Translated material
The 100th anniversary of the revolution in the mirror of society
Last year, many countries of the world celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution. What is this anniversary in our country for scientists-historians, society, state? These questions were asked by the participants of the round table “Reflecting on the scientific results of the“ anniversary ”year, which took place on February 6, 2018 in the international“ memorial ”in Moscow. The event was held within the framework of the permanent seminar “Left in Russia: History and Public Memory” under the leadership of the professor of the Department of History of the School of Actual Humanitarian Research, ION RANEPARS Konstantin Morozov . This scientific and educational seminar is a platform for the study and discussion of the stories of the history of the left democratic movement in Russia.
According to Konstantin Morozov, despite all the inconsistency of the sensations from the past anniversary, the fact that society demonstrated a different attitude to the revolution, its thinking part showed a rather great interest in the event. This is the foundation on which the further research work of historians will be built, the scientist believes.
In addition to Konstantin Morozov, the round table was attended by sociologist Lev Gudkov , as well as historians Galina Zvereva, Dmitry Pavlov, Alexander Shubin, Rudolf Pikhaya, Vladislav Aksyonov, Andrey Vasenev, Mikhail Sokolov and others.
-How did society perceive the 100th anniversary of the revolution? What do sociological surveys say about this?
Lev Gudkov, doct. Philos. Sciences, director of the analytical center Yuri Levada, editor -in -chief of the magazine "Bulletin of Public Opinion":
- According to our data, Peter I as a symbol displaces Stalin. This is a significant point. Everything that happened in 1917 is replaced and, as it were, dereliz. The February Revolution is considered either as a prelude to the October, or generally as an insignificant event.
We ask our respondents a question [1]: “Imagine that the October Revolution is happening before your eyes. What would you do? " The Bolsheviks would actively support in 1990 about 23%, and now - 12%. In some ways, 26% of respondents would work with the Bolsheviks in 1990, and today - 16%. They would fight against the Bolsheviks in 1990 5%, now - 8%. We would try to wait out, would not take a degree in 1990, 12%, today - 33%. We would have gone abroad in 1990, 7%, now-14%.
In other words, the bulk is ready to either dump or sit out. A similar attitude to the revolution as an incomprehensible process is extremely characteristic of today. And this means, along with the destruction of central support symbols, the mythologization of the past. It is such a representation that is affirmed in the mass consciousness. But at the same time, the moral assessment of everything that happened is also destroyed. The most common answer: “I am not able to understand this, I don’t know the whole truth” - therefore it is better to turn this page and forget.
In the same way as the figure of Lenin - he is perceived either as an adventurer or as a person hostile to the national interests of Russia, or as the one who wanted all the best, but was mistaken in his constructions. Therefore, over time, no one except historians will remember him.
Such insolvency of understanding the past is characteristic of modern quasi -stroke consciousness.
- How did the state celebrate the anniversary of the revolution?
Galina Zvereva, head. Department of History and Culture Theory of Department of Sociocultural Studies of the Russian State University, Professor of the Higher School:
- I believe that the goal of the state anniversary campaign was to indicate the breakdown of this event with the present, to leave the past in the past. These are solemn wires, theatrical media funeral of the revolution.
Of course, the anniversary program was initiated by state power, but the authorities formally distance him from its implementation. The state for one reason or another refrains from official assessments. Therefore, this impression was formed in society: little is mentioned about the October Revolution. Is it so? Indeed, there were no official celebrations on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the revolution, but still in the center there was a conciliation-primary interpretation of the revolution (or coup). It turns out that it is no longer as important as it is called. It is important that this is far behind.
The complexity of the historical understanding of events is replaced by the desired ideological explanations. This is especially clearly seen in the propaganda rhetoric of official journalism and in the populist rhetoric of public politicians. Freedom from consensus for those and others means at the same time freedom from liability for statements. Meanwhile, in Russian society, both there was no unity in the understanding and assessment of the October Revolution.
- How was this date awarded in the historical community?
Dmitry Pavlov, Dok. History. sciences, deputy. Director of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
- In total, in our country - in the center and other regions - up to 200 scientific conferences, including international ones. One of them took place on our site in October 2017 [2]. It was at 150 speakers from 23 countries. Now we are preparing a collection of materials for the publication.
The mainstream in research has become an expansion interpretation of the revolution: now most historians consider events from 1917 to 1922 as a single process. It is divided into stages: February, October and Civil War. I must say that this is a world trend.
A huge question is about the degree of external influences on the events of all stages of the Russian revolution. By the way, about German money. This episode is denied by some historians, but the arguments are given frivolous. Given the published documents, including German, we can say that this money was. Another thing, this does not mean at all that the Bolsheviks used financial support for their own purposes.
One of the beloved topics of Soviet historiography is the premises of the revolution in Russia. An analysis of the situation in the economy shows that in comparison with other countries - participants in the war - catastrophic impoverishment of the population did not occur. Nevertheless, the revolution occurred in Russia. Therefore, the prerequisites must be sought in a different area, namely in the socio-political. One way or another, all reasoning on this subject rests on the consequences of the war: the marginalization of the population, a change in the nature of production relations that were distorted by the war, and a number of other circumstances. And the superference is the inability of the tsarist government to answer the challenges of society.
Even the Mensheviks said that the basis of Bolshevism is the peasantry, and better to say - the army, and the army is not warring, but retreating. And, in general, recent studies more and more include historians to the fact that this is fair.
-What conclusions were made from scientific discussions around the 100th anniversary of the revolution?
Alexander Shubin , doct. East. sciences, head of the Center for the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences:
- I would call the first lesson of these discussions the collapse of conspiracyology. Another lesson is the interpretation of the revolution as a long, long -term process, recognition of the scale of the phenomenon. This, of course, does not indicate a recognition of a positive or negative nature of the phenomenon.
The next lesson: Revolution is a modernization process. At the same time, there is an understanding of it as a certain explosion, a rebellion that destroys modernization. In my opinion, this scheme did not receive predominance at conferences, and we perceive the revolution as a modernization process, which, of course, is fraught with significant destruction. The general coup, which some talk about, would never have occurred if the revolution had not begun from below. This, in my opinion, is an established fact.
Vera Vasilieva,
journalist, editor of the project “Svoboda” and “Memorial” of the Radio station “Freedom”,
Especially for a three-hobby