the real October Revolution, in short, was the action of seizing the winter palace finally occupied by the interim government. The organization and command were carried out under the leadership of the battle headquarters under the Petrograd Soviet led by Trotsky.

this is a famous picture. After taking power, Trotsky (1879-1940) in the lower right corner was hidden, leaving only the speaker in the picture. The photo was taken on May 5, 1920 at sverdlov square in Moscow.

Wen Yi □ researcher of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing’s

transformed October Revolution

many people’s understanding of the October Revolution led by Lenin comes almost from the concise course on the history of the Communist Party (Bolshevik) compiled under Stalin’s personal leadership (hereinafter referred to as the “concise course”). While describing the October Revolution as an unprecedented great proletarian revolution, this course also lists Stalin’s own assumptions, judgments, expectations and what he wants people to accept.

I say so because this book was compiled in the 14th year after Lenin’s death. Many of Lenin’s own statements about the revolution did not really or distorted appear in this book. In addition, a series of important figures and events that really appeared in this revolution were simplified and hidden by Stalin, or more seriously, these figures and events were described as the opposite of the October Revolution, conspiracy, perversion, cursed and denounced.

in fact, as long as people are willing to read Lenin’s words carefully, they will find that compared with the real October Revolution, the October Revolution in the concise course has changed its shape. Understanding this deformation does not require special talent and judgment, but only the enthusiasm for the pursuit of truth and the courage to understand the truth. When the “concise course” became the only golden rule to explain the October Revolution and the historical process of the Soviet Union, in an era when there was no doubt about the October Revolution and the history of the whole Soviet Union, the enthusiasm for pursuing truth and the courage to understand truth became “deviant from scriptures” and became a crisis and abyss that had to be faced.

we should praise the October Revolution in history even today, but we must carefully analyze and discard the dross of the October Revolution in the concise course (including the exposition of the whole history of the Soviet Union); We must give due respect to the characters and events simplified or hidden by the concise course and let them return to history. The strict distinction between the real October Revolution and the October Revolution described in the concise course is not so much a question of method as a question of cognition. For a long time, the distinction between the two has been confused, and the topic of the “October Revolution” has become a purely political issue, inner-Party struggle and class struggle. This is an artificial historical misunderstanding and an unforgettable mispath.

who led the October Revolution

the real October Revolution, in short, was the action of seizing the winter palace finally occupied by the interim government. The organization and command were carried out under the leadership of the battle headquarters under the petgrad Soviet led by Trotsky. Of course, Lenin was sitting in Smolny palace and commanded and supervised with Trotsky. However, in the concise course, the battle headquarters of the Petrograd Soviet became the “party headquarters”, and the specific commander became Stalin. The vast majority of the people of the Petrograd Soviets did not appear in history, and the people of the combat headquarters disappeared; Trotsky was an invisible figure, but he was turned into the culprit of secretly undermining the October Revolution. Among the earliest Bolshevik leaders, there are only three names left: Lenin, Stalin and sverdlov. In the end, Lenin and Stalin became close “comrades in arms” and “Lenin and Stalin led the October Revolution together”.

the concise course also described the October Revolution as merely a revolutionary action of the Bolshevik one party, which seized power. But in fact, the Bolsheviks were not strong enough at that time. In addition to the Bolsheviks, there were a large number of non Bolshevik officers and soldiers of the Baltic Fleet (“red Marines”) and workers (“Red Guards”), as well as a large number of people from other parties, whether it was the preparations before October or the seizure of power in October. Therefore, the seizure of power in October 1917 was in fact the joint seizure of power by the Bolshevik party and other parties, and the common victory of various real forces eager for change actually existing in Russia at that time (Lenin’s leadership, guidance and persistence played a decisive role in this process). It is precisely because of this that the Bolshevik Party’s struggle for a “unified government” after October, the seizure of the constitutional assembly and the suppression of the rebellion of the leftist Social Revolutionary Party came into being. Here, there is another point that needs to be emphasized, that is, the “attack on the winter palace” is not a big battle with “the sound of aphrell’s artillery as the signal”, the roar of guns and the firing of 10000 bullets as described in the book.

in fact, the timing of the October Revolution was not planned and formulated in advance, but created by the development of the situation and sudden changes at that time. With Trotsky’s approval, Lenin made a decisive decision on the final victory of seizing power in October. He said at that time that if he did not seize power now, he would lose the best opportunity. What to do after winning power will be discussed later. This decision was fully reflected in the Bolshevik land and peasant policies, and even in the decision-making of war and peace. The two major decrees issued after the seizure of power, the peace decree and the land decree, show the essence of this “say it after the seizure of power” to varying degrees. Compared with other parties, especially the social revolutionary party, the work of the Bolsheviks in rural Russia is very weak and there is no mature program. Therefore, the land act has to take the rural and land program of the social revolutionary party as the basis