Center for Strategic Assessment and forecasts

Autonomous non-profit organization

Home / Politics and Geopolitics / On the national idea / Articles
The revolution of 1917: from "bread superpower" to industrial giant
Material posted: Publication date: 07-11-2017
On 7 November, Russia and many other countries around the world will mark the centenary of the great October socialist revolution. The sound on the movie "Matilda", the documentary about the investigation of Parvus, and talking about different sorts of conspiracies the meaning of the holiday inevitably slips away from people, but if not for this "Red letter day" probably none of us today would not exist. Why the country could not be, if not for a change order and revolution – read the material Накануне.RU.
A number of historians today, not only deny that the revolution was inevitable, but in favor of market conditions distort the reality, instead presenting the history of the beginning of the century a disaster movie: they came bloody Bolsheviks in heaven on earth and broke everything. This ideology is promoted at the highest level under the auspices of the movement "reconciliation". Authorities formed the myth of the great "Russia which we lost" and with "great difficulty acquired back" after "saints," 90. of Course, this is a simplification, but the trends are obvious, it seems, everything.

In a century of revolution I would like to recall what was the Russian Empire on the eve of memorable events, and stop wishful thinking. Nobody argues that any state need an official interpretation of past events – and Russia is no exception, but the Great October revolution should take its place of honor.


October 1917

 
"Come October, and from 6 to 25 October, the Bolsheviks headed by Trotsky. This fraction came to the opening of the pre-Parliament, where Trotsky made a speech from which it was clear that set a course for the seizure of power, that is armed revolt, says about the revolution as a historical event, the doctor of historical Sciences, the author of the cycle of works "the Chronicles of the revolution" Alexander Pyzhikov. – About the seizure of power, he said very clearly. Then the Bolshevik faction left the session of the pre-Parliament, and the pre-Parliament once again plunged into a sluggish dying, which did not interest anybody. Lenin and Trotsky – they were the driving forces that are headed for armed uprising, and they fully supported the youth led by Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin".

Among the Bolsheviks there were those who thought the threat to take power in one hand, this part of the party was headed by Zinoviev, Kamenev and Rykov. But no one outside the Bolshevik party was not going to prevent an armed uprising. Pretentious fevralisty and indifferent observers gave the Bolsheviks the strength of three or four months at the helm of the state. All doubted that they would be able to govern the country, and therefore prevent they broke his neck, no one was going. Of course, Soviet propaganda created the necessary for the education of youth the legend of the brilliant storming of the Winter Palace, the triumph of justice.

But actually the revolution took place so quietly and without bloodshed, the Bolsheviks at first out of modesty called it "the October revolution". Much later, when it became clear that the change order resulted in a revolutionary transformation of society, the state and even around the world, came the realization that the coup was "the great October socialist revolution".

According to the historian Alexander Pyzhikov, to oppose to Lenin, no one was going, during the revolution of the bourgeoisie sat in pubs and waited. The people tired of waiting.

Революция 1917 года: от "хлебной сверхдержавы" до промышленного гиганта


"Did not defend the monarchy, and now began to protect those who overthrew the monarchy. No one after 25 October, the Provisional government wasn't trying to advocate. We know that this Winter storm that took place were very different from those of July events in its scope. The July event was much more serious in Petrograd – in fact the whole city was in turmoil, and a very tense atmosphere, shooting indiscriminate – here and there killed. 3-4 July was a pretty busy time, and when there was a Winter storm – the city has restaurants and theatres".

"Agricultural superpower"

Among the first decrees of the Bolsheviks, came to power was the decree on land. Actually, it was promised by febrility, but promises are not fulfilled. Then immediately and without beating about the Bush was chopped Gordian knot of the landlord-peasant conflict, which began long before 1861, and has only intensified with the reforms of the tsarist government.

The fact that "liberation of the peasants" gave the benefit, especially by the nobles, paradoxically. Peasants were freed and ordered the landlord to allocate a piece of land for the family of "new farmer" – but freed serf had no right to abandon this land and leave the city, for example, he was required to farm for at least another nine years! The free peasant was imposed credit – it either had to pay corvee and dues to the owner of the land, or to buy his "sedentary life" of the sovereign. The government bought common land from the landlords (once the nobles were 80% of the cost) – the plots given to the peasants on condition of payment of the loan over 49 years (Hello, mortgage) to repay the loan, a farmer was hired to the same landowner or went to the fist.

That is, like, everything changed but stayed the same – the farmer was forced to work there and same as before, but it was not a "serf" and allegedly "totally free" (without the right to leave and without a passport).

By the way, another plus for the new landowners was that before the reform of our aristocrats from earth managed to pledge and repledge in banks estates and land so that if not arrived in 1861, many landlords simply fail.


October, 1917, Revolution, Civil war, peasants, workers, 7 November, Great October, socialist revolution|Photo:

Thus, as a result of reforms, the landowners turned to the capitalist "enterprise" for the sale of grain abroad. The major "bread of the oligarchs" was about 30 thousand people, and in their hands was concentrated to 70 million acres of land, with a steady growth of grain prices for the ruling class has become very profitable. These "enterprise" has supplied 47% of grain exports. Now he is 1% (700 families) elitist, closely connected with the court, it is their life we see on the big screen in films about "the Russia we lost", that they somehow believe their ancestors 99% of children of the proletariat in the vastness of our post-perestroika of the country.

Food riots were suppressed, peasants were not allowed out of the villages, man zverela from hunger, then from war, so look for conspiracies "from the" natural "peasant revolution" means to ignore the obvious.


October, 1917, Revolution, Civil war, peasants, workers, 7 November, Great October, socialist revolution

What have we lost?

The monarchists say that we had to wait a bit, and live would be much better – after the Russian Empire is so rapidly developed, especially in the industrial plan.

Indeed, Russia took the path of advanced capitalist countries, industrial production grew, but even after half a century since the reforms of 1861 to the huge country accounted for only 4.4% of world industrial production. For comparison, the United States gave a 35.8% (Oleg ARIN, "Truth and fiction about tsarist Russia"). 80% of the population at the beginning of the industrial 20th century in the Russian Empire were peasants. The village was engaged in heavy manual labour – like 100 years ago, and only 12.6% of the population were citizens – are not sufficient for industrialization. The middle class was absent, and the bourgeoisie was not an independent political force. Yes, there were factories and plants – a little bit, but they were. Here the question is – who do they belong to? Certainly not the Russian people. And not even the Tsar. Basically, the industry was owned by foreigners.

"Despite the relatively high rates of economic growth, Russia's economy was a ugly offspring of a completely different economic order – from the Patriarchal to the feudal, and bourgeois. And thus, for example, foreign capital predominated in such advanced at that time, industries like the oil industry, gaestebuch, coal mining, smelting steel and iron, said in an interview with Накануне.RU historian Yevgeny Spitsyn. – The banking sector of the Russian Empire largely depended on foreign loans and of the largest banks in Russia, only one of Volgo-Vyatskaya could rightly be called a Russian Bank. And in such giants as the St. Petersburg international Bank, Russo-Chinese Bank, the Azov-don Bank, a significant part of capital and assets owned by our foreign "partners".

What kind of "industrialization"?

Modern myth-making about pre-revolutionary Russia strong motive "When Nicholas II began industrialization". Interestingly, this word in tsarist Russia did not know (it appeared only in the debate at the party Congress of the Bolsheviks in the late 20-ies). But, nevertheless, about the need to accelerate industrial development we also talked with the king, the first factories also appeared at this time. But can we talk about the industrialization of our state, if a large portion of the industrial capital was foreign?

In 1912 such a popular and important industry, the textile industry belonged to the Germans halfway. Worse case was in metallurgy and engineering, industries that have traditionally been the basis for industrialization – industrial sector dominated by the Germans 71.8% (it is noteworthy – and this on the eve of war with Germany?!), 12.6% – the French, at 7.4% – the Belgian capital. The Russian bourgeoisie had only 8.2 percent of the industry ("the Revolution that saved Russia," Rustem Vahitov). This was the case with industrialization – Yes, she was, but not in the Russian Empire.

"Yes, the industry was 90% owned by foreign capital. If your apartment brought someone else's furniture – it is your will not. For example, in a number of today's developing countries also built the factories but they belong to transnational corporations," comments historian and publicist Andrei Fursov in conversation with Накануне.RU.

By the way, the same situation was in the field of Finance – one-third of all commercial banks in Russia were foreign. It is worth noting that foreigners were not interested in skilled workers – they brought their specialists to control, and the Russian peasants who went to work in the city, used for hard and simple work, not caring neither about health care nor about the conditions of labour, nor of professional development (paid and through time).


October, 1917, Revolution, Civil war, peasants, workers, 7 November, Great October, socialist revolution

"Not finishing, but take out!"

As for the high performance of exports, which now flaunt monarchists, considering that the country is exporting so much grain cannot be considered to be poor – it is worth noting, Yes, the export of grain was really great. Russia exported bread, which is often not enough for farmers, and in return imported machinery and manufactured goods. Hard to call it industrialization. Well developed only railroad, and it is clear – the country was sold, it was necessary to deliver grain to the Europeans.

Data on exports is, indeed, admirable in the year 1900 was removed 418,8 million pounds in 1913 already 647,8 million pounds (Pokrovsky, "External trade and external trade policy of Russia"). But only at what point with the pace of export of raw materials, the Russian Empire suddenly became a country of "developed capitalism"?

No, it's more like a raw state, an appendage to the developed countries or, as ironic historians, the Russian Empire was a "superpower bread".


the infographic, "the meat superpower" that we've lost|Photo: Накануне.RU

If to speak about successes, Russian Empire very successfully fit in the system of global capitalism on the rights of the source of cheap resources. Today we are told that Russia was the world leader in the export of grain – Yes, it is. But at the same time Russia had the lowest yield!

"In 1913, Russia supplies the world market with 22.1% of the grain, while Argentina is at 21.3%, US 12.5%, the Canada 9,58%, the Netherlands is 8.74%, Romania of 6.62%, India of 5.62%, Germany of 5.22%, – says Yuri Bakharev in the book "On grain production in tsarist Russia." – And despite the fact that grain yield in 1908-1912 years in Russia on the circle was 8 quintals per hectare, and in France and the United States is 12.4, England – 20 Dutch – 22. In 1913, Russia had harvested 30.3 pounds of grain per capita. In USA – 64.3 pounds in Argentina – 87.4 pounds in Canada – 121 PUD".

Historians call primitive technology of agriculture and objective geographic conditions reasons for these indicators. But here's the reason why the tsarist government continued to export to the West bread, which needed own the peasants of mystery. Although... not so difficult – wheat and barley from the village had turned to gold, money and stocks for the landlords, bankers and aristocracy. The elite were supposed to live no less well than the West, and on expensive, luxury items were about half of the profit for export.

Historian Sergey Nefedov at work "On the causes of the Russian revolution" writes that in 1907 the income from the sale of grain amounted to RUB 431 million On luxury items had amounted to $ 180 million rubles and 140 million rubles. Russian nobles left in foreign resorts. Well, the modernization of industry (the same one allegedly industrialization) received only 58 million rubles (Rustem Vakhitov, "the Revolution that saved Russia"). Don't forget that every two or three years in an agrarian country emerging pockets of hunger (because of the poor harvest, for example), but the government continued to carry the cars of grain at great Railways abroad.

When Vyshnegradsky, the author of the immortal phrase "don't eat, but take out", the export of grain has increased two times. If already talked about the necessity of industrialization – why continue to feed the elite at the expense of exported bread? What part of the earth's wealth went to the industry, the development of the school? Becomes clear the required transformations in the economy and industry were simply impossible without a change order. Without a "change of energies".


the infographic, "the meat superpower" that we've lost, the grain harvest, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union|Photo: Накануне.RU

The change of energies

"The tsarist government could not solve the agrarian problem, it could not cut the knot of contradictions between the nobility and the bourgeoisie, and the economic problems of Russia in the early 20th century by economic means did not dare. They could be solved only by social. That is, by social reconstruction, says Накануне.RU historian and publicist Andrei Fursov. – Russia was destined to semi-colonies of the West. By the way, is well understood not only left-wing thinkers, but thinkers of the opposite camp, for example, Nikolai Osipovich Menshikov, who wrote that if will not happen in Russia, any "change of energies" – he could not write "revolution" in those conditions, he wrote "social energy", but this meant a revolution – that Russia, destined to the colonies of the West."

Experts believe that contemporaries should acknowledge the achievements of the socialist revolution and to pay tribute to Lenin as a historical figure, to analyze objectively the period, not to demonize it. The British, French and Americans recognize their revolution and civil war milestones in history, despite the remaining contradictions in society – some in France sickened by the Jacobin terror, and many Americans are outraged that Lincoln himself was a slave owner, there are also British, totally dissatisfied with Cromwell. But nobody in the world does not go to the denigration of their own history, especially when the reason for pride more than reason for frustration.

"In very difficult conditions, which have been in our country after October 1917, the Soviet Union demonstrated not only its uniqueness, but also high efficiency. The principles on the basis of which was the system of public administration, the economy, security and even culture is radically different from foreign analogues, – said in an interview Накануне.RU Deputy Director of the Institute for strategic studies and forecasts of PFUR Nikita Danyk. – Backward and dilapidated country, weakened after the First world war, a bloody Civil war, in a short time became a powerful state, which began to dictate terms in the international arena, creating effective and attractive alternative to the development of the state and society. Without the great October socialist revolution there would be no Victory in the great Patriotic war".


collage, the October revolution, the Wehrmacht, man in space, Lenin|Photo: Накануне.RU

The development of the Russian state stalled at the stage of "agricultural superpower", the Empire in prisoner of his own elitist put an end to the development of the industry. Without a revolution and the decree "on land" the country could not continue to exist in a world where other States have moved to a new technological level.

"Is the famous phrase of Stalin that we are lagging behind the advanced countries in 50-100 years, and either we will run this distance in 10 years or they crush us. Radical change in the socio-economic system is the result of the October revolution. Then came the opportunity for our people to reduce this 50-year gap. This is the fundamental, most tangible result of the October revolution," – said in an interview with Накануне.RU doctor of historical Sciences, ex-state Duma Deputy Vyacheslav Tetekin.

Not "bloody Bolsheviks" destroyed the country – by the early 20th century, Russia came already split, there were two "Nations": the ruling class on one side and 80% of the subordinate people. These two "Nations" even spoke different languages, and though they lived at different times, so behind the Russian village from the world in the 20th century. Moreover, some historians call these 80% of farmers – an internal colony of the Russian Empire, through which the aristocracy could maintain a provocatively high standard of living.

Revolution as a fundamental change in the socio-economic and political order was the resolution of the conflict. A wave of social discontent felt. Fevralisty tried to smooth out, and Lenin decided to head. The king abdicated – so Palo autocratic and aristocratic government. The bourgeois government after February in opposition to keep the country in unity, I began the "parade of sovereignties", chaos, collapse of the state. And only then appeared on the scene at first small, but rapidly growing "there is a party". Yes, in 1917 change the way of life hasn't happened yet, reminds the historian Andrei Fursov. And after a relatively quiet ahead of taking power the Bolsheviks had during the Civil war – the defense of the revolution and the struggle with the invaders (which are largely provoked the Civil war). Then followed the period of the NEP.

"Only since the late 20-ies began the socialist reconstruction of society. In addition, within ten years after the October revolution was a struggle between the leftist-globalists that have started a revolution in Russia in order to become the fuse of world revolution, and those in the leadership of the Bolsheviks, people like Stalin, who proceeded from the need to build socialism in one country, – says Andrey Fursov. When these forces are defeated by the end of 20 years, then really began the socialist reorganization of society. The result was a system of society-capitalism – the Soviet system, which has solved the problems which for centuries could not solve the autocracy. And the people who came "from below," became brilliant designers, military leaders, scientists. The result of this conversion, the prologue of which was the Great October socialist revolution and was the Soviet society. Only in the history of a society built on the ideals of social justice."
 

RELATED MATERIALS: Politics and Geopolitics