Foreign press about Russia and beyond. The Communists ask the president to mark the anniversary of the overthrow of the tsarist government in Russia

On the centenary of the tragic events of 1917, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev addresses the causes and consequences of the great Russian tragedy. In his reflections and experiences with pain for the Fatherland and the Church, the voice of the Russian diaspora sounds.

“Do not betray us to the end of Your name for the sake of it, and do not destroy Your covenant, and do not leave Your mercy from us, as, O Master, we will be humbled more than all the tongue and Esma of humility throughout the earth today, sin for our sake, and during this time there is no leader , prophet and leader."

One hundred years ago there was a terrible tragedy of the Russian people, the so-called. "February Revolution", during which the sovereign, the martyr Tsar Nikolai Alexandrovich, was treacherously deprived of the throne, Russia was left without the main saddener-Retainer, and the whole country collapsed into the abyss.

And the most terrible consequence was that the Orthodox Russian people stopped praying for the tsar.

The Scriptures are very clear about the need to pray for the king.

The Holy Apostle Paul writes in his Epistle to Timothy: First of all, I ask you to make prayers, petitions, intercessions, thanksgiving for all people, for kings and for all those in authority, in order to lead us a quiet and serene life, in all piety and purity, for this is good and pleasing to our Savior God, Who wants everyone people were saved and reached the knowledge of the truth(1 Tim. 2:1-4).

And this was written at the time when the king, i.e. Emperor of Rome, was a pagan and a persecutor of Christians! How much more important it is to pray for the Orthodox Tsar, the anointed of God.

However, the Russian people forgot about this commandment and in February-March 1917 they stopped praying for the tsar.

And what happened was what the apostle warned about: a quiet and serene life, conducted in all piety and purity, was cut short, and the whole country plunged into a bloody abyss, sacrificing millions of people.

Many of us somehow do not attach importance to the February revolution, focusing our attention on the events of October - that is, in the Bolshevik coup.

However, we should understand and firmly remember that without February there would be no October.

The Bolsheviks themselves admit this. For example, Leon Trotsky clearly defined this when he wrote in his work The History of the Russian Revolution: “The February Revolution was only a shell in which the core of the October Revolution was hidden.”

The collapse of the Russian army, the release from prison and exile of dangerous revolutionaries (and with them a huge number of criminals), the closure of parochial schools, the looting of church property, the massacre of the clergy and guardians of order - these are the fruits of the February revolution.

But worst of all was the loss of the God-established symphony between the Church and the state, between the tsar and the people.

The sovereign was a sad man of the Russian land. He prayed for his people, and the people prayed for him.

All this was destroyed in the sad days of February-March 1917. As Archpriest wrote. Sergei Bulgakov, not at all a monarchist by conviction, in his memoirs: "Russia entered its way of the cross on the day when it stopped praying for the tsar."

Today, on the contrary, many blame the martyr Tsar Emperor Nicholas II for the events of the February Revolution and write that Russia, because of the Tsar, was on the brink of the abyss.

Let's oppose their opinion with another point of view.

“Now, when fifty years have passed since the death of the Russian Tsardom, our gaze is revealed through the past half century, with complete clarity, as the root cause of the death of our fatherland - the February Revolution. It stands before us as the greatest atrocity ever committed in Russian history, for it led the Russian people, six months later, to a dark abyss of complete perversion of human feelings and human conscience.

We will not pass our own judgment and measure the atrocity of February 1917 by our yardstick, but let us turn to an objective witness of those events, the then Minister of War of England, Winston Churchill, who in his book “The Russian Catastrophe - Russia and Its Tsar” assessed the era of the February Revolution in this way:

“Positively, fate has not been so cruel to any nation as to Russia. Her ship sank already in sight of the pier; she was caught in a storm when everything was over, all the sacrifices had been made and the last effort had been made. Despair and betrayal stole power just at the time when the work was completed. The long retreat was halted, the shortage of shells ceased, weapons began to flow in abundance, a stronger, enlarged army, excellently supplied, guarded the greatest front, and the reserves abounded with brave men. There were no more difficult steps to take. In order to hold back the already weakened enemy forces without much effort, to wait, that was all that Russia had to do until the fruits of a common victory were achieved ... Now it is customary to superficially dismiss the tsarist regime as short-sighted, corrupted and incapable of tyranny. But observation of his 30-month period of war should correct this superficial opinion and clarify the real situation. We can judge the might of the Russian Empire by the battles it endured, by the disasters it endured, and by the way it recovered. In the life of the state, the shame or honor of the result of the struggle for the existence of the state falls on its head.

Why should Emperor Nicholas II be denied this severe test? He made mistakes, but what ruler didn't? He was neither a great commander nor a great ruler, but was just an ordinary man, truthful, merciful, supported in all His daily life by faith in God. But the weight of higher decisions was concentrated on him. He had to be a compass needle: war or peace; advance or retreat; democratize or hold tight; give in or insist - this is the battlefield of Nicholas II. Why doesn't he deserve credit for this? The submissive offensive of the Russian armies, which saved Paris in 1914; overcome the torments of an unarmed retreat; victories in the Carpathians; Russia's entry into the campaign of 1917, undefeated, stronger than ever - isn't he the glory of all this? Despite any mistakes, the regime that he personified and completed and gave vitality to, at that time had already won the war for Russia. But they were going to overthrow him. A dark hand, controlled by madness, intervened. The king is gone... Betray him everything and everything that he loved, betray him to wounds and death, diminish his merits, pervert his deeds, betray his memory to reproach, but tell me, who else was capable after him? Who led the Russian state? It fell back after him...”

The lines of the British Minister give an objectively practical assessment of the madness of the February revolution.

Petr Mar, "The February Revolution in Historical Perspective", Orthodox Russia, 1967, No. 3, p. 6.

Much is now written about the abdication of the sovereign. It is not for us to assess historical events. Let's leave this matter to historians. However, on the issue of the abdication of the sovereign, one should listen to the voice of the great saint, Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow. On the occasion of receiving news of the assassination of Tsar Nicholas II, he wrote:

“We will not evaluate and judge the deeds of the former sovereign here: an impartial trial of him belongs to history, and he now faces the impartial judgment of God, but we know that he, abdicating the throne, did this, bearing in mind the good of Russia and out of love for her. After his renunciation, he could have found security and a relatively quiet life abroad, but he did not do this, wanting to suffer along with Russia.

It should be noted that many preachers of piety in Russia (for example, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Right. John of Kronstadt, etc.) saw in their king - the anointed of God, the “Restrainer” foretold in Holy Scripture, which is spoken of in the Second Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians: For the mystery of iniquity is already at work, only [it will not be completed] until the one who now restrains(2 Thess. 2:7).

However, the Lord did not leave the Russian people without a mourner-prayer, even in the event of the loss, due to our sins, of the Restrainer.

And He sent a new mourner in the same fateful year of 1917 - St. Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow, who fearlessly denounced the theomachists and their henchmen and fought for his God-loving flock.

Not everyone knows the Epistles of the Holy Patriarch Tikhon. At the time of their writing, in most cases, they were not published.

The fearlessness of the holy hierarch and confessor Patriarch Tikhon can be judged by the following words from the above Word, pronounced on July 8/21, 1918 in the Church of the Kazan Mother of God on Red Square opposite the Kremlin, on the occasion of receiving news of the murder of the martyr tsar (at that time the Bolsheviks were still concealed that the entire royal family was killed along with the sovereign):

“He [the Sovereign] did nothing to improve his situation, meekly resigned himself to fate ... and suddenly he is sentenced to be shot somewhere in the depths of Russia by a small handful of people, not for any fault, but only because he was allegedly someone wanted to steal. This order is carried out, and this deed - after the execution - is approved by the highest authority. Our conscience cannot reconcile ourselves to this, and we must publicly declare this as Christians, as sons of the Church. Let them call us counter-revolutionaries for this, let them imprison us, let them shoot us. We are ready to endure all this in the hope that the words of our Savior will also apply to us: Blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it(Luke 11:28)

Most recently His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia Ilia II reminded us of the need to commemorate and pray for the kings at a solemn act on the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill.

In his speech, Patriarch Ilia II said:

“On behalf of the Georgian Orthodox Church and on my own behalf, I cordially congratulate you on your 70th anniversary! When celebrating such dates, we always analyze the path we have traveled and carefully look into the future.

I remember that on the day of my enthronement, a wise man approached me and said: “The Lord laid a heavy cross on you, and in order to lighten it, remember your kings and Patriarchs – they will help in carrying this overwhelming burden.”

Since then I have been doing this and always feel their help. May the tsars and Patriarchs of the Russian land help you too, Your Holiness!

In our time, a hundred years after the events of the February Revolution, it is necessary for all of us to prayerfully commemorate the tsars and Patriarchs of the Russian land, so that the terrible tragedy that befell Russia, which ceased to pray for the tsar in difficult times, will not be repeated. And it is necessary to note with sorrow that the sin of regicide—the murder of God's anointed one—remains an unrepentant sin of the majority of the Russian people.

Let us recall the words of the tsar-martyr himself, written in his diary on the day of his imaginary renunciation: “There is treason, cowardice, and deceit all around.”

Let's stop and think about these words.

In my opinion, there is not a single reasonable person who does not shudder when reading these words.

So, one asks, what is the cause of the February revolution and subsequent disasters?

The answer to this question was given by the great mourner and confessor of the Russian Church, Holy Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who in 1919 delivered a Message to all the faithful children of the Orthodox Russian Church, calling for nationwide repentance for sins, on July 26 (August 8), 1918.

“Humble Tikhon, by the grace of God, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, to all the faithful children of the Orthodox Russian Church.

Beloved brothers and children in the Lord!

The duty of archpastoral love, embracing the sickness and sorrow of the entire Russian Orthodox people, commands Us to turn again to you Our paternal word. Together with you, We suffer in our hearts at the sight of incessant disasters in our Fatherland; Together with you, we pray to the Lord that He will tame His wrath, which has hitherto subdued our land.

This terrible and tormenting night is still going on in Russia, and a joyful dawn is not visible in it. Our Motherland is languishing in severe torment, and there is no doctor to heal it.

Where is the cause of this long illness, which plunges some into despondency, others into despair?

Question your Orthodox conscience, and in it you will find the answer to this painful question. The sin that weighs on us, she will tell you, is the hidden root of our illness, this is the source of all our troubles and misadventures. Sin has corrupted our land, weakened the spiritual and bodily strength of the Russian people. Sin did what the Lord, according to the prophet, took away from us and a staff and a cane, and all reinforcements with bread, a brave leader and warrior, a judge and a prophet, and a sagacious and old man(cf. Isaiah 3:1-2). Sin has darkened our people's minds, and here we are we grope in the darkness without light, and stagger like drunkards(cf. Job 12:25).

Sin kindled the flame of passions everywhere, enmity and malice, and brother rebelled against brother, prisons were filled with prisoners, the earth revels in innocent blood shed by a brotherly hand, is defiled by violence, robberies, fornication and all kinds of uncleanness.

From the same poisonous source of sin came a great temptation of sensual earthly blessings, by which our people were seduced, forgetting about the one thing they needed. We did not reject this temptation, as Christ the Savior rejected it in the wilderness. We wanted to create a paradise on earth, but without God and His holy precepts. God (same) can not be mocked(Gal. 6:7).

And now we are hungry, thirsty and naked in a land blessed with abundant gifts of nature, and the seal of the curse fell on the people's labor itself and on all the undertakings of our hands.

Sin - a grave, unrepentant sin - called Satan out of the abyss, now spewing blasphemy against the Lord and His Christ and raising an open persecution of the Church. Oh, who will give our eyes sources of tears to mourn all the disasters generated by our national sins and iniquities - the obscuration of the glory and beauty of our Fatherland, the impoverishment of the earth, the impoverishment of the spirit, the ruin of cities and towns, and the desecration of temples and shrines, and all this is amazing self-destruction of a great people, which made it a horror and a disgrace to the whole world.

Where are you, the once mighty and sovereign, Russian Orthodox people? Have you completely outlived your power? Like a giant, you, generous and joyful, made your great path indicated to you from above, proclaiming peace, love and truth to everyone. And now, now you are lying, cast down to the dust, trampled down by your enemies, burning in the flames of sin, passions and fratricidal malice. Will you not be reborn spiritually and rise again in your power and glory? Has the Lord closed the sources of life for you forever, extinguished your creative powers in order to cut you down like a barren fig tree?

Oh, it won't be. Just the thought of it makes Us tremble.

Weep, dear brethren and children who have remained faithful to the Church and the Motherland, weep for the great sins of your Fatherland, until it has perished to the end. Weep for yourselves and for those who, out of hardness of heart, do not have the grace of tears. Rich and poor, scholars and simpletons, old men and youths, virgins, babies, unite all together, put on, like the Ninevites, in sackcloth and implore God's mercy for mercy and the salvation of Russia. Then lay aside your worldly cares and cares and hasten to God's temples to cry before the Lord about your sins, to grieve with your sorrow in the face of our zealous Intercessor and all the host of God's great saints.

Let each of you try to clear your conscience before your spiritual father and be strengthened by communion with the life-giving Body and Blood of Christ.

May the whole Russian land be washed, as with life-giving dew, with tears of repentance, and may it flourish again with the fruits of the spirit. Lord Humanity! Accept the cleansing sacrifice of Your people who repent before You, take away from us the spirit of cowardice and despondency, and strengthen us with the Spirit of dominion, the Spirit of strength and strength. Shine in our hearts the light of Your mind, and visit this vineyard, and make it, and plant it with your right hand(Ps. 79:15-16). Amen".

Pastoral conscience calls me in these mournful days to appeal to everyone with a call to repentance for the salvation of our souls.

In what way may the Lord God and the Most Holy Theotokos help you, and above all, the faithful Tsar-martyr Nicholas II and all the new martyrs and confessors of the Russian Church!

The other day, Dmitry Peskov said, answering journalists' questions about the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution (or coup, if someone likes it better): “And why should we celebrate it?” Indeed, the Bolsheviks came to power promising the people "peace, labor, chewing gum", but with the very first decree they took away the land from the peasants, and with the second they plunged the country into a war worse than the First World War. Nevertheless, there is a reason to celebrate the anniversary of the revolution - without it, everything would be even worse.

To understand the essence of the events of those days, let us focus on two issues that brought the Bolsheviks to power exactly one hundred years ago. The commander-in-chief of the Russian army, A. Brusilov, described them best of all: "They only wanted peace, land, and a free life, so that there were no officers or landlords. Their Bolshevism was in fact just a desperate desire for freedom without any restrictions, for anarchy." Let's start from the ground.

How the CPSU (b) gave the peasants land

Very many historians and publicists reproach Lenin's party that, having seized power in the country, they began their rule with deceit. Indeed, Lenin proclaimed the slogan "Land to the peasants." However, already on October 26 (November 8, according to a new style), the Bolsheviks issued a Decree on Land, where it was written in black and white that the peasants would not receive any land of their own at all:

"The right of private ownership of land is abolished forever ... All land: privately owned, public, peasant, etc. - is alienated free of charge, turned into public property and transferred to the use of all those working on it."

What does "for use" mean? The easiest way to understand this is with an example. Until 1861, a minority (and not the majority, as is commonly believed) of Russian peasants were serfs. They had land in use, which they cultivated, but this land belonged to the landowner. The Decree on Land legally returned the peasants to this situation of 1861, simply replaced the landlord's with the nationwide. Only he returned there not a minority, as before 1861, but all en masse.

Moreover, the conditions for the new alienation of property were offered much tougher than those of the average serf of the past: "The entire household inventory of the confiscated lands, living and dead, goes into the exclusive use of the state or community ... without redemption. The confiscation of inventory does not apply to small-land peasants." That is, all peasants with large land (in Siberia, for example, there were no land-poor ones at all) according to the Decree, their equipment was also confiscated: horses, plows, pitchforks and rakes. Let us recall that such atrocities did not exist in the vast majority of landlord households before the abolition of serfdom.

Of course, the Bolsheviks could not implement such an extended serfdom right away without creating an effective apparatus of violence and without completing the civil one. However, after the "respite of the NEP" they coped with this task.

The funniest side of the matter was that the peasants - unlike Lenin, not weighed down by a legal education - approvingly accepted the decree and at first actively supported the Bolsheviks precisely because of it. The fact is that the man of that time, although he was often literate, did not shine in the ability to analyze large and complex texts. The decree began with the words: "The landowner's ownership of the land is canceled immediately without any redemption." And the peasants had nowhere to find out that only 10 percent of arable land in Russia was used in landlord farms. Therefore, the population had a false idea that the landlords had some kind of vast areas, after the withdrawal of which there would immediately be a lot of land.

Starting the decree with a promise to confiscate the landlords' land, one could put anything further in the text - even the words: "All the land:<...>public and peasant - is alienated free of charge. "Only the most attentive and stubborn would have read them anyway. That is, an insignificant part of the population, whose opinion still never affects anything. But everyone read the first phrase of the decree.

But do not laugh at the peasants of that time. In fact, our contemporaries are no smarter than they are. Let us recall at least the notorious "Two Volgas for a voucher" from A. Chubais. Later, E. Yasin frankly admitted: "From the very beginning, the task of a fair and efficient distribution of property was set from the very beginning for purely propaganda purposes ... so that we could receive income that would allow us to buy two Volga at once - this, of course, was a big excess" .

And even if the formally literate inhabitants of the USSR were deceived during the events of the 90s ("Privatization is never fair," - honestly, although belatedly reports E. Yasin), then making claims against the peasants of 1917 is completely stupid. Moreover, Lenin is a man incomparably smarter than the politicians of the generation of E. Yasin. Obviously, if the deception of the citizens was the last to succeed, then the masses had no chance at all against the first.

The peasants quickly realized that the landlords' land did not help them much. Even under the USSR, it was calculated: “According to official data, the surplus increased on average the land allotment of one consumer from 1.87 to 2.26 dessiatines, i.e. by 0.39 dessiatines, of which about half was previously leased ". The formal amount of land owned by the peasants increased by 20.9 percent, but he plowed half of these percent before. That is, the decree gave him ... plus 10 percent.

And a little more fun. In 1917, before the decree, 70.5 percent of the peasant farms cultivated from zero to four acres (extreme lack of land). And in 1919 they became ... 80.5 percent. As the Marxist historian Strumilin noted, "the rural poor have by no means disappeared. On the contrary, they continue to multiply even after the revolution, as they grew before it." And the answer is simple: if we want to give land to someone, then it must be taken away from someone. The landowners, as we have already noted, had little land, so they began to take it away from the richer peasants. There were also few of them, so it didn’t work out much to help the poor, but it turned out to increase their number at the expense of the middle peasants.

How the land of the peasants inevitably ended

The question arises: if the peasants before 1917 had almost all the arable land, why did they live so poorly? The answer is banal: they did not lack land at all. In Germany, France, Belgium at the beginning of the 20th century, there was less land per farmer than in Russia. In Belgium, for example, two times less. Nevertheless, the peasants of these countries were much richer. The thing is that they used a four-field and more fertilizer. And they did this not because they were so smart, but because they, unlike the Russian peasants, had no other option.

In the West, the owners, who could not cope with the survival in market conditions, went bankrupt, sold their land and left for the cities. In Russia, because of the community, this process was slower. The ruined community member could not sell his allotment, he was registered with the community. So he rented it out to other peasants. Imagine that in some country, the owners of bankrupt enterprises will not be deprived of their ownership of them, and the owners of more successful enterprises will be forced to rent capacities from them. Will we be surprised if it suddenly starts to lag behind other countries in terms of competitiveness?

The Bolsheviks, armed with economic theory, knew well that small-peasant farms were an economic dead end. Their productivity is low, in Marxist language, there is no expanded reproduction. The bulk of the grain is eaten by members of peasant families. As a rule, there is simply nothing to sell on the market. This means that there is nothing to buy fertilizers for the fields, there are no opportunities for proper four-field cultivation. As Marx rightly noted, in the West the issue was resolved by the destruction of small farms and their absorption by large ones.

Small farms in the USSR could be put up with only as long as Soviet power was weak - in order to avoid uprisings like Tambov. By the end of the 1920s, Soviet power had become stronger, but small-scale subsistence peasant farming was not, because in principle it could not be strengthened. On the contrary, in 1928 it disrupted grain procurements, which is why a number of cities introduced ration cards for bread.

Then, in the late 1920s, Comrade Stalin took the floor: “Our small-peasant economy not only does not carry out ... expanded reproduction, but, on the contrary, very rarely has the opportunity to carry out even simple reproduction. Is it possible to move our socialized industry further at an accelerated pace, having such an agricultural base as small-peasant farming, incapable of expanded reproduction? No, it is impossible. This must someday end in the complete collapse of the entire national economy. Where is the way out? The way out is to enlarge agriculture, to make it capable of accumulation, to expanded reproduction.

How the Decree on Peace plunged the country into the most brutal war

Simultaneously with the land, the Bolsheviks promised "immediate peace without annexations and indemnities." The Decree on Peace was formally proposed to the countries participating in the First World War. But, like the Decree on Land, it was doomed to failure. Recall: November 7, 1917 in Russia there was a second collapse of power in seven months. You don't have to be seven spans in your forehead to guess: a country where power falls once every six months is deeply ill. Of course, the German-Austrian coalition could not agree to peace without annexations and indemnities with an enemy so weak.

The only peace the Germans could make with Bolshevik Russia was the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which Lenin himself called obscene. It was a world with annexations: the Germans got the territory of Russia, where 56 million people lived, a third of the population of the empire. It was a world with indemnities: 6 billion marks of reparations plus 500 million gold rubles. Most of it was given away in the same 1918 - including almost a hundred tons of gold. Patriarch Tikhon most accurately assessed the peace concluded by the Bolsheviks: "A peace that leaves our people and Russian land in heavy bondage - such a peace will not give the people the desired rest and tranquility."

The Brest peace was, however, not bad for the loss of Ukraine, the Baltic states and other trifles. Its truly tragic consequence was the launch of the Great Civil War. Taking advantage of the lacunae of the Brest peace, on May 8, 1918, the Germans captured Rostov-on-Don, where they brought Krasnov to power. But Germany could not even strain and not create puppet anti-Bolshevik regimes. The very fact of the implementation of the Decree on Peace automatically triggered both the civil war and the intervention of the Entente.

Only in the occupied Ukraine, the Germans and Austrians received a million tons of grain, not to mention other food. Half a million soldiers were transferred to the Western Front from East Berlin and Vienna. With their help, the active phase of the First World War noticeably lasted. Everything that the Russian officers did during the three long bloody years of the First World War was cancelled.

Let's try to imagine this in 2017. A government comes to power, abolishing the army, the police, and at the same time giving NATO regions inhabited by 56 million Russians, and an indemnity unprecedented in Russian history. Wouldn't the out-of-work officers go after anyone who promised the destruction of such a "government"?

If before the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk the White Guard movements were weak and had no military successes - far from all the officers immediately understood what the Decree on Peace threatened Russia with, then immediately after the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk all these volunteer armies began to grow faster than a cancerous tumor and take one city after another.

Of course, the Decree on Peace deeply outraged not only the officers, but also the former allies in the Entente. Beginning in March 1918, when the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed, they landed troops from Murmansk to Vladivostok.

So, the Decree on Peace inevitably brought Russia into a state of simultaneous civil war, occupation by the Germans and their allies - from Pskov and Belgorod to Baku - and intervention by the Entente. According to Soviet estimates, the losses in the Civil War for Russia exceeded the losses in the First World War by about seven times. Were there any alternatives to such a sad end to the Peace Decree? No, none.

What would have happened without the Bolshevik deception of the working people in October 1917?

So, the Decree on Land at first gave the peasants almost nothing, and then the Bolsheviks took everything from them. The Decree on Peace caused a Civil War, in which the victims seven times exceeded those in the First World War. At first glance, it seems that the Great October Revolution was a great evil. Involuntarily, the words of the President of Russia, spoken in the fall of 2017, are recalled: "A revolution is always a consequence of a lack of responsibility."

Simply put, we, as a people, and the so-called elite of this people in 1917 did not have the responsibility to think with their heads. And from this we went to the revolution, as a result of which we got the opposite of what we wanted. So the revolution was just a tragic mistake?

No. No matter how strange it may sound, but October was a boon for the country, and a great boon. To understand why, it suffices to think about one question: what would have happened if Lenin had not raised power from the earth a hundred years ago, which had already fallen from the hands of the impotent Provisional Government?

There is no secret here. Already after October 1917, in the elections to the Constituent Assembly, it was demonstrated what would have happened to Russia if it were not for the revolutionary violence of the Bolsheviks. The people gave almost all their votes for those who gave prettier slogans. And these were the Socialist-Revolutionaries with a promise ... of land to the peasants. It was from their program that the Decree on Land was borrowed. They put forward the slogan to take everything away from the landlords, forgetting to say that there is so little land that this will not change anything. And then they suggested waiting for agriculture to suddenly flourish - forgetting to say that without the liquidation of small-scale subsistence farming, it has not yet flourished in any country in the world.

The whole difference between the Right SRs and the Bolsheviks was that the former would not sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, and that they did not have Lenin. The first was a plus: without Brest, a full-scale Civil War was impossible, since the officers would not have had such a strong incentive to fight against the new government. However, without Lenin, the Social Revolutionaries would not have been able to hold on to power. Let us recall that a certain Kerensky was a member of the right part of this party. This exhaustively characterizes its chances to keep the state under control. With such "leaders" it is impossible to control not only Russia, but even Rwanda.

There were also Left SRs who were inclined to Leninist methods, including terror and Russia's exit from the First World War. These, unlike the right SRs, could both take power and keep it. However, their victory would have been indistinguishable from Lenin's in terms of consequences. Leaving the war on inevitably shameful conditions would automatically set off the Civil War. Only without Lenin's determination they would have dragged it all out longer, which could have increased the number of victims.

Why October was actually a counter-revolution

If we look at the events of 1917 not separately, but as a whole, we will find that the Bolshevik version of the development of events was not only practically inevitable and the least painful. It was, in fact, also a return to the pre-revolutionary state of affairs.

Recall: in domestic policy, the main task of the monarchy until 1917 was the modernization of agriculture through the gradual destruction of small subsistence peasant farming (the Stolypin reform). Industrialization and urbanization would inevitably follow from this, as landless small peasants would be forced to go to the city. In foreign policy - bringing to a safe state the strongest Western military power of all time - Germany (World War).

The February Revolution made it impossible for Russia to carry out both of these tasks. Firstly, the Provisional Government disbanded the police, and the militia it created, predictably, turned out to be useless. As a result, looting and pogroms began throughout the country. Fifteen per cent of all landed estates, as well as quite a few lands of wealthy peasants, had already been seized before October 1917. With the constant "black redistribution", not a single country in the world has yet succeeded in creating a normal agriculture, and without it, industrialization cannot be seen. Secondly, the Provisional Government introduced Order number one, according to which the officers were deprived of power over the soldiers. No country in the world had a combat-ready army without the power of officers, and Russia was no exception. As a result, the armed forces decomposed alive, and all their attempts to attack failed because of the unwillingness of the soldiers to fight.

What did the Bolsheviks do when they came to power? To begin with, they lulled the vigilance of the masses by formally giving them land for use (albeit not for ownership, that is, in fact, without giving anything). For the same purpose, they formally signed a peace (albeit one that immediately caused the most bitter war). Soon, sole power was restored, with sincere faith in the tsar-father: at the funeral of Lenin, they cried like no other Russian tsar.

However, in the long run, the Bolsheviks did exactly what the tsarist government was trying to do. They broke the back of small-scale subsistence farming, replacing it with large-scale farming. They led the anti-German struggle on a global scale, destroying Germany as a state capable of threatening anyone.

Yes, they destroyed small farms a little too brutally, along with millions of peasants. Yes, they put 27 million in the anti-German struggle, and not 1.8 million, like Nicholas II. Yes, the collective farms they created were not viable and they still had to be broken in order to then build capitalist agriculture in pain on their ruins.

But how could it be otherwise? All decisions made under the influence of greed ("black redistribution") and fear ("bayonet to the ground") inevitably carry a very high risk. These feelings rarely suggest reasonable moves. Why were the desires of the Russian peasants to capitulate and then seize the zemlyotsy should have been exceptions to this rule? Well, it's always longer and more difficult to redo what was done crookedly than to be smart from the very beginning.

In 1917, the people, under the influence of propaganda, did not want to fight, but they wanted land. The Bolsheviks, thanks to Marxism, were damn literate and understood that land should not be given to the people, but on the contrary, it must be taken away from them, otherwise there will never be a normal economy in the country. They understood, as Lenin voiced it, that it was impossible to resist the Germans without an army, which means that Soviet Russia could not have a fair peace with them. But they also understood that in order to come to power, one must first promise the people everything that they demand. And only then - having gained a foothold in power and creating their own apparatus of violence instead of the defeated police - gradually shut up those who ask about the promised land and peace.

On a large historical scale, Lenin and his successors simply did everything that the Russian tsars started, but did not have time to finish. The only thing that can be imputed to the Bolsheviks is that in doing so they shed incomparably more blood than the autocrats ever dreamed of. But, on the other hand, is it fault or merit?

The last Romanovs, to be honest, were too westernized, too soft to rule the people they had the honor of leading. From this they abolished preliminary censorship, introduced a parliament and other signs of a Western state and society. IN AND. Lenin corrected all these grave mistakes: the state again began to correspond to its people both in terms of rigidity and in the national spirit, prone to maximalism and immoderation in everything.

Ultimately, the Great October was not only natural, but also just. Therefore, we, undoubtedly, should celebrate the day of the seventh of November - as the day of the victory of the counter-revolution.

We are on the threshold of the next anniversary of October 1917, which this year marks exactly 100 years. In this regard, Akhbare-rooz is preparing special issues in which you can read an interview with Manolo Monro, one of the leaders of the Spanish Podemos movement [Spanish. Podemos, "We can!", Left-wing activist movement in Spain, founded in 2014 - approx. transl.], as well as with Said Rahnama, Parviz Sadakat, Muhammad Karagozlu, Muhammad Malju, Mehrdad Wahhabi, Nasser Muhajer and Sukhrab Mobashsheri [Iranian left-wing activists, writers, publicists, economists, etc. - approx. transl.].

So, exactly a century has passed since the accomplishment of the Revolution of 1917. We pay tribute to the memory of those events, because to this day they have remained in history as the greatest attempt of Mankind to put an end to the omnipotence of capital and after that to build a completely new world - the world of social justice. And at the moment we can see that the reasons why someone is a staunch supporter of the revolution, and someone, on the contrary, its opponent, are not much different from those that initially divided the ranks of those who agreed or strongly disagreed with its ideas. And this is generally not surprising. Because October 1917 put people before a choice: either to start building a new world in which there would be no place for the domination of capital and the exploitation of man by man, or to agree forever that capitalism, in its various variations, is the fate of mankind, or, a kind of "end of history."

The revolutionary days of October 1917 indeed, according to the words of one well-known journalist, shocked the whole world. And, at the same time, they became the starting point of a new era in the history of Mankind. First, in those days, politics had already completely ceased to be the lot or monopoly of the aristocracy, rich landowners or manufacturers - the working masses also became full participants in it. Secondly, those events had a tremendous impact on people's daily lives. Art, literature, philosophy, the right to work, the justice system and democratic institutions, the national economy, education and upbringing, relations between the state and citizens, religion and the state, social equality and women's rights, environment, peace and security, liberation movements, rights [ nations - approx. transl.] on self-determination - all these spheres and phenomena of the social and political life of different peoples and states began to largely focus on the ideals that October 1917 brought into the life of mankind. In all these areas, the content that previously was like hidden, content related to the life and life of ordinary, ordinary people.

The October Revolution was only the first experience of mankind in building a society of social justice and a state based on the principles of socialism, and therefore this experience did not reach the final goal and even ended in defeat. The reasons for this defeat have yet to be comprehended from different points of view, which will be done in the collective interview, as discussed above in this article.

However, the experience of October 1917 can in no way be separated from the entire history of the world communist and leftist movement in general, just as it cannot be thrown aside altogether - this is what we can confidently assert even now. No attempt to build a socialist society or a society of social justice will be realized if it is not based on the experience accumulated by October. Without taking into account this experience, it will be impossible to go further, it will be impossible to eliminate the contradictions, miscalculations and shortcomings that have arisen, and achievements and positive results, on the contrary, will not be able to strengthen and develop them further. Only by using all the accumulated experience will it be possible to build a socialism that will prove to be both more just and more humane than the one that existed in the world's first socialist state.

Almost three decades have passed since the collapse of the USSR. However, the issue of building a society of social justice has by no means lost its relevance - on the contrary, our modern world needs it, perhaps more than ever. Our world, which various destructive forces, fanatics and radicals, and with them adherents of the constant pursuit of profit, in search of new profit and capital, has already been put on the brink of destruction. The results of the domination of capitalist society are not only the appropriation of the results of other people's labor, or simply the robbery of other people, those who work and create material wealth, not only the constant reproduction of poverty, misery and social stratification. Together with all this, they already promise the most gloomy forecasts and prospects for life itself on the planet.

To prepare this series of publications [dedicated to the 100th anniversary of October 1917 - approx. transl.] we discussed the widest range of issues with our experts and commentators, who are both in our country and abroad. Questions are analyzed and considered in the form of interviews and dialogues. We also want to express our gratitude to all the authors and those who contributed and helped us in the preparation of this series of publications. Articles and materials of our series dedicated to the centenary of the October Revolution of 1917, you can read in future issues of Akhbare-rooz on a special page.

"As the world celebrates the centenary of the October Revolution, Russia is once again under the rule of the tsar," The Economist wrote, featuring Vladimir Putin on the cover. More precisely, a collage with him, where the President of the Russian Federation appears in the form of an autocrat of the Russian Federation.

Putin "strengthens power with repressions and military conflicts," the editorial says.

"Very nice. King!" - cover of The Economist magazine with Putin "in character"

Meanwhile, the Kremlin leader still cannot decide who he is: is he still the general secretary of the imaginary Central Committee of the CPSU or is he already an uncrowned monarch? Because of the chaos in Putin's head, the current celebrations on the occasion of the anniversary of the October Revolution were rather sluggish and inexpressive. Even despite the fact that the date obligated: after all, the Petrograd coup turned a hundred years old. Moscow's desire to carefully ignore the unfortunate anniversary attracted the interest of the foreign press.

Another "brace"

"Communists from all over the world are celebrating the centenary of the October Revolution in Moscow," Moskovsky Komsomolets reported. And, let's just say, I exaggerated a little. "Delegations from North Korea, Nepal, Cuba, China, and Vietnam arrived in St. Petersburg," Vesti.Ru specified. And this clearly marked the boundaries of the world, which still continues to be interested in November 7th.

As for the celebration outside of Russia, there is only one country in the post-Soviet space where November 7 is considered the "red date of the calendar", and that is Belarus, reminds Korrespondent. Its leader - President Lukashenko - has already congratulated his compatriots on the anniversary.

But Putin was laconic.

I hope that this date will be perceived by society as drawing a line under the dramatic events that divided the country and people,
- he said, the TV channel "Zvezda" reports.

What does this mean phrase mean in the mouth of a politician who claimed that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century? A year ago, Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that his master's views have not changed, but it is clear that this is not the case.

An inconvenient revolution

The centenary of the 1917 revolution puts the Russian leadership in an uncomfortable position, which rejoices at its global significance, but fundamentally does not accept any idea of ​​overthrowing the government. Commemorative events should emphasize the importance of national unity, an antidote to the class struggle,
- writes the French Le Monde.

Russian leaders have not yet decided exactly how to catalog November 7, the publication develops its idea. Even under Yeltsin, this date was declared the "Day of Accord and Reconciliation." But in 2004, the anniversary of the uprising in Petrograd lost the status of an official holiday. Finally, in 2005, it was finally pushed into the shadows due to the introduction of the "Day of National Unity", which began to be celebrated on November 4th. This date is associated with the completion of foreign invasions (primarily Polish-Lithuanian) into Russia in 1612. Thus, it was about the end of the Time of Troubles and the imminent coming of the Romanov dynasty. But even this nod to monarchism did not take root - the celebration of November 7 in Russia continues. But with one amendment: the anniversary of the revolution is celebrated on this day, like the holding of a parade on Red Square in 1941.

The current government does not want to either completely cross out this event, or mark it as a revolution. She is trying to merge several historical dates into one, in order to form a stronger collective support,
sums up Le Monde.

Why is the Kremlin's policy the way it is? Because Moscow is deeply impressed by the revolutions in the post-Soviet space, in particular, in Ukraine and Georgia. The experience of which the Russian protest movement of 2011-2012 tried to adopt. And this also could not but form a negative attitude towards the concept of "revolution" as such.

Celebrations on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the revolution took place in Russia, but you cannot call them massive

During his speech at the session of the UN General Assembly on September 28, 2015, President Putin criticized "the export of the now so-called" democratic "revolutions. All of us should not forget the experience. We, for example, also remember examples from the history of the Soviet Union. Export of social experiments, attempts push changes in certain countries that were based on their own ideological principles, often led to tragic consequences, led not to progress, but to degradation," Le Monde quotes Putin as saying.

And the British edition of The Financial Times devotes to the October anniversary not one, but several publications. One of them says that "the events of 1917 are difficult to squeeze into a simple narrative paradigm," and therefore Putin's power will give it only streamlined assessments and vague definitions. The idiosyncrasy of the President of the Russian Federation, which the very idea of ​​forcibly changing the existing political system causes in him, also plays a significant role. The FT recalls Putin saying last year that the 100th anniversary of the revolution should be dealt with by "experts".

“For this reason, historians hold conferences, museums organize exhibitions, and television channels show documentaries. But there will be no official celebrations on the occasion of the centenary of the revolution, which is celebrated on November 7 according to the modern Gregorian calendar. In such an atmosphere, few people show interest in the October Revolution, and the views of those who are interested in these events reflect a deep division in today's Russian society.

The unlearned lessons of history

Thus, in a state of cognitive dissonance (psychological conflict arising from the collision of conflicting knowledge or ideas - "24") is not only Putin, but also most of the Russian society. The society of the Russian Federation has not yet made its ideological choice: to fully accept Sovietism or completely reject it.

Russia in reality has never looked into the eyes of the worst in its Soviet past, never experienced a complete reconciliation with it,
- says The Washington Post columnist David Filippov.

“She never opened all the archives that contain details about the extent of the killings and repressions committed by the secret police of the KGB and its predecessors during the years of massive Stalinist purges, she never brought to justice the living employees who suppressed dissent under the following Soviet rulers. ", the article says.

"Some names have changed, but Russia's first post-Soviet president, Boris Yeltsin, kept former KGB officers in high positions, and Putin, a former KGB officer, brought with him even more former colleagues. Now the internal security service, now the FSB, has filled not only Putin's inner circle ", - writes Filippov.

The last century was ruthless to Russia. Perhaps it would have been the same without the revolution. But it took place, and its legacy exists in the memory of Russia inevitably and intricately,
- the author concludes.

The Norwegian professor Bert Gartvet also writes about the ambivalence of the perception of the revolution, a kind of social schizophrenia, in the networks of which Russia is located. "For Russians, this year is marked by revolutions. The centenary of two revolutions in Petrograd will be celebrated. The first, February, destroyed tsarism. The second destroyed the dream of the constitutional development of Russia. And brought to the fore one of the most cruel tyrants of all time - Joseph Stalin. His the arrival led to unthinkable suffering for the Russian and Ukrainian peoples."

These anniversaries - if that's the right word - haven't caused much of a stir so far. And this is understandable. There is little to celebrate here. The current Russian regime sees the ambiguity of these events quite well. We are talking about one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the perverted appeal to an ideal called communism (...). The October Revolution was not a revolution. I call on the Russian Ambassador to organize a memorial meeting on November 7,
Professor Hartvet notes.

There are big doubts that the Russian ambassador to Norway heeded the call of the intellectual. But the White House made its statement, which marks November 7 as the National Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Communism.

"The Bolshevik Revolution brought about the emergence of the Soviet Union and its dark decades of repressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with the freedom, welfare and dignity of human life," the Trump administration said in a statement quoted by RFE/RL.

It also recalled that over the past century, more than 100 million people have been killed by communist totalitarian regimes around the world, and countless more people have been forced to undergo exploitation, violence and untold devastation.

Communism has killed over 100 million people worldwide. In the photo - the victims of the Holodomor in Ukraine

“These steps, taken under the false pretense of liberation, systematically robbed innocent people, depriving them of their God-given rights to the free exercise of faith, freedom of assembly and other rights that we consider sacred and inviolable. Citizens who aspired to freedom were subjected to enslavement by the state through coercion, violence and fear," Trump's office said.

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

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

Who overthrew the king

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

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

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

Revolution or coup?

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

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

The Bolsheviks destroyed the empire

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

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

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

Sergey Kara-Murza, historian

The Bolshevik Church immediately cursed

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

What did the revolution

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

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

Where did the holiday go?

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

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

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

"Bloody October"

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

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