Российская смута XX в. и историко-культурные памятники
The Russian revolution is a process of ambiguous modernization (since the end of the 19th century), which is still not institutionally completed. The key moment was the events of 2017. Their result was the coming to power of the Bolshevik Party, the Civil War, the formation of the political regime, which gave the very traumatic modernization form for socium. To explain these events, we propose a P.Chaadaev paradox about the prospect of the victory of historically untenable socialism because of the untenable of its opponents. The "Chaadaev factor" content clarified with the help of the concepts of political will and N.Taleb’s "black swans". From this point of view, the society transition into a new state is a matter of a small number of uncompromising people, who are personally interested in the transition, involved in this process. Success comes in the case of simplification of problems and solutions in combination with the accentuated uncompromising minority and sufficient tolerance of the majority, when representatives of this majority have an asymmetry in their choice. The review results are beyond the scope of Russian experience and open up new opportunities for analyzing and solving problems of passionarity and tolerance. For example, if the reciprocity in tolerance conditions will violated, the society may lose immunity in relation to the willful intolerant minority.
The transformation of political thought in the national borderlands of the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century featured a variety of ideas, trends and projects. The imperial crisis which manifested itself at the turn of the century contributed to the discussions on future state formations. Although the autonomist discourse is usually located in the sphere of Soviet policy, regional intellectuals who synthesized local and global ideas worked out their political projects independently of the Soviet power. Comparing political activism of Siberian (Buryat-Mongol) and Central Asian (Alash or Kazakh) intellectuals, this article discusses the articulation of political unity in national terms which was caused by their struggle against discrimination, desire for greater representation within the existing power structures, as well as for protection of native languages, traditions and other forms of cultural expression.
This article considers the evolution of the Russian university system during the First World War. Most of the imperial period, until the end of 1916, thanks to the liberal policy of the Minister of People’s Education, Pavel Nikolayevič Ignat’ev, a reformist course was implemented (drafting of a new statute, increasing the autonomy of universities). Particularly important and promising was the expansion of universities’ network and opening of new universities in Rostov-on-Don, Perm, as well as the expansion of Saratov and Tomsk universities. In 1917 Ministers of Education of the Provisional Government (A. Manuilov, S. Oldenburg, S. Salazkin) also followed the Ignat’ev’s liberal course received support with the bottom-up initiatives (introduction of regular institution of associate professors, attracting of younger lecturers to the university management). Paradoxically, for the university system the result of crisis which lasted through the war period and the beginning of the revolution marked the democratization of management and the expansion of the students’ enrollment and the number of universities.