1917: Why The Russian Revolution Matters
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 июл 2024
- Made to mark the centenary of October 1917, this myth-busting documentary explains the significance of the Russian Revolution. Humanity’s greatest experiment in social change is brought to life through compelling interviews, incisive analysis and extraordinary archive. Crowd funded and filmed, the charity WORLDwrite, hopes this documentary will encourage a new generation to consider the importance of this world-changing event. Already screened to many students who have found it fascinating, surprising and 'not what we were taught,' our charity crew and Citizen TV makers would be delighted to read your comments. A review of the film originally published on spiked in 2017, is below.
1917: Why the Russian Revolution Matters is an inspiring and important film made by the education charity WORLDwrite. Like some of its earlier productions - such as Everything is Possible, about the radical Suffragette Sylvia Pankhurst, and Every Cook Can Govern, about the Trinidadian Marxist CLR James - this film is not only crowdfunded, but also crowdfilmed, by a crew of young volunteers. And like those other films, it offers both informed historical analysis and a refreshingly positive and hopeful view of humanity’s potential to create a different, better society. What this new documentary also does, though, is to articulate an understanding of the Russian Revolution that is in danger of becoming obscured and forgotten.
Haters gonna hate, I suppose, but it does seem a little odd that this 100-year anniversary still apparently provokes such strong feelings that some people cannot bear to hear their understandings of history challenged. The reason is perhaps less to do with the past and everything to do with the present. Indeed, the film defies the temper of our times in putting forward an optimistic view of people’s capacity to change the world. As the director, Ceri Dingle, puts it, ‘Our film challenges a misanthropic view of history that sees every attempt to change society for the better as a disaster-in-waiting’. The various contributors interviewed for the documentary, emphasise how the revolution was a transformative moment in world history because it made real and tangible the aspiration of millions to take control of their lives.
It may be surprising, then, to learn that the film actually opens by declaring the failure of the revolution. Of the many myths that still surrounds 1917, possibly the main one is that, for good or ill, the Bolsheviks succeeded in what they set out to do. Its many detractors argue that the repressive and brutal regime that ruled the USSR until its collapse in 1991 was the direct and inevitable product of the revolution. Which is why they argue it was a terrible idea from the outset. Meanwhile, its few defenders maintain that, despite the gulags and the deprivation, ‘actually-existing socialism’ wasn’t all that bad and even had some quite positive aspects.
Thankfully, this film offers a different and more thoughtful perspective, rejecting what Furedi calls the ‘Disneyfication’ of history, whereby the past is treated either as a safe and commodified spectacle or as a trite morality tale that affirms the prejudices and preoccupations of the present. 1917: Why the Russian Revolution Matters avoids such simplifications by insisting on the importance of setting the events of the revolutionary era in their context, as a sometimes difficult and uncomfortable history that demands a serious reckoning. In some detail, the film takes us through the events of the 1905 and February 1917 revolutions, discussing the context of world war and the particularities of Russia’s society at the time. It then examines the role of individuals in history, considering Lenin’s return from exile in April 1917 and his decisive role in leading the October revolution. It goes on to discuss the terrible violence and terror that followed, not as part of the act of revolution itself (which was near bloodless), but as the product of civil war as the ‘Whites’ fought to restore the old order. Following this is an exploration of the role played by Western powers who aimed, in Winston Churchill’s words, to ‘strangle Bolshevism in its cradle’. The newly formed Red Army successfully fought off these threats, but at an awful cost, as the post-revolutionary conflict wiped out swathes of the Bolshevik membership........
The rest of this review by Philip Hammond, professor of media and communications at London South Bank University is available here www.spiked-online.com/2017/10...
The" proletariat." by which the Bolsheviks meant the urban working class were not "the majority: of : of the population." in 1917. Trotsky, in his history of the Russian revolution, estimated thatt about ten percent of Russia's population in 1917 could be considered proletarians. The Bolsheviks had a very patronizing attitudes towards the peasantry, both in 1917 and throughout the Soviet period. Lenin believed that all peasants, even the po orest ones, had "bourgeois" or "petit bourgeois" attitudes, and could not be trusted to support the socialist order. The peasants never had any representatives or spokesmen in the Bolshevik government, or in any Soviet government. Under Stalin, millions of peasants starved to death as a result of the regimes contempt for agriculture and concentration on heavy industry.
People in the comments, “Lenin was misunderstood.” Was he not a scoundrel? Was Stalin not a scoundrel? Trotsky? Were they not scum? Murdering the farmers?
The the heavy industry workers weren’t that much better of either. I’m reading about that now. Also under Stalin if you didnt get say a 1000 tractors a year out of your factory as the head of it you would be shot so the conditions were bad and the product was of bad quality too. I hate stalin
@@user-rg9yz5ou4y that's not what Lenin believed lmfao. He said that the building blocks of Capitalism was in small production bc of how it engenders capitalism so the class character of small producers is petit bourgeois but that they could be proletarianized through collectivized labor organizing and were valuable to the revolution but that it had to be led by the Proletariat due to it being the only class which was growing day by day. Feudalism was an outmoded Mode of Production and the building of Socialism could not be competed under feudal conditions and without Industrialized agriculture under Socialist planning so that what was societally necessary, not what was profitable, is what was produced. Maybe read Lenin before you strawman him using the works of people who themselves either haven't read Lenin or are purposefully distorting his works
Irony is British people speaking on behalf of socialism yet were raised in a capitalist background. How rich
It is far from ironic. The irony is that you fail to see the connection. Socialism emerged in Britain, Germany, France, as a direct response to the 19th Century industrial revolution.
@@stuartwray6175 I dont know but did the so called Fabian society harbor any ideas of the people returning from the cities to the land and agriculture i dont think this subject has never been discussed much,the sad part of all this is the Bolsheviki thought only they had the right to opinions and nobody else didnt just like the nazis or anybody who is selfish and so there is the answer ill sum up,only selfish people think they have rights to opinions others dont nothing to do with political opinions,this is true in religions too,religious fanatics think they own the rights to opinions religious moderates grant rights of opinions to others too...
and failed @@stuartwray6175
@stuartwray6175 It's ironic because those people are usually the most ignorant to what socialism actually means. They don't realise that it involves increasing centralisation, giving the state more power over their lives, and eventually the inevitable creation of a totalitarian police state.
The Communist regime gave working people far less rights than they had under the tsar. They were able to strike under the tsar, but strikes were strictly The workers were cruelly exploited in order to manufacture weapons and heavy industrial machinery/ Workers who did meet their assigned production quotas or their factory turned out defective equipment were accused of "wrecking" and deported to slave labor camps in Siberia. Few of the of these internal exiles suevived.
Trotsky was in exile in New York. And on his way back to Russia on a ship he was arrested and detained in Halifax but was released and the ship along with Trotsky was allowed to continue on . He never lived in Halifax and didn't leave from there. The stop in Halifax was not originally part of the itinerary.
Thanks Mrs. Sappington… I definitely wanted to spend an hour of my weekend watching this…
Just came across this. Compared to practically all the other trash produced on the revolution this is excellent on what really happened in 1917.
Wow this is total propaganda 🤮
What propaganda?
Any examples of why ?
Thanking all of those who took part in making such a realistic, fair and objective explanation to what really happened in Petrograd in February, October and November of 1917, and consequent events that followed the Revolution and continued until 1920-21. I am grateful to you for breaking all stereotypes and explaining that history can't be bad or good, and that we should learn to draw lessons in order to avoid mistakes in future.
Why don’t you trade places with all those people who were murdered?
It turned out that countries did have to go through a capitalist phase that would increase production and raise the standard of living before a meaningful, genuine socialism could become possible. All of the countries that had Communist revolutions--Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba--have been forced to legalize capitalism in order to grow their economies and generate some degree of prosperity, and raise their people's standard of living.
The struggle is ongoing, and certainly the issue of psychopaths still dominating positions of power unchallenged has to be resolved
That's just a feature of humanity. Marxism can't solve this problem, no matter how much its proponents think it can.
Wow. Thank you for this amazing documentary. What really impressed me about it is that I did not feel any anti-russian or anti-communist bias during the whole lenght. Which sadly is almost always present in western-made media on any and every related subject. I've just watched another documentary on the history of Russia, which - albeit being pretty decent in general - for example was still dealing with the subject of the Cuban missile crisis without ever mentioning the US rockets in Turkey and just blatantly stating things like "KGB then started its campagin of consecutive attempts to influence and support certain political parties all over the globe" yet again without even mentioning that KGB wasn't the first and the only spy organization in the world at the time. I'm not saying that they should have overexplained everything of course, but I've definitely felt this very particular and subtle framing of facts where only questionable acts of one side are ever mentioned all while the equalle questionable acts of another side are being conveniently swept under a rag each and every time. In short, I am really glad to find an exception in your work. But, sadly, when it is not biased it is for some reason very hard to find and has much less views than the "more politically appropriate" works. Well, at least some people are still willing to learn from history instead of readjusting the facts to paint the particular picture for an umptieth time.
I too hope to learn stuff without being manipulated, its downright annoying to watch something you know is slanted and biased designed to sway your general opinion. A complete waste of time, then you get solid information like this film and the time flies by.
@@MotorbreathChannel you're right, it's very rare to find material on these subjects that doesn't tacitly glorify fascists and Reactionaries by omitting their crimes while playing up those of the USSR
Startlingly accurate and insightful take on the Russian Revolution, with fascinating footage and mostly dead-on evaluation of the events. The central thesis, that it was a genuinely popular uprising with a genuinely revolutionary leadership, is effectively presented, and cuts through the oft-repeated distortion of October as a Bolshevik "coup."
good work
Interesting and informative. I'm certain Lenin ment well at first. The revolution ended up beyond his control. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what the orator/guest speakers were describing. Some good pictures 📷 of Lenin. He looks like a true red commie!!!
A thorough must watch documentary. Thanks for posting.
You all didn’t live over there during the Russian Revolution or the down fall of some of the down fall
You’re right we didn’t live there 106 years ago
'the downfall of some of the downfall'
It led to millions of deaths and decades of oppression in so many parts of the world.
Not! It's PROPAGANDA.
Stalin fue un GIGANTE de su tiempo. Iósif Stalin vivió en una época histórica, en donde el mundo requería de liderazgos fuertes. Así que tuvo que ser un dirigente enérgico. Severo. ¡Imponente! O, de otro modo, la “Madre Rusia” hubiera desaparecido del mapa. Stalin fue lo que tenía qué ser: Un Gran Líder. Un Gran Estadista. Stalin heredó un país yermo, rural, preterido, analfabeta, hambriento, supersticioso, deprimido, carente de todo y, para colmo, delirantemente desamparado. Rusia era entonces, un país de “Siervos” (Esclavos), y Stalin lo convirtió en una súper potencia industrializada y poderosa, que puso a temblar al mundo. Rusia estaba atrasada en 100 años con respecto a Occidente y, superadas las precariedades y todas las devastaciones que causó la Guerra, él, Stalin, el “Fundador de la URSS”, puso en marcha el primer Programa Aero-Espacial del mundo. Stalin recibió una Rusia que estuvo en guerra casi 30 años. (Empezando con la humillante derrota frente al Imperio de Japón, 1904-1905. Revolución Rusa, 1905. WWI, 1914-1918. Revolución Bolchevique 1917-1922. Guerra Civil contra los “Rusos Blancos”, 1922-1927. WWII 1940-1945… Más la Pandemia de la mal llamada “Fiebre Española”, en 1918-1920. Después llegó el brote de la “Peste Bubónica” en 1926. ---En 1932-33, Stalin implementó una campaña general de vacunación contra la viruela, la cual propuso en 1936, que fuese una campaña mundial. La viruela se erradicó en 1980--. Y, más el “Crack Financiero de Wall Street”, de 1929-1937). O sea que, Stalin, asumió el poder de un país golpeado por las guerras, enfermo por la Pandemia y, económicamente quebrado por la crisis mundial. Estas calamidades dejaron una Rusia desposeída y miserable. Stalin la rescató imponiendo disciplina y trabajo. Ni antes ni hoy, nadie en el mundo puso en duda su ENORME LIDERAZGO. Stalin fue genial; magnífico, cultísimo y astuto. Fue un Titán con mano de hierro. Amado por su pueblo y temido por sus enemigos. Hace más de 70 años que Stalin murió y, la Propaganda Occidental, no afloja en denostarlo. ¿Con qué propósito? ¿Cuál sería su utilidad ahora? [*Y, acá, va un dato que dimensiona la grandeza de Stalin. Joseph Stalin, fue nominado DOS veces al Premio Nobel de la Paz (en 1945 y 1948), con el apoyo de múltiples instituciones universitarias de Reino Unido, Francia, Italia, Suiza, Bélgica, y Grecia. Esas nominaciones fueron tomadas en serio por el Comité en Oslo. A él se le acabó su tiempo. Stalin murió en 1953, sin recibir nada, pero sí, todo el reconocimiento de su propio pueblo]. .
You don't understand what mob rule is...
"no hope for a better life" is the reason for revolution. i'm an american hotel owner living in southern oaxaca. the local people are stuck in an environment where there is no hope to get ahead. their entire income is not enough to pay for their existence. why? it's a communist system with the "haves" keeping their foot on the "have nots". go north to the usa and you have unlimited opportunity based on how bad you want it. being successful is not hopeless, it's where opportunity is based on a system that rewards being smart and ambitious.
I love Freedom. I could know a communis is among our commonwealth rule. We I do not believe the Socialistisch or the German theory of the Communism Bundes and the Russian Majority Communism. I love the humanities.
чуваки в этом фильме все какие то побитые в грязной одежде в старых обветшавших креслах )
"Despite the gulags and the deprivation, ‘actually-existing socialism’ wasn’t all that bad and even had some quite positive aspects" - this can say the only person that never lived in the USSR and doesn't know anything about its history. I was born in an ex-USSR country. I see how much damage did ‘actually-existing socialism’. Even 30 years after its collapse, there are still tragedies all over the place caused by the Soviet regime. Millions of people died! Millions of broken lives! Hundreds of thousands of square kilometers of ground are destroyed or became unusable! How dare you say that?!
you wouldnt have a country if it wasnt for stalin, shhhhhhhh. stalin beat the fascists.
you know nothing about socialism! millions of people died... :D this you puled out of your arse? or what... your mindset is a tragedy! your capitalism is a oppressing regime of the rich! millions die every day because of it! exploitation all over the place! fasism on the rise! yes its not that extreme but it is bad enough!
The Russian Revolution, i.e. the take-over by the terrorist Lenin and the Bolsheviks, was a disaster for Russia and the world. The ideology of killing 100 innocent people so as to not leave alive even one possible enemy of the regime was a recipe for endless massacres, horror after horror. That was the policy announced by Lenin. The security state run by the secret police was founded by Lenin and expanded to monstrous proportions by Stalin. The terrible mass killings by famine, the purges of the Great Terror, the constant paranoia and the cult of the boss (the Vozhd) all these were to create hell on earth. After Stalin, his henchman and killer in Moscow and Ukraine, Khrushchev, did denounce Stalin's rule, but never had a word of regret for the hundreds of thousands arrested and the tens of thousands killed when he carried out the annexation of Western Ukraine from Poland after the Hitler-Stalin Pact in 1939. He brought the world to the brink of destruction by his nuclear brinkmanship in 1962 after he sent tanks to crush Hungary in 1968. Brezhnev was no different, with his ending of the brief Prague spring in 1968. This was the great flowering of freedom in the world? And look at the other countries where the Communist gospel was exported - China, where Mao killed 30 million by famine in the Great Leap Forward and over a million in the Great Cultural Revolution. Or the crazed fanaticism of the genocidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Or the murderous Marxist Dergue In Ethiopia. Or Cuba's revolution which only drove boat people out of the country if they could escape, like the Vietnamese did in millions just to survive after the Communist take-over. Marxism-Leninism or Stalinist or Maoist doctrine all meant only one set of terrible things: mass death, failure, devastation, prison camps, and lies. Putin in Russia is the legitimate heir of the evil tradition, as a KGB man.
THEY THINK THAT IF IT MATTERS TO THEM: THE KILLING, TERRORISM, VIOLENCE, STEALLING, tyrany ! IF IT DOES NO MATTER TO AST WE WOULD BE RACIST , PREJIDIST, AND OFFEND THEM!
Cope
Да здравствует Сталин. Слава Сталин.
I'm trying to find more information on the crazy anti-semite mentioned at 52:40. Seems like he said 'Baron Vernon Garn', but I've tried googling that and came back empty-handed. Could you help me @worldwrite?
Nevermind, found him:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg
Bolshevism/Communism, was severely overrepresented by Jews. That's not antisemitism. That is simply a FACT. In EVERY Nation. In EVERY Communist party.
Bolsheviks were like Nazis, but worse.
The only difference I see in the two. Nazis killed a lot in a short amount of time but were stopped. Communist were allowed a vast amount of time to brutalize and commit mass murder.
The Nazis were worse, but the Bolsheviks were really close.
@@jurkozero2454But look whom they had to tight- opponents often influenced each other.?
Nazis killed many more people for being born as certain ethnicities
the signature calling card of many rightwingers.
A panegyric to October 1917. Propaganda masquerading as serious, disinterested history. Not one of the contributors could be described as an authority on the subject. A 'documentary' that Citizen Smith might have made. Desperately poor and tendentious.
This idiotic nonsense is vile!
super disgusting to compare the 1917 revolution with the Hungarian Counter Revolutionary pogrom, and all the bs he said about people starting to read newspapers is funny bc who taught them how to read? Rakosi, who was a hero
We have a Stalinist here folks. Still clinging to the dream.
@@1984isnotamanual stalinism isn't an ideology and also it was fucking Kruschev who was asked to send military aid to the Rakosi govt bc the Hungarian counterrevolutionaries were murdering jews and communists in the streets, and it was well documented. Stalin was dead for 3 years when this happened you dumb fascist piece of shit
@@1984isnotamanual in fact what, in your own words, differentiates "Stalinism" from Marxism Leninism??
@@ShiningSta18486 Marxism-Leninism is Stalinism to me. They stoped all the torture and killing and dialed down the slave camps but it was still Stalinist. I don’t see how it couldn’t be since during its hight all possible opposition was destroyed and then some.
@@ShiningSta18486 and the germ of Stalinism was is in Leninism. Lenin’s personal inability to compromise and see anyone who disagrees with him as wrong and therefore counter revolutionary. I do see a difference between Lenin and Stalin though.
The Russian revolution was a great leap forward despite its ultimate failure, it brought about the idea that humans really can live without God and that the accepted social order can be overthrown, anything is possible
That’s why Communism is a religion by itself. It always idolizes party leader to the point like gods.
@@twogamer7149 It idolizes nothing, it is a system created by mankind for mankind, Gods don't enter into it, take responsibility for yourself and forget about non-existent beings
@@rabbitss11 But I am referring to a fact though. Every first generational communist regime has had a leader regarded as a god way high above every other human being. When that god died, it got passed down to another god, although usually slightly diminished in his god status.
@@twogamer7149 Russia, Cuba, North Korea, China - I know what you're getting at, but an idea still has more value than simple laissez faire
@@rabbitss11 yes you got my point. I am saying, it seems the only somewhat successful communist practice requires a god-like idolization in people. There has been no exception. China today, Xi even wants to become a Mao-like god.
Russia & China were, economically, geopolitically, 2 of most successful decolonization efforts to escape Western « G 11 » capitalist empire, now NAaTO WEF IMF etc, Washington/Wall/K St,’unipolar coalition. nationalist capitalist Russian & Chinese socialism & Chinese characteristics in réerai decades modernized & industrialized nations WITHOUT several centuries of overseas empires,
which thise empires could not do in this s same way.Even Russian Federation though now a sort of partly state capitalism, continues much of old USER geopolitics
for example many Africans are
disgusted & Wests continuing
economic , political military control! Many Africans honor USSR & its diplomacy &’guns that helped some Africans win their independence wars.To paraphrase- Romanovs, Soviets- not 1
colony, not 1 slave!!!,! » Can West ern empires match those facts ?!