Note: What is presented here is the full text of the audio file of
comrade Ashraf Dehghani’s speech on the Great October Revolution which
has recently been circulated within the movement and now is available to
readers in this format. This full audio file is also available to enthusiasts
at the following address: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTRtV349frY
On the Centennial of
the October Revolution,
let’s march toward another
October!
(a speech by comrade Ashraf Dehghani in the
commemoration of the centennial of the October Revolution)
Greetings to the militant people of Iran, especially
to the militant youths who must bear the grave responsibility of leading the
country in the aftermath of the revolution against the existing miserable
situation.
As you know, this year marks the centennial of the Great October
Revolution. Therefore, these days, in every media outlet we are able to find a
story regarding this great and historic event. In some of these articles, the
author has honestly tried to glorify the October Revolution, other authors have
looked at the October Revolution academically and, while unable to reflect the
revolutionary spirit of the workers who brought about the Great October in
Russia in their writing, they intentionally or unintentionally, also included
the usual distortions that exist in Western universities in relation to such
historical events in their writings. There is also a huge number of misleading
articles where they combined lies with the truth, in particular, the citation of reburial of
the bourgeoisie in Russia; an attempt made to make the centennial anniversary
of the October Revolution as a means to pummel that revolution and its
profound, broad, and undeniable achievements that truly shook the world. The
media that spreads such misinformation about the October Revolution are only pursuing
the goal of concealing the greatness of that revolution from the people and to
induce the people to think that perhaps there is only one way for humanity and
that is the continuation of the present cruel conditions.
However, this is not the truth. History testifies to this. Today, the
people and in particular our youth face the task of overthrowing the Islamic
Republic, the germ of ruin and corruption. Therefore, especially the
experiences and lessons of the struggles of the October Revolution, the
greatest historical event of the twentieth century, must be learned so we can
benefit from those experiences and lessons, so we may discover the correct path
of the revolution and not repeat the bitter experiences of the 1979 Revolution,
and as a result, lead the way to put an end to oppression and exploitation in
Iran.
Accordingly, my attempt here with the commemoration of the centennial of
the Great October Revolution, is that while emphasizing the significance and
achievements of this revolution, I will illustrate an image of the events that
took place in the time between the two Revolutions of February and October 1917
in revolutionary Russia, so that some of the embedded lessons in the Bolshevik
struggle that was successful in leading the victorious revolution in favour of
the exploited and oppressed in Russia, become more and more evident. In this
talk, I will try to accomplish this, especially by referring to some of Lenin’s
articles written in the same period.
The image of what happened in the period between the two Revolutions of
February and October 1917 in Russia is actually an image of the extreme
class struggle which continued during this period in Russian society, i.e., the
struggle between mainly workers and peasants on the one hand, and on the other,
the bourgeoisie of Russia who had just come to power, and the petition
petty–bourgeoisie that, due to its nature, swayed between revolution and
counterrevolution.
The experiences of this period of the Russian Revolution, for us who
witnessed the compromising and appeasing behaviour and stance of the vast
majority of political organizations claiming to advocate for the working class
after the Bahman uprising in Iran (Bahman is the eleventh and penultimate month
of Iranian calendar which begins in January and ends in February when the
Shah's regime was overthrown and the 2500 years of Monarchical despotism was
abolished for good), it is important in that regard that we focus on the study
of the communist positions of the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution, the
similarities of those organizations with their similar organizations in that
period in Russia, meaning Mensheviks (a part of the Social Democrats that were
called the “minority” ) and “SR”s, that called themselves “Socialist
Revolutionary” and to see what the difference is in practice between a
communist organization–the Bolshevik Party, which reflected the ideals and
aspirations of the working class and the realization of their interests–and
organizations or parties that claimed to be socialist and revolutionary, but in
fact, represented the desires and interests of the shaky petty–bourgeoisie,
and, as the saying goes, Flip – Floppers!
As we know, Lenin was the theoretician and leader of the Bolsheviks, and
it was Lenin who, with his timely guidance and by providing tactics precisely
suitable for the conditions, the
position, and the morale of the masses- in a situation where the bourgeoisie had formed an
official government after the February Revolution and the petty-bourgeois
organizations had placed themselves at the head of Labor councils- brought the
Bolsheviks into a position where they could lead the socialist revolution in
Russia and give power to the councils. Now, it must be emphasized that although
there is no doubt that, from the point of view of the role a single personality
in history, Lenin’s ingenuity and noble character at the head of the
Bolsheviks, had its impact on the progress of revolution in Russia. But, what
is essential here is to see how we can learn from Lenin’s dealings and
performance between February and October 1917! If we pay close attention, then
we see that most importantly, he, with complete earnestness and sincerity, carried out in
practice a strategy whose validity he had already reasoned in theory. While
Lenin was flexible in the utilization of tactics, he was firmly committed to
the principles and as to the day–to–day demands of politics, he never violated the principles he believed in; and
he was not afraid of being attacked by non-proletarian forces and being in the
minority because of this. This is the most important lesson that anyone can and
must learn from Lenin and his method of dealing with problems.
When in February 1917 the workers and other masses started the
revolution, the Bolsheviks were entirely in the streets alongside the people
and as far as they could, directed their revolutionary movements and led the
revolution. However, after the revolution, the Bolsheviks’ organized force
within the worker councils was very weak compared to the Mensheviks and SR
petty bourgeois organizations and in their own words, they did not have
“Political corps”. But the Bolsheviks had enjoyed an important and essential
advantage and privilege; they had a solid organization based on democratic
centralism, coherent ideological views, revolutionary members, and the clear
goal, and of great importance, they had a personality such as Lenin as their
leader who as it was emphasized earlier, never deviated from his deeply –
believed principles.
During the interval between the February and the October Revolution, the
most important and fundamental issue for Lenin as the head of the Bolsheviks
was to bring out the revolutionary masses who were under the influence of
petty–bourgeois political organizations, the Mensheviks and SRs who became
collaborators of bourgeoisie in power. He believed in the strength of the
masses and had a deep conviction that the revolution is the work of masses and
the revolutionary vanguard is obliged to guide the masses towards victory by
adopting appropriate tactics at any moment. He was able to bring workers,
peasants, and other masses under the leadership of Bolsheviks, the true
communists, and succeeded in leading the uprising of these masses against the
exploiters and their reactionary order until the victorious Revolution of
October came into the realm of existence.
Now, before the start of the main discussion, let me very briefly mention
the significance of the October Revolution, some of its achievements, and its
vast impact throughout the world.
The October Revolution was a Socialist Revolution during which the
workers organized in councils, were able to bring down from the throne of power
the leech-like capitalists, all of their criminal reactionary supporters and
seize political power themselves. The enormous significance of this revolution
compared to earlier revolutions that took place in history is that in previous
revolutions, a class that seized political power from another class, placing an
order in society that was still exploitative in favour of the minority
in society, in another shape and form. In those revolutions, the governing
machine was transferred intact from one hand to another. But the October
Revolution completely crushed the bureaucratic and military machines of
capitalism and created a specific army and administrative organization of a
socialist society, and with the transformation of the previous socio-economic
conditions, organized a new order in favour of the majority in
society.
According to the new order after the October Revolution, the leech-like
capitalists, the tyrannical and sponging landowners, and, in general,
exploiters and oppressors were deprived of their so-called “rights”; meaning
they completely lost the possibility of exploiting workers, the possibility of
fleecing workers' wages, the bounty of the peasants' toil, plunder the wealth
of society for their own sake; and naturally, deprived them of the use of
despotism and dictatorship against the majority of the people in society!! To
enforce this new reality, the dictatorship of the proletariat was imposed upon
the capitalists and landowners.
The October Socialist Revolution in Russia, on the other hand, took some
actions fulfilling the workers' and peasants’ aspirations that they had wished
for centuries and the masses who were considered
“Nobody” and always faced discrimination, inequality, and oppression, had
achieved equality and the broadest of freedoms. It the October Revolution which
was against any kind of exploitation and oppression; in the face of poverty,
injustice, oppression and tyranny raging in Europe where capitalism has reached
the stage of Imperialism and the most reactionary and barbaric acts committed
against the masses, had shaken the world.
As a result of the October Revolution, and then the construction of
socialism in Russia by the Communist Party led by Stalin, unemployment
disappeared from society, no one went to bed hungry, housing was provided for
all, free education, various social amenities for all, gaining national rights
and, in short, everything that is considered today’s advanced social standard,
was guaranteed. Another great achievement of this revolution was the
emancipation of women. The emerged government from the October Revolution,
meaning the Soviet Union’s Socialist State, from the very beginning, recognized
equal rights for women in all economic, social, and political arenas, and
developed laws for the benefit of women.
As a result, women’s demands including equal pay, the right to divorce,
abortion rights, maternity leave and the creation of daycare were realized.
Lenin was right to say that the work accomplished by the Soviet workers’
government in the first year of the revolution in relation to the
demands of women in Russia, had not yet been done by the bourgeois republics
after decades.
By ending the exploitation of the workforce and by creating a social
safety net with extensive freedoms for the masses, the October Revolution kindled such passion and hope of
emancipation in the hearts of the deprived and exploited classes all over the
world that led to their awakening and struggles against the exploiters and
tyrannical rulers, especially in the colonial countries. The success in
establishing the socialist structure after the October Revolution and years
later, the Soviet Union's victory over Hitlerite fascism resulting in
liberating the people of Europe, and indeed the people of the world, from this
monster originating from the brutal capitalist system, intensified the appeal
of the prospect of a Soviet society and of a world free from oppression and exploitation.
It created a vast revolutionary atmosphere and struggle throughout the world
and it was at this point that waves of liberation movements swept throughout
the world. This wave, along with the revolutions that took place, changed the
political landscape of the world. On the other hand, these struggles and
revolutions were one of the weakening factors of British imperialism which at
that time was the most powerful imperialist in the world. In this situation, bourgeois
governments in Europe observing the widespread effects of the October
Revolution on the working class and oppressed people in their societies and in
fearing revolution, were forced to take some measures,
decades after the October Revolution by reducing the severity of poverty in
their societies. They created “welfare governments” and they found it necessary
to make reforms in their bourgeois laws. Thus, the October Revolution, with the
profound and extensive impacts that it left, had shaken the twentieth century’s
class societies.
The October Revolution, in spite of the infiltration of the revisionists
in the party and the Soviet Government, and then the re-emergence and
re-capturing of power by the bourgeoisie in Russia, and in spite of all the
ideological struggles and the toxic propaganda of the bourgeoisie and their
petty-bourgeois followers worldwide against this revolution and its founders,
is still inspiring the workers and oppressed people and is still their beacon
in the struggle against capitalists and the reactionary governments of
capitalists advocate around the world.
With this introduction, we now go to the main discussion that is related
to the experiences in respect to the interval between the revolutions of
February and October 1917 in Russia.
In the February 1917 revolution, which took place from the workers'
initiative, the most important issues for the workers and the other oppressed
masses in Russia raised and demanded were the issue of bread, meaning having
relative welfare in life, land for the peasants, to earn freedom and establish
democracy in society, and of great importance, ending the war: the imperialist
World War I in which Tsarist Russia participated too.
The first spark of revolution was struck by workers' strikes in
Petrograd, Moscow, Baku and a couple of other cities and within one month, the
strikes spread to most of Russia’s large factories. But the revolution actually
began with the rally of female workers and toilers on International Women’s Day
from the worker-dominated neighbourhood of “Viborg” in Petrograd, where the
Bolsheviks had a great influence. With the vast support of the workers in this
city, the rally turned into a political demonstration against the Tsarist
regime. The the demonstration spread including clashes with the police,
attacks on centres of
repression, and the people arming themselves in Petrograd as well as other
cities, and finally, the joining of the army to revolutionaries were the major
events that took place over the course of eight days, leading to the overthrow
of the Tsarist Empire.
The fact is that both in the revolution of 1905 and in the February
revolution of 1917, it was these workers with their great revolutionary passion
and driven initiatives, under the yoke of peasants and the urban toilers to struggle
and revolt against the status quo. By observing the revolutionary actions of
the workers during the revolution of 1905, Lenin had said “in a revolutionary
epoch—I say this without the slightest exaggeration, on the basis of the most
accurate data of Russian history—the proletariat can generate fighting
energy a hundred times greater than in ordinary, peaceful times. It
shows that up to 1905 mankind did not yet know what a great, what a tremendous
exertion of effort the proletariat is, and will be, capable of in a fight for
really great aims, and one waged in a really revolutionary manner!” (Lectures
and Lessons From The
Revolution of 1905) Believing in the power of the workers and relying on the
experiences that the masses had gained both from their participation in the
1905 Revolution and from the dark era of counter-revolutionary rule, Lenin
states that without the Revolution of 1905 the February Revolution of 1917
could not succeed.
In addition to various major points, the workers’ experience in the
formation of workers’ councils must be highlighted. In 1905, a strong workers'
presence on the scene of the struggle led to the workers electing
representatives among themselves in all the factories and manufacturing
institutions in Russia and the workers were given the option to form a labor
council for the first time in history. The 1905 Revolution filled the days with
passion and enthusiasm where in all the Petrograd factories and manufacturing
centres, the election of Council of Workers Representatives was under way, with
the number of delegates ranging from 400 to 500. Gradually, in other cities,
workers moved to form their own councils as well. The Councils of Workers'
Representatives were the mass organizations of the working class. They acted as
a parliament making decisions in favour of workers that were contrary to the
laws and regulations of the Tsarist government, and they themselves enforced
them. For example, in the same year of 1905, the Councils released their own
special newspaper and they instituted an eight hour work day in the factories.
They even took some actions like confiscating government money to advance their
revolutionary tasks.
The formation of the council was the initiative of the workers themselves
but because in the Social Democrats had had the opportunity to participate in the workers’
struggles years before and were known to them, they were able to win the
leadership of the councils. In 1905, the leadership of the council in Petrograd
was in the hands of the Mensheviks and Trotsky was one of their prominent
members. But at the head of the Council of Representatives of Moscow, were the
Bolsheviks. Hence, due to the difference in opinion and political thought and,
in general, the nature of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks, the former
promoting the thoughts of the working class and advocating their interests, and
the latter representing the ideas and interests of the petty– bourgeoisie, it
was not at all surprising and not accidental that the workers’ armed uprising
against the Tsarist regime occurred in Moscow in 1905 and not in
Petrograd, Russia’s largest industrial centre and the capital of the empire!
Therefore, during the course of the revolution of February 1917, the
workers, just having the experience of the Council in 1905 at hand, immediately
proceeded to form their own Councils. It needs to be remembered that prior to
the February Revolution, a situation had been created in Russia where Left leaning parties, along with the
party of the “Cadet”, as a bourgeoisie representative, had been able to
participate in parliament named the “Duma”. With the outbreak of the First World War in
which Russia fought, the Bolsheviks, in accordance with the teachings of Lenin
whose foundation is described in the book “Imperialism as the Highest Stage of
Capitalism” were spreading and propagating against the war. The representatives
of the Bolsheviks in the Duma expressed their disagreement wherever possible
when giving their views on the war. This action by the representatives of
Bolsheviks led the Tsarist government to detain all members of the Bolshevik
faction in the Duma on charges of treason to and exiled them to Siberia. Thus,
during the February Revolution, in the situation where most Bolshevik leaders
and cadres were either in jail or in Siberia, Lenin abroad, the reactionary
forces enjoyed greater infiltration opportunities in the workers' councils.
With the overthrow of the Tsar, there were two forces present in the
State Duma which formed two committees; the Cadets, as representatives of the
bourgeoisie, and the Mensheviks and SRs who despite their claims, represented
the ideas and interests of the petty-bourgeoisie of the both the city and the
countryside (SRs had influence among peasants). The Cadet party formed the
Temporary Committee. Menshevik and SRs pushed forward and formed the Executive
Committee of the Petrograd Council and were able to bring the council under
their influence. At this juncture, the Bolsheviks were in the majority in
councils in only a few cities, as for the rest, they were in the minority.
The very first days of the February Revolution, the workers' council
turned into a workers' and soldiers' council by having the soldiers join as
delegates and as an armed council, gained more power. On the other hand, in the
Duma, the Mensheviks, due to their incorrect views about the responsibility of
the Russian bourgeoisie in the revolution, views that had already been fully
criticized in the writings of Lenin, including in his famous book called “The
Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution”, with the
announcement of support for the Cadets, handed over the government to them most
willingly. This action, in fact, meant they had waved their power and were
supporting the bourgeoisie in practice. Lenin always exposed the nature of
petty-bourgeois and complicit views of the Mensheviks. He had argued that in
the Russian situation, the bourgeois– democratic revolution, not the bourgeoisie,
but only the workers and peasants can propel it forward, while the Mensheviks
said that since it is a bourgeois revolution then its leadership should be in the hands of the
bourgeoisie too. Obviously, from these two views, two different practices would
arise. Therefore, with the support of Mensheviks and SRs, the Russian
bourgeoisie in the Cadet party succeeded in forming a Provisional Government
that consisted of representatives of capitalists and the bourgeoise landowners.
This government was recognized as a legal government in Russia. Mensheviks and
SRs, at the head of the executive committee of the Petrograd council, announced
they would conditionally support the Provisional Government.
At this point, the position of Lenin and the Bolsheviks versus the
Provisional Government draws notable attention. Lenin was only able to arrive
in Russia on April 3, meaning more than a month after the February Revolution.
In his first speech, he boldly declared that the Provisional Government must by
no means be supported. Of course, before that, Lenin also stated in the
“Letters From Afar” “...He who says that
the workers must support the new government in the interests of the
struggle against tsarist reaction… is a traitor to the workers, a traitor to
the cause of the proletariat, to the cause of peace and freedom.” Now, it is not inappropriate to compare this
revolutionary stance with the position of the existing political organizations
in Iran at the juncture when Khomeini and his Islamic Republic had come to
power. All these organizations, including The Iranian People’s Fadaee
Guerrillas Organization which worked under this name without the least
believing in the theory and practice of The People’s Fadaee Guerrillas, the
People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, the Paykar Organization, etc. all on
the pretext that the great enemy is America,
supported the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran in various forms
and by their actions, showed that they had the same petty-bourgeoisie nature as
the Mensheviks and SRs in Russia.
The facts show that the Provisional Government refused to respond to any
of the demands of the people. The people wanted an end to the war but the
Provisional Government refused to bring peace due to the links that existed
mainly with the British and French imperialists. This government promised a lot
but in practice did not act, even a little, to realize the demands of the
people. The Provisional Government itself not only did not do anything toward
the change of the ownership of land but stood up against the peasants who
themselves seized the lands of the masters. This government would call for
patience, would promise that the demands of the people would be dealt with in
the assembly of constituents and of course, would avoid setting the date for
its assembly. In fact, the Provisional Government practiced
the policy of deceiving the people and dawdling in order to strengthen its
footing.
However, this government did not have much power to advance its
objectives since part of the power was in the hands of the workers’ and
soldiers’ councils and the Provisional Government could not do anything without
their agreement. Workers were present everywhere and were able to expose or
nullify any wrongdoing of the Provisional Government or, in other words, its
conspiracies. In fact, the February Revolution had created two powers in
Russia, which Lenin called
“Dual Power”. The class feature of this second power,
was the proletariat and the peasants who were wearing the uniforms of
soldiers. Lenin emphasized the power of
the Councils of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Representatives,
had the quality of the Paris Commune. Lenin, while explaining that the February
Revolution had created a dual power in Russia, described that the situation was
temporary and that there could be only one sovereignty
in one country, and therefore one of these two powers must be eliminated
forcibly. He saw the danger that the councils, under the influence of
Mensheviks and SRs, could submit their entire power to the bourgeoisie.
Now, in picturing these conditions after the February Revolution, one can
see how the Bolsheviks, despite not having enough power, with Lenin’s
leadership, adopting whatever methods of struggle and tactics that succeeded in
attracting the workers and peasants, were able to gain the majority in the
Councils of Representatives of Workers, take over the leadership of the
councils, and ultimately by leading the uprising of workers and their
supporting masses, were able to, with the slightest bloodshed overthrow the
Provisional Government and hand over total power to the councils.
According to what Lenin had explained in “Letters From Afar”, from the
very beginning, the main goal for the Bolsheviks was to put all of their
efforts and campaign activities in order to overthrow the Provisional
Government of the bourgeoisie and help the proletariat seize power. In this
regard, for some Bolsheviks, the question was raised: should we immediately
overthrow the Provisional Government? Lenin’s answer to this question reveals
the entire policy of the Bolsheviks at that period. He replied that the
Provisional Government must be overthrown because it is a bourgeois
oligarchical government that cannot give peace, nor bread nor complete freedom;
and then, with the deep conviction that “revolution is the work of the masses”, immediately argues that this
government cannot be overthrown now, because in regards to the
compromise, especially the Petrograd council, this government is backed by the
second government meaning the Representatives of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Councils.
Lenin in his writing “The Dual Power” explains: “...We are not Blancists, we do not stand for the seizure of power by a
minority. We are Marxists, we stand for proletarian
class struggle against petty-bourgeois intoxication, against
chauvinism-defencism, phrase-mongering and dependence on the bourgeoisie.”
Therefore, in the situation where the masses – in addition to the armed masses
of workers and soldiers who had sent their delegates to the council – were under the influence of petty–bourgeois
ideas and teachings, all of the Bolsheviks’ policies and practices were to help the masses so that
through their own experience they could discover the falsehood of policies that
the leadership of councils, meaning the Mensheviks and the SRs, had adopted in
the executive committee; and in this way,
were trying to attract the majority of the masses.
Lenin considered class balance as the standard for determining the duties
of the Bolsheviks. In this regard, an interesting and remarkable point in
Lenin’s dealing in this period which is an important lesson, is that he
described the reality as it was and shared it with workers without any
concealment. In this context, in the article “The Tasks of the Proletariat in
the Present Revolution” he writes: “Recognition of the fact that in most of the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a small
minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois opportunist
elements”. He described
reality as it was, so that the task that lies with the Bolsheviks is well
understood. The main task and the depth of the necessity that Lenin is pursuing
at this period is that the Bolsheviks must enlighten, criticize, and expose the
conservative tilt of influential political forces by explaining the mistakes of
the councils and by strengthening the proletarian line of thought in the
councils. In the same article about the second government, meaning the
Councils, he writes, “as long as this government
yields to the influence of the bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic,
and persistent explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation
especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.” In regards to raising
political awareness among the masses, Lenin always pointed out that “the real
education of the masses can never be separated from their independent
political, and especially revolutionary, struggle.” (Lecture on the 1905
Revolution) accordingly he
insisted that one should help the masses free themselves from the bondage of
mistakes by relying on their experience in struggles. At this juncture,
the workers and peasants, ecstatic from the Tsar’s overthrow, believed that the
Provisional Government would fulfill their demands.
During this period, the main slogan of the Bolsheviks, despite being weak in the councils, was “all power to the soviets” because, from their point of view, the Soviet of Workers' Deputies was the only possible form of revolutionary government and this fact was to be explained to the workers. The Bolsheviks hoped that the councils gradually and in their course of practice would realize the absurdity of the promises of the Provisional Government and therefore, with the rejection of the bourgeoisie rule, take all the power into their own hands.
In this situation of the rule of dual power in society, the contradiction
between the two powers quickly gave rise to important events. One of those
events occurred on March 14 when one of the Provisional Government ministers
ordered soldiers to return to the barracks. The meaning of this order was to
establish old military regulations to serve the continuation of the war. When
the workers in Petrograd became aware of this situation, they confronted the
government and issued a decree that is known in history as the “Soviet Order
Number 1. This decree, which addressed the soldiers, prevented them from
returning to their barracks. In this way, the Petrograd council decisively
disregarded the order from the Provisional Government and prevented the
soldiers from returning to the barracks. This represented the power of the
councils and it was one of the practices that showed the Provisional Government
could be in power only as long as the councils would allow it.
But the first major divide between the two governments developed on April
20 and 21. This was when the workers at the telegraph office noticed the text
of the telegram from “Milyukov” (the foreign minister of the provisional
government) to the Allies, meaning the Imperialist forces involved on one side
of the First World War. In the telegram, the Provisional Government promised
the continuation of the war on the part of Russia. This telegram totally
revealed that in contrast to what the Provisional Government promised in words,
in practice it violated one of the demands of the masses, meaning peace and
ending the war.
In a situation where the Provisional Government did not do anything to
improve the living conditions of the masses or create any kind of change in the
social–economic situation and instead referred to the constituent assembly
which, of course, did not even determine the date of its assembly – and
accordingly, the anger of the masses toward the Provisional Government was
increasing every day, the disclosure of the text of the Milyukov’s telegraph
caused the anger of the masses to boil over. Workers and soldiers took to the
streets. A massive demonstration took place and death to Milyukov chants were
heard everywhere. As Lenin says, “the movement flared up spontaneously; nobody
had cleared the ground for it.”(From the article “Lessons
of the Revolution”) Lenin writes in the same place: “The movement
was so markedly directed against the government that one regiment even appeared
fully armed at the Mariinsky Palace to arrest the ministers. It became
perfectly obvious to everybody that the government could not retain power.”
Both this demonstration and the practices within it, and the discovery that the
Provisional Government was not even able to send a telegram without the help of
the workers, were other examples that showed that the Provisional Government,
without the councils, could not be sustained; and showed that the slogan “all
power to the soviets” was truly achievable. At this point, the Bolsheviks,
while demanding that all secret contracts be disclosed, still insisted on the
necessity of transferring all power to the councils.
Lenin emphasized that if the councils were determined to take over the
whole government, no one among the people would resist and the transfer of all
power to the councils could take place in a most peaceful manner. It was
certain that if the councils were moving in the direction Lenin was seeing in
the interest of the workers, this case would have caused not only the
counterrevolutionary resistance of the Provisional Government but also the
opposition of the Mensheviks and the SRs. However, in this case in the course
of events, the workers and soldiers got to know more accurately both the
Provisional Government and the leadership of the councils. In any case, the
nature of the Provisional Government would have been revealed to the largest
group of masses. Hence, when the first Bolshevik public conference was held in
the same month of April, one of the most important stated duties of the party
was to help the masses understand that the Provisional Government was
essentially the government of landowners and capitalists.
In the article “The Dual Power”, Lenin had explained
that the fundamental question of every revolution is the issue of the ruling
power in the country; and a political force must primarily respond to this
issue from its point of view, toward the nature of the ruling power and in
relation to that, what policies should be adopted. In Lenin’s view, this was
the only way to speak of conscious participation in the revolution. Another
point is that the struggle to overthrow a non– proletarian government and an
effort to bring the proletariat to power is an inviolable duty of the
communist. As a result, they must demonstrate this in theory and practice at
every juncture by adopting the policies and tactics that carry out this task.
Considering this valuable guide, if we look at the state of the political organizations in Iran when the Islamic Republic had just come to power, we see that, while trying to justify their complicity by repeatedly quoting Lenin in a fragmentary fashion, just contrary to those of Lenin’s words, they avoided the task of defining the nature of the Islamic Republic, i.e., the successor of the Shah’s regime. And when they did finally identify the regime, they incorrectly identify it as popular and anti – Imperialist in nature, thus no longer was it a necessity to try to overthrow the Islamic Republic in order to bring the proletariat to power. Th Mensheviks and SRs were much the same. They never considered the thought of overthrowing the Provisional Government in an effort to bring about a proletarian government.
Now, after the protests in April, the Provisional Government had been
disgraced and needed to rebuild credibility for itself. For this reason, they
grasped anything that they thought would save them. In its first act, this government fired Milyukov
and another minister. However, its most important move was to reach out to the
petty-bourgeois parties of the Mensheviks and SRs in order to strengthen
itself. As a result, less than two weeks after the mass uprising, it was
announced on May 6th through an agreement
between these parties and the Provisional Government that a coalition
government would be formed in Russia.
In the same article “Lessons of the Revolution”, Lenin referred
to what capitalists in Britain and France had done repeatedly, explaining that
when the bourgeoisie realized its state of government was weak, in order to
fool and weaken the workers and create division among the workers, they
proceeded with the formation of a coalition government with the so called
socialist forces and showed that these “socialists” had a token role in the
coalition government and were an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie
used to deceive the workers and the oppressed masses. Incidentally, we
witnessed in Iranian society during the 1940’s that when the people were revolting and fighting everywhere, and even
Azerbaijan and Kurdistan had declared autonomy, the government of “Qavam”, appointed by the Shah, allowed
three Tudeh party members into his cabinet and then used them as a tool. For
example, they put an end to the huge strike of oil workers in Khuzestan, which
later led to their bloody suppression. While the Tudeh party – happy to have
three minsters in the government – were busy appeasing the regime of the
Monarch, the Imperial army then provided the grounds for an attack on Azerbaijan
and Kurdistan, and only about two months after the Monarch expelled the
ambitious Tudeh ministers from the cabinet, the army brutally stormed the
masses of people in these regions, and in particular, drove Azerbaijan into the
bloody ground.
In Russia, with a tactic used by the bourgeoisie, on May 6, 1917, six ministers from the Mensheviks and SRs entered the cabinet. Because of being alongside ten ministers of the bourgeois, they imagined themselves of high status and position, when in fact, in Lenin’s words they were the “stump speakers” there in order to mislead the masses. By participating in the coalition government, they made a new compromise with the bourgeoisie and gave part of the power of the councils to the Provisional Government. From the month of May to June 9, when another historic incident took place, the talkativeness and giving of promises to people for example that perhaps 100% of the profits of capitalists would be taken from them, was underway by the respective ministers. In practice, however, the coalition government not only did not make the slightest change in order to meet the demands of masses, but rather, wherever struggle and revolt were taking place, would send so-called socialist ministers there to whitewash the situation and put an end to the revolt. One of the examples was the deployment of one of the SR ministers putting an end to the revolt of the “Kronstadt revolutionaries who, with complete audacity, dismissed the commissioner appointed by the government. The Provisional Government commissioners were mostly children of feudal lords and land-owners, and that is why they were hated by the masses. It is interesting that just when the socialist minister was negotiating in the area, the bourgeoisie newspapers were producing false and provocative propaganda against the Kronstadt revolutionaries.
During this time, people still faced bad economic conditions. In the case
of the peasants, not only had land not been provided to them but even one of
the promises that was made to peasants based on a law issued by the Petrograd
council prohibiting the purchase and sale of land, was not enforced. Also the
war, while being referred to by the petty–bourgeois
parties ‘as the war for
defence of the homeland’ had not end, and there was no talk of peace.
Under these circumstances, the Bolsheviks engaged in circulation and
propaganda not only in the councils but also in the factories and even in the
military, relying on the experiences that the masses had gained and tried to
attract them towards the Bolsheviks. They were somewhat successful in this task
and the outcome of their activism was that the Bolsheviks gained power in the
councils of many cities. However, when the first congress of councils of all
Russia was convened on June 3rd, it became clear that the Bolsheviks were still
in the minority. This meant that the workers and soldiers had not yet
thoroughly gotten rid of the influence of petty– bourgeois ideas.
Lenin called the period between May 6 and June 9 the Second Phase of the
of the Russian Revolution, and stated that during this period the bourgeoisie
consolidated its power under the auspices of the support and actions that the
socialist ministers did in their favour and provided the means for an offensive
against the revolutionary workers.
On June 9, the Bolsheviks, who had witnessed the intense dissatisfaction
and frustration of the masses, decided to hold a rally. However, the Mensheviks
and SRs who realized that they were losing their influence among the masses day
by day, observed that they were becoming weak and that the rally of Bolsheviks
would notably expose their weakness to everyone, so they opposed the rally by
spreading propaganda against Bolsheviks. The Mensheviks and SRs were also
accompanied by Cadets. At this time, the petty– bourgeois alliance with the
counterrevolutionary bourgeoisie became fully apparent and the gap between the
workers and the leaders of the Menshevik and SR became wider.
There was no doubt that a military conflict would take place in the event
of a rally. The Bolsheviks, since they still lacked sufficient political
strength, did not want the workers to enter a battle that did not have the
ability to win so they withdrew the decision to hold the rally. In contrast,
the Mensheviks and SRs who had openly violated democracy, announced a rally for
June 18th in order to restore the lost trust of the masses. The rally was held
and 500 thousand people took part in it. However, at this rally, it was shown
that the content of the petty–bourgeois slogans advocating for trust in the coalition
government and the continuation of the war, perhaps in order to
defend the homeland, was on the sidelines. However, the majority of the
crowd participating in the rally, repeated the slogans
of revolutionary proletariat. The slogans of the Bolsheviks filled the scene of
the rally with such brilliance and prominence that it astonished the Bolsheviks
themselves. The slogans of bread, peace, freedom, land, death for ten ministers
of capitalists, and all power in the hand of councils, resonated in every part
of the rally.
The petty–bourgeois parties staging that rally had tried to show
themselves useful to democracy in front of the masses. On that same day of June
18th, despite the peace demands of the masses, the bourgeoisie began an open
offensive on the front line. The news of this offensive was announced on June
19th by “Kerensky”, the head of state who belonged to SRs. The offensive on the
front meant a renewal of the imperialist war, and in a situation where the
masses were strongly opposed to war, this action meant a stand against the
masses. In fact, the real meaning of the renewal of war on the front line was
the elimination of freedom in society, the shooting of opponents and the
consolidation of power in the hands of military gangs.
Incidentally, the offensive declared by Kerensky failed. At this point,
the news of the failed offensive spread and greatly provoked the anger of the
masses because it was now completely clear to the masses that the Menshevik and
SR leaders, even if they wanted to in practice, could not prevent the Cadet
Party’s criminal acts in the coalition government.
On July 3rd, the rage of the masses reached a boiling point and the
streets of Petrograd filled with revolutionary masses. The rally took the form
of an armed struggle. However, the Bolsheviks did not see armed confrontation
to be in the interest of revolutionary workers yet. Because, according to the strategy that
Bolsheviks were pursuing, within the specific conditions in Russia they still
had to pull out the deceived masses under the influence of the bourgeoisie and
the petty bourgeoisie. They saw that they did not have enough support from the
people in different parts of the country and the fighting forces in the army
had not yet been attracted towards the revolutionary workers. They also still
saw the possibility of extending the scope of the revolution through peaceful
means. Therefore, all the efforts of the Bolsheviks went towards making the
rally peaceful and organizing the revolutionary forces. Because of this,
instead of taking
military action, hundreds of thousands of people under the
leadership of the Bolsheviks went to the executive committee and asked the
councils to take all the power into their own hands. This rally, however, did
not end without bloodshed because a bunch of Cadets attacked the workers and
blood was shed. The counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie, which now included the Mensheviks
and SRs, engaged in full cooperation and for the full and complete repression
of the workers, they ordered the most reactionary section of the army to
Petrograd.
At this point, the Mensheviks and SRs, in the words of Lenin, acted like
the servants of bourgeoisie, whose legs were in chains too. They agreed with
the counter-revolutionary measures that the bourgeoisie needed to suppress the
people, including the renewal of war on the front lines, the execution of
soldiers who escaped from the war, and eliminating the freedoms gained from the
revolution and in this way, they placed themselves on the counterrevolutionary
front. Hereon, Lenin, after showing their retrogression from the moment they
promised in the Petrograd Council that they would conditionally support the
Provisional Government, to salvaging the government from failure and from
forming a coalition government with them on May 6th,
to other stages of downfall that they moved through in the compromise with bourgeoisie, points to: “This
disgraceful end of the SRs and Mensheviks parties was not accidental but the
result of the economic situation of the small employers, meaning the petty
bourgeoisie, which Europe’s experience has repeatedly proved.”
Under the leadership of the Mensheviks, and SRs, thereafter, the councils
became an appendage of the Provisional Coalition Government, and as a result,
the life of the dual government ended in favour of the rule of the bourgeoisie.
This was in a situation where the bourgeoisie party was unable to rule alone,
and the councils under the leadership of the petty–bourgeoisie did not want to
take power into their own hands, therefore, reactionary groups from the army
who were supported by the Black Hundreds gangs of landowners and capitalists,
called “Bonapartists” by Lenin, became the main sources of power.
After the July 3rd incidents, there
were completely new conditions in Russia. The repression of the Bolsheviks, on
the pretext that they staged an armed demonstration on July 3rd,
was placed on the order of the day of the coalition government. The military
forces, or according to Lenin, the Bonapartists stormed and destroyed the
building where the Bolshevik publication “Pravda” was printed. Other local
Bolshevik newspapers were also seized. The attackers killed a worker merely for
carrying a package containing Bolshevik newspapers. They arrested many of the
Bolsheviks. They began to disarm the Red Guard and deployed the revolutionary
parts of the Petrograd Barracks to the war front and committed other
counter–revolutionary acts such as summoning Lenin to court on July 7th, which of course Lenin refused to comply with
and disguised, went underground.
Now, if we return to Iran, we see that similar counter- revolutionary
incidents was waged in Iran, of course more intensely and extensively
immediately after the arrival of the regime with Khomeini at its head: the
bloody repression against Sanandaj (the capital of Kurdistan Province in
northwestern Iran—Translator) people in Nowruz of 1358 (New Year in 1980 –
Translator), the bombardment of defenseless villagers in “Qarna” and “Henderquash”, and other parts of Kurdistan, the
attack on the Arab people in Khuzestan, attacks on and the burning of
bookstores, which in one case led to the burning of a child among the flames
that “Hezbollah” (Party of God – Translator) had ignited. The attack on the
office of the Ayandegan Newspaper and others were the incidents that revealed
the repressive nature of the Islamic Republic and the necessity of confronting
it with a truly communist and revolutionary force. But, alas, the overwhelming
majority of political organizations of that period, which due to certain
reasons had the revolutionary forces under their “leadership” seeking
appeasement thus committing the same complicit acts that their counterparts did
in Russia, meaning, regardless of what they said in words, in practice they
conformed to the regime’s tyranny. Incidentally, recently I came across a
document from the publication of the usurped Organization of The People’s
Fadaee Guerrillas of Iran, released during the very first period of the
Khomeini regime under the title “The Book of Dushanbe” (Dushanbe means Monday
in the Iranian and Tajik calendars and it is also the capital city of
Tajikistan a country in Central Asia—Translator) which is digitized and accessible on
the internet. In part of that book, while confessing to the tyranny of
“reaction” and the brutal killing of the people of Kurdistan, a quote by Lenin
is provided, which in fact acts as a directive to the militant supporters of
the organization, in the sense that perhaps because the bourgeoisie is engaged
in killing, slaughtering and suppressing the people, one must maintain one's
calmness and be patient. That quote begins with these sentences: “Life will
assert itself. Let the bourgeoisie rave, work itself into a frenzy, go to
extremes, commit follies, take vengeance on the Bolsheviks in advance, and
endeavour to kill off (as in India, Hungary, Germany, etc.) more hundreds,
thousands, and hundreds of thousands of yesterday’s and tomorrow’s Bolsheviks.”
And the quote ends with this sentence: “Communists should know that, in any
case, the future belongs to them; therefore, we can (and must) combine the most
intense passion in the great revolutionary struggle, with the coolest and most
sober appraisal of the frenzied ravings of the bourgeoisie.”
Yes, the Farrokh Negahdar’s cronies at the head of the usurped Fadaee
organization, while they made it appear like the killing in Kurdistan perhaps
was not at the direct order of the “ruling body”, meaning the regime of Islamic
Republic, but the responsibility of all those crimes lay with the “reactionary”
which was, of course, unknown, relying on authority of Lenin quotations of
which neither the date nor the source are known, nor under what circumstances,
and why he spoke so, deliberately deceived the supporters of the organization;
and they recommended them to be completely calm in practice versus those
cruelties while maintaining their passion and enthusiasm for the struggle. But,
has Lenin ever really had such an encounter?
The fact is that Lenin wrote similar sentences three years after the
October Revolution on April 27, 1920, in the book ““Left-Wing” Communism:
an Infantile Disorder”,
in the section of “Some Conclusion” and he essentially has an intention that is
by no means consistent in any way with what the conciliators made it appear to
be. In that period, either the usurped organization of The Iranian People’s
Fadaee Guerrillas, or the Organization of Paykar and its allies in the “Vahdat
Conference” (Unity Conference – Translator) or other petty–bourgeois
organizations who with the claim to believe in communism, were active, have
always quoted sentences from Lenin’s writings as religious verses to justify
their compromises. But did Lenin and the Bolsheviks treat the
anti–revolutionary actions of the enemies of the oppressed masses that were
committed under any name and title like our native organizations did? The
answer is definitely negative. During the same period in Iran, there were also
the stands and the actions taken by The Iranian People’s Fadaee Guerrillas who
had separated its line from an organization that was operating under the
leadership of Farrokh Negahdar and his clique. Weren’t those stands and actions
regarding various events during those crucial situations Bolshevik like? – although our organization, had, by no means, the capability
and the power to effectively confront the ruling regime, thus it could not have
handled the task that requires an organization with large forces.
Now let’s see what policy did the Bolsheviks pursue and what measures did
they take as the political situation in Russia changed? In the new
circumstances where the ruling parties within the councils, in coordination
with the oppressors of the masses, had “tarnished” their existence, Lenin
argued that from then on, the slogan of all power to the soviets was ridiculous
and a deceptive to the people and pointed out that ‘power can no longer be
taken peacefully’. Therefore, with the change of political situation, the
Bolsheviks also changed their policy. Incidentally, in Russia, the Mensheviks
and SRs did not endorse the repressions carried out by the reactionary military
force “Junkers and Cossacks” in Petrograd but did try to exonerate the coalition
government from their counter–revolutionary actions. But Lenin, summarizing Engels’s view, i.e., “this public power
exists in every state; it consists not merely of armed men but also of material
adjuncts, prisons...”, explained that those repressive armed groups in Russia
are now the real ruling power, hence we must rise up against this power with
militarily might. Therefore, when the leadership of the soviets, whatever words
of justification and interpretation it gave, in practice
supported the oppressors and the executioners of the masses, thus indeed had
joined the counter–revolution, the Bolsheviks abandoned the slogan of all power to the. soviets, and instead put the preparation for an armed
insurrection against the Provisional Government on their agenda.
At the 6th congress of the Bolshevik
party which was held under these critical conditions, new decisions towards the
preparation for insurrection were made. In the Party statement, workers,
soldiers, and peasants were called upon to prepare their forces for definitive
clashes with the bourgeoisie. Of course, there were other views within the
Bolsheviks party and it was not easy to reach such an agreement. But Kerensky’s
ultimatum which
threateningly stated that any action taken by the armed movement
and any arbitrary action of the peasants to seize land will be answered with
“Iron and blood” and General “Kornilov's” open demand that the
committees and worker councils should be eliminated, all stamped the
affirmation of the correctness of the new policy adopted by the Bolshevik
congress.
On August 12, the Bolsheviks called for a general strike in Moscow in
protest against Moscow State Conference organized by the coalition government
to mobilize capitalists and landowners where the majority of workers in Moscow
and the workers of some branches in some cities took part.
On August 25th, General Kornilov
started rebelling and sent his military forces toward Petrograd and announced
that he was trying to save the homeland. It was here that the Central Committee
of the Bolshevik party took an action and invited workers and soldiers to armed
resistance. The workers immediately took up arms and prepared for resistance.
Parts of the army were also prepared for the battle in favour of the workers.
The perimeter around Petrograd was fortified to prevent the advance of
Kornilov’s military forces. The Kronstadt sailors also came to aid. Other
actions such as sending missionaries to parts of the Kornilov army, took place.
All these actions were to convince Kornilov that the workers and their
supporters were ready for armed resistance against his “Savage Division”. In fact, these preparations and
measures were effective and in the situation where Railroad workers had also
blocked the entry way to Petrograd, Kornilov changed his mind and decided not
to attack Petrograd.
Kornilov’s revolt along with previous counter– revolutionary actions,
whether the July 3rd rally and/or the action
taken to eradicate the Bolsheviks, taught the masses many lessons. Not only the
workers and soldiers learned these lessons but also in the villages where the
SRs had more influence, the peasants observed that only the Bolsheviks were the
true revolutionary force and were determined and serious in defending the
masses. The notable point of the resistance to Kornilov was that the workers
and soldiers carried out the Bolsheviks’ guidance. This reality illustrated
that within the councils,
revolutionary resistance force was alive. After the defeat of the
Kornilov revolt under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the influence of the
Bolsheviks rose both within the councils and in the countryside. On August 31st, the Petrograd Council and then the Council of
the Representatives of Moscow Workers joined the Bolsheviks and the former
Board of Governors of these councils resigned and opened the way for the
Bolsheviks. With the support of the workers and soldiers from the Bolsheviks,
the slogan of all power in the hands of the council was posed again. But this
time, the practical meaning of this slogan was that the councils must rise up
against the Provisional Government. Lenin was constantly repeating that only
the revolutionary proletariat could fulfill the demands of the masses
throughout Russia.
In regards to both the necessity and the possibility for insurrection,
Lenin in his article “Marxism and Insurrection” has raised many important
subjects which at the same time expose the false accusation of the bourgeoisie
and petty–bourgeoisie in the coalition government against the Bolsheviks, i.e.,
they were planning on armed struggle or coup d’état against the government on July 3rd. Lenin writes: “… an insurrection on July 3-4
would have been a mistake; we could not have retained power either physically
or politically. We could not have retained it physically even though Petrograd
was at times in our hands, because at that time our workers and soldiers would
not have fought and died for Petrograd.” As we
see, it is with this in mind that Lenin calls the “revolutionary upsurge of the
people” one of the essential conditions for a successful Insurrection. On the
days of September 13 and 14, 1917 he wrote the article “Marxism and Insurrection”, and declares that
“Now the picture is entirely different. We have the following of the majority
of a class, the vanguard of the revolution, the vanguard of the people, which
is capable of carrying the masses with it.”
It was this very same vanguard of the revolution, I.e.,
the conscious and militant of workers of Russia who in the last days of
October, made the Great Socialist Revolution in their country victorious. The
very same revolution that its reminiscence still causes trembles in the limbs
of capitalists everywhere around the world, and gives the workers and oppressed
people hope and strength to fight the world of “poverty and servitude.”
The Bolshevik led uprising of October, gained government power almost without
bloodshed. But this was just the beginning. After the October Revolution, the
Russian bourgeoisie, with help of the imperialists, especially the British and
French imperialists, imposed a bloody war on the Russian workers and the masses
which continued for several years. During that time, the capitalists and
oppressors of fourteen countries from different parts of the world, all
attacked at the same time and turned their vengeful military strikes on the
only socialist country in the world. However, they were only able to display
their horror at the October Revolution and their hate for it because the
workers and other mass supporters of the Bolsheviks, through their
self-sacrifice and heroic battles, rubbed both the internal and external
counterrevolutionary noses into the ground. In his book “The Proletarian
Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky” Lenin rightly stated that, “the transition
from capitalism to communism takes an entire historical epoch. Until this epoch
is over, the exploiters inevitably cherish the hope of restoration, and this
hope turns into attempts at restoration. After their first serious defeat, the
overthrown exploiters—who had not expected their overthrow, never believed it
possible, never conceded the thought of it—throw themselves with energy grown
tenfold, with furious passion and hatred grown a hundredfold, into the battle
for the recovery of the “paradise”, of which they were deprived, on behalf of their
families, who had been leading such a sweet and easy life and whom now the
“common herd” is condemning to ruin and destitution (or to “common” labour . .
.)”. These words of Lenin contain an important lesson especially for those who
think that revolution in Iran can achieve victory with a spontaneous mass
revolt like the 1979 uprising.
Usually, many people mention the lack of a communist party leadership as
the reason for the failure of the Bahman uprising, but they do not bother to
figure out as to how and through what process a communist party in Iran can be
formed. Without understanding the main parameters of both conditions, these
individuals in their fantasy imagine that the same path the Bolsheviks took
under the circumstances of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century can
also be taken in Iran today. whereas, the reality is
that revolution in each country has its own specific laws. Therefore,
considering the specificities of Iranian society, a victorious revolution would
take a different course from that of Russia. In fact, in January 1917, at a
meeting of young workers in the “Zurich’s People’s House”, Lenin delivered a speech in German
on the 1905 revolution, in which he confirmed the words that Kautsky had written
in his “Social Revolution” before he became a renegade– words which in my view are of
a great importance. These words were as follows: “The impending
revolution ... will be less like a spontaneous uprising against the
government and more like a protracted civil war.”
Indeed, the imposition of a civil war on Russia after the revolution as well as
the experience of other victorious revolutions led by Communists in the world
after the October Revolution, showed that those words
were quite accurate.
I finish my speech by mentioning the fact that the world of oppression
and exploitation never has the tolerance for the workers and the oppressed
masses to find out the truth about the accomplishments of Socialism in the
Soviet Union, and to believe, therefore, that a world without oppression and
exploitation is possible, and can be made if they destroy capitalism. For this
reason, I believe we are obliged to disseminate among the workers and the
oppressed masses in any way possible, the truth of a world free of class
oppression, a world free of all the abominations and miseries of society under capitalist
domination, as well as
the possibility of reaching it with the powerful force of the masses through
the revolution. In hope this writing is a contribution, however small, towards
such a grave task.
Glory to the Centennial of the October Revolution!