ЛЕНИН: ПРОБЛЕМЫ ОСМЫСЛЕНИЯ СОБСТВЕННОЙ ИСТОРИИ

Abstract

The article examines the figure of Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin, whose 150th birthday anniversary was celebrated in April 2020. With all the discrepancy of public opinion on Lenin, this political figure is part of world history: Lenin became one of the most considerable historical persons of the 20th century and had a rather strong impact on the historical process. The author sees the aim of comprehending the Russian Revolution in (1) the abolition of the unnecessary mythologization of its leader, which not only hinders the understanding of his personality, the situation and events of that time, but also will constantly produce a rejection reaction that will continue to create the irreconcilable groups of “admirers” and “haters”; (2) an adequate scientific analysis that will evaluate the political leader logically, not emotionally, in the conditions of historical realities. In the author’s opinion, the problem of the attitude to Lenin eventually becomes the problem of the discontinuity of perception of own history in Russia and in the countries of the former Russian Empire and USSR. It is the problem of political culture and culture of society in general. The problem of attitude to Lenin in many respects is the problem of transferring modern realities and “post factum” evaluations to another historical environment. From scientific positions and public evaluation, it is necessary to understand that Lenin objectively became the most successful politician of the contemporary history. Few historical figures can be compared with him in terms of the impact on world history. It is due to Lenin that the Russian Revolution became what it became: the third great revolution in the world, an equal to the Great French Revolution in importance and scale. The Russian Revolution became a new model of imitation, replacing the French predecessor, gave a different way of modernization, more imposing for the revolutionaries of Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia. Lenin is strongly distinguished against the background of all leaders of the previous revolutions in terms of morals, justice and goals. The leader’s sacralization, his subsequent ousting (due to his inconsistency with myths people themselves created), or initially negative attitude to a head of the state are features of an undeveloped political culture which will change with the maturing of society.