How Russia interprets 1917
NIKITA PETROV
The question of revolution, particularly the “colour
revolution”, is something that fills the Kremlin with
fear and paranoia. This is how attitudes towards
1917 are now being shaped. I would not be surprised
if we hear one narrative on 1917 which labels it a
“coloured revolution” – carried out with foreign
aid, to destroy the wonderful country of Russia.In Russia, there is no definite and clear position on 1917. The new democratic
Russia, which emerged in 1991, had undergone a notable transformation since then
and therefore we cannot speak today of those ideological postulates that were used
to assess the 1917 revolution during the 1990s. At that time, historiography in Rus-
sia freely developed and evaluated the event as one that started the construction of
the totalitarian system and repressive state. After all, the ideas that underpinned
1917, in many ways, were both totalitarian and repressive in nature. In order to un-
derstand this, it is sufficient to read the documents that form the Marxist-Leninist
doctrine. And it is enough to read the communist party manifesto in order to see
what a world built in accordance with this recipe would look like.
Today, we see a completely different picture. It is not complete nonsense, be-
cause there are certain signals. For Russian historians today, 1917, along with many
other issues, constitute what is called “difficult issues in history”. An attempt to
create a single, unified textbook in Russia also runs into problems. So, what can be
done? After all, it is not only about 1917, it is also about the mass repressions that
occurred in the 1930s and the Sovietisation of Central and Eastern Europe. Rus-
sian academics that serve, and have served the state, do not have honest answers.
What we see now is an attempt to find some kind of new ideology.