Soviet historians and workers in all social sciences are faced with the task of "conducting a well-reasoned critique of bourgeois ideology, right-and"left" revisionist concepts, exposing various kinds of falsifiers of history who are trying to belittle the international significance of the October Revolution, the path taken by our party and people, and resolutely rebuffing anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, opportunism of all stripes."1 . Soviet historians have already done some work to expose the bourgeois falsifiers of the Great October story. Of particular importance is the scientific development of the experience of the socialist revolution in Russia in fundamental generalizing and monographic studies. Works have appeared that critically analyze both the coverage of October 1917 in individual capitalist countries2 and bourgeois interpretations of the experience of the first socialist revolution in history3 . Foreign Marxist historians, while studying and promoting the historical experience of the October Revolution, also criticize bourgeois literature .4 Its important assessments are contained in analytical articles by Soviet historians published in periodicals dedicated to the 50th anniversary of October 5 .

This article traces the trends of bourgeois historiography of the October Revolution mainly in the 70s. At the same time, bo is taken into account-

1 "On the 60th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution". Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU of January 31, 1977, Moscow, 1977, p. 29.

2 See: Yu. I. Igritsky. Myths of bourgeois historiography and the reality of history. Modern American and English Historiography of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, 1974; M. G. Zharkov. Against the bourgeois falsifications of the history of October. Minsk. 1975; N. V. Naumov. The Great October Socialist Revolution in French Bourgeois Historiography, Moscow, 1975, et al.

3 L. F. Malafeev. The light of October and the shadows of anti-communism. Sverdlovsk. 1975; V. A. Poritsky. Lenin's Decree on Land and its Bourgeois Critics, Moscow, 1975; Kh. Sh. Inoyatov. Against falsification of the history of the victory of Soviet power in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Tashkent, 1976; A. P. Petrov. Critique of falsification of the agrarian and peasant question in the Three Russian Revolutions, Moscow, 1977, et al.

4 See: D. Pavlov. Октомврийската революция и нейните буржоазни "критици". "Novo vreme", 1967, N II; E. Engelberg. Einige Aspekte der Stellung der deutschen burgerlichen Geschichtsschreibung zur Grossen sozialistischen Oktoberrevolution. "Marxistische Blatter", 1967, N 5; C.Voigt. Die Verfalschung der Grossen sozialistischen Oktoberrevolution in der neueren westdeutschen Literatur. "Zeitschrift fur Geschichtswissenschaft", 1970, N 3; A. S. Todorov. Октомври и кризата на буржоазната "социология на революцията". "Novo vreme", 1977, N 5, et al.

5 V. I. Salov. Modern bourgeois historiography of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Voprosy Istorii, 1967, No. 11; A. O. Chubaryan. Bourgeois historiography of the October Revolution. Voprosy istorii, 1968, No. 1; Yu. I. Igritsky. October Jubilee and bourgeois historiography. "History of the USSR", 1968, N 3; L. S. Gaponenko, A. N. Sakharov, G. L. Sobolev. Great October and its modern bourgeois critics. Voprosy Istorii, 1969, No. 1, et al.

page 123

more than 45 monographs and anthologies for 1969-1977 in English, German, French and Italian devoted to various issues of the history of Russia during the period of imperialism-up to October 1917 (the subject matter of these books is indicative: 10 are devoted to the Dumas, Cadets and Octobrists, 7-to the social Democrats, Bolsheviks, 9-to the tsar and his entourage 4 - the Russian economy, 2-Zubatovism, 2-Rasputin, etc.). About a dozen and a half books published in the 70s are devoted to the civil war and foreign intervention. This literature is also directly related to the problem of the Great October Socialist Revolution.

As in the previous stages, the ideological confrontation over the problems of the October Revolution and the processes in modern bourgeois historiography are determined by the further change in the balance of forces in the world in favor of socialism, the deep crisis of modern capitalism. Even at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s, reflecting the new stage in the development of the world revolutionary process that began in October, bourgeois historiography began to develop concepts of October, the modern era, and revolutions in general that would take into account changes in the world and be more suitable for ideological struggle. This process continues even now. It has now become fashionable to refer to the twentieth century as the age of "conflict", "discontent", "rebellion", "violence", "nationalism", etc. The bourgeois historiography of October was strongly influenced by sociologists ' concepts of "stages of economic growth", "unified industrial" and "post-industrial" society, etc. political scientists - about "modernization", "convergence", "polycentrism", etc. They pushed out (but by no means pushed out!) "totalitarian "and even older" Eurasian " concepts of Russian history6 with their narrow national localization of the possibility of repeating the "Bolshevik experiment" and their confidence in the immunity of the West to the influence of revolutionary changes in the world. In the 50s, for example, the English historian X. Seaton-Watson wrote about the significance of Russia's experience for different countries - from Peru to Nigeria and from Lebanon to the Philippines .7 Bourgeois historical thought then decided to recognize the significance of the "Russian revolution" as a prototype of the revolutions of the developing countries.

The most general expression of the processes taking place in the bourgeois historiography of October (and the Russian revolutionary movement in general) is found in the "theory of modernization". For almost 20 years, this "theory" has been developed (in various versions) and introduced into the historiography of the history of Russia during the imperialist period. In 1958, the American historian S. Black, who played a prominent role in introducing this doctrine to Sovietology, taught his colleagues: "In interpreting the changes in Russian society after 1861, the model of social change, now widely known as "modernization", is fruitful. Modernization is the process of transition from an agricultural to an industrial lifestyle, the result of a dramatic increase in human knowledge and the mastery of the environment by humans. " 8 T. von Laue, A. Ulam, L. Heimson, L. Kochen and others also worked as pioneers of the concept of "modernization". This concept recognizes the existence of certain prerequisites for revolutionary upheavals in Russia. However, at the same time, the conditionality of its development towards socialism is dissolved in "modernization", "Westernization" and similar "trans" formations that are not connected with the change of formations. -

6 For a description of these doctrines, see B. I. Marushkin. History and politics. American Bourgeois Historiography of the Soviet Society, Moscow, 1969, pp. 109-119, 130-142, etc.

7 See H. Seton-Watson. The Decline of Imperial Russia, L. 1952, p. 381; see also: G. Fischer. Russian Liberalism Cambridge (Mass.). 1958, p. 204.

8 C. Black. The Modernization of Russian Society. "The Transformation of Russian Society", Cambridge (Mass.). 1960, p. 661.

page 124

formations" and "changes". No distinction is made between the bourgeois - democratic revolutions and the Great October Socialist Revolution. These authors prefer to talk about a certain "Russian revolution" - with time boundaries from the Decembrists to the present, 9 or about the "revolution (revolutions) of 1917". The concept of "modernization" is designed to describe an era in which the socialist revolution, socialism, is out of its mainstream, and the path of bourgeois states becomes a model for the development of mankind. Russia's entry into the path of socialism is declared either an anomaly or a manifestation of the notorious Russian "specificity". This "thread", which connects the new concepts with the previous stage of Sovietology, exposes the class basis and continuity of the bourgeois models of October.

We will continue to analyze the ideological and theoretical background of the processes taking place in the historiography of October in the West. According to the characterization of the well-known American historian M. Raeva, "most of the work in the first 15 years after World War II was done in the field of intellectual history" 10 . The West German historian R. Lorenz, speaking about the well-known works of E. Carr, L. Shapiro, R. Daniels, writes: "Their interests are primarily focused on ideological confrontation, as a result of which the fundamental economic and political structures generally remain out of sight"11 . Let's decipher this introspection. In the post-war years, the West was dominated by studies of the spiritual factors of Russian history, which directly developed the doctrines of "heroes and the crowd", "the Russian soul"," the specifics " of Russia, etc.Now the specific subject and tone of publications on the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution have changed somewhat. However, the traditions of the old are quite strong. In addition, a significant part of the bourgeois publications on October belong not to historians or political scientists, but to" specialists "in psychological warfare, "special operations", professional anti-Soviets and anti-communists, hired scribblers. But it is characteristic that university Sovietology, while criticizing the concepts presented by such authors, nevertheless recognizes the legitimacy of their nomination. In 1975, simultaneously in the United States and England, a book by journalist M. Pearson "The Sealed Wagon"12 was published on the topic of the "help" of the German General Staff to the Bolsheviks. According to the American reviewer of this book, M. Hedlin, the author not only" adds little to our understanding of the Russian revolution", but also allows" uncritical use of memoirs", and his interpretations are"dubious and far - fetched". Nevertheless, the reviewer believes that Pearson's book is "suitable as a popular introduction to 1917" 13, that is, to spread deliberate lies and slander about Great October in wide readership circles.

Literature about October published in the 70s shows that the 50th anniversary stimulated the historiography of the" Russian Revolution " in the West. The study of 1917, writes Princeton University professor S. Cohen, stands out for its intense14 . At the same time, the drill-

9 See V. D. Medlin's arguments on this subject: "The Russian Revolution: Democracy or Defense?", Ed.by V. D. Medlin. Hinsdale. 1974, p. 3.

10 Cit. by: N. F. Cantor. Perspectives on the European Past. Pt. II. N. Y. -L. 1971, p. 265.

11 R. Lоrenz. Anfange der bolschewistischen Industriepolitik. Koln. 1965, S. 7.

12 M. Pearson. The Sealed Train. L. -N. Y. 1975. Almost simultaneously, Professor A. Senn (USA) published an article criticizing the "myth of German money" during the World War. See A. E. Senn. The Myth of German Money during the First World War. "Soviet Studies". Vol. 28, 1976, N 1, pp. 83 - 90.

13 "Slavic Review". Vol. 35, 1976, N 2, p. 334.

14 S. Cohen. Politics and the Past: The Importance of Being Historical. "Soviet Studies". Vol. 29, 1977, N 1, p. 137.

page 125

Jazz historians try to draw general historical lessons from the policies of the ruling classes of Russia over a broader time range, covering the history of Russia from the beginning of the 20th century (and even earlier) up to the end of the civil war and intervention. In this regard, there is an interesting statement by the West German historian U. Lishkovsky: "The question of whether the October Revolution was historically necessary,.. it caused a shift of interest back to the constitutionalism of the Duma period as a possible alternative to autocracy, on the one hand ,and Bolshevism, on the other. " 15 "The Russian Revolution of 1917," writes the English historian G. Stifenson, " is an event so ominous that it casts a shadow over two or three decades ago. It is easy and erroneous to study the events of the last two Romanovs... as if they were nothing more than a prelude to this revolution. To do so is to accept the determinist element in Marxist historiography without a struggle. " 16 It is not only the "determinism" of Marxist historical science that is rejected here. The main thing is to provide a "theoretical" basis for anti-historical constructions such as "if", to find the notorious "mistakes" and "missed opportunities", to disguise the purely class goal of extracting lessons from the past for the imperialist politicians of the present.

Bourgeois historiography makes considerable efforts to refute the objective historical conditionality of the socialist revolution, the "determinism" of the Russian movement by October 1917. To this end, both the real and imaginary progress of Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century is extolled in every possible way. After 1905, the French historian A. Preshak writes, " civil liberties were introduced, a parliament was created, and land was given to the peasants. The result of the first constitutional regime in Russia (1905 - 1917) was unprecedented economic and cultural development, the implementation of social changes: the February Revolution of 1917 completed the work of 1905. Then there was the coup d'etat in October. " 17 This statement is also evident in the desire to portray the development of Russia at the beginning of the XX century as continuous progress, as well as a complete unwillingness to take into account the facts. Other Western historians are less optimistic about this period. As D. Kennan said at a conference of Sovietologists at Harvard University in 1967, "the decisive chance was lost in 1860, and in 1906 it was already too late." 18 However, such a pessimistic assessment of the chances of tsarism's survival does not mean that a socialist revolution is inevitable. Kennan's strong opponent of "determinism", H. Seaton - Watson, agreed with this thesis, immediately adding that if it had not been for the World War, the regime of Nicholas II-Goremykin could have held out .19 The English author D. Brown also resolutely renounces" determinism".: "One does not need to adopt a Marxist or determinist view of history to feel that this was their (I am talking about the ruling classes of pre - revolutionary Russia) inevitable fate." 20 "Inevitability", but by no means regularity - this is the meaning of these judgments. It is no accident that Brown portrays the revolutionary process in Russia as spontaneous and rebellious, seeing in this its national specificity.

15 U. Liszkowski, rec. on: G. Hosking. The Russian Constitutional Experiment. Government and Duma. 1907 - 1914. Cambridge. 1973. "Jahrbiicher fur Geschichte Osteuropas". Bd. 23, 1975, H. 3, S. 427.

16 G Stephenson. Russia from 1812 to 1945. A History. N. Y. 1970, p. 180.

17 A. Prechac. Histoire de la Russie avant 1917. P. 1974, p. 223.

18 G. F. Kennan. The Breakdown of the Tsarist Autocracy. "Revolutionary Russia". Ed. by R. Pipes. Cambridge (Mass.). 1968, p. 15.

19 Comment by H. Seton-Watson. Ibid., p. 20.

20 D. Brown. Doomsday 1917. The Destruction of Russia's Ruling Class. L. 1975, p. 10.

page 126

Many works of bourgeois authors on the period up to October 1917 are aimed at revealing the" mistakes " and miscalculations of the tsar, ministers, parties, and ruling classes, whose more far - sighted behavior - from the point of view of today-could, in their opinion, save Russian tsarism and capitalism. This approach to history is the direct fulfillment of a social order by bourgeois ideologues. This raises objections even among some Western authors. "In reality, the events of 1917 were prepared by the entire preceding course of Russian history," wrote one of Carr's followers, P. Dukes, "and to emphasize without measure the' turning points 'when tsarism could have improved matters is to distort this course." 21 However, most Western authors hold a different point of view.

Western literature tends to portray the bloody and prolonged civil war as an inevitable consequence of the establishment of Soviet power. The English historian D. Bradley states: "The Russian Civil War began at the moment when the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party accepted and supported Lenin's demand for an armed uprising... November 7, 1917, was nothing less than the bloodless beginning of a bloody civil war. " 22 Such conceptions distort the most important feature of the Great October Socialist Revolution - its vitality, historical conditioning, the strength of the workers 'and peasants' alliance, and the enormous influence of the Bolshevik Party on the working masses of Russia. The October Revolution is the personification of the most democratic, most popular type of revolution 23 . It has raised and solved acute problems that are vital for the masses of millions of people, and it has created an invincible alliance of workers and working peasants of all nationalities. Therefore, the establishment of Soviet power throughout the country in late 1917 and early 1918 was a real triumphal march. Attempts to counter the counter-revolution - even in areas where it had the most favorable social base-were thwarted without heavy casualties. 24 And in the summer of 1918, as the writings of Soviet historians convincingly show, when at a new stage of the class struggle the kulaks came out against the Soviet government and the middle peasants wavered, the workers, in alliance with the poorest peasantry, stopped the counter-revolutionary attacks against the people's power .25 It is clear that the approach of bourgeois historians to the causes of the civil war in the USSR is intended to disguise the fact that the culprit of the bloody long civil war was world imperialism, which armed the counter-revolution and provided it with moral, material and political support. "World imperialism," wrote V. I. Lenin, " is a world - wide imperialism ...he caused us, in essence, a civil war and is guilty of prolonging it. " 26
To a certain extent, the above-mentioned changes in the concepts of Sovietologists were caused by the change of generations. Many authors who defined the content of Cold War literature have died: M. Fansod, B. Nikolaevsky, A. Kerensky, G. Roberts, G. Cohn, D. Vernadsky, L. Fischer, F. Mosley, G. Fischer, W. Chamberlin, I. Deutscher,

21 P. Dukes. A History of Russia. L. 1974, p. 208.

22 J. Bradley. Civil War in Russia 1917 - 1920. L. a. oth. 1975, pp. 25, 28. See also R. Pethybridge. The Spread of the Russian Revolution. Essays on 1917. L. -Basingstoke. 1972, p. 178.

23 See for more information: K. I. Zarodov. Democracy of the Great October. About some facts of history and their falsification. "Kommunist", 1977, N 5.

24 See I. I. Mints. Istoriya Velikogo Oktyabrya [History of the Great October], Vol. 3. Triumphal procession of Soviet Power, Moscow, 1973; V. D. Polikarpov. Prologue of the Civil War in the USSR, Moscow, 1976, et al.

25 See, for example, L. M. Spirin. Classes, and Parties in the Civil War in Russia, Moscow, 1967, pp. 178-179.

26 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 39, p. 343.

page 127

H. Yablonovsky et al. There were new authors who were less affected by the mores of McCarthyism and the Cold War. So, out of about 450 US historians studying the history of our country, 55% defended their doctoral dissertations after 1960 .27 New names now appear more frequently in publications about the October Revolution: Ts. Hasegawa, D. Longley, R. Elwood, R. Suni, A. Rabinovich, A. Escher, V. Medlin, and others. and less often the names of L. Shapiro, R. Daniels, H. Seaton-Watson, T. von Laue, E. Carr, etc. In the mid-70s, Professor D. Kip of the University of Toronto, who had worked in England for many years, came forward as an "expert" on the October Revolution .28 In recent years, books and articles on this topic have been published more frequently in Canada, Australia, Spain, and Italy.

What did these authors bring to the historiography of October in contrast to the works of previous generations of bourgeois historians? These are the new concepts and doctrines discussed above. This is a new research topic. This is a slightly different approach to solving the old problem in general. The difference between generations is illustrated by the conflict between the American specialist on October A. Rabinovich (he is the author of two books about the struggle of the Petrograd Bolsheviks for the victory of October) and the patriarch of the study of the history of the CPSU in the United States B. Nikolaevsky. A. Rabinovich told the Soviet writer A. Ovcharenko about this conflict. "Nikolayevsky began to accuse me of turning into a true Bolshevik," Rabinovich complained to a guest from the USSR. "Grounds?" I could not agree with the widespread opinion that there were no objective prerequisites for a socialist revolution in Russia, that it was not accomplished by the revolutionary people, but by several thousand conspirators who acted contrary to Marx's teaching. " 29 So, the concepts that were preached in the time of Boris Nikolaevsky: the" conspiracy of a handful of revolutionaries " of the narodnik type, their voluntarism, denial of Marx's economic determinism, etc. - are now unacceptable. But A. Rabinovich's story not only reveals certain discrepancies between Sovietologists of different generations, but also quite skillfully hides their commonality. If we turn to his books, they do not describe the actual " objective prerequisites for the socialist revolution." Further, when speaking of the impending revolution, this author falsifies the role of the Bolsheviks, portraying them as a" loose"," undivided"," split " party, allegedly incapable of leading the revolutionary masses of workers and soldiers to revolution. From this it can be seen that his concept, although different from the statements of Nikolaevsky, does not approach the truth and is not inferior to the latter in ideological harmfulness. Nor can we find here statements about the Bolsheviks ' loyalty to Marx's teaching: A. Rabinovich sees in the Bolshevik policy pragmatism and oblivion of Marxism .30
More noticeable changes can be observed in the range of attracted sources and methods of their use. If in previous years only a small part of bourgeois authors used Soviet publications that were declared "falsification" (as he wrote

27 See N. V. Romanovsky. Historians who study and teach the history of the USSR in the United States. RJ "Social Sciences Abroad". Series 5. History, 1976, N 4, p. 58.

28 J. Keep. The Bolshevik Revolution: A Prototype or Myth? "The Anatomy of Communist Takeovers". Ed. by T. T. Hammond. New Haven - L. 1975; ejusd. Imperial Russia: Alexander II to the Revolution. "An Introduction to Russian History". Ed. by R. Auty and D. Obolenski. Cambridge. 1976; ejusd. The Russian Revolution: A Study in Mass Mobilization. L. 1976.

29 A. Ovcharenko. Thinking America. "New World", 1976, n. 11, p. 211.

30 See A. Rabinowitch. Prelude to Revolution. The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising. Bloomington - L. 1968, pp. 41, 230 e. a.; ejusd. The Bolsheviks Come to Power: the Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd. N. Y. 1976.

page 128

in 1961, A. Kerensky)31 and "subversive literature" 32, but now the authors of works about October use mainly Soviet sources. Western authors often come to the USSR, and some bourgeois researchers (M. Ferro, D. Hosking, etc.) worked in Soviet archives. To some extent, this affects some Western publications. Thus, a book has been published in Germany, which, along with the articles of bourgeois historians, expounds the point of view of Soviet historians: P. G. Ryndzunsky, I. D. Kovalchenko, V. I. Bovykin, A. L. Sidorov, S. M. Dubrovsky. In the introduction to this publication (D. Geyer), one can see the desire to take into account the achievements of Soviet science, the rejection of outdated ("Eurasian "and" totalitarian") concepts 33 . In the works of A. Rabinovich, R. Elwood, R. Lorenz, Ts. Hasegawa and others, the percentage of references to Soviet publications reaches 80-90 of the total number. However, a significant part of these references fall on some incorrect assessments contained in memoirs of the 1920s, on anti-Leninist statements of oppositionists - it is these "sources" that Sovietologists operate with.

A characteristic feature of the Cold War period was a blatant one-sidedness in the selection of sources, references were made to deliberately biased witnesses, biased assessments, notorious "facts" , etc. Thus, the English historian W. Moss, in his article about the "Saratov October", used only cadet newspapers; documents of the revolutionary camp, memoirs of the Bolsheviks and Soviet works, despite their complete availability, he completely ignored 34 . Canadian historian R. Pierce did the same: in his article about October in Tashkent, seven sources are named, four of them are White Guards .35
In recent years, it has become typical to present extensive factual, outwardly neutral material framed by assessments and conclusions based not on the material provided by Soviet sources, but brought in from bourgeois sociological theories. In a similar spirit, the works of the French historian M. Ferro, the Japanese X were written. M. Ferro, for example, selects and interprets extensive factual material in this way in order to portray the revolutionary struggle of the working masses of Russia as a boundless "anarchy". H. Wada declares the October Revolution to be the sum of separate, "autonomous" movements: workers, soldiers, and oppressed nationalities. T. Uldriks reduces the chain " leaders-party-class-masses "to the interaction of the" crowd "and the"elite". Works by M. Ferro and H. Vads are written from the standpoint of bourgeois objectivism.

It should also be noted that many Western authors adhere to the philosophical agnosticism that is so characteristic of bourgeois historiography. The American historian W. Rosenberg, having processed data on the Duma elections in the summer of 1917 on a computer, obtained a result indicating that the Bolsheviks retained their political positions among the masses after the July events, and moreover, confirming their growth.

31 Statement by A. F. Kerensky. "The Russian Provisional Government 1917. Documents". Vol. I. Stanford. 1961, p. VHI.

32 A. Mazour. H. H. Fisher. 1890 - 1975. "Slavic Review". Vol. 35, 1976, N 2, p. 232.

33 "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im vorrevolutionaren Russland". Hrsg. von D. Geyer. Koln. 1975, S, 10, u. a.

34 W. E. Mosse. Revolution in Saratov. (October - November 1917). "Slavonic and East European Review". Vol. 49, 1971, N 117

35 R. Pierce. Toward Soviet Power in Tashkent. February-October 1917. "Canadian Slavonic Papers". Vol. 17, 1975, N 2 - 3.

36 For the works of M. Ferro, see: N. V. Naumov. Edict op., p. 128 - 130, 143 - 146, 180 - 183, See also: H. Wada. The Russian Februarv Revolution of 1917. "University of Tokyo. Institute of Social Science. Annals". 1974, N 15, pp. 73, 78; T. Uldriсks. The "Crowd" in the Russian Revolution. "Politics and Society". Vol. 4, 1974, N 3.

page 129

authority level. This fact is well known to Soviet historians, but it differs from the version of bourgeois historiography about the" defeat " of the Bolsheviks during the July events. Faced with this circumstance, the American author deliberately emphasizes the preliminary, incomplete nature of his data . 37 D. Hosking, the author of a monograph on the topic of the possibility of cooperation between the tsar and the Duma within the framework of the Third June system, which is exciting for bourgeois historians, actually came to a negative conclusion in this regard. However, he also disagreed with the position of Soviet historians on this issue, saying that it is impossible to give a definitive answer to it .38 There are many cases of arbitrary interpretation of sources. An example of this is the article by R. Peirce, who falsifies the evidence contained in the book of the Soviet historian D. I. Manzhara "The Revolutionary Movement in Central Asia "(Tashkent, 1934), in order to refute the conclusions of Soviet science about the active participation of working people of local nationalities in the establishment and consolidation of Soviet power in Tashkent in 1917-191839 . A. Rabinovich and D. Longley misjudge the memoir sources: being held captive by biased concepts, they put a meaning in the content of the sources that is very far from the true 40 .

A characteristic feature of bourgeois historiography is the use of various anti-party figures as" authorities". Thus, the West German historian R. Lorenz tries to cast doubt on Lenin's plan for launching socialist construction, contrasting it with a jumble of borrowings from the platforms of the "left communists", "Decists", Trotskyists, etc. 41. Trotskyist concepts are widely used in the bourgeois historiography of October. After the death of I. Deutscher, who had worked to "popularize" Trotskyism, this activity was continued by the Belgian professor M. Liebmann, who in 1967 published a book on the "Russian revolution", and then an opus under the pretentious title "Leninism under Lenin" .42 This is not unusual: Trotskyism has always been adopted by bourgeois historiography and propaganda. Recently, however, some Trotskyist versions have sometimes been criticized. This applies, in particular, to the Trotskyist interpretation of Lenin's April Theses and the Trotskyist assessment of the situation of the Bolshevik Party in March 191743 . The Trotskyist conception of the history of October is characterized as tendentious .44
37 W. S. Rosenberg. The Russian Municipal Duma Elections of 1917. "Soviet Studies". Vol. 21. 1969, Nb 2, p. 131.

38 G. A. Hosking. The Russian Constitutional Experiment. Government and Duma. 1907 - 1914. Cambridge. 1973. About this work, see: G. Z. Ioffe. Why did the "constitutional experiment" fail in tsarist Russia? (About the book by J. R. R. Tolkien) Hosking's "Russian Constitutional Experiment"). "History of the USSR", 1974, N 6.

39 R. C. Pierce. Op. cit., p. 261. For a detailed analysis of this article, see: N. V. Romanovsky. An attempt with invalid funds. Voprosy Istorii, 1977, No. 8.

40 A. Rabinowitch. Prelude to Revolution, pp. 128 - 130, 233, etc.; D. Longley. Some Historiographical Problems of Bolshevik Party History (The Kronstadt Bolsheviks in March 1917). "Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas", 1975. N 4, p. 54. We criticized A. Rabinovich's method in the article "July events of 1917 in modern bourgeois historiography". "History of the USSR", 1971, N 3, pp. 212, 213, 217. A. Rabinovich's new book ("The Bolsheviks Come to Power: the Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd") is essentially based on the same" testimonies " and techniques.

41 R. Lorenz. Op. cit., S. 7, etc.

42 M. Liebman. La revolution russe. Origines, etapes et signification de la victoire bolchevique. Verviers. 1967; ejusd. Le leninisme sous Lenine. T. I. La conquete du pouvoir. P. 1973.

43 CM. J. Frankel. Lenin's Doctrinal Revolution of 1917. "Journal of Contemporary History". Vol. 4, 1969, N 2, pp. 126, note 139; D. Longley. The Divisions in the Bolshevik Party in March 1917. "Soviet Studies". Vol. 24, 1972, N 1, p. 62.

44 "Slavic Review". Vol. 35, 1976, N 2, p. 334.

page 130

Bourgeois historiography tries to avoid versions that are too obviously contrary to reality. However, criticism of Trotskyist versions is often directed against particulars and aims to improve the main provisions of these anti-scientific concepts. In matters concerning the character of the Great October Socialist Revolution, the Soviet system, the principles of the CPSU's policy and structure, and its loyalty to Lenin's precepts and the cause of October, Trotskyist falsifications are preserved, propagated, and developed. Indicative of the bourgeois historiography of October in recent years is the marked activation of the" leftist " historiography of October, which is largely fueled by Trotskyist ideas. Representatives of this trend speak from the positions of anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism45, propagandize "left-wing" critics of Bolshevism of the past (reprints of the works of A. Bordiga, K. Korsh, etc.) 46, etc. Much is written about October, the Bolsheviks, Lenin in magazines with the words "left", "revolutionary",etc. "radical" and so on.

It is impossible not to see many points of contact between this literature and the bourgeois historiography of the October Revolution: the imperialist bourgeoisie willingly uses the arguments of the "left" for its own purposes. Thus, in the pages of the" radical "magazine Politics and Society (USA), along with arguments about the role of the "crowd" in the period February - October 1917, the theory of the "elite" is preached, and the role of the Bolshevik party in the struggle of the masses against capitalism is falsified .47 The" left-wing "American magazine Telos promotes the idea of "Soviets without communists" 48 . The West German leftist R. Dutschke writes that the purpose of his work on the essence of the October Revolution and the Soviet system is to "criticize the Soviet Union from the left."49 His work is related to the writings of bourgeois authors in interpreting the level of capitalist development in Russia by 1917 and the objective maturity of the prerequisites for socialism. The influence of Trotskyism manifests itself in the opposition of the ideas of October to real socialism, in the thesis of the" incompleteness " of the socialist revolution, which is often found in the works of bourgeois historians. Lenin's teaching about the party, about the socialist revolution and the construction of socialism, etc., is being perverted. All this is evidence of the affinity of some of the" left " critics of October for anti-Sovietism and anti-communism, as well as the use of "left" labels by bourgeois historiography. 50
Thus, historiographically and ideologically, the bourgeois literature about October published in recent years presents a rather motley picture. Its core consists of the writings of that section of bourgeois historians whose concepts serve the political and ideological goals of the modern imperialist bourgeoisie, especially its most reactionary wing. In nothing, perhaps, did this feature of bourgeois historiography of October manifest itself so clearly as in the concentrated attacks of prominent Sovietologists,

45 См. Les anarchistes russes ei les Soviets. "Autogestion et socialisme", 1972, N 18 - 19; J. M. Chauvier. Controle ouvrier et "autogestion sauvage" en Russie (1917 - 1921). "Revue des pays de l'Est", a. 14, 1973, N 1; M. Brintоn. The Bolsheviks and the Workers' Control 1917 to 1921. L. 1970; A. Chitarin. Lenin e il controllo operaio. Roma. 1973, etc.

46 See A. Bordiga. Russia e rivoluzione nella teoria marxista. Milano. 1975;K. Korsch. The Present Stale of Marxism and Philosophy. "Marxism and Philosophy". L. 1970, etc.

47 See: T. Uldricks. Op. cit.

48 C. Sirianni. Rec. on: O. Anweiler. "The Soviets; the Russian Workers' Peasants' and Soldiers' Councils, 1905 - 1921". N. Y. 1975. "Telos", 1975, N 24.

49 R. Dutschke. "Asialische" Sowjetunion. Versuch einer Neubewertung der russischen Revolution. "Neues Fonim", 1974, Hf. 249 - 250, S. 37.

50 See R. E. Kantor. From someone else's voice. Voprosy Istorii, 1976, No. 6.

page 131

experts on the "Russian revolution", on "Bolshevism", on the policy of defusing international tension: S. Possoni, L. Shapiro, R. Pipes, A. Ulam and others, in whose works about October there are arguments about "Russian specifics", "conspiracies", "authoritarianism of the Russian tradition", as well as " sealed wagons"and" German money", opposed realistic trends in international politics. Thus, L. Shapiro demanded to stop talking about detente as the only alternative to a nuclear catastrophe. He is in favor of such "detente", which is actually a means of political, economic and ideological pressure on the socialist countries. 51 In the same spirit, the well-known A. Ulam and R. Pipes appeared as "experts" on Soviet foreign policy .52 The Hoover Institute for War, Revolution and Peace continues to publish books with titles reminiscent of the Cold War: "The Bolshevik Revolution and Wall Street", " Suicide of a Nation. Military assistance to the Soviet Union", etc. 53-in which cooperation with the USSR in the economic field is referred to as"military assistance to the enemy". Anti-communism defines the face of literature dedicated to the 60th anniversary of October 54 . When professional bourgeois historians attempt to somehow take into account the reality of history, 55 they are criticized .56 This is how the past is intertwined with the present, history with politics, the falsification of history with the struggle against real socialism. This is the true essence of Sovietology and its concepts of October.

In the works of Soviet authors (V. I. Salov, B. I. Marushkin, G. Z. Ioffe, Yu. I. Igritsky, N. V. Naumov, etc.57) shows that bourgeois historical thought of all periods focuses on a certain set of problems in the history of the Great October Socialist Revolution, interpreting these problems in different ways at different stages of its evolution. These are the problems of the objective necessity of the socialist revolution in Russia, its causes and prerequisites; questions of the popular, democratic character of the Great October Revolution, the struggle of the masses for the victory of the socialist Revolution; the consciousness and organization of their actions; analysis of the "mistakes" of the defeated classes and parties. The same set of problems

51 См. L. Schapiro. U. S., Europe and Russia. "International Herald Tribune", 12. VII. 1974

52 A. Ulam. The Rivals. America and Russia since World War II. N. Y. 1971; ejusd. Expansion and Coexistence. Soviet Foreign Policy 4917 - 1973. N. Y. 1974; R. Pipes. International Negotiation. Some Operational Principles of Soviet Foreign Policy. Memorandum Prepared at the Request of the Subcommittee on National Security. Washington. 1972. R. Pipes is very active in the struggle against detente - this "ardent anti-communist from the academic world" (G. Vasiliev. A sharp discussion. Pravda, 1. VII. 1977). See also Pipes ' statements in U.S. News and World Report. 27.VI.1977, p. 32.

53 Books with this name were published in 1974 by A. Sutton, an employee of the Hoover Institute. In the same spirit are the publications of other of his collaborators (B. Wolf, S. Hook, S. Possoni, etc.). See: "The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace in 1975". Stanford, 1975, pp. 46-49.

54 J Keep. The Russian Revolution; G. Scheuer. Damals in Petrograd. "Vorwarts", 1977, N 11, S. 28 - 29; E. Crankshaw. The Shadow of the Winter Palace. The Drift to Revolution 1825 - 1917. L. - Basingstoke. 1976; M. Pearson. Op. cit., a. oth.

55 Such works include some chapters of A. Rabinovich's book "The Bolsheviks Come to Power", a collection of articles edited by the West German Professor D. Geyer:"Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im vorrevolutionaren Russland".

56 For a critique of A. Rabinovich's book, see: L. Schapiro. Two Years that Shook the World. "The New York Review of Books", March 31, 1977, p. 3.

57 See: Yu. I. Igritsky. Myths of bourgeois historiography and the reality of history; N. V. Naumov. Edict. op.; V. S. Vasyukov, V. I. Salov. Great October and its bourgeois Interpreters. "Critique of the Bourgeois historiography of Soviet Society", Moscow, 1972; G. Z. Ioffe. February Revolution of 1917 in Anglo-American Bourgeois Historiography, Moscow, 1970; B. I. Marushkin. Op. ed., pp. 160-206; and others.

page 132

It also occupies the modern bourgeois historiography of October, but the meaning of historical research is now increasingly reduced to the problems that form the basis of the modern class struggle in the field of ideology: the nature of the epoch and the laws of the transition of humanity from capitalism to socialism, the class that stands at the center of our epoch, the forces that carry out the socialist revolution, the party as a leading and guiding force the revolutionary working-class movement, etc.

Particularly acute is the struggle over the historical significance of the Great October Socialist Revolution as a manifestation of a general historical pattern: the change of socio-economic formations, the replacement of capitalism by socialism. "The Great October Socialist Revolution was a natural consequence of social development and class struggle under the conditions of monopoly capitalism, "reads the resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU"On the 60th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution." 58 The victory of October marked the beginning of a series of socialist revolutions that all mankind will have to go through in one form or another. The changes that have taken place in the world over the past 60 years under the influence of October are so great, and their connection with the days of 1917 that shook the world is so obvious, that bourgeois ideologists can no longer fail to recognize the pivotal significance of this event in world history. However, they do so with reservations arising from the interests of international capital. "The Revolution of 1917 in Russia was one of the most important events in modern history," 59 says the dust jacket of the latest book by D. A. Shishkin. Kipa. "There is no other event in history," writes the English journalist D. Brown, " that has had a more profound impact on humanity than the Russian Revolution of 1917."60 . Many modern books about the "Russian Revolution"begin with such phrases. Now bourgeois historians no longer reject the connection of the events in Russia in 1917 with the character of the epoch. However, the more often bourgeois historiography speaks about this, the more urgent it becomes for it to interpret the "Russian revolution" in such a way that it denies the need for a socialist revolution in all capitalist countries, distorts the laws of the proletarian class struggle for socialism, and promotes the "legitimization" of capitalism. With the help of the theories of "modernization", "unified industrial society" , etc., the Great October Socialist Revolution, seemingly recognized as the main event of the century, is relegated to the periphery of modern history. Only bourgeois-democratic coups and movements are recognized as historically conditioned. As for the Great October Socialist Revolution, the historical experience of the socialist revolution and socialist construction, they are declared to be specific to Russia.

In this way, bourgeois historiography has recently made special efforts to refute the conditionality of October with the socio-economic development of Russia as a capitalist country in the era of imperialism. Even certain categories of historical materialism, which are alien to bourgeois historiography, are used for this purpose. Bourgeois historians persistently seek ways to reinterpret the premises of the Great October Revolution in the sense they need. Thus, R. Lorenz, in his book on the social history of the USSR, calls into question the bourgeois character of the Russian system, and talks about a certain special phenomenon.

58 "On the 60th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution", pp. 3-4.

59 J. Keep. The Russian Revolution.

60 D. Brown, Op. cit., p. 9.

page 133

"Russian capitalism", about the"backward economy permeated by the remnants of serfdom" 61 . K. Funken devoted his entire book to "proving" that Russia allegedly did not reach the level of average development of capitalism 62 . R. Dutschke agrees with him, insisting on the" Asian " backwardness of Russia.

There is nothing new in these theses. They were once put forward by the Mensheviks and opportunists of the Second International. Modern Sovietologists act with great professional skill and sophistication. But this does not make their concepts, which are based on the old legend of "backward" Russia, any more convincing; they still contradict historical reality. The works of Soviet researchers revealed the real picture of Russia's economic, social and cultural development on the eve of the socialist Revolution .63 At the same time, Lenin's statement that the reformist arguments concerning the low level of development of the productive forces and culture, which are supposed to be an obstacle to Russia's development along the path of socialism, are completely untenable is fully confirmed .64 The prerequisites for the socialist revolution matured as a result of the socio-economic development of Russia in the era of imperialism. It is enough to point out the rather high rate of development of capitalism in Russia in general, the rapid growth of the latest forms of imperialist associations, and the development of state - monopoly regulation during the World War. Not backwardness, as the Sovietists try to assert, but a combination of the most backward and most advanced forms of economic life, which together gave Russia the level of average development of capitalism, and the accumulation on this basis of the most acute social contradictions, clearly described by Lenin as two social wars - this is what actually took place on the eve of the Great October Socialist Revolution, and this has long been shown by Soviet scientists.

Sovietologists ' arguments about the specifics of Russian capitalism are based on the denial of the transitory nature of capitalism and the inevitability of its replacement by socialism. Using the terms "bourgeoisie", "presuppositions", "weak link", etc., bourgeois historians put into them content that has nothing to do with the real. Moreover, bourgeois authors ' descriptions of the "economic prerequisites" of the October Revolution cannot be considered in isolation from their treatment of the question of the objective and subjective causes of the Great October Socialist Revolution. In addition to the "corrections" of the economic history of Russia in the era of imperialism, the hegemony of the proletariat in the revolutionary movement and its alliance with the peasantry, as well as the fact of the merger of all the proletarians, are very consistently denied.

61 R. Lorenz. Op. cit., S. 33.

62 K. Funken. Die okonomischen Voraussetzungen der Oktoberrevolution. Zur Entwicklung des Kapitalismus in Russland. Frankfurt a. m. e. a. 1976, S. 322. "Backwardness", "semi-Asian character" of the socio-economic system of Russia - the leitmotif of the book by an Iranian sociologist based in West Berlin: M. Vatankhah. Historischer Materialismus und Revolution in nichtindustrialisierten Landern. Am Beispiel Russlands und Chinas. B. (West), 1973, S. 50 - 52, 59, e. a.

63 See, for example, A. L. Sidorov. Economic background of the Socialist Revolution in Russia. "History of the USSR", 1957, N 4; K. N. Tarnovsky. Formirovanie gosudarstvenno-monopolisticheskogo kapitalizma v Rossii v gody pervoi mirovoi voyni [Formation of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia during the First World War]. Gosudarstvenno-monopolisticheskiy kapitalizm v Rossii [State-monopoly Capitalism in Russia], Moscow, 1959; Istoriya SSSR, Vol. VI, Moscow, 1968; I. I. Mints. Istoriya Velikogo Oktyabrya [History of the Great October], Vol. 1, Moscow, 1967; V. Ya. Laverychev. Objective prerequisites for the Great October Socialist Revolution. "History of the USSR", 1977, N 3; V. I. Bovykin. Socio-economic prerequisites of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Kommunist, 1977, No. 8, et al.

64 See V. I. Lenin. PSS". Vol. 45, pp. 380-381.

65 See V. I. Lenin, PSS. Vol. 11, pp. 282-283.

page 134

Bourgeois historiography puts forward concepts that aim to neutralize the powerful influence of the lessons of the socialist revolution in Russia on the whole complex of the most important issues of October history.

The position of bourgeois historical science on the question of combining the struggle of the workers, peasants, soldiers, and oppressed nationalities into a single stream of socialist revolution is characteristic. This position, confirmed by the research of Soviet historians66, is an important scientifically grounded political conclusion, a theoretical asset of the CPSU and the international communist movement. "The Bolshevik Party," says the CPSU Program, "united in one revolutionary stream the struggle of the working class for socialism, the national movement for peace, the peasant struggle for land, and the national liberation struggle of the oppressed peoples of Russia, and directed these forces to the overthrow of capitalism." 67
In contrast, modern bourgeois historiography insistently develops concepts that separate these revolutionary forces, declares them "autonomous", "independent", etc. 68 These concepts are not new. They were found in bourgeois literature in the 1920s and 1930s .69 It is also worth pointing out that they are related to the arguments about the "isolation" of the proletariat that were exposed by Lenin on the eve of October in his work "Will the Bolsheviks Retain state Power?". In dissecting the arguments of the "advocates of the bourgeoisie "about the" isolation "of the proletariat from the peasantry, the army, and the national liberation movement, the leader of the Bolshevik Party convincingly proved that "just now the proletariat is not" isolated"from the majority of the petty bourgeoisie, but has on its side the sympathy of the majority of the people." 70
It is not surprising that modern bourgeois historians propagate the false concept of the isolation of the proletariat and its party. It was not by chance that bourgeois historical thought recalled the role of the masses in the revolutionary movement. The trends of the time are affecting us. This interpretation of the question of the political forces of the socialist revolution and the entire revolutionary movement of the masses is aimed at falsifying the historical experience of October, which shows that only under the leadership of the working class and its party can the non-Proletarian masses achieve the realization of their fundamental demands. This experience irrefutably confirms the indissoluble connection of the struggle for democracy for the broad masses of the people with the struggle for pro-democracy.-

66 Out of the vast literature on these issues, we will mention only a few studies that have been published in recent years: P. N. Pershin. The Agrarian Revolution in Russia. Book 1-2. Moscow, 1966; P. A. Golub Partiya, armiya i revolyutsiya [The Party, Army and Revolution]. The Bolshevik Party's Reconquest of the Army on the Side of the Revolution, Moscow, 1967; S. M. Korolivsky, M. A. Rubach, and N. I. Suprunenko. The Victory of Soviet Power in Ukraine, Moscow, 1967; "The Struggle for Soviet Power in the Baltic States", Moscow, 1967; L. S. Gaponenko. The Working Class of Russia in 1917, Moscow, 1970. The Decisive Power of the Great October, Moscow, 1977; N. A. Kravchuk. Mass peasant movement in Russia on the eve of October, Moscow, 1971; S. S. Khesin. October Revolution and Fleet, Moscow, 1971; T. V. Osipova. Class struggle in the Countryside during the Preparation and Conduct of the Great October Socialist Revolution, Moscow, 1974; A. P. Gritsenko. Робітничий клас України у Жовтневій революції (березень 1917 - січень 1918 рр.). Киш. 1975; Н. М. Якупов. The Struggle for the Army in 1917, Moscow, 1975.

67 "Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", Moscow, 1971, page 11

68 See T. Uldricks. Op. cit., p. 405; H. Wada. Op. cit., p. 73; M. Ferro, R. Girault. De la Russie a I'URSS. L'histoire cle la Russie de 1850 a nos jours. P. 1974, p. 120; H. Carrere d'Enсausse. Une revolution, une victoire. L'Union Sovietique de Lenine a Staline (1917 - 1953). P. 1972, p. 46; J. Keep. The Russian Revolution.

69 CM. W. Gurian. Der Bolschewismus. Einfuhrung in Geschichte und Lehre. Freiburg. 1931. S. 11; G. Vernadsky. The Russian Revolution, 1917 - 1931. N. Y. 1932, p. 4, etc.

70 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 34, p. 300.

page 135

the proletariat for socialism, for fulfilling its great world-liberation mission.

Bourgeois historiography distorts the mass revolutionary movement of the October period not only in form (the "autonomy" of the revolutionary currents), but also in content, when it portrays this movement as "anarchy". "Chaos and anarchy are the words that best describe the state of Russia in 1917," says D. Kip. And this version is old: As early as 1919, the German "expert" Baron A. von Freytag-Loringhofen depicted the Bolsheviks as prisoners of anarchist mobs .72 There was no shortage of similar statements in the following years .73 This "constancy" has deep class roots. Lenin also wrote about the use of the label "anarchy" by the counter-revolution to discredit the revolutionary movement of the masses and their independent activity: "When the masses of the people themselves, with all their pristine primitiveness, simplicity, and crude determination, begin to create history, to put 'principles and theories' directly and immediately into practice, then the bourgeois feels fear and cries out that 'reason recedes into the background'. " 74 Reality refutes the speculations of bourgeois falsifiers. Destroying the foundations of the exploitative system, the workers and peasants of Russia, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, were the creators of a new social and state order. The masses of the people created Soviets , a form of State power for the workers and peasants. It was the proletariat that initiated workers ' control over the production and distribution of products, which Lenin saw as an important step on the road to building a new system. The revolutionary people created their own armed forces, took on the tasks of supplying, organizing education, ensuring law and order, etc. 75 . This folk art was directed by the Bolshevik Party in the direction of creating a new, socialist social system. Anarchist groups did not enjoy any noticeable political influence, and even more so did not leave a real imprint on the character of the struggle for the victory of the socialist revolution .76
These conceptual premises are also used by bourgeois authors to characterize separately the working class, the peasantry, the soldiers 'and sailors' masses, and the national liberation movement. Here is an illustrative example. In recent years, responding to the rise of the democratic women's movement in the capitalist world, bourgeois historians have been actively " interpreting "the historical experience of the struggle of Russian women for their liberation, including during the Great October Revolution. 77 Thus, Western historiography responds "flexibly" to modern democratic movements, trying to lead them to a dead end by drugging the masses. However, the greatest attention is paid to the drill-

71 J. Keep. The Russian Revolution, p. IX.

72 A. von Freytagh-Loringhoven. Geschichte der russischen Revolution. Munchen. 1919, S. 206.

73 W. Gurian. Op. cit., S, 47; A. Rosenberg. Geschichte des Bolschewismus. Von Marx bis zur Gegenwart. B. 1932, S. 101; W. H. Chamberlin. Forty Years of Soviet Communism. "Russian Review", January 1958. p. 3; R. V. Daniels. The Nature of Communism. N. Y. 1962, p. 26; J. Bradley. Op. cit., pp. 15, 16, etc.

74 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 12, p. 327; see also vol. 31, p. 196.

75 See Yu. S. Tokarev. Narodnoe pravotvorchestvo preda Velikoi Oktyabrskoi sotsialisticheskoi revolyutsii (March - October 1917) [People's Lawmaking on the eve of the Great October Socialist Revolution (March-October 1917)].

76 See, for example, S. N. Kanev. The October Revolution and the collapse of anarchism. (The struggle of the Bolshevik Party against anarchism in 1917-1922), Moscow, 1974, pp. 84-85.

77 См.: "Woman as Revolutionary". Fd. by F. G. Giffin. N. Y. e. a. 1973; G. J. Massel. The Surrogate Proletariat. Moslem Women and Revolutionary Strategies in Soviet Central Asia. Princeton. 1974; A. Bobroff. The Bolsheviks and Working Women, 1905 - 1920. "Soviet Studies", 1974, vol. 26, N 4; B. Brodsky Farnsworth. Bolshevism, the Woman Question and A. Kollontai. "American Historical Review", Vol. 81, 1976, N 2, etc.

page 136

Even in the 1970s, jazz historiography continued to focus on the Russian working class, the peasantry, and the national liberation movement.

More and more often bourgeois historians turn to the question of the aims, forms, degree of organization and consciousness of the working-class movement in the period of preparation and victory of the Great October Revolution. There are special studies on this topic, among which a prominent place is occupied by the works of the American historian R. Zelnick, who debuted a monograph on the workers of St. Petersburg in the 70s of the XIX century, and then spoke on other problems of the working-class movement in Russia78 . In England, S. White specializes in this problem. The interpretation of the image of the Russian working class has become an integral part of the works of bourgeois historians on the Russian revolutionary movement, on October. Soviet historical science has already rebuffed a number of statements made by bourgeois authors on this subject .79 Modern bourgeois historiography, firstly, often portrays the workers of Russia as semi-peasants, patriarchal in their economic, social, cultural and spiritual characteristics; secondly, it asserts that the Russian working class was easily aroused politically ("rebelliousness"), which explains the support of the Bolshevik party by the workers.

These premises are connected with the general desire to portray the victory of the Bolshevik Party in Russia as again a specifically Russian deviation from the general, normal course of "modernization".

D. Kip, for example, writes that the workers "were essentially rural in their way of life and views." 80 Sovietologists pass such assessments from book to book 81 . The Russian proletariat was indeed connected with the countryside, and this, in particular, favored the creation of a strong alliance between the working class and the poorest peasantry. But to reduce the social psychology of the Russian workers only to rural backwardness and rebelliousness is to distort historical reality, to ignore the qualitatively new image of the Russian proletariat, which is different from the peasant one. The works of Soviet historians reveal the fundamentally important objective and subjective factors that made this class the vanguard of the world labor movement .82 These include the presence of a strong, significant core of hereditary workers, a layer of advanced workers, revolutionaries, and one of the most powerful workers in the world.-

78 R. E. Zelnik. Labor and Society in Tsarist Russia. The Factory Workers of St. -Petersburg. 1855 - 1870. Stanford. 1971; ejusd. Russian Workers and the Revolutionary Movement. "Journal of Social History", Vol. 6, 1972 - 1973, N 2; ejusd. Two and a Half Centuries of Labor History. St. -Petersburg (Petrograd) - Leningrad. "Slavic Review", Vol. 33, 1974, N 3, etc.

79 Among the works that solve this problem in a positive way, see L. S. Gaponenko. The working class of Russia in 1917. The Decisive Force of the Great October; V. I. Selitsky. The masses in the struggle for workers ' Control (March-July 1917). Moscow, 1971, et al. The following works are devoted to criticism of bourgeois historiography: I. V. Mikhailov. Anglo-American bourgeois historiography on workers ' control in the Great October period. "History of the USSR", 1976, N 5; VIII chapter in the monograph "The Hegemony of the proletariat in three Russian revolutions", Moscow, 1975 (author of the chapter-G. A. Yaskovets), et al.

80 J. Keep. The Russian Revolution, p. 17.

81 T. Uldricks. Op. cit., p. 401; R. Pethybridge. Op. cit., p. 167; "The American Image of Russia, 1775 - 1917". N. Y. 1974, p. 14; U. Brugmann. Die russisrhen Gewerkschaften in Revolution und Burgerkrieg 1917 - 1919. Frankfurt a. M. 1972, S. 12; J. Dunn. Modern Revolutions. Cambridge. 1972, p. 31; A. Lindemann. The "Red Yeas". European Socialism versus Bolshevism, 1919 - 1921. Berkeley e. a. 1974, pp. 9- 10, etc.

82 See, for example, A. G. Rashin. Formation of the Russian working class. Historical and economic essays, M. 1958; "The Working Class and the working movement in Russia 1861-1917", M. 1966;" V. I. Lenin and the History of classes and Political parties in Russia", M. 1970;" The History of the workers of Leningrad 1703-1965", T. I. L. 1972; E. E. Kruse. The situation of the working class of Russia in 1900-1914 L. 1976 and others. Partly these factors are recognized by D. Geyer in the above-mentioned collection "Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im vorrevolutionaren Russland", p. 13.

page 137

the temporary weakness of the labor aristocracy and the trade union bureaucracy; the concentration of the proletariat in large and large enterprises; the multinational composition, with the predominance of Russian nationality, which created conditions for the spread of the ideas of internationalism and Marxism-Leninism; and finally, such an important factor as the solid ideological and educational work of the Bolshevik party, Lenin, which had been carried out for decades. Among the Russian working class, there were layers of backward workers who had grown somewhat during the World War. But they did not define the image of the Russian working class.

Bourgeois historiography is forced to recognize certain circumstances that made the working class of Russia the most revolutionary class of our time. But, first of all, she puts "backwardness" and "specificity" in the center of her reasoning, which often hides the anti-scientific concepts of the notorious "Russian soul". Secondly, the inextricable link between the Bolshevik Party and the Russian proletariat is completely ignored and, moreover, persistently denied. The same D. Kip, for example, asserts that by 1914 "it is impossible to accurately measure the impact of revolutionary ideology on industrial workers." 83 But the irrefutable evidence - the elections to the Fourth Duma, the gathering of workers for newspapers, the management of professional and insurance organizations, etc. - clearly and clearly showed that the majority of the organized proletariat of Russia supported the Bolshevik Party. 84 As for the second premise ("rebelliousness", "anarchism"), its inconsistency is also obvious. The enormous creative energy shown by the workers of Russia, their unity around the Bolshevik Party, which gave the proletarian struggle organization, consciousness, and purposefulness - all this sufficiently reveals the far-fetched concepts of bourgeois historians.

The distortion of the image and role of the working class is accompanied by attempts to "excommunicate" communists from the working-class movement. Bourgeois historiography distorts the role of the Bolshevik Party in the Great October Socialist Revolution, seeking to "prove" that the Leninist party was cut off from the working class, to portray the party's policy as subjectivist and unscientific, to falsify the foundations of party construction, and to belittle the role of Lenin, the leader of the party and the people. But even these efforts have no prospects. The Bolshevik Party, led by Lenin, by its tireless work among the proletarian masses, its heroic struggle for the cause of the working class, its courage and dedication in class battles and in everyday everyday work in the most difficult conditions of the underground, proved itself to be an integral part and vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat of Russia, the hegemon class, the leader of all the oppressed and exploited. Their loyalty to the principles of Marxism-Leninism, their ability to apply them in a complex and changing environment, to raise the broad masses of the working people to the level of the advanced class, to rally them around the Soviets, and to impart their determination and organization to the masses - made the Bolsheviks the determining factor in the victory of the Great October Revolution .

Bourgeois historians show considerable interest in the question of the attitude of the Russian peasantry to the October Revolution and Soviet power. The general scheme here is the same: distortion of the socio-economic image of this class, the degree of its consciousness, etc.-

83 See J. Keep. The Russian Revolution, pp. 6, 26.

84 See V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 26, p. 175.

85 See "On the 60th Anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution", p. 14.

page 138

features 86 . In the late 60s and early 70s in England, a number of works [87] propagandized the theses of the Socialist-Revolutionary "theorists" of the peasant question. These same theses are given in his book by D. Kip, who also tries to portray the peasantry as the main actor of the revolution. The bourgeois historiography of the peasant movement in the October Revolution preaches ideas about the isolation of the peasant world, the stability of the Russian peasantry as a class, the absence of class differentiation within it, that is, the denial of all those socio - economic processes in the countryside on which Lenin's policy of the workers 'and peasants' union was based. In this way bourgeois historiography tries to" prove " the alleged opposition between the interests of workers and peasants, the working people of town and country, to distort the popular character of the Great October Socialist Revolution, and to deny the influence of the Bolshevik Party in the countryside.

As shown in the research of Soviet agricultural historians 88 , the social stratification of the peasantry, which became a fact in the XIX century., has made significant progress under the influence of Stolypin's agrarian reform. Stolypin's resettlement policy also contributed to the growth of the revolutionary potential of the peasantry: the stratification of the peasantry increased, and the national liberation movement in the resettlement areas became more acute. D. Kip seeks to refute the political nature of the peasants ' actions during the war years, focusing on economic and socio-psychological aspects. But this is an attempt with useless means, since the mass peasant actions were objectively aimed at achieving fundamental political goals, solving the agrarian question, ending the imperialist war, and so on.After the February Revolution, the agrarian movement developed with renewed vigor, and its participants acquired an even higher level of political consciousness and organization. The further polarization of the peasantry was very clearly revealed. The poorest and most politically active part of it worked in alliance with the working class under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. The Kulaks cooperated more and more openly with the Provisional Government, with the bourgeoisie and the landlords. A significant part of the agrarian revolts in 1917 were directed against the rural bourgeoisie. The deep social differentiation of the Russian countryside found expression and confirmation in the course of the socialist revolution in the countryside, when a strong alliance of the working class with the poorest peasantry, supported in the end by the middle peasant, broke the resistance of the kulak.

Bourgeois historiography persistently belittles the level of political consciousness of the peasant movement during the socialist revolution. Thus, L. Shapiro asserts that " the peasants were

86 For a more detailed critique of the bourgeois historiography of the role of the peasantry in October, see M. N. Korchagova. Anglo-American bourgeois historiography on the role of the peasantry in the revolutions of 1917 "History of the USSR", 1970, N 6; V. A. Poritsky. Edict op., etc.

87 M. Levin. Russian Peasants and Soviet Power. L. 1968; J. Male. Russian Peasant Organization before Collectivization. Cambridge. 1971; T. Shanin. The Awkward Class. Political Sociology of Peasantry in a Developing Society: Russia 1910 - 1925. Oxford. 1972, etc.

88 See, for example, A.M. Anfimov. Krestyanskoe dvizhenie v Rossii v gody pervoi mirovoi voyni [Peasant Movement in Russia during the First World War]. Edict. op., book 2; S. P. Trapeznikov. Leninism and the Agrarian-Peasant Question, Vol. I. Leninist Agrarian Programs in Three Russian Revolutions, Moscow, 1974; S. M. Dubrovsky. Agriculture and the peasantry of Russia in the period of Imperialism, Moscow, 1975; V. I. Kostrikin. Land Committees in 1917, Moscow, 1975; A. S. Smirnov. Bolsheviks and Peasants in the October Revolution, Moscow, 1975; P. N. Sobolev. Consolidation of the Union of Workers and Peasants in the first year of the Proletarian dictatorship, Moscow, 1977, et al.

page 139

they were completely devoid of any political consciousness and actively pursued their own selfish interests in the conditions of anarchy and the collapse of power, with complete indifference to the political consequences and lack of understanding of them. " 89 The theses promoted by L. Shapiro are found in many other Western works .90 However, the profound changes in the consciousness of the peasants associated with the development of capitalism in the Russian countryside, the enormous changes in the level of political consciousness of the peasants after the overthrow of the autocracy, which were especially noticeable in that part of the peasants who were in the armed forces, the work of advanced proletarians, soldiers, sailors, and Bolshevik organizations in the countryside - all this is an indisputable reality of the Russian countryside during the socialist era. revolutions.

Special books and articles by Western historians 91 and general works 92 pay attention to the masses of soldiers and sailors during the preparation and victory of the Great October Revolution . The main line in these publications is to portray the movement in the army and navy as spontaneous and unorganized, while the influence of the Bolsheviks among the soldiers and sailors is presented as the result of exclusively "mistakes" of the ruling circles, and the enormous ideological and organizational work of the party is silenced. This concept is anti-historical. Bourgeois historiography ignores the dynamics of the soldiers ' growing political consciousness, which was proceeding at an unprecedented pace. The low level of political development of certain detachments of soldiers and sailors, especially at the initial stage, is completely inappropriate to extend to the entire period of the October Revolution. The process of forming political consciousness proceeded extremely rapidly in the context of the acute class struggle that unfolded after February 1917, the accumulation of experience by the masses, and the constant propaganda and educational work of the Bolshevik Party, which was supported by the full development of mass organization.

The problems of the national liberation movement and the unfolding of the socialist revolution on the national fringes occupy a special place in bourgeois historiography. In particular, the fact that in the West there is a growing interest in the Soviet experience of solving the national question is reflected. This fact also has its own political background. A prominent Sovietologist, and now an official in the government of J. P. Blavatsky. Zbigniew Brzezinski, on the eve of assuming office, spoke of "promoting pluralism through nationalism and separatism" as an integral part of American policy towards the USSR .93 Sovietologists pay special attention to the history of the October Revolution in various national regions: Ukraine, the Baltic States, Finland, Transcaucasia, Central Asia, and so on .94 But whatever area we're talking about,

89 L. Schapiro. Review of: W. Rosenberg. Liberals in the Russian Revolution. Princeton. 1974, "Soviet Studies", Vol. 28, 1976, N 4, p. 357, he also "characterizes" soldiers: L. Schapiro. Two Years that Shook the World.

90 How far these schemes are from reality is shown by a study of the question of the elimination of religious sentiments by the peasantry during the preparation and victory of October (see L. I. Emelyakh. Peasants and the Church on the eve of October, L. 1976).

91 See G. Wettig. Die Rolle der russischen Armee im revolutionaren Machtkampf 1917. "Forschungen zur osteuropaischen Geschichte". Bd. 12. Wiesbaden. 1967; A. Wildman. The February Revolution in the Russian Army. "Soviet Studies", Vol. 22, 1970, N 1; M. Ferro. The Russian Soldier in 1917: Undisciplined, Patriotic, and Revolutionary. "Slavic Review". Vol. 30, 1971, N 3; D. A. Longley. Officers and Men. A Study of the Development of Political Attitudes Among the Sailors of the Baltic Fleet. "Soviet Studies", Vol. 25, 1973, N 1; D. R. Jones. The Officers and the October Revolution. "Soviet Studies", Vol. 28, 1976, N 2, etc.

92 See: J. Keep. The Russian Revolution, p. XV.

93 "The Economist", N 6968, March 19, 1977, p. 63.

94 O. S. Pidhainy. The Ukrainian Republic in the Great East-European Revolution. Vol. 1. Toronto -N. Y. 1966; vol. 6. Toronto - N. Y. 1975; R. Hovannisian.

page 140

concepts are used that deny the socio-economic prerequisites for the victory of the socialist revolution, the support of the masses for the power of the Soviets, the closeness of the national regions to the working people of the ideas of Bolshevism, etc.In a certain sense, the book of E. Ezergalis stands out among this literature, noting the undivided influence of the Bolsheviks on the working people of Latvia. However, this author also looks for "specific" reasons for this phenomenon, and from the defeat of the Latvian Soviet Republic draws a conclusion about the opposition of the interests of the masses and the Bolshevik Party .95
Works on the socialist revolution in national regions invariably use various versions of the "classless" or "bourgeois" theories of a particular nation, and of the alleged opposition of the struggle for social emancipation to the movement for national emancipation. These" theories", as shown in the works of Soviet researchers, are far from true science .96 The interpretation of the course of the struggle for victory and consolidation of Soviet power in the national regions is equally untenable .97 Thus, although the subject matter of the problems of the Great October Socialist Revolution considered by bourgeois authors is somewhat expanded, they use concepts that Sovietology used before.

The overwhelming majority of Western literature is devoted to such traditional issues of the history of October as the camp of the counter-revolution, the" mistakes " of the opponents of the Bolshevik Party, the "third way", the search for chances lost by the counter-revolution, and so on.However, in recent years there has also been a certain shift in emphasis. In 1968, the American Professor R. Wade wrote:: "Why was February followed by October? This is a fundamental question for any study of the Russian Revolution of 1917. Many answers... They focused mainly on Lenin and the Bolsheviks, or on government and military figures such as Kerensky, Milyukov, and Kornilov. Recently, however, some scholars have begun to question this traditional emphasis and conclude that more attention should be paid to the role of the Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik bloc. " 98 This is reflected in the works about the "center" and "moderates" in the revolution. The" third Way " is sought by the American researcher of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party O. Radki and finds it in the counterrevolutionary Antonov-

The Republic of Armenia. Vol. I. The First Year Berkeley. 1971; R. G. Suny. The Baku Commune 1917 - 1918. Class and Nationality in the Russian Revolution. Princeton. 1972; R. C. Elwood. Russian Social Democracy in the Underground A Study of the RSDRP in the Ukraine, 1907 - 1914. Assen. 1974; A. Ezergalis. The 1917 Revolution in Latvia. N. Y. 1974; U. Germanis. Oberst Vacetis und die lettischen Schutzen im Weltkrieg und in der Oktoberrevolution. Stockholm. 1974; R. Pierce. Op. cit;. D. Kirby. The Finnish Social Democratic Party and the Bolsheviks. "Journal of Contemporary History", Vol. II, 1976, N 2 - 3, etc.

95 This was expressed in the article S. W. Page, A. Ezergalis, written by E. Ezergalis together with the notorious forger S. Page (USA). The Lenin-Latvian Axis in the November Seizure of Power. "Canadian Slavonic Papers", Vol. 19, 1977, N 1.

96 See M. Rubach. Реакційна суть націоналістичних "теорій" безкласовості та "єдиного потоку". Київ. 1955; Э. Баграмов. The National Question and Bourgeois Ideology, Moscow, 1966; G. A. Khidoyatov. Lenin's national Program and the modern ideological struggle. Tashkent, 1972; I. I. Troshev, O. I. Chechenkina. Critique of bourgeois falsification of the national policy of the CPSU, Moscow, 1974, et al.

97 See Criticism of the bourgeois historiography of the October Revolution in national districts: G. A. Galoyan. The labor Movement and the National Question in Transcaucasia (1900-1922). Yerevan. 1969; I. S. Zenushkina. Soviet National Policy and its Critics, Moscow, 1971; L. P. Nagorna. Проти сучасної буржуазної і буржуазно-націоналістичної фальсифікації історії Жовтня на Україні. Київ. 1971; Х. Ш. Inoyatov. Against falsification of the history of the victory of Soviet power in Central Asia and Kazakhstan. Tashkent, 1976, and others.

98 R. A. Wade. Why October? The Russian Search for Peace in 1917. "Soviet Studies", Vol. 20), 1968, N 1, p. 36.

page 141

schine 99 ". It is also necessary to note the increased interest in various kinds of anti-party groups within the Bolshevik Party, in the activities of their leaders during the October period. It is known from widely documented Soviet studies that the defeat of anti-Bolshevik forces during the socialist revolution was historically determined by 100 . To this day, bourgeois authors continue to look for opportunities to fight the socialist revolution that have not been used by the counter-revolution and the compromisers.

In the Western literature of recent years, there are a number of objective assessments of certain aspects of the Great October Revolution. This is the difference between some works by English and French authors 101 . But these examples are not numerous. Objectivism, which masks the struggle against real socialism, remains typical of the Soviet literature.

The triumphant march across the planet of ideas and achievements of the Great October forced some ideologists of the bourgeoisie, working in the field of historiography, to part with certain anti-Soviet concepts. At the same time, the leading roles in bourgeois historiography of the October Revolution, as well as in Sovietology in general, remained apologists for anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, representatives of its most conservative wing. Recently, the ideological confrontation in this area has become more active. Bourgeois historians strive to make more flexible the techniques and methods of distorting the historical experience of October, falsifying historical truth. This requires Marxist historians to further develop the actual problems of the history of the Great October Revolution and to improve the forms and methods of polemics with bourgeois historiography.

99 См.O. H. Radkey. The Unknown Civil War in Soviet Russia. A Study of the Green Movement in the Tambov Region 1920 - 1921. Stanford. 1976, p IX, XII, etc.

100 See V. V. Komin. Bankruptcy of the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois parties of Russia in the period of preparation and victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. M. 1965; N. V. Ruban. The October Revolution and the Collapse of Menshevism, Moscow, 1968; V. N. Laverychev. On the other side of the barricades. (From the history of the struggle of the Moscow bourgeoisie with the revolution). Moscow, 1972; Kh. M. Astrakhan. The Bolsheviks and their political opponents in 1917 L. 1973; S. N. Kanev. Edict. op.; K. V. Gusev. The Party of Social Revolutionaries: from Petty-bourgeois Revolutionism to Counter-revolution, Moscow, 1975; L. M. Spirin. The Collapse of the landlords ' and bourgeois Parties in Russia, Moscow, 1977, G. Z. Ioffe. The Collapse of the Russian Counterrevolution, Moscow, 1977, et al.

101 See Y. Barel. Le developpement economique de la Russie tsariste. P. -La Haye. 1968; P. Dukes. Op cit.; R. Portal. La Russie industrielle de 1881 a 1927. P. 1976; O. Crisp. Studies in trie Russian Economy before 1914. L. - Basingstoke. 1976, etc. For the works of French bourgeois objectivist historians, see N. and V. Naumov. Op. ed., pp. 117-121.

page 142

Постоянный адрес данной публикации: