Революция и реформа: соотношение понятий в первые годы Великих реформ
The article examines the place of the concepts revolution and reform in the political discourse in the first years of the Great reforms in Russia. Revolution was considered as a worst case scenario, so the menace of it was an effective argument against one or another decision or policy from the moment the concept had appeared in s. The paper shows that the situation changed to some extent at the beginning of Alexander II’s reign. Menace [ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ] АНДРЕЙ ИЛЬИН [ of revolution was used at that time in order to justify reforms. Those who spoke on behalf of the government referred to the possible revolutions; their opponents spoke about revolutions, intending to exert pressure on the statesmen and to promote their own ideas and plans. It was acknowledged that revolution and reform had common goals. Although the concepts were opposites in many ways, revolution and reform, they were starting to drift together. Conception of revolution from above developed by the leftist journalists such as A. I. Herzen or N. P. Ogarev was a vivid manifestation of this trend. It meant that transformations carried out by authorities had to be fundamental, meet the people’s interests and require its participation. Yet, these tendencies were not sustainable. The article concludes that semantic experiments and convergence at the beginning of the Great Reforms were connected with the ambiguity of the government’s status in emerging circumstances and also with the unsettled character of the public sphere. An opposition between revolution and reform became more and more apparent during the 1860s. Conception of revolution from above was abandoned by the leftist authors. Revolution and reform became tools for political demarcation between the revolutionary movement and liberal supporters of the government. Revolution lost its previous role, but found a new legitimate place in public discussion, although usually as only a negative and threating scenario.
This article addresses the question of philosophy and political program of contemporary Russian conservatism. The author analyses historical origins of this doctrine and the role of conservative romanticism in a framework of the current political process. From this position the author focuses on comparative analysis of Russian and West European forms of phenomenon under consideration.
This article studies the issue of democratization of countries within globalization context, it points to the unreasonably high economic and social costs of a rapid transition to democracy as a result of revolutions or of similar large-scale events for the countries unprepared for it. The authors believe that in a number of cases the authoritarian regimes turn out to be more effective in economic and social terms in comparison with emerging democracies especially of the revolutionary type, which are often incapable to insure social order and may have a swing to authoritarianism. Effective authoritarian regimes can also be a suitable form of a transition to efficient and stable democracy. The article investigates various correlations between revolutionary events and possibilities of establishing democracy in a society on the basis of the historical and contemporary examples as well as the recent events in Egypt. The authors demonstrate that one should take into account a country's degree of sociopolitical and cultural preparedness for democratic institutions. In case of favorable background, revolutions can proceed smoothly (‘velvet revolutions’) with efficient outcomes. On the contrary, democracy is established with much difficulty, throwbacks, return to totalitarianism, and with outbreaks of violence and military takeovers in the countries with high illiteracy rate and rural population share, with low female status, with widespread religious fundamental ideology, where a substantial part of the population hardly ever hears of democracy while the liberal intellectuals idealize this form, where the opposing parties are not willing to respect the rules of democratic game when defeated at elections.
In response to the grim realities of the present world Jewish thought has tended to retreat into eschatological fantasy, but rather to project utopian visions precisely on to the present moment, envisioning redemptions that are concretere, immanent, and necessarily political in nature. In difficult times and through shifting historical contexts, the messianic hope in the Jewish tradition has functioned as a political vision: the dream of a peaceful kingdom, of a country to return to, or of a leader who will administer justice among the nations. Against this background, it is unsurprising that Jewish messianism in modern times has been transposed, and lives on in secular political movements and ideologies. The purpose of this book in to contribute to the deeper understanding of the relationship between Jewish thought, utopia, and revolution, by taking a fresh look at its historical and religious roots. We approach the issue from several perspectives, with differences of opinion presented both in regard to wath Jewish tradition is, and how to regard utopia and revolution. These notions are multi faceted, comprising aspects such as political messianism, religious renewal, Zionism, and different forms of Marxist and Anarchistic movements.
In this article the author attempts to explain the events occurring in the country taking into account the specificity of the Ukrainian political culture. From the point of view of the author, a key player in the Ukrainian revolution in 2014 was the Ukrainian society itself, and any attempt to comment the situation of modern Ukraine, first of all, should take into account civil conditions of the society itself. Qualitative state of civil society in Ukraine outrun the quality of the ruling elite, which inevitably provokes new confrontations and conflicts.
In his article Vladimir Kantor explores the destiny of Russia intelligentsia within the context of cultural crisis that took place at the turn of XIX and XX centuries, analyzing the Vekhovs, a group of leading intellectuals who ran a collection of essays, titled "Vekhi", studying their relationship towards that Russian cultural phenomenon. To author, the intelligentsia is considered as a critical factor in the development of Russian history. Within a context of the struggle around the "Vekhi", by referring to famous philosophical and literature books, published in 1909, the author focuses on relationships between intelligentsia and ordinary people, their attractive and repulsive interaction, which represents the key theme of the Russian destiny. Any historical movement occurs through tragedy; heroes who move the history have to sacrifice themselves to provide that movement. Confirmation to that idea would be rejection and exclusion of the Russian intelligentsia from the country's mentality throughout a number of generations which ultimately led to its tragic being.