Revolution of 1917: from "grain superpower" to industrial giant

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

On November 7, Russia and many other countries of the world will celebrate the centenary of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Amid the noise about the movie "Matilda", among the documentary investigations about Parvus and in conversations about assorted conspiracies, the meaning of the holiday inevitably eludes people, and if it were not for this "Red Day of the Calendar", probably none of us today would exist.

A number of historians today not only refute the fact that the revolution was inevitable, but for the sake of the conjuncture distort reality, presenting instead of the history of the beginning of the century a film-catastrophe: the bloody Bolsheviks came to earthly paradise and broke everything. This ideology is encouraged at the highest level under the auspices of the "reconciliation" movement. The authorities are forming a myth about the beautiful "Russia that we have lost" and with "great difficulty are gaining back" after the "saints" of the 90s. Of course, this is a simplification, but the trends seem to be obvious to everyone.

In the century of the revolution, I would like to remember exactly what the Russian Empire was like on the eve of memorable events, and to stop passing off wishful thinking. Nobody argues that any state needs an official reading of past events - and Russia is no exception here - but the Great October Revolution should also take its place of honor.

October 1917

"October came, and from October 6 to 25, the Bolshevik faction was headed by Trotsky. This faction came to the opening of the Pre-parliament, where Trotsky made a speech, from which it was clear that the course was set for the seizure of power, that is, for an armed uprising," says about the revolution as a historical event, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the series of works "Chronicle of the Revolution" Alexander Pyzhikov. - He spoke very clearly about the seizure of power. Lenin and Trotsky - these were the driving forces that set the course for an armed uprising, and they were fully supported by the youth led by Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin."

Among the Bolsheviks there were also those who considered it dangerous to take power into one hand; this part of the party was headed by Zinoviev, Kamenev and Rykov. But no one outside the Bolshevik Party was going to hinder an armed uprising. Pretentious Februaryists and indifferent observers gave the Bolsheviks at most three or four months at the helm of the state. Everyone doubted that they would be able to rule the country, and therefore no one was going to prevent them from breaking their necks. Of course, already Soviet propaganda created the legends necessary for educating young people about the brilliant storming of the Winter Palace, about the triumph of justice.

But in reality, the revolution was so calm and bloodless that the Bolsheviks, out of modesty, at first called it the "October coup." Much later, when it became clear that the change in the way of life entailed revolutionary transformations in society, in the state and even in the whole world, the realization came that the coup was the "Great October Socialist Revolution".

According to the historian Alexander Pyzhikov, no one was going to resist Lenin; during the revolution, the bourgeoisie sat in taverns and waited for something. The people are tired of waiting.

Revolution of 1917: from "grain superpower" to industrial giant

"They did not defend the monarchy, and now they did not defend those who overthrew the monarchy. Nobody was going to defend the Provisional Government on October 25. We know that this storming of the Winter Palace, which took place, was very different from the same July events in its scope. The July events were much more serious in Petrograd - in fact, the entire city was engulfed in riots, an extremely tense situation, indiscriminate shooting - here and there people were killed. July 3-4 was a rather tense time, and when the storming of the Winter Palace was underway, restaurants and theaters were open in the city."

Agrarian superpower

Among the first decrees of the Bolsheviks who came to power was the decree on land. Actually, the Februaryists also promised this, but they did not keep their promises. Here the Gordian knot of the landlord-peasant conflict, which began long before 1861, and only intensified with the reforms of the tsarist government, was immediately and without circumlocution.

The fact is that the "emancipation of the peasants" gave benefit, first of all, to the nobles themselves, paradoxically. The peasants were freed and the landowner was obliged to allocate an allotment of land for the family of the "new farmer" - but the freed serf had no right to give up this land and go to the city, for example, he was obliged to run the farm for at least another nine years! A free peasant was imposed a loan - he had to either pay corvee and quitrent to the owner of the land, or redeem his "settledness" from the sovereign. The state bought communal lands from landowners (noblemen received 80% of the value at a time) - allotments were given to peasants with the condition of paying a loan for 49 years (hello, mortgage) to pay off the loan, the peasant was hired to the same landowner or went to the "kulak".

That is, everything seems to have changed, but remained the same - the peasant was forced to work in the same place and in the same way as before, but was no longer a "serf", but supposedly "completely free" (without the right to leave and without a passport) …

By the way, another plus for the new latifundists was the fact that before the reform, our aristocrats from the land managed to mortgage and re-mortgage their estates and land in banks so that if 1861 had not arrived in time, many landowners simply went bankrupt.

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

Thus, as a result of the reforms, landowners have become capitalist "enterprises" for the sale of grain abroad. The large "grain oligarchs" numbered about 30 thousand people, and in their hands 70 million acres of land were concentrated, with a stable rise in grain prices for the ruling class, the state of affairs became very beneficial. These "enterprises" supplied 47% of grain exports. Here it is - that very 1% (700 families) of the elites, closely connected with the court, it is their life and everyday life that we see on big screens in films about "Russia We Lost", for some reason 99% of children consider them their ancestors proletarians in the vastness of our post-perestroika country.

Hunger riots were suppressed, the peasants were not allowed out of the villages, the peasant was furious from hunger, then from the war, so looking for conspiracies "from the outside" in a spontaneous "peasant" revolution means not noticing the obvious.

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

What have we lost?

The monarchists say that it was necessary to wait a little longer, and life would have become much better - after all, the Russian Empire developed so rapidly, especially in industrial terms.

Indeed, Russia followed the path of countries of developed capitalism, industrial production was growing, but even half a century after the beginning of the reforms in 1861, the huge country accounted for only 4.4% of world industrial production. For comparison - the USA gave 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 hard manual labor - just like 100 years ago, and only 12.6% of the population were city dwellers - this is not enough for industrialization. There was no middle class, and the bourgeoisie was not an independent political force. Yes, factories and plants appeared - at least a little, but they were. Here the question is different - to whom did they belong? Certainly not the Russian people. And not even the tsar-father. Most of the industry was owned by foreigners.

"Despite the fairly high rates of economic growth, the Russian economy was an ugly brainchild of completely different economic structures - from patriarchal to feudal and bourgeois. And at the same time, for example, foreign capital dominated such advanced industries at that time as oil, iron mining, coal mining, steel and pig iron smelting, - says historian Yevgeny Spitsyn in an interview with Nakanune. RU - The banking sector of the Russian Empire largely rested on foreign loans, and of the largest banks in Russia, only one Volgo-Vyatka bank could with good reason be called a Russian bank. in such giants as the St. Petersburg International Bank, the Russian-Chinese Bank, the Azov-Don Bank, a significant part of the capital and assets belonged to our foreign "partners".

What kind of "industrialization" is this?

In modern myth-making about pre-revolutionary Russia, the motive "Industrialization began under Nicholas II" is strong. It is interesting that even the word of this kind was not known in tsarist Russia (it appeared only in disputes at the congresses of the Bolshevik party in the late 1920s). But, nevertheless, the need for accelerated industrial development was also spoken about under the tsar, the first factories and plants appeared at that time too. But can we talk about the industrialization of our state if most of the industrial capital was foreign?

In 1912, a popular and important industry such as the textile industry was half owned by the Germans. The situation was worse in metallurgy and mechanical engineering, industries that are traditionally considered the basis for industrialization - industrial sectors belonged to the Germans by 71.8% (noteworthy - and this is on the eve of the war with Germany ?!), by 12.6% - to the French, by 7, 4% - to Belgian capital. The Russian bourgeoisie possessed only 8, 2% of the industry ("The Revolution That Saved Russia", Rustem Vakhitov). This was the case with industrialization - yes, it was, but not in the Russian Empire.

"Yes, there were industries 90% owned by foreign capital. If someone else's furniture was brought to your apartment, it won't be yours. For example, factories have also been built in a number of today's developing countries, but they belong to transnational corporations," the historian comments and publicist Andrei Fursov in an interview with Nakanune. 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 qualified personnel - they brought their specialists for management, and Russian peasants who went to work in the city were used for hard and simple work, not caring about health care, or about working conditions, or about advanced training (paid and then every other time).

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

We will not finish eating, but we will take you out

As for the high export figures that monarchists flaunt today, considering that a country that exported so much grain cannot be considered poor - it is worth noting that, yes, grain exports were really large. Russia exported grain, which the peasants themselves often lacked, and in return imported machinery and manufactured goods. It is difficult to call it industrialization. Only the railways developed well, and this is understandable - the country traded, it was necessary to deliver grain to the Europeans.

The export data is indeed admirable - in 1900, 418.8 million poods were exported, in 1913 already 647.8 million poods (Pokrovsky, "Foreign Trade and Foreign Trade Policy of Russia"). But only at what point, with such a rate of export of raw materials, did the Russian Empire suddenly become a country of "developed capitalism"?

No, this is more attracting a resource-based state, an appendage to developed countries, or, as historians ironically say, the Russian Empire was a "grain superpower".

infographics, the "grain superpower" we have lost

If we talk about success, then the Russian Empire very successfully entered the system of world capitalism as a source of cheap resources. Today we are told that Russia was the world leader in grain exports - yes, it is. But at the same time, Russia had the lowest yield!

"In 1913, Russia supplies the world market with 22.1% of grain, while Argentina is 21.3%, USA 12.5%, Canada 9, 58%, Holland 8, 74%, Romania 6, 62%, India 5, 62%, Germany 5, 22%, - Yuri Bakharev writes in the book "On grain production in tsarist Russia".

- And this despite the fact that

the grain yield in 1908-1912 in Russia per circle was 8 centners per hectare, and in France and the USA - 12, 4, in England - 20, in Holland - 22.

In 1913, 30, 3 poods of grain per capita were harvested in Russia.

In the USA - 64, 3 pounds, in Argentina - 87, 4 pounds, in Canada - 121 poods.

Historians call the primitiveness of agricultural technologies and objective geographic conditions as the reasons for such indicators. But the reason that the tsarist government continued to export grain to the Western countries, which was needed by its own peasants, is a mystery. Although … not so difficult - wheat and barley from the village turned into gold, money and shares for landowners, bankers and the highest aristocracy. The elite had to live no less well than the Western ones, and about half of the export profits went to expensive pleasures and luxury goods.

Historian Sergei Nefedov in his work "On the Causes of the Russian Revolution" writes that in 1907 the income from the sale of bread amounted to 431 million rubles. 180 million rubles were spent on luxury goods, 140 million rubles. Russian nobles left in foreign resorts. Well, the modernization of industry (the same alleged industrialization) received only 58 million rubles. (Rustem Vakhitov "The Revolution That Saved Russia"). Do not forget that every two or three years in an agrarian country pockets of famine flared up (due to poor harvests, for example), but the government continued to transport wagons with grain along the excellent railways abroad.

Under Vyshnegradsky, the author of the immortal phrase "We will not finish eating, but we will take out," the export of grain doubled. If even then they talked about the need for industrialization - why did they continue to feed the elite at the expense of exported grain? What part of the wealth of the land went to industry, development, schools? It becomes clear that the necessary reforms in the economy and industry were simply impossible without a change in the way of life. Without a "change of energies".

infographics, "grain superpower" that we have lost, grain harvest, Russian Empire, USSR

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 at the beginning of the 20th century were not solved economically. They could only be solved socially. That is, through social reorganization," says Eve. RU historian and publicist Andrei Fursov - The fate of the semi-colony of the West was prepared for Russia. By the way, not only left-wing thinkers, but also thinkers of the opposite camp, for example, Nikolai "change of energies" - he could not write "revolution" in those conditions, he wrote "social energies", but by this he meant revolution, - then Russia is destined for the fate of a colony of the West."

Experts are confident that contemporaries should recognize the merits of the socialist revolution and pay tribute to Lenin as a historical figure, objectively analyze that period, and not demonize it. The British, French and Americans recognize their revolutions and civil wars as important milestones in history, despite the contradictions remaining in society - some in France are sick of the Jacobin terror, and many Americans are outraged that Lincoln himself was a slave owner, there are also Englishmen who are totally dissatisfied with Cromwell. But no one in the world stoop to denigrating their own history, especially when there are more reasons for pride than reasons for grief.

“In the very difficult conditions that were in our state after October 1917, the Soviet Union demonstrated not only its uniqueness, but also the highest efficiency. foreign analogs, - says Nikita Danyuk, Deputy Director of the Institute for Strategic Studies and Forecasts of the RUDN University in an interview with Nakanune. RU. - A backward and dilapidated country, weakened after the First World War, a bloody Civil War, in a short time turned into a powerful power that began to dictate its terms on the international arena, creating an effective and attractive alternative to the development of the state and society. Without the Great October Socialist Revolution there would have been no Victory in the Great Patriotic War."

collage, October Revolution, Wehrmacht, man in space, Lenin

The development of the Russian state stalled at the stage of an "agrarian superpower", the empire, in captivity of its own elites, put an end to the development of industry. Without the revolution and the decree "on land" the country could not continue to exist in the world, where other states have moved to a new technological level.

"There is a well-known expression of Stalin that we are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries, and either we will cover this distance in 10 years, or they will crush us. A radical change in the socio-economic system is the result of the October Revolution. of the people to reduce this 50-year gap. This is a fundamental, most tangible result of the October Revolution, "says Vyacheslav Tetekin, Doctor of Historical Sciences, ex-State Duma deputy, in an interview with Nakanune. RU.

It was not the "bloody Bolsheviks" who destroyed the country - by the beginning of the 20th century Russia came already split, there were two "nations": the ruling stratum on the one hand and 80% of the subordinate people on the other. These two "nations" even spoke different languages and seemed to have lived at different times, so the Russian village lagged behind the world in the 20th century. Moreover, some historians call these 80% of the peasants an internal colony of the Russian Empire, due to which the aristocracy could maintain a defiantly high standard of living.

The revolution as a radical change in the socio-economic and political structure became the resolution of the conflict. We felt a wave of social discontent. The Februaryists tried to smooth it over, and Lenin decided to lead. The tsar abdicated - this is how the autocratic-noble government fell. After February, the bourgeois government was unable to keep the country in unity, the "parade of sovereignties" began, chaos, the collapse of the state. And only then on the scene appeared at first a small, but rapidly growing "there is such a party". Yes, in 1917, the change in the way of life has not yet happened, recalls the historian Andrei Fursov. And after a relatively calm seizure of power, the Bolsheviks had a period of the Civil War ahead - the defense of the revolution and the fight against the interventionists (who in many ways provoked the Civil War). This was followed by the period of the NEP.

“Only in the late 1920s did the socialist reconstruction of society really begin. In addition, for ten years after the October Revolution, there was a struggle between the left-globalists, who started a revolution in Russia so that it would become the fuse of the world revolution, and in the leadership of the Bolsheviks, people like Stalin,who proceeded from the need to build socialism in one separate country, - says Andrey Fursov. - When these forces won by the end of the 1920s, the socialist restructuring of society really began. As a result, a society of systemic anti-capitalism arose - the Soviet system, which solved those problems that the autocracy could not solve for centuries. And the people who came "from below" became brilliant designers, military leaders, scientists. The result of this reorganization, the prologue of which was the Great October Socialist Revolution, was the Soviet society. The only society in history built on the ideals of social justice."

President's visit

So, in November 1963, Kennedy arrived in Texas. This trip was planned as part of the preparatory campaign for the 1964 presidential election. The head of state himself noted that it is very important for him to win in Texas and Florida. In addition, Vice President Lyndon Johnson was a local and the travel to the state was emphasized.

But the representatives of the special services were afraid of the visit. Literally a month before the president's arrival, Adlai Stevenson, the US representative to the UN, was attacked in Dallas. Earlier, during one of Lyndon Johnson's performances here, he was booed by a crowd of … housewives. On the eve of the President's arrival, leaflets with the image of Kennedy and the inscription "Wanted for Betrayal" were posted around the city. The situation was tense, and troubles awaited. True, they thought that demonstrators with placards would take to the streets or throw rotten eggs at the president, no more.

Local authorities were more pessimistic. In his book The Assassination of President Kennedy, William Manchester, a historian and journalist who chronicled the assassination attempt at the request of the President's family, writes: “Federal Judge Sarah T. Hughes feared incidents, Attorney Burfoot Sanders, senior Justice Department official in this part of Texas and the vice president’s spokesman in Dallas told Johnson’s political adviser Cliff Carter that given the city’s political atmosphere, the trip seemed "inappropriate." The city officials had trembling knees from the very beginning of this trip. The wave of local hostility towards the federal government had reached a critical point, and they knew it."

But the pre-election campaign was approaching, and they did not change the presidential travel plan. On November 21, a presidential plane landed at the airport of San Antonio (Texas' second most populous city). Kennedy attended Air Force Medical School, went to Houston, spoke at the university there, and attended a Democratic Party banquet.

The next day, the President went to Dallas. With a difference of 5 minutes, the vice president's plane arrived at Dallas Love Field airport, and then Kennedy's. At about 11:50 am, the motorcade of the first persons moved towards the city. The Kennedys were in the fourth limousine. In the same car with the President and the First Lady were US Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, agent William Greer was driving.

Three shots

It was originally planned that the motorcade would travel in a straight line on Main Street - there was no need to slow down on it. But for some reason, the route was changed, and the cars drove along Elm Street, where cars had to slow down. In addition, on Elm Street, the motorcade was closer to the educational store, from where the shooting was carried out.

Shots rang out at 12:30. Eyewitnesses took them either for the claps of a cracker, or for the sound of the exhaust, even the special agents did not immediately find their bearings. There were three shots in total (although even this is controversial), the first was Kennedy wounded in the back, the second bullet hit the head, and this wound became fatal. Six minutes later, the motorcade arrived at the nearest hospital, at 12:40 the president died.

The prescribed forensic medical research, which had to be done on the spot, was not carried out. Kennedy's body was immediately sent to Washington.

Workers at the training store told police that the shots were fired from their building. Based on a series of testimonies, an hour later, Police Officer Tippit attempted to detain warehouse worker Lee Harvey Oswald. He had a pistol with which he shot Tippit. As a result, Oswald was still captured, but two days later he also died. He was shot by a certain Jack Ruby while the suspect was being taken out of the police station. Thus, he wanted to "justify" his hometown.

So, by November 24, the president was assassinated, and so was the prime suspect. Nevertheless, in accordance with the decree of the new President Lyndon Johnson, a commission was formed, headed by the Chief Justice of the United States of America Earl Warren. There were seven people in total. For a long time, they studied the testimony of witnesses, documents, and in the end they concluded that a lone killer had attempted to assassinate the president. Jack Ruby, in their opinion, also acted alone and had exclusively personal motives for the murder.

Under suspicion

To understand what happened next, you need to travel to New Orleans, the hometown of Lee Harvey Oswald, where he last visited in 1963. On the evening of November 22, an altercation broke out at a local bar between Guy Banister and Jack Martin. Banister ran a small detective agency here, Martin worked for him. The reason for the quarrel had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination, it was a purely industrial conflict. In the heat of the argument, Banister pulled out his pistol and hit Martin in the head with it several times. He shouted: "Will you kill me the way you killed Kennedy?"

The phrase aroused suspicion. Martin, who was admitted to the hospital, was interrogated, and he said that his boss Banister knew a certain David Ferry, who, in turn, knew Lee Harvey Oswald quite well. Further, the victim claimed that Ferry convinced Oswald to attack the president using hypnosis. Martin was considered not entirely normal, but in connection with the assassination of the president, the FBI worked out every version. Ferry was also interrogated, but the case did not receive any further progress in 1963.

… Three years have passed

Ironically, Martin's testimony was not forgotten, and in 1966 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison reopened the investigation. He collected testimony that confirmed that the Kennedy assassination was the result of a conspiracy involving former civil aviation pilot David Ferry and businessman Clay Shaw. Of course, a few years after the murder, some of this testimony was not entirely reliable, but still Garrison continued to work.

He was hooked on the fact that a certain Clay Bertrand appeared in the report of the Warren Commission. Who he is is unknown, but immediately after the murder, he called New Orleans lawyer Dean Andrews and offered to defend Oswald. Andrews, however, remembered the events of that evening very poorly: he had pneumonia, a high temperature and he took a lot of drugs. However, Garrison believed that Clay Shaw and Clay Bertrand were one and the same person (later Andrews admitted that he generally gave false testimony regarding Bertrand's call).

Shaw, meanwhile, was a famous and respected figure in New Orleans. A war veteran, he ran a successful trade business in the city, participated in the public life of the city, wrote plays that were staged throughout the country. Garrison believed that Shaw was part of a group of arms dealers who were aiming to bring down the Fidel Castro regime. Kennedy's rapprochement with the USSR and the lack of a consistent policy against Cuba, according to his version, became the reason for the assassination of the president.

In February 1967, the details of this case appeared in the New Orleans States Item, it is possible that the investigators themselves organized the "leak" of information. A few days later, David Ferry, who was considered the main link between Oswald and the organizers of the assassination attempt, was found dead at his home. The man died of a cerebral hemorrhage, but the strange thing was that he left two notes of confused and confused content. If Ferry had committed suicide, then the notes could be considered dying, but his death did not look like a suicide.

Despite shaky evidence and evidence against Shaw, the case was brought to trial, and hearings began in 1969. Garrison believed that Oswald, Shaw, and Ferry had conspired in June 1963, that there were several who shot the president, and that the bullet that killed him was not the one fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. Witnesses were summoned to the trial, but the arguments presented did not convince the jury. It took them less than an hour to reach a verdict: Clay Shaw was acquitted. And his case remained in history as the only one brought to trial in connection with the Kennedy assassination.

Elena Minushkina