Lenin: bury forever?

January 21 - Lenin's Day, 80 years ago. In front of me, the article of the Moscow publicist Valery Kajay "bury forever or who belongs to the idea of turning the body of Lenin into holy relics." Valery Kajaya is involved in our current program. And he answers his own question simply: the idea belongs to Stalin, like the idea of the mausoleum himself. Well, the body of Lenin in the mausoleum, the mausoleum in the heart of Russia. Well, Lenin is also in the heart? This is a question to the participants in the transfer. In our Moscow studio: Valery Kajaya; with him Ilya Ponomarev, head of the information and technological center of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation; Sociologist Alexei Levinson.

Alexey Georgievich, I will present you now more detailed. So: Head of the Department of Sociocultural Studies of the analytical service of the VTsIOM-A under the leadership of Yuri Levada. After such a long view, the question: there are some sociological data that show the attitude of Russians to the most visible monument in Russia - to the mausoleum and to the body of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, embalmed and in this monument?

Alexey Levinson: We asked the question of how to do with Lenin’s body and how to do with the mausoleum. As for the mausoleum, the opinions, the vast majority of those who answered us told that this was an architectural monument, it should be preserved, a small number of people spoke of his demolition. The question with the body of Lenin is much more debatable. In the late 90s, the opinion that it should be buried in a wolf cemetery expressed 37% of Russians, and that it must be left in the mausoleum of 39%. At this time, there was almost a parity of these two options. A little later, in favor of leaving him in the Mausoleum, 44%spoke in 2000, and for the burial at the wolf cemetery 34. I would explain such an increase in the number of answers that it must be left in the mausoleum, in general, the relevance of this topic for public consciousness is dangling. And people prefer to leave things the way they are, this, oddly enough, means desoring the question of the body of the late leader.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Alexey Georgievich. I can add to this the data of another sociological service, this data is also in 2000. When asked who is the most outstanding politician in the history of Russia, an answer was received - Lenin in the first place. The survey was conducted by the Agency for Regional Political Studies, Arpi. And with this to Valery Georgievich Kajay. Valery Georgievich, we hear: Alexei Georgievich comes to the conclusion on the basis of sociological surveys that the problem is not relevant at all, that Russians are ultimately arranged by the situation that is - Mausoleum on Red Square, Lenin in the Mausoleum, and this is the story. Your opinion?

Valery Kajaya: The fact is that polls were also conducted in France, Napoleon was called the greatest Frenchman for many years in a row. Napoleon, his sarcophagus is located in the center of Paris. But people who are engaged in history know that none of the rulers of France brought her so many troubles and so much evil, did not shed so much blood and did not destroy the French as much as Napoleon did. You talked about my article “To bury forever”, I handed over another article, not to jinx whether it will pass or not, it is called “Lenin. Man and Myth”. Lenin has already become a myth. If people, our inhabitants would also know well what Lenin was like a politician, as a person, as we learned in the late 80s-early 90s, then, of course, the worship of Lenin, his mummy, which is now in the center of Moscow, like the Napoleon’s sarcophagus in the center of Paris, this would be an insult to all people living in Russia and the former USSR.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Valery Georgievich. Ilya Vladimirovich Ponomarev, Valery Georgievich says that Lenin became a myth. Yes, indeed, he became a myth, regardless of what accuracy and thoroughness the realities of his personality and his activities are known. The myth of such realities does not require. From your point of view, what is the symbol of this myth for Russians?

Ilya Ponomarev: Vladimir Ilyich became a myth during his life. And what I agree that if the Russians knew what this person really is, then the level of his popularity would probably be completely different, he would certainly become higher. The further we leave the 90s, the more people would be inclined to hold the Bolsheviks in the events of 1917 on the studies that are regularly carried out on this subject. Research relative to the mausoleum is a reflection of the same process. What I agree, this is what the farther, the less such sacredness this question has, the less Lenin becomes an icon, and the more people begin to think about what his ideas were really. And in this sense, the severity of the issue regarding the Mausoleum in the form in which there is or not, it leaves.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Ilya Vladimirovich. Perhaps the point is what Alexei Georgievich is talking about, that the sharpness is leaving, because people decided not to excite the topic, not touch the problem, not to turn the anthill, but to calm down and engage in their everyday business. Alexey Georgievich, still there is a certain mysticism in this. Lenin was destroyed by the Russian state, which was historically, but in power in Soviet Russia he was, in reality, for four and a half years, he subsequently hurt and retired for a long time. From your point of view, perhaps not as a sociologist, but as an actively thinking citizen, maybe you can explain what this preserved popularity of Lenin’s image is connected with whether this image knows or not, is it a myth or not - there is the popularity of a person who destroyed the Russian state?

Alexei Levinson: Leo, I just wanted to say that the data that we have, unfortunately, do not confirm the conclusions that a colleague comes to. The fact is that the attitude towards Lenin changes, it changes, firstly, aside more calm, and secondly, much widespread sympathies. Namely: in 1990, to the question of which of the following figures of the time of the revolution causes you the greatest sympathy, Lenin was in the first place and it was called 70%. In 2002, Lenin continued to be in the first place, but he was called 36%, that is, the fall was exactly half. There were 4%of people experiencing antipathy for Lenin, there were 11, here the growth is almost three times, but this is a small number. Lenin is a figure whose significance falls over the years. The significance of a completely different figure is increasing, I think that in order to happen today, it is a much more serious and causing, perhaps, anxiety sign. Here is the proportion of people who sympathize with Joseph Stalin from 8% in the year 22% in 2002, and it continues to grow. It seems to me that Lenin was perceived as a symbol of non -violent rule, and Stalin is perceived as a leader who used the force in establishing the order of things that was remembered about this. Both that and the other are myths, but these are myths of different types and mythologized figures with different semantics. And that is the semantics that is associated with Lenin, is deactualized, and the one that is associated with Stalin is growing. And this, in my opinion, is a very important circumstance of the present time.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Alexey Georgievich. By the way, I want to correct the incompleteness of what I said. I said that Lenin was called the most outstanding Russian politician, in fact, the question was about the most outstanding policy of the 20th century. Valery Kajaya, what do you want to achieve in public opinion, at least in the minds of your readers with your materials about Lenin, about the Mausoleum?

Valery Kajaya: I want to achieve what the Soviet government gave me - knowledge, because knowledge is power, ignorance is also power. These numbers that we have heard now say nothing to me. We can now go to some kind of beer, and there they will scream “for the homeland, for Stalin!”, Not knowing who Stalin was. In the 90s, many archives opened, mouths opened, brains opened, we finally learned what Lenin was doing, not only his ideas. With good ideas, the road to hell is paved, as you know. And how he destroyed Russian culture, how he destroyed all dissent. This is a man who once fought with an autocracy who personified unanimity, a man who turned the ideas. That is, he actually preached one thing, but carried out completely different. Why are they now more gently remembered by Lenin than about Stalin? The fact is, Barbus said in due time that Stalin is Lenin today. Stalin for a long time, several decades of matters, the cult of the personality of the sweet God-man Lenin, who was really something like our second Jesus Christ, blessed all people. Although as much evil as he brought, it is difficult to find a second such ruler in Russia.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Valery Georgievich. Ilya Vladimirovich Ponomarev, here "Knowledge - Power" sounded. But we see that the myth is power, where knowledge is completely optional.

Ilya Ponomarev: I just heard one myth that Lenin destroyed culture. Meanwhile, the 20s were the heyday of culture, and the culture of the modern one, which was much ahead of all other Western countries, the avant-garde artists appeared at this very time, the new theater appeared at this very time. Such a galaxy of names that arose in the first half of the 20s did not dream of a single Western country. Yes, of course, it was the revolutionary breakdown of consciousness that took place, we know the famous ship of philosophers and so on, all this was. But there was a very stringent political struggle that at that time took place in our country. Therefore, let's, when we talk about various myths, try not to cultivate them at least among themselves, from one extreme to another. And I would like to answer Alexei Georgievich that I spoke a little about another question. If you pose a question regarding which of the leaders of the revolution is most relevant for Russians, of course, because the proportion of people who will make it difficult to answer. I talked about the question of whether you were ready to join the Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution. And the proportion of people who answer - yes, ready, is growing.

Valery Kajaya: Again, this all comes due to the fact that people now, I have grandchildren at school, I go, see that they are teaching on history, they know the story very poorly. You said now - the heyday of culture, called avant -garde players and so on. Forgive me, the basis of culture is primarily variety. The Bolsheviks, having come to power, banned any dissent, all parties were prohibited. Even in their own party, the Bolsheviks banned any dissent, that is, fractionality. And as a result, we became a country of slaves, a country where only the leader or collective leader in the form of the Politburo spoke and broadcast, and all the others together followed their instructions and walked in the leg. But, excuse me, we were a big camp in which no one could have an opinion. What culture can we talk about when I, if I have my opinion, then this means that I doom myself primarily to imprisonment, at best, or generally physical destruction.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Valery Georgievich. For the sake of truth, since you mentioned the factions, it is worth saying that at the tenth congress, the 21st year, the resolution of the congress on factions that banned the fractional activity of the party, banned the platform and so on was adopted. This is a historical fact.

Ilya Ponomarev: It is known that the Bolshevik party, despite the decision you mentioned, was a party until the end of the 1920s, in which there were a very large number of clashes of various opinions, ideas and so on. That ban on the activities of other parties, which was in the early 1920s, is connected with the civil war that went in the country. And this did not happen at the time of the Bolsheviks came to power, but a fairly long time after the revolution of 1917.

Valery Kajaya: Excuse me, they banned the cadets on the second day-the 25th came to power, the 26th party of Cadet was prohibited.

Ilya Ponomarev: With whom they fought, against it ...

Valery Kajaya: Sorry, before the civil war there was still stomp and stomp, and on the second day they banned the batch of cadets.

Lev Roitman: Excuse me, gentlemen, do not interrupt each other. Well, this is a fact - a party of cadets was prohibited. But, in addition, censorship was introduced under Lenin and before the outbreak of civil war. These are the circumstances that are obviously associated with the era, over time. And there is still no need to argue against historical realities, after all, these are facts. Why did this happen? The question is probably different. Alexey Georgievich Levinson, you seem to be in a skirmish with Ilya Vladimirovich spoke of some numbers that may indicate a fall in the interest of Lenin’s popularity in the public consciousness?

Alexey Levinson: I would not want to call our discussion a skirmish. As for the numbers of those who are now lying in front of me, I want to inform that, according to January 13th of the current 2004, out of almost a dozen options for the answers about Lenin that we proposed, our analytical service of the VTsIOM proposed almost 1600 Russians, most often, namely, in 36 cases of a hundred people, they chose the option, in my opinion, very well balanced: the memory of Lenin will be preserved in history, but the memory of Lenin will be preserved in history. No one will go along his path. This answer was the most popular. The second most frequency was the answer that Lenin’s ideas were distorted by his followers - 26%. And the third most frequency was the answer that Lenin brought our country to the path of progress and justice. These are the most massive answers, they well show the distribution of opinions in the country. That is, for a quarter of the population, the image of Lenin as a leader who brought the country to the path of progress and justice is preserved. By the way, this is the oldest part of the population, which is not surprising. Then there is such a compromise opinion that, probably, Lenin had good ideas, but they were distorted because political practice was compromised in the eyes of so many, namely a quarter of the inhabitants. And the most, I repeat, a balanced opinion - Lenin will remain in history, and the country's path will be different.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Alexey Georgievich. Ilya Vladimirovich Ponomarev, what image of Lenin you are trying to maintain, perhaps cultivate, perhaps, develop? I remind you - you are the head of the information and analytical center of the Central Committee of the Communist Party.

Ilya Ponomarev: First of all, we are trying to show Lenin as a great thinker, to convey his ideas to the widest mass, both the population and within the party. Because, unfortunately, we see that especially over the past decades of Soviet power, indeed, the ideas of Lenin were turned into an icon, and a living thought left there, the one that was laid by him when he wrote these works. I can say that now a very large number of young people come to the party, as a rule, she knows Lenin much better than senior comrades who work in the regional and regional party committees. And therefore, we believe that there are a great future behind these ideas, and we will be able to adapt them to the reality that we see on the street now.

Lev Roitman: Thank you, Ilya Vladimirovich. Valery Georgievich Kajaya, take a chance at the forecast: 80 years since the death of Lenin, a hundred years - where will Lenin's body be?

Valery Kajaya: You know, I was 21 years old in the Lenin party, I know that it was the party of Lenin, not Stalin. Because the entire program of the 10th Congress to a single point that took place under the leadership of Lenin was made by Stalin. Here they are the ideas of Lenin, the ideas of Lenin are laid down by the 10th Congress. And I repeat no other ideas, except for violence, except for the destruction of any dissent, I repeat, civil society, and the Communist Party of Russia today does not offer us anything. The fact is that communism is the ideology of poverty not only physical, but also poverty of spirit. Therefore, I think that gradually, when our lives will still improve, if only it improves, if we do not follow the Leninsky path, we will not turn back again, the more educated people will be more educated, I think that, of course, they will take out the body of Lenin, the mausoleum will remain as a wonderful architectural monument and as a monument of history.

Lev Roitman: Thank you. I am sure that Ilya Vladimirovich Ponomarev could object to you and is just preparing for this, but we, unfortunately, no longer have time.