<https://mail.google.com/mail/?attid=0.1&disp=attd&view=att&th=1153787cc190fece>Download
the original attachment
An October for us, for Russia and for the Whole World
(Appeal of 17 Russian Intellectuals and Artists)
It is no surprise that the imminent
ninetieth anniversary of the October Revolution
in Russia has become the object of widespread
attention. The events of October 1917 were,
indeed, an earthquake that shook the world,
altering its economic, social and cultural foundations.
Many media sources depict this
world-historic phenomenon as a mere coup
d'état, carried out by a handful of
conspirators and adventurists with the help of
Western security services. All sorts of things
are circulated outright lies, distortion of
the facts, and malicious slanders about the
participants in and leaders of this mighty
event. The old fables to the effect that the
"October coup" was provoked by the "German
agent" Lenin and the "Anglo-American spy"
Trotsky are still being repeated, despite
having been rejected by distinguished scholars
from various countries. Meanwhile, the Russian
people are portrayed as unwitting toys in the
hands of "revolutionary extremists", even
though the revolution could neither have begun
nor triumphed without the population playing a decisive role.
Not a Conspiracy, but a Social Revolution
The October Revolution was not sparked by
conspirators or by agents of foreign powers. It
was a social earthquake, a hurricane, a
tsunami, which no-one could ever have called
forth by mere appeals. The revolution arose out
of the internal logic of events, when a
multitude of sources of popular discontent
converged into a single, all-powerful stream.
To interpret it as the product of a conspiracy
is strange, to say the least. If this were
true, why was a new governing authority set up
in place of the old in a gigantic country and
in a short time, and why did the Russian people
not only support this government, but defend it
with arms in hand during the Civil War?
For some reason, the critics of the
"October coup" forget the profound crisis into
which Russia had been plunged by the tsarist
monarchy and the Provisional Government which
succeeded it. Mesmerised by the slogan, "War
until Final Victory!", the authorities refused
to take account of the real needs of the
population. Critics also forget the spontaneous
disintegration of the monarchy on the eve of
the revolution, despite the direct evidence in
the form of the endless intrigues and conflicts
within the tsar's court, the military defeats
at the front, and finally, the outright
abdication of Nikolai II, the autocrat and
commander-in-chief of the Russian army. The
bourgeois government that replaced the monarchy
also proved impotent, failing to meet the great
challenges of the time stopping the war and giving land to the peasants.
October 1917 marked the culmination of
the great Russian social revolution of the
twentieth century. It was led by revolutionary
social democrats who earlier than others, had
recognised the needs and hopes of ordinary
people the pressing problems to which the
Russian society of the time required solutions.
Among the leaders, it was of course Vladimir
Ulyanov-Lenin and his closest collaborators who played the key roles.
None of the leaders of the October
revolution were flawless, but it is just as
wrong to demonise as to idolise them. The
calumnies that are heaped on them nowadays have
no real basis. They were not in the service of
anyone, only of their revolutionary ideals.
None of the earthly temptations, such as money
or the other accompaniments of a philistine
prosperity, had any meaning for them. They
measured their lives against the supreme
standard of selfless service to the freedom and
happiness of the oppressed and dispossessed.
Revolutions Cannot be Reduced to Violence
The October Revolution is often termed a
"violent overthrow". Yet the actual "overthrow"
in Petrograd passed off almost without human
victims. While we are not advocates of
violence, we recognise that it is inevitable at
particular stages of historical development,
when it is bound up with the presence of class
and national antagonisms. Revolution is indeed
associated in many respects with violence, as
was clearly evident, for example, in the
bourgeois revolutions in the Netherlands,
England, France and so forth. The ending of
slavery in the United States was accompanied by
the bloodiest conflict of the nineteenth
century, the American Civil War. In Russia, the
ending of feudalism was also accompanied by wars and revolutions.
These developments, meanwhile, were not
called forth by the machinations of political
intriguers, but by the crisis of the old system
and by the impossibility of solving age-old
problems by evolutionary methods. People resort
to revolutionary violence in specific
circumstances, when the ruling classes, blinded
by thirst for their own enrichment and for the
maintenance of their privileges, neglect the
well-being of the population. The dispossessed
classes then have no choice except to take
their fates in their own hands. This is the
main lesson of the Russian Revolution of the twentieth century.
At the same time, social revolution
cannot be reduced to violence, and especially
armed violence. Its ultimate goal is to lay the
basis for a new world, to create better
conditions of life for everyone, not just the
social elites. In this sense, such revolutions
really are the locomotives of history, accelerating its progress.
What the October Revolution Yielded
The history of different countries has
always included numerous struggles by workers
against capitalism. Only in Russia, however,
have these actions taken on so far-reaching a
character. This made twentieth-century Russia
the epicentre of world development, where all
the main questions of the contemporary world
intersected, and where the fundamental sickness
of capitalism, the conflict between labour and
capital, was resolved. It was only the Russian
workers who had the will and decisiveness to
find a way out of this conflict, not only
overthrowing capitalism, but also beginning the
transition to a more progressive social system socialism.
Like the Paris Commune before it, the
October Revolution placed power in the hands of
the lower orders of society the workers and
peasants, and those elements of the
intelligentsia that reflected their interests.
The revolution affirmed the soviets as the most
democratic form of political power, granting
the war-weary population the long-awaited peace
and land, along with the opportunity for
national self-determination. By raising
millions of workers to the point where they
could exercise social creativity, the
revolution showed clearly that it is not only
the "elites" that are capable of being the subject and demiurge of history.
As a result of the October Revolution two
socially counterposed systems appeared in the
world, a circumstance which did much to
determine the subsequent development of
humanity. Thanks to the influence of October,
national liberation movements arose, and
reforms began to the capitalist system itself.
Under the impact of the Russian Revolution the
colonial empires disintegrated, while
long-outdated monarchical regimes suffered total collapse.
The October Revolution set in motion a
supra-national and supra-confessional unifying
idea, the idea of social liberation and
justice. On the basis of this idea, there arose
for the first time in history a voluntary union
of peoples with equal rights, the USSR. The
ideas and initiatives of October were in accord
with the goals and vital purpose of many titans
of science and the arts of Timiryazev and
Vernadsky, Platonov and Mayakovsky, Sholokhov
and Eisenstein. The progress toward the
socialist future that was instigated by the
October Revolution was actively supported by
such outstanding twentieth-century figures as
George Bernard Shaw, Picasso, Einstein and Tsiolkovsky.
Soviet History was Diverse
The October Revolution marked the
beginning of Soviet history, which did not take
the form of advancing along a smooth Nevsky
Prospekt. Soviet history included both great
achievements and appalling tragedies. We know
very well that after the peaceful transfer of
power to the workers in most of the provinces
of Russia, a bloody civil war began,
accompanied by foreign intervention and by White and Red terror.
Lacking the relevant historical
experience, the Soviet authorities naturally
made many mistakes. One particular error was
the policy of "war communism", a product of the
general national crisis. To their credit, the
Bolsheviks decisively rejected it, and made a
deliberate shift to the New Economic Policy
the first historical model in which the
principles of socialism and capitalism were
successfully combined. Many features of NEP
were later reproduced in the context of the
development of several European countries and
of modern China. NEP also allowed the wounds of
war to be rapidly healed, and production in the
Russian economy to be raised to its pre-war level.
Relying on the experience of the New
Economic Policy, Lenin worked out a plan for
the further development of the Soviet state, a
plan which included radical economic and
political changes. These transformations were
aimed above all at achieving breakthroughs in
the development of energy generation, culture
and education areas which were decisive in
the twentieth century and which remain so in
the twenty-first. These changes presupposed
democratising the political system through
drawing workers into running the state, and
through the renovation of the party. Here, one
of the moves which Lenin projected was removing
Josef Stalin from the post of general
secretary. Even then, Stalin was manifesting
his traits of disloyalty, boorishness and the abuse of power.
These plans, however, were fated to go
unrealised. While declaring socialism to be its
goal, the authoritarian regime which
consolidated itself after Lenin's death did a
great deal that was incompatible with
socialism. The political liberties of citizens
that had been proclaimed by the revolution were
comprehensively violated. The price paid for
industrialisation and forced collectivisation
was exorbitant. In sum, the popular power of
the initial years of the revolution degenerated
into rule by the bureaucracy and its leader
Stalin. We consider the massive Stalinist
repressions, along with the violation of the
rights of the individual and of whole
nationalities in the USSR, to have been a
crime. All this discredited the ideals of the revolution and of socialism.
While acknowledging these facts, we do
not accept scholarly-sounding lies and
stupefyingly one-sided propaganda with regard
to the whole of Soviet history. This history
was diverse; within it, democratic and
bureaucratic tendencies engaged in conflict
with and replaced one another. Hence, the
freedoms of the NEP years were replaced by
Stalinist totalitarianism, which in turn gave
way to the Khrushchev "thaw". Later, the
Brezhnev authoritarianism was replaced by
perestroika, which proclaimed as its goal the
creation of a humane, democratic socialism.
The history of every country is subject
to argument and debate. The cruelties of the
British and French colonial wars, and of
slavery in the US, were scarcely better than
the Soviet gulag. However, this did not negate
the social and cultural achievements of these
countries. Why then should such achievements be
denied in the case of the Soviet people, who
achieved a great victory over fascism, created
an inimitable culture and literature, set up a
broadly accessible system of social welfare for
the population, and were the pioneers of space
travel? It must not be forgotten that October
unleashed an unprecedented creative energy. It
set in train the founding by masses of people
of a new society; it brought to realisation
many of the ideas of internationalism; and it
acquainted the formerly most oppressed layers
of Russian society with the heights of national
and world culture. Nor should one strike out
from Soviet history the enthusiasm of the
masses that was demonstrated in the mastering
of the newest achievements of science and
technology. The revolutionary romanticism and
heroism of millions of Soviet citizens was clearly manifested here.
Why the Soviet Model Collapsed
It should be noted that we have a range
of views on the nature of the social system
that existed in the USSR. We are agreed,
however, that neglect or rejection of the
principles of popular power, internationalism,
justice and humanism that were born out of the
October Revolution will sooner or later result
in catastrophe for a society that is building
socialism. This is what happened in the Soviet Union.
The fetters placed on the creative
initiative of the population under the
totalitarian regime dramatically restricted the
opportunities for the growth of the Soviet
economy. A shortage of consumer goods was one
of its characteristic features. As a result, we
did not manage to raise the level of well-being
of the working people to that found in the
world's developed countries, and this served as
one of the causes of the downfall of the Soviet
system. Another vital cause was the lack of
real economic and political democracy, which
became especially intolerable when
technological and information revolution was
unfolding in the world. One of the consequences
of this was the complete alienation of the
bureaucratic authorities and the ruling party
from the workers. The attempt to overcome this
alienation during perestroiks did not yield the
required result. In sum, the collapse of the
USSR and of the Soviet government became a
reality. This was seized upon by the political
forces which dissolved the USSR and directed
Russia along the road of installing a savage
oligarchic capitalism, marked by mass
joblessness, falling living standards for the
population, profound social stratification,
rampant nationalism and growing crime.
The failure of the Soviet model of
society does not signify that the ideals of
October were false. Just as the ideas of
Christianity were not to blame for the
practices of the Inquisition, Stalinist
totalitarianism could not destroy the ideals of
the revolution. Socialism as a historic cause
cannot be brought to realisation all at once. A
new generation of young people is now
appearing, people who do not accept capitalism
as a system. There is every reason to hope that
this generation will be able to breathe new
life into the ideals of the October Revolution.
What the Greatness of Modern Russia Depends on
The ideas of the October Revolution
united not only proletarian internationalists,
but also supporters of strengthening and
developing the Russian state. These ideas
opened the way for people who wanted to bring
the national culture of Russia to the country's
borderlands and to other countries for people
who shared in patriotic sentiments and who were
prepared to defend the Soviet homeland from
potential aggressors. The strength of this
feeling was shown clearly during the Great
Patriotic War, when the sovereignty of the USSR
and the conquests of October were defended.
The October Revolution showed the
greatness of spirit of the Russian people, who
proposed an alternative, non-capitalist road to
national development. To view the revolution as
a conspiracy by extremist forces is also
dangerous because it provides grist to the mill
of the anti-Russian interpretation of history
according to which Russia, because of its
unpredictability, is said to pose a constant
threat to the world. From Russia, adherents of
this view maintain, only unfavourable
developments are to be expected; hence, the
country has to be kept under tight rein, and
its natural wealth, its energy potential and
intellectual resources, have to be controlled and exploited.
Modern-day Russia needs to soberly assess
such provocative statements, and to hold firmly
to its own course. Russia's greatness does not
lie in the blind copying of foreign examples,
still less in national conceit with regard to
other peoples, but in relying on the talents
and creative strengths of its own population,
as well as in the thorough assimilation of the
knowledge and experience developed by world civilisation and culture.
Russia is capable of once again becoming
a great power, whose adversaries will be forced
to take it into account. But this will only
happen if the country overcomes the poverty and
deep social stratification of its population,
qualitatively improves the lives of its
citizens, broadens their social and democratic
rights, and retains everything that is best from its historic past.
* * *
The historic importance of the October
Revolution is difficult to overestimate. Its
positive consequences are obvious. A third of
humanity travelled part of the way along the
road which the revolution opened up. Many
countries are continuing this progress today,
drawing lessons from the defeats and tragedies
of the past. October proved that another, more
just world is possible. A range of social and
political forces, countries and peoples, are
now striving for this new world. This is shown
by a new wave of revolutionary transformations,
manifesting itself with particular force in a
number of countries of Latin America and Asia.
The October Revolution was and remains
our fate, and we cannot reject this crucially
important part of Russian history. Always and
everywhere there have been mistakes, and the
great revolutions of the past did not avoid
them either. Nevertheless, the anniversaries of
these revolutions are celebrated in all
countries, including at the state level. Only
in Russia is this not the case. In Russia, the
denigration of the country's revolutionary past continues.
On the eve of the ninetieth anniversary
of the October Revolution, we raise our voices
against this practice. The people must have
their revolutionary holiday and the truth about
October returned to them. It must not be
forgotten that we belong to a country whose
history includes its own great revolution. We can and should be proud of it.
* Arslanov V., Dr. of art, professor, Russian Academy of Education
* Bagaturiya G. Dr. of philosophy,
professor, Lomonosov Moscow State University
* Buzgalin A., Dr. of economics, professor,
Lomonosov Moscow State University
* Dzarasov S., Dr. of economics, Russian Academy of Science
* Galkin A., Dr. of history, professor,
Russian Academy of Science Istyagin L., Dr. of
history, Russian Academy of Science
* Kelle V. Dr. of philosophy, Russian Academy of Science
* Kolganov A., Dr. of economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University
* Loginov V., Dr. of history, professor, Russian Academy of Education
* Medvedev R., Dr. of history
* Rudyk E., Dr. of economics, Russian Academy of Labor
* Serebrykova Z., Dr. of history
* Shatrov M., writer
* Slavin B., Dr. of philosophy, professor,
Moscow State Pedagogical University
* Smolin O., Dr. of philosophy, professor, MP
* Voeikov M., Dr. of economics, Russian Academy of Science
* Vorobiev A., academician, Russian Academy of Science
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Director, Programme in 'Transformative Practice and Human Development'
Centro Internacional Miranda, P.H.
Residencias Anauco Suites, Parque Central, final Av. Bolivar
Caracas, Venezuela
fax: 0212 5768274/0212 5777231
http//:centrointernacionalmiranda.gob.ve
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
