The centenary of the revolution is an inconvenient anniversary for the Russian authorities. Centenary of the Revolution in Russia - Celebrate or Mourn? Centenary of the Revolution of 1917
We start publishing a series of articles dedicated to the centenary 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 series of materials is not strictly a scientific work. 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 the history of Russia, 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 of scientific and technological progress, it had to be forced out 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 for an indefinite period 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 bourgeois revolution not to mention socialist.
At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. 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 - the paradox of the Russian revolution of 1917 was its so-called "growing" from the bourgeois-democratic revolution into the 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 revolution of 1905 political parties were subjected to mass 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 also complicated by the First Revolution, which began in 1914. World War.
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.
.jpg)
It is very important for us to understand that the revolutionary movement in Russia of that period did not rely on the bourgeoisie, as driving force 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.
To understand when there was a revolution in Russia, it is necessary to look back at the era. last emperor From the Romanov dynasty, the country was shaken by several social crises that caused the people to protest against the authorities. Historians single out the revolution of 1905-1907, the February revolution and the October year.
Background of revolutions
Until 1905, the Russian Empire lived under the laws of an absolute monarchy. The king was the sole autocrat. It depended only on him to accept important government decisions. In the 19th century, such a conservative order of things did not suit a very small stratum of society from intellectuals and marginals. These people were guided by the West, where for a long time as good example the French Revolution took place. She destroyed the power of the Bourbons and gave the inhabitants of the country civil liberties.
Even before the first revolutions took place in Russia, society learned about what political terror is. Radical supporters of change took up arms and staged assassination attempts on top government officials in order to force the authorities to pay attention to their demands.
Tsar Alexander II ascended the throne during Crimean War, which Russia lost due to the systematic economic lagging behind the West. The bitter defeat forced the young monarch to embark on reforms. The main one was the abolition of serfdom in 1861. Zemstvo, judicial, administrative and other reforms followed.
However, the radicals and terrorists were still unhappy. Many of them demanded a constitutional monarchy or even the abolition of tsarist power. The Narodnaya Volya organized a dozen assassination attempts on Alexander II. In 1881 he was killed. Under his son, Alexander III, a reactionary campaign was launched. Terrorists and political activists were severely repressed. This calmed the situation for a while. But the first revolutions in Russia were still just around the corner.
Mistakes of Nicholas II
Alexander III died in 1894 in the Crimean residence, where he improved his failing health. The monarch was relatively young (he was only 49 years old), and his death came as a complete surprise to the country. Russia froze in anticipation. The eldest son is on the throne. Alexander III, Nicholas II. His reign (when there was a revolution in Russia) from the very beginning was overshadowed by unpleasant events.
First, one of the first public speaking the tsar declared that the progressive public's desire for change was a "meaningless dream". For this phrase, Nikolai was criticized by all his opponents - from liberals to socialists. The monarch even got it from the great writer Leo Tolstoy. The count ridiculed the emperor's absurd statement in his article, written under the impression of what he heard.
Secondly, during the coronation ceremony of Nicholas II in Moscow, an accident occurred. The city government organized celebratory event for the peasants and the poor. They were promised free "presents" from the king. So thousands of people ended up on the Khodynka field. At some point, a stampede began, which killed hundreds of passers-by. Later, when there was a revolution in Russia, many called these events symbolic allusions to a future big trouble.
The Russian revolutions also had objective reasons. What were they? In 1904, Nicholas II got involved in the war against Japan. The conflict flared up due to the influence of two rival powers on Far East. Inept preparation, extended communications, a capricious attitude towards the enemy - all this became the reason for the defeat of the Russian army in that war. In 1905, a peace treaty was signed. Russia gave Japan the southern part of Sakhalin Island, as well as lease rights to the strategically important South Manchurian Railway.
At the beginning of the war, there was a surge of patriotism and hostility to the next national enemies in the country. Now, after the defeat, the revolution of 1905-1907 broke out with unprecedented force. in Russia. People wanted fundamental changes in the life of the state. Discontent was especially felt among the workers and peasants, whose standard of living was extremely low.
Bloody Sunday
The main reason for the start of the civil confrontation was the tragic events in St. Petersburg. On January 22, 1905, a delegation of workers went to the Winter Palace with a petition to the tsar. The proletarians asked the monarch to improve their working conditions, increase salaries, etc. There were also political demands, the main of which was to convene a Constituent Assembly - a people's representation on the Western parliamentary model.
The police dispersed the procession. Firearms were used. According to various estimates, between 140 and 200 people died. The tragedy became known as Bloody Sunday. When the event became known throughout the country, mass strikes began in Russia. The dissatisfaction of the workers was fueled by professional revolutionaries and agitators of leftist convictions, who until then had carried out only underground work. The liberal opposition also became more active.
First Russian Revolution
Strikes and strikes had different intensity depending on the region of the empire. Revolution 1905-1907 in Russia, it raged especially strongly on the national outskirts of the state. For example, the Polish socialists managed to convince about 400,000 workers in the Kingdom of Poland not to go to work. Similar riots took place in the Baltic States and Georgia.
Radical political parties(Bolsheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries) decided that this was their last chance to seize power in the country with the help of an uprising of the masses. The agitators worked not only on peasants and workers, but also on ordinary soldiers. Thus began the armed uprisings in the army. The most famous episode in this series is the uprising on the battleship Potemkin.
In October 1905, the united St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers' Deputies began its work, which coordinated the actions of the strikers throughout the capital of the empire. The events of the revolution took on a most violent character in December. It led to battles on Presnya and other parts of the city.
October 17 Manifesto
In the autumn of 1905, Nicholas II realized that he had lost control of the situation. He could suppress numerous uprisings with the help of the army, but this would not help get rid of the deep contradictions between the government and society. The monarch began to discuss with those close to him measures to reach a compromise with the dissatisfied.
The result of his decision was the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The development of the document was entrusted to a well-known official and diplomat Sergei Witte. Prior to that, he went to sign peace with the Japanese. Now Witte needed to have time to help his king as soon as possible. The situation was complicated by the fact that two million people were already on strike in October. Strikes covered almost all industries. Rail transport was paralyzed.
The October 17 Manifesto introduced several fundamental changes to the political system of the Russian Empire. Nicholas II had previously held sole power. Now he has transferred part of his legislative powers to a new body - the State Duma. It was supposed to be elected by popular vote and become a real representative body of power.
Also established such public principles as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, as well as the inviolability of the individual. These changes became an important part of the basic state laws of the Russian Empire. Thus, in fact, the first domestic constitution appeared.
Between revolutions
The publication of the Manifesto in 1905 (when there was a revolution in Russia) helped the authorities to take the situation under control. Most of the rebels calmed down. A temporary compromise was reached. The echo of the revolution was still heard in 1906, but now it was easier for the state repressive apparatus to cope with its most implacable opponents who refused to lay down their arms.
The so-called inter-revolutionary period began, when in 1906-1917. Russia was a constitutional monarchy. Now Nicholas had to reckon with the opinion of the State Duma, which could not accept his laws. The last Russian monarch was a conservative by nature. He did not believe in liberal ideas and believed that his sole power was given to him by God. Nikolai made concessions only because he no longer had a way out.
The first two convocations of the State Duma never completed their legal term. A natural period of reaction set in, when the monarchy took revenge. At this time, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin became the main associate of Nicholas II. His government could not reach an agreement with the Duma on some key political issues. Because of this conflict, on June 3, 1907, Nicholas II dissolved the representative assembly and made changes to the electoral system. III and IV convocations in their composition were already less radical than the first two. A dialogue began between the Duma and the government.
World War I
The main reasons for the revolution in Russia were the sole power of the monarch, which prevented the country from developing. When the principle of autocracy remained in the past, the situation stabilized. Economic growth has begun. Agrarian helped the peasants to create their own small private farms. There is a new social class. The country developed and grew rich before our eyes.
So why did subsequent revolutions take place in Russia? In short, Nicholas made the mistake of getting involved in World War I in 1914. Several million men were mobilized. As in the case of the Japanese campaign, at first the country experienced a patriotic upsurge. When the bloodshed dragged on, and reports of defeats began to arrive from the front, society began to worry again. No one could say for sure how long the war would drag on. The revolution in Russia was approaching again.
February Revolution
In historiography, there is the term "Great Russian Revolution". Usually, this generalized name refers to the events of 1917, when two coup d'etat took place in the country at once. The First World War hit hard on the country's economy. The impoverishment of the population continued. In the winter of 1917 in Petrograd (renamed because of anti-German sentiment) mass demonstrations of workers and townspeople began, dissatisfied with the high prices for bread.
This is how the February Revolution took place in Russia. Events developed rapidly. Nicholas II at that time was at Headquarters in Mogilev, not far from the front. The tsar, having learned about the unrest in the capital, boarded a train to return to Tsarskoye Selo. However, he was late. In Petrograd, the disgruntled army went over to the side of the rebels. The city was under the control of the rebels. On March 2, delegates went to the king, persuading him to sign his abdication. So the February Revolution in Russia left the monarchy in the past.
Restless 1917
After the beginning of the revolution was laid, the Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd. It included politicians previously known from the State Duma. They were mostly liberals or moderate socialists. Alexander Kerensky became the head of the Provisional Government.
Anarchy in the country allowed other radical political forces, such as the Bolsheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries, to become more active. The struggle for power began. Formally, it was supposed to exist until the convocation of the Constituent Assembly, when the country could decide how to live on by a general vote. However, the First World War was still going on, and the ministers did not want to refuse to help their allies in the Entente. This led to a sharp drop in the popularity of the Provisional Government in the army, as well as among the workers and peasants.
In August 1917, General Lavr Kornilov tried to organize a coup d'état. He also opposed the Bolsheviks, regarding them as a radical left-wing threat to Russia. The army was already moving towards Petrograd. At this point, the Provisional Government and Lenin's supporters briefly united. Bolshevik agitators destroyed Kornilov's army from within. The rebellion failed. The provisional government survived, but not for long.
Bolshevik coup
Of all domestic revolutions, the Great October Socialist Revolution is best known. This is due to the fact that its date - November 7 (according to the new style) - has been a public holiday on the territory of the former Russian Empire for more than 70 years.
At the head of the next coup stood Vladimir Lenin and the leaders of the Bolshevik Party enlisted the support of the Petrograd garrison. On October 25, according to the old style, the armed detachments that supported the communists captured the key communication points in Petrograd - the telegraph, post office, and railway. The Provisional Government found itself isolated in the Winter Palace. After a short assault on the former royal residence, the ministers were arrested. The signal for the start of the decisive operation was a blank shot fired on the Aurora cruiser. Kerensky was not in the city, and later he managed to emigrate from Russia.
On the morning of October 26, the Bolsheviks were already the masters of Petrograd. Soon the first decrees of the new government appeared - the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land. The provisional government was unpopular precisely because of its desire to continue the war with Kaiser Germany, while Russian army I was tired of fighting and was demoralized.
The simple and understandable slogans of the Bolsheviks were popular with the people. The peasants finally waited for the destruction of the nobility and the deprivation of their landed property. The soldiers learned that imperialist war ended. True, in Russia itself it was far from peace. The Civil War began. The Bolsheviks had to fight for another 4 years against their opponents (whites) throughout the country in order to establish control over the territory of the former Russian Empire. In 1922 the USSR was formed. The Great October Socialist Revolution was an event that heralded new era in the history of not only Russia, but the whole world.
For the first time in contemporary history, radical communists came to power. October 1917 surprised and frightened Western bourgeois society. The Bolsheviks hoped that Russia would become a springboard for starting a world revolution and destroying capitalism. This did not happen.
From 29 to 31 March in the Shuvalov building of the Moscow state university them. M.V. Lomonosov will pass 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 English, be it French great revolution, be it our revolution, it 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, 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, the 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 ideological 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-power 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 disintegration of the highest noble society into 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 to such an extent grassroots the active part of society 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. First of all, 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 a society find such a mechanism for resolving internal conflicts that allows it 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. From here new role state, which is indicated in the interwar period and becomes a constant factor in public life after the Second World War.
On the eve of 2017, in his message to the Federal Assembly on December 1, 2016, President of Russia V.V. Putin, in connection with the anniversary of the revolution, emphasized that “we need the lessons of history, first of all, for reconciliation, for strengthening public, political, civil harmony.”
On the eve of the centenary of the 1917 revolution, we can see not only the usual discussion of supporters of liberal, communist or radical right views, but also a clearly defined state position. In assessing the revolution, the leadership of the Russian Federation has long moved from supporting liberal discourse (as it was in the 1990s) to forming an organic concept of historical politics in relation to the era under consideration based on a synthesis of reasonable elements extracted from various ideological and political positions. This was due to the course taken towards the reconciliation of society, the desire to smooth out disputes about historical events to make them less politicized. This goal was served, in particular, by the renaming and then the transfer of the national holiday in 2005 from 7 to 4 November. It was an attempt to consolidate society, to avoid annual ideological clashes and a possible crisis exacerbation of civil confrontation on the eve of significant date 90th anniversary of revolutionary events. According to experts in the field social psychology, at the first stage, this decision had rather the opposite effect, but a decade later, in combination with other measures, it gave the desired result. It can be stated that for at least twelve years the Russian leadership has been consistently promoting its concept of historical policy regarding 1917.
During this time, an important conceptual change took place on this issue, which fits into the mainstream of the policy of reconciliation of the main political forces in Russia. The February and October revolutionary events ceased to be contrasted, whereas earlier they formed historical myths for liberals (February) and communists (October). For example, in a 2013 Historical and cultural standard(IKS) and the Concept of a new Educational and methodological complex on national history, both revolutions are presented as stages of a single Russian revolution. Due for 2017 memorable dates The 100th anniversary of the revolutionary events of February and October served as the basis for consolidating and replicating this approach through the official media, scientific work and conference papers.
As early as December 19, 2016, the Decree of the President of Russia No. 412-rp “On the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the 1917 revolution in Russia” was issued. It gave direct recommendations to state authorities of the subjects of the federation, local governments and public associations to take part in the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 1917 revolution. According to the order of the President, the association "Russian Historical Society" with the assistance of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation became the coordinator of such events. That is, the conclusions based on the results of the events held are voiced by the Minister of Culture of Russia V.R. Medinsky.
The need to teach historical lessons The revolution of 1917 was repeatedly emphasized in his speeches by Vladimir Putin himself (in particular, at a recent meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club on October 19, 2017).
From these speeches and the final documents of the thematic conferences, one can single out those statements around which a public consensus will have to be formed regarding the 1917 revolution and its place in the history of Russia.
On the eve of 1917, Russia was by no means a backward country. It was a power of the then “first world”, successfully implementing a technological and industrial breakthrough, a country with a dynamically developing economy. Industry and the army of Russia withstood three years of the most difficult war and confidently walked towards its successful conclusion. The thesis about the inevitability and determinism of the revolution by the general state of the economy and the productive forces does not stand up to scrutiny.
The disruption of society into revolution was the result of social contradictions that were not resolved in time, and obvious anachronisms that persisted in society.
It makes no sense to talk about the specific "culprits" of the tragic events of 1917. A revolution is always the result of a lack of responsibility, both of those who would like to conserve, freeze the obsolete order of things that clearly requires reorganization, and of those who sought to spur change (often for selfish purposes), not stopping before civil conflicts and destructive confrontation.
In general, it is concluded that then in 1917 the country made a mistake by choosing a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary path of development. The latter made it possible to avoid the destruction of statehood, millions of deaths and broken human destinies, and ensured consistent progress.
The events of 1917 are not a local political upheaval, but are of universal significance. They gave a powerful impetus for transformations around the world, caused a serious reassessment of the models of human development. The Soviet system has achieved a number of objective successes. Many Western achievements of the 20th century responded to the challenge from the USSR. This is an increase in living standards, the formation of a powerful middle class, labor market and social reforms, the development of education, guarantees of human rights, including the rights of minorities and women.
Nevertheless, the main benefits from the consequences of 1917 were derived not by Russia, which took such a risky and difficult path (on the contrary, it incurred the main costs), but by the Western countries, which had the opportunity to calmly look at the socio-economic experiment being set up in our country and borrow already ready-made social technologies.
Which brings us back to the conclusion about the need for progress through "reforms from above" and about the extremely high costs of the revolutionary path of development.
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 the main holiday of the country - the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Under Stalin, the festive canon also 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 of the capital were specially reconstructed. 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 of military glory (victory days) of Russia", in which November 7 was called the Day of the liberation of Moscow by the forces 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, today in metropolitan metro showed panoramic videos from the Revolution 360 series. Episodes of the revolutionary events of 1917 were recreated on the video, created as part of the #1917LIVE international project. 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 of the 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.
