Illusions of Influence and the Mystique of Power: The Fellow-Travelers and Stalin as Philosopher-King
This chapter is based on an examination of the writings of the leading fellow-travelers of the 1930s and archival study of their Soviet visits. At its center is the web of concrete ties binding them to Soviet intel- lectual mediators and cultural institutions. It will make several inter- locking arguments that address longstanding debates about Western intellectuals and communism.
The article considers similarities and differences between China's and the Soviet Union's approaches to the post-war international orger.
The paper analyzes how the occupational group of in-house lawyers developed in Poland and Russia during the state-socialist and post-socialist period. These two countries constitute the most contrasting cases of socialist transformation in the region in terms of legal traditions and of the broader socio-political context. The comparative analysis uses the conceptual framework of the sociology of professions. In particular, the modified “actor-based framework for the study of the professions” proposed by Burrage, Jarausch and Siegrist (1990) is used as the main heuristic tool. The analysis summarized in the paper shows that (1) there had been significant discrepancies between the status of the in-house-lawyer occupation in both countries despite the seemingly similar political framework of the state-socialist regime; (2) Polish in-house lawyers were able to establish an integrated system of professional associations as early as at the beginning of the 1980s (3) and to transform it into a full-fledged professional self-regulation system very soon after the collapse of the state socialism; (4) Soviet and later Russian in-house lawyers have remained atomized and never made any serious attempt to create a self-regulating organization; (5) there was a process of partial “advocatization” of legal professionals who practiced in-house during the state-socialist period. The term “advocatization” means a change in the form of professional practice from employment relationship to service-for-fee practice. This process could be observed in both countries, but it took very different forms due to the differences in institutional changes which were described above. The “advocatization” of Polish in-house lawyers took place within the self-regulatory institutions. In the Russian case, it happened in form of individual migrations of practitioners into the Bar which lost control over admission at that time.
There are over thirty million disabled people in Russia and Eastern Europe, yet their voices are rarely heard in scholarly studies of life and well-being in the region. This book brings together new research by internationally recognised local and non-native scholars in a range of countries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. It covers, historically, the origins of legacies that continue to affect well-being and policy in the region today, discusses disability in culture and society, highlighting the broader conditions that construct disability and in which disabled people must build their identities and well-being, provides in-depth biographical profiles that outline what living with disabilities in the region is like, and examines policy interventions, including international influences, recent reforms and the difficulties of implementing inclusive, community-based care. The book will be of interest both to regional specialists, for whom the problem of declining standards of health and well-being is a crucial concern, and to scholars of disability and social policy internationally
Various forms of dictatorship have been a context in which SBS have been developing through most of the 20th century. Nazi and fascist regimes in Europe, Communist single-party states, military juntas in Latin America and elsewhere in the post-colonial world accompanied the crisis of tradition and development of modernity as an alternative to liberal democracy. Dictatorships have thoroughly affected the history of SBS pursuing a policy of repression and control and, sometimes, encouraging a growth of various social science disciplines. The lack of intellectual and institutional autonomy is generally endured, though to different degrees and in different aspects, by SBS under dictatorship.
Russian migrant communities in Europe, as well as the USSR and European states’ policies towards them, were sufficiently studied in English-, French- and Russian-language relevant scholarship. However, West and South Asia received significantly less attention, although the region served the main transit zone in this process, especially the countries such as Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan and even British India. During the interwar period hundreds of thousands of migrants from Soviet Russia either passed through these Southern regions towards Europe and the United States or founded their migrant communities there. These migrants became an integral part of political activism professed by Russian émigré communities all over the world in the 1920s-30s. This quite often resulted in them being manipulated on a massive scale by other governments in their foreign policies toward Soviet Russia, especially by Britain – Russia’s traditional rival in the region. On the other hand, the positions of the Soviet government in political and military terms toward its southern neighbours were significantly stronger than those in Europe. Having an upper hand in its relations with these states, the Soviet government would resort to military invasions, large-scale intelligence operations, the massive bribing of local police and the military, particularly in the border areas, as well as to imposing inter-state border-control treaties, − all this done with the aim to neutralise the anti-Soviet émigré activities and to physically liquidate their active representatives abroad as well as to conduce to the repatriation of larger numbers for subsequent prosecution on the Soviet territory.
Methodologically drawing on the most recent works in Migration Studies, in general, and in Russian Emigré Studies, in particular, the current research studies migration from the USSR into the neighbouring countries of West and South Asia – one of the most strategically important regions in the twentieth century. Within the timeframe 1917-1930, research looks into the phenomena, such as displaced statehood, political activism and cross-cultural interaction in the context of the migration policies of the relevant states (Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Britain and the USSR). The primary-source base of this research consists of mostly untapped documents from British, Russian, French, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Iranian archives and the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, collections as well as memoirs and private correspondence of migrants themselves. While highlighting some commonalities, the paper argues that the situation of Russian migrant communities in West and South Asia diametrically differed from the one in Western Europe, and puts forward a detailed analysis of the causes, developments and outcomes of this phenomenon.
A choice between Russian Non-Black Earth and Virgin Soil regions in the context of agricultural development of the Soviet Union was discussing virtually during the whole post-war period. The controversy dealing with the regional priorities assumed a sharp political character and demonstrated the traditional perception of center and periphery of the country. New sources - memoirs and archival materials, enable better understanding of the decision-making.