M. Politizdat. 1976. 391 pp. The print run is 10,000. Price 1 rub. 52 kopecks.

The content of the reviewed book1 consists of reports and reports made by prominent historians of the USSR and other countries at a scientific conference held by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism under the Central Committee of the CPSU, the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Academy of Social Sciences and the Higher Party School under the Central Committee of the CPSU to mark the 70th anniversary of the first Russian Revolution. The collection summarizes the results of studying the history of the first bourgeois-democratic revolution in Russia. One of the articles specifically deals with the historiography of the revolution of 1905-1907 over the last decade. However, the authors of the articles not only summarize the achievements in the development of the most important problems of the history of the first Russian Revolution, but in some cases make new contributions to the study of various issues.

The subject matter of articles is diverse. At the same time, the authors have chosen issues of primary importance rather than particular ones of the revolution of 1905 - 1907. A notable feature of the articles is the connection of the history of the first Russian Revolution with Great October and modern times. The collection deals with such problems as the hegemony of the proletariat in the democratic revolution, the revolution of the proletariat in the democratic revolution, and the revolution of the proletariat in the democratic revolution.-

1 Editorial Board: P. A. Rodionov (head), A.D. Pedosov (deputy head), I. A. Aluf, A. F. Kostin, S. L. Titarenko, G. N. Shanshiev. Authors: I. Aluf, Y. Vasyutin, M. Volin, O. Volobuyev, G. Garibjanyan, J. Golembewski (Poland), K. Gusev, E. Dumpierre (Cuba), A. Deak (Romania), A. Egorov, E. Zhukov, N. Ivanova, S. Kalyabinsky (Poland), H. Canton (Cuba), S. Karpati (Hungary), A. Kostin, A. Kosulnikov, Y. Krzyzek (Czechoslovakia), I. Krivoguz, R. Lagash (France), A. Lashitza (GDR), V. Loginov, G. Manacorda (Italy), P. Martinmyaki (Finland), A. Narochnitsky, S. Pobornikova (Bulgaria), P. Rodionov, Sh. Sandag (Mongolia), S. Sardesai (India), K. Suvorov, G. Teschner (GDR), S. Titarenko, F. Furenberg (Austria), V. Shapko, V. Shelokhaev, G. Yudikk (Germany), I. Yakosh (Romania).

page 175

new power, the Revolution of 1905-1907-the dress rehearsal of the Great October Revolution, the significance of V. I. Lenin's work "Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution" for the revolutionary movement of our time. A number of articles are devoted to the theoretical problems put forward by the course of events in 1905 - 1907, which were developed by Lenin at the same time and remain relevant today (Bolshevik tactics in the democratic revolution, "left-blockism", Lenin's theory of the bourgeois - democratic revolution's development into a socialist one, the Bolsheviks ' attitude to parliamentarism and participation in representative institutions, etc.Many articles reveal the international significance of the first Russian revolution and its impact on the world revolutionary process.

A characteristic feature of the collection is acute polemics. Many of the issues discussed in it are at the center of the ideological struggle between Marxists and bourgeois historians. The collection, for example, convincingly debunks attempts to refute Lenin's assessment of the first Russian Revolution as a dress rehearsal for the Great October Revolution and thereby deny continuity between 1905 and the revolutions of 1917. The authors reveal the unfounded claims of foreign bourgeois historiography that the Bolsheviks ignored the role of the middle urban strata in the revolution of 1905-1907. N. Ivanova and V. Shelokhaev provide vivid material about the struggle of the proletariat and its party for the liberation of lower-ranking employees from the captivity of liberal-monarchical prejudices and constitutional illusions and their involvement in direct revolutionary actions. The analysis of this material allowed us to establish a number of general patterns of the struggle for the middle strata of the urban population that was taking place at that time. The article proves the falsity of the claim of modern bourgeois historians that the RSDLP was supposedly a party not of workers, but of the revolutionary intelligentsia. Volin reports the preliminary data of his research, which are of great interest, and from which it follows that the Bolshevik Party in 1905 - 1907 numbered in its ranks 64% of workers, 4% of employees, and 32% of intellectuals. He concluded that the Bolshevik Party was proletarian not only because it expressed the fundamental interests of the working class, but also because of its social composition. A comparison of the social composition of those who joined the RSDLP before and during the revolution is even more convincing. Up to and including 1904, workers made up 61 %, and those who joined the party in 1905 - 1907. Workers made up 71%- thus, the share of workers in the party increased. For the first time, M. Volin collected, carefully studied and analyzed materials on the composition of the party by profession. It turned out that the most numerous group among the Bolshevik workers were metalworkers, and among them locksmiths and turners dominated. Another observation is also important: the party included representatives of almost all working professions, and this was essential for its connection with various categories of workers, its knowledge of their needs, the spread of Bolshevik influence, and the development of the consciousness and organization of the proletariat (p. 175 - 177).

As is well known, some social-reformists and revisionists who seek to belittle the revolutionary traditions and proletarian internationalism try to ignore the international significance of the revolution of 1905 - 1907. Bourgeois historiography tends to exaggerate the differences in the conditions and tasks of the working-class movement in Russia and Western European countries. This significantly reduces the significance of the Russian revolution for the struggle of the working class in Western Europe (p.208). The collection covers various aspects of the international significance of the first Russian Revolution in detail, in depth and in many ways. The articles of E. Zhukov, P. Rodionov, I. Krivoguz, G. Garibjanyan and others show that it was a great contribution to the world workers', democratic and national liberation movement, since the struggle for the overthrow of military-feudal imperialism-tsarism in Russia was at the same time a struggle against all international imperialist reaction. The revolution in Russia sparked a movement of solidarity among workers of all countries. It contributed to the rise of the workers ' and general democratic movement in the West. The fundamental problems of the Russian Revolution (the vanguard role of the proletarian party, the hegemony of the working class, the transformation of the bourgeois - democratic revolution into a socialist one, the revolutionary - democratic dictatorship of the working class and peasantry, the socialism of the bourgeois-democratic revolution).-

page 176

the committees of workers ' deputies as organs of revolutionary power, etc.) had already acquired international significance, gave rise to discussions in the ranks of the Second International, and a kind of spontaneous division between revolutionary Marxists and opportunists. It was with the first Russian Revolution that a new stage began in the struggle of the peoples of Europe and Asia against economic and social oppression. The Russian Revolution of 1905 - 1907 ushered in an era of political upheaval and grandiose class battles, which replaced a 30-year period of relative calm. The events of 1905-1907 clearly showed that the Russian proletariat is in the vanguard of the world revolutionary movement, the center of which has shifted to Russia.

The articles of foreign Marxist historians published in the collection contain specific information about the influence of the first Russian revolution on events in different countries. F. Furenberg showed an indissoluble link between the first Russian revolution and the struggle for suffrage in Austria. S. Pobornikova painted an impressive picture of the solidarity of the Bulgarian people with the Russian revolution. The enthusiastic response that the Russian Revolution aroused among the German workers is described by A. Laschitza and G. Judikk, and in the Czech Republic by Yu. Krzyzek. Romanian historians have devoted their articles to various forms of solidarity of the Romanian workers ' and democratic movement with the Russian Revolution and, in particular, with the "Potemkinites". Little-known facts about the impact of the 1905 - 1907 revolution on Cuba and Mongolia can be found in the articles of Cuban and Mongolian historians.

Not all articles in the collection are equivalent in their scientific significance, but many of them are distinguished by the novelty of problems, the freshness of factual material and its interpretation, and original thoughts. Unfortunately, there are some inaccuracies in the collection. Thus, N. E. Bauman was a member of the MK of the RSDLP, and not of the Moscow Soviet, as stated on page 50; the Moscow Soviet was created a month after Bauman's funeral. By the" well-known manifesto of the Soviet of Workers 'Deputies (December 1905)" Lenin did not mean the proclamation of the Moscow Soviet (pp. 139-140), but a document called the "manifesto" by the organizations that signed it. Under this name, only one document is known, dating back to December 1905. We are talking about the Manifesto published on December 2, 1905 in the Bolshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn and some other democratic newspapers with signatures: The Soviet of Workers 'Deputies, the Main Committee of the All-Russian Peasants' Union, the Central Committee and Organizational Commission of the RSDLP, the Central Committee of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, and the Central Committee of the PPS. The Manifesto called on the people to accelerate the financial bankruptcy of the autocracy by reducing its revenues. Therefore, this document was called the "Financial Manifesto". Lenin spoke of it as a "well-known manifesto"2 not only because it was widely circulated and resonated with the masses, but also because it was associated with the closure of eight left-wing newspapers and the arrest of the St. Petersburg Soviet of Workers ' Deputies, which provoked a strong protest from the proletariat. Lenin spoke of it as the manifesto of the Soviet of Workers ' Deputies from the first signature that stood under the text. This document, unlike the appeal of the Moscow organizations, had not local, but all-Russian significance, because it was signed not by city, but by central organizations. By the way, after the publication of the Financial Manifesto, the Moscow Council discussed it and decided to attach its signature to it .3
The evidence presented in favor of the statement that in the 1930s and 1940s of the 19th century, the author is completely unconvincing. England was supposedly the center of the world revolutionary movement (p.70). The author tries to rely on Lenin's statements that England gave the world Chartism. However, Lenin emphasized the complexity and inconsistency of the development of England in the late eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, pointing out that, as Engels put it, it provided a model of the country in which the bourgeoisie created the most bourgeois upper class of the proletariat .4
2 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 14, p. 289.

3 " The highest rise of the revolution of 1905-1907. November-December 1905". Part 1. Moscow, 1955, doc. N 453, pp. 644-645.

4 See V. I. Leni, n. PSS. Vol. 38, p. 305.

page 177

Permanent link to this publication: