Russian Revolution at 100

Speaking at a historians' conference held a few months after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a veteran expert in this field had argued that historians cannot predict the future as they are no prophets. According to him, all historians examine the present through the prism of the events of the past to identify similarities or dissimilarities between old and new trends and happenings. One of the historians, who incidentally belonged to a country that previously belonged to the then Soviet Union, however, made a profound point insofar as the job of an historian in relation to the historiography of the then Soviet Union is concerned. While agreeing to the definition of an historian put forth by the earlier speaker, he said that in the case of the Soviet Union, one cannot even "forecast" the past or produce a scholarly synthesis on what actually happened between the October Revolution in 1917 and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991!
That the history of the Soviet Union is more complex than it appears is a fact. Consider: It is generally argued that both Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky played a smaller role in the "foreshock" revolution that took place in February 1905 - 12 years prior to the October Revolution or Russian Revolution. While Trotsky was in czarist Russia, Lenin was in Switzerland. Many scholars of repute however lose sight of the fact that it was Lenin's stay in Europe that provided him the best environment to think deeper and articulate a narrative that he could sell successfully with a view to ultimately ushering in a "revolution" in a society which was then characterized by strong traditions of feudalism. They also often ignore the fact that the Jewish owners of the new-found oil in Azerbaijan provided Lenin with the most effective vehicle in the shape of their oil distribution networks to circulate his writings in the length and breadth of czarist Russia in a highly effective and meaningful manner. They hardly acknowledge the fact that Josef Stalin as a labour leader in Georgia was organizing a movement against the "new barons" or "oil barons" or the facilitators of Lenin, and that he was not only running rackets or carrying out acts of robbery in the Caucasus. That the Russian Revolution (the centenary has seen the publication of a flurry of books) has had a bad press in the West is a fact. Interestingly, however, the Revolution sees a consensus among almost all Western historians or commentators on Lenin's approach to democracy. According to them, Lenin was no democrat per se. He, for example, took a very offensive view of the Czar's decision to hold elections. Asking the Bolsheviks to attack every polling booth and station or any symbol of "bourgeois democracy", he famously said that "elections can slow the Revolution". That is why the Russian Revolution received some major setbacks as early as in the 1920s because of the inherent contradictions within the Revolution itself.
It is therefore strongly argued that within two decades of October 1917, the Revolution had led to creating an angry, unhappy, and embittered society not only characterised by Georges Jacques Danton's "La revolution devoure ses enfants [The revolution devours its children]" quote of the French Revolution era but also a new grim "La revolution devoure ses fondaeurs [The revolution devours its founders]" reality. But the fact that the Soviet society was ultimately able to defeat Hitler's Germany and its historic strides in the field of space sciences receives little or no Western praise or appreciation. For example, one could discern the Soviet Union's growing ascendancy in science and higher education from the remarks of John F. Kennedy that he made during America's famous presidential debate which was also featuring his opponent Richard M. Nixon.
How ironic however it is that while the UK has celebrated the centenary of the Balfour Declaration or 100 years of the Palestinians' tragedy with shameless pomp and pleasure, Vladimir Putin's Russia has not even marked the Russian Revolution, let alone celebrate it, although he is considered one of the ardent admirers of Josef Stalin, Lenin's "accidental" successor. Putin appears to be in no mood to let Russia take the credit for the fact that since the Revolution, which was named after his own country, the successor state to the Soviet Union, countless political and social movements, including those that ultimately led to independence of numerous nations from the colonial yoke, have taken their cue from this momentous uprising. In the case of today's Russia, the course of events is certainly the opposite: the children devour their revolution.