«В центре всего должен быть вопрос этики…» Интервью с Теодором Шаниным
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.
This is a review of two recent books on Leon Trotsky, one of the most prominent Russian revolutionary leaders and an ardent critic of Stalin. The review analyses the main arguments of both books as well as their contribution to the study of Trotsky's personality and political legacy.
The author investigates how various themes, including mutual interaction, territory delimitation and key periods in Russian history are presented both in contemporary Chinese history textbooks for secondary schools and Russianist literature for wide readership that had been published in China during 1997-2008. The author emphasizes the peculiar perception of Russian history in China and considers it most important factor for creation the image of Russia in contemporary PRC.
“Empire Speaks Out” is a result of the collaborative international research project whose participants aim to reconstruct the origin, development, and changing modes of self-description and representation of the heterogeneous political, social, and cultural space of the Russian Empire. The collection offers an alternative to the study of empire as an essentialized historical phenomenon, i.e. to those studies that construe empire retrospectively by projecting the categories of modern nation-centered social sciences onto the imperial past. It stresses dynamic transformations, adaptation, and reproduction of imperial patterns of sociability and governance. Chapters of the collection show how languages of rationalization derived from modern public politics, scientific discourses of applied knowledge (law, sociology, political economy, geography, ethnography, physical anthropology) and social self-organization influenced processes of transformation of the imperial space.
The chapter is focused on 1) the formation of historical memory about public politics and parliamentarism in the context of the anniversary of political reforms and introduction of the State Duma in 2006 2) the history of formation of the concept of public politics in Russia of the early twentieth century.
The article examines the main trends in the study of the Stalinist period and the phenomenon of Stalinism in connection with the mass opening of the archives.
The main theoretical approaches to the phenomenon of Stalinism within the Weberian tradition in historical sociology are discussed. Particular attention is devoted to Michael Mann's discussion of the "regimes of continuous revolution" and Johann Arnason's analysis of the Soviet model of modernity.
The chapter is focused on exploration of the politics of comparison as it was practiced by the ideologues of the Russian Empire and imperialism at the beginning of the twentieth century. Special attention is given to the transfer of operative ideological frameworks from the British empire to the Russian context.
This paper is devoted to the explanation of selected bureaus’ behavior patterns in the soviet type of totalitarian dictatorships with the command economic model. It is a proven fact that the plan figures in the soviet economy were fabricated as a consequence of intrigues and secret negotiations between different interested parties. Generally, bureaus, as rational agents that minimize risk and maximize slack, should have been interested in reducing the plan figures, nevertheless, they strived to increase them. As examples, mass repression under dictatorships and overexpenditure of an administrative leverage at elections in non-democratic and quasi-democratic countries can be observed. In the article we develop a simple model of coordination between principal (dictator) and his agents (bureaus), which explain the mentioned paradoxical situation.
Императора Александра I, несомненно, можно назвать самой загадочной и противоречивой фигурой среди русских государей XIX столетия. Республиканец по убеждениям, он четверть века занимал российский престол. Победитель Наполеона и освободитель Европы, он вошел в историю как Александр Благословенный - однако современники, а позднее историки и писатели обвиняли его в слабости, лицемерии и других пороках, недостойных монарха. Таинственны, наконец, обстоятельства его ухода из жизни. О загадке императора Александра рассказывает в своей книге известный писатель и публицист Александр Архангельский.
The results of cross-cultural research of implicit theories of innovativeness among students and teachers, representatives of three ethnocultural groups: Russians, the people of the North Caucasus (Chechens and Ingushs) and Tuvinians (N=804) are presented. Intergroup differences in implicit theories of innovativeness are revealed: the ‘individual’ theories of innovativeness prevail among Russians and among the students, the ‘social’ theories of innovativeness are more expressed among respondents from the North Caucasus, Tuva and among the teachers. Using the structural equations modeling the universal model of values impact on implicit theories of innovativeness and attitudes towards innovations is constructed. Values of the Openness to changes and individual theories of innovativeness promote the positive relation to innovations. Results of research have shown that implicit theories of innovativeness differ in different cultures, and values make different impact on the attitudes towards innovations and innovative experience in different cultures.