To understand when there was a revolution in Russia, it is necessary to look back at the era. It was under the last emperor from the Romanov dynasty that the country was shaken by several social crises that caused the people to rebel against the authorities. Historians distinguish the revolution of 1905-1907, the February Revolution and the October Revolution.
Prerequisites for revolutions
Until 1905, the Russian Empire lived under the laws of an absolute monarchy. The Tsar was the sole autocrat. The adoption of important government decisions depended only on him. In the 19th century, such a conservative order of things did not suit a very small stratum of society consisting of intellectuals and marginalized people. These people were oriented toward the West, where they had long been illustrative example the Great happened french revolution. She destroyed the power of the Bourbons and gave the inhabitants of the country civil liberties.
Even before the first revolutions took place in Russia, society learned about what political terror is. Radical supporters of change took up arms and carried out assassinations of senior government officials in order to force the authorities to pay attention to their demands.
Tsar Alexander II came to the throne during the Crimean War, which Russia lost due to systematic economic underperformance of the West. The bitter defeat forced the young monarch to begin reforms. The main one was the abolition of serfdom in 1861. This was followed by zemstvo, judicial, administrative and other reforms.
However, radicals and terrorists were still unhappy. Many of them demanded a constitutional monarchy or the abolition of royal power altogether. The Narodnaya Volya carried out a dozen attempts on the life of Alexander II. In 1881 he was killed. Under his son, Alexander III, a reactionary campaign was launched. Terrorists and political activists were subjected to severe repression. This calmed the situation for a short time. But the first revolutions in Russia were just around the corner anyway.
Mistakes of Nicholas II
Alexander III died in 1894 at his Crimean residence, where he was recovering his failing health. The monarch was relatively young (he was only 49 years old), and his death came as a complete surprise to the country. Russia froze in anticipation. The eldest son of Alexander III, Nicholas II, was on the throne. His reign (when there was a revolution in Russia) was marred from the very beginning by unpleasant events.
Firstly, at one of his first public appearances, the tsar declared that the progressive public’s desire for change was “meaningless dreams.” For this phrase, Nikolai was criticized by all his opponents - from liberals to socialists. The monarch even got it from the great writer Leo Tolstoy. The count ridiculed the emperor's absurd statement in his article, written under the impression of what he heard.
Secondly, during the coronation ceremony of Nicholas II in Moscow, an accident occurred. The city authorities organized a festive event for peasants and the poor. They were promised free “gifts” from the king. So thousands of people ended up on the Khodynka field. At some point, a stampede began, due to which hundreds of passers-by died. Later, when there was a revolution in Russia, many called these events symbolic hints of a future great disaster.
Russian revolutions also had objective reasons. What were they? In 1904, Nicholas II became involved in the war against Japan. The conflict erupted due to the influence of the two rival powers on Far East. Inept preparation, stretched communications, and a cavalier attitude towards the enemy - all this became the reason for the defeat of the Russian army in that war. In 1905, a peace treaty was signed. Russia gave Japan the southern part of Sakhalin Island, as well as lease rights to the strategically important South Manchurian Railway.
At the beginning of the war, there was a surge of patriotism and hostility towards new national enemies in the country. Now, after the defeat, the revolution of 1905-1907 broke out with unprecedented force. in Russia. People wanted fundamental changes in the life of the state. Discontent was especially felt among workers and peasants, whose standard of living was extremely low.
Bloody Sunday
The main reason for the outbreak of civil confrontation was the tragic events in St. Petersburg. On January 22, 1905, a delegation of workers went to the Winter Palace with a petition to the Tsar. The proletarians asked the monarch to improve their working conditions, increase salaries, etc. Political demands were also made, the main one of which was the convening of a Constituent Assembly - a people's representative body on the Western parliamentary model.
The police dispersed the procession. Firearms were used. According to various estimates, from 140 to 200 people died. The tragedy became known as Bloody Sunday. When the event became known throughout the country, mass strikes began in Russia. The discontent of the workers was fueled by professional revolutionaries and agitators of left-wing convictions, who had previously carried out only underground work. The liberal opposition also became more active.
First Russian Revolution
Strikes and walkouts varied in intensity depending on the region of the empire. Revolution 1905-1907 in Russia it raged especially strongly on the national outskirts of the state. For example, Polish socialists managed to convince about 400 thousand workers in the Kingdom of Poland not to go to work. Similar unrest took place in the Baltic states and Georgia.
Radical political parties (Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries) decided that this was their last chance to seize power in the country with the help of an uprising of the popular masses. The agitators manipulated not only peasants and workers, but also ordinary soldiers. Thus began armed uprisings in the army. The most famous episode in this series is the mutiny on the battleship Potemkin.
In October 1905, the united St. Petersburg Council of Workers' Deputies began its work, which coordinated the actions of strikers throughout the capital of the empire. The events of the revolution took on their most violent character in December. This led to battles in Presnya and other areas of the city.
Manifesto October 17
In the fall of 1905, Nicholas II realized that he had lost control of the situation. He could, with the help of the army, suppress numerous uprisings, but this would not help get rid of the deep contradictions between the government and society. The monarch began to discuss with those close to him measures to reach a compromise with the dissatisfied.
The result of his decision was the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. The development of the document was entrusted to the famous official and diplomat Sergei Witte. Before that, he went to sign peace with the Japanese. Now Witte needed to help her king as soon as possible. The situation was complicated by the fact that in October two million people were already on strike. Strikes covered almost all industrial sectors. Railway transport was paralyzed.
The October 17 Manifesto made several fundamental changes to the political system Russian Empire. Nicholas II previously held sole power. Now he has transferred part of his legislative powers to a new body - State Duma. It was to be elected by popular vote and become a real representative body of government.
Such social principles as freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of assembly, and personal integrity were also established. These changes became an important part of the basic state laws of the Russian Empire. This is how the first national constitution actually appeared.
Between revolutions
The publication of the Manifesto in 1905 (when there was a revolution in Russia) helped the authorities take control of the situation. Most of the rebels calmed down. A temporary compromise was reached. The echo of the revolution could still be heard in 1906, but now it was easier for the state repressive apparatus to cope with its most irreconcilable opponents, who refused to lay down their arms.
The so-called inter-revolutionary period began, when in 1906-1917. Russia was constitutional monarchy. Now Nicholas had to take into account the opinion of the State Duma, which might not accept his laws. The last Russian monarch was a conservative by nature. He did not believe in liberal ideas and believed that his sole power was given to him by God. Nikolai made concessions only because he no longer had a choice.
The first two convocations of the State Duma never fulfilled the period assigned to them by law. A natural period of reaction began, when the monarchy took revenge. At this time, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin became the main associate of Nicholas II. His government could not reach an agreement with the Duma on some key political issues. Because of this conflict, on June 3, 1907, Nicholas II dissolved the representative assembly and made changes to the electoral system. The III and IV convocations were already less radical in their composition than the first two. A dialogue began between the Duma and the government.
First World War
The main reasons for the revolution in Russia were the sole power of the monarch, which prevented the country from developing. When the principle of autocracy became a thing of the past, the situation stabilized. Economic growth began. Agrarian helped peasants create their own small private farms. A new social class has emerged. The country developed and grew rich before our eyes.
So why did subsequent revolutions take place in Russia? In short, Nicholas made a mistake by getting involved in the First World War in 1914. Several million men were mobilized. As with the Japanese campaign, the country initially experienced a patriotic upsurge. As the bloodshed dragged on and reports of defeats began to arrive from the front, society became worried again. No one could say for sure how long the war would drag on. The revolution in Russia was approaching again.
February Revolution
In historiography there is the term “Great Russian Revolution”. Usually, this generalized name refers to the events of 1917, when two coups d’etat took place in the country at once. First world war hit the country's economy hard. The impoverishment of the population continued. In the winter of 1917, mass demonstrations of workers and citizens dissatisfied with high bread prices began in Petrograd (renamed due to anti-German sentiments).
This is how the February Revolution took place in Russia. Events developed rapidly. Nicholas II at this time was at Headquarters in Mogilev, not far from the front. The Tsar, having learned about the unrest in the capital, took the train to return to Tsarskoye Selo. However, he was late. In Petrograd, a dissatisfied army went over to the side of the rebels. The city came under rebel control. On March 2, delegates went to the king and persuaded him to sign his abdication of the throne. Thus, the February Revolution in Russia left the monarchical system in the past.
Troubled 1917
After the revolution had begun, a Provisional Government was formed in Petrograd. It included politicians previously known from the State Duma. These were mostly liberals or moderate socialists. Alexander Kerensky became the head of the Provisional Government.
Anarchy in the country allowed other radical political forces like the Bolsheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries to become more active. A struggle for power began. Formally, it was supposed to exist until the convening of the Constituent Assembly, when the country could decide how to live further by popular vote. However, the First World War was still going on, and the ministers did not want to refuse assistance to their Entente allies. This led to a sharp drop in the popularity of the Provisional Government in the army, as well as among workers and peasants.
In August 1917, General Lavr Kornilov tried to organize a coup d'etat. He also opposed the Bolsheviks, considering them a radical leftist threat to Russia. The army was already heading towards Petrograd. At this point, the Provisional Government and Lenin's supporters briefly united. Bolshevik agitators destroyed Kornilov's army from within. The mutiny failed. The provisional government survived, but not for long.
Bolshevik coup
Of all domestic revolutions, the Great October Socialist Revolution is the most famous. This is due to the fact that its date - November 7 (new style) - was a public holiday on the territory of the former Russian Empire for more than 70 years.
The next coup was led by Vladimir Lenin and the leaders of the Bolshevik Party enlisted the support of the Petrograd garrison. On October 25, according to the old style, armed groups that supported the communists captured key communication points in Petrograd - the telegraph, post office, and railway. The provisional government found itself isolated in the Winter Palace. After a short assault on the former royal residence, the ministers were arrested. The signal for the start of the decisive operation was a blank shot fired on the cruiser Aurora. Kerensky was out of town and later managed to emigrate from Russia.
On the morning of October 26, the Bolsheviks were already masters of Petrograd. Soon the first decrees of the new government appeared - the Decree on Peace and the Decree on Land. The Provisional Government was unpopular precisely because of its desire to continue the war with Kaiser Germany, while Russian army I was tired of fighting and demoralized.
The simple and understandable slogans of the Bolsheviks were popular among the people. The peasants finally waited for the destruction of the nobility and the deprivation of their land property. The soldiers learned that the imperialist war was over. True, in Russia itself it was far from peace. Started Civil war. The Bolsheviks had to fight for another 4 years against their opponents (whites) throughout the country to establish control over the territory of the former Russian Empire. In 1922, the USSR was formed. The Great October Socialist Revolution was an event that ushered in a new era in the history of not only Russia, but the whole world.
For the first time in the then history state power turned out to be radical communists. October 1917 surprised and frightened Western bourgeois society. The Bolsheviks hoped that Russia would become a springboard for the start of the world revolution and the destruction of capitalism. This didn't happen.
Russian political scientists, sociologists and economists vying with each other to say that a revolution in Russia in 2018 is possible. In particular, experts insist on its implementation if the government does not reduce the degree of indignation that has grown in the public in recent years.
The majority of residents of the state are dissatisfied with the actions of officials; people are eager for a change of power and hope that only this method will allow the return of former prosperity to every family. This article will tell you about the future of Russia, as well as the revolutionary spirit of its citizens.
A few years ago, in 2014, society was stirred up by a message about an impending crisis that was ready to overwhelm all of Russia, mercilessly erasing traces of prosperity and joy from people’s lives. In those days, economists, heads of banks, and the Russian government itself argued at every step that this was a false statement, the crisis would not harm the country, because it could easily be prevented.
Officials flatly refused to accept the fact that difficult times had come to the country, and it was time to “put things in order.” But you can’t fool people: they began to save on many common things and even on food. It would seem that the situation that happened in 2008 is repeating itself, and it has knocked many out of their established rut in life.
In 2014, various sad and gloomy events took place, most Russians were forced to leave the country in a hurry and go abroad in search of better conditions. At the end of 2014-2015, the Russian government finally recognized the “invasion of the crisis” and began to develop large-scale anti-crisis measures, but all of them were practically invalid, because time had already been lost. It was at that moment that people began to talk about a possible revolution that would occur in 2018.
When will the revolution start?
No one undertakes to predict the exact date of the start of revolutionary actions. This is such an uncharted territory, completely dependent on the wishes of the citizens of the Russian Federation, that even clairvoyants and astrologers refuse to make accurate forecasts.
Some political scientists and sociologists, based on surveys and other statistical data, say that the revolution may unfold in 2017, because this is the year when the main excitement of citizens falls.
Others argue that mass rallies, protests and demonstrations will be associated with the future presidential elections. Perhaps people will not be satisfied with the outcome of the race for the presidency, so they will decide to take such radical actions.
Scenarios of revolution in Russia
To understand what to prepare for, we suggest considering several scenarios according to which the revolution in the country might develop. All these hypotheses were developed by experienced specialists, so the chances of their implementation are quite high.
Riot
As we see, mass indignation is already going beyond simple conversations. Residents of Russia do not sit peacefully on benches at the entrance - they go out to the squares of their cities with posters and loud slogans.
In institutes and other educational institutions, surveys of students are conducted in order to determine their position in life, because modern youth, in most cases, participate in rallies, and not always peaceful ones.
Sociologist Natalya Tikhonova believes that mass demonstrations and protests are “just the beginning”; active offensives could begin as early as the end of 2017 and will last for several months, affecting .
In addition, law enforcement exercises are held in various regions, where riot police and SOBR soldiers are “trained” to suppress riots. This means that officials are already preparing for a revolution, although they do not fully believe in it.
Crisis
Leading European economists have raised doubts about the revolution in Russia in 2017-2018. They are confident that protests in the country are possible with a 50% probability and will not be radical in nature. In addition, the 2017-2018 Bloomberg ranking of top threats also makes no mention of revolution.
But this rating speaks of a severe economic crisis that will deal a serious blow to Russia. Experts predict a repeat of the Asian crisis of 1997, caused by the actions of Donald Trump who started an economic war with China.
Russian economists also agree with such statements. They expect a new round of the global economic crisis, because the world economy is subject to cyclical fluctuations and another “leap” in the negative direction can be expected in 2018-2019.
Revolution in our heads
The political situation in the country can change dramatically not due to revolution, but because of a new ideology in the minds of modern citizens. Well-known political scientist Valery Solovey does not support the theory of bloody revolutionary protests.
He is confident that people will stop hating the government and will simply consider it illegitimate. Because of this, it will lose its influence and significance for every Russian.
What do predictors think about the revolution?
Modern people often trust the predictions of clairvoyants who lived many centuries before the events taking place in our country. Such soothsayers were Vanga, Nostradamus, Wolf Messing and others. If we look at their records regarding 2018, then everyone has a different opinion regarding the immediate future of the country.
Nostradamus claims that Russia should not expect anything good and bright during this period, because the time of cataclysms, wars and mass protests is coming. Vanga said that in the period from 2010 to 2020 Russian Federation will try to regain its former greatness and rise significantly in the ranking of successful countries in the world.
Wolf Messing generally pleases with his predictions - at the beginning of the 21st century, Russia will become a superpower and other countries will look up to it.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. During the day we will hear about minor riots, and within three to four hours the center of the Russian capital will be filled with thousands of columns of demonstrators. The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities.
Famous Russian political strategist, doctor historical sciences, MGIMO professor Valery Solovey believes that a revolution will occur in Russia and in his article described the scenario for the development of events.
At the same time, Valery Solovey prefaces his article with the following words: “I repeat once again, especially for lovers of political denunciations. Everything written in this post is nothing more than a summary of what I have been putting out in my articles and books over the past few years. Moreover, some of these publications were awarded awards and prizes.”
Here is the text of this publication by Valery Solovy in full:
“All revolutions are the same, like the happy families of Leo Tolstoy. All of them go through three stages in their development: moral delegitimation of the current government, mass political protest, and the overthrow of the old regime. Sometimes these stages practically coincide in time, sometimes they are separated from each other by some interval. For Russia, most likely, the second is true.
Moral delegitimation is also a revolution, but a psychological one. It always precedes a political revolution. Before overthrowing the government, people must despise and hate it en masse. This is exactly what is happening in Russia now. In the parliamentary elections, the “party of swindlers and thieves” suffered a moral and political defeat.
Despite the enormous machine of administrative pressure and falsification, it lost more than 10% compared to the results of the last elections and did not achieve its goal of a constitutional majority. And this is according to official data. According to unofficial, but quite reliable, the “party of swindlers and thieves” lost in all major Russian cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Only the North Caucasus and some other national republics remain its reliable support. (Now, I hope, it’s clear why the North Caucasus is heavily subsidized to the detriment of the Russian regions?)
This is not the end or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. The power structure, lovingly nurtured and nurtured over the past 11 years, began to falter and crumble. In a number of regions, the bureaucratic corps cautiously but consistently played against United Russia.
At the same time, people are not yet ready to take to the streets en masse and defend their right to free choice. A unanimous vote against the “party of swindlers and thieves” does not automatically result in a collective street protest.
Moreover, after the parliamentary elections there will be a decline in public activity for some time, which the authorities will be relieved to consider as stabilization. But in reality this will turn out to be nothing more than a temporary pause before a new stage of the revolution. HOW the presidential elections will be held will give a new powerful impetus to the moral delegitimation of power. But the actions of the authorities after the elections will be even more important.
Contrary to popular belief, revolutions are not necessarily preceded by a deep socio-economic crisis and mass impoverishment. Many revolutions took place against a background of relative social prosperity. Incomparably more important for a political revolution is the so-called “revolution of expectations,” that is, a situation when people lived well and hoped to live even better, but their hopes were dashed overnight. Our fellow citizens will fully experience this “revolution of expectations” next year, when it turns out that the authorities are not going to fulfill their election promises, there is no money in the treasury and they need to tighten their belts. It is easy to imagine the reaction of the military and police, who will only be able to receive the promised increased salary for a few months.
It is next year that the so-called new “social” (but in fact completely antisocial) laws on education and medicine will come into force, depriving the population of the opportunity to receive high-quality medical care and education for free. In 2012, fiscal pressure on business and the population will sharply increase. Meanwhile, all studies say: increasing fiscal pressure from a morally illegitimate government is a direct road to revolution.
Everything will start suddenly. Revolutions always begin unexpectedly even for the revolutionaries themselves; the day and hour of none of them was predicted. Far from being an ordinary mind of his era, Ulyanov-Lenin wrote with bitterness in January 1917 that his generation would not live to see the revolution in Russia, maybe their children would see it.
An insignificant reason will give impetus to grandiose dynamics. This reason could be anything: a street picket, a small rally, a spontaneous road closure, the funeral of another victim of ethnic crime, a car with a flashing light hitting a woman with a child (If the straw is dry, sooner or later it will catch fire). And suddenly - and this is always “suddenly” - a small group of people will begin to turn into a crowd of thousands that will move into the city center, sweeping away flimsy police cordons along the way.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. During the day we will hear about minor riots, and within three to four hours the center of the Russian capital will be filled with thousands of columns of demonstrators, joined by riot police. This is how the birth of a nation occurs.
But what about the authorities, will they really not resist? He will try, of course. It is unlikely, however, that people who are afraid of whistling at a concert will have the courage to give the order to open fire on civilians. Unless they really want to repeat the fate of Ceausescu and Gaddafi.
And it is absolutely incredible that SUCH orders would be carried out. Those who give them away can hope to escape to their billions, accumulated by back-breaking labor in the field of serving the Motherland, but where should the executors of criminal orders run? And crimes against humanity, as we know, have no statute of limitations and do not deserve leniency.
The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities. Foreseeing her own future, she does and will do everything to delay her own end. However, the notorious Russian “tightening the screws” will only lead to the breaking of the rusty thread and the final destruction of the power structure. Violence emanating from a morally illegitimate regime does not cause fear and submission, but an explosion of indignation and an irresistible desire of the masses to overthrow it - such is the axiom of revolutions.
This, by the way, is the answer to those who associate revolution with mass violence and bloodshed. Is there an idea for which those in power are willing to die? Or will there be fanatics willing to die for their offshore accounts?
Those obsessed with profit inevitably lose to people driven by the desire for freedom and justice. All revolutions in European countries over the past 20 years have been peaceful and bloodless, and Russia will not be an exception. Even in Romania, the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime was accompanied by only local and short-term violence.
Peaceful revolutions happen very quickly. The question of power in Russia will be resolved as quickly as in 1917 and 1991 - in three or four days...”
Tags: Russia, Politics, revolution
Recently, a friend of mine said that a revolution will soon take place in the country; indeed, today there are many people who expect global upheavals in the very near future. I thought about this and decided to find out whether we should expect serious changes in the coming years.
First of all, we need to understand the source of such sentiments; by the way, the further people are from Moscow, the more radical their sentiments are.
Today, conditionally, citizens of the Russian Federation can be divided into three categories:
- Satisfied with the existing system– These are mainly officials, deputies, top managers and other well-paid employees. And also various kinds of thieves, scammers, speculators. We can say now is the golden age for dishonest people.
- Dissatisfied with the current government– the bulk of the dissatisfied: workers and ordinary employees. In fact, after perestroika they received nothing and lost a lot. For example, most had to say goodbye to quality food, education and medicine. Some people say it’s a plus that now the majority have cars, computers and other amenities of civilization, but this is not an indicator of well-being. Moreover, Russians buy most cars, apartments and electronic devices on credit, and then work for banks for years, sometimes never being able to pay off their debts.
- Neutral– Among the “neutral” people, the majority are also largely dissatisfied with the current situation, but fear that with the change of power it will become even worse. These are mostly pensioners, no matter what they say, many of them today live better than working citizens, mothers of many children and other recipients of social payments and benefits.
Naturally, citizens of the first category do not want to hear about any revolutions, they are happy with everything, but this golden age will last a thousand years!
The second category is most prone to radical changes; people most deprived of power are represented there. Constant cuts, lack of government support, extortionate extortion of small businesses and, of course, insane amounts of fines taken from the ceiling.
There is a lot to think about here, and if we remember the destroyed education that is literally crippling children (how many lives the Unified State Exam alone has claimed), the dying ecology, and the increase in the retirement age, then the desire for decisive changes becomes especially understandable.
What will our children and grandchildren get tomorrow, what country will we hand over to them? Won't we be ashamed before our descendants?
And so people go to rallies, which, according to the new rules, still need to be approved.
But neither coordination, nor even peaceful and quite moderate slogans save the demonstrators; they are caught, a protocol is drawn up, and criminal cases are even brought against some of them.
It seems like the revolution is already close, but I'm not sure.
More precisely, I am convinced that revolution in Russia is still far away.
How did I determine this, you ask? Yes, very simple.
The latest events at the “He is not our king” rally, where the opposition expressed its dissatisfaction with the authorities, showed that people are too divided for joint actions.
Well, judge for yourself, they grab random people from the crowd of protesters, completely different ones, throw them to the ground, beat them with batons, and kick them. They are handcuffed and pushed into paddy wagons, while the demonstrators calmly watch all this, some film it on their phones.
People are calm and not at all aggressive; the most aggressive are the police, who are itching to use their batons.
This is the most sure sign lack of rebellious spirit, the police feel this and allow themselves to do a lot of unnecessary things, including beating and insulting the citizens they are supposed to protect.
If there was a premonition of revolution in the air, people would stand up for each other and would not allow anyone to simply be beaten with batons.
Well, for now we can sleep peacefully or not peacefully, depending on which side you look at, there will be no revolution in Russia.
The word “revolution” began to be used more and more often in conversations, publications and at rallies. They began to think about revolution. This is the worst possible symptom for the authorities.
The left tries to justify its actions with the thesis that revolutions could not have happened if governments had met the legitimate demands of citizens in a timely manner.
But how to determine these legitimate “people's needs” that were not satisfied in time by governments? Is the demand for bread legal? Undoubtedly. Was the demand for an uninterrupted supply of bread legal during the war, and even coupled with political demands in February 1917? I think that after the siege of Leningrad (1941-1944), such a combination of bread and politics will raise doubts among some, and a call for others to apply the methods of a military tribunal to alarmists and politicians.
Did the “people's needs” come true already in February or only in October? Or in 1991? Or in February and October 1917, only the ambitions of those revolutionary groups that did and did these revolutionary acts in the name of seizing power were satisfied?
Each advanced revolutionary part of our intelligentsia sees “people's needs” in its own way. And often “the people’s needs” are really focused on personal ambitions, in the style of “if it is useful for me, then it is useful for the people” or “if it is useful for our party, then this is the realization of the people’s happiness.”
Of course, all revolutionaries tend to blame the government itself for the birth of the revolution. The authorities always turn out to be to blame for not making a compromise with the revolutionaries, and therefore, they say, all the revolutions known in history took place. That is, they always want to explain the revolution not by the actions of the revolutionaries, but by the inaction or incorrect action of the authorities.
This is both very strange and very natural.
Naturally, because criminals tend to blame the victim for the fact that she herself is to blame. Rapists are provoked by beautiful women in attractive clothes that highlight their feminine assets. Robbery - volumes of accumulated material assets. Swindlers - simplicity of morals and inexperience of citizens, etc.
But in themselves, they, criminals, are innocent. Purely out of social inevitability and under the weight of the circumstances hanging over him, as well as the actions or inactions of the victim himself, they were forced to kill, rob or rape.
But in the world of politics, as in any other field, nothing moves on its own unless you make any effort. And if there were no revolutionaries, then there would be no revolutions. This is exactly why if there were no buildings, there would be neither builders nor customers. Where a person puts his efforts, the results of these efforts appear.
This is a question of human freedom. Some build empires, others strive to destroy them. Some are creators, others are destroyers. Some will receive a reward as righteous creators, others will receive what they deserve as their opponents.
Delegitimization of power and removal of taboos from the revolution
Any revolution, any revolutionaries do their main destructive work until the very act of uprising or coup. The main task of any revolution before the revolution itself is to delegitimize power. To achieve a revolution in the minds of the citizens themselves. Convince some significant part of the population that it is necessary to stop obeying the government, to stop considering it adequate, national and legally justified.
Modern revolutionaries often want to prove to us that revolution in modern Russian society may not be scary or bloody. They say that Russian society has a huge negative experience of the 20th century, and it will not follow the path of bloody coups.
Firstly, who can guarantee that the repetition will be softer than the Bolshevik one? And an equally important addition to this point is this: how much softer can it be? Will they kill not in millions or tens of millions, but in tens and hundreds of thousands?
Is the declared decline in bloody appetites a reason to agree to a revolution? What if the appetite for bloodshed increases during the process of revolutionary rule?
The thesis that revolutions can be bloodless is in no way confirmed by the revolutions in France in 1789, in Russia in 1917 or in China in 1949. Most likely, when they talk about bloodlessness, they mean “revolutions with a small letter”, coups. Revolutionary coups that change the regime of one or another personal power within the same power paradigm, for example, democracy.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Where a revolution seeks to destroy the world “to the ground,” with a change in religious, political, and economic worldviews, there, in fact, there is a real revolution. If a revolution only replaces a regime, is it a revolution? Isn't it better to call it a simple change of power?
Secondly, they say that revolution takes more radical forms when there are many young people in a society. And, they say, there are few young people in Russian society, which means that the revolution itself should supposedly be softer.
And who said that the leading revolutionary groups will be Russian youth, and not, say, Islamist ones from legal or illegal migration that came to us?
There were and remain left-wing writers who propose that instead of the proletariat, Islamist youth should be taken into the role of the advanced class. To narrow-minded leftists, it may seem that they, like the proletariat, have nothing to lose except their chains. This youth is in no way connected with the historical tradition of the Russian state, its civilizational and religious centers are located outside of Russia, its identification is connected with the Islamist globalist project. Why not replace the played-out card of the working class?
We need to stop being afraid of Russian identity
The Russian Federation must recognize itself as Russia, and not a faceless post-Soviet republic, stuck between two equally insane humanistic projects. “Let’s become like everyone else” and try to pull on the latex from the territorial dimensions of Switzerland or the US political organization, on the one hand. And the project “Give Yesterday!” with the only desire to repeat Soviet Union 2.0, either in the inhuman Stalinist guise, or in the stagnant-human Brezhnev version.
The Russian Federation is moving in its development at too low a speed, not fully utilizing all the people's potential.
If the modern government does not turn on the Russian national “reactor” in a calm, moderate, but traditional ideological frame, it will not be able to resist. Or, more precisely, it will be very difficult for it to survive after this power is “inherited” from Putin to someone else.
The pro-Putin construction of power and its ideology are not sufficiently spelled out and are not propagated either through the media or, more importantly, through school. Where are the heirs? Where is the worldview-monolithically united political class, which received non-Soviet and illiberal training at universities and which will prolong the taken political course? Where are the people who went through the new comprehensive school, where they were given solid political and historical knowledge about their Great Fatherland? Where, finally, are these new schools and new universities that educate the nation, understand the past and mobilize young forces for the future?
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
All higher education either remained Soviet or became liberal and is unable to prepare educated and conscientious citizens of their Motherland.
We pay a lot of attention to military and geopolitical issues, which is correct and seems to be working. We are no less trying to resolve economic and financial issues, which is probably not being done entirely correctly, and clearly many things are not working out. But a citizen of our country is, first of all, a reasonable person. Is our post-Soviet education developing it enough, and is the media and the state itself feeding it good ideological food?
Yes, there are systemic parties, just as there are systemic banks, but there is no ideological unity permeating society, just as there is no national economic school. This is why our internal agenda is so pale and unstable, and this is why our economy is constantly in decline and globally does not know how and where to develop.
A large number of our citizens do not know their country either in ideological and psychological terms, or in economic terms.
People, citizens of the country, are not a faceless electorate, they have their own history, their own behavioral stereotypes, their own psychological attitudes, demands for power, etc. And power should be national, not because some “Great Russian chauvinists” want to establish their own regime suppression of other nationalities, but only because it can be its own, recognized, deeply legitimized, native power only if it corresponds to the ideas of the majority of people, formed by their lives.
Is the atmosphere of pressure thickening?
Pension reform: What awaits Russia after Putin’s words
Many revolutionary agitators have now radicalized their propaganda rhetoric about the thickening atmosphere of some kind of psychological pressure in society, increasing fear spread by the authorities, even violence. Where can I look at this pressure? Perhaps this is felt by our elite, whose activities fit into the rectangle: offshore companies, the Criminal Code, London, amnesty? Or is it that some particularly hotheads are not given the freedom to organize revolutionary cataclysms?
It seems to me that, in addition to the difficult passage of the pension reform and other unpopular reforms, the main carriers of the atmosphere of “psychological pressure” and “fear” are the instigators of revolutionary passions themselves.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
After the presidential elections, they realized that at least until 2024 they had no chance of legally getting into the power sinecure they coveted. And you will have to continue to live your “best years” either on Western grants or in party parties.
The most dissatisfied are those who imagine themselves to be revolutionary Dantons and Robespierres, new Kerenskys, Lenins and Stalins. Those who are dissatisfied are those who have a painfully “combed” thirst for power and lack a critical attitude towards their political abilities.
Revolution, in essence, is embodied dissatisfaction with the world around us, often multiplied by its own proud inferiority. Pride, narcissism, thinking highly of oneself, self-exaltation and dissatisfaction with one’s position in the world are things that are difficult for the state to grasp.
Where does the revolution begin and end? Where's the imitation?
They say that modern revolutions are not so terrible, they are less bloody, they do not encroach on the deep restructuring of society. They are supposedly aimed only at replacing one group in power with another. Groups of the overthrown ruler and his entourage into another group, revolutionaries, carrying out a coup.
The essence of the thesis is that there is no need to be afraid of modern revolutions, they are only of a violent nature when there is a change of power. A government that does not want to make legitimate compromises or “popular demands.”
But then the question arises: “Where does the revolution begin, and where does the revolution end?” How will the revolution end? Who said, who guaranteed that the revolution, having swept away the people in power, would no longer be “deepened” by radicals who were permanently dissatisfied with the world around them?
Opening a revolutionary box with the desire to remove the “tyrant” and his “camarilla,” can one expect that everything will end with the transfer of power from “ bad people"to "good revolutionaries"?
For example, who was good and who was bad in the situation in 1991? Yeltsin or Gorbachev?
B. Yeltsin. Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Wasn't there a relationship between a communist, a supporter of socialism and human face Gorbachev and the communist, disillusioned with socialism, liberal Yeltsin, is akin to the relationship between the socialist labor worker Kerensky and the social democrat, Marxist Lenin? And Yeltsin was a revolutionary, and Gorbachev represented the revolutionary communist party. And Kerensky was a revolutionary, and Lenin breathed revolution.
In the revolution there are no “good” people at all. All its figures should be covered in thick black paint in our history. They all sought personal power and no one cared about the country.
Have any of our revolutions achieved the desired and declared goal - universal justice? Apparently not.
What then remains of revolutionary aspirations, except “broken dishes”, shed blood and yet another dissatisfaction with social reality?
Should law-abiding citizens become revolutionaries?
So should “law-abiding citizens” be radicalized along with revolutionaries if the government does not agree to certain reforms demanded by the opposition? And can a “law-abiding citizen”, a conservative, in a certain situation become a revolutionary or a sympathizer of revolutionaries?
Under the guise of a sort of “democratizing” revolution, supposedly aimed only at the emergence of a more “sane”, “democratic” government, they want to sell us a banal coup and change of the management team.
What is the danger of such revolutions for the authorities? Yes, the fact is that modern government is ideologically practically not protected from them. The government swears by democracy, and the opposition swears by the same democracy. The only difference is that some are in power and others are outside it. Moreover, the latter, not in power, may well be used by other countries that simply do not like the specific direction of specific people who are now in power. The usual geopolitical rivalry.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
“There are few truly violent ones”
Today the revolution lacks real violent, untied, strong-willed bastards not burdened with morality, who are capable of leading the heated masses to practical revolutionary violent actions.
“A cause is strong when blood flows underneath it” is the slogan of real revolutionaries who do not succumb to the shedding of blood. True revolutionaries never stop fighting the regime. The revolution is themselves, it is their life.
Until the revolution leaves our schools, our culture and our heads, it will inevitably appear on our streets. This requires intellectual struggle and rejection of revolution as a way to solve social problems in society. Revolution doesn't have to be attractive.
It is necessary to drive the idea of revolution into marginal left-wing circles and cultivate a persistent rejection, both intellectual and religious-moral, of its methods and goals. Any political revolution must repel all decent citizens with its historical appearance.
Joining the ranks of revolutionaries should not occur to anyone except national traitors.
An armed revolutionary should receive a significant prison sentence, an intellectual who writes or propagates the revolution should remain without a pulpit for his speeches and, preferably, without the opportunity to quietly exist on external or internal funds for his propaganda and preparation of the revolution.
If the authorities do not take care of this, then they will constantly clash with Bolotnaya Square until it defeats the authorities.
But this is not our life and we should not participate in our death.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
Everyone who is not against revolution is already revolutionaries
There are revolutionaries in the leftist, liberal-democratic, and even national-democratic camps. Everyone who is not against revolution is already revolutionaries. One must be a conscious opponent of the revolution; only such a position can be called civil, Orthodox and Russian.
You have to be either a clinical idiot or a malicious destroyer and Russophobe, so that in the second millennium of Russian statehood, after 1917 and its consequences for the nation, you demand to start all over again, on someone else’s knees from a new leaf, trying to burn to the ground the great multi-page (centuries-old) book of Russian life .
Revolutionary ideologists always urge people not to think twice and to boldly and recklessly step into the revolution; this is the only way they can tempt stupid human “brushwood” to participate in kindling the fire of revolution that is fatal to them.
Revolution is death, first of all for the participants of the revolution themselves. You don’t see the meaning in life, everything seems bad - it’s better to go and shoot yourself, but don’t join the revolution. This is one hundred percent going to hell, since the cause of revolution is a satanic matter.
By inviting people into the revolution, its ideologists seduce people: become like gods, make yourselves creators of history, but in reality people are invited only to carry revolutionary chestnuts out of the fire and become that herd of pigs that the demons that have inhabited them will cast into the bloody sea of revolution without any salvation.
Photo: www.globallookpress.com
A revolutionary is always a Russophobe, always an atheist and always a narcissistic idiot.
Let's not be like them!