Military Review

Russian revolution: the debunking of myths and nontrivial view


March 8 (February old style 23) marks the 95 years of the Russian revolution, which is believed to have caused many tragedies of the twentieth century, including in Ukraine. However, according to the author, the reasons lie much deeper, and the revolution was only a consequence, as discussed further. Moreover, its nature and even the definition of “Russian Revolution” are still not “generally understood”, and in the assessments Bolshevik or liberal-bourgeois ideological rhetoric prevails. In this essay, an attempt has been made to clear this topic of common myths, to look at the Russian revolution from the standpoint of non-trivial knowledge about society.

About the Russian revolution "common language"

It is known that the revolution began on March 8 (February 23 old style) 1917 of the year. But there is no consensus on the date of its completion ... And, in general, the concept “Russian revolution” used here is not generally accepted.

In the Soviet tradition, it was customary to separate the February bourgeois revolution and the October socialist revolution, which began on November 7-8 (October 25-26 in old style) 1917 of the year. Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, relying on the traditions of Russian revolutionism, advanced a very peculiar thesis about the development of a bourgeois revolution into a socialist revolution, which in general contradicts Karl Marx’s views on social processes. Then Leib Bronstein (better known as Leon Trotsky), all his life "fussing" between leftist totalitarianism and anarchism, put forward the idea of ​​"permanent revolution" (which, by the way, is not so stupid!), Which Lenin denounced as "childhood leftism disease in communism. "

But the funny thing is that many Western ideologists - from the Left to the Right and from the Liberals to the Conservatives - in general support the Bolshevik division of the revolutionary process in Russia into a bourgeois and socialist revolution! In their opinion, the February bourgeois revolution relied on large and medium-sized capital, the urban middle class and relatively wealthy peasants, and its goal was to create a parliamentary bourgeois democracy in Russia and remove obstacles that hampered Russia’s final “building capitalism” —the monarchy system, landowner land tenure, etc. Further, in the West, opinions diverge.

The “Rightists” believe that after the February Revolution, Russia had every chance to follow the path of Western liberal-bourgeois democracy, capitalist accumulation and modernization, and, following the example of the “golden billion,” build a country of “common prosperity” - the very welfare state that today in the so-called developed countries, it seems, "is covered with a copper basin". By the way, 5 years ago, on 90, the anniversary of the Russian revolution, the general welfare society was still flourishing, as it turned out, by "inflating financial bubbles", and very few people in 2007 thought that a collapse would begin in a year. Although long before many "not the weakest minds" warned that the organization of the entire earthly civilization on the model of the "golden billion" inevitably leads to a planetary catastrophe, but this is a separate issue.

In the opinion of the right, the Bolsheviks headed by Lenin turned from the "high road of Western civilization". Having created chaos, they carried out a coup, overthrew the legitimate (?!) Government, seized power, and then created a totalitarian — one of the bloodiest in stories. True, the most “advanced” right-wing ideologues in the West still sometimes recall that the Bolsheviks relied on a broad social base; but they immediately add that they have gained its populist demagogy among the masses proletarianized and lumpenized by the First World War, putting forward slogans that were close and understandable to this mass and ultimately deceiving it.

With the fall of the USSR, these ideologies were strengthened here under the influence of liberal-bourgeois propaganda by the media, Western foundations, urgently “recovered” university professors (who in the USSR were following the course of Marxism-Leninism), foreign professors, etc. And there are a lot of things right. But the problem is that we never had a serious critical analysis of the events of the twentieth century, the primitive discourse “Bolshevism or bourgeois liberalism” persistently imposes, and our “total farmer’s” transition to the imposed western stereotypes of thinking ignores the fact that Western social thought is also a left “jet”, which is hardly more powerful than a right one.

The Leftists believe that, having played on a sharp social crisis and the eternal desire for a just world order, the Bolsheviks seized power, but built a fascist dictatorship based on the extreme degree of state capitalism, which had nothing to do with socialism and communism, which, in theory, imply a much greater level of freedom and meaningfulness of being than any, the most liberal bourgeois-parliamentary democracy. Moreover, in their views on the ideal of communism, the best representatives of the left in the West unexpectedly closely agree with religious ideologists and "right-wing reactionary-conservative romantics," but this is a separate topic.

Despite these differences, both right and left, both here and in the West, for the most part, believe that in the 1917 year Russia had two revolutions: bourgeois-democratic and proletarian-socialist ...

"Legends and myths of social science"

Such a “game of definition” or, in Marx’s terms, “illusions of consciousness” often speak of a lack of understanding of the essence of real processes, and more often of a banal “deception of the people”. On the one hand, the bourgeois are equated with capitalists, capitalism and the bourgeois system in the economy are associated exclusively with the market and free enterprise, and in socio-politics with freedom and democracy; on the other hand, socialism is associated exclusively with totalitarianism, the absence of freedom and democracy, and for some reason only the working class and the proletariat aspire to it.

Understand the ordinary chatter. A "capitalist" is an individual who is invested with the purpose of making a profit, exploiting the labor of others or not. The French word "bourgeois" (in German - "burger", in Russian - "petty bourgeois") means only "a resident of the city"; with Marx’s light hand, the “bourgeoisie” was equated with the “capitalists”, although bourgeois citizens can be both capitalists and hired workers, lumpens, hired employees (for example, clerks in offices and banks, who are very proud that they belong to middle class ", but on the socio-economic situation differ little from the miners and tractor drivers), etc. In addition, the capitalist can make a profit in the agrarian business in the countryside, and then he will no longer be a “bourgeois”, but probably a “peyzanin”, which means “peasant” in the same French.

The situation with the proletarians and the working class is no less bizarre. Again, with the light hand of Marx, the proletarians were equated with wage-workers, and this is by no means always the case. In the classical Roman understanding, “proletarian” is a formally free (not a slave) individual of the male sex, which has nothing but children, because, according to Roman custom, children and the family were considered the property of the head of the family. The proletarian can learn the craft and become a worker, and can live on alms, theft, robbery. The modern wage worker of the West, especially in the "high-tech" area, may have higher education, property, real estate, corporate shares, and by income enter the "upper middle class" (part of the middle class with high incomes), significantly exceeding small entrepreneurs, those. proper capitalists. Note that many of these and unspecified problems with the terminology of Marx are not explained by his stupidity, but by the fact that he lived and worked almost 150 years ago, when, for example, the workers were usually the proletariat. In general, the thoughtless use of the terms of the nineteenth and even eighteenth century in the twenty-first century often leads to comic "misunderstandings" that our "great-power-strategic neighbors" call "soft-boiled boots."

Now about the socialist revolution as the "blue dream" of the workers and proletarians. This is one of the controversial moments with Marx, which was partially confirmed, and partly not. The Russian revolution has shown that the proletarians can rise to the revolution, the truth of “socialism” most likely will not come out of this, but here it is necessary to understand the meaning of the word “socialism”, which is discussed further. And a well-paid worker in a country where the economy is stable or seems so (because the "operating principle" of the modern global economy seems to be precisely instability) does not need a revolution, nor socialism (whatever they understand), replace consumption and entertainment. Perhaps Marx’s greatest mistake was that he made a bet on the working class in the matter of “building a bright future”. Russian truth-seeker and political émigré Alexander Herzen led a tough controversy about this with Marx. Herzen ingeniously remarked that the European worker is the same philistine as the petty bourgeois, he does not save from the philistinism in moral and psychological sense, and the working class for the most part is not suitable for finding the highest meaning of humanity. True, here, Herzen, with the "primordially-Russian simplicity," called the "inborn socialists" Russian peasants of the 19th century with their communal land use.

But the funny thing is that the socialist parties and movements often came from classes that Marxists called the “petty bourgeoisie” - small entrepreneurs, employees, teachers, or even capitalists, landowners and noblemen. Just look at the "personnel" of Russian and Ukrainian socialists of various stripes at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries: Lenin, Lunacharsky, Trotsky, Berdyaev, Martov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Deich, Plekhanov, Savinkov, Petlyura, Vinnichenko, Grushevsky, Shapoval and others the proletariat and the workers had nothing to do!

Even more fun is the case with capitalism, socialism, totalitarianism, freedom, democracy, the market, i.e. a set of "words", which "juggle" all and sundry. Capitalism is not at all synonymous with freedom, democracy and the market. Although fascist Germany called itself “national socialism,” no one “canceled” capitalism there, but somehow did not work out with freedom and democracy in the Third Reich; the same can be said about Franco Spain, fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile. Suppose the examples given are “extreme”.

There is very little democracy in the clan-corporate system of modern Japan. So said in an interview with the newspaper "The Mirror of the Week" (No. 3, 2007) a professor of history at the University of Lviv, Yaroslav Gritsak, who has experience there. Note that while in Japan - one of the highest levels of life and that the same can be said about South Korea. True, prof. Gritsak discovered a free market in Japan, but he seems to be mistaken: the market there is at the level of small business, and macroeconomics is controlled by several monopolistic conglomerates. Roosevelt, with the help of very undemocratic and non-market mass public works, took America out of the terrible crisis that created the market-capitalist element that put the country on the brink of a social explosion. The modern Western corporate-state system leaves little room for freedom and democracy, which are understood only in the sense of being able to choose from a generally accepted list of goods and entertainment. In general, the freedom in the developed world is best to ask our "arbayterov". Even well-settled emigrants from the former USSR say curious things: they did not find widely advertised freedom in the West, especially in the USA, if only because every step is controlled through payment cards, a system of visas, green cards, migration control, etc., make senseless the theme of "open society", etc. At the same time, the countries of "developed capitalism" have powerful social assistance systems, and many employees are also co-owners of corporations, which is not capitalism, but socialism. For example, in Sweden, democracy, socialism, monarchy and capitalism peacefully coexist. In general, the current global system under the auspices of "developed countries" has little to do with the declared freedom and market.

More interesting is the "bourgeois-democratic" and "proletarian-socialist" revolutions. Not all significant "bourgeois-democratic" revolutions can be directly linked to the bourgeoisie and democracy. The social basis of the revolution in the Netherlands (which also had national liberation overtones) was largely bourgeois citizens, but the peasants also played a big role, and the most important striking force was the “gyozy”, that is, the lumpen pirates, which Charles de Bonfire in The Legend of Thiel Ulenshpigel. The revolution cleared the way for capitalism, which allowed for a while to make a small country a global superpower, but this revolution can hardly be considered such a "bourgeois" one.

In the English Revolution, the townspeople actively participated, both the haves and the poor; there was a powerful democratic movement against the monarchy, the estate system, large landlord and church land tenure. But at the same time, firstly, the revolution did not bring democracy to power, but a dictatorship led by the Lord Protector, and ended with the restoration of the monarchy and the preservation of the estate system that exists in Great Britain today; secondly, the English Revolution entailed a massive bloody psychosis, which makes talk of freedom and democracy in general senseless; thirdly, the revolution cleared the way for capitalism, but the biggest beneficiaries were the big landowners who drove the peasants off their lands (which is very similar to the current situation in Ukraine); that is why, fourthly, the free-swing peasants, yeomanry, who fought not for a "bright capitalist future," but against capitalism, were the shock force of the revolutionary army of Oliver Cromwell, because he deprived them of the land they de facto owned, even if de jure was feudal dependence; Fifthly, the driving force of the revolution was the powerful “proto-socialist” movement of levelers. Therefore, it is incorrect to consider the English revolution to be unambiguously "bourgeois-democratic."

The French Revolution, unlike the English, was perhaps more “urban” and “bourgeois”, but to call it “democratic” somehow the language does not turn. She begun slogans of Liberty-Equality-Fraternity, led to the Jacobin dictatorship, bloody mass psychosis, naturally ended the dictatorship of Bonaparte, following the defeat which each other replaced pseudo-democracy, restoration of the monarchy, a dictatorship ... And so France "shaken" almost a hundred years, right up to the Paris Commune !

To sum up the interim, we note that the German-Jewish Trotskyist Ivaak Deutscher expressed very aptly in the sense that the so-called bourgeois revolutions hardly guessed that they were bourgeois at least in terms of the driving forces, which were usually proletarian.

This extensive “lyrical digression” was required for the following reasons. First, these revolutions have changed the face of their countries and the whole civilization, therefore they are considered "Great Revolutions". Secondly, contrary to established myths, they cannot definitely be called "capitalist" and "bourgeois-democratic", and talking about the mandatory democracy of capitalism and the bourgeoisie, about the unequivocal bourgeois capitalists and "capitalism" of the bourgeois, as well as the all-time totalitarianism of socialism is empty chatter. Thirdly, along with the English and French, the Russian revolution is also "great", because it radically changed not only the Russian Empire, but the earthly civilization.

The truth about the myths of the Russian revolution

It seems that the division into the February bourgeois-democratic and October proletarian-socialist revolutions is fundamentally wrong. The Russian revolution was a single dialectically contradictory process, which led to a bloody psychosis and a totalitarian nightmare, and there were very few chances for a more or less democratic and humane final.

In Ukraine, the idea of ​​the Russian revolution as a single process was clearly formulated by one of the best, in the author's opinion, historians, Doctor of History, Professor Stanislav Kulchitsky. In one of his publications, he wrote that, having expressed this idea at one international conference, he was very puzzled by historians from Russia who, it would seem, even agreed with him. The author also visited this idea for a long time, and the publications of the famous historian only reinforced the idea that the Russian revolution, like any other, should be considered as "one and indivisible"; the maximum that is possible is division into stages. Paradoxically, but well-trained “cadre” historians such things are often inaccessible due to their commitment to positivistic, linear-causal and Cartesian views. But this idea is quite obvious if you look at the revolution as a mass psychic phenomenon, using knowledge from deep psychology and wave models of the social psyche as an energy-information process, which is discussed further.

Here, the Ukrainian Revolution, which the zealous national patriots are not excessively in demand, is to be separated from the Russian: they say, the most important was the national liberation movement ("national-wise zmagannya"), and the social revolution was brought by the Bolsheviks and the Moskal in general! And the struggle of the Ukrainian peasantry for the land? And the movement of workers in the industrial regions of Ukraine, which could not be inspired only by the Russian Bolsheviks, as the "patriots" now prove? The Ukrainian revolution was an integral part of the Russian revolution (whether anyone likes it or not) and contained within itself a national jet, which was also very heterogeneous.

Moreover, the Russian revolution itself was an integral part of a single dialectically contradictory multivariate (!) Civilization process, the result of not only the history of Russia (especially in the XIX century), but also the world, first of all European, history. Of particular importance was the First World War, which, with its extremely aggravated problems, dragged Russia into no less acute global contradictions. Austria-Hungary and Prussia crumbled, revolutions broke out in Bavaria and Hungary, the British Empire reeled, France resisted from the social explosion, largely due to reparations from Germany, American capital and troops. At the beginning of the twentieth century. there was a crisis of the world system of imperialism - and this is not an invention of the Bolsheviks. By the way, the American sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, who is very popular now in the West, after Lenin, argues that capitalism cannot be considered in principle as a simple set of economic states, but only as a global system. The imperialist war in the interests of the ruling state-monopoly cliques developed into civil and national (particularly in Ukraine), and the sharp proletarianisation of the masses in Russia as the weakest link of world imperialism led to revolution. Everyone who has studied “Marxism-Leninism” is familiar with these theses put forward by Lenin back in 1914. and confirmed by history. Here we are dealing not so much with powerful intellect, as with V. Lenin's no less powerful intuition, no matter how they relate to it. The orthodox Soviet ideology could not explain these processes and said that they were “objective”, i.e. no special explanation is required. The historical materialism of the late 19th – early 20th century sample, which was used by the ideologists of the CPSU, as well as the western “political science”, cannot explain the Russian revolution with its “communism”, imperialism with totalitarianism, the West’s overcoming the crisis in the second half of the 20th century, the threat of a new crisis at the beginning of the twenty-first century under talk of globalization, and finally the crisis itself, which did come and develop successfully at the moment.

Was the first stage of the Russian revolution really “bourgeois-democratic”, which means “capitalist” within the framework of conventional stamps? Indeed, there was the general democratic task of establishing civil rights and freedoms, destroying the monarchy and landlordism as a relic of serfdom with the distribution of land to the peasants. (By the way, Prof. S.Kulchitsky expressed a curious and sensible idea that there has never been feudalism in Russia, for European feudalism and Russian serfdom are, as they say in Odessa, "two big differences"). But there was hardly any urgent task to clear the way for capitalism. We repeat that a number of countries of “developed capitalism” with strong positions of democracy and socialism are nominally monarchies to this day, and democratic rights and freedoms are not obligatory for capitalism. In Russia, big capital, including foreign capital, peacefully got on together, even relied on tsarism, and small business also had its niche. Before the World War, the pace of capitalism development was tremendous, the growth of the economy was one of the largest in Europe, the standard of living also increased. (True, all this led to the growth of social contradictions!) The agrarian reform, including the development of capitalism in the countryside (which is debatable!), Was acute tasks, but did not require revolutionary "extreme" and were resolved relatively peacefully before the war. The revolutionary explosion abruptly cut off the development of capitalism in the city and country. Despite social dissatisfaction, at least until the 1905 revolution of the year, Russian society, in addition to a handful of intellectuals, remained completely “loyal”. The war began with an attack of patriotism! Liberals and even many socialists supported tsarism in the "war to the bitter end." And only Lenin with the characteristic Russian nihilistic cynicism warned that this war would not only "end" the Russian empire, but also hack the world system.

Two and a half years of war exhausted the country, opened up and aggravated all the social and social ulcers and contradictions of the rotten system, hidden by the pre-war economic boom. Therefore, the fall of tsarism, which is called the "February Revolution," happened rather peacefully and looked more like a collapse than an uprising. When the 8 of March (February 23 of Art. Art.) The workers of Petrograd protested against the shortage of products, the troops who received orders to shoot at them refused to do so by joining the workers. This process quickly spread throughout Russia. The king abdicated the throne, the power collapsed, the troops refused to obey, the gendarmes hid, crowds decorated with red bows demanded a republic and democracy ... So for centuries the centuries-old tsarism crumbled, which until recently seemed unshakable. It is impossible to interpret all this only in rational terms of sociology and political economy, what more ...

And most importantly: February 1917, the revolution did not "take place" - the Russian revolution was just beginning! Dumping Tsarism was easy, but it was much harder to find a replacement for him. Immediately there were two contenders for power. The liberal Duma deputies created the Provisional Government, which declared the transition to democracy through the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. But the government of the land did not give the peasants, did not stop the war, with the "founding" pulled, and therefore did not have real power and did not differ in its particular legitimacy, because it was chosen by a handful of intellectuals from themselves.

The Provisional Government was opposed by the Soviets of workers, peasants and soldiers' deputies, led by the Petrograd Soviet. The Soviets were a chaotic, but fairly legitimate form of direct democracy, for they were elected by the masses by direct vote. In reality, the Soviets were rather noisy and stupid "get-together" of workers, peasants, soldiers, liberal and radical intellectuals until they were taken under control by the Bolsheviks.

In a war-torn Russia, economic collapse and famine began. By the summer of 1917, millions of armed and demoralized soldiers, leaving the front, rushed home. Full anarchy and chaos ensued. Being in the mass of peasants, the soldiers, with the support of the villagers, began to smash the manor’s estates and divide the land. Russia was being torn apart by national movements, including in Ukraine, and the riots - left, right, peasant, anarchic, gangster, Kornilov, monarchical ...

Here it is - the apotheosis of the revolution! For the “real” revolution is a movement of huge masses, and not just a seizure of power by any party or group. Another thing is that this group or party may be able to use the energy of the revolution ... Or they may not be able to ... And they may not understand and not feel it at all ...

Lenin understood and felt. Talk about the fact that Lenin with the money of the German General Staff, creating chaos, seized power, is an idle chatter. Chaos arose without Lenin. German money may have helped Lenin, but one can hardly be serious about this argument; Lenin did not conceal the fact of receiving money, but rather, it was not the Germans who used Lenin, but Lenin - the Germans. One party simply could not create an anarchy of such magnitude, especially in huge Russia, on 1 / 6 sushi. In order to "pivot" half of Eurasia, no money would be enough. Moreover, the Bolsheviks were a very small and obscure group, although they differed discipline, at least compared to other parties.

The insurgent masses, pissed and brought to moral and material poverty, were least of all interested in the Constituent Assembly, parliamentarism, the constitution, and other "supreme achievements of the Western world order." Very amusing opinions that, say, having scanty support in the election of delegates to the Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks dispersed the "founder", insidiously usurped power, burying hopes of democracy in Russia. It seems that everything was “exactly the opposite”: the “founder” did not have special support among the masses, especially considering the huge territory, and generally the idea of ​​“founding” and democracy in Russia in 1917, is utopian, especially considering the psychology of the masses; the most likely scenarios could be dictatorship or chaos. Take modern Russia, where there is a bicameral "founding", but there is no democracy at all. Or the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR under Gorbachev - a wholly-owned "founder" - which ended in anarchy and collapse.

In any case, the councils in 1917 were no less legitimate authorities than the Provisional Government and the failed "founding", because, again, the councils relied on the masses. Lenin understood this better and faster than all, managing to control the council by hook or by crook. The Bolsheviks, headed by Lenin (and without him, they would have remained a gang of demagogues and talkers!), Are proactive in conducting All-Russian congresses of councils in opposition to the Constituent Assembly. Supporting the slogans of "Factory - Workers" that are particularly popular among the masses! Land - the peasants! Peace to the peoples! ", The Bolsheviks managed to take control of the advice and get support from the masses. Everything was almost as written in the textbooks on the history of the CPSU, except for one thing: the cunning of Lenin and the Bolsheviks was that by supporting these slogans to get the authorities, they did not intend to carry them out (see the works of Professor S. Kulchitsky). Suppose the “peace to the peoples” was difficult to give because of world war, then civil war, intervention, although in reality the Bolsheviks were aimed at a “revolutionary war "." Factory - workers "(and this would be socialism! Another de oh whether the workers were able to cope with the management) the Bolsheviks did not even intend to give, and when the workers tried to manage the factories through elected factory committees, the Bolshevik commissars cut them off at the root .With the land it turned out to be more difficult: after the terror and the advanced development, the Bolsheviks still had to the time of NEP to give the land to the peasants, the land was nationalized only at the turn of the 1920-30-s by terror and famine.

Intellect, intuition, obsession and immoral ways of struggle allowed Lenin to accomplish the October revolution on the wave of the Russian revolution and raise the power that was practically "lying under his feet", which Lenin did not hide. Following the traditions not of Marxism, but of Russian revolutionism, he spoke of "the development of a bourgeois revolution into a proletarian revolution." The myth of the "Great October Socialist Revolution," by analogy with the "Great French," they say, was later invented by Trotsky.

What is the character of the Russian revolution? Marx considered a reactionary class. The working class (if considered its proletariat) in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century was extremely small. Lenin spoke of the workers 'and peasants' revolution. It can be argued that the revolution was proletarian, but the basis of its social base was the peasantry (mostly small proprietor, not proletarian), proletarized by war, famine, ruin.

In addition, the agrarian component of the Russian revolution was, if not "proletarian socialist," then at least "anti-capitalist." After all, the villagers took away the land of large landowners, including agrarian capitalists and land rentiers.

Prof. S. Kulchitsky characterized the revolution as also “Soviet”, i.e. one that brought advice to power. According to Kulchitsky, in a number of economic and managerial issues, the councils were real power, but the actual power "on the shoulders" of the councils was received by the Bolshevik party, which made strategic decisions, often without bearing responsibility. A certain “mutant of power” was formed: the intertwining of the totalitarian party and the formally elected power, where the Soviets stood in a prominent place, even the power was “Soviet” and the Union was called “Soviet”, but behind the scenes the main decisions were made by the top party leadership.

According to S. Kulchitsky, the dramaturgy of the revolution is as follows: multidirectional Soviet, democratic and Bolshevik principles clashed; democracy was defeated; under the Soviet slogans, the Bolsheviks seized the Soviets, and in the spring of 1918 of the year, having saddled the revolution, they carried out a communist coup "from above" in order to build a "communal state". Later S. Kulchitsky expressed the idea that the de facto revolution ended by the middle of the 1930-s with the final victory of Stalin's totalitarian society.

Here are a number of comments. For some reason, now they are forgetting about the powerful monarchical and generally great-power-chauvinist movement. After all, the most important element of drama in the civil war was the struggle between the "red" and "white". For some reason, it is believed that if it were not for the Bolsheviks, then democracy would surely be established. But the top of the “white movement” was monarchical and totalitarian, even if its representatives spoke of a constituent assembly and “democracy”. In Russia, it is generally reaching marasmus: they are canonized as the Great Martyr Tsar Nicholas II, probably for shooting a peaceful 9 demonstration in January 1905 of the year or for the millions killed in a senseless world war; the fables are told about the deep nobility of the White Guard officers who brutally destroyed the peasants, including the Ukrainian ones, and the Kolchak people "distinguished themselves" by flooding the local peasants with water and leaving them in the cold (even tearful sentimental songs about "lieutenant Golitsyn" "). The White Terror was no better than the Red. If it were not "red" that won, but "white", then it is likely that not intellectual "founding" would come to power, but the right totalitarian-chauvinistic regime or the "supreme ruler of all Russia", the restoration of the monarchy was also possible. Indeed, of all the countries that emerged after the First World War on the fragments of empires, only Czechoslovakia was more or less democratic.

The Bolshevik state in no way was a "commune." We will not go into existential delights and explain that communism in the highest sense is a perfect society, where people will no longer depend on the irrational forces of society, but will devote themselves to creative knowledge and rational transformation of the world, which echoes, for example, the ideal of the Kingdom of God. in Christianity. When it comes to "perverted concepts", it is better to consider their original meaning. In this case, such is "primitive communism": a community where everyone has equal rights and duties and in the name of preserving the species obey so-called. "rational authority" - the strongest, the wisest. Whereas the Bolshevik state was committed by a different hierarchical structure based on the exploitation and subordination to the "irrational authority" of the closed fascist clique.

According to the subjective opinion of the author, the Russian revolution actually ended in the second half of the 1930s with pre-war industrialization and "accelerated modernization" of the USSR, which were carried out by "cannibalistic methods" of Stalinism. It should be noted that Stalinist fascism not only brutally suppressed the masses, but enjoyed the support of a significant part of the masses. Now, for some reason, it is customary to recall only repressions, the famine and the Gulag, which were the same crimes against humanity as Hitler's fascism. But for some reason nowadays, mentions of the enthusiasm of the first five-year plans, mass heroism, of the discoverers in science, aviation and astronautics, in the Arctic, in the vast expanses of Asia, in the stratosphere, in space ... After all, it is obvious that these achievements cannot be explained by terror alone. On one fear, society "does not work" - it is unscientific. By the way, the modern oligarchic system grew on the sack of what was created at the cost of tragedy and heroism, blood and enthusiasm, hard labor and creative impulse.

Here we come to a number of important questions: why did Russia explode with massive bloody psychosis? Was this psychosis a consequence of only the Bolshevik dictatorship or also the peculiarities of the masses mentality? Is it really necessary for the mass of democracy? Was a democratic or even more or less humane outcome of the Russian revolution possible? Did not the psychology of the masses be rooted in Bolshevism and Stalinism?

The answer to these questions will give a real key to understanding what happened in the Russian-Soviet empire. But this will require some non-trivial, alternative knowledge, which modern social science stubbornly ignores.

Heresy and apocrypha in social science

“Nontriviality” and “alternativeness” do not mean “unscientific”. The knowledge used further has long been used in a number of branches of the natural, human, and social sciences, but historians and most social scientists have persistently ignored them.

We will not comment on the pseudoscientific, near-humanitarian talk of the type "political science" fashionable now. But even serious academic social science is seriously ill with “chronic positivism” and proceeds from such an important assumption of the Cartesian picture of the world: the result of observation is uniquely determined by the nature of the objective world and the perceptual apparatus. And this is not always the case. Natural science, primarily physics, long ago abandoned the dominance of the Cartesian and linear-causality models, and now Einstein's theory of relativity, in which the results of observations, measurements, experiments cannot be considered objective without taking into account the position of the observer. Social scientists cannot understand an elementary thing: research data are not always equal to perception, which is due to experience, language, education, culture. The same stimuli can lead to different sensations, and different stimuli - to the same. Modern philosophy of science rightly believes that science is not dominated by observation, experiment and data processing procedures, but paradigm is a set of a priori beliefs, values, and fundamental metaphysical attitudes about reality and knowledge. But any, the most progressive and convincing paradigm is relative and is not the truth about reality. One set of data can be interpreted differently within different paradigms, and science does not always bring it closer to the knowledge of truth.

Such statements are not a tribute to fashionable nowadays "relativism" and "postmodernism", to which the author is sharply negative, considering them to be intellectual-decadent empty chatter, covered with "smart words". But it is obvious that the abundance of new facts extracted from the archives often does not at all bring us closer to an understanding of the historical truth. The Bolsheviks, carefully concealing their crimes, rightly spoke of mass heroism and enthusiasm, brazenly attributing to themselves the merits in the "leading and guiding role." When at the turn of 1980-90-s the truth about the atrocities of Bolshevism came to light, which, however, had not been a special secret before, it became "indecent" to talk about the enormous achievements of the Soviet system, although the country still somehow emerges and an oligarchy was formed on that base, which was created in the USSR, and "the noble innovation and investment assistance abroad" is idle chatter. But in the light of the now dominant pseudoliberal demagogy, it is not customary to recall that, along with accelerated modernization and accumulation, which were conducted in the USSR by “cannibalistic” methods for about 50 years with a “break” for war, destruction, restoration, construction of “humane” Western civilization , its modernization and capitalist accumulation lasted several centuries, ditched many millions of lives, continues to this day by draining all the juices primarily from the third world, are one of the greatest tragedies on the planet and Degree of "cannibalism" are not inferior to Stalinism.

Quantum-wave holographic models of the psyche and the universe generally lead to a paradox: the abundance of facts gives greater detail, but often interferes with the perception of a holistic picture, whereas with a reasonably small number of facts, the detailing (resolution of a hologram) decreases, but the perception integrity improves. Such things may be difficult for the perception of humanities who do not have natural-mathematical training, but, for example, Fyodor Dostoevsky believed that “they don’t see the general behind the particulars,” and the Vedic religion contains the famous wisdom that one thing, and one thing in everything. " We will stop here, because this topic is very extensive, difficult for perception by the modern primitive-pragmatic mind, and besides, there is still a lot of incomprehensible.

These examples show that in social science de facto is dominated not by factology, but by a paradigm that interprets facts based on a priori beliefs, values, metaphysical attitudes about reality and knowledge. Most even serious scientists not only do not recognize this, but also do not realize it primarily because unconscious mechanisms are involved. This raises the following problem.

Academic science stubbornly proceeds from a common misconception about history as a process directed by the consciousness of people, as well as by certain objective social laws. It is believed that the "objective" law does not depend on the person, but can be cognized and used in practice. The paradox is that the objective social process is a consequence of the subjective, that is, mental, activity of the human masses. The transition of mental activity from the individual and interpersonal level to the mass level, according to the well-known law of “transition of quantity into quality,” leads to the development of the subjective into the objective. (As well as specific psychological empiricism in abstract philosophical speculations, but this is a separate topic). Today, the talk about social "consciousness" is fundamentally wrong; We need to talk about the psyche as a dialectically contradictory unity of consciousness and the unconscious with a continuous energy-information exchange between them and the dominance of the unconscious. By the way, the majority of mass, but completely subjective social phenomena are considered objective due to the fact that, being unconscious, they are not realized. Being modulated by information (ideas, thoughts, arche-and psycho-types, passions, matrices, gestalts, instincts), psychoenergy moves society along complex trajectories. The social psyche as an energy-informational phenomenon is formed by society, and also forms it itself through conscious activity and through unconscious mechanisms discovered by Sigmund Freud.

Let us briefly denote these processes.

Psychoenergy can be modulated with both creative, creative, and destructive, authoritarian and compromising contents. Socium can suppress and intensify creation, as well as compromise, destructiveness and authoritarianism. Human aggression has two types: defensive "benign" biological aggression for survival; "malignant", purely social aggression due to perversions in the psychology of the individual and society, which does not have a rational goal, but serves to satisfy the irrational passions. The relatively autonomous content of the psyche develops into affective-loaded universal and ethno-national "archetypes". In addition, the behavior of people and society unconsciously recreates the stages of birth, which are firmly "stitched" in the psyche: the infantile unconcern of prenatal, apathetic anxiety of the prenatal, destructive struggle on the verge of the birth of the ancestral, hope for a "bright future" postpartum matrix.

Contrary to popular misconceptions, social processes, including revolutions, are driven mainly by the deep unconscious content of the mass psyche, and the parties, the leaders, are only generated by the psychology of society. And since, in addition to the passion for creation, authoritarian, conciliatory and destructive passions play a major role in it, any, even the most noble ideas and ideals, are inevitably suppressed or distorted beyond recognition.

And now we will try to open the deep springs, so to speak, the "insides" of the Russian revolution, which until now no one really did.

Anatomy of the Russian Revolution

To understand the deep meaning of the Russian revolution, one should turn to the psychology of the Russian masses in general and at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries in particular.

Nikolai Berdyaev rightly paid attention to the features of the so-called. "Russian soul". Modern social science, which, we repeat, suffers from a severe form of “chronic positivism,” this “term”, or rather, the old-fashioned metaphor, considers unscientific. But it echoes Erich Fromm's ideas about the "social character", Carl Gustav Jung - about the "arche (psycho) types", Stanislav Grof - about the "systems of condensed experience", Gestalt psychology - about the Gestalt ...

According to Berdyaev, at the core of the "Russian soul" lies natural Dionysism, reformed by centuries of Orthodox asceticism. From here steady properties: dogmatism, asceticism; the search for the kingdom of the Outside; striving for the Absolute, for the religious integrity of the East as opposed to the rationalistic fragmentation of the West; religiosity in non-religious issues, including social, which distinguished the Bolsheviks with their "pathological atheism." Berdyaev wrote: "Russians are always orthodox or heretics, schismatics; they are apocalyptic or nihilists." They considered the world as lying in evil, and wealth and power as sin. They did not recognize property as sacred and absolute, denied Western bourgeois civilization, and considered communion to be the most just form of socialization. Even Russian nihilism and Bolshevism as its extreme form, declaring atheism, denying God, spirit, soul, norms, supreme values, was, according to Berdyaev, a frenzied secular religion, turned inside out by Orthodox graceless asceticism, a rejection of a world lying in evil. But the rebellion against the universe is of a totalitarian-religious nature and leads to the creation of a “new world,” even more inhuman and evil. Out of supposedly compassion for people and in the name of supposedly "bright future", Russian totalitarianism is ready for tyranny and cruelty. Paraphrasing Berdyaev somewhat: in order to make mankind happy, the Russian “activist” is ready to blow heads to millions. Here are the psychological roots of Bolshevism, and not in western Marx. Such a curious psychological portrait of Berdyaev is applicable, probably, to the beginning of the twentieth century, and not to the masses, but to the revolutionary elite. By the way, one can rightly blame Lenin, Trotsky Dzerzhinsky, Stalin and others for crimes against humanity, obsession, pathological narrowing of consciousness, moral rebirth, but they are difficult to blame for greed and shkurnichestvo, especially against the background of the current "elite".

The psychology of the masses in Russia at the turn of the century was authoritarian and conciliatory and was distinguished by religious humility, patriarchalism, and belief in autocracy. Great was the proportion of conformism and authoritarian masochism, which led to the fetishization of the king-father, the state and the bureaucracy, stabilizing society. But in the mass psyche accumulated repressed authoritarian-sadistic and destructive impulses, which could be easily activated by social factors. As a whole, even despite mass discontent and even riots, Russian society, up to and including the Russian-Japanese war and the 1905 revolution, remained quite loyal, with the exception of a handful of revolutionary intellectuals. Berdyaev wrote that in Russia there were two real forces - kondovy autocracy and the people.

The phenomenon of the 1905 revolution of the year is interesting. The failure of the Russo-Japanese war and the shooting of a peaceful demonstration in January served as a pretext for it. The reason was the huge socio-economic contradictions and the destructive potential of the mass psyche. A good argument in favor of the fact that the Bolsheviks cannot be considered almost the main cause of the Russian revolution: the Bolsheviks had nothing to do with the 1905 revolution, and rather “overslept” it, like all other intellectuals. It was the 1905 revolution of the year that produced the world-famous words "advice", "Soviet", "sovdep", and absolutely without the participation of the Bolsheviks, who were "far from the people" in 1905. The Soviets were "the revolutionary creativity of the masses", an institution of the so-called civil society, which is now fashionable to talk about. The Soviets were created by the revolutionary masses by delegating power to the deputies nominated by the masses. Revolutionary intellectuals sought to “straddle” the councils, which the Bolsheviks finally did, realizing that the masses would not believe the “bourgeois-intellectual constitutor”, but the Soviets, for they are “archetype”. The Soviets did not have a rational ideology, but reflected the emotions of the people, expressing the age-old search for truth.

The development of capitalism in the twentieth century sharply exacerbated the contradictions due to the unresolved agrarian question, the breaking of the patriarchal structure, the emergence of mass society, overconcentration and monopolization, the ruin of the small proprietor and the proletarianization of the masses, bureaucracy, and corruption. Under these conditions, tsarism had the sense to foolishly climb into World War I, to give the masses weapon and train them in military affairs. The war sharply blew up the accumulated massive destructiveness. If it were not for the war, and the removal of the destructive potential went through social conciliation, there could be no further nightmare. It was a global war with the use of the latest means of mass murder. In 1914, when no one ever thought of a revolution, Lenin warned that "an imperialist war will develop into a civil war."

What is a revolution? It is believed that this is a radical change in the socio-economic and / or political system (the French and Russian revolutions) or, at a minimum, the "shaking of the foundations" (the revolution in Europe in 1848, the revolution in Russia in 1905). Often, a revolution has a national liberation character, for example, the Ukrainian revolution 1917-21, the revolution in Cuba in 1950-60. All this is correct, but somewhat superficial, so we will try to look into the depths.

Since the times of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, the meaning of the word “revolution” has come: the return of previously lost freedom, natural and inalienable human rights, the highest meaning of its existence, i.e. all that people were deprived of civilization, which people themselves have created.

At first, Marx believed that revolution is the result of the growth of democracy, the standard of living and, most importantly, the consciousness of the masses, which is generally true: high consciousness will create a society in which revolution is not needed. True, an increase in the standard of living with democracy can lead not to an increase, but to a “fall in consciousness” of the average person, as illustrated by modern consumer society, but here sociology is not enough. The failure of the 1848 revolution of the year, which in France, especially in Paris, had a proletarian character, brought into the work of Marx, who witnessed the events, a large share of extremism, which is clearly seen in the famous Communist Manifesto.

Following the traditions of Russian revolutionism, Lenin believed that revolution is a consequence of the extreme aggravation of social contradictions, chaos, material and moral poverty, when, according to the famous aphorism of the “leader of the world proletariat,” the upper reaches cannot, old Absolutely stupid is attributing to Lenin the merits of "creating chaos" and "carrying out a revolution." Lenin (as if they didn’t treat him now) was much smarter than most of his critics: he absolutely clearly and fairly said that a revolution can only be the result of "objective and subjective prerequisites", that one should not "play plots" but patiently campaign among the masses, waiting for social contradictions to become intolerable, and only then can the masses explode. Lenin went even further and suggested that, having exploded, the masses would not know what to do, so we need a "guiding and guiding force" (which, by the way, confirmed our "orange revolution"). Lenin could not really explain this phenomenon, but it is known that he was fond of the works of French social psychologists Gustave Lebon and Gabriel Tard, who using the example of the French revolution through 100 years after it (!) Showed that the cheers of the revolutionary revolution somehow lead to restoration of the newly overthrown system, and the revolutionary crowd does not know where to send the energy, and unconsciously searches for an idea or a person who will provide such direction. All this speaks not only of Lenin's intellect, but also of his powerful intuition, which is sometimes more important than intellect. True, the mental qualities of the leader resulted in a tragedy ... However, the theme of “genius and villainy” is widely developed in literature, therefore we will not develop it here, but depict Lenin, as is now fashionable, a sort of “idiot” with brains affected by syphilis, - this is the height of idiocy.

According to the author, the psychodynamic view of the Erich Fromm revolution should be considered the most fruitful. Stability of society is retained not only by the repressive apparatus of power and ego-rational considerations. The direction and content of unconscious emotions and passions, which also “cement” society, are very important. Traditional psycho-emotional relations can be destroyed by a sharp deterioration of the socio-economic situation, war, devastation, chaos, outside threat, repression, etc. At the same time, huge amounts of psychoenergy are released, which is transformed from "cement" into "dynamite" and explodes society. Such an approach scientifically explains Lenin’s revolutionary agitation, “The tops cannot, the lower classes do not want,” and is completely consistent with the now spat upon “dialectical and historical materialism,” because this is about the informational processes, the carrier of which is quite a material substance - psychoenergy.

A surge of emotions can destroy the old social relations and create new and better ... Or maybe not destroy ... And can create worse, return the old ...

The released psychoenergy needs to be tied up again, otherwise it will blow up the society, lead to chaos and blood, which happened in the Russian revolution. The same happened in the Ukrainian revolution: one can rightly talk about "nationally-vigorous zmagannyakh", but it should be understood that there really was anarchy in Ukraine, "ataman", "the war of all against all", often meaningless and merciless, which allowed the Bolsheviks to take Ukraine under control.

Sooner or later, psychoenergy will still be connected unconsciously through the compensatory mechanisms of the psyche, but the greater the chaos, the greater the chances that compensation will occur by fascist, cannibalistic methods. Proletarianization and lumpenization sharply activates the irrational psychoenergy of the masses, which can have a creative direction, but more often - destructive, which corresponds to the most "energy-explosive" third "Base Perinatal Matrix" according to Stanislav Grof. In addition, for some reason, no particular attention is paid to the fact that urbanization, concentration and monopolization of production at the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as total world war, which formed huge groups of people, led to the abrupt development of "mass society". Mass psyche is not just a collection of individual mentalities, but a psychological community with a number of specific features, for example, increased suggestibility and rapid spread of emotions, which confirms the ideas of psychoanalysis about the phenomena of “transfer” / “countertransference”, wave models of the psyche and the hypothesis of “biomorphic fields. " The mass society leads the individual "into the ranks" of the party, class, gang, corporation, to the subordination of the generally accepted standard ... Neo-Freudism explained the emergence of unconscious compromising and authoritarian impulses in the mass psyche after social explosions as an objective mechanism for restoring disturbed mental connections. Here lies one of the roots of the Bolshevik dictatorship, the apotheosis of which was Stalinist fascism.

Psychoenergy can be linked with the help of "beautiful ideals" and / or charismatic leaders or those that seem charismatic, really and / or in illusions serve as projections of the expectations of the masses through the "transfer". Theoretically, ideals can direct psychoenergy to creation and nobility, but breaking emotional ties often leads to the destruction of the barrier between consciousness and the unconscious and a breakthrough into the consciousness of unconscious contents. Some of them, in particular, transpersonal or transpersonal content, can also be creative and noble, but often powerful unconscious authoritarian, destructive and opportunistic impulses that drive society in crucial moments, and “great ideas” play the role of rationalizations.

This can be illustrated by the example of advice. Unlike, for example, prof. S. Kulchitsky, the author of these lines considers the democratic beginning of the Russian revolution not to be a “constituent,” namely, advice. But the councils are democracy not in the abstract-western, but in the archetypal-Russian (and in Ukrainian too!) Sense. Overcome with war, hunger and chaos, the masses were little interested in parliamentarism and the constitution. Liberal values ​​and bourgeois virtues in Russia (as well as in Ukraine!) Have always been suspicious, to this day “liberals” successfully “fly through” in elections both in our country and in Russia. The masses wanted to divide the national wealth, first of all the land, on the basis of their notions of justice; she did not want to die in the war of allied duty to the "bourgeois from the Entente"; she did not want to be "cattle" and "channels". But the weakness of the Soviets was in the absence of a rational ideology, and this vacuum was filled by Lenin and the Bolsheviks, who, we repeat, advanced close and understandable slogans about earth and the world, and then vilely deceived people.

In addition, naturally, psychoenergy can be linked to terror ...

As a Russian imperialist, Lenin fought for "the one and the indivisible," but under the slogans of pseudo-communism, or rather, "communism as he understood it." Naturally, he fought with the national movements, including in Ukraine

Now for some reason they forget about the most powerful white movement, actually “white totalitarianism”, which competed with the “red”, was no less bloody, and if the Bolsheviks lost, then most likely the “chauvinistic democracy” and Russian chauvinistic fascism would prevail which would have taken Ukraine to the nail, as well as totalitarian Bolshevism. In the USSR, Ukraine had at least a semblance of statehood, in the new “white Russia”, if such had arisen, Ukraine would “not be shining” even that. Which, by the way, confirms the current revival of Russian imperialism.

Prof. S. Kulchitsky also rightly writes that, having saddled the Soviets, from the beginning of 1918, Lenin carried out a “communist revolution from above”.

But besides all this, Lenin struggled with chaos, anarchy, gangsterism, which were not the result of national and social problems, but were purely criminal in nature. In 1918 the situation has become critical. Berdyaev writes that Lenin made inhuman efforts to discipline the people and the Bolsheviks themselves, urged them to work, discipline, responsibility, knowledge and teachings, to build, not to destroy, he made real spells over the abyss, and still stopping despotism and terror with chaotic disintegration Russia. And even though this thought causes many "reaction of rejection, the author considers it necessary to emphasize that, in terms of Jung, Lenin led the fight against the" Shadow "(one of the Jungian" archetypes "), that is, with all the abomination that the bio-psycho -social nature of man in social disasters.

It is against the background of the total anarchy of the Russian revolution that Lenin’s program book “The State and the Revolution” should be considered, which (paradox!) Is still being studied in many Western universities. Marx did not say anything concrete about the forms of communism, it is possible to draw anarchic conclusions from him, denying the state altogether. Lenin discards Marx. In Lenin, the dictatorship of the proletariat, and in reality, the party bureaucracy, means power stronger and more oppressive than in the bourgeois states. The state is an organization of class domination, it will wither away and be replaced with self-organization only with the disappearance of classes, and no one knows when it will be. Here there was a truly tragic distortion of the deep essence of the ideal of communism: from the doctrine of the victory of man over external dominant forces, which in various forms takes place in all religious teachings of the planet, the doctrine of communism turned into a system of enslavement, turning into a powerless screw of dictatorship (Berdyaev). According to Lenin, you first need to go through the iron dictatorship not only in relation to the bourgeoisie, but also to the working-class masses, and only when they learn to observe the elementary conditions, the dictatorship will end. But it is impossible to subjugate the mass, to link its psychoenergy with one force. We need a holistic doctrine, a worldview that holds the symbols together. New faith must be expressed in elementary symbols, and the Russian version of Marxism and the perverted ideal of communism turned out to be quite suitable for this.

It seems that the Russian revolution ended by the end of the 1930-ies after the complete victory of the fascist regime of Stalin, modernization, industrialization of the country and the so-called collectivization of agriculture, i.e. establish the collective and state farm system. It was at this time that the Soviet ideology declared that the Soviet Union was basically “built socialism”. Prof. S. Kulchitsky considers this to be a "revolution from above", typical of the Russian totalitarian society. We agree, but "up to the sign": according to the author, this is an anti-communist, anti-socialist, even misanthropic counterrevolution, essentially a restoration of Asian tyranny, but in even more cruel, even cannibalistic forms compared to tsarism, that nonetheless , allowed to create a superpower.

Under the slogans of "socialism in a single country", Stalin created an extreme degree of state capitalism, when citizens are completely alienated from social life by bureaucracy. Soviet ideology assured that the USSR is a country based on public ownership, where there are no class contradictions and social inequalities, and only friendly working class, peasantry and intellectuals were in the class structure. Actually, under the sign of socialism, we repeat, there was state capitalism. Property was not public, but state owned. The society was antagonistic class, where the ruling class was bureaucracy. The individual was assigned the role of a "screw" of the social mechanism, which was controlled by violence and manipulation. In general, the Bolshevik postulate about the hegemony of the “leading and guiding force” in society, that the affairs of the workers should not be managed by the workers themselves, but by the party, bureaucracy, the nomenclature and other “competent bodies”, was anti-Marxist, anti-socialist, anti-communist, anti-revolutionary and extremely reactionary by definition. A curious detail: the fiery revolutionary and Spiridonov’s “leftist Socialist-Revolutionary”, who had been imprisoned since the beginning of 1920, and executed at the beginning of 1940, noted in 1930 that there is a counter-revolution "in the wild", for prisons, stages and camps are full of revolutionaries. Another thing is that the mental abilities of the masses, or rather, we repeat, authoritarian, opportunistic and destructive character traits did not give chances to this masses to become masters of the country and gave rise to totalitarian power. By the way, with the collapse of the USSR, the flawed psychology of society was the reason that the broad masses did not become masters of their country, and the place of the former Soviet nomenklatura was quickly taken by the oligarch-bureaucracy.

The “secret” of Stalinism lies precisely in the psychology of the masses: Stalin and his clique could not bring a huge country to its knees, tens, hundreds of millions of people. This is unscientific! For Stalinism, millions of performers were needed. Stalinism is a crime of the people before itself. Destructive, opportunistic and authoritarian impulses, whose rationalizations are duty, patriotism, the search for the leader, "class consciousness", the idea (including pseudo-communist), were the cause of the totalitarian nightmare.

In addition, the Bolsheviks masterfully played on social contradictions. By speculating on the centuries-old hatred of the working masses for the exploiters and “playing around” for a number of tactical reasons in capitalism in the form of a “new economic policy” (NEP), the Bolsheviks quickly introduced state property and state management of industry, transport, finance, foreign trade and other “commanding heights of the economy” ". At the same time, the state as an impersonal capitalist, which, as they say now, was represented by managers from the bureaucratic nomenklatura, could often be exploited much more cruelly than the private owner, but the masses did not understand it, and propaganda masterfully introduced ideas of "nation-wide socialist wealth" to the masses . It should be noted here that the nomenklatura, including the higher one, was financially somewhat better than the rest, but led a very modest lifestyle and didn’t stand out against the general background, unlike the modern “lawlessness” of the nouveau riche. Having gained control over all, so to speak, spheres of urban life, including “minds and hearts”, the Bolsheviks were able to hang up the accelerated modernization and industrialization of the country by the methods of the fascist dictatorship.

To do the same in the village was much more difficult. The mass division of land by peasants led to the growth of mass private capitalist entrepreneurship. Trying to find a monopoly in the strategic sphere of food, the Bolsheviks raised the question of the so-called collectivization of agriculture. In reality, it was not about collective economic management, which is akin to a cooperative or joint-stock form of ownership and management, but about creating a state-capitalist command system of an agrarian economy, only covered by the "agricultural charter". It was extremely difficult for even the Bolsheviks with their super-powerful repressive apparatus to do this in a vast village in the vast expanses. Therefore, they went through the old and proven principle of "divide and conquer."

Private enterprise in the countryside was mainly based on family labor. But there were also large capitalist farms of the so-called kulaks, who had large quantities of land and means of production and used the labor of hired labor from among the poor — the so-called farm laborers. Capitalist relations in the countryside led to property stratification and increased social tensions. Now it is fashionable to speak of the "fists" as of noble workers who fed the people, which is partly true. But often the rural capitalists were engaged in the merciless exploitation of their fellow villagers, sometimes even relatives, and among the farm laborers often turned out to be not only quitters, parasites, and drunkards. In any case, the author still found people who survived those times and spoke in the same obscene terms both about the Bolsheviks with the "enkavadists" and about the "kulaks" with the "nepmen". The Bolsheviks undertook "the destruction of the kulaks as a class," including stirring up the social conflict between the poor and the kulaks. When the kulaks were destroyed, the Bolsheviks took up forced collectivization, constantly using destructive social passions on the basis of property inequality in the countryside.

The Bolsheviks obtained final control over the village in Ukraine by organizing a genocide by famine, known as the Holodomor. But again, the Holodomor is not only the "product of creativity" of the Bolsheviks, it is the collective fault of one part of the people before another, since for such a grandiose crime humanity required millions of performers, primarily from among Ukrainians themselves. The Bolshevik terror by hunger relied on the flawed psychology of huge masses of people, when often the executioners quickly became victims. For example, in terms of perinatal psychology, terror by hunger translates the psyche from the state of the 3 matrix, which is characterized by an active, often brutal and destructive struggle for life, to the state of the 2 matrix, which is characterized by hopelessness and doom. In general, this topic requires more research, and it is surprising why so far the Holodomor phenomenon has not been studied in terms of depth psychology.

The goal of terror was not only the suppression, but also the mobilization of people's energy for hard work. Terror alone is not enough for this, we need fastening symbols, religion. The figures of Marx, Engels, and even Lenin were charismatic. Stalin declared himself their rightful heir, although Marx and Engels would not have given him his hands, and Lenin, before illness and death, broke off all personal relations with him. A superpower was created, but at the cost of millions of lives, the perversion of socialism, the building of fascism.

But our "socialism" is not only poverty, terror, famine, fascism and concentration camps, and then "stagnation." After all, there were heroism, pioneers, industry, education, science, technology, art, victory in the war, access to the Cosmos ... You cannot build such a thing on one fear! What allowed the USSR to achieve global success as soon as possible? After all, it is obvious that, say, the feat of the “Papanins on the ice floe” or the conquerors of the stratosphere cannot be explained only by fear and terror. Mass heroism (even if embellished) during the Second World War, for example, the exploits of Nikolai Gastello or Alexander Matrosov can not be explained only by fear, detachments and even hatred of the fascists. Prof. S. Kulchitsky explains this by the fact that by the beginning of the war the Soviet ideology had already managed to raise a "loyal" generation, which, in principle, is true, although somewhat simplified ... Ideological education forms, for the most part, superficial rationalizations, although it can and deeper contents of the psyche. And yet, there are deeper things ...

Psychic energy is ambivalent, i.e. can be directed to good and evil. Herbert Marcuse wittily remarked that the Soviet morality of the times of accelerated modernization is very similar to the work ethic of the Protestants, the goal of which was also to unite large masses of “backward people” into a “new system”. Even being perverted, the idea of ​​communism mobilized the energy of the masses for exploits and routine daily work in the conditions of severe deprivation and fascist terror of Stalinism. Thus, the tragedies of the twentieth century entailed both a feeling of powerlessness and an emotional upsurge, which caused both cruelty and destruction, and creation, sacrifice, a sense of belonging to the significant, a desire for a "bright future."

Post scriptum. The greatest tragedy of the twentieth century is not compounded by the fact that "they built communism", but that it was not built. The greatest tragedies, the highest tension of forces and means, enormous resources — all this was ruined, and at the turn of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries there was a return to where from the beginning of the twentieth century they tried to escape. The tragedy of the Soviet "communism" is not only in huge numbers, as it turned out, in vain victims, but also in the fact that civilization did not receive a fundamentally different way of development, returned to the usual road that leads humanity to self-destruction, discredited other ways and search such.

And further. The author constantly referred to the opinion of prof. S. Kulchitsky and argued with him for the reason that this particular historian is perhaps the only one in Ukraine who is trying to systematically and conscientiously explore the Soviet period. The rest - and often the former “major experts” on Marxism-Leninism - more and more slogans are pronounced, but if they used to pronounce Marxist-Leninist slogans, now they have changed them to national-patriotic and / or liberal-bourgeois slogans.
21 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Cripple cross
    Cripple cross 6 March 2012 11: 59
    How much and dreary they wrote. I think there is nothing new in this article.
    In short - they betrayed the Tsar, Trotsky rot ... and, comrade Blank with ... ka, the color of the nation is carved and so on and so forth. Bottom line: sweat, blood, dirt, darkness.
    1. Varnaga
      Varnaga 6 March 2012 12: 43
      It’s immediately obvious that the paisal is an unworthy and shy, conscientious intellectual. Shaking hands!
    2. domokl
      domokl 6 March 2012 12: 46
      FUUU .. Indeed, the author simply scoffs at the reader ... So much water, so many battered truths that it’s just dreary to read ... I didn’t see anything new ... Cliche on cliche and cliche from above ... For what purposes the article is also written Got it ... Just the time spent digging the pearls in the manure ... Less clean
      1. admiral
        admiral 6 March 2012 17: 45
        In hindsight, we are all strong! To bring the philosophical base to what has already happened, and even if it’s fed well for it, there have always been plenty of masters! Nothing new, absolutely corny, and most importantly, the author confuses the reader even more with his explanations, discouraging any desire to study history .. What is worth at least such a maxim:
        There was a great deal of conformism and authoritarian masochism, which led to the fetishization of the tsar’s father, state and bureaucracy, stabilizing society ... This is about Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. And now substitute the figure of the American president instead of the tsar’s father, so what? .. One to one! And so on all the positions! I would like to advise the author to purchase a collection of Russian proverbs. 5-10 pieces will explain everything that happened and in its entirety !!!
  2. predator
    predator 6 March 2012 12: 02
    Oooooooo! how many letters!
  3. Chuck-norris
    Chuck-norris 6 March 2012 12: 23
    Alexander Kommari

    Russian appeared in our city in the summer. Well, you know - about how they were gouged by the troops of the Democratic Coalition, how those who stayed, it was decided to disperse - because, as the International Tribunal for the Crimes of Russia before Humanity decided, for the entire time of its existence both this country and this people have demonstrated that they are a constant threat to peace and freedom.

    Young people were sent to national re-identification camps - in Africa, Australia, in the north of Canada, and those who were older were assigned to different countries. The most dangerous were driven to Alaska. And the irradiated and infected - in some places had to shy away from them with nuclear charges - were euthanized. For reasons of humanity.

    So now, in place of Russia, the UN territory, my brother went there as a contracted police officer, said it was fun there. People from all over the world work on a rotational basis - they pump oil, they extract all kinds of minerals from the earth. The burial sites there are nuclear waste - and why, they have high radiation there after democratization, so it’s right to store the waste there, I think. True, in some places the partisans remained, but they were crushed. And where are they against the US Army, right?

    Well, one Russian came to our city. It’s funny to call our city a city, actually, a hole in Texas. If I grow up, I’m getting out of here. There is nothing to catch. I’ll enroll in the army, and I’ll leave for Siberia to hunt for partisans. This is cooler than computer games.

    In the meantime, I work in the auto repair shop of Donald Hops - old Don, if simpler. Well, Mike comes to me before lunch, my brother, he works as an assistant to the sheriff, and says - and we will also have Russian in our city. Cool, I say. And what type?

    Yes, says Mike, not very young, dull of some sort, settled in the barn of Maggie Kinsey.

    Well, we will have our own Russian in our city. Everything is more interesting. Some change in our poor life events.

    I have never seen a Russian. Well, once, when my father and I went to Florida, he showed me such a cool palace, and said that the former Russian general lives there. When the war began, our money was transferred to their generals — almost a hundred million each — so that they would not fire at us with their atomic missiles. Plus, they offered citizenship - of any country, to choose from, even ours, American. Now they live happily ever after - where in France, who in Switzerland. And some of us. Cool such a palace, I would not mind in this for a couple of weeks with some girl.

    Okay. That evening, after work, I go to the bar to skip a couple of beers, as usual. And there is only about this Russian and conversation. What and how. Some people are outraged: to hell with us in the Russian city. Now lock the doors - they are all thieves. If not maniacs. They showed it in the movies. He must be sent to Alaska, all suspicious Russians are sent there - to build federal highways and more.

    And then our sheriff, Bob Carlton, showed up in the tavern. Well, all at once to him: what about the Russian? But Bob drank his beer, wiped his mustache, and said: Everything is under control. Not only will we keep an eye on the Russians, but also the district police and even the FBI. He has a sensor on his leg - all his movements are recorded - if anything happens, he will immediately go to Alaska or to prison.

    Everyone calmed down immediately.

    And then suddenly a man enters the bar - and silence fell. Because we all immediately understood: this is it.

    Well, at first glance, man is like man. But we all knew that they were different inside. Not like others like people. We went to this writer’s school with an unpronounceable surname. Lie ... Solsheny ... Okay, never mind. It is important that everything was described there - what bastards they are. All normal guys were exhausted, only monsters remained. So right of them. Scattered around the world.

    I’m telling you exactly, there was something ominous in him. Like Freddy Krueger. While he walked to the counter, while he asked for beer - he had a shitty English - I noticed that. I don’t even know how to describe it. I would not want to be alone with him on an empty street at night. Prigrezet - and all things. True, Sol-how-him-there-tsyn wrote. All the way it is.

    And the Russian took beer, sat in the corner, looked at us, said something - nobody knew Russian at us, but something like “suki” - and drank his beer. And then he got up - and left. What is suki? In general, it seems more like Japanese, in my opinion.

    That's how I saw a Russian for the first time in my life.


    And then the Russian came to get a job with old Don.

    At first I didn’t understand why he came to the office to Don, and then Don appeared with him in the workshop and told me:

    - Jack, here. This will be your partner.

    And I was just about to get under the car that I was repairing - and even dropped the adjustable wrench after such news.

    “Don,” I say carefully. “Has he ever seen a car?” They like riding horses in their own Russia? Or on bears?

    Don grinned and said:

    - And now we’ll see.

    And they looked.

    Russian knew his business. It has become clear. Four hours later, when he took off the engine and went over it, Don respectfully shook his hand and took it for a test in his workshop. Me a partner.

    I returned home in mixed feelings. On the one hand, the man was able to work - on the other hand, a Russian partner - this is generally something. When I said to mother and father, they almost got a heart attack. But then they decided that the devil was not so terrible. My father, however, suggested that I go to work with a gun, just in case, but then I refused.

    Okay, they started to work. His English was strange. Accent - here I quickly got used to it, but sometimes he had turns - where did he just pick them up? Even the British from the Island don't say that. I somehow could not stand it, asked him where he taught English.

    He said the little books. True, as the writers began to call - I have not heard of such people - Jack London, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway. And he stated that these dudes are not from the Island, but ours.

    Well, after running straight to our library after work, I ask bespectacled Jessica Hugh - who are they? Jack London, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway?

    And she looked at something on her computer, and said that - yes, there are such writers, only their books are not in the library and they are not studying at school, because the Supreme Court recognized these books as politically incorrect and decided to remove them. And now they can only be read in the Library of Congress. In the special guard. If there is an admission to the special guards.

    Well, I say, Russians!

    It was also strange when the radio said on the news that a spacecraft had been launched to Mars in Houston. The Russian suddenly became sad, and then I suddenly noticed tears in his eyes. Honestly!

    We then already began with him not only to talk about work: give it, hold it here, help it there. Still, 8 hours a day when you work with a person - even if it's Russian - you start talking about something else.

    That's why I said to him:

    - Cool about Mars. Again we will be the first.

    And Russian says to me:

    - Not always.

    What, I say, not always? And he told me: you, the Americans, were not always the first. I, as usual wound up - I say that we are the coolest of all, and especially in space. And he again: not always. I started to get angry. You, say, or say, or be silent. And then he went wrong: not always but not always. And he only told me: but you heard about such a person: Yuri Gagarin? I say no, the first time. And he told me: well, when you hear, then we'll talk. And again for work.

    I am again after working in the library. I rummaged a bunch of books while I found it. In one encyclopedia. In a footnote. Small print. I asked Jessica for a pen, I even copied something on a piece of paper. And from there, from the library, he could not stand it until the next day, right to him - to the shed, which he rented from Mary Kinzi.

    And he is sitting at the table, on the table is a bottle of whiskey - and he’ll tell you, I’ll tell you, just like my father on Independence Day.

    And I'm from the doorway:

    - I found about your Gagarin. Here!

    I take it out of my pocket;

    “The Soviet totalitarian regime launched a suicide bomber in 1961 in space, which, however, managed to return alive. The rocket was made based on the German development of Werner von Braun, the father of the American lunar program. "

    The Russian looked at me, poured himself a glass of whiskey, drank it, then did something strange - he sniffed his sleeve! - and then again said, as in Japanese, the same thing: sssssuki! With a long such s.

    And then he says:

    “Jack, let's start from the end.” How did German developments get to the Russians?

    I shrugged.

    - Well, they probably stole it. Yours had kei-gi-bi like that, besides being killed by millions in the Gulag, it also spied all over the world.

    “Have you heard about Hitler?”

    “Of course,” I said, offended. - It was very bad. Only your Stalin was even worse than him. Hitler wanted to destroy the Jews. And he shared Europe with Stalin. But then we defeated him. But the Jews were saved.

    The Russian turned pale at first, then began to pour blood. Some kind of red - literally.

    “So,” he says. - Only Stalin is worse, you say. Saved, you say. Okay.

    And again his: suki, ah, ssssssuki! And something else - but this I did not understand at all and did not make out.

    He takes the Bible out from under the teapot — he has it instead of the coasters so as not to spoil the tablecloth — damn atheists! - takes a photograph from the bible. There's some kind of young guy in an unusual shape, smiling all over his face. And I'll tell you right away - even in the small photo you can see what a cool guy. And cool. And the Russian says:

    “Here is your suicide bomber, Jack.” Lieutenant Gagarin. Yuri. The man whom the whole world loved and carried on his hands.

    1. Chuck-norris
      Chuck-norris 6 March 2012 12: 24
      In general, I sat with him that night after midnight. And what did he not tell me about his country. Just like a movie, it's fantastic. About a man named Lenin, who overthrew the tsar - that tsar under whom Rasputin was - that’s all I knew about those times until this evening. That is why there the hard workers began to build a country in which money is not the main thing. Imagine how fucked up I was in this place. Money - and not the main thing ?!

      About how hungry and poor people defeated generals and foreigners who wanted to drown them in blood.

      How factories, power plants and cities were built from scratch - by the way, and drawings were bought from us for the last money. And about how they spared no one for this - neither themselves, nor others.

      How Hitler attacked them - and how they defeated him - and we only entered Europe at the end when the game was played. About the city of Stalingrad, which stood on their great Russian river Volga - now it is poisoned with radioactive waste - and how the Germans could reach this river some three hundred meters - and they tried to pass these three hundred meters for three months, but they didn’t pass it.

      About how their Red Army then drove the Germans to Berlin. How they again raised the country from the ruins - but at the same time they did the bomb and missiles - because they no longer wanted someone to come to their country on tanks without an invitation.

      Sometimes I jumped out of indignation. Sometimes he wanted to leave, for example, when he ran into Harry Truman. I could not stand the war in Vietnam.

      - A lie! Lies! Lies! There was no such thing. No one ever defeated America. Okay, in the Bay of Pigs - you yourself say that there Latinos understood each other. I have someone to ask - since you think that there is no truth in books.

      He slammed the door and left. And in the morning - it was Saturday - I went to the fundamentalist church, where the priest was the hundred-year-old Braza Jim, the oldest man in our city - and who, as I heard, fought as a young man in Vietnam. Jim sat in a chair by the church and smoked a pipe. I got out of the car - and to him. I say:

      “Braza Jim, anyway, then the Russian told me that in Vietnam they kicked our ass and that we shamefully fled from there.”

      The black priest sighed sadly, and said:

      - Your Russian did not lie. And so it was, Jack Boy. And they kicked our ass, son, by the way, with Russian weapons. The Vietnamese had a Russian Kalashnikov assault rifle - oh, I’ll tell you, I haven’t seen a weapon more reliably. How many of ours they put with this machine.

      Braza Jim began to tell some long story about his army friend, who this same “Kalashnikov” even brought to America, and then in Harlem, where he sold crack, he and the pushers who climbed into his territory with the help of this “Kalashnikov” "Understood - but I did not listen, thanked, and went home. Because it somehow became uncomfortable for me. Once my picture of the world began to crack.

      Probably the first time I realized then that the Yankees-northerners not only lied to our Confederation, but now also this country, where people like this Russian lived.


      In addition, I saw the Russian drunk one more time.

      9 of May it was.

      He called old Donald, took leave from work. He said that he was not feeling well.

      And on this day the feds arrived. Either from the state capital, or even from Washington in general. Two, important ones, in suits, in ties, despite the heat.

      At first they sat with Donald in the office for a long time, then they came to my workshop. Polite, however, although the Yankees. They asked me how my Russian partner told me how it works.

      I don’t like the Yankees, so I didn’t particularly frank with them. He said that Russian is OK, that works well, he is silent about politics, there are no problems with him. The feds stomped around, looked at his desk and his tool bag, then got on the car and drove off.

      And after work I stopped by a Russian. He was clearly delighted with me, poured whiskey. I'm not very whiskey, especially when it's hot, but he explained to me that today is an important day for him. An important holiday was in his country. Therefore, I drank a little.

      And then he sang to me his Russian songs. The singer from him was like a mathematician from me, but I sat patiently, listened.

      I felt sorry for him then. For some reason.
  4. Chuck-norris
    Chuck-norris 6 March 2012 12: 25

    The working day ended, Jack and the Russian sat in two old car seats, standing in the corner of the workshop and enjoying peace and silence.

    - There were riots in Oklahoma, and they introduced the national guard. They say a lot of people were killed, ”Jack said.

    “They didn’t speak on the radio,” said the Russian.

    Usually at work they listened to either the local city radio, or some kind of federal public channel.

    - And they didn’t speak on TV. On the forum, one guy wrote from there - and even posted photos. So far, the forum was not immediately covered by cyber police.

    “No wonder,” said the Russian. “Everything is as they said.”

    - Who are they? - asked Jack.

    - There were two such very smart people in Germany. A long time ago. Marx and Engels.

    - Under Hitler?

    “No,” said the Russian. - Even before Hitler.

    “And what did they say?”

    - That the history of mankind is a struggle between those who oppress and those who are oppressed. And that the day will come when the oppressed will triumph - finally and forever. And only then will mankind get rid of wars, violence and injustice.

    Jack thought a little.

    - Listen, but you can not read about it where?

    - Unlikely. Yours forbid and destroy their books. Even for storage they put in jail. Because it is politically incorrect.

    “Bad,” Jack said.

    “Bad,” the Russian agreed. “But I'll tell you - I remember something.” We have a lot of time. Yes?

    And the next day, when Donald Hops drove them to disassemble the old "Chevy" 58 year, the Russian began his story.

    - In 1848, a book written by two young people was published in Germany. It began with the words: "A ghost walks through Europe, a ghost of communism."

    - Only in Europe? - specified Jack.

    - What in Europe? - did not understand Russian.

    - Well, does this ghost walk? Only in Europe?

    “You see, America was a hole then, man.” But do not interrupt.

    Jack wanted to take offense at America, but then changed his mind:

    - Okay, tell me.

    And the Russian continued his story. And the next day. And the day after the next.


    In the area of ​​the East wing of the White House, gunshots were still heard - they were probably suppressing the resistance of the last liberofascists, but the battle - for both Washington and the White House - was over. So it can be fired into the air with joy. The Confederate flag proudly flew over the building with a hammer and sickle in the middle. Jack Newman calmly walked to the main entrance. His soldiers of the 5 Stalingrad Inter-Brigade — Germans, Cubans, Poles, French, Southerners, Yankees socialists and anarchists — painted their names on the walls and columns of the White House. Jack once told them about such a custom when an inter-brigade made its way to Washington. The battles were very difficult, until a rebellion broke out in the rear of the liberofascists - and the front of the enemy fell apart. During these battles, Jack, who along with his guys went on the attack — for which he later received a reprimand personally from the Chairman of the US Communist Party — and told them how the Soviets, when they took Berlin and its main building, parliament, Reichstag in German, then they wrote their names on the walls.

    And the Russian told him that when they were already fighting in the first units of the US National Liberation Front. Jack even remembered when. Shortly before the Russian died in an operation to destroy the general whose palace Jack saw as a boy in Florida. The general, a fat, pig-like one, knelt down, cried, begged - turning in Russian to his compatriot, then in English to Jack - to save his life, promised some inconceivable money - but the Russian shot him in the forehead and then still spat on his corpse.

    And then helicopters flew in, wild fire started from all sides, the Russian - according to their strange Russian custom, hugged Jack, then pushed him lightly, stayed with a machine gun to cover the retreat of the TNF group - and there he stayed. Then on television, his death was confirmed. Even at first they were very happy - the liberofascists thought that the death of the legendary underground would serve as a blow to the Red Confederates. However, they miscalculated greatly.

    However, before all this, while they were still sitting in the car and waiting for the command from the observer, the Russian told Jack - how he generally had to talk in his free time - and about the storming of Berlin, and how Hitler took poison and shot himself, and about how two Soviet sergeants raised a red flag over the German parliament, and how soldiers from the assault units painted on the walls: We got it! And put their signatures. Jack still enjoyed listening to stories about that great country that had disappeared and was so slandered.

    He went to the wall - the soldiers with sincere respect pulled themselves up and saluted the commander, except, of course, the anarchists who bargained for this concession - non-renunciation of honor, at the very beginning of the Second Civil - the truth, the only concession they made was found a place free from inscriptions, took a pre-stored piece of coal from a jacket pocket wrapped in a handkerchief. He drew a line on a white wall to check how it turns out. I was satisfied. Then he began to write - and the strange Cyrillic alphabet that remained to him:
    Got it! Egor Ivanov. Russian. Communist.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 6 March 2012 14: 02
      Good story, I liked it.
    2. Irkit
      Irkit 6 March 2012 15: 55
      It was read already :) Thanks
    3. Gordarik
      Gordarik 7 March 2012 10: 29
      I really didn’t like the beginning (well, I can’t read about the destruction of my homeland), but I liked the ending where the evil was punished.
    4. Rodover
      Rodover 8 March 2012 03: 09
      Thank. Although I was 43, I almost cried. Very sincerely. Yes, the Gods protect you.
  5. Tugarin-zmey
    Tugarin-zmey 6 March 2012 12: 27
    Spent time, read carefully, mastered a lot of letters :-) ...
    But one cannot say more precisely and more succinctly than Otto von Bismarck: "The revolution is conceived by geniuses, carried out by fanatics, and the results are used by scoundrels."
  6. Igarr
    Igarr 6 March 2012 12: 28
    I do not agree with Mr. Karpets A.
    It is written a lot, attracted many sources ..
    But Professor Kulchitsky, of course, is free to express all sorts of thoughts.
    But I don’t want to repeat his thoughts.
    If ... if ... history, it is considered not to know the subjunctive mood.
    Doesn't know for sure.
    Only Russia in 1917-betrayed, sold. Drove through the ears.
    And now they talk about all sorts of new abstruse constructions.
    Russia was ready in 1917 to capture the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, was ready to put an end to the First World War. Put an end to - Winner.

    Instead, Russia itself was delivered ....
    Who are the Anglo-Saxons and French.
    And all business.
    And such wise theories are for dusting brains.
    Definitely, I’m minus the article.
  7. gordeew_alr
    gordeew_alr 6 March 2012 13: 18
    The author himself seems to be confused in the abundance of his impressions. It happens that passion for pure logic leads to an absolutely illogical state. Especially when they try to explain social life with materialistic logic. And what or who is spirit? How to squeeze it into a material framework? And when does the spirit of millions of people interact? Who is that hug? Truly, you cannot serve God and mammon. In principle, it will not work. In addition, in such reasoning, people are equated with things, their human overthrows - by creation - dignity. And this is an attribute of capitalism. In it people are cogs.
    As for revolutions, I think this is an impatient striving for a feeding trough called the power of the elites, who are preoccupied with personal satiety, and for this, in a capitalist way, by deceit, they involve (deceive with promises) gullible people. When the deception is revealed, the same dodgers from the elite find a victim and blood is shed. Let's say today the newly elected president shouts in delight: "We have won!" Who? Their fellow citizens who also want Russia to prosper? What will the "winners" do after the celebrations? After all, the problems of public life will not disappear from a victory cry. And for creation (solving the needs of the people), especially today, in a sharply stratified society, coalitions, mutual concessions and consent are needed in solving national problems. And, if you listen to our representatives of the authorities and their singing-along-political heads, it turns out there is a state and there is a people, separate from each other. At the same time, the state feeds the people as much as it can. And I somehow thought that the state is an integral organ of the people, necessary for its self-organization and protection. So maybe in the shameless life of the elites who call themselves the state, the reason for possible bloodshed, which then smart people will call revolutions? And if there is a lot of blood, then, of course, the revolution is inevitably great.
  8. old rocket man
    old rocket man 6 March 2012 14: 01
    I agree, there are a lot of letters and if you read everything and not very carefully, the meaning is lost, I put the Article minus.At the moment, the author’s love for Kulchitsky, one of the ideologists of modern Ukrainian nationalism, is the main message of the author: in Russia everything was bad then, and most importantly, bad now, in short author complete liberalist
    1. arkady149
      arkady149 6 March 2012 21: 46
      In fact, it is believed that liberalism is not a vice, but a painful state of consciousness expressed in the absence of clear moral and ethical guidelines.
  9. sichevik
    sichevik 6 March 2012 14: 21
    A lot of text, well, just a lot and nothing, absolutely nothing new.
    As my 16-year-old son says, the article is worthless.
    I also put a minus.
  10. NUT
    NUT 6 March 2012 14: 21
    "People are scurrying everywhere in search of the world,
    From ignorance, bloody tears pour.
    It is not given to them to rise to the great mystery,
    And in powerlessness bloody fables weave ... "

    Omar Khayyam
  11. Ascetic
    Ascetic 6 March 2012 14: 52
    February Revolution 1917-2011

    One script, one author. How does everything look like ...

    February 1917
    "Police are shooting people from machine-gun roofs."

    It's a lie. The police in Russia did not have machine guns. But there are facts of the detention of provocateurs who shot "under the guise" of the police.

    February 2011
    "Government snipers shoot at demonstrators."
    It's a lie. No government will ever disperse demonstrations with sniper fire. It only makes the crowd angry.
    Truth: In fact, groups of snipers “sent” from abroad are trying to bring the situation to maximum intensity.

    February 1917
    Police stations are defeated. All prisoners released from prisons.
    Including criminals. Immediately after the coup - an amnesty is announced to EVERYTHING. Including criminals. They will go down in the history of Russia as "Kerensky's chicks."
    February 2011
    Muaamar Gaddafi ordered the release of criminals from prisons.
    It's a lie. In the history of all revolutions, it was the “revolutionaries" who opened prisons. So that in a couple of weeks, having become the power, begin to fill them again.
    Truth: In fact, “rebels” release criminals, and the Western media blame Gaddafi. He is allegedly going to “blow up oil pipelines”. To stay in power ... to be left without money. And get a new hungry riot. Never in history has legitimate authority destroyed the communications and infrastructure vital to the country, suppressing riots. She is to live on - legitimate authority.

    February 1917
    After February, Lenin, Trotsky and other "comrades" came to Russia. To deepen the revolution further.
    February 2011
    Al - Baradei - "Trotsky" comes to Egypt. Nobody knows him in the country, but he is already the “head” of the opposition. He receives all the attention of the world media, creating a halo of an important “opponent of the dictatorship”.
    Truth: The organizers of the revolution "drag" persons - puppets to whom they want to give power. Before passing it to extremists.

    February 1917
    Russia is an ally of England and France in the war. Nicholas II is not just a friend, but also a relative of the English king. His wife is the granddaughter of the British Queen Victoria.
    During the coup, the West not only did not support the leadership of Russia, but on the contrary supported the coup. British newspapers write about the "triumph of freedom" and the fall of the "rotten regime."
    February 2011
    Tunisia and Egypt - pro-American regimes. After many years of confrontation, the Libyan leader becomes "his own", appointing Tony Blair as adviser to the former British prime minister and paying compensation for the explosion of an aircraft over Scotland.
    During the coups, the Western media clearly sided with the coup. Western leaders say about the impossibility and inadmissibility of suppressing demonstrations by force. Thus surrendering his allies.
    In Libya, everything is even funnier. In the province of Cyrenaica, Al Qaeda announces the creation of an Islamic caliphate. Gaddafi is ready to fight and restore the unity of the country. What do Western media say? That he is well done, since he is fighting the terrorist organization No. 1? No, that he, a bastard, shoots at unarmed demonstrators, is going to destroy oil pipelines, and stole $ 70 billion from the Libyan people.

    The Anglo-Saxons needed a revolution in February 1917, they needed it in February 2011.
    In 1917 - 1918, London removed two competitors from the world map - Russia and Germany. First pitting them in the First World War, and then, trying to arrange internal explosions.
    In 2011, London and Washington consistently explode the Arab East, sow destabilization and chaos. So that hundreds of thousands of refugees flood into Europe, and its leaders do not even think about independent politics. So that against the background of general destabilization, the only solid asset is the green American dollar.
    What we see today is only the beginning. How February 1917 marked the beginning of the tragedy for tens of millions of people. First in Russia, then in Germany. There was its “February” - November 1918. Exactly the same: the complete triumph of freedom. Joyful demonstrators. The rotten regime fell. Then ALL THE MAP OF EUROPE was redrawn. Then these "joyful demonstrators" began to swell with hunger, because the Anglo-Saxon winners robbed them to the skin. "Joyful demonstrators" in Russia, by that time had long been killing the same Russian citizens in the Civil War.
    Typhoid Hunger. Epidemics. Cheka. Executions. Executions White and Red Terror. The shooting of prisoners and hostages. All these are the fruits of the “victory” of the Great and Bloodless Revolution, as the February Revolution traitors and fools called it.
  12. skullcap
    skullcap 6 March 2012 18: 11
    If we speak according to the title of the article, then I recall a case from the past millennium.
    It was a year somewhere in 1963. I was still a schoolboy and, doing homework, listened to the Soviet radio show. I remembered its contents for life.
    There, our leader V.I. Lenin met with some English prominent figure. This Englishman in a radio show said in plain text: "I wanted to see you, to personally make sure that you are the very person who is able to destroy tsarist Russia."
    Further, the radio presenter joyfully commented on how Lenin wisely acted, deftly taking money to destroy some bourgeois (Russians) from others.
    It is clear that Lenin used the British as best he could. But now we clearly see that the British also used Lenin.
    That is, it is clear as God's day that the British were engaged in the promotion of revolutions within the states of their geopolitical rivals on the European mainland at the beginning of the last century (also about Germany and Autro-Hungary).
    The goal of these revolutions is to immerse their competitors in the post-revolutionary chaos and massacre, which gives the time for their civilization to leave for the next gap.
    Time passes, but nothing changes. Anglo-Saxons are doing the same thing today, only with different effects: the USSR, the countries of Eastern Europe, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, etc.
    The revolution of the 17 year is the same product of the activity of the Anglo-Saxons as the "persetraki" of the 91 year.
    And how many stages were there was a matter of technology.
    The past elections showed that we won this battle. People showered, and that's good. Our cause is just, the victory will be ours.

    (and regarding the article: he wrote about “pseudoscientific, near-humanitarian chatter.” This is about himself. What is the statement about a powerful monarchical movement? V. Kozhinov in his books in really scientific studies proved that the monarchists were in the white movement in an illegal situation - they were persecuted by the democratic white authorities. Not without reason Trotsky declared at the time that the Bolsheviks were saved by the fact that none of their rivals had guessed to raise the banner of monarchism.
    This ignorance also includes an assessment of the scientific value of the material presented.
    Bold minus.
  13. LiRoy
    LiRoy 6 March 2012 21: 13
    The revolution has been going on more than one day, and the tsarist government shook the country to such a state that revolutionary manifestations of a similar scale became possible in it. Separation into the February and October revolution undoubtedly should be, and there could not be any so-called single revolutionary manifestation. If we trace the nature of the subsequent civil war in terms of its composition and requirements put forward by the parties, we will see that it was a war between the followers of February and October 1917.
  14. ward
    ward 6 March 2012 22: 03
    The book is a biological Jew .... everything is said there ...