where it was dispersed by the police with the help of watering machines. This event was quite unusual for that time and caused joyful hopes among the Left Opposition participants for the closeness of the changes in the order that existed in the USSR. To establish a connection with the hippie youth, the stories of eyewitnesses of this speech were printed in “Perspective”.


Alexander Skobov (photo of our time)

The third issue was prepared as suggestive of bridges with the liberal-human rights opposition, but at the very last moment before the release of the magazine in October 1978, the group members were arrested by officers of the USSR State Security Committee Directorate for Leningrad and the Leningrad Region. Interrogations and searches have affected about 40 people - mainly representatives of the Leningrad "informal" youth. Three were arrested - a student of the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University Alexander Skobov, a student of the Physics Faculty of Leningrad State University Arkady Tsurkov and a student of the Medical Institute Alexei Havin. Two group ideologues, Alexander Skobov and Arkady Tsurkov, were charged under Article 70 of the Criminal Code of the USSR - anti-Soviet propaganda and agitation with the aim of undermining and weakening the existing system. Arkady Tsurkov was sentenced to 5 years of camps and exiled 2, Alexander Skobov was sent to a special psychiatric hospital after the trial. In the last word, Tsurkov declared that after the liberation he would continue the struggle, and to friends gathered near the court building he shouted “Long live the democratic movement!”.
However, after the arrest of the main participants of the group, the publication of the journal “Prospects” ceased and was no longer resumed. Irina Tsurkova, left at liberty, and later released from a mental hospital, Skobov joined the democratic Free Interprofessional Workers' Association (SMOT).
Almost at the same time with the Left Opposition, another anarcho-communist group, the Union of Revolutionary Communards, operated in Leningrad. Its participants, worker Vladimir Mikhailov, artist Alexei Stasevich and student Alevtina Kochneva, held close views to the “Left Opposition” and defined the Soviet system as state capitalism. The group considered themselves like-minded "new left" students who spoke in Paris in May 1968.
Like the Left Opposition, the Union of Revolutionary Communards organized a commune in a rented apartment. The daily activity of the group was to write on the walls of houses and Soviet institutions slogans “Down with state capitalism!” And “Democracy is not demagogy!” And distribution of leaflets explaining that all evil in the world comes from the existence of the state, family and private property. However, the band members were arrested and convicted in December 1979 under the article "hooliganism".

In other regions of the Soviet Union, the activity of pro-anarchist youth circles was at the end of the 1970s - the beginning of the 1980s. less noticeable. It is known that in Ukraine at the end of the 1970-s there were several anarchist agitators. Nikolai Ozimov, who considered himself an anarcho-mystic, had been imprisoned for 15 years. At Dnepropetrovsk State University in 1979, a group of students attempted to create a Communist Union of Anarchists. In this case, V. Strelkovsky was arrested, about which he discovered the fact that he was a member of an underground group that operated in the same university two years earlier - in 1977 year. In Belarus, anarchism sympathized with some of the hippies who staged an unimaginable event for those times in 1972 - an anti-army pacifist demonstration in the city of Grodno, which later became one of the centers of Belarusian anarchism of countercultural orientation.

"Community" and the creation of the anarcho-syndicalist movement of the end of the 1980-ies.

Since the beginning of perestroika, the situation has changed significantly. Having embarked on the democratization of society, the Soviet authorities were interested in creating the image of reformers and fighters against the totalitarian past. As a result of liberalization, a significant part of left radical radicals and, in particular, anarchist groups that survived the beginning of the restructuring, was able to legalize under the guise of various "clubs", "societies in support of restructuring", etc. The anti-state actors of the beginning of perestroika still, of course, did not dare to speak about themselves as anarchists and acted as “supporters of socialism with a human face”. Under this brand, they were able to act almost legally, without being subjected to strong persecution by the KGB. This, of course, does not mean that the repressions against the left-wing radicals in the USSR completely stopped (they did not completely stop in post-Soviet Russia), but unlike pre-perestroika times, they became the exception rather than the rule than the rule itself. The beginning of the legalization of left-radical groups refers to 1986, but their real splash occurred a year or two later. This process took place differently in the capital’s centers and in the provinces: in Moscow and Leningrad, it was certainly easier than in the provincial cities, to which the “wind of change” reached later and the local authorities kept the “Stalin hardening” for a long time.



One of the first examples of legalization of left-radical groups in the USSR was the emergence in 1986 of the Student Discussion Club at the history department of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, under the sign of which the All-Union Revolutionary Marxist Party (VMPP), which was led by Vladimir Gulyaev, Dmitry Chegogodaev, was legalized and Andrei Isaev (in the future - the ideologue of anarcho-syndicalists). The aim of the All-Russian Union of Russian Artists was to conduct a new proletarian revolution in the Soviet Union, since the Soviet elite was accused by the leaders of the group of betraying the interests of the working class and of bourgeois degeneration. The proletarian revolution was supposed to save the Soviet Union from the inevitable restoration of capitalist relations.

However, by the time the Student Discussion Club was established on the basis of the VMPP, the ideologists of the group, primarily Isaev, had already moved to positions close to anarchism (anarcho-syndicalism). Initially, the Student Discussion Club was not openly a political organization. The main form of his activity was to hold discussions in student audiences about the advantages and disadvantages of various socialist studies. Lecturers from the club analyzed the positive and negative aspects of the considered ideological systems (most often they were Soviet socialism, the Yugoslav model, Maoism, Eurocommunism and anarcho-syndicalism) and then, together with the audience, came to the conclusion about the maximum advantage of any one socialist movement.

As the Student Discussion Club grew, the Historical and Political Club “Community” was created on its base in 1987, which was already frankly focused on the radical leftist ideology. Andrey Isaev and Alexander Shubin became recognized community ideologues. The “community” almost immediately joined the political struggle, its representatives began to regularly take part in all actions of the democratic opposition, including both seminars and conferences, as well as street rallies and demonstrations (in particular, 28 in May, 1988 “Community” together with the democratic group Civil dignity "held a demonstration in Moscow). In addition, the Community started the publication of a journal of the same name, which for some time remained the leading anarchist publication on the territory of the Soviet Union. Ideologically, “Community”, while still avoiding identifying itself with anarchists, declared itself as “communist socialists”. The political program of the Community included elements of both anarchism (first of all, the theoretical heritage of M.A. Bakunin) and modern liberalism.

In particular, together with a focus on stateless society in the form of self-governing federations of autonomous communities, Community declared its goals in the struggle for the introduction of private property and a market economy, for a multi-party political system, for the transfer of state-owned enterprises to labor collectives. , for the abolition of the death penalty and universal conscription. Under the conditions of a totalitarian system, which was still largely preserved in the USSR, such general democratic slogans put forward by the Community were designed for understanding by the broad masses of the population, tired of the state administrative system and welcoming the capitalist transformations that had begun. Thus, the ideology of “Community” was one of the variants of stateless “market socialism”, in which the influence of anarcho-syndicalist theories, Bakunism and Proudhonism was clearly noticeable. From the first months of its existence, "Community" began attempts to consolidate the disparate left-radical groups that existed in the territory of the Soviet Union. To this end, the leaders of the Community came into contact with representatives of other left-radical and left-democratic groups in order to unite them into a single organization. At the same time, certain contacts were established and with the modernist-minded part of the leaders of the Komsomol, at one time the “Community” even consulted with the Komsomol leaders on the democratization of the Komsomol. However, as early as July 1988, thanks to the efforts of the leaders of the Community, a single left-wing organization was still created - a number of groups, including Community, Forest People, Fifth of June (Ryazan), Perspective (Kuybyshev ) and “Salvation” (Leningrad), united in the Alliance of Socialist Federalists (ASF). Ideologically, the Alliance retained the “Community” orientation towards moderate anarchism, however, to talk about themselves as anarchists, the members of the ASF still avoided and called themselves “federalist socialists”. In its propaganda activities, the Alliance relied on the structures of the FSC, the remnants of which became the main organizational base of the new organization. Already in September 1988, the Federalist Socialist Alliance was renamed the Union of Independent Socialists (SNS), under which name 1989 existed until January, when the Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (UAC) was established on its basis.

If in Moscow the revival of the anarchist movement took place mainly within the framework of the Community and the political organizations that grew out of it, then in Leningrad we see a slightly different picture. In 1988, a group of students, organized by Peter Raush, Pavel Geskin, I. Grigoriev and N. Neupokoeva, were organized in the history department of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. The February typewritten journal was launched (the name was paralleled with the February 1917 revolution) based on the promotion and presentation of anarchist ideas in an accessible form. In August, 1988 of the year, at the initiative of the group that published February, the first legal organization of the anarchist orientation, the Anarchist Syndicalist Free Association (ACCA), was created practically in Leningrad. The number of members of ACCA was 15 people. In the ideological sense, the ACCA took up the position of anarcho-individualism, also taking on certain elements of the neoliberal ideology and taking a place on the right flank of the anarchist movement. With its programmatic principles, the ACCA proclaimed the introduction of private property and a market economy, anti-totalitarianism, the transfer of enterprises to the ownership of workers, the abolition of compulsory secondary education, complete freedom of opinion and political associations (multi-party system). ACCA declared its orientation towards non-violent forms of struggle, which meant propaganda and research, the organization of strikes, participation in mass protests, a campaign of civil disobedience. Violence was considered adequate only in cases of self-defense. Almost immediately, ACCA acted as a united front with other Leningrad opposition forces. The “right” positions that distinguished the early ACCA later became characteristic of St. Petersburg anarchists, so that, up to the present, St. Petersburg anarchists traditionally occupy the “right” flank of the Russian anarchist movement.

As mentioned above, in 1987-1988's. the revival of the anarchist movement on the territory of the Soviet Union took place not only in the capitals, but also in the provinces. Irkutsk has become one of the organizational and ideological centers of resurgent anarchism in Siberia and the Far East. Circles that propagated the ideas of anarchism appeared in this city before perestroika. At the beginning of the 1980's In the Irkutsk State University existed so-called. “Federation of Irkutsk Communist Anarchists”, which was inspired by university student Igor Podshivalov (pictured). Later, in 1983, Podshivalov together with Mikhail Dronov and Igor Perevalov created the New Communists group, also focused on anarchism. The “New Communists” published the almanac “The Candle”, in which, in addition to the literary works of the members of the circle, articles on the history and theory of anarchism were published. The activity of the group attracted the attention of the authorities and in 1984, Podshivalov was expelled from the fifth year of university (with the wording “for propaganda of anarchism ideas”), other members of the circle got off with less significant penalties. Nevertheless, the activity of anarchists in Irkutsk continued.

4 July 1988. Irkutsk opposition forces united into a Socialist club. The number of Sotsklub soon exceeded 80 people, and most of its activists were not so much anarchists, as the representatives of other political movements, especially the Social Democrats. As I.Podshivalov notes, practically all Irkutsk political movements of the perestroika period — Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Cadets, and Anarcho-Syndicalists — left the Socialist Club. All of them at that time were united under the name “informals” and did not make any particular differences between them. In fact, the line of the Socialist Club was determined by the anarchists who controlled the publication of the organ of the association - the Sman Candle almanac, which was distributed in 12 copies, but despite the small circulation, was very popular among the Irkutsk opposition. Despite the fact that the Social Club included representatives of various opposition movements, a unified program was developed, for which, like other documents of the Soviet anarchists of that time, was characterized by a combination of anarchism with liberalism, the principle of a stateless society with the requirements of introducing a multi-party system property and market economy.

In the interval between the second half of the 1930's. and the beginning of the 1950's. the anarchist movement in the Soviet Union did not actually exist. If the anarchist movement of the USSR at the first stage of its existence, in the middle of 1920-x - the beginning of 1930-x, was characterized by a large number and high activity, while maintaining continuity with respect to the pre-revolutionary Russian anarchist movement and close ties with the foreign anarchist community, in the period from the middle of the 1950-x to the beginning of the 1980-x. The anarchist groups of the Soviet Union were characterized by the following features:

1. Fragmentation Groups arose and acted independently of each other, most often unaware of the existence of each other.
2. Isolation from the masses, the almost complete lack of support among the working class.
3. Isolation from like-minded foreigners, due to the “iron curtain”, which made it impossible for the anarchists of the USSR to become familiar with the modern trends of left-wing radical thought that they had, with the experience of foreign left-wing radicals.
4. Paucity The groups that acted in 1950 - 1980 - s never went beyond the circles of several people united around one or two or three of the brightest leaders.
5. Lack of continuity. The groups that emerged after World War II practically did not know (and could not know, due to the closed archives) about the activities of their immediate predecessors, were deprived of the opportunity to study the literature and experience of the pre-revolutionary anarchist movement.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +6
    24 August 2015 07: 32
    Distrust of the Soviet government, dissatisfaction with the existing order in the country permeated the entire Soviet society... So it’s understandable, they debunked one cult, started to create a second cult, didn’t propose a new idea .. they didn’t catch up with them, we’ll overtake them ... it’s not clear why they began to fight religion with radical methods .. V. Shukshin has a heartbreaking story , about the demolition of the village church .. N. Khrushchev was shocked by the idea of ​​communism .. Hence the result. Thank you, Ilya is interesting ..
  2. +2
    24 August 2015 09: 11
    To whom, to whom anarchism, and to whom elves and orcs. Interesting article thanks.
  3. +2
    24 August 2015 09: 47
    If you think about it well, then the article is not about anything. I agree only in one thing that the author is looking for negative aspects of the existence of the USSR. Even in this article it is shown that in the so-called anarchist movements only 50 to 100 people participated. But the author did not indicate that 99% of the anarchists were children of party officials who had folk problems on the Baroban, so let the Polonsky author go with his article to a latrine.
    1. +4
      24 August 2015 10: 47
      Respected! First, the author is not looking for negative aspects of the existence of the USSR, but covers one of the poorly known pages of the history of our country (this is the question of what the article is about). The personal attitude of the author to the USSR (by the way, very positive) is irrelevant in this case. Secondly, if you are an expert on the history of Soviet informal movements, then I recommend that you bring at least 10 biographies of children of party officials - anarchists, this will be a good addition to the article and to the author's knowledge. Thirdly, the rudeness of the level "let him go to the latrine" does not paint you in any way, especially considering that the author did not insult you personally and in this article did not even express his personal opinion, but described the story.
  4. +1
    24 August 2015 09: 57
    Khrushchev was a Trotskyist and he fulfilled his task of restoring capitalism in the USSR perfectly.
    1. dmb
      +1
      24 August 2015 12: 39
      Oh, and I love "specialists in the history of political studies" to ask this question. You are no exception: what allows you to draw a conclusion about Khrushchev's Trotskyism, and on what grounds did you determine that his goal was the restoration of capitalism?
      1. +1
        24 August 2015 13: 30
        Quote: dmb
        which allows you to conclude Khrushchev’s Trotskyism, and on what grounds

        1. Nikitka led the anti-Stalin coup.
        2. "Exposed the cult" in front of a man who had previously eagerly danced the hopaka.
        In terms of the totality of points 1 and 2, this is already pure Trotskyism (especially considering his subsequent actions, described as "voluntarism"). "Judas" Trotsky would have applauded the "work" of the Bald Corn Man on the collapse of the USSR.
        1. dmb
          0
          24 August 2015 14: 23
          I have to upset you, your arguments are not just bad, but not at all. For a change, at least you have cited in what ways the views of Khrushchev and Trotsky are similar, and how do they differ from the views of Stalin? The second point is generally a song. In such a case, the mustache of the current leaders who, being "Chekist warriors" praised the General Secretaries, and now say various bad words about them (including Stalin), should be ranked among the Trotskyists. and they put so much effort into the restoration of capitalism that Nikita simply never dreamed of.
          1. 0
            24 August 2015 15: 07
            Quote: dmb
            what are the views of Khrushchev and Trotsky

            1. Well, suppose that, unlike Leiba, Nikitka did not set forth his views as a theoretician in the development of the Marx-Engels-Lenin theory. Here in practical activities (waving fists) a certain similarity can be traced: a campaign in Warsaw / missiles in Cuba; maximum nationalization of the economy / overcoming multistructure (up to the dispersal of artels and draconian requisitions from personal subsidiary plots); frantic struggle of both with religion. In short, every person in the case is known.
            Quote: dmb
            and now they speak about them (including about Stalin) various bad words

            2. The law of the hen house has not yet been canceled: "the beak of the neighbor, na.ri on the lower one."
            Quote: dmb
            and they have applied so much efforts to restore capitalism that Nikita simply could not even dream of it.

            Do you seriously believe that Trotskyism is the path to communism? I feel sorry for you ... The unleashing of a fratricidal war, misunderstood as a "civil" war, a "revolution" in Germany, a "liberation campaign" of the Red Army in Europe, attempts to organize a mess on the southern coast of the Caspian Sea, the notorious organization "Comintern". Trotskyism was a tool for transforming the Russian people into a herd of Goyevs to serve the "chosen people," but at first it was necessary to bleed it as much as possible, which was done. The "Holodomor" of the 30s is a pale shadow of 1921, the famine in the Volga region and the Southern Urals. I do not know about you, but I stood in long lines for bread in Khrushchev's times, being still a snotty little boy. Now in the Russian Federation, 1% of the population has incomes comparable to the incomes of the remaining 99% of the population. I heard it yesterday, half asleep on some TV channel.
            1. dmb
              +3
              24 August 2015 16: 32
              You carefully read my comment, your answer, and then draw conclusions. What I believe in and what I do not. I just ask what the similarity of the views of Khrushchev and Trotsky is, and how they differ from the views of Stalin. Judging by the fact that instead of a clear answer, backed up not by quotes from Starikov and Dugin, but by quotes from the aforementioned antagonists, you do not know the answer to my question, because you are not even familiar with their obscene statements about the ways of development of society. Therefore, out of a nice habit peculiar (do not be offended) to people who are not very literate, you immediately begin to hang labels on the interlocutor. How do you differ from the so-called "liberals" ?.
              1. +1
                25 August 2015 06: 50
                Quote: dmb
                How do you differ from the so-called "liberals" ?.

                Well, at least the lack of chicken in pursuit of an avatar.
                Quote: dmb
                what is the similarity of views of Khrushchev and Trotsky

                The similarity of both U. bastards in their practical activities! Moreover, I gave you a hint that the theorist from Trepl Kukuruznoy is like a bullet.
      2. +3
        24 August 2015 14: 16
        Personally, I agree with Stalin's definition: “Trotskyism has ceased to be a political trend in the working class, that from a political trend in the working class ..., Trotskyism has turned into a rabid and unprincipled gang of saboteurs, saboteurs, spies and murderers acting on the instructions of foreign intelligence agencies. states. "
        The leaders of Trotskyism in the USSR spoke vividly about the goals, nature and methods of their activities at the trial in 1938. (I do not consider Rykov, Bukharin, etc. "innocent victims of bloody terror" to lie to themselves under torture) Moreover, they stated their goal directly: the overthrow of the Soviet power and restoration of capitalism in the USSR.
        Briefly recall their methods: wrecking (Ryazan miracle, monetary reform in 1961, the liquidation of the Stalinist plan to transform nature, etc.), sabotage (Explosion of the Cruiser Novorossiysk), espionage (Penkovsky case).
        In support of my opinion, I would like to cite the opinion of not an ordinary man in the street, but the People's Commissar of the USSR Navy: “Khrushchev had many ideas (suggested by someone), which he undertook with enviable energy, with amazing persistence trying to bring WRONG decisions to a fatal end. was done in agriculture. The catastrophic situation in this industry especially struck me. It turns out that since 1958 there has been no improvement, but, on the contrary, decline. What about numbers, newspapers, reports, films and everything else?
        This was the case with measures for schools, for the liquidation of ministries. A lot of ill-considered things were done in foreign policy as well. "Kuznetsov N.G.
        1. dmb
          +1
          24 August 2015 14: 33
          "Have I ruined the chapel too?" And what is the connection between the "Trotskyists" Khrushchev and Penkovsky? And who did you read about the role of the former in the explosion of Novorossiysk, or did you guess yourself? And where do you see the insolvency of the monetary reform, and how, according to yours, it was necessary to act. However, after the Penkovsky case was mentioned to confirm Khrushchev's "Trotskyism", it was not necessary to ask this question.
          1. +1
            24 August 2015 16: 39
            Khrushchev accused Stalin that he commanded the front on the globe. By the way.
            And if they do not focus on the little things, then Khrushchev went down in history as the author of the greatest ideological sabotage in the history of the USSR called the Report "On the cult of the individual and its consequences" which became an ideological platform for the collapse of the USSR and the subsequent restoration of capitalism in Russia (the main goal of Trotskyism).
            I consider this sufficient evidence of Khrushchev's affiliation with Trotskyism.
            1. dmb
              0
              24 August 2015 18: 55
              That is, all your previous "arguments" about Khrushchev's Trotskyism do not testify? So why did you bring them? Even if we assume that the "saboteur" Khrushchev lied everything in his report (which is far from a fact, otherwise Korolev, Rokossovsky, Tupolev and many others would have to be included in the number of lying), then your conclusion that he wanted to restore capitalism should at least something to be justified, except that you love Stalin, but no Khrushchev. By the way, why have they dragged about the globe, this is also a fact that testifies to Nikita's desire to return the power of the bourgeoisie?
              1. 0
                24 August 2015 20: 39
                The globe is the most striking part of the report, demonstrating the "truthfulness" of this document.
                But you, I believe, deny the very fact that this report was an ideological weapon used first to defeat the Communist parties abroad, and then for ideological subversive work in the USSR, and therefore the author of this report is at least an anti-communist (Trotskyist).
                Then you can safely deny Gorbachev’s involvement in the collapse of the USSR. (There was no official court, no sentence means all lies are innocent).
                And about Stalin. Stalin won the War. The significance of this victory for the country as a whole, and for me personally, I cannot but appreciate.
          2. 0
            26 August 2015 15: 39
            Penkovsky was a channel for the transfer of classified materials to the West (to which he did not have direct access).
            I hope there is no need to prove that the West provided great support to the Trotskyists. At the same time, it is ridiculous to assume that this assistance was free, or the West bought into promises of territorial and economic concessions in the distant, distant future in 50-100 years. Therefore, what really could have been offered then by the Trotskyists in exchange for help is secret information, since the KGB was headed by Khrushchev's friend Serov, who after the Penkovsky case flew out of the authorities as "lost his vigilance"
  5. +3
    24 August 2015 10: 11
    They gathered at the apartment, wrote proclamations, which they themselves read and ... immediately received a sentence in a zone or a special psychiatric hospital. The authorities worked very well. The royal gendarmerie would learn from them.
    1. 0
      24 August 2015 20: 35
      wrote proclamations that they themselves read


      Our people....
  6. 0
    24 August 2015 20: 39
    The main principles on which the group stood were: 1) rejection of "Western" bourgeois values ​​and faith in the triumph of communism; 2) recognition of the need for a revolutionary struggle to change the existing system in the USSR; 3) disbelief in the possibility of correcting the Soviet system in an evolutionary way.


    Say why the USSR giknulsya ??
    Good question.
    Already in the 60s something was wrong in the "conservatory" ..
    There was a bourgeois rebirth, and people smelled it.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"