In celebration of a century of Socialist revolution, the country is passionate about a wide debate about the causes of the fall of the Russian monarchy. While the experts argue about the tragedy and the greatness of October, the losses and gains of the dictatorship of the proletariat, historians publish new reading of the events of a century ago. One of these was just published in the book Vyacheslav Nikonov "October 1917". The monograph of the Chairman of Committee of the State Duma of Russia on education and science, doctor of historical Sciences, was a continuation published in 2011 the book "the Collapse of Russia.
1917-th year." On the presentation of the publication visited the crew FAN-TV.
– What is the purpose of this book? What you tried to convey to the reader?
– First of all, I wanted to the reader to tell the truth about what happened in 1917. Anyway, as I see it. And the main idea of the book is that revolution is a tragedy. This blood is human life, it pushed back the country's development.
It's a broken destiny. In revolutions there is nothing great, as I said, unless you consider the great tragedy and the consequences that they may have. February – this was the elite division and the betrayal of the elites against Nicholas II and the weakness of Nicholas II. If the Emperor loses power, it means that he has not fulfilled his destiny.
so you think that the main revolution occurred not in October but in February?
in the month of February was destroyed by the Russian state, which existed until many hundreds of years, which actually guarantees the existence of Russia as a great power.
Within a few months of this great nation is nothing left. Russia was destroyed and abandoned for many, many years ago.
"Who was nothing will become everything" is the subtitle of your book. How do you explain the fact that the Bolsheviks came to power? Why did this happen?
largely because they raised the slogan "who was nothing will become everything". This is a very strong slogan.
Think about it, everyone was given the hope that they will become creators not only of our own lives, but the lives of the entire planet. If we talk about the main reasons, the first is the enormous failures of the Provisional Government, which proved to be extremely incompetent, who knew not even the nature of the country which she ruled. And a very strong political party around major political figures Lenin and Trotsky, who managed to use his interests and goals of the weakness of the Provisional Government.
what for the people?
– you Know, the people, of course, played a very important role in the events of 1917, and in October, probably more than in February.
First of all, in the part of her that wore a soldier's overcoat and sat in the barracks of the reserve regiments of Petrograd. Well, in the part of the working class, which put the armed red guard. A great power that stood in victory, during the year has turned into nothing, into an arena for the conquest first of the German troops, then, an arena of bloody Civil war in which we lost eight million people killed, dead from hunger and disease. After that, it took tremendous effort to rebuild the country, to ensure the territorial integrity, to bring at least some order, so that Russia regained its subjectivity, that is, that it again became a country and a great power.
– Today, many talk about the problems of historical knowledge among youth. It is not the number of textbooks on history, and the fact that they all correspond to a single historical concept. Can there be such a historical concept in relation to the study of revolution?
the Concept is, it is in the most General terms defines the concept of revolution – the Great Russian revolution of 1917 – 1921 I do not think that it was something great. I am one such tutorial was written for 10 classes, where issues related to the revolution, is a very big place.
What role this concept should take the idea of reconciliation, which now reads at the highest level?
the Key, of course.
If 1917 was the first thing that split our country, it is now important to overcome the consequences of the 1917 overcoming this split. How is that possible? While very difficult, because the split largely runs along the lines of the ideological divides that exist in our society. I proceed from the known string Maximilian Voloshin "pray for those and for others."
– How today's strong split, or it is some bogus, contrived?
You know, now split in relation to the events of 1917, in General, significantly less than, say, in 1918, 1919 or 1920. But he is more than in the 1960-ies, 50-ies, when it really was a very unified perspective on what happened.
The October revolution was a light in the window. Today difference, in fact, very much. Liberals love February, don't like October. Communists like October, I do not like February.
Conservatives do not like neither the February nor the October, so this is a logical divides continue to exist.
– That is, a single assessment in relation to the revolution is simply impossible?
– a single estimate, from the point of view of existing ideological concepts. But from the point of view of what happened, the texture of the revolution, maybe even assess the causes of revolution, the reasons for the victory of the Bolsheviks – there was some agreement possible. We will never come to that, as it to estimate, with a plus sign or a minus sign. But it's got to be a part of history.
The French argue a lot about Napoleon. Someone likes, someone does not like it. But this does not mean that the French nation should be divided in relation to who it refers to Napoleon. Conscious and excessive ideologization of these issues – it is unproductive.
– if Possible, in your view, socialism is a particular manifestation in modern Russia?
– the Swedes believe that they have Swedish socialism.
In many European countries the authorities are of the socialist party, who believe Marx with your forerunner. But at the same time, there are no socialist parties of Europe, who would have thought the desired implementation of the ideas of the dictatorship of the proletariat. So many socialists, so many definitions of socialism. The Communist party considered the heirs of Bolshevism rather strange.
The Bolsheviks were atheists, Zyuganov go to Church. Lenin would be turning in his grave. Of course, the Bolsheviks were enemies of the market economy, the modern Communists are not enemies of the market economy. In purest form the ideas which now preaches Zyuganov, no one tried, so hard to say.
But is it possible?
– Understand history has put a variety of experiments development.
The Bolshevik experiment was one of them. Well that does not break the society through the knee. The evolutionary development of the revolutionary is always better, so if, roughly speaking, voters in some point wish to raise the level of their social security to the detriment of the efficiency of the economy or freedoms, it is not excluded that option.
All videos FAN TV watching ..