The centenary of the revolution 1917. The centenary of the revolution: how the Soviet government fought the collapse of the country

We are starting the publication of a series of articles dedicated to the centenary of the October Revolution. The need for this series is caused not only in connection with the anniversary. Firstly, from the height of today, many processes of those distant years are more clearly visible. Second, we have the ability to rethink historical facts and phenomena, since recently a lot of new, previously inaccessible materials have been introduced into circulation. Thirdly, we need to cleanse the events of a century ago from the lies, to resist those who strove and are striving to slander our history. Our task is to see past events as they were, without rushing from one extreme to another. Finally, fourthly, the current generation of young people, whose consciousness is deeply poisoned by new educational standards, will have the opportunity to get acquainted with the thoughts and conclusions of the author for a deeper understanding national history... Our material series is not strict treatise... This is an attempt to comprehend well-known events in a new way, in order to see behind them those processes and phenomena that, having arisen a hundred years ago, had a colossal impact on the further course of Russian history, on its role in world history.

A conversation about the theory and revolution will have to start with at least a brief excursion into history Marxism-Leninism... Let us note right away that without knowledge of this theory, the study of the history of October will be difficult. Some of the movements and processes of those days will be difficult to explain. Therefore, if you seriously want to comprehend the history of the events of October 1917, you will have to study the works of the founders. Let us note from ourselves that along with the main founders there were also other ascetics. In addition to Marx, Engels, Lenin, there were also Plekhanov, Martov, Kautsky, Trotsky, Stalin, and others.

It is incomparably easier for us, who studied at the Soviet school and university. Marxism-Leninism was an obligatory part of the curriculum in the senior grades of schools and universities.

After coup 1991-1993 a circular was sent to all libraries of immense Russia, which obliged librarians not only to copy, but whenever possible destroy stocks of all Marxist-Leninist literature. Librarians wept and tore, tore and wept the works of the classics, soundly published in good hard covers. Nobody knows exactly how many books were destroyed. But it's easy to check if you go to any district library and request it for the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky ... Today these works have already become a bibliographic rarity. So those who, in the early 90s, happily took the works of the classics to the trash heap, will regret it today. To regret that they have ceased to be the owners of rarities, which are unlikely to be published the way they were published once, if at all.

Moving on to the main topic, we note the main thing: those who gave the order to destroy the heritage of the classics and founders, could not give anything in return. Hence the conclusion: they destroyed it because they were afraid and are still afraid.

So, according to the theory, the victory of the proletarian revolution can occur only if there is a complete set of prerequisites. Among the bottom must necessarily be the presence of a gravedigger of the bourgeoisie - the advanced proletariat... Such a proletariat could develop exclusively in countries where there was an advanced capitalist industry, and capitalism itself was so ripe, and in some places overripe, that the proletarian revolution became not only inevitable, but also natural.

Therefore, already the classics of Marxism, not to mention their followers, believed that the proletarian revolution should take place in one or several at once, but necessarily advanced countries in terms of development. Among such advanced countries, England was in first place, then France, and only then Germany.

Theoretically, it is in these countries at the end XIX - early XX all were present for centuries necessary conditions for the proletarian revolution:highly developed industry, concentration of capital, a class-conscious, well-organized proletariat, led by a party of the proletarian type, but such an organization as the International was sufficient.

However, the revolution could not be made, so to speak, artificially... It could only be possible if all the necessary prerequisites appeared. These, for example, included the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, the deep crisis of capitalism, i.e. everything that Lenin rapped out in a tough formula: "The upper classes cannot, but the lower classes do not want to."

Since capitalism was sophisticated in its cunning, it constantly played on the contradictions among the working class, bribed its elite, flirted (and bribed) trade unions - trade unions, made minor (but sensitive) concessions - the proletarian revolution in the most developed countries was constantly postponed.

By the way, Marxism attributed the peasantry to the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, moreover, due to the development of scientific and technological progress, it had to be ousted by machines and steadily replenish the ranks of the proletariat. The anti-bourgeois revolution was the mission of the proletariat and only the proletariat. The theory did not provide for any alliance with the peasantry due to the absence of the peasantry as a class. Do not forget that, unlike even the small peasant, the proletariat had nothing to lose but its chains.

But Marxism would not have been Marxism if it had not been based on the experience of all history, known then by the founders. Therefore, Marxism, and after it the followers of this doctrine, divided revolutions into bourgeois (antifeudal) and socialist / proletarian (anti-capitalist).

Bourgeois revolutions were carried out under the leadership of the bourgeoisie and were directed against the obsolete feudal system. As a result of such revolutions, the monarchy and the estate system were liquidated, production relations changed - capitalist instead of feudal, and bourgeois-democratic freedoms were established. At the same time, the monarchy was not always eliminated at the root. She was often subject to restrictions. For example, from absolute it became constitutional. By the way, at the beginning of the XX century. in Europe only France was considered a republic. The vast majority of states were monarchies. Only after the triumph of the bourgeois-democratic revolution did the conditions for a proletarian revolution gradually begin to mature.

Close to classical bourgeois revolutions, Marxism recognized the revolution in England XVII century, revolution in France at the end Xviii century, a series of bourgeois-democratic revolutions that swept across Europe in the 30-40s XIX century.

Orthodox Marxists knew well that Jump over your head it is forbidden. A proletarian revolution cannot take place in a country in which not only the conditions are not ripe for this, but the order persists, which can be liquidated (eliminated) only in the process of a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Now that we have figured out these The basics of Marxist theory, given by us here in a very short and popular presentation, it is time to be transported to Russia on the eve of 1917. We especially note that we need the foundations of the theory of scientific communism in order to understand whether there was a revolution in Russia or it was a coup d'etat accompanied by revolutionary rhetoric.

Early XX century Russia did not belong to the developed countries of Europe. Moreover, it was considered a backward country in which feudal orders and even absolutism, represented by an autocratic monarchy, prevailed. About 80% of the population of Russia lived in the countryside, the proletariat was extremely small, industry was underdeveloped, political rights and freedoms were limited by the autocratic monarchy, etc. Therefore, if a revolution could occur in Russia, thenonly bourgeois democratic ... And only on condition that such a revolution ends in victory, it was possible to speak of a gradual (it was impossible to determine the exact date) maturation of conditions for a socialist revolution. The vast majority of Russian Marxists firmly adhered to these postulates of the theory.

The first attempt to carry out a bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia was made in 1905. Uprising in cities, riots in the army, in the navy, pogroms and spontaneous seizure of land in villages were suppressed. At that time, the "hated tsarism" was forced to make concessions. Nicholas II granted his subjects the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which, however, did not rid the country of the autocratic monarchy. The next stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution was again put on the agenda.

According to leading Russian Marxists, in particular Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov, Russia is fully ripe for a bourgeois-democratic revolution. The main goal of such a revolution was autocracy and numerous, as they said at the time, remnants of feudalism. In particular, the class division of society, the lack of democratic freedoms, the unresolved issue of land (it was still in the ownership of the landowners), the national question, which was suspended for an indefinite time, and a number of other problems, which, in the opinion of Russian revolutionaries, could be solved without liquidating the autocratic monarchy. it was impossible.

But there was also another point of view. Its supporters believed that Russia was not yet mature enough even for a bourgeois-democratic revolution. At least, the defeat of the 1905 revolution showed that this happened not because of the mistakes of leaders and parties, but because in Russia the shock class of the antifeudal revolution, the bourgeoisie, was still underdeveloped. Russia still had to "mature" to a bourgeois revolution, not to mention a socialist one.

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. the Russian revolutionary movement was represented by two leading political parties: the Social Democratic Party and the Socialist Revolutionary Party. Both currents did not deny Marxism, but interpreted it in different ways.

One of the mysteries and, at the same time, the paradox of the Russian revolution of 1917 was its so-called "growth" from a bourgeois-democratic revolution into a socialist revolution. But how this became possible in general, we will tell in the future, and now we will continue our story about the driving forces of the revolution.

In Russia the peasantry was the most numerous and the most disorganized in the sense of the revolutionary movement. As for the proletariat, it was few in number and insufficiently organized. After the 1905 revolution, political parties were subjected to massive repression. This led to the fact that some of the most active leaders of these parties were forced either to go deep underground (to an illegal position), or to emigrate. The difficult situation of the revolutionary parties was complicated by the First World War, which began in 1914.

At the same time, in Russia there was also the so-called "Legal Marxism". Its adherents were those party members who relied not on the revolutionary, but on the evolutionary struggle of the oppressed classes for their rights.

As for the Russian bourgeoisie, in the opinion of the leaders of the revolutionary movement, it was "cowardly" and dependent on the autocracy.

This position of the Russian bourgeoisie was associated with the nature of the national economy. The Russian economy of that period was developing mainly due to external investments and loans. Needless to say, the Russian bourgeoisie was dependent on these investments and loans. Since the main borrower in the West was the tsarist government, the bourgeoisie (the entrepreneurial class) depended on government contracts.

It is very important for us to understand that the revolutionary movement in Russia of that period did not stake on the bourgeoisie, as driving force revolution. The bourgeois democratic revolution could have happened without active participation bourgeoisie. And although, in the end, such participation was not without, nevertheless, Russian revolutionaries-Marxists relied on a political organization - a party under whose leadership an anti-feudal (bourgeois) revolution could be carried out.

Whatever it was, and in the opinion of not only revolutionaries, but also a considerable number of representatives of other political movements, in particular liberals, at the beginning of the XX century Russia was pregnant with revolution... The coup could happen from day to day, all that was needed was a pretext. For example, the reason for the 1905 revolution was the defeat in the "small victorious war" with Japan and the dispersal of a peaceful demonstration on Palace Square in St. Petersburg.

However, the "childbirth" was all postponed. After the revolution of 1905, tsarism was forced to make certain concessions, the system was partially liberalized, the official parliament, the State Duma, was opened, some other freedoms were legalized, industrial growth began in Russia and nothing foreshadowed a revolution, when suddenly the First World War began.

Exactly one hundred years ago, an armed uprising took place in Petrograd, which ended with the capture of the Winter Palace, the arrest of members of the Provisional Government and the proclamation of the power of the Soviets, which existed in our country for more than seventy years.

Celebration of November 7 began immediately after the revolution; this day was celebrated in the USSR as the country's main holiday - the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Under Stalin, the festive canon was finally formed: a demonstration of workers, the appearance of leaders on the platform of the Mausoleum, and, finally, a military parade on Red Square, for the sake of which the entrances to the main square of the capital were specially reconstructed. This canon was strictly observed, and even on November 7, 1941, when the Germans were attacking Moscow, was no exception: the regiments that marched through Red Square went straight to the front. The 1941 parade in terms of the power of influence on the course of events is equated to the most important military operation.

In the 1970s, the situation began to change. Day of the October Revolution has ceased to be perceived as a full-fledged holiday, giving way to People's Day Victory and New Year.

After the breakup Soviet Union the president already new country- Russia - Boris Yeltsin on March 13, 1995 signed the federal law "On the days of military glory (victory days) of Russia", in which November 7 was named the Day of the liberation of Moscow by the forces of the people's militia under the leadership of Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky from the Polish invaders (1612 .).

On December 29, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a federal law, according to which November 7 became the Day of Russian Military Glory - the Day of the military parade on Red Square in Moscow to commemorate the twenty-fourth anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution (1941). November 7 is no longer a day off. Instead, the Day of National Unity, celebrated on November 4, became a day off.

Today the holiday is celebrated throughout the country and even abroad.

A solemn march dedicated to the legendary 1941 parade was held in Moscow. In addition, panoramic videos from the "Revolution 360" series were shown in the Moscow metro today. The videos, created within the international project # 1917LIVE, recreate episodes of the revolutionary events of 1917. Alexander Adabashyan, Oleg Garkusha, Zakhar Prilepin, Alexander Bashirov and other cultural figures took part in the filming. The offscreen text was read by Garik Sukachev and Sergey Garmash. The shooting took place in several places at once, historically associated with revolutionary Petrograd.

More than eight thousand carnations were brought and brought by Petersburgers and guests of the city to the Petrogradskaya embankment, to the place of the eternal anchorage of the legendary cruiser "Aurora". The organizers of the action to lay flowers at the "ship of the revolution" said that the red carnations, symbolizing the revolutionary movement, were purchased with money from ordinary people collected through the Internet. Fundraising announcements were circulated on social media.

During the action "Three carnations for Aurora" 211,200 rubles were collected, with this money 7150 carnations were purchased from wholesalers. A minibus was needed to deliver that many carnations to the Aurora. Several hundred more flowers were added by the organizers themselves and ordinary citizens who decided to personally join the action.

A solemn procession on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution took place in Simferopol. Those gathered walked along the central avenue of the Crimean capital, after which they held a rally on Lenin Square. The event was organized by the Crimean branch of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko congratulated compatriots on the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution, noting that the socio-economic principles formed during the Soviet Union formed the basis of the potential of the modern Belarusian state. According to the President, the socio-economic principles formed during the Soviet Union formed the basis for the development of the industrial, scientific, agricultural and social potential of the modern Belarusian state.

The events of October 1917 became a turning point for many. Russia at the beginning of the last century, however, like now, is a huge country, where more than 190 peoples live. The attitude of the new government to the national question - Mir 24 correspondent Nakhid Babayev.

By 1917 on the territory Russian Empire lived about 200 peoples and nationalities.

One of the first decrees of the young Soviet government was the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. It was published in the Izvestia newspaper for Friday, November 3, 1917. Clause of the second declaration: The right of the peoples of Russia to self-determination up to separation and formation of an independent state.

But the process began even earlier. In the European part, immediately after the overthrow of the autocracy, Poland and Finland demanded independence.

In the central regions of the country, Soviet power was quickly established. In most industrial cities, it already belonged to local Soviets.

In the territories of Estonia and Latvia not occupied by the Germans, as well as in Belarus Soviet authority established in October-November 1917.

In Kiev, the Central Rada proclaimed the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic. Noting, however, that they do not want to secede from Russia and are ready to become part of a federal state.

V Central Asia in response to convened a general Muslim congress in Kokand and decided to seek autonomy. At the same time, the Council of People's Commissars of Turkestan was already operating in Tashkent.

“The national intelligentsia formed in the regions received a unique chance to gain independence or at least broad autonomy within the renewed the Russian state", - explains the historian Yegor Yakovlev.

The Bolsheviks responded, as they would say now, with a talented PR move. They sent more than 600 revolutionary agitators from Petrograd to troubled regions.

First of all, the Soviet government on the ground began to fulfill its promises: land to the peasants, factories to workers, peace to the soldiers. In addition, the Bolsheviks released political prisoners. For example, more than 1000 people were released from the Minsk city prison alone.

The October coup happened 100 years ago, and historians are still arguing about its causes and consequences.

It turned out that in many ways it was done with German money.

The revolution's wallet received funds from the sale of women's stockings, condoms and red caviar. These and other goods were sold by a commercial company that the Germans had set up in Denmark in order to quietly pump money to the Bolsheviks.

They also traded in technical devices, medicines for tsarist army and raw materials for military production.

The goods were exported to Russia, Germany, Scandinavian countries, England.

Also, the Germans have new channels for the supply of weapons.

The initiator of the opening of the company was Alexander Parvus, a famous Russian millionaire and adventurer. He dreamed of a Russian coup and offered the Germans a grand plan. Germany agreed, she had her own interest - to withdraw Russia from the First World War.

Historians are asking politicians this difficult question, and no one seems to have a definite answer. The echo of the colossal changes of that time still has political significance and makes the search for an answer to the question of attitude to the impending holiday very difficult.

This is the subject of an article by Igor Torbakov, Senior Research Fellow at Uppsala University and the Swedish Institute of International Affairs in Stockholm, "Russia: The Phantom of the Revolution." The author has tried to assess the challenges facing the ruling elite of Russia now and the decisions that it chooses in a rather balanced way.

Russia: The Phantom of the Revolution

The century of revolutionary events in 1917 created a difficult dilemma for the Kremlin. Vladimir Putin's regime cannot simply ignore one of the key periods Russian history, but apparently he also fails to find the political coup of 1917 appropriate place in the Kremlin's preferred historical narrative that emphasizes stability.

As they say, revolutions are started by politicians, and historians end. Revolutions are often shrouded in myth, and historians have to remove layers of fables and lies to get at the facts that sometimes dispel long-held beliefs. This is exactly what happened with the French Revolution: the eminent French historian of the 20th century, François Furet, questioned revolutionary myths in a series of highly influential books and was fond of claiming that the French Revolution was over. The American Revolution suffered the same fate. The understanding of the American revolt against King George III has undergone a significant transformation over the past 50 years thanks to the historian Bernard Beilin, who

presented the revolution as a war not only for self-government, but also for who will get power after gaining independence

Meanwhile in modern Russia it is not historians who set the tone in interpreting past events. The development of the "correct" version of Russian history was entrusted to the political and power elite.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin at a meeting in the Kremlin with the developers of the concept of a new educational and methodological complex on the history of Russia. (Photo: the press service of the President of the Russian Federation)

Historical issues need protection from manipulation

According to Russian media reports, the Kremlin believes that

the choice of the format for celebrating the centenary of the events of 1917 is a question national security

At the end of last year, it was reported that experts from the Scientific Council of the Russian Security Council discussed this issue and came to the conclusion that the authorities need to control the process, since, in their opinion, external forces are trying to deliberately distort the presentation of the events of the revolutionary era and other important periods of Russian history ... The council reportedly found that historical memory has become the object of "deliberate destructive actions by foreign government agencies and international organizations pursuing geopolitical interests in line with anti-Russian policies."

In addition to the revolutions of 1917, the Security Council of the Russian Federation also identified a number of other historical themes that can be distorted and need protection. The list includes:

• the policy of the Russian Empire and the USSR in relation to the national groups living on their territory,
• the role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazi Germany,
• Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
• the reaction of the Soviet authorities to the political crises in the GDR, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and other countries of the former Soviet bloc.

It is quite remarkable that the presentation on the consequences of distorting history for national security was prepared by the Russian General Staff. Equally noteworthy is the fact that speaking at the end of January at a meeting of the Jubilee Committee on preparations for the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the conservative political commentator Vitaly Tretyakov bluntly stated that it would be useful for Russia's national interests if, in assessing the socio-political consequences events of 1917 historians are pushed aside. According to him, it would be "unreasonable and unfair" to allow historians to shape the attitude of society towards the revolution. “For the most part today, as always, historians, firstly, are ideologically engaged,… and secondly, they are not political thinkers,” he said.

To celebrate a century of revolutions or not?

Whatever the professional shortcomings of historians, the Russian authorities, apparently, themselves do not yet know how to mark the centenary of the Bolshevik coup that took place in November (October according to the old calendar) of 1917. Before the 90th anniversary, the Kremlin preferred a seemingly "easy" way out: in 2004, it was decided to replace the Revolution Day celebrated on November 7 with a new invented national holiday set for November 4 - National Unity Day, timed to coincide with the date of the expulsion of the Polish occupation forces from Moscow in 1612.

This decision coincided with the publication of the book "The Sociosophy of Revolution" by the Russian literary critic Igor Smirnov, who lives in Germany. In his work, Smirnov presented an interpretation of the events of the period of the reign of False Dmitry and the Time of Troubles, which is extremely diverging from the generally accepted interpretation. He said that then the first revolution in Russian history took place. It is unlikely that Smirnov's book somehow influenced the Kremlin's policy of memory, but the establishment of autocracy after the expulsion of the Poles in the form of the accession of the Romanov dynasty, which then ruled for 300 years, obviously seemed like a good reason for the holiday.

However, the new holiday turned out to be highly unpopular, and the Kremlin, deprived of its calm by the color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, changed its approach in a clear attempt to provoke public rejection of the subversive revolutionary ideology. February 27, 2007 in the state " Russian newspaper"Was published an article by Alexander Solzhenitsyn" Reflections on the February Revolution ". For the conservative monarchist Solzhenitsyn, February 1917 was nothing more than a disastrous prelude to the catastrophic events of October. Therefore, in an article (originally written in the early 1980s), he unequivocally condemned the entire period of the revolution and expressed sorrow over the loss of “ historical Russia»Stability, sovereignty and statehood.

There is no single approach yet

Now political upheavals around the world, including Ukraine's Euromaidan, indicate that the specter of revolution should not be ignored. At the same time, the Russian authorities have not yet managed to decide on a presentation of events that could be presented to the public. A reflection of their confusion is a recent article by Sergei Mironov, Putin's ally in the State Duma ... published in Nezavisimaya Gazeta under the title "February - the harbinger of October." ... Recognizing the positive achievements of the February Revolution, including the introduction of a republican form of government and the recognition of political rights, Mironov simultaneously expressed regret over the fall of tsarism, arguing that February revolution led to the erosion of traditional Russian values. In 1917, "the government lost its sacredness," he complained. He further added, speaking of the chaos that followed the collapse of the USSR, that “we saw the same destructive effect of the spiritual and ideological crisis in the 90s of the XX century”.

Mironov's main conclusion based on the analysis of the events of 1917 is ... that "Russia is not a country that can afford to have a weak power headed by such a weak-willed ruler like Nicholas II," he wrote. "It is a blessing that in these difficult times the country is headed by such a strong personality as Russian President Vladimir Putin."

... The dissonance between the image of the greatness of the Russian Empire and its ingloriously rapid collapse should raise uncomfortable questions among the supporters of the new form of autocracy in Russia. The history of the twentieth century has shown that autocracies and authoritarianism can be weaker and more fragile than other systems that allow wider layers to take part in government. "

Zhirinovsky and Zyuganov presented polar positions at the Duma hearings dedicated to the centennial anniversary of February and October 1917.

On Thursday, October 26, the State Duma hosted parliamentary hearings "100th Anniversary of the 1917 Revolution in Russia: International Aspects", organized by the Duma Committee on International Affairs. The events of a century ago, which radically changed the fate of not only Russia, but of all mankind, require a comprehensive analysis, comprehension and as impartial assessment as possible. However, a person is a subjective being, and therefore unanimity, as well as the absence of emotions, in a discussion about revolution is not to be expected even after 100 years. The past event is a vivid example of this.

Today, you can hear a lot of interesting discussions of professional historians about the consequences of the revolution, while there is almost no broad public dialogue, including with the involvement of bearers of opposing views on February and October. Little is said about the conclusions that our country has made and continues to do after 1917. There is no unanimity among thinkers on this score. Someone considers the revolution in Russia the greatest achievement of human history, someone - the greatest tragedy that led to the Red Terror, the bloody Civil War, which for decades threw the country from the seemingly fixed historical path.

“One thing can be said for sure - unfortunately, in world history, most revolutions took place in a situation when the government was weakening and did not hear people, when there were external forces interested in a coup. This has happened before in the UK and in France, and in the 21st century it all continues. In 2014, we witnessed a similar process in Ukraine.

In fact, society should be able to draw conclusions from its history. This ability is the only guarantee of the progressive, evolutionary, and not revolutionary development of our country, which I really hope for. We all work to ensure that the citizens of Russia understand where we are going, what our image of the future is, ”said the Vice-Speaker of the State Duma in his speech. Peter Tolstoy, who clearly made it clear that his assessment of the revolution is rather negative.

"Any revolution is a crime and a fraud!"

Then the floor was taken by the leader of the Liberal Democratic Party Vladimir Zhirinovsky, in their own style, igniting the audience of the hearings - mainly students - future diplomats and international affairs.

“I'll start right away with the conclusions. My assessment of the revolution is the most negative. Let's not beat around the bush. I believe that any revolution is violence. Then the heirs of the murdered try to take revenge on the murderers - and this can continue indefinitely.

Any revolution destroys. Then it begins to create, but at first it destroys everything: the state, society, religion, peasants, officials, science, students, the army. Do you remember the text of the "Internationale": "We will destroy the whole world of violence, and then ..." That is, there will certainly be terror, Civil War and revenge. It is necessary to develop a negative attitude towards this phenomenon. In Russian, "revolution" is a coup, rebellion, riot, let's call things our own words.

In any country, people striving for power, the dissatisfied have a desire to make a coup. There are always rich and poor. We need to come to an understanding: if we want to have a homogeneous society, where everyone will have an average salary, average housing, average living conditions, such a society will not be viable. People don't want to limit themselves all the time. After a one-room apartment and "Zaporozhets" they will want to have a two-room apartment and "Lada Kalina". Further - a three-room apartment and a Mercedes. No revolution will diminish people's desire to live better. People crave revolution not so that there is no wealth, but to become rich. So the point of any revolution is fraud, a way to come to power and enjoy it.

The Bolsheviks lived on full state support - the best cars, sanatoriums, resorts, security, food - they had it all. The people will not live at the level of the beggars, they cannot desire this - otherwise we will have an eternal revolution. It is necessary to fight against unjustified enrichment, but to put as an example a person who has lived all his life in a one-room apartment, having there only pants, one bed and one chest of drawers - is this an incentive for our youth?

There is always a desire for change, but let it happen gradually. You should always evaluate the result. Take the achievements of tsarist Russia from 1903 to 1915, compare them with the Soviet budget and today. You will see that the best income-expenditure ratio was under the tsar. Look at social policy. The Europeans said that the Russian Tsar protects his citizens best of all. They took an example from Nicholas II, not from the Bolsheviks. In the 1920s, it was planned to switch to free secondary education, primary education was already introduced everywhere.

The GOELRO plan, the electrification of the entire country - what did the Bolsheviks come up with? No, tsarist engineers, whose work was later used. Even the form of the Red Army was being prepared under the tsar - budenovka, greatcoats - everything had already been designed. Chekists' leather jackets - the tsar approved this form of clothing for Russian pilots.

They tell us: they say, thanks to the revolution, we later defeated fascist Germany Yes, she simply would not have been otherwise! The West fostered the fascists artificially, fearing what was happening in Soviet Russia. We must talk about the death of millions of the most the best people on both sides in the Civil War - these are the consequences of the revolution, and not about the rights that the revolution allegedly gave.

The revolution continues today - one should not think that on October 25, 1917 it ended. From the Civil, she moved to the Stalinist terror, then to the Great Patriotic War, to politics Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin... and today Ukraine is smoking - this is also a continuation of the October revolution. The closure of Russian schools in the Baltics is also a consequence of it. All over the world, in our former Soviet republics, Russians are being ousted everywhere. And the beginning of this process was laid by the revolution.

And today there are more grounds for committing a revolution than in October 1917. Is it happening? Not yet, which is good. Today it is necessary to deprive Ksenia Sobchak the right to go to elections - at least for her statements about the status of Crimea. Her spin doctor Belkovsky in May 2014 urged the US Army to launch a nuclear strike on Sevastopol! Her entire electoral team must be arrested and tried - these people have been conducting anti-state activities in the country for 20 years. If the prosecutor's office and the Investigative Committee do this, it means that there is order in our country. If not, the turmoil will continue.

In terms of a number of economic indicators, we still cannot reach the level of 1991, but otherwise, we have generally slipped to the level of the 19th century. What happened in 1993? Shooting of parliament by "new democrats" who have handed over party cards - is that democracy? During the Emergency Committee, Muscovites shouted: "We will give our souls for Yeltsin!" Now they are ashamed ... Here is another revolution, all this happened before our eyes.

If we celebrate the anniversary of the defeat of the state, it cannot be right. We should hold a memorial service, and erect a monument in Moscow - to the innumerable victims of all Russian revolutions. And the last thing - if the Bolsheviks were right about something, why are all the archives related to those events still closed? Open them, publish all the materials - and your hair will stand on end from the bloody bacchanalia that was in the country for the entire 20th century! ", - concluded the emotional speech Zhirinovsky, leaving almost no indifferent listeners in the hall.

"The Soviet era is the greatest in our history"

Permanent in the history of modern Russia, the head of the Duma communists Gennady Zyuganov invited the participants in the conversation to look at the topic from a completely different angle.

“I researched the problem from primary sources, reread Lenin's works three times, spoke at all leading universities on this topic, and I must say that our point of view has been more and more prevalent lately.

In mid-December 1916 to Nicholas II the leaders of six Duma factions come. They formed the so-called Progressive Bloc, in which there was not a single Bolshevik - everyone had already been exiled to Siberia. Representatives of the bourgeois parties told the emperor the following: “Sovereign, the empire is disintegrating, the army is deserting, the country is on the verge of disaster. Rasputin and your wife change ministers like gloves. Let's form an efficient government. " The king at first agrees, but after three days he takes his word back.

The February revolution began with a mass demonstration of workers in Petrograd, with a riot of hungry women. The chief of police of the city, who had 40 thousand bayonets under his command, said: "I will not fight the women." The monarchy fell, a provisional government came. Look at its composition - only the Minister of Railway Transport was not a Freemason. None of these people had any experience in government, and in six months they destroyed the country to the ground, paralyzed the army, and refused to give land to the peasants.

And here, on the sixth of the planet, Lenin's voice is loudly heard, calling on the working people to raise the red flag over the state. The May theses of Lenin were heard by the soldiers, peasants, workers and fully supported. He was a genius person, whose political heritage is being studied and in demand all over the world today.

The most ingenious invention of the Russians is the creation of a thousand-year-old state. Lenin not only saved him - he created the Soviet state, where labor, not capital, ruled, where education and science were above all. For 20 years of Stalinist modernization, the industrial potential of the state was increased 70 times. From the collapsed empire, a great union state was created, which overcame fascism and demonstrated the unprecedented heroism of its people.

We must be honest with our fathers and grandfathers if we are going to continue to create great country... It was the communists who first raised the question of the poor, declared that everyone has the right to happiness. The semi-literate country inherited by Lenin's party has become the most reading country in the world. So, if we objectively look at things, we will see that in Soviet times we became the strongest, the most educated, the bravest, the most technologically advanced. The whole world studied the experience of the Soviet breakthrough in space, in atomic energy ... American researchers conducted a special study by publishing the book "What Ivan Knows and What Johnny Does Not Know", in which they gave the highest rating to Soviet education. There are many such examples.

In 1966, after our Yuri Gagarin conquered space, the World Forum was held in Washington, at which mankind decided by 2000 to get rid of atomic weapons, defeat disease and hunger, and provide every person with housing. By the designated date, they gathered and shed a tear: atomic weapons are spreading around the world, every fourth inhabitant of the Earth is starving, new diseases constantly appear, claiming tens of thousands of lives. As for the ecology - there is nothing to say. Last year they gathered again - now to these global issues added terrorism too.

I personally and our entire party concluded that capitalism, as a form of organizing life on Earth, is not able to cope with any acute social problem... It is no coincidence that China has shown the world over the past 30 years how to solve such problems - by the 2020s, poverty will be completely eliminated there. And in our bourgeois-capitalist Russia 22 million people live on no more than 10 thousand rubles a month! V the richest country the world! Meanwhile, over the past year, 200 of Russia's top wealthy have increased their capital by $ 100 billion. They have more than two Russian budgets in their hands, and yet they do not want to pay taxes on a progressive scale.

It is inevitable that a whole series of economic decisions will be made that will allow one to escape from revolutionary upheavals. But revolutions are not invented in their heads. They appear when "the upper classes cannot, the lower classes do not want", and the authorities are not able to solve a single problem. Although there is always a subjective factor that can lead the whole business. I am for socialism, ”Zyuganov summed up his speech in support of the October Revolution.

"The Russian revolution is an event of a universal scale"

Academician of RAS Anatoly Torkunov somewhat defused the situation by assessing the events of 1917 from a scientific and impartial point of view.

“I don’t quite agree that little attention is paid to the events of a century ago. Maybe not all of them were in sight, but a whole committee was created with the support of the Russian Military Historical Society, which conducts a series of events within the framework of the centenary of the revolution. There were about 1200 exhibitions, seminars, conferences and other major events throughout the country and abroad, in which tens of thousands of people took part.

I must tell you frankly that a hundred years is not such a long time for a full assessment of an event of a universal scale - the Russian revolution. By the way, the French Revolution began to be celebrated only in 1889 - just a century later. So we still have time for discussions ahead.

It must be admitted that revolutionary events for Russia are an integral part of national history, which has determined everything further development country. For many decades, in the public and scientific consciousness, there was a division of the events of 1917-1922 into the bourgeois-democratic February and socialist October revolutions. And in the public consciousness, this thesis is still widespread. The new concept that the scientific and historical community adheres to today is the integral character of the great Russian revolution. She focuses on the fact that the events of February and October 1917, the fall of the monarchy, the establishment of a republic, the Kornilov revolt, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, the establishment of Soviet power, the bloody Civil War - all these were stages of a single process, which, for various reasons, reached extreme radicalization ...

By the time of the Russian revolution in Europe, for about four centuries, the process of large-scale historical modernization, transformation into the industrial society of the new era, had been developing. That is, there was a movement, first of all, of Western Europe towards modernity, which pushed it to the avant-garde. civilization processes... Of course, this includes the Dutch, French, English revolutions, the civil war in the United States. The main positions of modernity were formulated in the era of the Enlightenment, and the central idea is progress that can be carried out with the help of rationalistic modeling of the development of the state and society.

The revolution in Russia continued this line. In February 1917, an attempt was made to turn the country on the path of liberal democracy, which ended in complete failure. The next stage was when Lenin and his associates were able to direct the people ready for revolt into the bosom of the Marxist paradigm of development.

Unfortunately, in Russia, many still either emphasize only the most positive achievements of the revolution and the subsequent era, or present all this as the darkest times, as a result of which we lagged behind the progressive countries. It is high time to abandon the image of Russia as a country with an unpredictable history. It is clear that a lot of myths about those events are now functioning - this is absolutely natural for the historical memory of any nation. But we often focus on myths that divide rather than unite society. Hence the confrontation between the "red" and "white" forces, which remains irreconcilable in our time.

In any complex, multi-confessional and multi-ethnic country, there is a possibility of imbalance. It is no coincidence that such a deep connoisseur of Russia as the Chancellor of the German Empire Otto von Bismarck, believed that we cannot be conquered, but that we can decompose from within.

By the way, all the archives on Lenin are open today. In the Exhibition Hall of the Federal Archives in Moscow on September 28, the historical and documentary exhibition "Lenin" opened, allowing one to compose a multifaceted understanding of this person. I recommend everyone to visit it.

Today we must more calmly perceive the revolutionary period, understanding the tragedy of the past of our country. We must approach this with a genetic memory and acquired historical experience, with the consciousness of people of the 21st century ”, - this is the conclusion of Torkunov.

No sooner had the academician finished than the restless Vladimir Volfovich again took the floor, calling the revolution a mistake that should never be repeated.

“If you want to celebrate the centenary of the revolution, let's look at the Middle East. ISIS (banned in Russia) with its idea of ​​social justice and endless terror are the same Bolsheviks. The second is the Maidan in Ukraine. If you are for the October Revolution, then you must support the Kiev regime, which kills Russians every day. All who come to power in a revolutionary way are criminals. So then, are we going to support the Kiev revolutionaries?

And the last - look at the number of prisoners in Tsarist and Soviet prisons - in the latter there were thousands of times more! That's what we need to talk about! All color revolutions now are a continuation of the events of 1917 - and all of this is directed against the Russians and Russia. The revolution never thought to end. Think and do not repeat the mistakes of the past, ”Zhirinovsky urged.

The leader of the Liberal Democratic Party did not find support from the following Italian journalist, writer and public figure Giulietto Chiesa, Who worked in Russia for 20 years as a Moscow correspondent for the newspapers "Unita" and "La Stampa". The Italian stressed that the significance of the revolution cannot be assessed from the point of view of morality, because in any case it "left a decisive imprint" on world history XX century, and this influence on the history of the world continues to this day.

“Russia with all its characteristic features and world influence would not exist if it were not for the revolution. Look at the whole soviet period as a monstrous mistake or criminal events, it means not to notice the participation of broad masses in history. This period was, of course, a sword of violence, but the USSR became a fulcrum for all oppressed peoples in the world and gave them hope. "- noted Chiesa, urging not to judge the Soviet experience on the basis of the opinions of the dissident intelligentsia or Russophobic propaganda.

"The Soviet intelligentsia was largely influenced by Anglo-Saxon Russophobic ideas," the Italian believes.

Chairman of the Zinoviev Club Olga Zinovieva, widow of the great Russian thinker Alexandra Zinovieva, said that she was dumbfounded by the negative response of the President's press secretary Dmitry Peskov to the question of the Financial Times correspondent - will the Kremlin celebrate the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution?

“I thought they had given the wrong translation. I refuse to believe that the leadership of our country will not take part in celebrating the event that turned the whole world upside down. The revolution in Russia is the very essence of the 20th century, and not just some kind of pretentious phrase.

Yes, we draw conflicting conclusions a hundred years later, but in the discussion, the truth must still be born. See why the French are not shy, are not afraid, do not anathematize, do not throw mud at their bloody history. The French Revolution is celebrated by all local politicians and the entire French people. And we must not forget our history, we must not refuse to celebrate November 7th. Otherwise, we will replace this date with different anniversaries of Mannerheims, White Czechs, Bandera, Kolchaks, Wrangels, and so on. We have our own long, beautiful, progressive history. We cannot rob our children, deceive the hopes of the world that followed the Great October Revolution.

And I want to say that I categorically disagree with the installation in Moscow of a monument to "reconciliation", on the pedestal of which it is planned to depict a Red Army soldier and a White Guard as a symbol of their "fraternization". It will be a kind of ideological suspension, which will surely disintegrate under the influence of the external environment. And the external environment is the reaction of society, there is no need to provoke it. It is impossible to reconcile what has already taken place - it is necessary to draw conclusions. And the fact that on the eve of the Rostovites voted against the installation of a monument in their city Solzhenitsyn- this is an important sign that must be reckoned with, ”Zinovyeva emphasized.

Professional populism

If you ask the author of this material - which side am I on: Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky, I will be surprised at the very formulation of the question. Over the decades of sitting in the Duma, they have mastered only one path professionally - populism. If you listen to Zyuganov's praises of October, add to this his assurances of loyalty to socialism, then the most logical question will be - why Gennady Andreevich companions not partisans, protests on the barricades, why he feels great for a long time inscribed in the oligarchic-capitalist system of near-government politicians ? Duty criticism of those in power a couple of times a month with the status of a multimillionaire in a country where the liberal government is consistently destroying all the socio-economic achievements of the Soviet era - this is the current lot of Zyuganov, who, by and large, discredits and disgraces, and does not at all support the "red idea" ...

Mr. Zhirinovsky looks no better, declaring that any revolution is a crime, but at the same time hushing up the fact that an authoritarian government or simply lost its shores from irresponsibility itself can easily degenerate into criminal, comprador and / or corrupt (fraudulent). To compare the Kiev Maidans with the October Revolution, when after February Russia was suffocating for half a year under the weak-willed anarchy of the liberal capitalists - this is a frank stretching of an owl on the globe.

If for Zhirinovsky in the first place is the absolute sacredness and infallibility of the authorities, then what about the fact that even according to the current Constitution the only one is it our people are its source? And if suddenly the supreme power is caught in the destruction of the state, in an anti-popular policy - what, and then the people should not have the opportunity to declare their rights? The abdication of those in power from their own people, the rejection of the principles of social justice - this is perhaps the main factor in the entry of millions of inhabitants of the former empire into the Red Army. And only in the background are revolutionary propaganda, agitation, brain processing, subversion of external enemies, etc., although all this, of course, also took place in 1917. Vladimir Volfovich cannot be so narrow-minded as not to understand this.

In the handouts, curious opinion polls were attached to the hearings, which, despite their well-known bias, reproduce the attitude of the Russian population towards the October Revolution. According to VTsIOM, in 2016, 45% of respondents named the main reason revolution, the plight of the people, 20% - the weakness of the government, 12% - a conspiracy of the enemies of the Russian people. 38% in 2017 noted that the October Revolution gave impetus to the social and economic development of the country, 23% called it "a new era in the country's development", 14% thought that it slowed down socio-economic development, and only 13% called it a catastrophe for the country.

Similar figures are given by Levada Center: in March 2017, 48% called the revolution inevitable, while 32% said that it could have been avoided. 50% believe that the main reason for the revolution is the plight of the working people, 45% indicated the weakness of government power as the reason, 20% mentioned the conspiracy of the enemies. Finally, 38% of the respondents pointed to the “rather positive” role of October in Russian history, while 25% called it “rather negative” (in 1996 this ratio was 28% and 21%, respectively). The current government in the year of the centenary of the revolution has something to think about.

Ivan Nikitin