Even today there are many people for whom Lenin is our everything and, according to whom, for Russia he did a lot of good. Dee and it never happens that a historical figure is either an exclusively positive or completely negative hero. There are always some deeds in his biography that deviate from his main line of behavior, characterizing him from the opposite side.
Besides, the revolution is not just one man's business. And it would be foolish to blame all her negativity on Lenin alone. A revolution is a movement of huge masses of the people. And if so, then it means that with its help people are trying to solve, sometimes belatedly and perversely, some obviously urgent problems in society. In general, they say, any revolution is a reflection of the regime that gave birth to it.
Even if some argue that this or that problem in the end would necessarily have been solved in Russia, only in a less bloody way than the revolution, then we are dealing with a real history that does not tolerate the subjunctive mood. Sometimes you can hear that the Westernization of Russia would have been carried out anyway, only less painfully than Peter the Great did. But after all, in reality it was he who realized it - he deserved the glory, no matter how estimated it. Or it is believed that serfdom would have certainly been abolished, and Alexander II only signed the manifesto, actually prepared by his father. But it was he who signed it - therefore it was he who remained in history as the Tsar-Liberator.
The main thing is that all revolutions leave behind a legacy, which decades later is recognized by the new authorities, who in words sometimes reject the ideology and deeds of the revolution. First of all, because many of the overdue reforms are being introduced by the revolution abruptly, without lengthy parliamentary debates. Well, if Lenin was the leader of the revolution, then it is fair to give the palm in solving problems to him. Therefore, of course, the question of what good Lenin did for Russia is quite legitimate, and one cannot get away with a monosyllabic answer.
So, let's start, perhaps, with the legacy of Lenin's revolution, which has become so firmly embedded in our life that we simply cannot imagine it without it. The list is as follows:
- the abolition of estates, the equalization of people in rights, regardless of their birth (restrictions existed until 1936 just for the people of the former privileged estates), "a society of equal starting opportunities";
- elimination of differences in rights related to religion, as well as permission to publicly not profess any faith, separation of schools and families from the church;
- elimination of national restrictions; permission to create national-territorial self-governing regions (which are still the basis of the federal structure of Russia!), to teach in schools and develop printing in national languages;
Promotional video:
- equality of women and men, the introduction of civil marriage, the resolution of divorce, the equalization of the rights of illegitimate children with legitimate children;
- the right to public care and education of children of parents who are employed;
- the right to be provided by the state after disability;
- the duty of the state to provide every citizen with education (up to a certain level; this level, as we know from Soviet history, has invariably increased).
Note that these transformations are, in essence, liberal and democratic and to this day form the foundation of the civil legal system in Russia. There will always be those who will argue that it would be better for Russia if the reforms were carried out peacefully. Well, why did they not conduct them, or at least not proclaim those opponents of Lenin who had power before him? Lenin himself always admitted that most of the tasks that his revolution solves are bourgeois-democratic. But the bourgeoisie turned out to be unable to solve them, and now the Russian proletariat is forced to complete its historical work for it.
Let us add that no modern democratic state can give up the above achievements if it wants to remain democratic. As Lenin himself would probably say, this is the dialectic of history.
Yaroslav Butakov