November 7, 2017 is a memorable date for those bloody events that turned the whole way of life in our country upside down.

The events of 1917 gave rise to a new historical era in which millions of people died, some of them were killed in the civil war, some were tortured in Gulag prisons, people mined radioactive uranium, died from poor nutrition and inhuman conditions of detention. Great October Revolution- one of the greatest events of the XX century, which influenced the entire course of world history.

In order to more or less understand and understand those events of the last century, analyze everything that is happening and pay attention to changes in the state and society, a round table was organized in the reading room of the Leningrad Intersettlement Library on the 100th anniversary of the October Revolution. The participants of the event were students of the Leningrad Technical College and employees of the Central Library and its branches. Priest Konstantin Maltsev, rector of the Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of the Russian Church, was invited as a guest of honor. At the beginning of the solemn part, a short video excursion “The Beginning of the Decay of Russian Empire". Further, the employees of the Central Library spoke about the changes in the life of the country, which were associated with the Russian Revolution of 1905-1907, the First World War of 1914-1918, the February Revolution of 1917, which was marked by the collapse of the Russian Empire, and, accordingly, the October Revolution 1917, as a result of which the Bolsheviks came to power, who later built the Soviet state.

The next stage of the event was the speech of the guest of honor. Father Konstantin expressed his views in the current situation: one way or another, the result of the Revolution can be considered - pressure on the monarchy, the Committee of Ministers of the Russian Empire, which underwent changes and undermined the autocracy of Emperor Nicholas II. During this period of time, Western bourgeois circles, for the first time in many years, were able to push their ideas into Russian society, which laid the foundation for the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Tsarist Russia was a great power and had considerable influence in the international arena, which gave it the right to exert foreign policy influence on weaker countries. The clergyman also spoke of the fact that throughout this period a whole host of great saints appeared in the Orthodox Church, such as St. Dmitry (Rostovsky), St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Filaret (Drozdov), St. Feofan (The Recluse), Optina elders, etc. The history of that time knows hundreds of thousands of pilgrims who visited holy places and monasteries from year to year. Many of the tens of thousands of Christians who were martyred during the Bolshevik persecution of the Church were subsequently canonized. The majority of Russians recognized themselves as believers in spite of everything, which testified to the failure of the Bolsheviks' policy of forcibly planting unbelief and militant atheism. Father Konstantin ended his speech with such words that by allowing suffering and misfortune, God, as it were, reminds us of the vain and transient nature of our earthly existence. It reminds us that human life is too fleeting, and the consequences of this life are too serious for us to spend the main forces of our soul on achieving the ghostly goals of earthly existence.

Secondary general education

Line UMK I. L. Andreev, O. V. Volobuev. History (6-10)

Russian history

Round table "Dialogue with history: we and the Russian revolution of 1917": summing up

A hundred years ago in the history of our country there was such a sharp turning point that until now it has not been possible to fully comprehend its consequences. Perhaps that is why so far Russian society there was no single point of view on the events of 1917. It is especially difficult for teachers, because the civic position of students is laid in history lessons, and a misinterpreted fact distorts ideas about the past.

There is hope that 2017 will finally bring Russian society to reconciliation. To help history teachers rethink the events of the Great Russian Revolution, the Russian Military Historical Society, together with the Drofa-Ventana publishing house, held a round table on the topic “Dialogue with History: We and the Russian Revolution of 1917”. The event was held on January 24 in Moscow, in the Naryshkinsky Chambers of the Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery.

Despite the fact that the topic of the revolution and the Civil War is one of the most difficult in the course national history, teachers rarely get to hear the opinions of experts. There were many history teachers among the visitors of the live broadcast from the event, and it was they who took the most active part in the discussion.

The discussion began with an important compromise. The historical and cultural standard requires calling the events of 1917 the Great Russian Revolution, however Rector of Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery I asked the organizers in advance - the Russian Military Historical Society and the Drofa-Ventana publishing house - to remove the word "great" from the name of the round table. In a written address to the audience, the rector expresses gratitude for understanding:

It would be difficult for us Orthodox to work if this definition remained in the title of the round table. For the Russian Orthodox Church, the events of 1917 remain a national tragedy.

He told the audience that he himself was born in exile and saw with his own eyes what a tragedy the split was for the Russian people:

We were taught from childhood that we would never see our native country. It seemed that the division into "white" and "red" is now forever. But we still carried this happiness in ourselves - to be a Russian person.

According to Vladyka, attempts to renounce faith and create an order that promises happiness to all mankind are doomed to end in rivers of blood, as happened in France in 1789. And 2017 for the Orthodox world can become a holiday of the restoration of the church order in the life of Russians.

However, despite the compromise, the Russian revolution can rightfully be considered great, noted scientific director of RVIO, adviser to the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Mikhail Myagkov. As chairman of the round table, Myagkov explained that one should forget about the emotional connotation of the term and take into account only the scale of events and the depth of consequences:

Although the events of 1917 still cause conflicting assessments among citizens, one cannot but agree that the attempt to build a new just society on earth changed the path of Russia and influenced the course of world history. We need to see the strength of the human spirit and military heroism in the events of 1917.

There is no consensus among historians regarding the term "great". MGIMO Professor Victoria Ukolova noted that the term "great" was introduced by analogy with the French Revolution, but in France it is no longer customary to call bourgeois revolution great, so we're a bit "off trend" again. On the other hand, it was only after 1917 that Russian workers received a number of civil rights and their living conditions improved significantly. The revolution gave world culture the miracle of the Russian avant-garde, put all Russian children at their desks: aren't these great achievements? In addition, Ukolova emphasizes, by 1917 the Russian Empire was already on the verge of self-destruction, a revolution could not be avoided. Our revolution is a natural process that has taken on an unnatural, cruel expression. The speech ended with a spectacular quote from Winston Churchill: “Russia sank when the port was already visible ahead. With victory in her hands, she collapsed to the ground.

And yet, the term "great" in relation to the revolution of 1917 seems doubtful to many experts. Doctor of Historical Sciences Vladimir Buldakov noted that so far there can be no talk of any reconciliation between the former "reds" and "whites":

We are called to live together, to remember the bloody sacrifices, on the other hand, they demand to call the great revolution, which was a great tragedy almost a hundred years long.

Paradox: European classical revolutions contributed to internal consolidation, unity of the nation, but in our country they caused a deep split in society.

As for the prerequisites for the revolution and the state of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century, the historian urged the audience to be critical of the statistics: Russia is too big a country, and no averages work here. It is important to understand that just like that no one will go to overthrow the government, and no conspiracy would raise people to revolt if there were no discontent royal authority. Buldakov called the February Revolution a "woman's revolt": it was a request for bread and peace, and not a dream of socialism.

Talking about revolution is talking about the responsibility of authoritarian power in the period of modernization, - Buldakov emphasized, - And problems in interpreting events can be avoided if based only on strict facts.

Honorary Professor of MGOU Oleg Volobuev defended the term "great", based on historical fact:

This term appeared along with the revolution itself, and not with the introduction of a historical and cultural standard. We just restored it. In the 20s and 30s it was widespread, including in the West, and everyone understood that it was about greatness in the sense of consequences, and not about the emotional perception of events.

According to Volobuev, it is not worth investing in the scientific term of our sympathies and antipathies. It is also necessary to explain to students in history lessons what we mean when we say “the great Russian revolution”.

The audience listened with great attention to the report Doctor of Philology Alexander Markov“Reconciliation as part of the history of concepts”: in order to achieve reconciliation of opinions, we need to understand what exactly we want to achieve.

Often in the world, reconciliation is understood as a truce: everyone stops the war, but at the same time they remain unconvinced. Initially, the word "reconciliation" served as a synonym for benevolence: it was benevolence that was perceived as a way out of the state of enmity.

Director of the Institute of Globalization and Social Movements Boris Kagarlitsky expressed a paradoxical thought:

Reconciliation is impossible because the revolution as such is not yet over.

A surprised sigh ran through the hall, and the speaker continued:

It is always like this with revolutions: it is difficult to understand how they started and how they ended. Judging by our speeches today, it is quite clear that we are stuck in the restoration phase. For us, this topic is still acute and painful. Now, even if we put a monument of reconciliation next to each monument to Lenin, we still won’t achieve unity (it is known that in 2017 it is planned to install a monument of Reconciliation in Crimea, designed to rally supporters of different points of view on the revolution).

How to achieve reconciliation? First of all, we need to realize that 1917 is a thing of the past, the “whites” and “reds” have long been gone from the world, and we should not identify ourselves with them. There is nothing more to put up with, everything is gone.

After such emotional speeches, the audience had many questions: the speakers were not allowed to leave for more than half an hour, eagerly discussing and expressing opinions. History teachers were the most active: expert advice will help them correctly present facts about the revolution and the civil war.

Many teachers expressed doubt: is it worth uniting the events of the February and October revolutions together? Still, different goals, different essence of phenomena. Experts answered this unequivocally: February and October, revolution and civil war are closely connected, they are parts of the same historical process, so we combine them under one term and teach in schools as a single chain of events. Historians have given many arguments in favor of this approach.

Among other things, the opinion was expressed: isn't it time to reveal the whole truth to society and repent of what you have done? Answered this Archbishop of Geneva and Western Europe Michael:

When we talk about truth, we are talking about God and sacrifice. In 1917, Russia suffered a huge sacrifice: this sacrifice is a tribute to God and humanity. Now each of us must personally comprehend everything that happened, and there is no public repentance at all, there is only personal. The most important thing is that we stop stepping on each other and fighting about the past.

So, all the participants of the round table, even those who doubt the possibility of reconciliation, agree that it is time to put an end to the confrontation between the “whites” and the “reds”. Various means are good for this purpose: turning to strict facts, erecting a monument, or personal repentance. It is important that at the end of a hundred years a feeling arises in society that the civil war of the last century is far behind us.

Alexandra Chkanikova

Great Russian Revolution- a radical turning point in national history. The process that affected all spheres of public life is still in the historical consciousness modern Russia, going through a period of social, cultural and political transformation, has not acquired an unambiguous assessment. Many aspects of this period Russian history remain undisclosed or disclosed biased and politically biased.

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

Russian Historical Society takes an active part in the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the Great Russian Revolution, guided by the values ​​of science, verifiability and civic solidarity, expressed in a delicate and objective approach to historical events.

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

- Chairman of the Russian Historical Society Sergey Naryshkin.

Project news:

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

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

In the concert hall of the Academic Song and Dance Ensemble Russian army named after A.V. Aleksandrov, the International Historical and Musical Festival of Children's and Youth Creativity "The Russian Revolution of 1917: the musical memory of generations" was held.

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

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

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

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

In the State historical museum the exhibition "Energy of Dreams" is being prepared for the opening. It will be the final and largest event in the calendar of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Great Russian Revolution.

The House of the Russian Historical Society hosted the International Scientific Conference"The Russian Revolution and the Constitution". It brought together dozens of experts from different countries - historians, lawyers, political scientists, economists, culture experts.

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

DOI: 10.17238/^p2227-6564.2017.2.146

REFLECTING ON 1917: ROUND TABLE

to the 100th anniversary of Russian revolutions

Within the framework of the round table, the role and significance of the Russian revolutions of 1917 for national and world history, their causes, landmark stages and modern assessments, and the methodology for studying this issue were discussed. The reasons for the change in approaches and views on the study of the revolutionary process in Russia are identified and the historical lessons and significance of Russian revolutions for modernity, Russia and the world as a whole are evaluated.

Key words: revolution, revolutionary process, Great Russian Revolution of 1917, February Revolution of 1917, October Revolution of 1917.

The centenary of the revolutionary events of 1917 in Russia is of great interest in our country and abroad, and a variety of opinions. In an effort to objectively comprehend the events of a century ago, which had a profound impact on the fate of Russia and the world, the Scientific Council Russian Academy Sciences in the History of Social Reforms, Movements and Revolutions and its northwestern section, together with the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov organized a round table, which was attended by famous historians from Russia, UK and Norway. They published a total of more than 30 books and about 900 articles on the problems of this most difficult era of Russian and world history.

Placement of materials of the round table on the pages scientific journal NArFU is natural, because the university has a long tradition of holding major scientific forums on this topic with the participation of leading scientists from Russia and the world1 and publishing such materials in a journal2.

The participants of the round table were asked to answer the following questions: 1) Since when have you been studying the revolutionary era of 1917 in Russia, when did the first publication appear and (or) take part in a scientific forum on this topic? 2) Do you consider the revolutionary process and the series of revolutionary explosions of 1917 in Russia natural and inevitable? 3) Changed

For citation: Reflecting on 1917: Round Table on the 100th Anniversary of Russian Revolutions // Vestn. Sev. (Ar-ktich.) Feder. university Ser.: Humanite. and social Sciences. 2017. No. 2. S. 146-161. DOI: 10.17238^p2227-6564.2017.2.146

1In 2007-2012, 6 major international scientific conferences dedicated to the era of 1917-1922 were held in Arkhangelsk and Murmansk. Representatives of 12 countries took part in them. The materials of these conferences were published in the form of 6 scientific collections.

2See, for example: Russian Experience in Ensuring Security and Protecting National Sovereignty: Lessons from the Civil War in Russia and the European North // Vestn. Sev. (Arctic) feder. university Ser.: Humanite. and social Sciences. 2014. No. 3. S. 158-168.

over the years of studying the history of the revolutionary era in Russia, what are your views on it? If yes, why? 4) Which of the theoretical and methodological approaches to the study of this topic do you consider the most adequate for its disclosure? 5) What is your assessment of the historical milestones of February and October 1917 in Russia? 6) What does it mean for you today, 100 years later,

we are the events of 1917 in Russia? What are the historical lessons that flow from them? What is the significance of Russian revolutions for the country and the world?

Each of the participants of the round table answered the questions asked, and their answers under the corresponding numbers are published as separate materials of each of the authors.

GOLDIN Vladislav Ivanovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Research Department of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov, member of the bureau of the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences on the history of social reforms, movements and revolutions (Arkhangelsk, Russia)

1917 IN RUSSIA: FROM THE PAST TO THE PRESENT

1. Since the mid-1980s. In May 1987, he took part in the All-Union Scientific Conference in Tbilisi. Since 1989, I have been a member of the scientific councils of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR / RAS dealing with this topic.

2. In history, and especially at its fateful stages, there may be alternatives, but the historian's task is to investigate the processes that really took place. The revolutionary processes of the early twentieth century in Russia had deep historical roots, which should be analyzed both in the context of a large historical time, or the so-called long history, through the prism of centuries and decades of deep social inequality, the neglect of those in power to ordinary people(the response of the latter was peasant wars, riots, uprisings), and the "short history" of the early twentieth century - the years, months and days immediately preceding 1917. World War I was a giant catalyst for revolution. Russian liberalism, represented by the Provisional Government of changing compositions, received its

a historical chance, but could not use it to solve in a short time the complex problems facing Russia, which predetermined the loss of popular confidence and the loss of power.

3. Shifts in comprehension undoubtedly took place, which was due to a number of factors. The study of the anti-Bolshevik movement allowed an immeasurably deeper understanding of the whole range of views of opponents and opponents of the Bolsheviks, their programs, strategies and tactics of action, which helped to recreate a large-scale and contradictory picture of the events and processes of 1917 in Russia. This was facilitated by the study of regional and local processes, behavior and actions of people remote from political centers, in particular the northern society. People who lived in the "outback" often perceived the ideas and slogans that came from the center in a special way, and transformed them in their actions.

An important factor in the revaluation of values ​​for several decades has been

professional work with foreign historiography, acquaintance with the variety of its interpretations and views on the events and problems of the revolutionary era in Russia. The opinions of foreign colleagues were usually dissonant with the approaches and assessments domestic literature, stimulated reflection, moved to the search for objective truth in the perception of the unique phenomenon of revolutions, or the Great Russian Revolution of 1917, and its impact on the world.

4. Ideas of methodological and interdisciplinary synthesis seem to be productive. This involves the integration of various methodologies and methodological approaches into the scientific search (although it threatens with eclecticism), the use of forms and methods of different sciences in understanding the processes of 1917 - history, political science, sociology, cultural studies, psychology, etc.

I like the view of the Russian revolutionary process of 1917 as a complex of revolutions at the national and regional level, and from this the approach to the origins and essence of the Civil War in the country through the prism of a series of wars of various types, forms and types logically follows.

5. The February revolution became the embodiment of a deep crisis and widespread dissatisfaction with the authorities both in the “tops” and in the “bottoms”, an expression of mass protest moods. It gave rise to an era of revolutionary upsurge, romance, faith in the revolutionary renewal of Russia. This anticipated and at the same time unexpected revolution was a revolution of hope. It was a breakthrough to the long-awaited freedom, or, more precisely, to the will, as perceived by the majority of the population.

The February Revolution, called democratic or bourgeois-democratic, brought to life a variety of ideas and projects for the renewal of the country. The provisional government hatched a version of the liberal modernization of the country, but the theory and practice of liberalism turned into a collapse in the emergency conditions of wartime. Spring and especially summer

In 1917, socialist ideas gained enormous popularity and attractiveness. Revolutionary impatience and mass radical sentiments led to the fact that the liberal-democratic version of renewal was rejected in the name of a socialist alternative.

The October revolutionary milestone was the result of a rapid deterioration of the situation in the country, a mass protest against the helplessness of the government and its policies. After the failure of the action of the right under the leadership of General Kornilov, the political pendulum swung sharply to the left. The slogans and ideas of the proletarian, soldier, peasant, national, regional and other revolutions and revolutionary currents merged together, which led to both the Bolsheviks coming to power and the complexity of their position as a ruling force. It turned out to be easier to come to power than to keep it, and popular slogans were not easy to put into practice.

The deterioration of the situation in the country, the growing radicalism of the masses and the tendency of the disintegration of the state and socio-economic space required extraordinary efforts and the nature of management on the part of the new government. The revolution, great in scale of ideas and hopes, contributed to the breaking of the existing norms and traditions of life, and the depth of changes and upheavals led the country to the Civil War, accompanied by a large-scale international military intervention. The victory of the Bolsheviks in this war opened the way for a socialist experiment, first on a national and then on an international scale.

6. A number of important historical lessons emerge from the events and processes of the revolutionary era 100 years ago. Firstly, revolutions embody the dream of mankind for a just society, freedom, respect for the individual, life with confidence in the future. And although this dream is not easy to realize in practice, it is the creation of such a society that must be striven for.

Secondly, it is the need for the authorities to respond in a timely manner to emerging problems, to seek and find ways to solve them through reforms, thoughtful and effective modernization of the country. If the reforms do not give the desired results and the situation of the general population worsens, then this threatens the ruling regime with a loss of power, and urgent problems can be solved in a radical way, through a revolution.

The year 1917 opened the way to a socialist experiment in Russia and the world, a unique way of modernizing the country and a way to solve urgent problems of mankind. This made it possible in a short historical period to radically transform the old Russia, which became the Soviet Union, to repulse fascist aggression, turn the USSR into one of the two superpowers, and create a world system of socialism under Soviet leadership. The socialist challenge forced the capitalist system to mobilize all its forces and resources, to follow the path of socialization, creating states and welfare societies. The collapse of socialism in the USSR and Europe, the disappearance of socialist competition

rent to the Western system led to its desocialization and complex modern problems. Today, the United States and the Western world are facing a challenge from the PRC, which declares socialism as a development goal and tries to combine the best features of the two systems in practice.

The liberal experiment in Russia at the end of the 20th century led, as in 1917, to results opposite to those expected. Setting conservative values ​​at the forefront in modern Russia raises many questions, especially since it coincides with the crisis and the failure of the declared modernization. Deep social contrasts in Russia (the decile coefficient is about 16) lead to growing tension in the relationship between the rich and the poor, society and government, and evoke a craving for justice and nostalgia for the Soviet era. From the experience of history, modern Russian authorities should learn lessons, timely and effectively solve urgent problems. In general, the phenomenon of the Great Russian Revolution of 1917 continues to influence the development of mankind today.

Contact Information: Address: 163002, Arkhangelsk, prosp. Lomonosov, d. 2;

e-mail: [email protected]

Paul Dukes, Professor Emeritus, University of Aberdeen (Aberdeen, UK)

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1917: A VIEW FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM

1. I began to offer a Special Course on the Russian Revolutions at the University of Aberdeen in 1965, and was a founder member of the Study Group on Revolutionary Russia in 1975. My first

substantial publication was October and the World: Perspectives on the Russian Revolution in 1979.

2. I do not believe in alternatives and counterfactuals, nor in "optimistic" and "pessimistic"

interpretations. Therefore, I consider the revolutionary outbursts of 1917 to be determined. This is not to say that these events could have been predicted at the beginning of the revolutionary year: to trace the significance of events from February to October is not easy, especially when they are placed in the context of immediate internal and international turbulence while also located in the long term of Russian history. Moreover, in order to understand more fully the revolutionary outbursts, we need to cut through the distortions of later historiography, both Soviet and anti-Soviet, which often made interpretation of the Revolutions of 1917 one of the battlegrounds of the Cold War. To take the example of the outstanding individual in the period between February and October, it remains difficult, after all the adulation and denigration, to make an objective appraisal of the contribution of VI. Lenin.

3. Of the movement led by Lenin, a leading Cold Warrior, Hugh Seton-Watson, declared that "The Bolshevik Revolution was unquestionably one of the greatest events in all human history." Another anti-Soviet historian Richard Pipes suggested that "a convincing case can be made that the Russian Revolution was the single most consequential event of the twentieth century, whose repercussions have been left in every corner of the world." But what about the twenty-first century? Partly because of the end of the Cold War, partly because of the new struggle against terrorism, and most of all because of the global ecological crisis that threatens us all, the Russian Revolutions have assumed a less prominent place in history than previously.

4. Marxism retains its relevance as an approach to 1917 (although not so much to "post-industrial" years). In the West, especially, Postmodernism has enjoyed some prominence in recent decades, especially in the shape of what has been called the linguistic turn. This has led to the loss of metanarrative. Before, the picture was clear

enough. As the foundation of the Soviet Union, the Russian Revolutions were celebrated at home while denigrated from outside. Meanwhile, however, what might be called traditional scholarship based on archival sources was not completely neglected. Today, the great task is to restore metanarrative, a basic necessity for the study of history.

5. In 1973, foreshadowing the formation of The Study Group on the Russian Revolution, its founders suggested concern with "political radicalism and related change during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and with the populist, anarchist, social-democratic and communist movements in particular ." Other subjects would be considered, but the emphasis would be on revolution in Russia, not with the whole of Russian history. As suggested in point 4 above, much of the focus has changed since then.

6. In 1988, the journal Revolutionary Russia was first published. In 2006, an international group of scholars initiated a project entitled Russia "s Great War and Revolution, 1914-1922, which will lead to the publication of twenty or more volumes setting out further current interpretations of the momentous events. In contrast with the founders of the Study Group in 1973, the project "s editors observe in 2014 that the "workers" movement" will be far less prominent than would have been the case for much of the late twentieth century. My own view remains that, while the significance of the Russian Revolutions may have diminished in recent years, they deserve as much attention as the French and American in the eighteenth century and the British in the seventeenth century. examination.I am keeping a close watch on recent publications and conferences taking place in 2017 with an eye to producing a second edition of October and the World.

Contact information: Address: History Department, University of Aberdeen, AB24, 3FX, United Kingdom;

e-mail: [email protected]

IPPOLITOV Georgy Mikhailovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Leading Researcher of the Volga Branch of the Institute of Russian History of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Samara, Russia)

Russia. year 1917. civilizational rift

1. The study of the revolutionary era of 1917 in Russia began in 1990 in the context of the study of the historical personalities of Anton Ivanovich Denikin. The first article appeared in 1992.

2. Contemporaries of revolutionary cataclysms - major political figures of the tsarist political regime, such as Senator N.N. Tagantsev and ex-premier of the tsarist government V.N. Kokovtsov, - in their memoirs they declared: "The revolution hung in the air"3. Apparently, historians of the 21st century will have to ask the question more than once: did these figures have weighty grounds for such categorical axiological judgments? With all the pluralism of opinions on the problem under consideration, available in modern Russian historiography, I have no doubts about the following thesis: the Revolution of 1917 in Russia is a regularity. Our Fatherland has suffered it through the whole course of historical development. Even though scientists have not fully understood the reasons for this phenomenon, even if diametrically opposed points of view sometimes collide here (the so-called liberal school and orthodox Marxist-Leninists), nevertheless, denying the natural nature of the 1917 revolution is nothing more than raping historical truth .

It seems axiomatic that the abolition of serfdom in 1861 gave a powerful impetus to the development of capitalism in the expanses of Russia.

Russian empire. Moreover, its sprouts appeared much earlier. The liberal reforms of Alexander II contributed to the evolutionary renewal of society. However, the revolutionary movement also intensified sharply, in which the terror of the Narodniks gave way to the rapidly spreading Marxism. This state of affairs was the reason that Alexander III launched counter-reforms, launching an offensive of reaction along the entire front and not achieving much success. The country entered a period of epochal economic, socio-political and spiritual changes, the crown of which was the Russian revolutions of 1905-1907 and 1917.

Revolution, no matter how tragic it may be, always acts as a means of self-regulation of society. It is difficult (in the context of the above) to disagree with N.A. Berdyaev, who wrote that the revolution "to a large extent is retribution for the sins of the past"4. Judging revolutions - whether they are good or bad - is a waste of time or an exercise in sophism, moralizing outside of historical space and historical time. Better to study them. Like any historical phenomenon, revolutions must be subjected to a comprehensive study. However, in the historiography of the 1917 revolution, in the presence of various approaches, sometimes diametrically opposed judgments, so far there are more questions than answers.

3GARF (State Architect of the Russian Federation). F. 5851. Op. 1. D. 494. L. 42; Kokovtsov V.N. From my past. Memoirs 1911-1919. M., 1991. S. 465.

4 Berdyaev N. The kingdom of the spirit and the kingdom of Caesar. Paris, 1951. S. 51.

3. I remain true to my conceptual constructions about the phenomenon of the Great Russian Revolution of 1917, which became a civilizational rift that marked the beginning of a change in the civilizational paradigm that materialized in the creation of the Soviet state, which had no analogues in the history of world civilizations, which passed both a heroic and tragic historical path, I remain true (of course, without dogmatism, and even more so - fanaticism). My position is a tough state-patriotic one (not to be confused with such a "perversion" as zoological nationalism). But every time I turn to one of my favorite topics, I discover some new facets in it. Moreover, they often open when rethinking what was previously written. You involuntarily understand that, apparently, such a prominent authority of foreign historical science as E. Carr has approached the truth. He rightly asserted the following: if the philosopher is right that we can never step into the same river twice, then “it is apparently true that two books cannot be written by absolutely the same historian”5.

Naturally, there are some adjustments in the view of the revolutionary upheavals of 1917. This is largely due to the fact that one has to get acquainted with a large array of new historical and historiographic sources, especially monographic and doctoral dissertations, as well as new published documents. In particular, I began to evaluate the results of A.F.'s military policy less categorically. Kerensky. The understanding came that not always all his attempts to reform the Russian army in 1917 (read: to stimulate the decomposition of the troops) were irreversible. Much in the case of their failed localization depended on the subjective factor - the indecision of the highest generals (primarily on M.V. Alekseev and A.A. Brusilov).

4. Basic truth: the complex application of methodological approaches, principles and methods is the key to the success of any research. However, there are always priorities. In our case, a harmonious combination of formational and civilizational approaches to a deep knowledge of the essence and content of the historical phenomenon of the Russian revolution of 1917 is relevant for me. These two approaches cannot be opposed, which was so fashionable in the 1990s (especially in the first half of them, when the guild of Clio’s muse’s servants resembled orchestra players who went on stage, but forgot the notes: Marxism was indiscriminately abandoned, and West, confused). But when using formational and civilizational approaches, with their harmonious combination, there should still be priorities. Formation approach, for example, is preferable in determining the role and place of power structures in attempts to curb the revolutionary elements that raged in the country in 1917. At the same time, when analyzing historical events and the facts that took place in the revolutionary year of 1917, their holistic perception should be ensured. Moreover, the person is placed in the center as a specific primary subject-carrier of revolutionary upheavals. This is a practical manifestation of the requirements of a civilizational approach to the knowledge of history: the study of the past in human dimensions.

As for the study of historical personalities of 1917, it is necessary to leave the format of a mere biography and use a problem-chronological approach to the knowledge of history. Its problematic component is the most optimal, since it contributes to the division of a single research fabric into a number of important problems. At the same time, it should be taken into account that without the reconstruction of events in their temporal sequence, it is impossible to understand the depth of the content of the life and activities of historical personalities.

5Karr E. History of Soviet Russia. Book. 1. T. 1-2. Bolshevik revolution. 1917-1923. M., 1990. S. 11.

The chronological approach allows you to build a chronological series of life and activities, justified both logically and historically. But a purely eventful history can turn the study into a description of the biography of the famous historical figure. The study of historical personalities is seriously different from biographical works. First of all general approach to the disclosure of historical identity. In the classical biography, a strict, chronological sequence of events is observed in accordance with the positions held or periods of activity of historical personalities. This implies a greater descriptiveness of events and phenomena, which greatly complicates a clear, theoretical analysis, which, in the apt expression of F. Engels, can indicate “the right path in the labyrinth of facts”6.

5. It seems to me that the concepts of "February Revolution" and "October Revolution" should be abandoned. The Great Russian Revolution of 1917 took place, which spilled over into the phase of the Civil War. And February (or rather February-March, if we proceed from the new style of chronology) and October (or rather October-November, if we proceed from the new style of chronology) are the most important milestones (stages), but within the framework of a single revolutionary process. Moreover, these boundaries are qualitatively different in essence and content. And it is very problematic when voices are heard that October is simply a deepening of the revolutionary process. In my opinion, October is the development of the revolution according to the Bolshevik alternative, which is radically different from the revolutionary-democratic one itself (February).

Here we have to understand the dialectic of objective and subjective factors, the role of revolutionary leaders (A.F. Kerensky and V.I. Lenin as personified

the beginning of the revolutionary-democratic and Bolshevik alternatives for the development of the revolutionary process). At the same time, it must be emphasized that even V.I. Lenin did not immediately define October as a socialist revolution. So between February and October there is a deep dialectic. It will help to reveal it, including a clear knowledge of what happened between February and October.

6. It was truly a great revolution. It threw our Fatherland into a civilizational rift, but the line of civilizational rift passed (with varying degrees of depth), it would not be an exaggeration to say, all over the world. The history of world civilizations in the 20th century developed under the influence of the historical phenomenon of our Great Revolution, so it is a landmark event. In many ways, it remains so at the beginning of the 21st century.

The main lesson of 1917: revolutions are not made to order - they are objective. The people have the right to revolution. But here the subjective factor plays an important role. Those in power should not bring the people to such a state when he "takes up the pitchfork." Only a well-thought-out policy of balanced and timely reforms can relieve social tension in the country in time. At the same time, it is necessary to remember one unique feature of the mentality of Russians - absolute intolerance towards social injustice. And one more lesson: incompetent interference in the functioning of the army should be excluded. I believe that military ministers like A.I. Guchkova, A.F. Kerensky, A.E. Serdyukov - detonators of the expansion of the army. The first of the above successfully decomposed the army in the revolutionary year of 1917. A.E. Serdyukov, thank God, did not have time. Although this " effective manager The damage to the army was enormous.

Contact information: Address: 443001, Samara, Studenchesky per., 3, bldg. 1;

e-mail: [email protected]

Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 37. S. 243.

NIELSEN Jens Petter, Professor of the Arctic University of Norway (Tromsø), Honorary Doctor of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov (Tromso, Norway)

THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION SEEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A NORWEGIAN HISTORIAN

1. My first paper on this topic was a large article about the October Revolution in Pax-leksikon (Oslo), a concept-based leftish encyclopaedia, which was published in Norway in 1978-1981 by the Pax Publishing House7. Since then I have published frequently on the Russian Revolution, mostly in Norwegian. The Russian Revolution was never my most important topic, however.

2. I do not. In my opinion, historians too often declare courses of events to be inevitable, in particular when it comes to events which had wide-ranging and grave consequences, like the Russian Revolution. It has to do with the fact that historians" principal concern is always to explain what happened in the best possible way. The more convincingly they do so, the more inevitable the seems outcome. Historians too seldom investigate alternative courses of an event, which could Tocqueville aptly remarks about the French Revolution that "the most dangerous moment for a bad government is usually when it begins to reform itself." This also applies to the Russian Revolution. in the Russian society in the beginning of the 20th century resulted from the efforts of the tsarist government to carry through an economic modernization from above, without an equivalent political modernization. into the Great War. Among western historians the view that the Russian Revolution grew out of the war has always predominated. Military defeat, war weariness and

material deprivations were important causes of the fall of tsardom. At the same time, comparative research on revolutions indicates that great revolutionary upheavals succeed only when the old regime had been seriously weakened beforehand, because of external strains8. Therefore, it is difficult to imagine that the Russian Revolution would have happened if it had not been preceded by three years of war. The continuation of the war after the February Revolution also explains much of the Bolsheviks" success in the late summer and autumn of 1917. But even without the war it is difficult to see that Russia in the long run could have avoided a violent overthrow of tsardom , due to Nicholas II's stubborn refusal to share power with an assembly elected by the Russian people even when he was pushed to the outmost, like in 1915 and 1916. His ever more isolated position, even within the imperial family, led to his sudden abdication in March 1917.

3. I have become increasingly negative to the October Revolution. In my first article (see point 1) I had a tentative, rather open-minded attitude towards the October Revolution, but shared the widespread view among revisionist historians that the revolution degenerated under Stalin. In an article published in 1985 I came to the conclusion that the October Revolution was a "socialist revolution". Today, 100 years after the revolution, as is also the case with most historians both in Russia and in the West, my ability to sympathize with the aspirations of the October Revolution has diminished. I perceive the dissolution of the

7Pax Leksikon. 1978-1981. Oslo: Pax Forlag. Vol. 1-6.

8Skocpol T. States and Social Revolutions: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge, 1979.

Soviet Union in 1991 as a more or less definitive proof that the Bolsheviks" efforts to create an alternative modernity did not, and could not, succeed. The belief in revolution in general has diminished9. Our days" color revolutions in the post-Soviet space , as well as the so-called "Arab Spring", have not given particularly positive results. It is characteristic that western historians today put more emphasis on the outcome of the Russian Revolution than on its prerequisites. To some degree this is due to the "archive revolution" in Russia, which started at the end of the 1980s. Attention was drawn towards Stalin and away from Lenin, since the most sensational new sources concerned the Stalin period. At the same time, we have become less willing to accept the revisionists" basic divide between Lenin and Stalin. Today it is easier to see Lenin laid the groundwork for Stalin and Stalinism"s degeneration towards dictatorship and terror. And this makes it easier to accept the 1930s as an integral part of the Russian Revolution, and sometimes I feel tempted to follow Sheila Fitzpatrick in using the Russian Revolution as a denomination of the whole period of 1917- 193910. While the upheavals that took place under Lenin basically the affected society"s superstructure (to use a Marxist term), under Stalin the Soviet government tried to realize the main aspirations of the October Revolution of creating nothing less than a new social and economic basis of society.

4. I believe that the modernization paradigm is a suitable analytical framework for studying the Russian Revolution, which can be applied on both the pre-revolutionary and the Soviet epochs. The political and social unrest throughout this period was a result of the efforts to catch up with (later also excel) the large western countries, which were more advanced in their industrial development, or, if you like, in their traverse through the Marxist unilinear schema of socioeconomic development. The revolutionary upheavals in the beginning

of the 20th century did happen, not because Russia after the great reforms of the 1860s had entered into a condition of permanent crisis, but because the society (due to the circumstances of war and the power struggle between competing elites) was unable to cope with the transition from the traditional to the modern society. The modernization led to increasing social and ethnical tensions and political unrest. The contradictions between tradition and modernity presented a systemic crisis, according to Boris Mironov, but this does not mean that the crisis inexorably leads to revolution. It created only the conditions for a revolution, only the possibility, which became a reality because of military defeat, difficulties during the war and a relentless struggle for power between oppositional public and autocracy11.

5. We are used to considering February and October Revolutions as two distinct phases of the Russian Revolution. This also fits in with the Marxist tradition of dividing it into a bourgeois-democratic and a socialist stage. I have nothing against the designation "The Great Russian Revolution", which has the advantage that it includes the Civil War. I understand that the change of name has to do with the fact that many Russian historians wanted to get rid of the term "The Great October Socialist Revolution", which they no longer found adequate. With the change of name an ambiguity has occurred, which is rather convenient, since it allows for different assessments of the revolution. The word "great" (velikaya) is, of course, a positive epithet, and will probably still satisfy historians with a positive evaluation of the revolution. Those who are more sceptical can also use this denomination, admitting no more than that this revolution was epoch-making and had great significance and impact on the world.

6. "The Great Russian Revolution" created the "Second World" and gave the Soviet Union a leading role in this. The contradictions between the First and the Second Worlds were to feature

9Smith S.A. The Historiography of the Russian Revolution 100 Years On // Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 2015. Vol. 16, No. 4. P. 733-749.

l0Fitzpatrick S. The Russian Revolution. 3rd edition. Oxford; N.Y., 2008.

^Mironov B.N. Passion for the revolution. Morals in Russian historiography in the information age. M., 2014. S. 313-323.

the world through the greater parts of the 20th century. Soviet industrialization became a model for several countries in the Third World, and Soviet planned economy had a lasting impact on the political economy in western countries, among them Norway. The active role of the state in the economic development was all the same not an entirely new phenomenon, since this had been the case also in several belligerent countries during the First World War, especially in Germany.

The negative development of the revolution in the Soviet Union in the 1930s in the direction of dictatorship and terror against the country's own population made the impact of the Russian Revolution in the West more ambiguous, even counterproductive. In a country like Norway, the government and bourgeois society took the danger of a revolution seriously, and took all necessary precautions in order to avoid it. Russia. The Norwegian government stood firm and met the revolutionary Norwegian Workers" Party with a mixture of negative and positive sanctions. The government did not shrink from using physical

force, both police and the military were used in order to control strikes and fight civil disobedience. At the same time, however, they tried to oblige socialists in important fields. In 1918-1919, the eight-hour day was given legal backing by the Storting, and equally important was the election reform of 1919 which brought the number of parliamentary seats won by the Norwegian Workers" Party more in line with the number of votes cast for it. This strengthened the belief among the supporters of the Norwegian Workers" Party that it was indeed possible to obtain political power within the existing political system, that a socialist government was possible without revolution.

So, on many western countries the October Revolution and Bolshevism impacted in a paradoxical way: instead of spreading the revolution, it tended to strengthen liberal democracy, even if this was not the Bolsheviks" intention. The Great Russian Revolution has taught us that even if it is possible to impact on a society "s economic and social development, it is impossible to see through history and to foresee its course. It is even dangerous to believe that you possess such a superior knowledge and insight into society which empowers you to build a perfect society.

Contact information: Address: Mellomvn. 85C, NO-9007, Norway;

e-mail: [email protected]

POLTORAK Sergey Nikolaevich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of St. Petersburg State University of Telecommunications. prof. M.A. Bonch-Bruevich, editor-in-chief of the journal for scientists "Klio" (St. Petersburg, Russia)

1917 - THE YEAR OF UNINTENDED EVENTS

1. I have been studying the history of the events of 1917 since 1977 - from the moment I started working on my Ph.D. thesis at the Faculty of History of Leningrad State University. And although my dis-

The certification was devoted to one of the plots of the Civil War in Russia; it was impossible to do without the history of the events of 1917. First scientific publication appeared in 1980 and was dedicated to the role of V.I. Lenin in creation

the first international military formation in Soviet Russia.

2. The revolutionary process and the series of revolutionary explosions in 1917 in Russia are natural and inevitable events. Any processes taking place in society have a certain “margin of safety”. Such a "reserve" of the Russian Empire was enough in 1905-1907, despite the enormous tension in society, exacerbated by the events of the Russo-Japanese War. Then the state machine managed to survive and extinguish the hotbeds of tension. And this was done not only with the help of punitive measures, but also thanks to a number of social compromises, including the well-known manifesto of the sovereign of October 17, 1905.

From the very beginning of 1917, the Russian Empire no longer had such a “margin of safety”. This is due to many reasons, among them - the scale of the First World War, which is incommensurable with the scale of the Russo-Japanese War. In the decade that has passed since the defeat of the First Russian Revolution, the political parties of Russia have gained vast experience in the political struggle both with imperial power and with each other. During the First World War, against the backdrop of a sharp impoverishment of the main part of the country's population, a small group of industrialists, bankers and entrepreneurs became even richer and more influential: the satisfaction of the thirst for income gave rise to the thirst for power. This new aspiration was successfully served by the strengthened liberal political parties. They competed with both conservative and revolutionary forces and in February 1917 managed to seize political power in the country. Having failed to manage the state in the conditions of war, these parties lost the political struggle to the union of revolutionary parties.

3. Over the years of studying the history of the revolutionary era in Russia, my views on it could not help but change. If at the end of the 1970s, when I was just starting to study the events of 1917, I had ideas about the revolution, like any average Soviet person with higher education,

a lot has changed over time. Having worked in more than 60 archives of the former Soviet Union, and later in foreign archives, I was convinced that the processes taking place in our country were in fact not as romantic as it seemed in my youth. The Revolution and the Civil War that followed it were extremely brutal at the ordinary level, bringing incalculable misfortunes to the population of the country. I realized that the revolution, like a genie out of the bottle, has tremendous destructive power. At the same time, in many respects, the previous ideas about the revolution were confirmed: it opened up prospects for millions of workers that they could not even dream of before. In a word, revolution is a multifaceted and contradictory phenomenon, like life itself.

4. As is known, until 1991 the history of 1917 was the highest priority in the development of historiography in the USSR. Partially, only the study of the history of the Great Patriotic War. Alas, the tradition was such that the events of 1917 were studied, especially before March 1985, exclusively in a positive way, which prevented an objective study of the history of the events of that time. After the collapse of the USSR, many historians changed the sign "plus" to "minus" in their studies, which did not add to the study of the problem of objectivity. Now the situation has changed for the better - the craving of researchers for objectivity is obvious. However, I consider the main mistake of a theoretical and methodological nature to be the desire to study the history of the events of 1917 through the prism of the history of everyday life or the history of personalities. Both lines of research are quite viable, but they should not be abused. I consider it a major mistake of modern scientists to attempt to comprehend the events of a hundred years ago from the standpoint of people living in the 21st century. It is unacceptable. It is necessary to evaluate everything that happened in 1917 in the context of the values ​​of that time and the real state of society. It is also sad that modern historians hardly try

understand the theory. In particular, October events Neither Russian nor foreign colleagues view the year 1917 through the prism of Lenin's concept of world socialist revolution. And this means that contemporaries cannot understand the motivation of V.I. Lenin and his associates.

5. As regards the assessment of the historical milestones of February and October 1917 in Russia, in this respect my views have not undergone any changes. Unlike many colleagues, I do not consider the events of February and October as a single process, as one revolution. What February and October have in common is only that their creators fought against the autocracy. But the artists of February, like the artists of October, had their own sketches of the future. The difference is that after

February, only sketches of a possible perspective remained, and those who embodied the ideas of October in life managed to portray more impressive pictures. Another thing is that their canvases had nothing in common with those wonderful frescoes that were once born in the minds of Marx, Engels and Lenin.

6. There is no doubt that the events of 1917 turned the whole social life upside down not only in Russia but also in the world. I agree with the old Soviet truth that October 1917 is the main event of the 20th century. I think that in the current century, the echoes of a hundred years ago are heard very clearly. The main lesson of the revolutions of 1917 is very simple: a person must be treated like a human being; otherwise, he will cease to be a man and begin to commit atrocities.

Contact information: Address: 193232, St. Petersburg, prosp. Bolsheviks, d. 22, bldg. 1

FEDYUK Vladimir Pavlovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Contemporary National History, Dean of the Faculty of History, Yaroslavl State University named after P.G. Demidov (Yaroslavl, Russia)

THE REVOLUTION WAS YESTERDAY

1. I started studying the events of 1917 in Russia in 1978 in the course of preparing my thesis and PhD thesis. The first article on this topic appeared in 1980 in one of the famous "Kominsky" collections. In the Kalinin seminars organized by V.V. Komi-nym, I participated until they ended.

2. In the context of the events that preceded it, the revolution was indeed inevitable. At least since the beginning of the First World War, the Russian authorities have been increasingly losing

control over what is happening. Another thing is that the general instability that characterizes any revolutionary era constantly creates conditional "bifurcation points", with the possibility of different developments of the situation.

3. Since the revolution (within broad time limits) has been the subject of my scientific studies for almost 40 years, to some extent it is perceived differently. It's hard to expect the same vision from a 20-year-old graduate student living in an era of "stagnation"

and, say, not the youngest doctor of sciences, surrounded by the realities of the 21st century. But the change in my perception of the revolution is less due to changes in the political context. And in the old days, I never wrote much about the class struggle, and the expressions “collapse”, “rout” in relation to the anti-Bolshevik forces were part of an obligatory ritual and did little to reflect the essence of research. I began to perceive the revolution differently, having become acquainted with sources reflecting that time. As a result, behind the struggle of political forces, I hope I managed to see people, ordinary inhabitants, who were not of their own free will involved in the revolutionary whirlwind. Hence - the emphasis on the study of public sentiment, everyday life, personality against the backdrop of the era.

4. I am ashamed to admit that I have never been strong in methodology, although I have read a lot on this subject, and even wrote something myself. I have always been embarrassed that in methodological disputes history itself recedes into the background. For me, methodology is always a tool, but by no means a symbol of faith. Generally speaking, all revolutions are subject to similar laws, and in this sense we must always remember both Carlyle and Ortega y Gasset. If we have in mind the Russian Revolution, then to help us all the legacy of the great predecessors - at least from Solovyov to the Eurasians and Gumilyov. It is fundamentally. In my opinion, the Russian Revolution organically fits into the tendencies that were indicated by the previous development of the country. This, of course, is not new. "In the commissars - the nonsense of the autocracy, the explosions of the revolution - in the kings."

I urged and will urge to consider the revolution, and indeed the entire Soviet period of our past, as part of an ongoing process, the beginning of which was laid much earlier.

5. Never, at least for myself, did not separate the February and October revolutions. The understanding that we are dealing with the Great Russian Revolution came to me as a student and, I must say, struck me then. As for the time limits of the revolution, they clearly cover the period of the Civil War. More precisely, the starting and ending points will not dare to name now. I will only note that disputes about periodization, as a rule, are characterized by extreme bitterness and minimal productivity.

6. I am not a collector at all, but among the random things that have accumulated in my house for a long time, there is an unused tear-off calendar for 1917. Due to dilapidation, the first sheets of it disappeared somewhere, and it begins on January 18th. I sometimes take it in my hands, and my soul has already hardened, but still something trembles in it. A little more than a month - and in Russia everything will be different!

In Russian history, there were at least no less significant milestones, but for modern times, the revolution is an event of unprecedented scale. Even now, whether we like it or not, we live in the world created by the Russian Revolution. Precisely in the world, because the consequences of the events in Russia reverberated far beyond its borders. Even those who try to curse the revolution and forget about it prove by their behavior that it happened yesterday.

Contact information: Address: 150000, Yaroslavl, st. Sovetskaya, 10;

e-mail: [email protected]

GOLDINVladislav Ivanovich

TO THE RESULTS, PROSPECTS

and lessons from the study of Russian revolutions

The published materials of the round table highlighted the variety of research approaches, judgments and assessments of its participants regarding the origins and nature of the revolutionary processes of 1917 in Russia, their significance and historical lessons for the country and the world. But what is common is the recognition that the Russian Revolution had a profound impact on the life not only of our country, but of all mankind in the 20th century.

This year will be a time of new discussions and, hopefully, progress in understanding the Russian revolutionary era of 1917 and drawing lessons from it for the present. The order of the President of Russia V.V. Putin of December 19, 2016 on the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the 1917 revolution in Russia, in which it is recommended to take part not only interested scientific and educational organizations, but also state authorities and local governments, public associations12.

In the year of the centenary of Russian revolutions, dozens of scientific conferences will be held both in Russia and in other countries, and hundreds of new books will probably be published. In September 2017, Moscow will host the next General Assembly of the International Committee of Historical Sciences, which is planned to be combined with a conference dedicated to the centenary of the Russian Revolution13.

In early July of this year, the cities of Arkhangelsk and Onega will host an international scientific conference "1917 in the fate of the regions, the country and the world: a view from the 21st century", organized by NArFU with the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the government of the Arkhangelsk region, with the publication of a collection of its materials. It is also planned to publish the next issue of the Almanac of the Association of Researchers of the Civil War in Russia, the theme of which will be to identify the relationship between the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the Civil War in the country. All this is intended to contribute to a deeper understanding of this most complex era of Russian and world history.

DOI: 10.17238/^p2227-6564.2017.2.146

Vladislav I. Goldin

Northern (Arctic) Federal University named after M.V. Lomonosov; prosp. Lomonosova 2, Arkhangelsk, 163002, Russian Federation;

e-mail: [email protected]

University of Aberdeen; AB24, 3FX, United Kingdom; e-mail: [email protected]

^Order on the preparation and holding of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the 1917 revolution in Russia. URL: http://www.kremlin.ru/acts/news/53503 (date of access: 01/05/2017).

iChubaryan A. Does the revolution have an end? // Arguments and Facts. 2016. No. 51; Smirnitskaya I. General Assembly of the International Committee of Historical sciences will pass in Moscow. URL: http://www.russkiymir.ru/news/154797/ (date of access: 01/06/2017).

George M. Ippolitov

Volga Region Branch, Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences;

e-mail: [email protected]

UiT The Arctic University of Norway; Mellomvn. 85C, N0-9007, Norway; e-mail: [email protected]

Sergey N. Poltorak

The Bonch-Bruevich Saint-Petersburg State University of Telecommunications; prosp. Bol "shevikov 22, korp. 1, St. Petersburg, 193232, Russian Federation

Vladimir P. Fedyuk

P.G. Demidov Yaroslavl State University; ul. Sovetskaya 10, Yaroslavl, 150000, Russian Federation;

e-mail: [email protected]

THINKING ABOUT THE YEAR OF 1917: A ROUND TABLE DEVOTED TO THE 100th ANNIVERSARY OF THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTIONS

During the Round Table the participants discussed the role and significance of the Russian Revolutions both in Russian and world history, their reasons, epoch-making landmarks and contemporary evaluations, as well as the relevant research methodology. In addition, the participants identified the reasons why the approaches to and viewpoints on the revolutionary process in Russia had changed and evaluated the lessons of history and the importance of the Russian Revolutions for today's Russia and the world.

Keywords: revolution, revolutionary process, Great Russian Revolution of 1917, February Revolution of 1917, October Revolution of 1917.

For citation: Thinking About the Year of 1917: A Round Table Devoted to the 100th Anniversary of the Russian Revolutions. Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal "nogo universiteta. Sen: Humanitarnye i sotsial" nye nauki, 2017, no. 2, pp. 146-161. DOI: 10.17238/issn2227-6564.2017.2.146

A discussion on the topic "The Revolution of 1917 in the Mirror of Russian History" was held in the Small Hall of the Parliamentary Center on 4 October.

The participants of the meeting were deputies of the Voronezh Regional Duma, specialists in the field of history, political science and sociology, representatives of the Youth Parliament.

The deputy governor delivered an opening speech to the audience Voronezh region Yuri Agibalov. He thanked the meeting participants for joining the discussion and noted that the topic of the round table is quite complex and is of interest not only to those who are professionally engaged in scientific research, but also to all those who want to know the history of the country better. Yuri Agibalov recalled that in the Voronezh region, by order of the government, an organizing committee was created, which approved the plan of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the revolution. The round table is the final event of the first stage of the work.

“Today we must know and understand the history of our country without idealizing it, but without distorting it either. Especially when it comes to events that played a big role not only in the history of our country, but also in the world community. It is always difficult,” the Deputy Governor emphasized.

As Yury Agibalov noted, the regional organizing committee defined as its priority the opportunity for everyone to make their own conclusion about the events of 1917 on the basis of archival materials and historians' research, and to avoid conflicts, including those related to the political assessment of historical events in the life of the country.

Then Deputy Chairman of the Voronezh Regional Duma, Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Historical Heritage Sergey Rudakov addressed the audience.

I would like to emphasize that the October Revolution for social science is such a big and complex scientific problem, because on the one hand we see that the revolution objectively happened in 1917, and on the other hand, opposite processes began in the 1990s. Marxist scholars call this process, which happened in the 1990s, the restoration of capitalism, he said.

According to the Chairman of the Committee on local government, Public Relations and Mass Communications of Roman Zhogov, "the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution is a serious reason to think about the prerequisites for mass social upheavals and the role they play in the fate of society."

In the history of our country, perhaps, there is no other event that would still cause such heated debate. This means that we are still in search of answers to many hot questions, and I must say that these searches are beginning to bear fruit,” he said. - Think, main lesson revolution is to teach us to do without revolutions. For generations to come. This is a very difficult and very necessary lesson, and we should remember it more often. In the end, 100 years is not such a great time either for the people's memory or for Russian state. Therefore, we will be grateful for every opportunity to look closely and together at the events of 1917 and think about the present and future day of our country.

Then the meeting participants listened to speeches devoted to research into the origins and factors of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the consequences of this coup, and the connection between the revolution and modernity. Presentations were made by Vladimir Fursov, Head of the Department of History of Russia at VSPU, Mikhail Karpachev, Head of the Department of Russian History at VSU, Alexandra Glukhova, Head of the Department of Sociology and Political Science at VSU, Tatyana Chernoboeva, Head of the Museum of History of VSPU, and Anatoly Nikiforov, Secretary of the Public Interfaith Consultative Council under the Voronezh Regional Duma.

The participants of the meeting were deputies of the Voronezh Regional Duma, specialists in the field of history, political science and sociology, representatives of the Youth Parliament.

Yuri Agibalov, Deputy Governor of the Voronezh Region, delivered an opening speech to the audience. He thanked the meeting participants for joining the discussion and noted that the topic of the round table is quite complex and is of interest not only to those who are professionally engaged in scientific research, but also to all those who want to know the history of the country better. Yuri Agibalov recalled that in the Voronezh region, by order of the government, an organizing committee was created, which approved the plan of events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the revolution. The round table is the final event of the first stage of the work.

“Today we must know and understand the history of our country without idealizing it, but without distorting it either. Especially when it comes to events that played a big role not only in the history of our country, but also in the world community. It is always difficult,” the Deputy Governor emphasized.

As Yury Agibalov noted, the regional organizing committee defined as its priority the opportunity for everyone to make their own conclusion about the events of 1917 on the basis of archival materials and historians' research, and to avoid conflicts, including those related to the political assessment of historical events in the life of the country.

Then Deputy Chairman of the Voronezh Regional Duma, Chairman of the Committee on Culture and Historical Heritage Sergey Rudakov addressed the audience.

– I would like to emphasize that the October Revolution for social science is such a big and complex scientific problem, because on the one hand we see that the revolution objectively happened in 1917, and on the other hand, opposite processes began in the 1990s. Marxist scholars call this process, which happened in the 1990s, the restoration of capitalism,” he said.

According to Roman Zhogov, chairman of the Committee on Local Self-Government, Public Relations and Mass Communications, “the centenary of the Great Russian Revolution is a serious reason to think about the prerequisites for mass social upheavals and the role they play in the fate of society.”

- In the history of our country, perhaps, there is no other event that would still cause such heated debate. This means that we are still in search of answers to many hot questions, and I must say that these searches are beginning to bear fruit,” he said. - I think the main lesson of the revolution is to teach us how to do without revolutions. For generations to come. This is a very difficult and very necessary lesson, and we should remember it more often. In the end, 100 years is not such a long time either for the people's memory or for the Russian state. Therefore, we will be grateful for every opportunity to look closely and together at the events of 1917 and think about the present and future day of our country.

Then the meeting participants listened to speeches devoted to research into the origins and factors of the Russian Revolution of 1917, the consequences of this coup, and the connection between the revolution and modernity. Presentations were made by Vladimir Fursov, Head of the Department of History of Russia at VSPU, Mikhail Karpachev, Head of the Department of Russian History at VSU, Alexandra Glukhova, Head of the Department of Sociology and Political Science at VSU, Tatyana Chernoboeva, Head of the Museum of History of VSPU, and Anatoly Nikiforov, Secretary of the Public Interfaith Consultative Council under the Voronezh Regional Duma.