Optimists, pessimists, and apocalyptics look at Russia on the 100th anniversary of the Revolution
The commemoration of the centenary of the Russian Revolution of 1917 has begun. A major historical revision is underway. Our post-globalisation times resemble 1917. The Moscow Patriarchate and Vladimir Putin are silent on the matter.
Moscow (AsiaNews) – The centenary of the Russian revolution of 1917 promises to be long and bumpy, like the event itself. In fact, it was a dual revolution: that of February 1917, a spontaneous uprising that led to the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II and the establishment of a provisional government, and that of October, the coup d’État that brought Lenin’s Bolsheviks to power.
Several things happened in between: Lenin arrived in April, an unstable interim government was established in May, Soviets (workers’ councils) held their first conference in June, another spontaneous uprising took place in Petrograd (St Petersburg) in July. In August, the Orthodox Church met in council; General Kornilov made a last attempt in September to avoid the catastrophe, and finally in October the Bolsheviks stormed the Winter Palace and seized the power that was in no one’s hands.
Each stage and the events therein deserve in-depth interpretations and comparisons. Russia’s inability to solve its crisis of 1917 looks a lot like the disruptions and loss of governability now increasingly frequent in Europe and around the world. Juxtaposed to similar situations in Germany, Italy and Spain after World War I, these circumstances cast a disturbing light on the times we are living in the post-globalisation of the last few years.
The first reflections in Russia about the first uprising in February actually took place this March*. The revolt of 23 February (Julian calendar) coincides with 8 March (Gregorian calendar), which is now International Women’s Day, a rarely mentioned fact, because the women of Petrograd (then the Russian capital) took to the streets to demand bread. Russia was ruined by war, and the few remaining guards (the whole army was at the front) failed to hold back the popular revolt. Tsar Nicholas II, in the throes of depression and alcoholism, abdicated in favour of his brother Michael, who in turn declined the honour, throwing Russia into chaos.
Russia and world media are filled with stories about the anniversary. At least three approaches can be discerned. On one hand, the optimists believe that the revolution could have been avoided. On the other, the pessimists argue that it would have taken place anyway, even if events had gone differently. A third group, which we might call the apocalyptics, sees 1917 as a prophecy for the future of Russia and the whole world.
According to the optimists, had the Tsar avoided the war (or won it) and had he not panicked and renounced the throne, and all would have been well. After all, Russia in the early part of the century had begun a series of political, economic and social reforms that would have ensured a bright future, had they been completed. This opinion somehow strengthens the hopes of today’s reformers about the future of Russia (many expect Putin to move towards reforms), Europe and the global economy, currently ensnared in a decade-long crisis.
The pessimists base their view on the examples of other countries. In Germany, Italy and Spain there was no revolution but dictatorship, and the world rushed into the catastrophe of World War II. Applied today, this lesson teaches that we cannot stop the anger of the excluded, of the suffering social classes, the tortured masses exploited by the powerful. Thus, we should expect very dark times.
The apocalyptic vision belongs primarily to religious movements and extreme identity ideologies who see the revolution as a "test" and a necessary "purification" along the way to rediscovering the right path. The guide of this regeneration is attributed to the Church, the "faithful people" against the evils of the world, and the preferably messianic appearance of a "strong man" able to unite all people of good will.
These various visions are often reflected in the public opinion of various countries, even within the same social groups or religious community. The Patriarchate of Moscow, for example, has so far declined to take an official position, limiting itself only to a scientific conference held on 18 February in the Cathedral of the Saviour, which was attended by several cultural, social and even Church leaders. Metropolitan Ilarion limited himself to a fatalistic comparison of the revolution to other tragic events of Russian history (the Tartar yoke, the troubles of the 17th century, the war with Napoleon), noting that the Church survived all this, whilst remaining close to the its people. However, another part of the Russian Orthodox Church, the foreign "czarist" Church that came into being after the revolution, issued a much more explicit statement on 10 March, stressing the need to restore “God’s willed” power even in today's Russia for the salvation of the world.
President Putin has so far refused to speak on the matter, leaving it to others to say that he is the only one who can save Russia, and perhaps the world, from a repeat of such tragic events. Now we shall see who will comment Lenin’s famous "April Theses", in which the Bolshevik leader theorised Soviet power of the people, the "enlightened minority" that claimed the role of conscience of the unwitting masses. This is the essence of Leninism (and ancient Christian Gnosticism): When everything goes wrong, you have to rely on a few "pure men."
The Patriarch of Moscow Kirill has also held his peace, but he will have to mark the 100th anniversary of the restoration of his own patriarchal role, and ask himself, like all Christians in the world, about what role the Church can play in the times ahead.
* The October Revolution took place on 25 October in the Julian calendar, i.e. 7 November in the Gregorian calendar.
.png)
17/12/2020 09:13
14/10/2019 09:15
