Гражданская война и социальная изоляция режима: почему большевики остались у власти?
The term “intelligentsia” meaning an educated and “progressive-minded” layer of people was introduced in Russia regardless of the prior popular opinion of P.D. Boborykin. The Russian term is preceded by the German and French analogues: “Intelligenz” and “intellectual” that signified people not belonging to the higher ranks of the “old order”, but differing from the nascent bourgeoisie due to their education, tastes, inclination to criticize the existing regime not corresponding to the criteria if justice and rationality. The researchers of this term evolution note the parallelism of the semantic evolution of “intelligentsia” and “civilization”: concurrent change from adjectives to nouns, definition of the action field of the educated elite. Intelligentsia determined the direction of the culture development. In this regard its function is similar to the function of the ruling power, but in a different notional field. Intellectuals are the ideologists of “par excellence”, they bring meaningfulness to social reality for the uneducated masses.
The reflection of the events of the Civil War of 1918-1920 in the exposition of a number of historical museums of the Rostov Region is reviewed. Although this land has become one of the main centers of the emergence of anti-Bolshevik resistance in Russia, the expositions presented do not meet the contemporary level of analyze of the Civil War.
This paper analyzes the governmental regulation of the rental housing market in the states that arose on the ruins of the Russian Empire during the Russian Civil war in 1918–1922. Geographically it covers the territories that were under control of the Province of the the Armed Forces of South Russia, Crimean Regional Government, Don Cossack Host, the Far Eastern Republic, the Provisional government of the Northern region, the Provisional government of Siberia, and Soviet Russia as well as national states, such as Azerbaijan, Armenia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. It examines and compares three major tools of the restrictive housing policy: rent control, protection of tenants from eviction, and housing rationing. It shows an emergence, evolution, continuity of the housing legislation of these governments with respect to that of the All-Russian Provisional government and its relationship with the housing policies of Bolsheviks. Despite sometimes radically opposite ideological attitudes, different governments reacted in a similar way to the acute housing shortage by intervening into the housing market. Finally, government regulations of the rental housing market on the territory of the former Russian Empire is put into European context using the regulation intensity indices constructed by the author. In Russia, the governmental regulation of the housing market emerged somewhat later than in Europe in general. However, in Soviet Russia it turned into a permanent regulation and remained in force until the early 1990s, while many European countries already in the early 1920s began to deregulate.