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. The past event is a prime example of this.

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. You remember the text of the Internationale: “We will destroy the whole world of violence, and then…” That is, there will definitely 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 an average salary, average housing, average living conditions - such a society will not be viable. People don't want to limit themselves all the time. After a one-room apartment and 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. Take the achievements of 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 later defeated fascist 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 launch a nuclear strike on 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.

According to a number of economic indicators, we still cannot reach the level of 1991, and according to others, we have 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 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 is in recent times more and more prevalent.

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 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 did not just save him - he created the 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 top marks Soviet education. There are many such examples.

In 1966, after our Yuri Gagarin conquered space, the World Forum was held in Washington, at which humanity decided to get rid of atomic weapons by the year 2000, defeat disease and hunger, and provide every person with housing. 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 1,200 exhibitions, seminars, conferences and other major events throughout the country and abroad, in which tens of thousands of people took part.

I must tell you 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 the republic, the Kornilov rebellion, the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly, the establishment of Soviet power, the bloody Civil War - all these were stages of a single process, which, for various reasons, reached extreme radicalization. .

By the time of the Russian revolution in Europe, for about four centuries, the process of large-scale historical modernization, transformation into 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 the Dutch, French, English revolutions, the civil war in the United States. 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 historical memory 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 of the 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. In the Exhibition Hall of the Federal Archives in Moscow, on September 28, a historical and documentary exhibition "Lenin" was opened, 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 the royal 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 Giulietto Chiesa, who worked in Russia for 20 years as a Moscow correspondent for the newspapers Unita and La Stampa. The Italian stressed that the significance of the revolution cannot be assessed from the point of view of morality, because in any case it "left a decisive imprint" on world history XX century, and this influence on the history of the world continues to this day.

“Russia, with all its characteristic features and world influence, would not exist if it were not for the revolution. 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 throw mud at their bloody history. 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 at all support the "red idea" .

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 main reason for the revolution plight people, 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 the social and economic development of the country, 23% called it " 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 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

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 opposed, whereas earlier they formed historical myths for liberals (February) and communists (October). Thus, in the Historical and Cultural Standard (ICS) prepared in 2013 and the Concept of the new Educational and Methodological Complex for national history both revolutions are presented as stages of a single Russian revolution. Commemorative dates of the 100th anniversary of the revolutionary events of February and October in 2017 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 made direct recommendations to the state authorities of the subjects of the federation, local government 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 learn the historical lessons of the 1917 revolution 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 must be formed regarding the revolution of 1917 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 reforms and social sphere, 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.

The events of October 1917 were a turning point for many. Russia at the beginning of the last century, however, as now, is a huge country where more than 190 peoples live. On the attitude of the new government to the national question - the correspondent of "MIR 24" Nahid Babaev.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“National intelligentsia, formed in the regions, received a unique chance to win independence or at least broad autonomy within the renewed Russian state”, explains the historian Yegor Yakovlev.

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

First of all, the local Soviet authorities began to fulfill their promises: land for the peasants, factories for the workers, peace for the soldiers. In addition, the Bolsheviks released political prisoners. For example, more than 1,000 people were released from the Minsk City Prison alone.

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

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

Funds from the sale of women's stockings, condoms and red caviar fell into the purse of the revolution. These and other goods were sold by a commercial company that the Germans created in Denmark in order to quietly transfer money to the Bolsheviks.

They also traded technical instruments, medicines for the tsarist army and raw materials for military production.

Goods were exported to Russia, Germany, Scandinavian countries, England.

The Germans also had new channels for the supply of weapons.

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

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 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 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 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. Day became a day off instead national unity celebrated on November 4th.

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 place of eternal parking of the legendary cruiser Aurora. The organizers of the flower-laying action at the “ship of the revolution” said that the red carnations, symbolizing the revolutionary movement, were purchased with the money of ordinary people collected via 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.

On the symbolic date of October 25, the next issue of the “Position” program (AGTRK “Pomorie”) was dedicated to assessing the events of a hundred years ago.

Who has forgotten, let us recall - it was on this day (more precisely, night), if we count according to the old style, that the Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd. This happened just a few days before the next elections to the Russian parliament, then called the Constituent Assembly, which were scheduled for November 12. A certain number of Bolsheviks would undoubtedly have got there ... but hardly with decisive votes. What's next? Russia began to develop along a new path, because her power would not be divine, as under the tsar, but democratic, as in the entire civilized world.

Yes, the last king was, frankly, not very good (and it's not just about his amorous adventures with ballerinas). Read the memoirs of contemporaries (not Pikul!), what influence the peasant Rasputin had at court ... by golly, get upset. But you will be surprised, with all this, Russia stood out in the ranks of the leading world powers, first of all, economically. That is, in the area to which the autocrat had a purely nominal relation, other mechanisms are involved there. For example, do you know that the Russian gold ruble continued to be highly quoted on world markets for some time after the October Revolution, such was its image, such was faith in it? It seems that the world could not understand for a long time how a group of political adventurers can let a huge country with a dynamically developing economy go to hell.

Yes, I agree, the workers received less, the socialization of the Russian peasantry developed poorly (not to be confused with the doctrine of socialism), but the latter is typical for all of Europe as a whole. Just the transition from autocracy (dictatorship) to parliamentarism would correct the existing mistakes. The nobility would also cease to feel like the undivided masters of life ... it already made room in the 19th century, giving way to bankers and industrialists. I am sure that the shameful “Pale of Settlement” would disappear, it is unnecessary to remind where the Bolsheviks drew their main leading cadres.

Another important point. At the beginning of the 20th century, a bacillus of atheism got into patriarchal-believing Russia, namely, the strong influence of the church did not allow many areas to develop due to the mere exclusion of non-believers from government posts and bureaucratic positions. And within one or two decades, Russian Orthodox Church would occupy its niche among other public institutions ... and would not be destroyed barbarously along with temples and priests. It is widely known today that Lenin and his closest associates were precisely a militant atheist, on which the philosophy of his teaching rested.

However, why did I start with the "Position". It was strange if invited as one of the four main speakers the main regional communist Alexander Novikov would not defend with foam at the mouth the conquest of October dear to his heart. The position of Rostislav Vasiliev is also natural, the leader of his party (Zhirinovsky) cannot stand that revolution. Two more representatives high school, who stood at different barriers, mainly discussed the consequences of what happened in the 17th, with an emphasis on Stalinist purges, also quite predictable behavior of the intelligentsia, which began back in the Khrushchev thaw.

But the most frank of all was the famous Arkhangelsk artist Dmitry Trubin, who bluntly said (albeit in another interview) - "I will always be for the Reds ... this is my origin."

Wow! It's pointless to even argue with such motivation. Especially now. In the revolutionary years, yes, since many of the nobility, officers, science and culture were dissatisfied with the style of government of Nicholas II and were ready to support even the devil bald (which they eventually did), just to annoy the ruling House. Well, the officers have additional motivation, many were dissatisfied with the pace of promotion. The military all over the world are quite a reactionary professional caste... otherwise where do all these coups come from?

But then there were more than 70 years of a classless society (classes objectionable to the new government were either exterminated or mimicked, for example, my grandmother, the daughter of a major Jewish industrialist from Yekaterinoslav, in the column "father" wrote his first specialty "cooper"). It was only during perestroika that it became safe at first, and then fashionable, to remember one's roots. Dvoryansky, of course. Or merchants. Or related to the church service. And so many of them divorced by the first decade of the new century that the fashion changed - "but mine are from the plow and have always been for the revolution."

That is, one protects his own, who is there from rags to riches, and who is quite the opposite. In my opinion, this is quite normal, otherwise you can talk about the betrayal of generic memory and your own class. It would be interesting to look at the pedigrees of our positional discussants.

November 7 was not celebrated in my family (even if there were party members). They were silent, sighing for the lost. “Your grandfather was a dead man,” my great-grandmother (from the nobility) told me, “his cousins ​​called him with him, but he did not dare. Now they are in London, who are in Paris, and we ... ". “Well, what are you, Baba Vera, then I wouldn’t even exist in the world,” I objected. “So what, there would be someone else, but much happier,” said the peremptorily born countess, who gave birth to children even before the October Revolution, lost her husband on the streets of revolutionary Moscow (they were stabbed to death in the gateway for a beaver collar and a non-proletarian appearance), survived 37 th and other terrible years, living out her life in a small-sized Khrushchev with a large family of one of the daughters.

Everyone was silent, she alone called that time vile without going into explanations. Well, what else was it?

In my childhood, they talked a lot about the world revolution, they say, Lenin was counting on it, but Something went wrong. Indeed, the original idea was just that. For example, do you know that the name of the new state should have been the "Union of the Republics of Europe and Asia"? But there was an objection - "what if Africa joins us?" (Initially, America was not particularly counted on). As a result, they decided to stop at the Union of Soviet Republics, incorporating into it the national outskirts of the former empire. The very republics that fled into sovereignty at the first opportunity that arose, when it became clear that the new ones in the Politburo of the Central Committee had no guts to crush the people with tanks.

Well, why were they able to gather everyone together at once? Myth. In which we believed in childhood. The myth that there will be no money under communism - go to any store and take what you want. At the same time, it doesn’t matter what kind of work you do - you hunchback in the field, stand at the machine tool or sit your pants in the office. Is this not heaven? That's how we imagined - you go to the ice cream stand and take as much as you want.

The people were bribed with the dream of a universal freebie... isn't that meanness?

However, they started with a more petty meanness. Remember that notorious "Brest Peace" that you studied at school? In textbooks, it was presented as a conscious necessity. And not half a word about the fact that thanks to this document, Kaiser Germany copes with its own internal revolution, losing in the World War, but without catastrophic consequences. At the same time, we substitute our allies in the anti-German coalition, and then we are offended by their revenge in the form of intervention. The meanness of this step is shown, for example, in the Soviet film "Chicherin", a military adviser to the Soviet diplomatic mission from the former fired while signing. My father worked on that picture, he specifically asked me to pay attention to the episode, that the censors missed it because of their closeness.

Do you think I've read sedition now? Nothing happened. All this was described in Soviet history textbooks, you just need to be able to draw the right conclusions from what you read. I succeeded…

But what neither the Russian people, nor the peoples of the former empire liked at all - the destruction of private property, which was the basis and way of all Russian life (read at least "Domostroy"). In order to prevent a social explosion, which would certainly follow on the realization of the deceived poverty (the striking force of the Bolshevik revolution), that they were deceived in this, that there would be no mass distribution of what was taken away from the classes disappearing before our eyes, the strongest system of internal suppression in the world at that time was created. under the original name of the Cheka.

Here is another systemic error of those arguing about the revolution. Stalinist repressions are ahead, but we are talking about the root cause, what hatched from what. By the way, have you noticed that over the years, more and more defenders are just with Stalin, and less and less with Lenin? It turns out that mustachioed effective manager corrected errors burry leader, introducing industrialization and collectivization to replace the destroyed civil war and the general mismanagement of the first years of Soviet rule of the economy of the fallen empire. However, like the victory in the Great Patriotic war- what is it, if not the liquidation of the consequences of that very "Brest Peace"? Germany would have been finally finished off then ... it is unlikely that Hitler would have found a place in it later. Not sure, that german version socialism would be peaceful, but this is already on the issue of subjunctive moods. And certainly with non-Soviet Russia, the allies are already anti-Hitler coalition would be much more accommodating.

In the meantime, the role of Lenin, if you treat it with an open mind, is the role of a petty, dirty destroyer, albeit with truly global popularity. But are there many such examples in the history of human civilization?

And one more thing - buildings built for centuries with a clear ideology and reliable economic support do not collapse from one slight push, the same Russian empire resisted for several bloody years. They say that adventurers came to power in 1991... and who were those from 1717?

P. S. These days, there is a discussion on the Internet about who and how will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the WSSD. Some are even going to bow to the Mausoleum. And I - no way. I will remember (in my heart) my great-grandfather, who was stabbed to death in a revolutionary frenzy, and I will work for the victory of the capitalist system. At least in a single family...

Leonid Chertok