The centenary of the revolution is an inconvenient anniversary for the Russian authorities. Centenary of the revolution: how the Soviet government fought the collapse of the country What date is the centenary of the 1917 revolution

We are starting to publish 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. First, from the height of today, many of the processes of those distant years are more clearly visible. Secondly, we have the opportunity to rethink historical facts and phenomena, since recently many new, previously inaccessible materials have been introduced into circulation. Thirdly, we need to clear the lies from the events of a hundred years ago, to rebuff those who have tried and are trying 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 strictly treatise. This is an attempt to rethink well-known events in order to see behind them those processes and phenomena that, having arisen a hundred years ago, had a tremendous impact on the further course of Russian history, on its role in world history.

The conversation between theory and revolution will have to begin with at least a brief digression into history. Marxism-Leninism. We 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 prove 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. From ourselves, we note 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 a compulsory part of the curriculum in high school and universities.

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

Turning to the main topic, we note the main thing: those who ordered the destruction of the heritage of the classics and founders could not give anything in return. Hence the conclusion: they destroyed because they were afraid and are still afraid.

So, according to the theory, the victory of the proletarian revolution can only occur if there is a complete set of prerequisites. Among the bottom must be the presence of the gravedigger of the bourgeoisie - advanced proletariat. Such a proletariat could take shape exclusively in countries where there was an advanced capitalist industry, and capitalism itself was so mature, and in some places even 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 in terms of development countries. Among such advanced countries, England was in the first place, then France, only then Germany.

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

However, the revolution could not be made, so to speak, by artificial means. It could only be possible if all the necessary prerequisites were met. These included, for example, the contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, the deep crisis of capitalism, i.e. everything that Lenin minted in a rigid formula: "The tops can't, but the bottoms don't want to."

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

By the way, the peasantry was attributed by Marxism to the representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, moreover, due to the development scientific and technological progress, it had to be supplanted 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. We should 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 the whole history known then by the founders. Therefore, Marxism, and after it the followers of this doctrine, divided revolutions into bourgeois (anti-feudal) and socialist / proletarian (anti-capitalist).

Bourgeois revolutions were carried out under the leadership of the bourgeoisie and were directed against an obsolete feudal system. As a result of such revolutions, the monarchy, 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 liquidated under the root. She was often restricted. 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 gradually begin to ripen for a proletarian revolution.

Close to the classical bourgeois revolutions, Marxism recognized the revolution in England XVII century, the revolution in France at the end XVIII century, a series of bourgeois-democratic revolutions that swept across Europe in the 30s and 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 are the conditions not ripe for this, but in which orders are preserved that can be liquidated (eliminated) only in the process of a bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Now that we have understood these basics of marxist theory, which we have given here in a very brief and popular presentation, the time has come to transport ourselves to Russia on the eve of 1917. We note in particular that we need the foundations of the theory of scientific communism in order to understand whether there was a revolution in Russia or whether it was a coup d'état accompanied by revolutionary rhetoric.

At the beginning of XX century, Russia did not belong to the developed countries of Europe. Moreover, it was considered a backward country dominated by feudal orders and even absolutism in the form of an autocratic monarchy. About 80% of Russia's population lived in the countryside, the proletariat was extremely small, industry was underdeveloped, political rights and freedoms were limited by the autocratic monarchy, and so on. Therefore, if a revolution could take place in Russia, thenonly bourgeois-democratic . And only under the condition that such a revolution would end in victory, it was possible to speak of a gradual (it was impossible to determine the exact date) maturation of conditions for socialist revolution. The absolute 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. Uprisings in cities, riots in the army, navy, pogroms and spontaneous seizure of land in the villages were suppressed. At that time, "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 placed on the agenda.

According to the 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 then, remnants of feudalism. In particular, the class division of society, the lack of democratic freedoms, the unresolved issue of land (it was still owned by landowners), mothballed indefinitely national question and a number of other problems, which, according to the Russian revolutionaries, could not be solved without the liquidation of the autocratic monarchy.

But there was another point of view. Its supporters believed that Russia was not yet mature enough even for a bourgeois-democratic revolution. At the very least, the defeat of the 1905 revolution showed that this was not due to the mistakes of leaders and parties, but due to the fact that in Russia the shock class of the anti-feudal revolution - the bourgeoisie - was still insufficiently developed. Russia had yet to "ripen" 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 reject Marxism, but interpreted it differently.

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

In Russia, the most numerous and most unorganized in terms of the revolutionary movement was the peasantry. As for the proletariat, it was not numerous 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 underground (to an illegal position) or to emigrate. The difficult situation of the revolutionary parties was further complicated by the outbreak of World War I in 1914.

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

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

This position of the Russian bourgeoisie was connected with the nature of the national economy. The Russian economy of that period developed mainly due to foreign investment 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 business class) depended on getting contracts from the government.

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

Be that as it may, 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 20th century Russia was pregnant with revolution. A coup could happen any 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 "birth" was all postponed. After the revolution of 1905, tsarism was forced to make certain concessions, the system was partly 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 the First World War suddenly 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.

November 7 began to be celebrated immediately after the revolution; This day was celebrated in the USSR as main holiday countries - Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Under Stalin, the festive canon also finally took shape: a demonstration of workers, the appearance of leaders on the podium of the Mausoleum, and, finally, a military parade on Red Square, for which the entrances to the main square capital Cities. This canon was strictly observed, and even on November 7, 1941, when the Germans were advancing on Moscow, it was no exception: the regiments that passed through Red Square went straight to the front. The parade of 1941, in terms of its impact on the course of events, is equated to the most important military operation.

In the 1970s, the situation began to change. The October Revolution Day was no longer perceived as a full-fledged holiday, giving way to the people's Victory Day and the New Year.

After the collapse Soviet Union the president of a new country - Russia - Boris Yeltsin on March 13, 1995 signed the federal law "On the days military glory(victorious 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 interventionists (1612).

On December 29, 2004, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a federal law, according to which November 7 became the Day of Military Glory of Russia - 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 public holiday. Instead, National Unity Day, celebrated on November 4, became a day off.

Today, the holiday is celebrated throughout the country and even beyond its borders.

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

More than eight thousand carnations were brought and brought by St. Petersburg residents and guests of the city to Petrogradskaya Embankment, to the eternal resting place 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 ordinary people collected over the Internet. Fundraising announcements were circulated on social media.

During the campaign “Three carnations for Aurora”, 211,200 rubles were collected, 7,150 carnations were purchased from wholesalers with this money. It took a minibus to deliver so many carnations to the Aurora. A few hundred more flowers were added by the organizers themselves and by 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 was also held in Simferopol. The participants marched 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 Russian Federation.

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko congratulated his 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.

There are only a few days left until the 100th anniversary of the great upheaval that affected Russia, the world and the entire 20th century. There is time to think: what was it - a new degree of freedom, a missed chance, a tragic death or the dawn of a new world? Who made the revolution - the assistants of the gods, demons, or passionaries who do not believe in God or hell? What were its first results? Who became nobody, and who sounded proud?

Let's try to consider at least the main, significant notches that the Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917 left on the front door of the twentieth century.

Who overthrew the king

One of the most common myths about October 1917 is that “the Bolsheviks overthrew the tsar-father.” However Nicholas II it was by no means the Bolsheviks who removed him, his abdication was the result of the previous, February revolution, when the Provisional Government came to power. By the way, it was not popular with either the common people or the officers.

And Kerensky in Russia was not loved and did not want to see in power, and his Duma deputies, who have become familiar over the past ten years and are completely untrustworthy. It was impossible to rely on them at a critical time for the country. Witness of events, future Patriarch of Moscow Alexy I (Simansky) head of the Provisional Government Alexander Kerensky called "an adventurer under the outward form of a statesman."

The February coup resulted in the abdication of the last Russian Tsar, Nicholas II, the liquidation of the monarchy and the establishment of a republican system. "Down with autocracy!" - it's from there. Red bows, the appeal "comrade" and the term "old regime" - too. October Revolution became a continuation and deepening of February, the expansion of its social base. And one should not think that if the Bolsheviks had not had the opportunity to overthrow the tsar, they would not have taken it.

Revolution or coup?

Congratulating my comrades on their success, Vladimir Lenin on the very first day, October 25 (November 7), 1917, at a meeting of the Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, he said: “Comrades! The workers' and peasants' revolution, the necessity of which the Bolsheviks have been talking about all the time, has come to pass.. However, many associates and supporters of the Bolsheviks for the first ten years called what happened the October Revolution and did not see anything wrong with this word. Wrote about the October Revolution Trotsky, Lunacharsky, Stalin. The term "revolution" was substantiated later, assessing the scale of the changes that had taken place, and most importantly, their consequences: the emergence of a new political system and a new, unprecedented type of state.

The fact that all power in the country is passing to the Soviets, the Russians learned from the "Appeal to the people of Russia", which sounded on the radio - at 5:10 am on October 26.

The Bolsheviks destroyed the empire

They rebuilt it, shall we say. What we today would call separatist processes, by the 17th year on the periphery of Russia flourished in a riotous color. The future Ukraine was already creating its own military formations, Finland and Poland were already snapping the locks on suitcases (in fact, Poland was lost back in the 15th), Lithuania and Latvia got out of control in February 17th ...

The Bolsheviks took on the role of collectors - or, in Lenin's literal quote, "turned into the main defenders of the Fatherland", offering peoples who wanted self-determination a worthy alternative to separatism. Recall that the same Ukraine, entering the USSR, had its own representation in the UN, for example. And among themselves, "fifteen republics - fifteen sisters", despite individual manifestations of domestic nationalism, lived together until the very collapse of the USSR.

“In the construction of the life order of the USSR, on the fronts and in the rear of the Great Patriotic War, in the restoration of the country, people were united, and the wounds were closed ... "

Sergey Kara-Murza, historian

The Bolshevik Church immediately cursed

The Orthodox Church initially ignored the revolution altogether. Moscow was preparing for the Local Council and the upcoming election of the patriarch, and all the attention of the church hierarchs was focused precisely on this event. The Council responded to the Petrograd coup four days later by issuing an appeal "To all the children of the Church", which condemned the bloodshed - however, the Bolsheviks were not mentioned at all. By the way, the ignorance was mutual: the new government also reacted indifferently to the election of the patriarch. Even state funding of the church continued until January 1918, when the Decree on the separation of church and state was issued.

What did the revolution

The revolution - a radical, fundamental change in the foundations - was not accidentally called socialist. It was with a change in society and the position of workers, ordinary, ordinary people in it that the Bolsheviks began. The first decrees of the new government - about free education and medical care, about the 8-hour working day, about the insurance of workers and employees; on freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state; on equal rights for women; on the elimination of estates, ranks and titles and bringing all the inhabitants of the former Russian Empire to one common denominator - the title of citizen of the Russian Republic.

The decrees on peace and land issued by the Bolsheviks were in themselves revolutionary.

Where did the holiday go?

Why is the revolution - October, and at the demonstration Soviet people did you go in November? Due to the transition to the Gregorian calendar. The start date of the revolution has shifted by 13 days, from October 25 to November 7.

The day of November 7, which was celebrated on a grand scale in the USSR, has ceased to be “red” since 2005, when a new public holiday, National Unity Day, was established in Russia. However, according to opinion polls, about 36% of the population continues to celebrate the anniversary of the great revolution. In Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Transnistria, this day is still among the official public holidays.

In the Russian Federation, 2017 has been declared the year of the Great Russian Revolution. That's right - the word "socialist" disappeared from the name. Why is also something to think about.

"Bloody October"

Let's start with the fact that February was rather bloody - the victims of the February Revolution were about 300 people from the rebels and 100 officers of the Baltic Fleet, about 1200 people were injured. As for October, it was not the coup itself that was bloody, but its natural consequence - the Civil War, the total losses of which (for all participants - "red", "white" and "green") amounted, according to various estimates, to 5-7 million people .

And directly on the night of the coup, only 6 people were injured, and according to the documents of the Military Revolutionary Committee - from accidents (they were injured through negligence). Junkers and officers, not to mention the soldiers who defended the Winter Palace, were released under honestly: after they promised not to offer armed resistance. And the Aurora fired at the Winter Palace with a blank charge - perhaps just because the Bolsheviks did not crave bloodshed and the "ten days that shook the world" were painted with noble romanticism. Revolutionary terror began later - and this is a different story. New life was born painfully, bloody, ugly - as it always happens. But the cry of new life was victorious.

From 29 to 31 March in the Shuvalov building of the Moscow state university them. M.V. Lomonosov will host an international conference "Centenary of the Revolution of 1917 in Russia."

Dean of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov, Professor Ivan Tuchkov says that the idea of ​​the conference arose a long time ago: “It was an initiative of two departments of political science and the department of history. When we conceived this conference, we were perfectly aware of the fact that the anniversary date allows us to understand and evaluate this event, to draw objective conclusions. This huge event in the history of the 20th century still has amazing relevance, political, human and cultural urgency. We will try to move away from such a political sharpness of this event and give it a more balanced, calm, scientifically based and fundamental assessment.

According to Tuchkov, scientists who have been dealing with this problem for several years will come to the conference: “More than 350 participants come from different countries, from different cities, this is an occasion to discover new approaches, new principles, new interpretations for this event and lay the foundation that will determine the study of the problem of the 1917 revolution in the future.

Ivan Tuchkov

Tuchkov's assessment of those events is as follows: “It is impossible to say whether we love the Greco-Persian wars, Leo Tolstoy or Raphael. They exist, it is a given cultural and human historical development. Any revolution, be it the English one, be it the French Great Revolution, be it our revolution, is always a huge tragic upheaval, because it concerns human destinies. Our revolution, together with the First World War, is a huge milestone in European culture and in European consciousness, which fundamentally influenced the change in the understanding of the world, man, God, and nature. But let's remember how many monuments perished in the Great French Revolution - cathedrals, sculptures, libraries, museums, estates, villas were destroyed. Any revolution is a tragedy. In this respect the Russian revolution is neither worse nor better.

Andrey Shutov

Dean of the Faculty of Political Science, Professor of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Andrey Shutov is convinced that the assessments of the events of February and October 1917, which were contained in Soviet historiography, had political distortions: "The key event, February Revolution, which was marked by the collapse of the entire political system, was largely hushed up in Soviet historiography. A different interpretation was given, the emphasis was on the October events of 1917. Meanwhile, the Bolsheviks, the authors of the October Revolution, from the very beginning considered the October Revolution a revolution. Suffice it to recall the article by Leon Trotsky, which was published a year after the events of 1917 in the Pravda newspaper under the title "October Revolution". The Great October Socialist Revolution - this interpretation prevailed in Soviet historiography in the early 1930s and lasted until the time of perestroika. Now many historians are determined to implement these stereotypes, which were laid down then, into modern historiography.

According to Shutov, it is necessary to raise a number of very important, serious worldview issues related to the historical responsibility of the elites: “Those who pushed the sovereign to abdicate put their political interests above the interests of the state. They aimed at the sovereign, but hit the state. And the so-called spontaneous or chaotic multi-authority that happened after the abdication, thanks to a certain political force that had the will to power, possessed paramilitary detachments, led to a proletarian dictatorship.

Sergey Devyatov

Head of the Department of History of Russia in the XX-XXI centuries, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov, Professor Sergei Devyatov stated that the revolution of 1917 occurred for objective reasons, which led to a social explosion. The main reason the historian considers is the fact that the state - Russian empire- failed to fulfill its functions of maintaining public harmony in the broadest sense. Among other reasons, Devyatov singled out the collapse of the higher noble society for two opposing sides. According to him, what happened in 1917 was, on the one hand, natural, but on the other hand, it was spontaneous: “This process, which was impossible to stop by accepting or not accepting the crown by Michael. The process raised such powerful tectonic forces within society, affected the broad masses of the active part of society to such an extent that it was simply unrealistic to do anything here.

Lev Belousov

According to the head of the department of new and recent history Faculty of History, Moscow State University M.V. Lomonosov, Professor Lev Belousov, the revolutionary events of 1917 still continue to excite the minds of the entire world community: “We can now register interest in this event in the countries of Europe, America and Asia. Immediately after the revolution, in the interwar period, after the Second World War, certain historiographical schools developed, which in one way or another assessed those events. The Russian Revolution of 1917 began in February, followed by the Bolshevik coup. What have they given to the world? Was it really worldwide historical meaning the Great October Socialist Revolution, about which in all our school textbooks and in short course the history of the CPSU was discussed? If it was, what was it like? This issue is still being discussed with our colleagues abroad, but it is being discussed in a slightly different vein. Primarily, we are talking about where is the red line that separates the development of society from revolutionary upheavals. Is it possible to avoid revolutionary upheavals and achieve the same goals by peaceful means? Can society find such a resolution mechanism internal conflicts which allows you to move on, but without revolutionary upheavals, without bloodshed, without civil war? These discussions unfolded and continue in foreign historiography.

According to Belousov, the comprehension of those events and their impact on the overall world process will continue: “At the same time, the previous assessments will retain their significance. There are already accepted positions in historiography - it must be said that the Russian revolution prompted the ruling circles of Western countries to search for shock absorbers for the revolutionary movement, in fact, all bourgeois states, including fascist states, launched large social programs. It is believed that in many respects it was the events in Russia that prompted the ruling circles of the West to begin to pay serious attention to this. Hence the new role of the state, which emerged in the interwar period and became a constant factor in public life after the Second World War.

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

On Thursday, October 26, parliamentary hearings “The 100th Anniversary of the Revolution of 1917 in Russia: International Aspects” were held in the State Duma, 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, reflection and the most impartial assessment possible. However, man is a subjective being, and therefore one cannot expect unanimity, as well as the absence of emotions, in the discussion about the revolution even after 100 years. Past event - bright to that example.

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

“We can definitely say one thing - unfortunately, in world history, most revolutions took place in a situation where the government was weakening and did not hear people, when there were external forces interested in a coup d'état. This has happened before in the UK and in France, and it continues into the 21st century. In 2014, we witnessed a similar process in Ukraine.

In fact, society should be able to draw conclusions from its history. Such skill is the only guarantee of the progressive, evolutionary, and not revolutionary, development of our country, which I very much hope for. We are all working to ensure that the citizens of Russia understand where we are heading, what our image of the future is," the Deputy Speaker of the State Duma noted in his speech. Petr 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 leader of the Liberal Democratic Party took the floor Vladimir Zhirinovsky, igniting in its own style the audience of hearings - mainly students - future diplomats and international affairs specialists.

“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 dead try to take revenge on the killers - and this can go on 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, rebellion, let's call things our words.

In any country, people striving for power, the discontented, have the 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 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 a Zaporozhets, they will want to have a two-room apartment and a Lada Kalina. Further - three-room and "Mercedes". No revolution will lessen people's desire to live better. People yearn for a revolution not to have no wealth, but to become rich. So the meaning of any revolution is a 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 beggars, they cannot wish for this - otherwise we will face an eternal revolution. It is necessary to fight against unjustified enrichment, but to set as an example a person who has lived all his life in a one-room apartment, having only one pants, one bed and one chest of drawers - is that such an incentive for our youth?

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

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

We are told: they say, thanks to the revolution, we then defeated Nazi Germany Yes, it simply would not exist otherwise! The West fostered fascists artificially, frightened by 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 - do not think that on October 25, 1917 it ended. From the Civil War she moved to the Stalinist terror, then to the Great Patriotic War, to politics Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin... and today Ukraine smokes - this is also a continuation of the October revolution. The closure of Russian schools in the Baltics is also its consequence. All over the world, in our former Soviet republics, Russians are being squeezed out everywhere. And the beginning of this process was laid by the revolution.

And today there are more grounds for making a revolution than in October 1917. Is she happening? Not yet, which is good. Today we must deprive Ksenia Sobchak the right to go to the polls - at least for her statements about the status of Crimea. Her political strategist Belkovsky in May 2014 called on the US Army to inflict nuclear strike across Sevastopol! Her entire electoral team should 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, then we have order in our country. If not, the confusion will continue.

We are in a row economic indicators we still cannot reach the level of 1991, and according to others, we generally slid down to the level of the 19th century. And what happened in 1993? The shooting of the parliament by the "new democrats" who handed over their membership cards - is that democracy? During the GKChP, Muscovites yelled: “We will give our souls for Yeltsin!” Now they are ashamed ... Here is another revolution, all this happened before our eyes.

If we are celebrating the anniversary of the defeat of the state, this 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, make public all the materials - and your hair will stand on end from the bloody bacchanalia that has been in the country for the entire 20th century!, - Zhirinovsky completed his emotional speech, leaving almost no indifferent listeners in the hall.

"The Soviet era is the greatest in our history"

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

“I have studied the problem from primary sources, re-read Lenin’s works three times, spoke at all leading universities on this topic, and I must say that our point of view has become more and more dominant in recent times.

In mid-December 1916, to Nicholas II come the leaders of the six Duma factions. 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: “Sir, 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 a capable 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 revolt of hungry women. The police chief of the city, who had 40 thousand bayonets under his command, said: "I will not fight with 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 experience in government, and in six months they ruined the country to the ground, paralyzed the army, refused to give land to the peasants.

And then, on the sixth part of the planet, the voice of Lenin is loudly heard, calling on the working people to raise the red flag over the state. Lenin's May theses were heard by soldiers, peasants, workers and fully supported them. He was a man of genius, whose political legacy is being studied and demanded all over the world today.

The most ingenious invention of the Russians is the creation of a thousand-year state. Lenin not only saved him - he created soviet state where labor ruled, not capital, where education and science were above all else. 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 defeated fascism and demonstrated the unprecedented heroism of its people.

We must be honest with our fathers and grandfathers if we are going to continue building a great country. It was the communists who first raised the issue of the poor, declared that every person 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 look at things objectively, we will see that in Soviet time we have become the strongest, the most educated, the bravest, the most technologically advanced. The whole world studied the experience of the Soviet breakthrough in space, in nuclear energy... American researchers conducted a special study by releasing the book "What Ivan Knows and What Johnny Doesn't 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, where mankind decided to get rid of atomic weapons by the year 2000, defeat disease and hunger, and provide housing for every person. By the designated date, they gathered and wept: atomic weapons are spreading around the world, every fourth inhabitant of the Earth is starving, new diseases are constantly appearing, claiming tens of thousands of lives. As for the environment - there is nothing to say. Last year they met again - now terrorism has been added to these global problems.

I personally and our entire party came to the conclusion that capitalism as a form of organizing life on Earth is not capable of coping with any acute social problem. It is no coincidence that over the past 30 years China has shown the world how to solve such problems - by the 2020s, poverty there will be completely defeated. And in our bourgeois-capitalist Russia, 22 million people live on no more than 10,000 rubles a month! In the richest country in the world! In the meantime, over the past year, Russia's 200 top richest people have increased their capital by $100 billion. They have more than two Russian budgets in their hands, and at the same time they do not want to pay taxes on a progressive scale.

Inevitably, a whole series of decisions in the sphere of the economy will be adopted, which will make it possible to avoid revolutionary upheavals. But revolutions are not invented in the minds. They appear when “the top cannot, the bottom 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 thing. I am for socialism,” Zyuganov summed up his speech in support of the October Revolution.

"The Russian Revolution is an event of universal scale"

Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Anatoly Torkunov somewhat relieved the situation by evaluating the events of 1917 from a scientifically impartial point of view.

“I do not quite agree with the fact that little attention is paid to the events of a hundred years ago today. Maybe not all of them were in sight, but a whole committee was created with the support of the Russian Military Historical Society, which holds a series of events within the framework of the centenary of the revolution. There were about 1200 exhibitions, seminars, conferences and other major events in which tens of thousands of people took part.

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

It is impossible not to admit that the revolutionary events for Russia are an integral part of the national history that determined the entire further development of the country. For many decades, the events of 1917-1922 were divided into the bourgeois-democratic February and socialist October revolutions in the public and scientific consciousness. And in the public mind, 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 rebellion, the dispersal of 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 an industrial society of modern times, was developing. That is, there was a movement, first of all, Western Europe towards modernity, which brought it to the forefront of civilizational processes. Of course, this includes Dutch, French, English revolution, American Civil War. The main positions of modernity were formulated in the Enlightenment, and the central idea is the progress that can be made with the help of rationalistic modeling of the development of the state and society.

The revolution in Russia continued this line. In February 1917, there was an attempt to turn the country onto the path of liberal democracy, which ended in complete failure. The next stage is when Lenin and his comrades-in-arms were able to direct a people ready for rebellion into the bosom of the Marxist paradigm of development.

Unfortunately, many in Russia 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 have lagged behind the progressive countries. It is 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 that 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 German Empire Otto von Bismarck, believed that we could not be conquered, but we could be decomposed from within.

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

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

Before the academician had time to finish, the restless Vladimir Volfovich again took the floor, calling the revolution a mistake that should never be repeated again.

“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 Maidan in Ukraine. If you are for the October Revolution, then you must support the Kyiv regime, which kills Russians every day. All those who come to power in a revolutionary way are criminals. So are we going to support the Kyiv revolutionaries then?

And the last thing - look at the number of prisoners in tsarist and Soviet prisons - in the latter there were thousands of times more! Here's what to talk about! All color revolutions now are a continuation of the events of 1917 - and all this is directed against 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 Italian journalist, writer and public figure who spoke next 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 not for the revolution. To look at the entire Soviet period as a monstrous mistake or criminal events means not to notice the participation in the history of the broad masses of the people. This period was, of course, a sword of violence, but the USSR became a fulcrum for all the oppressed peoples in the world and gave them hope., - Chiesa noted, urging not to judge the Soviet experience based on 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 Zinoviev, said that she was dumbfounded by the negative answer of the press secretary of the President Dmitry Peskov to the Financial Times correspondent's question - will the Kremlin celebrate the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution?

“I thought they gave the wrong translation. I refuse to believe that the leadership of our country will not take part in the celebration of 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 pathetic phrase.

Yes, we draw contradictory conclusions a hundred years later, but the truth must still be born in the discussion. See why the French are not shy, not afraid, do not anathematize, do not pour mud on their bloody story. French Revolution celebrating and 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 various anniversaries of the 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, which 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 soldier 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 - one must draw conclusions. And the fact that on the eve of Rostovites voted against the installation of a monument in their city Solzhenitsyn- this is an important sign that must be reckoned with, ”Zinovieva emphasized.

Professional populism

If you ask the author of this material - whose side am I on: Zyuganov or Zhirinovsky, I will be surprised at the very formulation of the question. Over the decades of sitting their pants in the Duma, they have professionally mastered only one path - populism. If you listen to Zyuganov's praises of October, add to this his assurances of loyalty to socialism, then the most logical question would be why Gennady Andreyevich and his comrades do not partisan, do not protest at the barricades, why does he feel great for a long time included in the oligarch-capitalist system of near-power 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 gains of the Soviet era - this is the current lot of Zyuganov, who, by and large, discredits and shames, and does not support the "red idea" at all .

Mr. Zhirinovsky looks no better, stating that any revolution is a crime, but at the same time hushing up the fact that an authoritarian or simply lost coast from irresponsibility itself can easily degenerate into criminal, comprador and/or corrupt (fraudulent). Comparing the Kyiv Maidan with the October Revolution, when after February Russia suffocated for half a year under the weak-willed anarchy of the liberal capitalists, is an open pulling of an owl on the globe.

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

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

Levada Center cites similar figures: in March 2017, 48% called the revolution inevitable, while 32% said it could have been avoided. 50% consider the plight of the working people as the main reason for the revolution, 45% indicated the weakness of government power as the reason, 20% mentioned a conspiracy of enemies. Finally, 38% of the respondents pointed to the "rather positive" role of October in Russian history, 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