Changing View on Russian Revolution 1917 – Slovenia in Global Perspective

Avtor(ji): Gašparič, Jure
Jezik: angleški
Vrsta gradiva: Video
Leto: 2017
Založnik(i): Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, Ljubljana
Soavtor(ji): Damijan Guštin (org. odb.), Jurij Perovšek (org. odb.), Jure Gašparič (org. odb.), Filip Čuček (org. odb.), Mojca Šorn (org. odb.)


  • Vsi metapodatki
    • dcterms:identifier http://hdl.handle.net/11686/38136
    • dcterms:title
      • Changing View on Russian Revolution 1917 – Slovenia in Global Perspective
    • dcterms:alternative
      • Spreminjajoč pogled na rusko revolucijo – Slovenija v globalni perspektivi
    • dcterms:creator
      • Jure Gašparič
    • dcterms:subject
      • oktobrska revolucija
      • October revolution
    • dcterms:abstract
      • Leta 1967 je eden najvplivnejših evropskih tednikov – nemški Spiegel objavil daljši članek z naslovom Ein halbes Jahrhundert nach Bronsteins Geburtstags-Putsch. Spiegel je popisal dogajanje iz leta 1917 in sklenil: "To je bila 'Velika socialistična oktobrska revolucija'. V komunističnih državah – to danes pomeni pri eni tretjini človeštva – velja za rojstvo novega, boljšega sveta in novega, boljšega človeka." Revolucija in razvoj sovjetskega imperija sta tedaj vznemirjala … Po petdesetih letih je bilo povsod po svetu več kot očitno, da je tisto simbolično vkrcanje na vlak v Švici pretreslo politično, gospodarsko in kulturno arhitekturo sveta. Ameriški New York Times je takrat prvič po izbruhu revolucije na ozemlje SZ poslal posebno skupino novinarjev, ki je tedne potovala po neskončno deželi in pisala o posledicah oktobra 1917. Slovensko zgodovinopisje je tedaj pripravilo velik simpozij 50. obletnica oktobrske revolucije in 30. obletnica ustanovnega kongresa Komunistične partije Slovenije. Globalni pogled na ruski Oktober je v letu 1967 vsekakor bil zelo različen (in razumljivo odvisen od politične in blokovske ureditve sveta), a hkrati v nekaj važnih točkah enoten: Pomena dogodka izpred pol stoletja ni nihče zanikal, nihče ni ob njem zamahnil z roko. Prevladovalo je prepričanje, da Rusija in del sveta po oktobru 1917 nista več bila enaka, "po starem" dejansko ni šlo več naprej. Del zgodovine revolucije je nedvomno tudi spreminjajoč pogled nanjo, zato si ga velja podrobneje pogledati, saj bomo le tako bolje razumeli njene globalne učinke in osmišljali današnja in prihodnja politična stališča. Med letoma 1917 in 1924 so po skoraj vsej zemeljski obli izhajali podlistki in komentarji o svetovnem pomenu dogajanja v Rusiji. Računalniški iskalnik po New York Timesu najde pod geslom Russian Revolution v letih 1917–1919 kar 1979 zadetkov. Množičnemu ocenjevanju so se pridružili tudi številni pisci s slovenskega ozemlja. Želji, podati svojo oceno, se niso mogli upreti v nobenem političnem taboru (ne liberalnem, ne katoliškem, ne marksističnem), pri nobeni politični skupini. Tedaj sploh ni šlo za komunizem, so pisali, marveč za veliko več, za prekrajanje (preoblikovanje) človeka. Revolucija je odprla neslutene možnosti. Na Slovenskem so nanjo sprva zrli v pričakovanju boljšega (četudi zavedajoč se nevarnosti), konec tridesetih let pa se je ocena zaostrila. Časniki so ugotavljali, da je komunizem "le utopija", v slovenskem katoliškem političnem taboru so zapisali: "Rdeči paradiž na zemlji je v resnici ves rdeč – od prelite človeške krvi." Po drugi svetovni vojni se je ocenjevanje ruskega oktobra v Sloveniji in nasploh v Jugoslaviji precej spremenilo. Če je pred letom 1945 opazovalec lahko spremljal številne kritične, a tudi pozitivne ocene revolucije, prvih odtlej ni bilo več najti. V prvem obdobju po koncu vojne so prevladovale le panegirične hvalnice in nekritični hvalospevi. Po sporu z Informbirojem leta 1948 je nato razumljivo prišlo do delnega preobrata, ki pa v bistvu ni zadeval idejnih prvin ruskega Oktobra. Jugoslovanska državna in partijska ideologija se namreč oktobrski revoluciji nista odrekli. Ta je ostajala eden od fundamentov sistema, v šolskih učbenikih je bila predstavljena v najsvetlejši luči, proslave o Oktobru pa so se v šolskih avlah odvijale vse do konca osemdesetih let. Informbirojevski prelom se je morda še najbolj kazal v zgodovinopisju, ki ni kazalo resnejšega interesa po proučevanju dogajanja leta 1917 (razen leta 1967). Jugoslovanska in slovenska optika je seveda bila čisto drugačna od tiste v na Zahodu in v ZDA. O tem, kakšno mnenje o Oktobru je bilo uveljavljeno med ljudmi v Sloveniji, lahko le ugibamo, a sklepajoč po tem, da so bile prvine ruskega Oktobra vtkane tudi v narativ jugoslovanske revolucije, lahko trdimo, da mu je bilo naklonjeno. V javnomnenjskih anketah (od leta 1968) se je Sovjetska zveza kot država po svojih lastnostih in priljubljenosti vseskozi uvrščala zelo visoko. Do večjih sprememb v odnosu do ruskega Oktobra tako na globalni kot na slovenski ravni je prišlo konec osemdesetih let, ko se je zamajala bipolarna ureditev sveta. Ob sedemdeseti obletnici revolucije, leta 1987, je Mihail Gorbačov dejal: "The changes taking place in the country today probably constitute the biggest step in developing socialist democracy since the October revolution." S to oceno se nedolgo – le tri leta – kasneje soglašali domala vsi svetovni politiki in mediji. Leto 1990 so unisono razglasili za The Year of the People, za najbolj prelomno leto po letu 1917. In zdi se, da je takrat, leta 1990, bilo zadnje leto, ko je ruski Oktober še imel veljavo svetovnega in epohalnega dogodka. Njegova izzivalna moč je nato začela zginevati. Ruski oktober danes tako deluje "včerajšnje", kot daven dogodek, čigar posledice so se že razblinile. Skoraj nihče – ne v Evropi ne v Rusiji – ne ve, kako se – če sploh – opredeljevati do velikega dogajanja leta 1917. Tako (navidezni?) zlom ruskega imperija kot sama revolucija leta 1917 sta izgubila privlačnost. Ugotovimo lahko, da je odnos do dogodka izpred 100 let gotovo v senci aktualnega političnega dogajanja, kakor je ne nazadnje vselej bil, a z eno bistveno razliko – dogodek do devetdesetih let ni bil spregledan. In to veliko pove o času, v katerem živimo. Kakor da so se velike možnosti, ki jih je po mnenju številnih opazovalcev odprla revolucija, z letom 1990 dokončno izčrpale. Bo nekoč izginila tudi privlačna moč dogodkov iz let 1989, 1990 in 1991? Le na naslednji Year of the People je treba počakati.
      • In 1967 one of the most influential European weekly newspapers – the German Spiegel – published a lengthy article entitled Ein halbes Jahrhundert nach Bronsteins Geburtstags-Putch. The Spiegel described the events that had taken place in 1917 and concluded: "This was the 'Great Socialist October Revolution'." In the communist countries – today these amount to one third of humankind – this implies the birth of a new, better world and a new, better man. The revolution and the development of the Soviet empire at the time was upsetting... Fifty years later it was obvious all around the world that the symbolic embarking on the train in Switzerland had shaken the global political, economic, and cultural architecture. For the first time after the revolution broke out in the territory of the Soviet Union, the American New York Times deployed a special group of journalists, which would travel around the enormous country for weeks and write about the consequences of October 1917. At the time, the Slovenian historiography prepared a large-scale symposium The 50th Anniversary of the October Revolution and the 30th Anniversary of the Inaugural Congress of the Communist Party of Slovenia. In 1967, the global outlook on the Russian October definitely varied greatly (understandably depending on the political and bloc structure of the world). However, it had a few important common points: nobody denied or disregarded the significance of the event that had taken place fifty years earlier. The conviction that Russia and a part of the world had no longer been the same after October 1917 prevailed: the "old ways" had in fact become untenable. The changing outlook on the October Revolution by all means represents a part of the history of the Revolution, and therefore it has to be examined more closely, as this is the only way to understand the Revolution's global impact as well as to give meaning to the current and future political standpoints. Between 1917 and 1924, contributions and commentaries on the global importance of the developments taking place in Russia kept being published all around the world. The New York Times search engine returns as many as 1979 hits for the query "Russian Revolution" in the period between 1917 and 1919. Numerous authors from the Slovenian territory have contributed to the massive collection of assessments as well. None of the political camps (neither the liberal, Catholic, nor the Marxist side) and political groups could resist the urge to give their own evaluation. The Revolution had nothing to do with communism at all, they would write, but rather involved much more: the alteration (transformation) of humankind. It opened unprecedented possibilities. In Slovenia it was initially followed with the expectation of something better (even though everyone was aware of the danger), but towards the end of the 1930s these assessments radicalised. The press established that communism was "merely utopic", while the Slovenian Catholic political camp wrote: "The red paradise on Earth is truly completely red – from all the bloodshed." After World War II, the assessment of the Russian October in Slovenia and in the rest of Yugoslavia changed significantly. If before 1945 one could follow numerous critical as well as positive evaluations of the Revolution, the former could no longer be found afterwards. The first period after the end of the war was characterised exclusively by panegyrical praises and uncritical glorifications. A partial change understandably took place after the 1948 Cominform dispute, although this, in its essence, had nothing to do with the ideological aspects of the Russian October. Namely, the Yugoslav state and Party ideology did not renounce the October Revolution. Quite the opposite: it remained one of the fundamental elements of the system; it was presented in the brightest possible light in the school textbooks; and the celebrations dedicated to October would be organised in the school facilities until as late as the 1980s. The Cominform turning point was perhaps most obvious in the historiography, which did not express a more serious interest in studying the 1917 events (except in the year 1967). Naturally, the Yugoslav and Slovenian optics were completely different from that in the West and in the United States of America. We can only guess what opinion the Slovenian people had of the October Revolution, but judging from the fact that the basic elements of the Russian October were also ingrained in the narrative of the Yugoslav Revolution, we can safely claim that it was favourable. In the public opinion polls (as of 1968), the Soviet Union as a state always ranked very high in terms of its characteristics and popularity. Major changes in the attitude towards the Russian October on the global as well as the Slovenian level took place towards the end of the 1980s, when the bipolar global system became unstable. On the occasion of the 70th anniversary of the Revolution in 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev said: "The changes taking place in the country today probably constitute the biggest step in developing socialist democracy since the October Revolution." Not long after that – only three years later – almost all politicians and media worldwide agreed with this assessment. 1990 was unanimously declared as The Year of the People – as the most pivotal year after 1917. It seems that this – the year 1990 – was the last year when the Russian October still enjoyed the reputation of a globally-important and epochal event. Afterwards its provocative power started waning. Today the Russian October thus appears to be "outdated", an ancient event whose consequences have already dissipated. Almost nobody – neither in Europe nor in Russia – knows how to respond to the momentous developments of 1917, if at all. The (apparent?) demise of the Russian Empire as well as the 1917 Revolution itself have lost their appeal. We can establish that the attitude towards the events that took place a century ago is certainly overshadowed by the current political developments, as it has, after all, always been – yet with one crucial difference: until the 1990s, the Revolution was not ignored. This says a lot about the times we live in – as if the great opportunities, provided by the Revolution in the opinion of many of those who have observed it, were finally exhausted in 1990. Will the fascination with the 1989, 1990, and 1991 events disappear eventually, as well? All we have to wait for is the next Year of the People.
    • dcterms:publisher
      • Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino, Ljubljana
    • dcterms:contributor
      • Damijan Guštin (org. odb.)
      • Jurij Perovšek (org. odb.)
      • Jure Gašparič (org. odb.)
      • Filip Čuček (org. odb.)
      • Mojca Šorn (org. odb.)
    • dcterms:type
      • Moving Image
    • dcterms:source
      • SISTORY:ID:38136
    • dcterms:language
      • eng
    • dcterms:isPartOf