The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

INTERNATIONAL ROUND TABLE "PEOPLE AND POWER IN the RUSSIAN DISTEMPER" the 1st part



gly table

Vladimir VULDAKOV, Pavel MARCHENYA, Sergey RAZIN

INTERNATIONAL ROUND TABLE "PEOPLE AND POWER IN the RUSSIAN DISTEMPER"

the 1st part

The international round table is devoted to the cross-disciplinary scientific analysis of various aspects of a problem of interaction of the power and the people as two chief agents of historical development of Russia in situations of global social cataclysms, revolutions and distempers as periodically repeating system crises of the Russian state and society. International roundtable discussions are dedicated to the interdisciplinary scientific analysis of various aspects of interaction between authorities and people acting as the two main agents of Russian historical development in times of global social cataclysms, revolutions and revolts as repetitive systemic crises of Russian state and society.

people, power, Russian distemper, revolution, mass, history of Russia; people, power, Russian revolt, revolution, masses, history of Russia.

Vladimir Prokhorovich BULDAKOV — and. N, senior research associate of Institute of the Russian history of RAS of kuroneko@list.ru

MARChENYa

Petrovich — to. and. N, associate professor; associate professor of philosophy of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, associate professor of UNC "New Russia. History of Post-Soviet Russia" RGGU marchenyap@mail.ru

Sergey Yuryevich is the senior teacher of department of social sciences of Institute of arts education and information technologies; "People and the Power in the Russian Distemper" project coordinator

razin_sergei@mail.ru

/ **\^ October, 2009 passed in Institute of sociology of RAS / - H the International round table "The people and the power in the Russian distemper". Participated in work of a round table: honored worker of science of the Russian Federation, yu. N, prof., vice rector for science of Institute of arts education and information technologies Yu.M. Antonyan (Moscow); to. and. N, chapter of an editorial office of the Vestnik Arkhivista magazine I.A. Anfertyev (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. kaf. sociology and political science of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation N.V. Asonov (Moscow); and. N, prof., manager. kaf. stories and political science of the Russian state university of tourism and service V.E. Bagdasaryan (Moscow); and. N, article nauch. sotr. Institute of the Russian history of RAS V.P. Buldakov (Moscow); and. N, prof., manager. kaf. political science of the Belarusian state economic university O.G. Bukhovets (Minsk); to. and. N, article Ven. kaf. psychology and pedagogics of the Kursk institute of social education (branch of the Russian state social university) of A.A. Beloborodov (Kursk); and. N, prof. V.N. Voronov (Moscow); and. N, prof. kaf. economic and political history of Russia of the Saratov state social and economic university of E.I. Demidov (Saratov); to. and. N, dots. Samara state economic university of Yu.A. Zherdev (Samara); and. N, dots., manager. kaf. general education disciplines of the Russian academy of justice M.I. Ivashko (Moscow); and. N, prof. kaf. stories and political science of the State university of management A.A. Ilyyukhov (Moscow); to. and. N, dots., chapter of an editorial office of the Novy Istorichesky Vestnik magazine S.V. Karpenko (Moscow); Dr.Econ.Sci., Veda. nauch. sotr. economics department of Moscow State University to them M.V. Lomonosov A.I. Kolganov (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. Kursk state medical university of E.S. Kravtsov (Kursk); to. and. N, editor-in-chief of the Vlast magazine A.O. Lapshin (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. Ulyanovsk state university of N.V. Lipatov (Ulyanovsk); to. and. N, article nauch. sotr. Institute of the Russian history of RAS D.V. Liseytsev (Moscow); and. N, prof. kaf. national history of the University of Russian joint stock company

V.T Loginov (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. kaf. philosophies of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation, dots. UNC "New Russia. History of Post-Soviet Russia" Russian State Humanitarian University of P.P. Marchen (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)

MFA of Russia I.V. Mikhaylov (Moscow); to. and. N of E.V. Pavlov (Samara); article Ven. kaf. social sciences of Institute of arts education and information technologies S.Yu. Razin (Moscow); to. and. N, dots. Kursk institute of social education (branch of the Russian state social university) N.A. Savchenko (Kursk); f. N, professional. Moscow pedagogical state university, academician of Academy of political sciences, Assistant to the President of the International fund of social and economic and politological researches (Gorbachev Foundation) B.F. Slavin (Moscow); and. N, prof., manager. kaf. public relations of MGIMO (U) MFA of Russia V.D. Solovey (Moscow); PhD in Law, dots. kaf. social technologies and right of Samara State University of means of communication of S.V. Tkachenko; graduate student of Russian State Humanitarian University M.Yu. Chernichenko (Moscow); and. N, dots. Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation A.V. Chertishchev (Moscow); Dr.Econ.Sci., prof., chapter nauch.sotr. Institute of world economy and international relations of RAS V.L. Sheynis (Moscow); academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, and. N, prof., director of Institute of social thought V.V. Shelo-hayev (Moscow); yu. N, prof., vice president of the Guild of Russian Lawyers

S.S. Yuryev (Moscow).

Before the meeting V.N. Voronov read the greeting of Committee on Education of the State Duma of Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation sent to the address of participants of the international round table "The people and the power in the Russian distemper".

What caused the necessity of carrying out this round table?

The Russian society endures the next transition period in the history today. The purposes which were set before themselves by organizers were in trying to reveal the common and special features of system crises of the Russian society of the end of XVI — the beginning of the 17th centuries, the beginning of the 20th century and a boundary of the XX —HH1 centuries. Such comparative analysis allows to see possible options of overcoming modern system crisis, to make a certain forecast of development of the country for the near-term outlook.

During the exchange of views which took place after completion of a discussion, all participants noted that it was useful and

interesting, also supported the proposal of the coordinator of a round table S.Yu. Razin on creation of a permanent theoretical seminar on problems of national history of the 20th century

Today we bring to your attention the first part of performances of participants of a round table. The second part will be published in the following issue of the magazine.

A.O. Lapshin:

Good afternoon, dear participants. I am glad to welcome you in a conference room of Institute of sociology of RAS. To us, organizers, it is very pleasant that you responded to the invitation to take part in work of a round table "The people and the power in the Russian distemper". It is twice pleasant to note that not only the Moscow scientists, but also representatives of other regions of our country and also allied Belarus take part in work. The fact of your presence speaks about relevance of the problem submitted for discussion here.

Allow me, dear colleagues, also to give a greeting from the director of Institute of sociology, the member correspondent of RAS M.K. Gorshkov. In turn, we have to thank him for the given opportunity to carry out a round table in a conference room of Institute.

Now allow me to tell several words on a subject of a round table. In my opinion, the question of a ratio of the concepts "distemper" and "revolution" has to become one of the central questions of our discussion. It is very complex historical, philosophical and politological problem. What is a distemper? There is no definite answer to this question, in my opinion.

The concept "revolution", unlike the term "distemper", is traditional for our historiography. It should be noted that, as a rule, the concept "distemper" is used in relation to Russia. The great French revolution a distemper is not called. And here many characterize our revolution by means of such concepts as "distemper", "spontaneity", "revolt", "chaos", "okhlokratiya", etc. But serious tectonic historical shifts which allowed to break the empire as soon as possible were the cornerstone of the Russian revolution of the beginning of the 20th century.

Several words about a modern distemper which main outcome is disintegration of the Soviet Union today. I

16
201 0 ’0 4

I think that you agree that the happening processes led to randomization of society. Whether there were they spontaneous? Well, of course. It was prepared, unfortunately, by all of us. I would like that we formulated a certain idea that we it "the Russian distemper", and tried to answer a question, what its major characteristics, parameters, indicators today.

And now allow me to hand over the reins to the leader of our table V.P. Buldakov.

V.P. Buldakov:

Dear colleagues, I had to undertake a role of the leader as I is free or involuntarily provoked this round table. My modest book "Quo vadis means? Crises in Russia: ways of reconsideration", published two years ago. I proceeded from comparison of the present and events of the 17th century. The more you get acquainted with the materials relating to the Time of Troubles and the October revolution the more you make sure of their similarity to what we endured at the end of the 20th century and we worry still.

There was a representation that Russia endured three most powerful system crises about the history, and, strictly speaking, we did not leave the last yet. However such look often meets rejection — in the academic environment I faced it. To me it is thought, it will be productive to exchange views on the following question: whether this theory is a leisure invention or not.

I would like to allocate four blocks of questions.

The first block. The crisis rhythm of the Russian history is a myth or reality? Whether it is feature only of Russia?

The second block. What do crises begin with? What do they give? Whether changes as a result of crises of people? Whether it is worth putting in the context of the Russian historical development of the concept "distemper" and "progress" nearby? I can tell that researchers of the Time of Troubles absolutely accurately say that in the Moscow kingdom nothing changed. What was was only strengthened. Recently there was a brilliant book "Mandative System of Times of the Distemper" by D.V. Liseytsev. The author showed that during a distemper the mandative system showed surprising stability. Thought,

however, not new. It was stated still by N.I. Kostomarov and S.F. Platonov. Liseytsev confirmed it on concrete material.

The third block. What forces were the main characters of a distemper — elite or masses, conspirators or crowds? Presently this question is of particular interest. In media the point of view according to which various conspirators, masons, powers of darkness only also do that every time "overturn" Russia prevailed, put it upside down, create with it what the hell. I apologize for unparliamentary expression, but this is true.

At last, the fourth, perhaps, the most important block. The distemper and the Russian power — whether is improved the system of board? Experience of the first Distemper showed that the power self-improved only in the sense of bureaucratization. Anyway, it is necessary to try to answer this "topical" question. If an etatization — the most characteristic result of any Russian distemper, then why?

I would like to ask specially attendees here about what. You should not try to answer all questions at once. Let's focus on what we know better. Personally for me the main and only reference point at assessment of the course of historical process is the person. I try to approach distempers from positions of kulturnoistorichesky anthropology. So, whether the person as a result of shocks changes? Whether the feeling of the own importance comes to the Russian or, on the contrary, in it the feeling of own negligibility, idea of itself as insignificant "the creature shivering" becomes stronger?

V.D. Solovey:

I will consider the designated questions through a prism of macrohistorical sociology. Unfortunately, it is a little known to our historians. Meanwhile, it can be applied to the Russian material. In my first monograph "Blood and Soil of the Russian History" there is a section devoted to the comparative analysis of the Russian revolutions. The second monograph "Cancelled Revolution" contains the special chapter devoted to the analysis of the modern revolution which began in the 90th and continuing still.

I am not a supporter of search behind the term "distemper" specifically Russian soder-

zhaniye. What difference between a distemper and revolution, a distemper and peasant war, a distemper and a revolt? No more than terminological! If to speak in detail, then the Distemper of the 17th century was the first Russian revolution with a potential "great". Why it became history as a distemper, but not as revolution? For very simple reason — this revolution did not win. The mutiny which does not come to an end in good luck is called a mutiny. This revolution typologically perfectly fits into a wave of the revolutions and wars which swept at the beginning of Modern times across the whole Europe. If to take criteria of the latest theory of revolutions and to put them to the Distemper of the beginning of the 17th century, it will turn out that they quite suit for its description. Except for one moment. It is about lack of accurately articulated ideologies. Though protoideologies were present at the Distemper of the beginning of the 17th century.

If to speak about a distemper of the beginning of the 20th century, then I am not a supporter of that to divide February and October, 1917. These are, undoubtedly, two waves of uniform revolutionary process. In what characteristic of Bolshevist revolution? It was not just system revolution, it was Great revolution. Such revolutions in the world two — the Great French revolution and Great Bolshevist revolution. I mean great on globalnoistorichesky consequences, on influence scales. These are the revolutions which true changed the world.

How in the theory of revolution the issue of a ratio of elite and masses is resolved? Yes it is very simple. Revolution is always followed by mass mobilization. This mobilization can be successful only in case there is an union between the weight and a part of elite. That is, one more condition — split of elite is necessary.

The most interesting question in the context of the analysis of the October revolution is a question of when it ended. In my opinion, Bolshevist revolution came to the end in the mid-thirties with. Somewhat it came to the end even later, after the Great Patriotic War when there was final reconciliation of the power and society.

The last is most interesting to me

the revolution which began at a boundary 80 — the 90th. It falls under all functional definitions of revolution existing in macrohistorical sociology. This revolution also was system, but did not become great. On influence scales it was limited to borders of the Soviet Union and a world socialist system. Nevertheless in its course not only the political superstructure, but also all system of the social relations in general was changed. There is the same question — this revolution came to the end or not. I think no. There is no mass acceptance of the status quo today, there is no effective, competent power. By the way, it is necessary to notice that revolution in minimalist option comes to an end when more rigid systems of social control are created, than earlier existing. So far we cannot state it. Generally, this revolution did not come to the end. Another matter — whether will follow its new wave. Here I am skeptic. And not because I consider that Russia reached the limit on revolution.

One of the most important conditions of updating of a potential revolutionary situation is mobilization of demographic, biological force. Any revolution needs demographic, biological growth. So was and in the Distemper of the beginning of the 17th century, so was also at the beginning of the 20th century when the youth share aged up to 20 years made 48% of the population of the European part of Russia. Any revolution demands some share of young people. By J. Goldstone and other authors it is empirically established that the share of youth has to exceed 25%. If it exceeds 40%, then revolution practically becomes inevitable. At the same time it is necessary to consider that Russia was never the colonial empire and therefore it had no opportunity to get rid of this peculiar surplus biologically and socially active population. Besides today there is no union between a part of elite and society. It must be kept in mind that potential discontent of very high level for this reason often go to deviation — in alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.

Grace Pearl
Other scientific works: