Scenario of a round table dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the revolution. A programmed tragedy. Event plan

The Library and Information Complex (BIK) invites you to a virtual exhibition dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia.

The virtual exhibition presents both Soviet-era and modern literature, reflecting the diametrically opposed views of the authors on the events of 100 years ago.

In 2017 we will celebrate the 100th anniversary of Oktyabrskaya socialist revolution... The year of the centenary of the revolution is a good reason to remember that this event turned out to be a turning point not only for Russian, but also for world history.

Tragic and great at the same time, the history of our country is imprinted in the memory of the people, in the exploits and achievements of the multinational community of people united by the great ideas of Peace, Equality, Brotherhood, Happiness of the peoples of the earth, in works of art of all genres, types of art, in achievements and discoveries that made it possible to realize wildest dreams.

November 7, 2017 is approaching, and the closer this date is, the more fierce the disputes become, the wider the spectrum of opinions and assessments of the events of a century ago. As a rule, the participants in such disputes immediately take two opposite positions.

Some cite evidence pointing to the historical significance of the October Revolution of 1917, others seek to show reasonably that nothing special from a historical point of view happened and this event can be put in a row with other armed uprisings and coups, of which the history of mankind has more than a dozen. One can often hear the opinion that October is an "inhuman tragedy", the responsibility for which lies with the Bolsheviks. It should be noted that in almost all disputes the question is explicitly or implicitly: in what vein will this memorable event be celebrated in our country, will it not pass as “unnoticed” as in recent decades? Why do "disputants" constantly put forward opposite opinions, from which it is almost impossible to decide on this issue?

After the February Revolution and the overthrow of Nicholas II, power in the Russian Empire passed to the Provisional Government headed by Kerensky. Uncertainty arose in the country. In factories and plants, in the army, Soviets began to spontaneously form, which subsequently played a key role. This role was first identified by V.I. Lenin in the famous "April Theses":

“The creation of a republic of Soviets of Workers', Agricultural Laborers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom. The pay to all officials, with all of them elected and replaced at any time, is not higher than the average wage of a good worker. Nationalization of all land in the country, the disposal of land by local Soviets of farm laborers and peasants' deputies. The immediate merger of all banks in the country into one national bank and the introduction of control over it by the Soviet of Workers' Deputies. The transition to control by the Soviets of Workers' Deputies over social production and distribution of products. "

It was these theses after the events of October 1917 that became the foundation for the construction in Russia of a new type of state based on socialist ownership of property and the leading role of the proletariat (oppressed strata of society), which itself creates and controls power. On the political map of the world, the letters RSFSR appeared, and later - the USSR.

One should not “forget”, as is inherent in practically all “disputants,” that the construction of a new type of society was led by the Bolshevik Party, based on a revolutionary theory known as the “Marxist theory”. The new state - the Land of Soviets - withstood an unprecedentedly brutal battle with internal enemies who had entered into an agreement with the interventionists of the Entente countries (Civil War). "Communist ideas" began to spread throughout the world, and communist parties were formed in most countries.

Even in the heart of capitalist America famous writer John Read, a witness and participant in the October Revolution of 1917, organized the Communist Workers' Party. In his book about the October Revolution - "Ten days that shook the world" - the writer reflected "an amazing sense of freedom" and understanding on the part of ordinary people, noted that the world has completely changed and people themselves have changed. The results of this revolution have exceeded the expectations of the entire world community.

Today no one doubts the giant step in the development of Russia from a "bast shoe" to a "superpower". However, in matters of the influence of October on events in the life of the peoples of the whole world, one can still find a variety of judgments.

American filmmaker Oliver Stone specializing in filming documentaries about important historical events in the world and who created the famous film "Ukraine on Fire", about the events of 1917 he speaks as follows:

“After the 1917 revolution in Russia, the Americans were scared, afraid of the influence of the Bolshevik ideas on the working class in the United States. In the government and business circles, the attitude towards the revolution was negative from the very beginning, and this has never changed. During the reign of President Woodrow Wilson, the United States sent troops to Russia to defeat the revolutionaries. America recognized the USSR only in 1933 under Franklin Roosevelt. "

The main newspaper of the British Communists, the Morning Star newspaper, also writes about the influence of the October Revolution on the subsequent world order:

“The contribution of the communists became key, they were at the forefront of the liberation struggle in China, Vietnam, Cuba, South Africa and many other countries. Anti-colonial movements all over the world took place under the influence of the socialist camp. The socialist camp provided them with everything - from diplomatic support at the UN, to funding and arms supplies when needed. "

Currently, some politicians and philosophers are trying to explain the fact of the Socialist Revolution not as a natural development of social relations, but as an exceptional, purely Russian phenomenon, as a result of a conspiracy of a handful of Bolsheviks. In their explanations, such theorists carefully avoid the concept of "class struggle" (social category). Naturally, in this article we do not have the opportunity to dwell on this concept in detail, however, we note that the class struggle arose objectively and has existed for a long time, manifesting itself in various historical forms.

Suffice it to recall the revolt of the Italian slaves, led by Spartacus, which in ancient times was, according to historians, the most powerful organized action of the oppressed and dealt a powerful blow to the dominant slave system.

Historians can list dozens of major peasant uprisings in the Russian Empire, many bourgeois revolutions in other countries. Of course, most of these uprisings and revolutions were defeated, but the ideas of "freedom, equality, brotherhood" did not disappear anywhere and brought new fruits. Indeed, it would seem, what do people need? Humanity developed and moved forward, everything went on as usual - and the "riots" did not stop. Thinkers of past centuries have repeatedly looked for this reason.

Found. It turned out that in all previous socio-economic formations the class division of people remained unchanged, the forms changed, but the essence of the exploitation and oppression of some by others remained unchanged. The slave owners were replaced by the feudal lords, the feudal lords - by the landlords and capitalists.

The October Revolution significantly changed this situation in the social life of people. For the first time in the revolutionary struggle of the masses, the task of building a new, classless society was posed. The Bolshevik Party took the lead in solving this problem, relying on a certain revolutionary theory. In this article, we are not able to dwell on this theory in detail, we only note that this theory is based on German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

Thus, a far from complete and in-depth review of the historical events associated with October 1917 confirms the position: the October Revolution is a global event. It also means that the 100th anniversary of this event will be celebrated by the peoples of the whole world.

One of the approaches to the events of October is already showing its essence - this is the idea of ​​"reconciliation of all epochs." “We need the lessons of history for reconciliation,” noted the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, and also stressed that no one can prohibit people to think freely and openly express their position in politics, economics, means mass media, and called for strengthening the unity of the Russian people.

The same view, but in a more detailed form, was formulated at the round table "100 Years of the Great Russian Revolution: Reflection in the Name of Consolidation." The author is the Minister of Culture of Russia Vladimir Medinsky. This view consists of five theses indicating how the Russian people can achieve "national reconciliation":
- recognition of the continuity of historical development from Russian Empire through the USSR to modern Russian Federation;
- awareness of the tragedy of the social split;
- respect for the memory of the heroes of both sides who sincerely defended their ideals and innocent in mass repressions and war crimes;
- condemnation of the ideology of revolutionary or counter-revolutionary terror;
- understanding of the erroneousness of betting on the help of foreign "allies" in the internal political struggle.

Representatives of the church also expressed their understanding of the October Revolution, whose main message was also "the idea of ​​reconciliation based on religion": “Once the destruction of churches, the massacres of believers became the most terrible page of the national division, now the world around the returned churches must become the personification of harmony and mutual forgiveness - white and red, believers with non-believers, rich with poor,”- said the patriarch at a meeting of the Supreme Church Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior.

Gennady Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, put forward a completely unexpected idea: “If we rely on all the best in this era, we will achieve a lot. Our task is to unite all three epochs: imperial, Soviet and present ”.

About the holiday

For more than 70 years this "red day of the calendar" has been the main holiday of the country. For most of the twentieth century, millions of our fellow citizens in three generations celebrated November 7 - the Day of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

The holiday, officially called the Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, was first celebrated in 1918, and has been a day off since 1927. For the first time, the state celebration was not held on November 7, 1991, but the day on November 7 itself remained a day off until 2005.

In 1996, by Yeltsin's decree, it was simply renamed and became known as the Day of Reconciliation and Accord. At the end of 2004, the State Duma adopted a law that canceled this holiday, and instead introduced a new holiday with a day off - November 4, which was named National Unity Day.

Documentary legacy of the Great Russian Revolution: Collection of the Electronic Library of the State Public Historical Library of Russia

Petrograd 1917: what, where, when. Project of the Presidential Library. B.N. Yeltsin to To the 100th anniversary of the Revolution in Russia

Thematic complex "Russian Revolution of 1917" Federal Archival Agency (122 thousand electronic copies of archival documents

Press publications

Polyakov S.A. Actions of individual units of the former Russian Imperial Guard during the October Revolution.-2013.-№ 4.

Books of the publishing house "Prometheus"

Voronin V.E. Abdication: Emperor Nicholas II and the February Revolution.-M .: Prometheus, 2017 (The book can be purchased from the publishing house)

The book is dedicated to the activities of Nicholas II on the eve and during the February Revolution of 1917. Using specific examples, an analysis of the state of the political system of the Russian Empire and the Russian army before February 1917 is given, the process of maturation of the prerequisites for a coup is shown, the tsar's reaction to the seizure of power by opposition and revolutionary forces is traced, the circumstances of Nicholas II's abdication and the collapse of monarchical statehood in Russia are examined in detail.

Churakov D.O. The latest history of the Fatherland. Lecture course. Part 1: 1917-1941.-M .: Prometheus, 2013 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in EBS Znanium.com)

The manual is devoted to an important stage in the newest national history... It deals with the complex debatable issues of the emergence and development of Soviet civilization in Russia. At the same time, the Soviet stage is viewed as an organic part of the entire Russian history, and the USSR - as a historical form of the existence of our country. Based on the latest trends in historiography, the course of lectures covers in detail such topics as the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks in the 1917 revolution and the civil war of 1918-1922, the construction of a socialist society in the 1920-1930s, gains and losses along the way..

Churakov D.O. In the battles for historicism: problems of studying the Great Russian Revolution of 1917 and the post-revolutionary regime.-M .: Prometheus, 2016 (The full text is available to users of the Financial University in EBS Book.ru)

The book is dedicated to the tense period of modern Russian history from the end of the 19th century to 1941. It reflects the main approaches and conclusions of the author on the problems of preconditions, development and results of the 1917 revolution. The national features of the evolution of the state and civil institutions in Russia in the context of the transition from traditional to industrial society are considered. Particular attention is paid to the labor movement - both under the Provisional Government and during the earliest events Soviet power... For the first time in historiography, the author poses the problem of the three crises of the Soviet government that followed shortly after the Red October Revolution at the end of 1917 - the first half of 1918, as well as their influence on the formation of a new national statehood. The author analyzes the Bolshevik regime established in the country following the revolution and the Soviet version of conservative modernization.

Churakov D.O. 1917: Russian statehood in the era of troubles, reforms and revolutions. -M .: Prometheus, 2017 (The book can be purchased from the publishing house) In a monograph timed to coincide with the centenary of the 1917 Revolution, the author examines one of the most pressing issues today - the role of Russian statehood in the national history of Russia, its evolution during the period of revolutionary upheavals. The monograph raises the question of the responsibility of the ruling strata for the effectiveness and sustainability of the foundations of the state. Our extensive factual material shows the death of Russia's traditional monarchical statehood, the evolution of power and civil institutions under the conditions of a liberal experiment, and, finally, the restoration of a strong national state as a result of a powerful movement of the popular masses, which, as it was already in our history in the 17th century, in October 1917 made it possible to prevent the death of the country. The author examines in detail the formation of the mobilization regime that arose in the wake of the October events, showing both the miscalculations and the successes of the Bolsheviks in an effort to strengthen the revolutionary power.

Shchagin E.M. The Formation of the Soviet Political System / E.M. Shchagin, D.O. Churakov, V. Zh. Tsvetkov.-M .: Prometey, 2011 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in the EBS Znanium.com)

The manual is devoted to one of the most difficult and dramatic stages in Russian history. It reveals the main mechanisms of the development of the Soviet political system from the moment of its inception to the beginning of the Great Patriotic War... The authors of the manual pay special attention to the controversial, debatable issues of the development of our country in 1917-1941. In particular, much attention is paid to the crises that the Soviet regime experienced at the stage of its formation, the political struggle within the ruling party.

Publications from the Fund of the Library and Information Complex of the Financial University

Atsukovsky V.A. The works of V.I. Lenin 1917 and the Second Socialist Revolution.-M .: Direct-Media, 2014 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in the EBS University Library online)

The book analyzes the works of V.I. Lenin, written by him in 1917 before the October Socialist Revolution, and shows their relevance at the present time, the definition of the main categories of modern communist theory is given, the preconditions and goals of the Second Socialist Revolution, as well as the Program social development Russia from monetarist capitalism to socialism and communism.
The book also examines the main mistakes made by the leadership of the CPSU during the construction of socialism in the USSR, which led to the collapse of the country and the crisis of socialism throughout the world, and gives recommendations for the conclusion modern Russia from the current crisis situation.

Galin V. Forbidden Political Economy. Revolution in Russian.-M.: Algorithm, 2006.-608 p. (full text)

In the West since the beginning of the 20th century, and in Russia since the 1990s, political economy has fallen out of favor, essentially becoming a forbidden science. The author of the book returns to this almost forgotten science, doing it in a visual form using the example of Russian history and the 20th century. V. Galin sets as his goal the study of the objective laws of the development of society, trying to look into the future.

Kerensky A.F. Russia at a Historical Turn: Memoirs. Per. from English. - M.: Respublika, 1993. - 384s. (full text)

Maslov S.S. Russia after four years of revolution.— Paris: Russian press, 1922 - 310 p. (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in EBS Book.ru)

In the memoirs of the former Prime Minister of the Provisional Government A.F. Kerensky tells about the events that took place in Russia from the end of the 19th century to 1919. Of course, they are subjective, the author seeks to justify himself in front of history, but his vision of events will undoubtedly be of considerable interest to readers.

Programs of political parties in Russia / ed. and before. I.V. Vladislaev.- M .: Type. O. L. Somovoy, 1917 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in the EBS Znanium.com)

The collection includes programs of three parties: the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, the Socialist Revolutionary Party, Trudovaya (People's Socialist Party, Radical Party, Constitutional Democratic Party.

Seleznev F.A. The revolution of 1917 and the struggle of the elites around the issue of a separate peace with Germany (1914-1918) - St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 2017 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in the EBS University Library online)

The issue of Russia's withdrawal from the First World War is considered in the monograph in the context of the internal political struggle throughout the entire military four years, including 1917-1918. The author argues that the February Revolution was the result of a split in the ruling class of tsarist Russia, part of which, in order to prevent a real or perceived threat of Nicholas II concluding a separate peace with Germany, entered into an alliance with the opponents of the regime. The research is based on the methods of the theory of elites.

Trotsky L.D. Problems of the international proletarian revolution. The main issues of the proletarian revolution.-M .: Direct-Media, 2015 (the full text is available to users of the Financial University in the EBS University Library online)

Trotsky Lev Davidovich (Bronstein Leiba Davidovich) (1879 - 1940) - leader of the Russian and international revolutionary movement, publicist.
The readers are invited to the publication in which Trotsky's books "Terrorism and Communism" and "Between Imperialism and Revolution" are published. Both works have the same direction, acute political issues are intertwined with specific military, political and economic measures.

On the eve of the centenary of the events of October 1917, the Izvestia newspaper - the same age as the revolution - held a round table dedicated to the anniversary of the revolution. Should Lenin be buried? Would it have been possible to avoid a change in formation if Stolypin had remained alive? Why did the European elites not allow a coup in their countries? And when will Russian society come to a unified view of the events of a century ago? The scientific director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician Alexander Chubaryan, was looking for answers to these and other questions of Izvestia. Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities Professor Alexander Bezborodov and Professor of the Faculty of Political Science of Moscow State University Alexander Kochetkov.

"Reconciliation is not necessarily consent"

"News": There is very little time left before the anniversary of the revolution. I would like to understand - has there been a common opinion on this event, at least among the experts, over the course of 100 years? After all, revolution is one of the themes that blow up society. We see this both in the reaction to the film "Matilda", and in completely opposite assessments of what happened 100 years ago. One of the challenges this situation creates is that a split is being introduced into pro-state, patriotic forces. Even they turn out to be absolutely split along the line of evaluating the revolution. Not to mention the traditional division into conservatives, liberals, statists, communists.

And I want to understand - is it possible for our past to stop splitting us and begin to unite, is it possible for a consensus on this issue, at least in the mainstream of society? That it would be indecent to consider it somehow differently.

Alexander Chubaryan: I would like to clarify: not much is left until the centenary of one of the stages of the revolution. And this is one of the points of disagreement in society. After all, for someone there is no other name but "Great October Socialist Revolution".

Meanwhile, three years ago, the historical and cultural standard of the history of our fatherland was approved. It introduced the term "The Great Russian Revolution of 1917-1922". They took the Great French Revolution as a model, which is considered not one event, but a process, because the civil war is an organic consequence and continuation of the revolution.

I think that one of the main reasons for the negative attitude towards the revolution in society is that it led to such a multimillion-dollar sacrificial war, to a tragic split in society.

It is rather difficult to reach a consensus, given that our today's society is rather multipolar in relation to different periods of our history. If our society cannot come to a conclusion about Ivan the Terrible, then it’s all the more difficult to do about the revolution.

From my point of view, reconciliation is not necessarily consent. Reconciliation is as follows: everyone must recognize that different points of view exist and their carriers have the right to express themselves. We must make sure that those who like Kolchak and those who like Lenin and Trotsky do not conflict with each other today.

This anniversary is not a holiday. The centenary of the revolution is a date, and we summarize the path traveled.

Alexander Kochetkov: For me, the 1917 revolution is undoubtedly an epoch-making event that had a tremendous impact on the entire world history. It was natural and had a complex set of cause-and-effect relationships. I am against identifying the revolution with some kind of conspiracy. There are a lot of conspiracy theories. But this is an unscientific approach.

The revolution of 1917 provides a very rich material for understanding today's time and so that what happened in 1917 does not repeat itself. But the fundamental question is how to evaluate the revolution: is it a locomotive of history or an extreme form of resolving social problems, contradictions, challenges, which in many respects was of a negative nature. This needs to be objectively assessed.

Alexander Bezborodov: We are now moving away from a sharp polarization of assessments of the 1917 revolution. Today there is no such acuteness of social contradictions, there are no unprincipled battles in the scientific community, the educational space can more calmly perceive these problems. IN educational system the standard works, and this is very important. Therefore, the applicant comes to us without ideological stamps on the theme of 1917.

Nevertheless, Bolshevism "got stuck" in Russian historiography quite seriously, including echoes of the class approach to these events. In some textbooks this is still visible. Scientific methodology should replace it. And without attracting new sources in 1917, it is impossible to continue the high-quality training of teachers, it is impossible to prepare young people for the Unified State Exam.

"The Fragility of Empire Governance and the Crisis of Liberalism"

Izvestia: Is there a clear understanding of the origins and causes of the revolution today?

Alexander Chubaryan: We need to place the Russian revolution in the context of global revolutions. Then it will become obvious that the origins of the revolution have rather deep roots. From my point of view, the influence of the Russian XIX century is underestimated. The reform, the abolition of serfdom was still half-hearted, and the agrarian question remained until 1917 the central problem in Russia. Stolypin tried to do something, but he himself said that it took 20 years to implement his reform.

The second half of the 19th century gave rise to an explosion of violence in the public life of Russia. Endless assassination attempts on the king, terrorist acts gave rise to the idea that something can be changed through violence.

It is necessary to discuss another question: why was there such a deep crisis of the political elites in Russia? The emperor and the institution of the monarchy itself were betrayed by everyone: the Cadets, the Octobrists, the Duma, and the Church. This means that it was a crisis of the entire established system.

Another fundamental point is, as one researcher put it, the fragility of running an empire. Empires collapsed at once: the Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires. In 1916, an uprising took place in Kyrgyzstan, it showed the inability of the tsarist government to manage these territories. In world history, this is a very topical issue today: the relationship between the center, the periphery ...

The next very important fact is the crisis of liberalism in Russia. Liberalism in Russia lost and did not become a force, as in the whole world, where it dominated at the beginning of the 20th century. A striking example this crisis is the inability and weakness of the Provisional Government and Kerensky.

In theory, they could have become some kind of force, but they did little, because, as the classic said, "they were terribly far from the people." They did not grasp the mood of the masses, as the Bolsheviks did.

Superimposed on one another, and this happened ... How do you write in the newspaper: revolution or coup?

Alexander Bezborodov: I believe that those authors are right who today focus on three major problems: revolution and society, revolution and state, revolution and the revolutionary process.

Society was extremely divided, broken up, fragmented in 1917. Gradually, the Bolsheviks, considering Bolshevism as an instrument of seizing power in the first place, tend to the unconditional priority of the state, its revaluation in many respects, considering it as a demiurge of many changes, including in the world arena.

Today they forget about the revolutionary process (talking about the events of the early twentieth century. - Ed.), Reliance on the international communist movement as a whole. Meanwhile, the Communist Party Soviet Union is a well-known world historical project. The CPSU relied on certain structures for a long period, when the transformation of revolutionary events in later years had already begun. Due to the fact that the world communist revolution died down, the Soviet communists very actively and unsuccessfully used this surrogate, called the "international communist movement".

Alexander Chubaryan: It must be borne in mind that the utopian, but very attractive and social slogans of the Bolsheviks met with the support of the population not only in our country, but also in other countries. Another thing is that Russia has become a kind of experiment for Marxism. Marxism is a product of Western thought. I told the French: "You are supporters of Marxism, but the experiment was carried out on Russia, not on yourself." They were offended.

The Bolsheviks won not only by force. They proposed a certain social reorganization of society. The intelligentsia took the revolution in a very special way. Many representatives of the Russian intelligentsia greeted her with hostility, but many with full understanding. After all, there was Blok and others who saw in the revolution some ideals that were then floating around the world.

The most important catalyst for the revolution was the First World War. She contributed to the disintegration of Russian society. Many supporters of order now say: "Then there was no one to restore order - the army was gone." The army has disintegrated.

Alexander Kochetkov: Revolutions don't happen spontaneously. At a certain historical stage, a complex block of problems facing society has not been resolved for a long time. The decisive role here is played by the ruling elite - the one who is in power.

Returning to the Russian situation at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, we must objectively state that the tsar and those who were in power were not up to par. The transformation of the absolute monarchy into a constitutional monarchy or republic, the democratic transformation of the country was practically not carried out.

The Duma had a purely decorative character, with the slightest movement to the right and to the left, it was immediately dispersed. Our liberal intelligentsia, the bourgeoisie, has not become a real political force.

Our tragedy was that by October 1917 all other political parties had been pushed aside, leaving two radicals - the Socialist-Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks. This struggle developed between them, and all subsequent events were determined by these parties. I mean the beginning Civil War, dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. I do not idealize either one or the other. Both are radical organizations with harsh methods.

The split of the elites

"News": How did it happen that the Russian political elite allowed the revolution and did not try to prevent it? After all, the European elites did not give their countries to the revolutionaries. But this has become possible in our country. Let's leave aside the imperial house, inside which there was also a schism. The main question is why the elites of the Russian Empire allowed this to be done with their country? Perhaps this is due to the fact that there was no mechanism for the non-violent settlement of social conflicts?

Alexander Kochetkov: Take England for example. The tradition of the negotiation process has been developing there for centuries. It was not easy to develop. Under John Landless there were bloody wars, in the 17th century England experienced a revolution, the execution of the king, and gradually came to a historical compromise.

The Chartist movement posed an extreme danger to power in the 19th century. Workers constituted the majority of the population of England. But when the leaders of the Chartists began to call for an uprising, they were told: "What does the uprising have to do with it - let's send our representatives to parliament, let the working class have its say there." And we did not have this tradition, we did not have a culture of public dialogue.

For some reason, our zemstvo councils are considered parliaments. I disagree with that. They were not lawmaking bodies. They were collected for the approval of certain royal decrees and regulations. We have not developed a negotiating tradition, therefore, in an acute situation, the conflict is resolved by force.

Alexander Chubaryan: Yes, there was no tradition of reformism, but from the beginning of the twentieth century there was a tradition of the street.

"News": We didn’t have a culture of conducting discussions, we didn’t take much into account with the parliament. But at that time there were still bright personalities. For example, Stolypin. On the one hand, he acted with tough methods, on the other hand, let us recall his speeches, which he uttered before the Duma. Stolypin was clearly trying to convey, as they say now, his message. It is difficult to call it a discussion - it was rather sermons-rebukes on his part, sometimes harsh, but the argumentation was convincing.

History does not know the subjunctive mood, but would there have been a revolution if Stolypin had not been killed? Was this a chance for Russia?

Alexander Chubaryan: In Russia, there were still two figures: Stolypin and Witte. They had different approaches, often the opposite.

Stolypin was a statesman - this is quite obvious. He tried to put in order the most painful place - the Russian village. But I do not think that he alone could have prevented the revolution. We have, as always: before, "Stolypin is a hangman", and now Stolypin is just a messiah who could save Russia.

The realization that he could do a lot led to the murder. It was simply removed, in today's language.

Witte was pushed aside - he was too liberal for the Russian elite, and Stolypin was simply physically destroyed. This is quite obvious.

Alexander Kochetkov: On the question of the role of the ruling elite and its attitude to reforms. What Stolypin proposed was a serious reform, a change in Russia. Has he received the support of the elite?

Alexander Chubaryan: Received a bullet.

"News": When reading the "Notes of the Gendarme" by Alexander Spiridovich, one gets the complete impression that without the support of the ruling elites, this murder would hardly have been possible. This was not a purely revolutionary project.

Alexander Bezborodov: Of course, there was a split in society, including at the level of the elites. This provided very serious fertile ground, including for the flourishing of revolutionism. These processes are related. If Stolypin had survived, there might have been nuances, adjustments, but still, the course of historical events in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was largely predetermined.

"Generation must change"

Izvestia: Russia has not been a Soviet state for decades. However, the monuments to Lenin and the main memorial - the Mausoleum - remain in their places. Why did the cult of Lenin arise at all? Will Vladimir Lenin ever be buried? And what should happen in society for this?

Alexander Bezborodov: The Bolsheviks, through the cult of Lenin, as well as through the cult of Stalin that quickly formed on its basis, proposed a version of the "civil religion" and managed to replace the monarchist non-existence in the country. This created a certain stability, ideology or quasi-ideology.

Alexander Chubaryan: I am opposed to the fact that in the 1990s Lenin was completely brought down. One well-known historian made a report in which he assured that Lenin was an uneducated person. I think it's time to write more objective scientific biography Lenin.

And I am in favor of Lenin's funeral, but at such a time that it does not lead to a new split in society.

Izvestia: Apparently, the generation should change.

Today, controversy over the film Matilda has divided Russians into two camps and focused on the personality of Nicholas II. If there had been another figure of the tsar - a resolute, tough, as they say, "hangman of revolutionaries" - could the tragedy have been avoided?

Alexander Kochetkov: The question is not in his personal qualities, could he, for example, hang more decisively? The question is different - could he solve strategic problems, reform the country or not? That's the problem.

Alexander Chubaryan: There are many disputes around Nicholas II. He was saying modern language, a decent, decent person. A good family man. But as a state leader, he showed both weakness and inability to make strategic decisions.

Alexander Kochetkov: No. As a sovereign - none.

Alexander Chubaryan: At a time of crisis, society always needs other figures. These must be people of a different type. Nicholas was a "tsar-father". And the Russian Cromwell was needed. This does not mean that he should have been hanged, but, in my opinion, he did not have a big state program for reforming Russia.

Izvestia: Is the revolution in Russia over? If the war, started by it, still continues in the minds, then how to make sure that historical science offers a wise and balanced view of those events. An interpretation that leads to national accord rather than national conflict.

Alexander Bezborodov: The fate of Russian historical science - not only researching the time of Nicholas II, but also everything that is connected with the Romanov dynasty - constantly, from era to era, to undergo very serious deformations and adjustments.

Alexander Chubaryan: It seems to me that the process of comprehending the events of 1917 is coming to an end and should lead to some kind of reconciliation in society and to the development of similar or close assessments. We have already had two congresses of history teachers, and I can see from the teachers that they are much more relaxed about these events. A new generation of teachers has come - they have a different outlook on life, obsessive eyes and interest. It seems to me that they are outside this split, although they have their own view. This is fine.

The round table was held by Arseny Oganesyan, Elena Loria, Natalia Osipova

Bainov Alexander Semenovich

Ph.D., Associate Professor of the Department of State and Municipal Administration BSU

II Secretary of the Soviet District Committee of the Communist Party

Regularities and preconditions for social revolutions:

to the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution

History, as one of the most important forms of people's self-awareness, not only preserves the past, but also continues to live in the accumulated experience of social life. People are always, especially in the critical periods of mankind, in the world's gigantic laboratory of social experience, trying to find an answer to the exciting questions of our time. On this occasion, in 1847, V. Belinsky noted: "We question and interrogate the past so that it explains to us our present and hints about our future."

The great Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky noted that, although they say that history has not taught anyone or anything, life, however, takes even more revenge on those who do not know history at all. It would be nice to remember another aphorism of the scientist: "A lie in the interpretation of the past leads to failures in the present and prepares a catastrophe in the future." A comprehensive scientific study of the material and spiritual culture of the past makes us richer and smarter, more generous and insightful in thoughts and deeds, in plans and achievements. All this testifies in favor of the fact that knowledge of history and the epoch-making revolutionary events “that shook the world” makes it possible to understand the present day more clearly. But modernity, in turn, poses the task of scientific comprehension of the past, which has not only moral, but also practical value. It is impossible to create a new world bypassing the past - people knew this at all times.

In his work, Professor V.Ya. Grossul "At the Origins of Russian Revolutions" calculated that "in the history of mankind over the past 500 years, there have been about 150 revolutions ..." - bourgeois, bourgeois democratic, national liberation, socialist. Their very number suggests that social revolutions are an inevitable and natural phenomenon in the history of social development, and not "some kind of confluence of circumstances." But only in this case they should not be confused with the "color" revolutions of recent years, representing coups d'etat organized by the special services of the West and the United States. Unlike the “colored” revolutions, real social revolutions change the socio-economic system, move society to a new stage of development.

We know from the history of Russia that the revolution of 1917, which began as the February bourgeois-democratic revolution, ended with an epochal event of the 20th century - the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the centenary of which is celebrated in October 2017. The Bolsheviks under the leadership of V.I. Lenin, who scientifically generalized the world and Russian experience of the class struggle of the proletariat and the working masses, understood and realized the depth of social tension in Russia, the basic demands of the people and managed to lead the popular movement. In the conditions of a steady deterioration of the country's economy, an increase in economic disruption, hunger and impoverishment of the population, the Bolshevik Party turned out to be the only political force, which sensitively perceived and skillfully used the mood of the masses and their desire for social justice. As a result of the victory of the October Revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks proclaimed the establishment in Russia of a new economic and socio-political system that had no analogues in world history. The striving for democracy and the building of socialism in Russia had a tremendous impact on world processes, the fate of many peoples and the development of the world socialist system.

However, in connection with the approach of the century of the Great October Socialist Revolution, which will mark the entire progressive world as an epoch-making event, the society is persistently implanted with the perverted concept of revolution, and the expression "October Socialist" is all the more like a devil. The Russian liberal ruling regime and the media controlled by them regularly claim that a "revolution" is "... human sacrifice, ... a bandit seizure of power, conspiracy and violence, a coup d'etat, ... and this cannot be allowed in the future ...", etc. ... In addition, there are authors in the scientific community who consider revolutions in general and revolutions in Russia in particular, are only the result of chance coincidences of circumstances. Such statements are a deliberate distortion of real events.

Historical documents of that time indicate that the October Revolution was caused by objective processes that took place in Russia and other countries in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Revealing the inevitability of the revolutionary transition of mankind from capitalism to socialism, K. Marx came to the conclusion that "between the capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the first into the second" Marx K. and Engels F. Soch. vol.19. P.29. In Capital, he wrote: “The monopoly of capital becomes the fetters of the mode of production that has grown under and under it. The centralization of the means of production and the socialization of labor reach the point where they become incompatible with their capitalist shell. It explodes. "

In support of the Marxist conclusions in scientific work"The era of revolutionary renewal" Professor Yu.Yu. Ermalavicius noted that “at the beginning of the 20th century, the main knot of contradictions in the capitalist system matured in Russia, where the Russian working class rose up to overcome its crisis in alliance with the large peasantry and other strata of the working people. Russia has become the center of the revolutionary movement of the peoples of the world, the socialist initiative of the historical progress of mankind has concentrated in it. "

Unfortunately, we live in a period when lies have acquired a price higher than the truth. Today, the pro-regime media pays more attention to primitive, but arrogant and aggressive anti-communism, anti-Sovietism and Russophobia than to a truthful assessment of the history of social development. The ruling classes openly hate the revolution in Russia today. Playing on the natural respect for tradition, they impose on us a straightforward slander of the Soviet period and hatred of any attempts to change and improve the quality of life of the people. Through the media, public opinion is persistently formed: they say, "God is God, and Caesar is Caesar." The belief in social progress, which should not be late for technical progress, is being etched away.

In addition, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the European countries of the socialist community, the forces of world reaction are actively competing in blatant slander against the Great October Socialist Revolution, insisting that "socialism, the ideas of justice and the theory of Marcism-Leninism are dead and can never be revived ..." and etc.

A theoretical understanding of the objective conditions and processes of the transition of capitalism to the stage of imperialism in the world of that period, and in Russia, which was experiencing a deep crisis of feudalism, autocracy, restraining the development of capitalism, allowed V.I. Lenin, the leader of the proletariat, a brilliant scientist, to develop the Marxist theory of the socialist revolution as applied to new historical conditions. Lenin's theory of the socialist revolution was based on the laws of the historical development of society. In particular, on: the law of conformity of the level of development of productive forces and the nature of production relations; the law of uneven economic and political development of capitalist countries; the law of the development of nations and national relations; patterns the historical transition of society from one socio-economic formation to another.

Analyzing the law of correspondence between the level of development of productive forces and the nature of production relations, Lenin concluded that freedom of competition was replaced by monopoly, which facilitates the merger of financial (banking) capital with industrial monopoly capital. The export of capital, instead of the export of goods, is of particular importance here. The monopolization of capital led to the spread of finance capital to all countries of the world, to the creation of a large layer of financial oligarchy. Against this background, the main contradiction of the capitalist mode of production - the contradiction between the social nature of production and the private form of appropriation - has sharpened with unprecedented force. “Imperialism - wrote V.I. Lenin, - brings to the working class an unheard-of exacerbation of the class struggle, want, unemployment, high prices, oppression of trusts, militarism, political reaction ... "Lenin V.I. PSS. vol. 26, p. 283.

IN AND. Lenin concludes that the socialist revolution, due to the operation of the law of uneven development of capitalism in the era of imperialism, cannot, as the supporters of Marxism believed, occur simultaneously in all developed countries - it will take place at different times, by breaking through the weak links in the chain of imperialism. The study of the peculiarities of the era of capitalism in the work "Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (1916) allowed Lenin to objectively substantiate the possibility and necessity of implementing a socialist revolution in Russia.

A study of the historical law of the development of nations and national relations shows that the contradictions between the metropolises and the colonial peoples, as well as between the imperialist powers and their allies, between the monopolies and the majority of the nation within the imperialist states, between feudal remnants and capitalism, have sharpened with unprecedented force. Now these contradictions have intensified between migrants, refugees from the Middle East with the administrations of European countries; between the USA and countries - EU, Russia, China, etc.

Asserting the laws of the historical transition of society from one socio-economic formation to another, Vladimir Ilyich proved that the disclosure of the main content of the era of imperialism makes it possible to reveal the laws, trends in the development of society. In addition, to determine what social conditions, driving forces, which class is at the center of this historical stage in the development of society, who determines by their activities the course of historical development. And also to determine the ways, forms, methods and tactics of carrying out the revolutionary struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution, including in Russia.

Further, V.I. Lenin explores the objective and subjective conditions for the implementation of the socialist revolution. From the analysis of the epoch of imperialism, Lenin's most important conclusion is that in this epoch "along the entire line, the features of the transitional epoch from capitalism to a higher social order were formed and revealed." PSS. vol. 27. P.385. In this regard, Professor of Moscow State University I.A. Kozikov in his work "V. Lenin's Development of the Theory of the Socialist Revolution" asserts that Lenin's conclusions take place in our reality, as parties, allies of the working class ... - all this testifies to the fact that imperialism has prepared the objective and subjective preconditions for the transition of society from capitalism to socialism. "

Indeed, to late XIX For centuries, Russia has been a focal point of contradictions in world development. It was here that all the contradictions acquired a pronounced antagonistic character: between labor and capital, between tsarism and the bourgeoisie and the oppressed peoples. As nowhere else in the world, a revolutionary situation has quickly matured in Russia. This is when the “lower classes”, that is, the masses of the people, driven to despair by the ruling class, do not want to live in the old way, and the “upper classes” cannot rule the country and the people in the old way. Yes, we must not forget that the First World War, the mediocre policy of tsarism led Russia to socio-economic collapse. It is appropriate here to recall the appeal of the leaders of the six Duma factions to Nicholas II (December 1916): “Sovereign! The country is falling apart, agonizing, a grave crisis is brewing - first of all, a crisis of power. If we do not immediately form a government responsible to the Duma, the greatest shocks await us. ”Zyuganov GA Russia is my homeland. - M. 1996. P.319. And, two and a half months later, the power that had outlived itself collapsed.

The closer the anniversary date of the Great October Revolution, the more discussions and debates between supporters and opponents of this greatest historical event, which marked the beginning of a new human civilization. Supporters of dialectical-materialist history are invited to sharpen the attention of the progressive public on the need for a creative understanding of the world-historical significance of the Great October Socialist Revolution, which was necessary, natural, from the point of view of both the internal conditions of the development of Russia and international ones. It is necessary to take into account the fact that: - from the 70-year existence of the USSR, about 20 years, it took to repel the aggression during the Civil and Patriotic War, for two recovery periods after the wars; - being surrounded by capitalist powers, the country allocated large funds for defense; - socialism was built for the first time, there were no similar examples - therefore, naturally, mistakes were made - unreasonable repression of some citizens, the country being drawn into an arms race, excesses in the organization of collective farms, etc.

In order to repel the attacks of the falsifiers of the history of the Soviet period and the achievements of the Great October Revolution, in order to organize the counter-propaganda work of party organizations, it seems necessary to us to practice a systematic approach to a deeper study of the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism in the political studies of communists and allied youth. Among them, especially - the theory of the class struggle of the period of the era of imperialism - socialism; economic and political features of modern imperialism; foundations of Marxist-Leninist ideology; ideological and theoretical problems of socialism in the XXI century; the role and place of the communist parties in the international proletarian movement; theory and practice of domestic and foreign protest movement of workers; actual problems youth policy of the Communist Party ..., etc. Among the student youth to conduct: - in schools and secondary educational institutions - to conduct political information and talks "On the role and significance of the Great October Revolution and Great Victory For Russia"; - to organize electives at the universities of the country "On the world-historical significance of the Great October Socialist Revolution", "On the conceptual foundations and practice of socialist construction in the USSR", etc.

The time will come when the October Revolution in our country will be judged fairly, as an example of the true social creativity people aimed at achieving freedom, social and national equality.

Presentations were made by: Director of the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences Alexander Chubaryan; Institute director Russian history RAS Yuri Petrov; Director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation, Professor Sergey Mironenko; Chief Researcher at the Institute of Social and Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences Sergey Kara-Murza, Chief Researcher at the Institute of General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Viktor Malkov, Head of the Political Economy Sector at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Mikhail Voeikov, Chief Researcher at the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Lavrov and other scientists and experts.

Opening a discussion about the meaning and place in the world history of the Russian revolution, Vladimir Medinsky noted that "with all the divergence of views on the events of almost a century ago, we cannot deny the fact that the very attempt to build a just society on earth drastically changed the paths of historical development not only of Russia, but had a huge impact on the progress of the peoples of the entire planet."

Vladimir Medinsky emphasized that the difference of opinion that exists and should exist in the scientific community is just an excuse for dialogue, a basis for a compromise, and not for conflict:

- An objective study of the period of the revolution allows us today to realize the tragic nature of the split of society into opposing sides. It is impossible to divide the ancestors into unambiguously right and guilty, each side understood in its own way how to achieve the prosperity of the homeland. Both red and white were motivated by what we call patriotism today.

You cannot unleash a war on memory. Unconsciousness is a terrible diagnosis.

1. Recognition of the continuity of the historical development of Russia from the Russian Empire, through the USSR to modern Russia.
2. Awareness of the tragedy of the social split caused by the events of 1917 and the subsequent Civil War
3. Respect for the memory of the heroes of both sides - red, white, other parties, who were drawn into civil confrontation. all of them defended their ideals and those who are not guilty of mass repressions and war crimes should enter into a single pantheon of eternal memory.
4. Condemnation of the ideology of revolutionary terror
5. Understanding the erroneousness of betting on aid from foreign allies.

At the end of his speech, Vladimir Medinsky spoke about the idea of ​​creating and installing a "Monument of Reconciliation" in Crimea for the 100th anniversary of the Russian revolution, which will prove that "the civil war is finally over":

- After Crimea returned, figuratively speaking, "to the native harbor", from there we received an initiative - to erect a monument of reconciliation in Crimea. This idea is in the air. A symbol installed where the civil war ended can really be proof that this war is finally over.

Academician Alexander Chubaryan highlighted several topics for discussion regarding the impact of the Russian revolution on history:

- To put the revolution in a global context, since as a result of the First World War, four empires disappeared from the world map - Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, German and Russian. The First World War was one of the main events that defined the face of the 20th century. Well-known American political scientist George Kenneth said that everything that happened in Europe in the twentieth century came from the First World War.

The theme of the interaction of revolution and reforms. Study of the problem of terror and violence in the revolution. The theme of the influence of the revolution on world development. In Soviet times, the topic was very popular that the revolution was the cause of social change. Of course, one cannot exaggerate, but it was with the revolution that the theories of the welfare state appeared, and social experiments began in many countries.

Another theme is the relationship between revolution and Leninism with subsequent development. It is necessary to look at the relationship between the Leninist theories of the early years and the system of Stalinist socialism. Is there any continuity, along which lines it went. It is also necessary to return to the problem of the danger of a split of nations. Since the main negative feature of the revolution is a split and an attempt warring parties assert your point of view by destroying the other side.

Sergey Kara-Murza proposed to consider the Russian revolution as a dialogue and a conflict of civilizational projects:

- Both the Russian revolution and the perestroika at the end of the twentieth century with the subsequent reform showed that in reality civilization is an arena of competition (or struggle, even up to a civil war) of several cultural and historical types, proposing different civilizational projects. One of these types (in coalition with allies) becomes dominant in a particular period and "represents" civilization.

Peter's reforms, despite all the traumas they inflicted on Russia, were not pseudomorphoses, they relied on the will of the cultural-historical type that had developed in the bosom of Russian civilization and was beginning to dominate the public scene. The modernization and development of capitalism in the second half of the nineteenth century caused a crisis of this cultural-historical type and the strengthening of another, growing on the matrix of modern bourgeois-liberal values. This was a new generation of Russian Westernizers, but not a clone of Western liberals.

For a short time, it was this cultural and historical type that led the social processes in Russia and even carried out bloodless February revolution 1917 But it was swept away by the much more powerful wave of the Soviet revolution. Its driving force was the cultural and historical type, which began to take shape long before 1917, but took shape and received the name already as a "Soviet man" after the Civil War.

Russia passed through the difficult XX century, led by a cultural and historical type that received the name “Soviet man”. The Soviet school, army, culture helped to impart a number of exceptional qualities to this cultural-historical type. When the Soviet type began to experience an identity crisis, the cultural-historical type that showed the greatest ability to adapt took the lead. It can be called philistinism - a product of the crisis of Soviet society.

Victor Malkov, considering the period 1914-1918, noted that Russia, “having gone through a period of dishonestly executed“ great reforms ”of Alexander II and counter-reforms associated with the name of his son Alexander III, could not fit into the world tide of reformism, conceived with an eye to the future, immediately preceding 1914 and partially capturing the war, especially in the field of economics ":

“Russia,” wrote V.O. Klyuchevsky back in 1898, “is on the edge of an abyss. Every minute is precious. Everyone feels this and asks questions, what to do? No answer". Another 10 years passed, and the answer was never found. The catch-up type of development was retained at the crisis moment of the history of 1914–1918, once again confirming the invariability of traditional thinking, that is, relying on chance and fatalistic lack of will.

Mikhail Voeikov made a report "Russian revolution: one or two?", and called this question the main problem in understanding the interpretation of the Russian revolution:

- In the Soviet period, it was necessary to scientifically justify the socialist character of the October Revolution and the further construction of socialism in an economically and culturally very backward country. Indeed, from a scientific point of view, it would be contradictory to make a socialist revolution in an essentially feudal country that has not really passed the stage of capitalist development. The question, therefore, boiled down to determining the degree of development of capitalism in Russia by 1917.

But after the reform of 1861, we can only talk about the beginning of the process of capital accumulation, and then with a great degree of convention. For by the beginning of the first stage of industrialization in the last quarter of that century, there was little equity in the country. This period marks only the beginning of "initial accumulation", which was interrupted by the First World War. There was simply no normal bourgeois (capitalist) society in Russia.

Mikhail Voeikov finished his report with a quote from "Untimely Thoughts" by M. Gorky:

“The most interesting and significant thing is that the bourgeois is growing! Socialist fatherland and suddenly - the bourgeois grows! And such, you know, the harvest for him is like a porcini mushroom in a damp summer. Such a small bourgeois, but - strong, vigorous. "

- So today the bourgeois has become vigorous, - summed up Mikhail Voeikov.

Vladimir Lavrov declared his disagreement with the theses defining the attitude towards the revolution, which were put forward at the opening of the round table, and called for repentance, which should include state and legal condemnation of what Lenin and Stalin committed. The main authority in relation to the revolution, Vladimir Lavrov called the holy Patriarch Tikhon, who at that time was the head of the Russian Orthodox Church:

- In the New Year's speech on the first day of the 18th year, the Patriarch gave his assessment of what was happening: “The past year was the year of the building of the Russian state. But alas! Does it not remind us of the sad experience of Babylonian construction? ... This arrogant venture befalls them the same fate as the plans of the Babylonians: instead of good, bitter disappointment is brought. The Most High will laugh at our plans and destroy our advice. "

And in conclusion, the principled position of the Russian Orthodox Church was formulated: "The Church condemns such construction, and we strongly warn that we will not have any success until we remember God, without whom nothing good can be done ...".

The Patriarch spoke out against the massacres in Petrograd, Moscow, Irkutsk, Sevastopol and in other cities of his motherland. As you know, the most bloody was the shooting of a peaceful demonstration in support of the Constituent Assembly in Petrograd: “Come to your senses, madmen, stop your bloody massacres,” the Orthodox pastor demanded. - After all, what you are doing is not only a cruel deed: it is truly a satanic deed, for which you are subject to the fire of hell in the future life - the afterlife and the terrible curse of posterity in this earthly life. By the power given to Us from God, we forbid you to approach the Mysteries of Christ, he anathematizes you ... ”.

That is, the leaders of the Communist Party, primarily Lenin, have been anathematized. And the darkness of this century - such is the spiritually and morally consistent definition of socialism under construction.

Earlier, the onset of 1918, and now the first anniversary of the October Socialist Revolution "forces Us to tell you the bitter word of truth," said the Patriarchal Address to the Council of People's Commissars on November 7. “Having seduced the dark and ignorant people with the possibility of easy and unpunished profit, you have befuddled their conscience, drowned out the consciousness of sin in them; but no matter what names the atrocities are covered with, murder, violence, robbery will always remain grievous and crying to heaven for revenge by sins and crimes. Yes, we are going through a terrible time of your dominion, and for a long time it will not be blotted out of the people's soul, darkening the image of God in it and imprinting the image of the beast in it ”

Speaking about the perspective, about how to get out of the black hole in which we find ourselves, the Patriarch in his Address on October 8, 1919 said that “no foreign intervention, and indeed no one and nothing, will save Russia from disorder and devastation until The just Lord will not turn His anger into mercy until the people themselves are cleansed in the font of repentance from their long-term sores, and through that they will not be spiritually revived ... "

This is the most important position - no one will save us except ourselves, but repentance is necessary. But it does not exist, and I think that it is necessary and must include the state, legal condemnation of what was done by Lenin and Stalin. Without this, there will be no revival of Russia, no proper economic development.

Of course, the Patriarch considered it impossible to consolidate with those who served Satanism - with the red demons. The upcoming anniversary is alarming. For 100 years, by the grace of God and the exploit of the new martyrs, we were able to survive the communist yoke, but we did not overcome it.

I am afraid the Lord might grant mercy to anger. Today, a lot of good things have been said, but a lot of unsaid ones, there is a feeling that the authors of the appeal are like snakes in a frying pan to remain objective and at the same time come to terms with the party of Stalin-Lenin. This is impossible.

As Saint Matrona of Moscow used to say, "If the people do not repent, they will disappear."

Great Russian Revolution- a radical change in Russian history. The process, which has affected all spheres of social life, has not yet acquired an unambiguous assessment in the historical consciousness of modern Russia, which is undergoing a period of social, cultural and political transformation. Many aspects of this period of Russian history remain undisclosed or disclosed in a biased and politically biased manner.

2017 is the year of the centenary of the 1917 Revolution. The centenary milestone is significant for historical memory. Right now, it is necessary to support the trend of reconciliation of society with the events of 1917 and to promote the popularization of high-quality historical knowledge in order to draw lessons from them.

Russian Historical Society takes Active participation in the preparation and conduct of events dedicated to the Great Russian Revolution, guided by the values ​​of science, verifiability and civil solidarity, expressed in a delicate and objective approach to historical events.

“We approached the theme of the 1917 Revolution prepared. Its extensive discussion took place at various sites, as part of the development of the concept of teaching Russian history at school. Even then, it was proposed to consider the Great Russian Revolution as a complex and dramatic process, including interrelated stages. The events of February and October 1917, the fall of the monarchy and the establishment of a republic, elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Kornilov revolt, the establishment of the power of the Soviets and a bloody civil war ",

- Chairman of the Russian Historical Society Sergei Naryshkin.

Project news:

The study of the causes and consequences of the Great Russian Revolution will continue - this statement was made by the Chairman of the Russian Historical Society Sergei Naryshkin at the final meeting of the organizing committee for the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the 1917 revolution in Russia.

An exhibition opened at the All-Russian Museum of Decorative, Applied and Folk Art “The Porcelain Revolution. Dream of a New World. Soviet porcelain "... The exposition features hundreds of decorative plates, cups, saucers, sculptures released in the first twenty years of the Soviet state, which are traditionally called propaganda porcelain.

In the concert hall of the Academic Song and Dance Ensemble of the Russian Army named after A. Alexandrov, the International Historical and Music Festival of Children and Youth Creativity "The Russian Revolution of 1917: Musical Memory of Generations" was held.

A modular exhibition "The Revolution of 1917 on the streets of Moscow in archival documents and photographs" has opened on Nikolskaya Street. The exposition was prepared by the Russian Society of Historians and Archivists and the Historical and Archival Institute of the Russian State Humanitarian University with the support of the Russian Historical Society and the History of the Fatherland Foundation.

Concert at the Mariinsky Theater, demonstration of unique documents from the archive Navy and the laying of a stone at the Admiralty Shipyards in memory of the shipbuilders of the era of the revolution and the Civil War: events dedicated to the centenary of the revolutionary coup in Russia were held in St. Petersburg.

On the eve of the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution Sergei Naryshkin gave an exclusive interview to the First Deputy Director General of TASS Mikhail Gusman, in which he spoke about the significance of this historic event for the citizens of Russia, its assessment in modern Russian society, as well as about the events held throughout the country on the eve of this date.

In Russia, a memorial to all those who died during the revolution and the Civil War may soon appear. This proposal was made by the deputies of the State Duma at parliamentary hearings "Centenary of the 1917 Revolution in Russia: International Aspects".

The State Historical Museum prepares for the opening of the Energy of Dreams exhibition. It will be the final and most ambitious event in the calendar of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Great Russian Revolution.

The International Scientific Conference "Russian Revolution and Constitution" was held in the House of the Russian Historical Society. She gathered several dozen experts from different countries- historians, lawyers, political scientists, economists, culturologists.

The "week of the Russian revolution" has started in Paris: in the coming days, several major scientific forums and other events dedicated to the events of 1917 and their impact on the world will be held in the capital of France.