Woman in history. A woman's perspective on historical and simple events. Everything that might be interesting to the female half of humanity.

4 messages. Page 1 from 1

CASE No. 18
ACT OF INVESTIGATION ON THE SOCIALIZATION OF GIRLS AND WOMEN IN THE MOUNTAIN. EKATERINODAR UNDER THE MANDATES OF THE SOVIET AUTHORITY

In the city of Ekaterinodar, in the spring of 1918, the Bolsheviks issued a decree, published in the Izvestia of the Council and posted on poles, according to which girls aged 16 to 25 were subject to “socialization,” and those wishing to take advantage of this decree had to apply to the appropriate revolutionary institutions. The initiator of this “socialization” was the Jewish Commissioner for Internal Affairs, Bronstein. He also issued “mandates” for this “socialization”. The same mandates were issued by the subordinate head of the Bolshevik cavalry detachment Kobzyrev, the commander-in-chief Ivashchev, as well as other Soviet authorities, and the mandates were stamped by the headquarters of the “revolutionary troops of the North Caucasus Soviet Republic.” Mandates were issued both in the name of the Red Army soldiers and in the name of Soviet commanders - for example, in the name of Karaseev, the commandant of the palace in which Bronstein lived: according to this model, the right to “socialize” 10 girls was granted.

Mandate template:

MANDATE(*)

The bearer of this, Comrade Karaseev, is given the right to socialize in the city of Yekaterinodar 10 souls of girls aged from 16 to 20 years, whom Comrade Karaseev points out.

Commander-in-Chief Ivashchev [signature]

Place of printing [seal]

(*) A photograph of this mandate, signed by Ivashchev, is attached to the documents as material evidence.

On the basis of such mandates, the Red Army captured more than 60 girls - young and beautiful, mainly from the bourgeoisie and local students educational institutions. Some of them were captured during a raid organized by Red Army soldiers in the city garden, and four of them were raped there, in one of the houses. Others were taken, about 25 souls, to the palace of the army chieftain to Bronstein, and the rest to the “Old Commercial” hotel to Kobzyrev and to the “Bristol” hotel to the sailors, where they were raped. Some of those arrested were then released, for example, a girl raped by the head of the Bolshevik criminal investigation police, Prokofiev, was released, while others were taken away by the departing detachments of Red Army soldiers, and their fate remained unclear. Finally, some, after various kinds of cruel torture, were killed and thrown into the Kuban and Karasun rivers. For example, a 5th grade student in one of the Ekaterinodar gymnasiums was raped for twelve days by an entire group of Red Army soldiers, then the Bolsheviks tied her to a tree and burned her with fire, and finally shot her.

This material was obtained by a Special Commission in compliance with the requirements of the Charter of Criminal Procedure.

but most likely
this is another Jewish manifestation under the guise of revolution
initiative and attempt to DESTROY THE TRADITIONAL WAY OF LIFE
RUSSIAN PEOPLE.

gender issue Komsomol socialization of women 20s local excesses

tonik Messages: 17 Registered: 10 Feb

History of Kyiv brothels

90 years ago, Alexander Kuprin’s story “The Pit”, dedicated to the hot spots of Kyiv, was published, causing a lot of noise. The writer was well versed in the nightlife of the city at the end of the century before last. But when I wrote my “Pit,” where I touched upon the topic of its prehistory, for some reason I did not find time to leaf through the old city newspapers. It was based only on oral tradition, someone’s fragmentary memories. The reality, as often happens, was both sadder and more curious than the writer’s imagination...

The heyday of Yama began with a loud Kyiv scandal

Once upon a time, near Yamskaya Street in Kiev (it still exists, leading from the Baikovo cemetery to the central bus station) there was a settlement of state-owned and free coachmen who were engaged in carting - the so-called Yamskaya Sloboda or Yamki. Even during Kuprin’s time, they “remained a dark glory as a place that was cheerful, drunk, pugnacious and unsafe at night.” How and when did this “cheerful settlement” turn into an area of ​​​​official brothels, oral tradition was silent. And therefore the writer assumed that this happened spontaneously, as if by itself.

The heyday of Yama began with a loud Kyiv scandal. The Kiev civil governor Gudyma-Levkovich often visited one of the brothels on Esplanadnaya Street, almost in the city center. On a May evening in 1885, he visited his favorite “institution” and, to the horror of his “young ladies,” he suddenly died in the arms of one of the skilled craftswomen in her field. The most unfavorable rumors for the provincial authorities immediately spread throughout the city. The shocked press remained silent. The frightened provincial administration also did a great stupidity: in order to maintain the appearance of decency, it ordered the pupils of the aristocratic women's boarding school of Countess Levashova to attend the funeral of their fornicating patron.

The agitation of minds in the city intensified. Enraged by the confluence of these absurd and surprisingly ugly circumstances, the hot-tempered Governor-General of Kyiv, Drenteln, ordered the immediate extermination of all nests of debauchery, and their inhabitants sent to the outskirts. But no one knew where to move the brothel houses. Then all prostitution concentrated on the steamy side of Khreshchatyk, from the corner of Proriznaya to Dumskaya Square. A decent woman could only go there with her husband, but if a young lady walked alone, it meant that she was a prostitute. And then the residents of Yamskaya Street came to the rescue of the authorities, who decided that nothing terrible would happen if the brothels returned to their original place and brought with them considerable profits to the owners of the estates rented for them. This is how the famous letter from the inhabitants of Yama appeared, where - for the first time in the history of Kyiv - the residents themselves asked to place city brothels on their street!

In an ironic retelling of the editorial board of Kievlyanin, the letter looked like this: “The other day, the acting governor received a petition from the residents of Yamskaya Street in the Lybidsky district with approximately the following content: “Since you will be at a loss as to where to move the brothel houses from Esplanadnaya Street, and According to the law, they must be on the outskirts of the city, therefore we, residents of Yamskaya Street, declare that our street is quite suitable for brothels. Move them to us, and our well-being will improve, because apartments for such houses are more expensive. We now have no income, and we pay taxes and city needs on an equal basis with residents of the central part of Kyiv."

There was a lot to laugh about here. But many residents of Yamskaya, indeed, enriched themselves at the expense of prostitutes. And the street itself has changed over time, become prettier, and built up beautiful houses. She had such a well-groomed, elegant appearance, as if an eternal holiday reigned here. This new center of Kyiv nightlife every evening (with the exception of three last days Holy Week and the eve of the Annunciation) thousands of men flocked from all over the city! And four hundred prostitutes, inhabiting more than 30 houses, greeted them with wine and music as “guests,” creating the illusion of fun and noisy enjoyment of life.

Alexander Kuprin, who saw Yama in its heyday, wrote about it like this: “It’s like a holiday on the street - Easter: all the windows are brightly lit, the cheerful music of violins and pianos comes through the glass, cab drivers are constantly driving up and leaving. In all the houses the doors are wide open, and through They are visible from the street: a steep staircase and a narrow corridor at the top, and the white sparkle of the multifaceted reflector of the lamp, and the green walls of the entryway, painted with Swiss landscapes..."

Yama's brothels were divided into three categories: expensive - "three-ruble", average - "two-ruble" and the cheapest - "ruble". The differences between them were great. If in expensive houses there was gilded white furniture, mirrors in exquisite frames, there were cabinets with carpets and sofas, then in the “ruble” establishments it was dirty and meager, and the knocked-down haystacks on the beds were somehow covered with torn sheets and holey blankets.

Girls were molested by the hundreds

Paid debauchery became a symbol of bourgeois relations new to Kyiv, which aroused the indignation of a handful of Kiev residents. Nikolai Leskov, old liberals and young democrats, especially socialists, were indignant. But the bulk of the townspeople clearly enjoyed Yama's services.

Hundreds of girls were molested every year, and the hunt for them became widespread. Usually the “young ladies” could “serve” in the brothel without falling ill with a “bad disease” for two or three years, no more. Replenishment came mainly from the villages, from among girls and young women who were looking for work in the city.

Finding themselves in a difficult situation or finding themselves on the street without acquaintances, connections and means of livelihood, young peasant women easily accepted dubious offers from shady businessmen who promised them " good places" And big earnings. However, not only naive “village women”, but also educated city dwellers were caught in the network of these luden-catchers. The main technique of girl hunters was to tear the victim out of her environment, transfer her to an unfamiliar environment and, putting her in a hopeless situation, force her to a shameful profession.

This simple plan worked almost flawlessly. “Kievlyanin” reported on such a case: “A certain Mrs. Marya Al-na, who had long ago opened a den of secret debauchery, went the other day to Odessa, where she invited a young girl K. as her guest. Not knowing the plans of this lady, K. arrived in Kiev, but did not find the promised place in her mistress’s house, and in exchange for the title of bonna, she was offered to “get a living.” K. was kept locked up for several days, not giving her the opportunity to declare her position, and only by chance the police managed to solve this case ".

Wholesale trade specialists appeared in the city female body, engaged in the recruitment of prostitutes and their resale from one brothel to another. Larger businessmen served dozens of cities simultaneously. In the 1880s, Kyiv became a transshipment point for the trade of live goods transported from Galicia to Poland, to the harems and brothels of Turkey. “The leader of the organization,” the Rada newspaper wrote in 1909, “is considered to be one Kiev homeowner, who, before settling in Kiev, ran a brothel in one big city. Having thus collected a lot of money, he bought a house in Kiev and again began a profitable business, supplying girls to all sorts of dubious establishments... The organization also consists of many such subjects who live not only in Kiev, but also in other cities, not excluding Constantinople.”

So Kiev legal debauchery became the soil on which the first mafia structures of Kyiv grew up... But Yamskaya’s “establishments” were never persecuted by the authorities. Although those who have read Kuprin still believe that Yama disappeared after the local administration “one fine day took and destroyed to the ground an ancient, hatched, and created nest of legalized prostitution, scattering its remains throughout the hospitals and prisons of the old city.” “Now,” the writer writes, “instead of the violent Yamki there remains a peaceful, everyday outskirts, in which live gardeners, rope workers, Tatars, pig breeders and butchers from the nearest slaughterhouses.”

Kuprin... invented Yama's "quick and scandalous death" without finding another spectacular ending for his story. In fact, no one “ruined” her, and she herself did not “disappear” anywhere. Unable to withstand competition with other brothels that appeared in large numbers throughout Kiev after the revolution of 1905-1907, Yama simply degenerated into a street of seedy, trashy “establishments” designed for the most undemanding public. On the eve of the First World War, Alexander Vertinsky visited one of the brothels there. And what he saw there really did not resemble Kuprin’s descriptions.

Expensive coquettes came to Kyiv “on tour” from Paris and Vienna

“One day,” writes Vertinsky, “Georges Zenchenko (the head of the extras of the Solovtsov Theater) took me to Yamskaya Street, where the brothels were located... The hostess, old, red-haired, doughy, with a huge belly, with deep furrows on her face, opened the door for us. , plastered to the point that powder was falling off her face.

A pianist sat at the piano, a blind old man with a frantic face and dead knuckles, crooked with gout, playing some kind of “macabre.” And the girls were sitting on the sofa around him. They had motionless masked faces, as if everything in the world had ceased to interest them. They spread around the acrid smell of strawberry soap and cheap Swan's Down powder.

The hostess, apparently, favored Georges, because she began to fuss, lisp and flirt... I shuddered with disgust. Meanwhile, the taper started playing the criminal song “Klavishi” and screamed in a wild voice:

Well, then sing, keyboards, sing! And you, sounds, fly faster! And you open a page to God for this damned life of mine!

I didn't like it at all. I was trembling all over with disgust and pity for these people. I began to beg Georges:

Let's get out of here! For God's sake! I feel sick!

The hostess frowned angrily. Apparently she was afraid that I would take the guest away.

Eh, Mr. Schoolboy,” she said reproachfully, “shame on you!” You are not a man! You are some kind of... snot on the fence!

Georges burst out laughing. And I went out into the street in confusion and trudged home."

At the beginning of the last century, the Kyiv authorities had already lost control over prostitution and it spread throughout the city. Expensive cocottes from St. Petersburg, Moscow, Warsaw and even Paris and Vienna began to come to Kyiv for “tours”. At one time it became fashionable to visit secret establishments with half-silk prostitutes. They were located in the center under the sign of a dentist or a fashionable workshop. The “guests” were received here by high school students, college students, and girls from good homes.

“At every crossroads,” a contemporary recalled, ““violet establishments” opened every day, in each of which, under the guise of selling kvass, two or three old girls sold themselves right next to each other, behind a partition of shalevkas.”

To create the appearance of order, the police raided prostitutes operating on Khreshchatyk, Fundukleevskaya, Proriznaya and other central streets. But such measures could not stop the spread of prostitution throughout Kyiv. It seemed that the city itself was gradually turning into a huge brothel. It got to the point that entire neighborhoods were set aside for the shameful trade. “On the side where the even numbers are,” the memoirist recalled, “from the corner of Proriznaya to Dumskaya Square, a decent woman could only walk with a man, but if she walked alone, it means she was a prostitute. This law especially began to apply after the revolution of 1905.”

Under these conditions, Yamskaya Street lost its former significance as a legalized and clearly defined by the authorities center of urban debauchery. And, in the end, the Yamsky homeowners themselves, who had become rich from a dubious trade, demanded... that the remaining dirty dens here be closed, and that the disgraced street itself be renamed! It was proposed to name it after the poet Vasily Zhukovsky, who once came with the heir to the throne to Kyiv.

The City Duma easily agreed to rename the street. But she did not want to sully the poet’s bright name. And, remembering the shameful behavior of the Yamsk residents in 1885, she bestowed on their street the name Batu, hated by every Kievite. For some time it was called Batyevskaya Street...

100 years ago Kyiv was the capital of prostitution

The last decade of the 19th century in Kyiv was a period of construction fever. A huge amount of male labor arrived in the city, and hundreds of girls from Odessa, St. Petersburg, Moscow, Vienna and even Paris followed them to satisfy men of all ages and social status. Kuprin in his famous work“Yama” described this period as follows: “And this whole noisy alien gang, intoxicated by the sensual beauty of the ancient city - these hundreds of thousands of wild animals in the form of men shouted with all their mass will: “Woman!” At every crossroads “violet establishments” opened daily "-small wooden booths, in each of which, under the guise of selling kvass, two or three old girls were selling themselves right next to each other, behind a partition."

That time was quite loyal to young ladies who made a living by selling their bodies. Prostitution was declared “tolerant” (hence the name of brothels - “houses of tolerance”), i.e. permitted in strictly regulated forms. Corrupt girls had to live in special institutions, set up in the German style, and be called “young ladies.” The girls were under the supervision of "mothers" - the owners of the brothels and received their "guests" in the common room, where they entered as if into a cafe. It was strictly forbidden to openly invite passers-by into brothels, which is why red lanterns were hung over such establishments. The young ladies gave the money they received from clients to the housewives in exchange for stamps. At the end of each month, the marks were again exchanged for banknotes, and the “mom” kept the main part of the income for maintenance (room in the boarding house, food, servants, “working clothes”, etc.), paying out only pitiful crumbs - the prostitutes lived in eternal debts. That is why many outwardly attractive moths preferred to work independently rather than fall into bondage to insatiable banders.
There are legends to this day about the Podolsk "mama" nicknamed Kambala, a former prostitute known for her unbridled character and brutal attitude towards the girls who worked for her. For an hour of relaxation in a brothel, clients of that time paid 1-5 rubles, depending on the beauty of the “young lady”. In brothels with a “good reputation” on Khreshchatyk (luxurious interior, specially trained girls, claims to sanitation) the client was charged from 10 to 25 rubles per night. There was another good reason why the ladies of the demimonde tried in every possible way to veil their profession: the passports of “official” prostitutes registered with the police were taken away and yellow tickets were issued in return. Corrupt girls disguised themselves in different ways. For example, the meeting houses of the so-called “half-silk” prostitutes were covered with signs of doctors, notaries, midwives, various workshops and shops, so they received clients during the day, during working hours. However, just like the workers of the “minerashki”, those very booths about which Kuprin wrote so impartially. In a store with a sign "Artificial mineral water"on Yamskaya, behind the partition separating the brothel from the tavern, on dirty beds, former farm laborers were given to soldiers, sailors, high school students and cadets for only 50 kopecks. The "ladies from the buffet" - prostitutes who ply their trade in cafes - earned a little more for one "session" with the assistance (not free of charge, of course) of the bartenders. The beginning of the acquaintance with the reveler was usually standard: “Treat me a beer - I’m so thirsty!” she herself and the barman are left with no loss.
The “creamy” layer of Kyiv prostitutes of the late 19th - early 20th centuries is “ladies with girls.” These are prostitutes masquerading as decent women, using a pretty girl disguised as a daughter as a cover. Of course, the child was “rented” for walks in crowded places, visiting cafes, etc. The military stratagem worked one hundred percent: there were much more people who wanted to have an affair with a beautiful married lady than to pay for the caresses of an obsessive prostitute. In the evening, the lady with the girl retrained as an interesting, mysterious widow who grieves for her deceased husband. This image is familiar to everyone: “Always without companions, alone, breathing perfume and mists, she sits by the window. And a hat with mourning feathers, and a narrow hand in rings.” Gloomy crepe, a thick veil lowered over her face, give her a stern, unapproachable look that attracts seekers thrills. And in the morning, the “widow” in embroidered silk pantaloons, stretching sweetly, took several ten-ruble banknotes from the dressing table and forgot forever the name of yesterday’s admirer. In the evening, she was seen again in another park or an expensive restaurant with a respectable admirer in a three-piece suit, to whom she was telling a new “sorrowful” story. Of course, these were extraordinary, to some extent talented ladies.
Governor-General Dmitry Bibikov himself was known as a ladies' man. Bibikov's mistress turned out to be the luckiest cocotte in Kyiv, who in a year from a modest dowry turned into a countess with countless possessions. Having married Count Pototsky, not without the patronage of the Governor-General, and having received the money due to her according to the marriage contract, she, through her all-powerful lover, takes the landowner to Siberia. She herself settles on the aristocratic Lipskaya, leading the usual lifestyle of a lady of the demimonde. Her trotters and carriages, velvet and lace, diamonds and emeralds, combined with extraordinary beauty and youth, turned everyone’s heads. Of course, for the no longer young Bibikov, the doors of her luxurious house were open at any time of the day.

DOCUMENTARY
From a letter from the district manager to the director of the 5th Kiev men's gymnasium: “I have the honor to inform Your Excellency that on July 6 I received the following message about the behavior of students on the streets and in parks of Kiev: “You should see what your gymnasium students are doing with you right under your nose in Nikolaevsky Park with prostitutes at 8-10 pm. Such vile outrages, cynicism and vulgarity have never been observed before. However, your high school students even walk the streets arm in arm.”

BY THE WAY
In rich Kyiv brothels, in addition to the hostess, there were also a housekeeper, a cook, a janitor, a doorman, maids and pianists. Gypsies and professional singers and dancers willingly performed there; The “young ladies” were dressed in luxurious dresses, and clients were served in French silk lingerie. Small talk was a mandatory "addition" to true goal man's visit. The girls underwent a mandatory medical examination once a month.

In the 20-30s of the last century there were no brothels as such, but girls operated on the panels. At that time, on the right sides of Khreshchatyk and Shevchenko Boulevard, prostitutes stood in huge numbers. The identification mark is brightly painted lips for greater obviousness - a red ribbon on the ankle of the left leg.

During the German occupation of Kyiv, prostitution gained a second wind. Anatoly Kuznetsov in the novel “Babi Yar” wrote: “This is real b...ldom they have in the Palace of Pioneers - Deutsches House, a first-class brothel. On Saksaganskogo, 72, it’s also a huge mess. And German soldiers walked along the sidewalks of Podol , hugging local prostitutes." Source

Conventional name of the myth:

The communists strove for the community of wives.

Detailed description:

It comes in two varieties:

Claims that Marx called for the socialization of women in the Communist Manifesto;

Claims that the Bolsheviks in 1918 tried to introduce a community of women.

Examples of using:

Reality:

From the very beginning of its creation, the socialist (and communist as part of it) movement actively collaborates with feminism (hereinafter, by feminism I mean real feminism, and not its extreme forms, which are better called man-hating), and accepts a number of its slogans. At that stage, socialist and feminist movements are often so intertwined that it is impossible to separate one from the other. Socialism sets itself the goal of human liberation. And the situation of women at that time was simply terrible.

It is difficult for a modern person to imagine the extent of the degraded position of women in Europe. The roots of this attitude go back to the dawn of the Middle Ages. It is not my task to describe what has now been studied in the mass of works on gender topics. I will dwell only on the most general points.

The irony of history is that in societies considered backward in the 19th century, the position of women was many times better than in “civilized” England. A striking comparison with Russian Empire Blavatsky spent that time in 1890 with her characteristic energy and sarcasm. But this is for the end of the century. During the mid-19th century, the situation in “civilized” countries was even worse. Even in comparison with Islamic countries, Europe in the 19th century loses. According to Islam, a woman could freely inherit and dispose of property without any guardians. Whereas in Europe, with rare exceptions, a woman until the 1890s was viewed as a “foolish child” whose property was completely controlled by a man. Even regarding the attitude towards women of the upper classes, who earn their living from literature, English judges made decisions that look in the eyes of a modern person as pure mockery - “the mental abilities of a wife belong to her husband.” And that's it - she must give everything to her husband to the last penny. What can we say about the lower classes...

Women had no right to anything. Even for your own children. Which is understandable - in conditions where it was believed that she herself required guardianship, the issue of custody of the child was automatically decided not in her favor.

The situation with education is also sad. They were most tolerant in Switzerland, and even there it was only in 1842 that the first two girls managed to enroll as students at the University of Zurich. Gradually, this practice begins to cover Europe. Women are admitted to universities. Although with a number of restrictions - at the discretion of the professor, in a number of countries the permission of the parents/husband/guardian is required. But all this, firstly, is still isolated, not en masse, and secondly, it does not affect the lower and middle strata of the population.

Thus, women were forced out of any spheres of the social life of society. Their role de facto was reduced to “constituting a non-property service stratum of society assigned to domestic work, including work in the garden and vegetable garden.”

This situation could not suit socialists, including Marxists. Immediately after the movement was formalized, they made a strong protest. And immediately we came across complete misunderstanding, mixed with lies. Echoes of this lie are still found today, sometimes in the most unexpected places. For example, in an article about energy - “the desire of the most rabid revolutionaries of a century ago to socialize women”

Of course, Marx had a very heavy style. But not so much that you don’t understand him. Unless only a very sexually preoccupied person can give the term socialization, which means giving a woman an independent social status, a sexual connotation. It is precisely these people that Marx, in his Manifesto, openly and directly mocks. “The bourgeois looks at his wife as a simple instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are supposed to be made available for common use, and, of course, he cannot rid himself of the thought that women will suffer the same fate.”

In fact, for Marxists, the very situation when a woman in society does not survive on her own was intolerable. And she has only one path left - marriage, albeit with someone she doesn’t love. Marxists did not call this situation anything other than “legalized prostitution.” Sharp? Hard? May be. However, there is a lot of truth in this phrase. But what did they offer in return? Marxists preferred not to resolve this issue and leave it at the complete disposal of future generations.

Engels fully formulated this thesis “Thus, what we can now assume about the forms of relations between the sexes after the impending destruction of capitalist production is predominantly negative in nature, limited in most cases to what will be eliminated. But what will replace it? This will be determined when a new generation grows up: a generation of men who will never have to buy a woman for money or other social means of power in their lives, and a generation of women who will never have to give themselves to a man for any other motive than true love, nor refuse intimacy with the man she loves for fear of the economic consequences. When these people appear, they will throw all the hell out of what, according to current ideas, they are supposed to do; they will know for themselves how to act, and they themselves will work out their own accordingly. public opinion about the actions of each individual, period.”

Despite the revision of a number of Marx's theses, the Bolsheviks did not retreat even for a moment. But then what are the stories that roam from book to book about the introduction of free love by decrees, the nationalization of women into civil society? History is attributed either to the Bolsheviks or to the anarchists (while not forgetting to shift the blame anyway to the Bolsheviks). As A.Velidov convincingly shows, these stories are based on the “Decree on the abolition of private ownership of women” printed in Samara by a certain M.Uvarov. This “decree” was a fake. “What was Uvarov’s goal in writing his “decree”? Did he want to ridicule the nihilism of the anarchists in matters of family and marriage, or did he consciously try to incite large sections of the population against them? Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to find out.” Angry anarchists destroyed the teahouse where the lampooner was the owner, killed him, and issued proclamations explaining that they had nothing to do with such things. Late. Lampoon went for a walk around the country. It was reprinted by dozens, if not hundreds of newspapers. And in vain the Bolsheviks refuted and washed themselves away.

Of course, a pamphlet-pamphlet, but the question remains, did anything like this ever happen? Could it be? Yes, it could. This kind of thing exists on one scale or another in almost any war. And even more so in civilians, characterized by extreme disintegration of moral standards and bitterness. Therefore, the Bolsheviks reacted nervously to every rumor about this. It was not for nothing that Lenin sent out instructions: “Immediately check the strictest, if confirmed, arrest the perpetrators, the scoundrels must be punished severely and quickly and the entire population must be notified. Telegraph execution".

Based on this, we can quite clearly say that during civil war, of course there was violence and coercion. But there is no way to say that the authorities of the opposing sides have anything to do with this. Rather, we can talk about the “macho complex” that played out in such an environment. The same complex left its mark on the first post-war period. “In an environment of social chaos, gender and age status became virtually the only “objectively” distinguishable one, and gender guidelines acquired special significance in an amorphous social space. They, more spontaneously than purposefully, influenced the ideology and behavioral codes of people in power and had a formative impact on the survival strategies of the population.”

- Rakovsky Andrey Valerievich 2008/05/29 12:47

“And they get a quarter of what you left, if you don’t have a child. And if you have a child, then they are one-eighth of what you left after the bequest ... or debt ”/ Koran, sura “Women”

Start.
See continuation here:
Everyone can make a mistake. It's not the right thing to judge. Therefore, I have no big complaints about the following errors of the scoops - they are from the category of the one in the dispute that brings it closer to the truth, because introduces additional information into the dispute and allows you to evaluate even what logical errors may lie in wait for the researcher when studying the material. There will be a complaint when they persist in making mistakes without reason.

Some anonymous “I.G. Azarov” is fussing about this in my comments, who is trying to discredit Krayukhin with “information from the FSB”. The same FSB, which has a grudge against Krayukhin for publishing this Decree, and which obviously did not give anything written to this anonymous person - they would not officially report on what the other person did and how, because. This violates privacy laws. And if they did, they would have problems themselves:

Falsifiers of history
(Anonymously)
2010-09-18 04:14 am UTC (link)
2010-09-18 04:22 am UTC ()
2010-09-18 04:23 am UTC (link)
The decree abolishing private ownership of women is, I agree, absolutely a fake. It appeared in the late 60s, in a stylized form. My request to the FSB received an answer that there had never been such a document in its archives. In the Oryol region, as it turned out, there is a certain pseudo-human rights activist - Dmitry Aleksandrovich Krayukhin with a shift to the sexual sphere (he even posts his vulgar interviews about vaginas online), so he tried to pass himself off as the discoverer of this document. Referring to the fact that he worked in the archives on rehabilitation cases. This is a lie, except for viewing the Oryol press of the first half of the 20th century, he was not allowed to do anything. So the fake has a long history. and many tried to call themselves its discoverer.
Azarov I.G.

Are you spreading rumors and slander or can you prove it?
man_with_dogs
2010-09-18 04:49 am UTC (link)
Was the request and response written or oral?
When did you make this request and when did you receive the answer?
Address you contacted?
If there are any documents left for this request, could you scan them and post them online?

While there is no paper with a signature and seal available, the FSB is not the source of what you said - but you yourself. And if you were told something orally, then it is nothing more than a rumor that the FSB agents spread, because... had complaints against Krayukhin and were offended by his dissemination of this document. At the same time, they will not confirm ANYTHING of what was said orally. And you personally will remain a distributor of slander against Krayukhin.

"Azarov I.G." didn't answer anything.

3) Further in Velidov’s article (item 1) a deft transfer of the thimble is made. At first, Velidov, relying only on a newspaper article, asserted something about the reliability of his assumption about the authorship of the Saratov decree. And now - it is generalized to the whole country in a single case (I did not check the links, maybe even this case does not exist). Velidov writes about how the commander of the village of Medyany, Chimbelev volost, Kurmyshevsky district, Simbirsk province allegedly perceived the pamphlet as a guide to action. And allegedly there was a check that did not confirm either the presence of the complainants or the reasons for the complaint.

Question: has the reality of this incident near Simbirsk been proven - with verification?
Answer: NO.
Has it been proven that there was nothing like this with decrees and the socialization of women in the country?
Also no.

3.1) The Soviets make claims against the act of the White investigative commission, but for some reason they unconditionally trust the Red investigation. This is despite the fact that it is not even a fact that there was an investigation, and there was no dismissal from the place or a Bolshevik campaign of disinformation and whitewashing of themselves at the top. And if with the Denikin Investigative Commission it is clear what it was - the archive remains, then what kind of investigation it was near Simbirsk and whether it happened at all - no one knows.

3.2) Even if there is reliable information about Simbirsk, for the rest of the country and all other cases this does not change anything. In the same Yekaterinodar, where the Denikin investigation took place, there remained documentary and testimonial evidence of the socialization of women by the Bolsheviks IN ACTION, and not on paper.

Addition.
By the way, I dug possible reason such concern of a certain Velidov with this decree in 1990. Just this year, Felshtinsky published documents they had dug up in the magazine Rodina. This was discovered when clarifying the circumstances of the publication there and at the same time of photos of Soviet cannibals:
You can read about this decree with reference to the Motherland from Platonov:
http://lib.ru/PLATONOWO/russ2.txt
Oleg Platonov.
Series "Russia's Crown of Thorns"
Book four. History of the Russian people in the 20th century.
Volume 1 (Ch. 39-81)
page 631
link to quote from Women's Society Case:
*1 Motherland. 1990. N 10.S. 42-43.

How did a hitherto closed topic in the Soviet Union suddenly find a refutation?

4) And this argument of the Soviets is quite weak - they did not like the fact that the stamp on the mandate is not spring, but summer:

a_rakovskij
2010-09-22 08:38 am UTC (link)
While I’m arguing with you here, a serious discussion is going on elsewhere. And here it’s fresh, in the blazing heat, just about these documents (coincidentally)

"If you want to expand the article at the expense of the Bulletin of the Denikin Commission, then in addition to" Commander-in-Chief Ivashchev ", there is also a gross chronological contradiction. In the spring of 1918, there could not be a seal of the headquarters of the" revolutionary troops of the North Caucasian Soviet Republic ". The North Caucasian Soviet Republic was created on July 7 1918 (Revolution and Civil War in Russia. 1917-1923: Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. - M .: Terra, 2008. - P. 62) In the spring there were only the Kuban Soviet Republic and the Kuban-Black Sea Soviet Republic. However, Commander-in-Chief Ivashchev was not there either in the spring or in the summer."

Do you continue to believe in the “documents” of the USC VSYUR? Arguments? I'm waiting...

Re-read carefully what is written in the Act of the Investigative Commission, and find a place there where it would be said that the mandate was stamped with the SPRING seal? About spring they talk about maternity leave. And the mandate of the season is not mentioned. And is it surprising that investigators found FRESH mandates, with the seal of the Northern Caucasus SR, and not OLD ones with the seal of the Kuban SR or the Kuban-Black Sea SR? But then the Soviets will come up with a reason to find fault out of the blue - they will invent something that is not written in the document and begin to “refute” their own fabrications. Well done. Successfully refuted. And by the way, they showed what and how something wrong can happen if you uncritically approach the sources and your own assumptions about it.

So the question is: Has it been proven that the seal of the “revolutionary troops of the North Caucasus Soviet Republic” proves the falsity of the mandate?
Answer: NO.

5) Another complaint is that the documents in the archives of the Investigative Commission are unverified and contain deliberate lies, they say, this is an “interested party.” I believe that the Soviets transfer Soviet concepts and customs to Denikin’s INVESTIGATORS - i.e. those behind whom stood the support of the tradition of imperial detection and investigation. If we put aside the unfounded claims (1-4), then I don’t know what they want to present as proof of this assertion. If there were such frauds in the history of the Soviet Union (for example - Katyn - when the examination of the Burdenko Commission wrote what the commies needed, and not what actually happened), then give an example of an investigation being falsified by imperial investigators?

Examples of complaints:

Re: I haven’t read it - but I condemn it (Soviet fools 4)
a_rakovskij
2010-09-22 07:28 am UTC (link)
I didn’t judge the account, I don’t read it - be calm. I also read Felshinsky’s basic materials, all the mentions of possible similar cases in Hesse’s “archive of the Russian revolution” and much more. Unlike you, I am not attached to a single source.

I will tell you a terrible secret of historians. Any evidence requires verification. If there are no documents, then cross-check. But the archive of "OSC WSUR" is not a document. This is a collection of recorded, unverified real evidence, and at times, rumors. In some ways, a historian is akin to an investigator. “Based on such and such testimony, it has been established...”, on the basis of others..., third... The testimony is compared and analyzed. And only after such an analysis do they get into the section of facts with which they can operate. Then and only then. This analysis is not included in these papers. There is a number of raw information, one woman said.

Especially Feldshinsky... I simply don’t believe in his impartiality and correct use of sources after “The FSB is blowing up Russia.”

This time. There are two more. This is all so contrary to the ideas of the Bolsheviks... I understand that you are illiterate in computer theory. But I still recommend getting through the “manifesto”, where Marx angrily jokes about the fact that the bourgeoisie is so accustomed to seeing a woman as a thing that he does not even understand that the “socialization of women” means giving women a free social status. Not as an application to a man. And independent. It is not for nothing that feminism and socialism developed together in the 19th century, feeding each other.

I’ll keep silent about what Engels wrote about this in “The Origin of the Family..”. It will be difficult for you to complete this work.

Did you understand anything? WHERE IS THE SPECIFICITY IN THE CLAIM against the archive of Denikin investigators? What does this have to do with “possible similar cases in the Hesse “archive of the Russian revolution””? What does Felshtinsky, his book about the FSB and some of his “basic materials” have to do with it? Felshtinsky was only the editor and compiler of a collection of documents taken from the archive; he reprinted the collection on the Volkov network, and then I copied the quote into the post. Why did documents from the archives of the investigative commission suddenly become no longer documents, but references to the newspaper "Izvestia of the Saratov Council" - there is already irrefutable evidence?

I can say what the investigators’ limitations were and, based on this, be critical of this or that information. For example, Denikin’s investigators did not have the opportunity to conduct an investigation in Saratov (where there was either a decree or a pamphlet) - therefore the investigators could not write anything about this Saratov story. The investigators also did not know about the fate of the women captured by the Bolsheviks and taken away with them. The short duration of the investigation, difficult conditions - during the civil war - this could affect the thoroughness of the information verification. But if evidence has been collected, documents have been found, then they will remain evidence and documents. And only the interpretation can change.

And all the nonsense about the theory of communion? What does it have to do with REAL EVENTS AND ACTIONS KNOWN IN EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS? Sovok Rakovsky believes that HE PERSONALLY knows the events of the establishment of Soviet power and the civil war BETTER than its direct witnesses and investigators who worked with witnesses and documents. Rakovsky refuted them all in one fell swoop with a vague reference to Marx and Engels. That's it - Marx and Engels knew better than the investigators the case that the investigators were investigating. What garbage they have in their heads!

I even had difficulties when talking with Rakovsky - how to talk to him if all the details that I want to answer his remarks do not fit into the comment, because... Every word there is some kind of outright savagery and game.

Another scoop doubting the investigation documents. On the sole basis that the investigation was organized by Denikin’s people. No specifics in their claims and a complete lack of understanding of the difference between individual statements of individuals and the work of a normal investigation, where the result is a case that can go to court:

chapaev69
2010-09-22 06:25 am UTC (link)
Who conducted the investigation?

man_with_dogs
2010-09-22 06:58 am UTC (link)
A special commission to investigate the atrocities of the Bolsheviks, consisting of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces in the South of Russia.

(3000x4000 2.2M)
"Izvestia" dated February 4, 1921

Based on the results, what remains unclear

Publications, 09:39 06/26/2018

© Reproduction of TASS Photo Chronicle

Socialization of women in Russia. Legal investigations of RAPSI

Context

One of the reasons for the success of the Bolsheviks can be considered their attention to the women's issue. The very first decrees after they seized power were devoted to achieving gender equality in political, labor and socio-economic rights. Alexander Minzhurenko, candidate of historical sciences, deputy of the State Duma of the first convocation, talks about the specifics of the first socialist experiment to radically change the social and legal status of women in the country in the fourteenth episode of his investigation.

With the coming to power of the Bolshevik Party in Russia, a radical change occurred in almost all legal and socio-political doctrines, vectors of development of the state and law.

However, it can be argued that in terms of resolving the “women’s issue” in the new state of “workers and peasants” there was a certain continuity with the previous course. The leaders of the ruling party took maximalist positions in implementing democratic slogans. They stated that absolute equalization of the rights of all segments of the population is one of the highest priorities in building a communist society.

It is noteworthy that even in the one-page first decree Soviet power Women's organizations were not forgotten about the formation of the government. “The management of individual branches of state life is entrusted to commissions, the composition of which must ensure the implementation of the program proclaimed by the congress, in close unity with the mass organizations of workers, workers, sailors, soldiers, peasants and office workers.”

Already in the first month of its existence, the Council of People's Commissars, by decree, established an eight-hour working day and limited overtime work. From now on, it was not allowed to involve women in night and underground work. The regulation establishing the minimum wage specifically clarified that we are talking about the amount of payment for “an adult worker without distinction of gender.”

A little later, in December 1917, the Council of People's Commissars and the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) regulated marriage and family relations between men and women by their decrees. Decrees on marriage and divorce, as V. Lenin wrote, “destroyed especially vile, vile, hypocritical inequality in marriage and family law, inequality in treatment of children.” Husband and wife were given equal rights in all respects.

The first Soviet laws recognized the community of property acquired during marriage. This ensured the woman’s material interests and secured her equality in the family. In December 1917, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee adopted a decree on health insurance. The law established maternity benefits, paid for eight weeks before and eight weeks after childbirth in the amount of the employee's full earnings.

All these documents, as the leaders of the Soviet state believed, completely secured the equality of women with men, and therefore in further decrees and decisions of the new government, special reservations about women’s rights were allegedly no longer required.

Thus, in the first Soviet Constitution of 1918, the position and rights of women are not specifically specified, since it is understood that women are fully entitled to all the rights granted to representatives of the “working classes” of the country.

Article 13 on the electoral rights of citizens of the republic states: “The right to elect and be elected to the Soviets, regardless of religion, nationality, residence, etc., is enjoyed by the following citizens of both sexes of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic who are eighteen years old by election day ... "

Now it was not women who were discriminated against, but those who “used hired labor” and lived on “unearned income.” This number, of course, also included women—representatives of the former propertied classes.

These decrees and resolutions were largely declarative and sloganeering. During the turbulent months of the revolution, they played the role of ideological propaganda tools. But many of the provisions of these documents have already been implemented in practice. This is evident from the increasing number of delegates at various congresses, conferences and similar forums, although the absolute number of women representatives, as a rule, was small. It can also be seen from the appearance of women in elected Soviets and other Soviet bodies.

However, women's participation in public and political life still remained insignificant. The proportion of female deputies in the Soviets was extremely low. And women's organizations, which became very active after October 1917, raised questions about how the granted and declared rights of women should be more actively implemented in all spheres of life. First of all, it was about their mass involvement in social activities.

And the leaders of the Bolshevik Party met the wishes of activists of the women's movement. True, they considered these issues from their own point of view. By achieving equality, the Bolsheviks understood “the speedy communist education of women” and attracting them into their party ranks. Only after this were they ready to promote women to government positions.

In pursuance of such guidelines, in October 1919, for the political education of women in party organizations, “Commissions for Agitation Among Women Workers” were created, which were subsequently reorganized into “departments for work among women,” which received the abbreviated name - women’s departments.

The 1919 decree on the elimination of illiteracy among the population of the RSFSR stands in the same “enlightenment” row. It is also rightly considered “feminine” in orientation, since the literacy level of women was significantly lower than that of men, and it was they who made up the majority in classes on educational courses.

Speaking about the solution to the women's issue in the first years of Soviet power, it is impossible not to mention the name of Alexandra Kollontai - the first woman minister in history and the second woman in history with the status of ambassador.

Kollontai was the initiator of the creation and head (since 1920) of the women's department of the Central Committee of the RCP(b). She was a prominent political figure and the undisputed leader in the fight for women's equality. True, she herself sharply opposed “bourgeois feminists” and the existence of separate women’s organizations, women’s magazines, etc.

Soviet women, in Kollontai’s opinion, having received equal rights in the Soviet state, should not have been isolated, but should have been included on equal terms in common organizations with men in the struggle for the world revolution. Kollontai was generally extremely skeptical about the traditional institution of the family, believing that women should serve the interests of the class, and not a separate unit of society. She herself did just that, leaving her family, son, husband and taking up entirely revolutionary work.

In addition to achieving gender equality in the main spheres of life, socialist reforms are allowed in favor of women and specific legal issues relating to intergender relations. Thus, the law on civil marriage allowed a woman to keep her maiden name, and the right to abortion was declared. A man who married a woman with children had to assume the responsibilities of fatherhood. The divorce process was simplified as much as possible, which could be carried out by sending a postcard to the registry office by either spouse.

However, all these freedoms and the established obligation of women to work from now on in “socialist production” led to such a “socialization” of Russian women that the institution of the traditional family was shaken. In particular, this led to a sharp decline in the birth rate in the country. The question of countermeasures arose.

Many decrees of the Soviet government are amazing in their stupidity, while others are astonishing in their cruelty, fanaticism and unnecessary ruthlessness. The Communists published them in Kronstadt, Pulkovo, Luga, Vladimir, Saratov. Today you will not find a mention of these decrees anywhere in the history of Soviet power. Here are two historical documents, by virtue of which the Soviet government and the communists were going to abolish not only private property, but also the family, as the primary unit of bourgeois life.

1. From March 1, 1918, the private right to own women was abolished in the city of Vladimir (marriage was abolished as a prejudice of the old capitalist system). All women are declared independent and free. Every girl under 18 years of age is guaranteed complete inviolability of her personality. "Vigilance Committee" and "Free Love Bureau".
2. Anyone who insults a girl with a swear word or tries to rape her will be condemned by the revolutionary tribunal to the fullest extent of revolutionary times.
3. Anyone who rapes a girl under 18 years of age will be considered a state criminal and will be condemned by the Revolutionary Tribunal to the fullest extent of revolutionary times.
4. Every girl who has reached the age of 18 is declared the property of the republic. She must be registered with the “Bureau of Free Love” under the “Vigilance Committee” and have the right to choose a temporary cohabitant-comrade among men from 19 to 50 years old.
Note. The man's consent is not required. The man who was chosen has no right to protest. In the same way, this right is also granted to men when choosing among girls who have reached the age of 18.
5. The right to choose a temporary partner is granted once a month. The Free Love Bureau enjoys autonomy.
6. All children born from these unions are declared the property of the republic and are transferred by women in labor (mothers) to Soviet nurseries, and upon reaching 5 years of age to children's "commune houses". In all these institutions, all children are supported and raised at public expense.
Note. Thus, all children, freed from family prejudices, receive a good education and upbringing. A new healthy generation of fighters for the “world revolution” will grow out of them.

The following is a decree of the Saratov Council of Deputies, which has some discrepancies with the Vladimir one, but, in general, is similar to it. These decrees of local councils of deputies were introduced on a trial basis, and in the event of their failures, the local councils of deputies, and not the Council of People's Commissars, were responsible for them. But such decrees threatened an explosion of indignation among the population, and the communists were afraid to try to implement them.
When such a decree was issued in Saratov, after its promulgation, thousands of city residents, taking with them their daughters and wives, rushed to Tambov, which did not recognize Soviet power, governed by the Provisional Executive Committee and the city government. Thus, Tambov at this time almost doubled in population. However, the city gave shelter to everyone, just as it did during Napoleon's invasion in 1812. All Saratov refugees were placed in hotels and in the homes of citizens, where they were given a good welcome and where they were surrounded by care.

Decree of the Saratov Provincial Council of People's Commissars
on the abolition of private ownership by women

Legal marriage, which has taken place until recently, is undoubtedly a product of social inequality that must be uprooted in Soviet republic. Until now, legal marriages have served as a serious weapon in the hands of the bourgeoisie in the fight against the proletariat, thanks only to them all the best specimens of the fair sex were the property of the bourgeoisie, the imperialists, and such property could not but disrupt the correct continuation of the human race. Therefore, the Saratov Provincial Council of People's Commissars, with the approval of the Executive Committee of the Provincial Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, decided:
1. From January 1, 1918, the right of permanent ownership of women who have reached 17 years of age and up to 32 years of age has been abolished.
Note. The age of women is determined by metric records and passports. And in the absence of these documents - by quarterly committees or elders based on appearance and testimony.
2. This decree does not apply to married women with five or more children.
3. Former owners (husbands) retain the right to priority use of their wife.
Note. In case of opposition ex-husband in carrying out this decree, he is deprived of the right granted to him by this article.
4. All women who qualify for this decree are removed from private ownership and declared the property of the entire working class.
5. The distribution of management of alienated women is provided to the Council of Workers', Soldiers' and Peasants' Deputies, by district and rural deputies according to their affiliation...
6. Male citizens have the right to use a woman no more than four times a week for no more than three hours, subject to the conditions specified below.
7. Each member of the work collective is obliged to deduct two percent of his earnings to the public education fund.
8. Every man who wants to use a copy of the national heritage must provide a certificate from the workers' and factory committee or trade union that he belongs to the working class.
9. Men who do not belong to the working class acquire the right to take advantage of alienated women, subject to the monthly contribution specified in paragraph 7 to the fund of 1000 rubles.
10. All women declared by this decree to be the property of the people shall receive assistance from the fund of the people's generation in the amount of 280 rubles. per month.
11. Women who become pregnant are released from their direct and state duties for 4 months (3 months before and one after childbirth).
12. Babies born after a month are given to the "People's Nursery" shelter, where they are brought up and educated until the age of 17.
13. And at the birth of twins, the parent is given a reward of 200 rubles.
16. Those responsible for the spread of venereal diseases will be brought to justice in a revolutionary court.
The Council is entrusted with making improvements and carrying out improvements according to this decree.

The initiators were members of the Council of People's Commissars and the Central Committee of the RCP (b) Kollontai and Lenin's fictitious wife Krupskaya. The publication of these decrees met with great resistance from the entire people. Lenin then said on this occasion that this was premature and that at the present stage of the revolution it could do a disservice to it. The decree, ready for his signature, was postponed until later, until a more favorable time.

Tags:

"Decree" on the nationalization of women
The story of a hoax
VELIDOV Alexey

In the first days of March 1918 in Saratov, an angry crowd gathered near the stock exchange building on the Upper Bazaar, where the anarchist club was located. It was dominated by women.

They furiously pounded on the closed door, demanding to be allowed into the room. Indignant cries rushed from all sides: "Herods!", "Hooligans! There is no cross on them!", "People's property! Look what they invented, shameless!". The crowd broke down the door and, crushing everything in its path, rushed into the club. The anarchists who were there barely managed to escape through the back door.

What has the residents of Saratov so excited? The reason for their indignation was the "Decree on the abolition of private ownership of women" pasted on houses and fences, allegedly issued by the "Free Association of Anarchists in the City of Saratov" ... There is no single point of view on this document in the historiography of the civil war. Some Soviet historians categorically deny its existence, while others pass over the issue in silence or mention it only in passing. What really happened?

In early March 1918, the newspaper Izvestia of the Saratov Council reported that a group of bandits plundered Mikhail Uvarov's tea house and killed its owner. Soon, on March 15, the newspaper published an article stating that the massacre of Uvarov was carried out not by bandits, but by a detachment of anarchists in the amount of 20 people, who were instructed to search the tea house and arrest its owner. Members of the detachment “on their own initiative” killed Uvarov, considering it “dangerous and useless” to keep a member of the Union of the Russian People and an ardent counter-revolutionary in prison. The newspaper also noted that the anarchists had issued a special proclamation on this matter. They stated that the murder of Uvarov was “an act of revenge and just protest” for the destruction of the anarchist club and for the publication on behalf of the anarchists of the libelous and pornographic “Decree on the Socialization of Women.” The "decree" in question - it was dated February 28, 1918 - was similar in form to other decrees of the Soviet government. It included a preamble and 19 paragraphs. The preamble set out the motives for issuing the document: due to social inequality and legal marriages, “all the best specimens of the fair sex” are owned by the bourgeoisie, which violates the “correct continuation of the human race.” According to the “decree”, from May 1, 1918, all women aged 17 to 32 years (except those with more than five children) are removed from private property and declared “the property (property) of the people.” The “decree” determined the rules for registering women and the procedure for using “copies of national property.” The distribution of “deliberately alienated women,” the document said, would be carried out by the Saratov anarchist club. Men had the right to use one woman “no more than three times a week for three hours.” To do this, they had to present evidence from the factory committee, trade union or local Council of belonging to the “working family”. The forgotten husband retained extraordinary access to his wife; in case of opposition, he was deprived of the right to use the woman.

Each “labor member” who wanted to use a “copy of the national heritage” was obliged to deduct 9 percent of his earnings, and a man who did not belong to a “working family” - 100 rubles per month, which ranged from 2 to 40 percent of the average monthly salary worker. From these deductions, the “People's Generation” fund was created, from which assistance was paid to nationalized women in the amount of 232 rubles, benefits to those who became pregnant, maintenance for children born to them (they were supposed to be raised until the age of 17 in the “People's Nurseries” shelters), as well as pensions for women who have lost their health. The “Decree on the abolition of private ownership of women” was a fake, fabricated by the owner of a Saratov teahouse, Mikhail Uvarov. What goal did Uvarov pursue when composing his “decree”? Did he want to ridicule the nihilism of the anarchists in matters of family and marriage, or did he consciously try to incite large sections of the population against them? Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to find out.

However, the story with the “maternity leave” did not end with the murder of Uvarov. On the contrary, it was just beginning. With extraordinary speed, the libel began to spread throughout the country. In the spring of 1918, it was reprinted by many bourgeois and petty-bourgeois newspapers. Some editors published it as a curious document with the aim of amusing readers; others - with the aim of discrediting the anarchists, and through them - the Soviet government (anarchists then participated together with the Bolsheviks in the work of the Soviets). Publications of this kind caused a wide public outcry. Thus, in Vyatka, the right-wing Socialist Revolutionary Vinogradov, having rewritten the text of the “decree” from the newspaper “Ufa Life”, published it under the title “Immortal Document” in the newspaper “Vyatka Krai”. On April 18, the Vyatka Provincial Executive Committee decided to close the newspaper and put all persons involved in this publication on trial at a revolutionary tribunal. On the same day, the issue was discussed at the provincial congress of Soviets. Representatives of all parties that stood on the Soviet platform - the Bolsheviks, left Socialist Revolutionaries, maximalists, anarchists - sharply condemned the publication of the libel, believing that it was intended to incite the dark, irresponsible masses of the population against Soviet power. At the same time, the Congress of Soviets overturned the decision of the provincial executive committee to close the newspaper, recognizing it as premature and too harsh, and ordered the provincial executive committee to issue a warning to the editor.

At the end of April - the first half of May, the situation in the country worsened greatly due to devastation and food shortages. In many cities there were unrest among workers and employees, and “hunger” riots. The publication in newspapers of a “decree” on the nationalization of women further increased political tension. Soviet state began to take more severe measures against newspapers that published the “decree”. However, the process of disseminating the “decree” got out of the control of the authorities. Various versions of it began to appear. Thus, the “decree” distributed in Vladimir introduced the nationalization of women from the age of 18: “Every girl who has reached the age of 18 and has not married is obliged, under pain of punishment, to register with the free love bureau. The registered one is given the right to choose a man from the age of 19 until the age of 50 as your cohabiting spouse..."

Here and there, in remote villages, overzealous and ignorant officials accepted the false “decree” as genuine and, in the heat of “revolutionary” zeal, were ready to implement it. The official reaction was sharply negative. In February 1919, V.I. Lenin received a complaint from Kumysnikov, Baimanov, and Rakhimova against the commander of the village of Medyany, Chimbelevsky volost, Kurmyshevsky district. They wrote that the committee was in control of the fate of young women, “giving them to their friends, regardless of the consent of their parents or the requirements of common sense.” Lenin immediately sent a telegram to the Simbirsk provincial executive committee and the provincial Cheka: “Immediately check as strictly as possible, if confirmed, arrest the perpetrators, the scoundrels must be punished severely and quickly and the entire population notified. Telegraph execution.” (V.I. Lenin and the Cheka, 1987, pp. 121 - 122). Following the order of the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, the Simbirsk gubcheka conducted an investigation into the complaint. It was established that the nationalization of women in Medyany was not introduced, which the chairman of the CheK telegraphed to Lenin on March 10, 1919. Two weeks later, the chairman of the Simbirsk provincial executive committee, Gimov, in a telegram addressed to Lenin, confirmed the message of the provincial checker and additionally reported that “Kumysnikov and Baimanov live in Petrograd, the identity of Rakhimova in Medyany is not known to anyone” (ibid., p. 122).

During the Civil War, the “Decree on the Abolition of Private Ownership of Women” was adopted by the White Guards. Having attributed the authorship of this document to the Bolsheviks, they began to widely use it in agitation against Soviet power. (A curious detail: when Kolchak was arrested in January 1920, the text of this “decree” was found in his uniform pocket!). The myth about the Bolsheviks introducing the nationalization of women was spread by opponents of the new system later. We find its echoes during the period of collectivization, when there were rumors that peasants joining a collective farm “will sleep under one common blanket.”

The “Decree on the Abolition of Private Ownership of Women” became widely known abroad. The stereotype of the Bolsheviks - destroyers of family and marriage, supporters of the nationalization of women - was intensively instilled into the consciousness of the Western public. Even some prominent bourgeois political and public figures believed these speculations. In February-March 1919, in the “Overman” commission of the US Senate, during a hearing on the state of affairs in Russia, a remarkable dialogue took place between a member of the commission, Senator King, and the American Simons, who arrived from Soviet Russia:

King: I had to see the original Russian text and the translation into English language some Soviet decrees. They actually destroy marriage and introduce so-called free love. Do you know anything about this?

Simons: You will find their program in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. Before our departure from Petrograd, if newspaper reports are to be believed, they had already established a very definite regulation regulating the so-called socialization of women.

King: So, to put it bluntly, Bolshevik Red Army men and male Bolsheviks kidnap, rape and molest women as much as they want?

Simons: Of course they do.

The dialogue was fully included in the official report of the Senate commission, published in 1919.

More than seventy years have passed since the time when the owner of a teahouse in Saratov, Mikhail Uvarov, made what turned out to be a fatal attempt to discredit the anarchists. The passions around the “maternity leave” he invented have long since subsided. Nowadays no one believes in idle fictions about the nationalization of women by the Bolsheviks. The “Decree abolishing the private ownership of women” is now nothing more than a historical curiosity.

"Moscow News". No. 8. 1990

Alexey VELIDOV, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor.