Who’s afraid of the Revolution?

MK Bhadrakumar
Former ambassador

Advertisement

The centennial of the Great October Socialist Revolution was observed on November 7. Marxists and non-Marxists alike will agree that the finest legacy of the October Revolution is that socialism came on the agenda of contemporary world politics and history. Socialism evolved for centuries from hypothesis to science, and from scientific theory to established systems. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels transformed socialism from hypothesis to science. The October Revolution turned socialism from theory to practice.

Vladimir Lenin integrated the basic principles of Marxism with the specific situation facing the Russian Revolution to create Leninism. The Soviet modernisation encompassed all fields of national and daily life, which pitchforked Russia from a small peasant economy to a powerful industrial country. Under the influence of the October Revolution, socialism became an important choice for many countries to gain national independence, liberation and development. It altered the composition of the international order. The economic legacy of October Revolution is littered with conflicting opinions. Yet, Russia's victorious performance in the Second World War confirmed its 'superpower' status. This legacy was not without its pitfalls and excesses. Joseph Stalin's collectivisation and industrialisation took a horrific toll on human lives. However, the bottom line is that with so many questions in need of answers still, one thing is for sure: the Russian Revolution of October 1917 shook Russia to its core, and determined the path of its 20th century history.

 Russian President Vladimir Putin recently remarked that the positive and negative features of the October Revolution are intertwined. Putin has made it clear that his main issue is with the violent seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. Putin has fetishised the sanctity of statehood. In his words, 'When we look at the lessons from a century ago, we see how ambiguous the results were, and how there were both negative and positive consequences of those events. We have to ask the question: was it really not possible to develop not through revolution but through evolution, without destroying statehood and mercilessly ruining the fate of millions, but through gradual, step-by-step progress?'

 This, ultimately, is the Kremlin's key message: State collapse and violent protests are always to be condemned. Recently, a Russian pundit, Prof Oleg Ivanov at the foreign ministry's Diplomatic Academy in Moscow, wrote a piece under a provocative title, A Hundred Years On, Two Russian Revolutions Offer Many Lessons in History. Ivanov wrote: 'This year marks the 100th anniversary of two Russian Revolutions of February and October 1917… Historians are not one on which revolution was more important for Russia.' Ivanov drew certain conclusions. One, Russian politics should avoid any revolutionary shake-up. Politics, economy and society should develop without any radical revolutionary steps. Two, the use of violence is unacceptable for countering hurdles and political opposition. Three, Russian federalism is based on a complex composition and a split on the lines of class or nationality should be avoided. Four, preservation of the unity of the nation is an overarching priority; internal disagreements should be resolved through compromise.

Just a clutch of days before the centennial, Putin did a strange thing - unveiling of a Wall of Sorrow in Moscow as a monument to the Soviet history. He said in a televised ceremony, 'We and our successors must remember the tragedy of repressions and their causes. But it does not mean one must call for revenge. Nobody can push society to the dangerous line of confrontation.' Yet, this was the same Kremlin leader who 12 years ago deplored the collapse of the Soviet Union as 'the greatest geopolitical catastrophe' of the 20th century. Herein lies the great paradox: the Russian state is cherry-picking its continuities. The rulers fear dissent, especially revolution. The state is keeping the Russian Orthodox Church on its side and the latter, of course, takes a dim view of the murder of Tsar Nicholas II (who has been canonised as a saint). The Russian institutions are so obviously inherited from the Soviet era. Yet, the leadership prefers to claim the pedigree from imperial Russia.

 In an individual's life, this would be like fudging the birth certificate. One can change the date, but what about the DNA? Through an admixture of obfuscation and oblivion, Russian identity is being recast. But it is not so simple. The former PM, the late Viktor Chernomyrdin, once said whatever political party was formed in post-Soviet era would inevitably end up resembling the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and whatever state emerged would always be a 'Tsarist empire' in its despotic dimension. Indeed, the Soviet man turned out to be an immutable construction. He didn't disappear although the USSR did. The Moscow Times carried a report on November 7 that the number of protests across Russia has sharply increased since the beginning of the centennial year, and the political slogans are rooted in long-standing, unresolved economic and social conflicts. Some Russians, including young ones, hope that the ideology of socialism could rise to the challenge of solving many problems of the poor and working class.

 Meanwhile, socialism moved on and assumed local characteristics. The most consequential and long-lasting legacy of the revolution in Russia has to be that in 2017 China is still governed by the Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party  (CCP) published in September an expanded edition of the Collected Works of Lenin to mark the centennial of the Russian Revolution. In a fascinating speech on the occasion, politburo member Liu Qibao said, 'A century ago, China was poor and weak, and it was bullied by big powers. Since then, our country has gone through many setbacks and hardships before rising up and achieving glory…This tremendous change is attributed to the fact that we have chosen the path of socialism…The October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China.

'The epoch-making historical feat of the October Revolution and the major achievements of the Soviet socialist system cannot be negated by the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The reasons behind the Soviet breakup are many, including rigidity and conservatism; yet, the root cause was its turning away from Marxism-Leninism and from the socialist path created by the October Revolution.'

From Liu's speech, the CCP is saying that because of the failure of the Soviet Union, the true legacy of the 1917 revolution today is to be found in China. In some sense, this is true. Because of China, the question of the legacy of the Great October Socialist Revolution is still very much a contemporary one.