Ruski »oktober« v Britovškovem znanstvenem opusu

Avtor(ji): Lešnik, Avgust
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.), Neja Blaj Hribar


  • Vsi metapodatki
    • dcterms:identifier http://hdl.handle.net/11686/38144
    • dcterms:title
      • Ruski »oktober« v Britovškovem znanstvenem opusu
    • dcterms:alternative
      • The "Russian October" in the scientific opus of the historian Marjan Britovšek
    • dcterms:creator
      • Avgust Lešnik
    • dcterms:subject
      • zgodovinopisje
      • Marjan Britovšek
      • historiography
      • Marjan Britovšek
    • dcterms:abstract
      • Prof. Marjan Britovšek (1923–2008) je bil prvi slovenski zgodovinar, ki se je sistematično in znanstveno začel ukvarjati z raziskovanjem zgodovine mednarodnega delavskega gibanja ter še posebej stalinizma in destalinizacije v Sovjetski zvezi, hkrati pa je veljal za največjega slovenskega/jugoslovanskega poznavalca frakcijskih spopadov v bivši Sovjetski zvezi in v Kominterni (KI). S svojimi analizami, oprtimi na arhivsko in dokumentarno gradivo, ki ga je preučeval v arhivih in bibliotekah v Moskvi, Berlinu, Leipzigu, Amsterdamu, na Dunaju idr., se je uvrstil med ugledne mednarodne raziskovalce stalinizma. Vrednost Britovškovega raziskovalnega dela na tem segmentu sodobne zgodovine je bila še posebno v tem, da naša (slovenska/jugoslovanska) zgodovinska zavest ni bila obremenjena s političnimi pogledi in enostranskimi razlagami sovjetskega zgodovinopisja, kot je bilo to zaznati v drugih socialističnih državah pred padcem berlinskega zidu. V ospredju Britovškovih objav te vrste stojijo obsežne knjige, ki zaokrožajo avtorjeve raziskave "ruske stvarnosti" od začetka 19. stoletja do destalinizacije v petdesetih in šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja: Revolucionarni idejni preobrat med prvo svetovno vojno. Lenin v boju za tretjo internacionalo (1969); Boj za Leninovo dediščino (1976); Carizem, revolucija, stalinizem. Družbeni razvoj v Rusiji in perspektive socializma (1980); Korenine stalinizma in negativne posledice kulta osebnosti (1980); Stalinov termidor (1984). Britovškova dela, ki temeljijo na neposrednih raziskavah, so ob izidu vzbudila veliko pozornost tako strokovne kot laične javnosti, saj so odprla številna zgodovinska, idejna, sociološka in politična vprašanja, hkrati pa so predstavljala izhodišče za širše spraševanje o stalinizmu, kultu osebnosti, Oktobru in njegovi usodi. Britovšek k ruskemu "oktobru" (planirani boljševiški revoluciji) raziskovalno ni pristopal zgolj kot boljševiškemu aktu revolucionarnega prevzema oblasti, pač pa ga je – kot je že razbrati iz naslovov navedenih knjig – razumel in obravnaval v širšem problemskem/tematskem in časovnem okviru. Ta se začne z rusko revolucijo 1905–1907, kot "generalko" za obe revoluciji v letu 1917, in se razteza v sredino tridesetih let, ko je Stalin – kot zmagovalec v frakcijskih bojih, ki so vseskozi pretresali VKP/b/ – s svojo "administrativno revolucijo od zgoraj" in "termidorjem" dokončno razblinil ideale oktobrske revolucije. V referatu se ozremo na ključna problemska vprašanja in dileme družbenoekonomskega in političnega razvoja sovjetske Rusije oziroma Sovjetske zveze, s katerimi se je soočalo neenotno boljševiško vodstvo v prvih dve desetletjih po prevzemu oblasti, kot so: vojni komunizem, nova ekonomska politika, teror, birokratizacija, prepoved frakcij, vloga in položaj sindikatov, nacionalno vprašanje, federacija, industrializacija, kolektivizacija idr. Britovškova raziskava teh vprašanj v obdobju leninizma in stalinizma (ki ju je ločeval in ne enačeval!) temelji na empiričnih dejstvih, ki vodijo v sintezo makro ravni raziskovanja (družbeni procesi, frakcijski boji itn.) z mikro ravnijo (osebnosti boljševiških voditeljev, njihove ideološke platforme itn.). Posebej je raziskal odnos med Stalinom kot političnim voditeljem in VKP/b/. Enostranskosti, ki jih najdemo v raziskavah Isaaca Deutscherja, ki predstavljajo (v Britovškovem raziskovalnem obdobju) "the study of case", so ga privedle do preučevanja vzročne zveze med političnim sistemom in ideološkimi stališči, ki so bila sporna. Precejšnjo pozornost je namenil vodilnim idejam partijskih frakcij (Trocki, Buharin, Zinovjev, Radek, Kamenjev idr.). Britovšek je tezo o "termidorskem značaju" Stalinove politične dejavnosti preveril v njenem političnem in ideološkem smislu – kot degeneracijo osnovnega cilja oktobrske revolucije, izgradnje demokratične družbe, v kateri je socializem samo prva razvojna faza. Če je revolucija nasilno avtoritarno dejanje osvajanja oblasti, se postavlja vrsta vprašanj o konstituiranju celotne družbenoekonomske in politične ureditve po osvojitvi oblasti v imenu delavskega razreda. Niti leva niti desna opozicija nista oporekali nujnosti nasilnih metod v začetni fazi vzpostavljanja oblasti; obe pa sta se motili – nekaj zaradi podcenjevanja faktorja zaostalosti in zgodovinskih nasledkov v Rusiji, deloma pa zaradi revolucionarne zahteve po hitrejših in vsebinskih spremembah sovjetske družbe. Seveda pa ruski "oktober" v vsej svoji kompleksnosti ni bil le notranja ruska/sovjetska zadeva, saj je zaznamoval tako polarizacijo sveta v 20. stoletju (kapitalizem–socializem) kot tudi usodno vplival na mednarodno delavsko gibanje. V zimmerwaldskem gibanju, zraslem na zlomu druge internacionale ob izbruhu svetovne vojne, so bile Leninove ideje o preobrazbi imperialistične vojne v državljansko zgolj teoretsko akceptirane. Za to, da bi se ta položaj lahko spremenil v radikalnem smislu, so bile potrebne dolgoročne revolucionarne akcije, ki so bile zmožne podeliti boljševiški politiki verodostojnost; to se je zgodilo šele z oktobrsko (planirano) revolucijo. Na osnovi izrekanja za ali proti revoluciji (kot nedemokratičnemu aktu prevzemanja oblasti) se je delavsko gibanje po prvi svetovni vojni organizacijsko in idejno razcepilo na socialistični in komunistično gibanje, tako v nacionalnem kot internacionalnem pogledu. Glavna gonilna sila nove komunistične internacionale (KI) so bili od prvega dne njenega obstoja Lenin, boljševiki in oktobrska revolucija. Na pomembno vprašanje – ali je bila KI stalinistična organizacija oziroma epifenomen stalinizma – dobivamo danes v glavnem a priori pritrdilen odgovor. Toda tudi tu moramo upoštevati zgodovinsko stališče, ki kaže, kot poudarja prof. Britovšek, da med KI in stalinizmom ne bi smeli postavljati enačaja. Namreč KI se je oblikovala na valovih revolucionarnega vrenja v Evropi leta 1919 in je dobivala inspiracijo predvsem iz Leninovih idej in tematik, ki so bile formulirane kot temeljne ideje KI na prvih petih kongresih (1919–1924). Potemtakem je bila KI organizacijsko, idejno in teoretsko ustanovljena brez Stalina ali z njegovim minimalnim in nebistvenim sodelovanjem. V tem smislu je bilo zelo pomembno obdobje od 1924 do 1929, ko je Stalin začel postopno "prevzemati", boljševizirati KI in ko je revolucionarno organizacijo s svetovnimi cilji dejansko spreminjal v instrument svoje notranje in zunanje politike. Preučevanje tega obdobja je po mnenju prof. Britovška zelo pomembno, ker se je tedaj zgodilo vse, kar je določalo nadaljnjo usodo SZ in KI, in ker se je takrat oblikoval in vzpostavil sistem, ki ga kasneje opredelimo kot stalinizem. Namreč od leta 1930 se v KI niso menjali samo funkcionarji, marveč se je spreminjala tudi idejna osnova. S tezo o brezpogojni podpori izgradnji "socializma v eni deželi", kar naj bi bila prednostna naloga vsake KP, je bila narejena revizija temeljnih načel proletarskega internacionalizma, kakor ga je formuliral Lenin. Boj za varnost SZ je postal glavna naloga, sama KI pa se je postopoma spreminjala od samostojne organizacije v "sekcijo" VKP/b/. S kultom leninizma je Stalin ustvaril idejno osnovo za svojo praktično in teoretsko nadvlado in absolutno osebno oblast, potem ko je podredil svojemu aparatu tako VKP/b/ kot tudi centralne organe KI, prek nje pa bolj ali manj tudi KP kot sekcije KI. Tema, ki zahteva veliko pozornosti, doslej še ni bila nikjer celovito obdelana, in tudi prof. Britovšek je v svojih delih podal samo osnovne obrise.
      • Professor Marjan Britovšek (1923–2008) was the first Slovenian historian to systematically and scientifically research the history of the international workers' movement, especially Stalinism and destalinisation in the Soviet Union, while he was at the same time known as the foremost Slovenian/Yugoslav expert in the conflicts between the fractions in the former Soviet Union and Comintern. With his analyses, based on the archive and documentary materials that he studied in the archives and libraries in Moscow, Berlin, Leipzig, Amsterdam, Vienna, etc., he asserted himself as one of the renowned international researchers of Stalinism. Britovšek's research of this segment of contemporary history was valuable especially because our (Slovenian/Yugoslav) historical conscience was not burdened with the political outlooks and one-sided explanations of the Soviet historiography, which was notable in the other socialist countries before the fall of the Berlin Wall. Britovšek's work on this topic culminated in the lengthy books, crowning the author's research of the "Russian reality" since the beginning of the 19th century until the destalinisation in the 1950s and 1960s: Revolucionarni idejni preobrat med prvo svetovno vojno. Lenin v boju za tretjo internacionalo (Revolutionary Ideological Watershed During World War I. Lenin in the Struggle for the Third International, 1969); Boj za Leninovo dediščino (The Struggle for Lenin's Legacy, 1976); Carizem, revolucija, stalinizem. Družbeni razvoj v Rusiji in perspektive socializma (Tsarism, Revolution, Stalinism. Social Development in Russia and the Perspectives of Socialism, 1980); Korenine stalinizma in negativne posledice kulta osebnosti (The Roots of Stalinism and the Negative Consequences of the Personality Cult, 1980); Stalinov termidor (Stalin's Thermidor, 1984). At the time of their publication, Britovšek's works, based on hands-on research, stirred up considerable attention of the expert as well as the general public, as they raised numerous historical, ideological, sociological, and political questions; while they at the same time represented a foundation for a broader examination of Stalinism, the cult of personality, as well as the October and its ultimate destiny. Britovšek did not research the "Russian October" (the envisioned Bolshevik Revolution) merely as the Bolshevik act of the revolutionary takeover of power, but rather – as it is already obvious from the titles of the aforementioned books – understood and examined it in the wider framework of issues, topics, and time. This framework began with the Russian Revolution 1905–1907 as a "dress rehearsal" for both revolutions that took place in 1917, and extended into the middle of the 1930s when Stalin – who emerged victorious from the struggle between fractions that kept taking place in the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) – hereinafter VKP(b). Stalin's "administrative revolution from above" and "Thermidor" ultimately put an end to the ideals of the October Revolution. The paper examines the key issues and dilemmas regarding the socio-economic and political development of the Soviet Russia or the Soviet Union, which the disunited Bolshevik leadership faced during the first two decades after their takeover of power, including the following: wartime communism, new economic policy, terror, bureaucratisation, prohibition of fractions, role and position of trade unions, national question, federation, industrialisation, collectivisation, and so on. Britovšek's research of these issues in the period of Leninism and Stalinism (which Britovšek distinguished rather than equated!) is based on the empirical facts, resulting in the synthesis between the macro level of the research (social processes, conflicts between fractions, etc.) and the micro level (personalities of Bolshevik leaders, their ideological platforms, etc.). He researched the relationship between Stalin as a political leader and the VKP(b) especially closely. The one-sided views like those found in Isaac Deutscher's research – which represented "the case study" at the time of Britovšek's work – encouraged Britovšek to start studying the causal relationship between the political system and the disputable ideological standpoints. He paid special attention to the leading ideas of the Party fractions (Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev, Radek, Kamenev, and others). Britovšek verified the thesis of the "Thermidor character" of Stalin's political activities in its political and ideological sense – as the degeneration of the primary goal of the October Revolution: the construction of a democratic society where socialism was only supposed to be the first stage of development. If a revolution is a violent authoritarian act of assuming the power, then a wide range of questions present themselves about the constitution of the whole socio-economic and political system after the takeover of power in the name of the working class. Neither the leftist nor the rightist opposition disputed the unavoidability of the violent methods at the initial stages of the assumption of power. However, both of these sides were wrong: partially due to the underestimation of the factor of Russia's backwardness and historical heritage, and partially due to the revolutionary demands for swifter and substantive changes of the Soviet society. Naturally, the "Russian October" in all its complexity was not merely an internal Russian/Soviet matter, as it characterised the polarisation of the world in the 20th century (capitalism–socialism) as well as influenced the international workers' movement fatally. The Zimmerwald movement, based on the demise of the Second International due to the outbreak of the World War, accepted Lenin's ideas about the transformation of the imperialist war into a civil war merely on the theoretical level. Long-term revolutionary actions, capable of bestowing authenticity upon the Bolshevik politics, were required in order to change this situation in the radical sense; and this did not happen until the (planned) October Revolution. On the basis of either supporting or rejecting the Revolution (as an undemocratic act of assuming the power), after World War I the workers' movement split, in terms of its organisation and ideology, into the socialist and communist movements – in the national as well as international sense. Since the very first day of its existence, the main driving force of the new Communist International included Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the October Revolution. The important question whether the Communist International was a Stalinist organisation or an epiphenomenon of Stalinism is nowadays a priori mostly answered in the affirmative. However, even in this regard we should take into account the historical standpoint, which indicates – as Professor Britovšek emphasises – that we should not simply equate the Communist International with Stalinism. As it happened, the Communist International was forged in the revolutionary fire in Europe in 1919, and it was inspired mostly by Lenin's ideas and topics, formulated as the fundamental ideas of the Communist International at the first five congresses (1919–1924). Therefore the Communist International was – in the organisational, ideological, and theoretical sense – established without Stalin or with his minimal and non-essential cooperation. In this sense the period between 1924 and 1929 was very important, as at that time Stalin started gradually "taking over" and "Bolshevising" the Communist International, while transforming the revolutionary organisation with global goals into an instrument of his domestic and foreign politics. According to Professor Britovšek, it is vital that this period be studied, as everything that defined the subsequent fate of the Soviet Union and the Communist International happened during this time, and because this was when the system that would later be defined as Stalinism actually took shape and established itself. Namely, not only were the officials of the Communist International replaced as of 1930, but the ideological foundations started changing as well. With the thesis of the unconditional support to the construction of "socialism in a single country", which was supposed to be the priority of every Communist Party, a revision of the fundamental principles of proletarian internationalism, as formulated by Lenin, was carried out. The struggle for the security of the Soviet Union became the main goal, while the Communist International itself gradually transformed from an independent organisation into a "section" of the VKP(b). With the cult of Leninism, Stalin created the ideological foundations for his practical and theoretical domination as well as his absolute personal authority, after he subordinated the VKP(b) as well as the central bodies of the Communist International – and consequently also more or less the whole Communist Party as a section of the Communist International – to his own apparatus. This topic calls for much attention: to date it has not yet been analysed comprehensively, and even Professor Britovšek only described the basic outlines in his works.
    • 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.)
      • Neja Blaj Hribar
    • dcterms:type
      • Moving Image
    • dcterms:source
      • SISTORY:ID:38144
    • dcterms:language
      • slv
    • dcterms:isPartOf