Chayanov A.V. What is the agrarian question
Chayanov A.V. On the Agrarian Question. Translated from: Chayanov A.V. What is the Agrarian Question? Moscow: Joint-stock company “Universal Library”, 1917. 63 p. (League for Agrarian Reforms)
A theoretical contribution to the economics and statistics of prominent scientists is described: A. Fayol, one of the founders of industrial management, academician, one of the CEMI RAS' founders N.P. Fedorenko, Nobel Prize winner 1993 R.W. Vogel, the greatest economist of the Middle Ages, the scholastician Thomas Aquinas, a prominent peasant scholar and predecessor of Chayanov - A.F. Fortunatov.
The theoretical contribution to the economics and statistics of prominent Russian pre-revolutionary scientists was resurrected and described: A.V. Chayanov, a theorist of zoning A.N. Chelintsev, statisticians N.S. Chetverikoff and A.A. Chuprow, who worked with E.E. Slutsky and N.D. Kondratieff, then striking public figure and educator A.I. Chuprow, at last professor at Moscow State University and the adept of V.K. Dmitrieff' ideas - N.N. Shaposhnikoff. Their intellectual biographies with previously unknown details are given as well.
Rural Russia is undergoing profound changes in its social and economic structure, differing greatly in numerous regions of the country and in the agrarian economy as a whole. This is due to both internal transformations of the last decades of post-Soviet transition and external causes related to processes globalization. The most visible of these changes is the growing concentration of large-scale agribusiness landholdings. This concentration is transforming rural-urban linkages, intensifying rural-urban migration, leading to the disappearance of smallholders, family farmers and even entire rural settlements. This contribution considers key aspects of contemporary rural-urban reciprocity in Russia through the analytical lens of the utopian models of rural development proposed by A.V. Chayanov for both Russia and the world. It is argued here that Chayanov’s models of social development provide an optimal conceptual frame to understand the contemporary contradictions between the town and village, industry and agriculture, the peasantry and the capitalist state. Furthermore, we question whether and to what extent Chayanov’s harmonious utopia has been achieved in Russia.
We publish an interview of Alexander Nikulin, Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, with Teodor Shanin, President of the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, who was awarded the Order of the British Empire. The interview focuses on the key issues of personal self-determination in the history of the 20th century. The interview was to focus on the work of the historian Mikhail Gefter ‘Apology of the weak man’ which the online journal Gefter wanted to publish. However, the conversation went far beyond the discussion of this work. Shanin shared his memories of how he began to study the Russian peasantry and ideas of Nikolai Bukharin and Alexander Chayanov, of his meetings with Moshe Levin, the head of the Rote Kapelle (Red Chapel) with alias Domb and many others. Shanin expressed his attitude to Stalin and Stalinism, the XX Congress of the CPSU and denunciation of the personality cult. His arguments about strength and weakness, cowardice and self-control reveal his ethical position as a historian and an active participant of the 20th century events both in the world and Russia.
In this exploratory study, we examined several interethnic ideologies held by individuals (assimilation, colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism) from a social ecological perspective. We examined moderation effects of neighborhood ethnic density (ED) on relationships between interethnic ideologies and intergroup bias towards various minority ethnic groups in the Russian context. Intergroup bias was assessed as a composite score of bias toward four ethnic groups who have different cultural distances from the Russian mainstream population: Chechens, Belarusians, Uzbeks, and Chinese. We obtained a gender balanced sample of ethnic Russians from the Central Federal District of Russia (N = 359) comprising of 47% women and 53% men. The measures were used in a Russian translation by an adaptation using the back-translation and cognitive interviews. Multiple regression analysis was used to test the relationships. The results showed that high perceived neighborhood non-Russian ED weakened negative relations between intergroup bias and ideologies that purportedly accept cultural diversity (multiculturalism and polyculturalism). On the other hand, for interethnic ideologies those purportedly reject cultural diversity, high perceived neighborhood non-Russian ED weakened the positive relations between intergroup bias and assimilation and strengthened the negative relations between intergroup bias and colorblindness. The pattern of results suggests that the relationship between attitudes and intergroup bias may change based on the perceived ethnic composition of the local area and frequency of contacts. Although our findings are relatively novel they support the emerging view that attitudes and intergroup relations need to be studied from a social ecological context.
The present paper discusses perspectives of Activity Theory (AT) in the context of contemporary globalizing world, describing which we refer to the notion “De-structuralized modernity” (Sorokin & Froumin, 2020). Radical changes in everyday life challenge social sciences and humanities. Approaches are in demand, which have the potential to comprehend the changing human étant and éntre. We argue that Activity Theory has the potential to face these challenges. Leontiev’s AT grounds on the idea of qualitatively new mental features arising to deal with novel environmental challenges, which is much in line with J.M. Baldwin reasoning on evolution. AT also offers a method to prognosis the upcoming neoplasms. In the same time, applying classics of AT to the current reality, “De-structuralized modernity”, entails the need for new theoretical elaborations of the latter, stemming from the radical transformation of the relations between individual and socio-cultural environments. A unique societal context emerges on the global level, which, on the one hand, requires individual to adapt constantly to changing socio-cultural reality, and, on the other hand, dramatically expands his/her potential for proactive actorhood transforming surrounding structures. We argue that the major and novel challenge for the individual is the task of maintaining the integrity and coherence of the a) Self-identity and b) system of links in and with the socio-cultural environment - in their dynamics and unity. The notion of “culture” has particular relevance and importance in this context because it allows grasping simultaneously two dimensions in their dynamic dialectical interrelations. First, the “internal” (“subjective”, “in the minds”) and “external” (“objective”, material and institutional environment) realities. Second, individual (“micro”) and societal (“macro”) scales of human activities. Discussing the ways to understand these dynamics, we dispute the popular “constitutive view” on personality and refer to the concept of the “ontological shift” (Mironenko & Sorokin, 2018). We also highlight how technological advancements change and “expand” human nature making it capable to deal with the outlined new tasks.
The article deals with the ways Russian authorities have constructed the social problem of HIV/AIDS (human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immune deficiency syndrome) in Russia. The statistical construction of HIV/AIDS includes data indicating the significant rise of HIV prevalence in Russia since 2000. The study focuses on what and how Russian authorities speak about HIV/AIDS, while there are official data on the rapid spread of the virus in the country. The work is based on a discourse analysis of the authorities’ rhetoric about HIV/AIDS. During his first presidential terms, Vladimir Putin constructed HIV/AIDS not as an epidemic in the country, but as a “global problem,” representing Russia as a participant in international efforts to combat AIDS. The president problematized the HIV spread through the rhetoric of endangerment but without its crucial term “epidemic,” while at the same time de-problematized HIV in Russia by the strategy of naturalizing (“this is a problem that all countries face”). The Russian authorities appealed to traditional moral values and spoke about marginal or risk groups, rather than risk practices. After the deterioration of relations with Western countries since 2007, the Russian president excluded HIV/AIDS problem from his public agenda, despite the existence of the data on steep HIV growth in Russia. The Russian president’s traditionalism, de-problematization, and silence concerning HIV/AIDS lead to the absence of the HIV/AIDS issues in media agenda, the agenda of local authorities, and consequently the personal agendas of Russian citizens. The consequences are ignorance, fears, stigmatization of people living with HIV, semi-legal status of needle, and syringe exchange programs for intravenous drug users, low antiretroviral therapy coverage, and the continuing HIV epidemic.