Бездержавники й українське селянство в 1900-х роках: до історіографії проблеми

Abstract

Аналізується огляд істориками проблеми взаємодії організацій анархістів й українського селянства. У висвітленні діяльності анархістів виділяються дві історіографічні тенденції – радянська з негативною установкою на програмові завдання та тактику бездержавників і сучасна, що спирається на адекватне розуміння поглядів анархістів. Акцентується описання істориками діяльності анархістів у сільській провінції в Чернігівській, Подільській, Катеринославській і Херсонській губерніях. Найбільша увага приділена описанню діяльності “Союзу бідних хліборобів” у Гуляй-Полі.

Анализируется обзор историками проблемы взаимодействия организаций анархистов и украинского крестьянства. В освещении деятельности анархистов выделяются две тенденции – советская с ее негативной установкой на программные задачи и тактику антигосударственников и современная, основывающаяся на адекватном понимании взглядов анархистов. Акцентируется описание историками деятельности анархистов в сельской провинции на территории Черниговской, Подольской, Екатеринославской и Херсонской губерний. Наибольшее внимание уделено описанию деятельности “Союза бедных хлеборобов” в Гуляй-Поле.

The article is focused on the survey of the interaction between anarchist organizations and Ukrainian peasantry performed by Soviet, Ukrainian and Russian historians. In this respect, two historiographic tendencies are distinguished: Soviet, with adverse orientation on program targets and tactics of anti-statists (the quotes of V.Lenin and J.Stalin are cited as an examples which soviet authors were looked about) and contemporary, which is based on reasonable understanding of anarchists’ views on reaching communist society via revolutionary way, annihilation of state and its institutions, securing of human freedom and affordability of material and cultural wealth (short visions of the future society arrangement made by famous anarchist theorists, such as M. Bakunin and P. Kropotkin, are provided). The emphasis is made on the description by historians of anarchists’ activity in Chernigov, Podolia, Poltava, Ekaterinoslav and Kherson Governorates. Particularly, actual instances of the agitation beginning amongst peasants by the members of Nizhyn group of anti-statists, creation by them of a range of federations for involvement of rural dwellers, organization in the countryside of meetings and assaults on representatives of czarist administration, landlords and capitalists are revealed. Major attention is paid to the description of the “Poor Peasants Union” activity in Huliaipole in 1906-1908, which future leader of The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine Nestor Makhno had art and part in. The author proves that this particular chapter of anarchists’ history is the most high-lighted in historical literature out of the whole complex of data concerning the anti-statists’ performance in rural area. It is noted that contemporary Ukrainian historians (V. Volkovynskyi, O. Lebedenko, V. Savchenko) have found out the attributes of “peasant anarchism”: the tactics of anarchists in the countryside differed from the activity of the rest Left by more clear and specific support of peasant destructive actions, the border between “fundraising” or “anarchic” motives usually wasn’t traced, the groups went in for expropriations, which to some extent lapped over their revolutionary content (however, peasant anarchists themselves denied “wanton” character of the terror, low level of theoretical training was peculiar to peasant group members,while handson experience was prevailing: the ability to shoot, fight, disguise, observe conspiracy, etc. The historians underline particular national colour of Ukrainian “peasant anarchism”. According to V. Volkovynskyi and O. Lebedenko, the expansion of anti-statist ideas was favoured by “anarchic mentality” of Ukrainian peasantry (immanent orientation of Ukrainian farmers toward liberty, which had not been knocked out of their conscious during serfdom period), freedomloving traditions living in peasantry from Zaporozhian Sich times, as well as anti-statist egalitarian ideas of former affluent religious group of Dukhobors.