Pogledi meščanske politike na Oktobrsko revolucijo do druge svetovne vojne

Avtor(ji): Perovšek, Jurij
Jezik: slovenski
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/11686/38140
    • dcterms:title
      • Pogledi meščanske politike na Oktobrsko revolucijo do druge svetovne vojne
    • dcterms:alternative
      • The oulooks of the Slovenian bourgeois politics on the october revolution until world war II
    • dcterms:creator
      • Jurij Perovšek
    • dcterms:subject
      • meščanska politika
      • oktobrska revolucija
      • bourgeois politics
      • October revolution
    • dcterms:abstract
      • V meščanskem taboru, ki sta ga po običajni delitvi sestavljala liberalni in katoliški pol, so o revoluciji 7. novembra 1917 v Rusiji poročali že v prvih dneh po njenem pojavu. 8. novembra 1917 je liberalni Slovenski narod pisal o razvoju dogodkov v Petrogradu 6. novembra 1917, to je neposredno pred revolucionarnim preobratom, 9. novembra pa je katoliški Slovenec podal prvo poročilo o dogodeni revoluciji. Sporočil je, da začasne vlade, ki je pomenila kompromis med meščanskimi in socialističnimi strankami, ni več, njen voditelj Kerenski pa je pobegnil. "Novi oblastniki zapirajo vse, ki se jim postavljajo na pot. " Po vzpostavitvi sovjetske oblasti in njeni utrditvi nasproti protirevoluciji in mednarodni intervenciji v letih 1921/1922 so v meščanskem taboru začeli poglabljati svoje poglede na doseženo novo stopnjo v svetovnem zgodovinskem razvoju. Kot je kasneje zapisalo liberalno Jutro, je bilo namreč ob nastopu sovjetske vladavine malo ljudi, ki bi v njej videli kaj drugega kot "eno izmed bežnih epizod, katere je morala Rusija nujno prehoditi v splošni zmedi, nastopivši po zlomu carizma". Tako na liberalni kot katoliški strani so ugotavljali, da je bila boljševiška revolucija krvav zgodovinski odgovor na predhodne stoletne krivice in zločine (romanovske) caristične preteklosti. Omogočile so jo tedanje vojne razmere, zrahljanost družbenih in političnih razmer (predboljševiška državljanska vojna) v Rusiji in pogum male skupine boljševikov z do podrobnosti zgrajeno politično ideologijo, da je ljudstvu obljubila mir, svobodo in kruh. Meščanska politika je že v dvajsetih letih jasno poudarila, da boljševizem pomeni nevarnost od znotraj in zunaj. V začetku dvajsetih let je v ostrem odklanjanju Oktobra in sovjetske države na podlagi protisemitskega stališča izstopal nekdanji liberalni prvak in do leta 1921 ljubljanski župan dr. Ivan Tavčar. Poglede na boljševistično revolucijo v Rusiji in njeno državo so v meščanski politiki zaokrožili v tridesetih letih. Značilno je bilo njuno izrazito negativno vrednotenje, v katerem sta se liberalna in katoliška stran razlikovali le v posameznih različno naravnanih poudarkih. Liberalci so ob jasno izraženem protijudovskemu stališču ugotavljali, da je bila glede na marksistično teorijo po kateri naj bi do socialistične revolucije najprej prišlo v industrijskih državah z razvitim delavskim razredom, ruska revolucija paradoks. Sicer pa so menili, da je dotedanji razvoj v Zvezi sovjetskih socialističnih republik (ZSSR) dokazal neuresničljivost marksistične doktrine, pa naj ima vsa njena zunanja znamenja. Neizprosni zakon življenja pometa s teorijami, ki so v nasprotju z resničnim živim življenjem. Iz ruskega primera bi morali vsi narodi črpati spoznanje, da je komunizem kot ideja v resnici to, za kar so ga sociologi in psihologi vseskozi razglašali, namreč utopija, ki se nikjer in nikoli ne da doseči. Zato so tudi brezplodne in nesmiselne vse neizmerne žrtve, ki so nujno povezane z vsakim poskusom uresničenja komunističnega programa. "Z majhnim odlomkom teh žrtev in naporov se dajo doseči mnogo večji, lepši in trajnejši uspehi za duševni in materialni napredek vsakega naroda, predvsem pa onih socialno šibkih stanov, za katerih odrešenika se po nemarnem izdaja komunizem. " Na katoliški strani so skladno z ideološkim približevanjem avtoritarnim evropskim državnopolitičnim sistemom v tridesetih letih zaostrili svoje poglede oktobrsko revolucijo in sovjetsko državo. Glavni urednik Slovenca in vidni ideolog političnega katolicizma dr. Ivan Ahčin je ob dvajsetletnici revolucije zapisal, da je "Sovjetija" (tako so v vrstah političnega katolicizma grdilno označevali ZSSR), ki so jo ustvarili poklicni judovski revolucionarji, svojim narodom prinesla še manj svobode kot nekdanji carizem. "Bič, ki žvižga po hrbtu preprostega ljudstva, je iz rok ruskega bojarja prešel v roke marksističnega žida." Sovjetski narodi vsa leta, kar žive pod boljševiško oblastjo, niso uživali ne miru, ne svobode, zaradi lakote je umrlo milijone ljudi. "Boljševiški eksperiment" je propadel in tudi komunistični val je v Evropi že dosegel svoj višek ter ga prekoračil. Ahčin je svojo oceno boljševistične revolucije in razmer v njeni državi sklenil s poudarkom, da je bilo najpomembnejša opora dotedanje obrambe proti komunizmu v to usmerjeno sistematično in ogromno delo katoliške Cerkve. V slovenskem meščanskem taboru, ki je imel dober vpogled v revolucionarni oktober in njegovo državo, so na podlagi svojega razumevanja človeške družbe in posameznika v njej v krvavem družbenem prelomu ter v njem porojenem sovjetskem družbenem, političnem in gospodarskem razvoju, videli temeljno civilizacijsko grožnjo svetu, v katerega so bili vraščeni in so ga zavestno podpirali. Čeprav so zgodovinsko razumeli oktobrski pojav, njegovih posledic niso sprejemali. Obenem s protisemitskim stališčem so opozarjali na totalitarni značaj sovjetske skupnosti, njene gospodarske in družbene neuspehe ter šibak položaj v mednarodni skupnosti. A to v njihovih pogledih ni zmanjšalo pomena boljševizma kot ključnega ideološkega nasprotnika. Izjavljanje boja proti njemu je bila stalnica meščanske politike v Kraljevini Srbov, Hrvatov in Slovencev/Kraljevini Jugoslaviji. Bila je sestavni del njene ideološke podlage, ki so mu na katoliški strani dali tudi prepoznavni svetovnonazorski naboj. V taki ideološki in politični drži je meščanski tabor dočakal konec jugoslovanske kraljevine in vstopil v čas druge svetovne vojne na Slovenskem.
      • The bourgeois camp, consisting of the liberal and Catholic side in line with the usual division, reported on the 7 November 1917 revolution in Russia as soon as a few days after its beginning. On 8 November 1917 the liberal newspaper Slovenski narod wrote about the developments in Petrograd two days earlier, i.e. immediately before the revolutionary overthrow; while on 9 November the Catholic newspaper Slovenec published the first report on the revolution that had taken place. The article stated that the provisional government, which had represented a compromise between the bourgeois and socialist parties, was gone, while its leader Kerensky fled. "The new authorities are imprisoning everyone who might represent an obstacle." After the establishment of the Soviet authority and its consolidation against the counter-revolution and international intervention in 1921 and 1922, the bourgeois camp started reassessing their outlooks on the new level achieved in the global historical development. As the liberal newspaper Jutro wrote later, at the beginning of the Soviet government few people saw this as anything else but "one of the fleeting episodes that Russia had no choice but to face in the general confusion that followed the breakdown of tsarism". The liberal as well as the Catholic side established that the Bolshevik Revolution was a bloody historical response to the preceding century-long injustice and crimes of the (Romanov) tsarist past. It was made possible by the concurrent war circumstances, deterioration of the social and political circumstances (the pre-Bolshevik civil war) in Russia, and the courage that a small group of Bolsheviks with their meticulously constructed political ideology exhibited when it promised the people peace, freedom, and bread. Already in the 1920s, the bourgeois politics emphasised very clearly that Bolshevism represented a danger from within as well as without. At the beginning of the 1920s, the former liberal leader and until 1921 the Mayor of Ljubljana Dr Ivan Tavčar stood out due to his resolute rejection of the October and the Soviet state on the basis of his anti-Semitic standpoint. The outlooks on the Bolshevist Revolution in Russia and its state were consolidated in the bourgeois politics in the 1930s. They were typically exceedingly negative, and the only difference between the liberal and the Catholic side were the specifically-oriented individual emphases. Apart from expressing a clear anti-Jewish standpoint, the liberals established that the Russian Revolution was a paradox in view of the Marxist theory according to which socialist revolutions were supposed to begin in the industrial countries with a highly-developed working class. Otherwise they believed that the development of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) until then had attested to the unfeasibility of the Marxist doctrine, regardless of how many of its outward signs it exhibited. The merciless reality of life tends to eradicate theories that oppose the true, realistic existence. On the basis of the Russian example, all nations should realise that communism as an idea was in fact what it had always been declared as by sociologists and psychologists: an utopic idea that could not be ever achieved anywhere. Consequently all the incalculable casualties, unavoidably related to every attempt at implementing the communist programme, were futile and senseless. "With a tiny fraction of these casualties and efforts, we could achieve many greater, more beautiful and permanent successes for the spiritual and material progress of every nation, in particular the progress of the weakest classes, whose saviour communism carelessly pretends to be." Meanwhile, the Catholic side radicalised its outlooks on the October Revolution and the Soviet state in accordance with its ideological approximation to the authoritarian European state-political system in the 1930s. On the twentieth anniversary of the Revolution, the editor-in-chief of the Slovenec newspaper and renowned ideologue of political Catholicism Dr Ivan Ahčin wrote that "Sovietia" (a pejorative term for the USSR, used by the ranks of the political Catholicism), created by the professional Jewish revolutionaries, had brought even less freedom for its nations than the former tsarism. "The whip striking the backs of the simple folk has been passed from the Russian aristocracy to Marxist Jews." During the years under the Bolshevik authority, the Soviet nations enjoyed neither peace nor freedom, and millions of people starved to death. The "Bolshevik experiment" failed, while the communist wave in Europe had already reached its peak and was now in decline. Ahčin concluded his assessment of the Bolshevik revolution and the situation in its country with the emphasis that the systematic and enormous efforts of the Catholic Church had provided the most important support to the defence against communism. The Slovenian bourgeois camp, which possessed a thorough insight into the revolutionary October and its country, saw the bloody social overthrow and the consequent Soviet social, political, and economic development as a fundamental threat to the civilised world – on the basis of the bourgeois camp's intrinsic and consciously advocated understanding of the human society and individuals in it. Even though the bourgeois camp understood the October phenomenon historically, it did not accept its consequences. While simultaneously exhibiting an anti-Semitic viewpoint, it would underline the totalitarian character of the Soviet community, its economic and social failures, and its weak position in the international community,. However, in the opinion of the bourgeois camp these failures by no means diminished the importance of Bolshevism as the key ideological opponent. The declared struggle against Bolshevism was the permanent feature of the bourgeois politics in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes/Kingdom of Yugoslavia. This was an integral part of its ideological foundations, which the Catholic side provided with a distinct world-view moment as well. With such an ideological and political attitude, the bourgeois camp saw the end of the Yugoslav Kingdom and entered the time of World War II in Slovenia.
    • 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:38140
    • dcterms:language
      • slv
    • dcterms:isPartOf