Conservatism In Russia Research Articles

CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM: THE SEARCH FOR A COMPROMISE IN THE CONTEXT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE IN RUSSIA

In the article, the author reviews modern research on the history of the development of conservatism in Russia. In particular, the problem of finding a compromise between conservative and liberal approaches in the context of the development of Russian historical science is considered.

THE PHENOMENON OF CONSERVATISM IN MODERN RUSSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

The article analyzes topical issues related to the research and prospects for the development of conservatism in Russia. An overview of existing research on this topic is presented. The importance of addressing the legacy of Russian conservatism is due to the presence of interesting theses on the part of its theorists regarding the spiritual and moral foundations of Russian civilization, the peculiarities of the country’s historical path, the development of statehood and democracy. The author argues that without studying the works of classics of conservative thought, it is impossible to comprehend the history and current state of conservatism in Russia.

Rare Editions of N. M. Karamzin’s Works in Novosibirsk Libraries

Lifetime and rare editions of works of great writers, researchers, public figures are of special cultural and historical value and enjoy the increased attention of the keepers of book collections and visitors of book museum exhibitions. The purpose of this article is to introduce into scientific circulation the rare copies of domestic and foreign editions of works of the historian and writer N. M. Karamzin (1766 – 1826), stored in the Novosibirsk State Regional Scientific Library (NSRSL) and the State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (SPSTL SB RAS). Among them are books from the library of the Kolyvan-Voskresensk mining plants, including those received there from personal collections of mining engineers, copies of the journal “Vestnik Evropy” for 1802-1803 from the collection of V. S. Mikhalkov, a volume of “History of the Russian State” used in one of the oldest educational institutions in Russia – the Smolensk Boys’ Gymnasium, a volume of a lifetime edition of the “History of the Russian State”, which belonged to the historian, archaeographer P. M. Stroev, the compiler of the “Key, or alphabetical index to the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin”.Special attention should be paid to the first complete Russian-language edition of “On Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations”, written in 1811, addressed directly to Emperor Alexander I and for censorship reasons first published only abroad, in Berlin, in 1861. A copy from the Department of Rare Books and manuscripts of the State Public Scientific Library of SB RAS is unique in that it contains proofreading notes of the historian A. N. Pypin. Relying on this copy of the Berlin edition of N. M. Karamzin’s work and consulting the handwritten copies of it which were at his disposal, he prepared the first complete publication of the text of this manifesto of Russian conservatism in Russia in 1900 as an appendix to his monograph “Social Movement in Russia under Alexander I”. A careful study of valuable publications from the collections of Novosibirsk libraries deepens our knowledge about the book culture of Siberia and, more broadly, about the history of Russian-language book culture, about the history of the formation of Novosibirsk book collections, demonstrates the continuity of these collections in relation to the outstanding book collections of the past.

В поисках основ русского консерватизма. Рецензия на: Contemporary Russian Conservatism. Problems, Paradoxes, and Perspectives. Mikhail Suslov & Dmitry Uzlaner (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 2019. – 426 pp.

The article analyzes the design features of the image of new conservatism in Russia, which is formed for the Western audience by the international research group that presented its collected papers “Contemporary Russian Conservatism. Problems, Paradoxes, and Perspectives” (Boston; Leiden: Brill, 2020). Taking into account the contextual moments, empirical material and methodological strategies, the author notes all those moments in the narration of the participants in the collection, which together show the main "fixation" of these external observers of the "conservative turn" in modern Russia. The authors of the considered book reduce the understanding of Russian realities to the format of the diamonological opposition of Russian intellectuals and politicians to the West, presenting it as a series of counter-projects, starting from the 18th century. As a result of such an “optics” (or “coordinate system”), Russian conservatism is presented as another collective application for being an intellectual product, partially and successfully applicable within the country, but unsuitable for external use, and therefore Russian conservatism is presented as original in form, but marginal in essence.

K. N. Leontiev’s early legal aesthetics and its problematic relation to the Russian conservatism

The following article is concerned with the aesthetical view on legal reality which was formed by K. N. Leontiev in his early philosophy. It is argued that especially in legal sphere there was a fundamental distinction between philosopher’s aesthetical and religious axiology and abstract axiology of the Russian conservativism. The research helped to articulate conclusively that due to his aesthetical problematization of themes, which are common to the philosophical discourse on conservatism in Russia, Leontiev could become hostile even to the proponents of conservation. The article was based upon historical-doctrinal method used in legal studies of political teachings. Its results can help to expand the possibilities of using new approaches to Leontiev’s legacy.

Russia’s “conservative turn” after 2012: evidence from the European Social Survey

ABSTRACT Russian politics is often described as having taken a “conservative turn” since the start of Putin's third term. This refers to the rise in the political influence of the Russian Orthodox Church, the ideological shift to traditional values, and the growth of authoritarianism. This study aims to explore ordinary Russians' commitment to this conservatism using data from European Social Survey, 2010–2018. I suggest a four-factor model for measuring popular conservatism in Russia: Loyalism, Conformity, Religiosity, and Traditionalism/Security. The study reveals a surge in conservative attitudes in 2014–2016 and a steady decline thereafter.

Yu. N. Solonin on the socio-political philosophy of conservatism

Professor of the St Petersburg State University Yu. N. Solonin to the study of global and Russian conservatism, analyzes his works on the problems of philosophy and axiology of politics and political ideology. The author shows that political philosophy of Solonin was theoretically grounded Center for comprehensive study of conservatism at the Philosophy Department of the St Petersburg State University. It is pointed out that many well-known specialists from St Petersburg and other regions of Russia took an active part in the work for the Study of Conservatism Center. They investigated the substantial characteristics of conservatism as a complex socio-cultural and intellectual phenomenon and the historical-philosophical preconditions of conservatism. Solonin’s works creatively developed the concepts by Russian scholars dealt with conservatism, and it helped to organize a research school of comprehensive study of conservatism. The article offers an analysis of Solonin’s writings on conservatism while he was leading the Study of Conservatism Center. The works by Solonin and other scholars revealed the main features of conservatism’s philosophy, such as holism, organicism, traditionalism, etatism, and irrationalism; they analyzed the historical, cultural, political-legal and socioeconomic preconditions of the genesis of European and Russian conservatism. The article argues that a special attention in Solonin’s theoretical heritage was paid to the analysis of the problem of liberal-conservative synthesis. He specifically analyzed the potentialities of liberalconservative synthesis and proved that various non-classical forms of political ideologies are being formed in modern conditions. Solonin also noted the complex and diverse ideological currents of conservatism in Russia, its being conditioned by the traditional way of Russian society, the attitude of the people to the state.

Political Conservatism in Russia

In this paper I discuss the conservative turn that took place in Russia in the last 15 years comparing it to the recent experience of Hungary and Poland. I show that to a large extent this backlash is of a socioeconomic nature and reflects the people’s frustration with the downsides of the economic liberalization. Moreover, the depth of the original social transformation determined a society’s ability to resist to the conservative trend. In Russia where the modernization processes were the shallowest, the old political elites could regain power sooner and roll back the society deeper. I also overview different conservative schools of thought in Russia and show Putin manipulated this ideology to strengthen his hold on power.

Политические истоки либерального консерватизма в России

Политические истоки либерального консерватизма в России

Stabiliziruyushchie i konsolidiruyushchie resursy konservatizma v Rossii (Chast' 2)

Stabiliziruyushchie i konsolidiruyushchie resursy konservatizma v Rossii (Chast' 2)

Conservatism in Russia and the Characteristic Features of Russian Conservative Socio-political Science in the First Half of the 19th Century

Herein an overview of the approaches to the concept of “conservatism” is given, proving that in the history of socio-political ideas in Russia over three centuries the binary approach to conservatism was apparent: on the one hand, conservatism is seen as the ideology of preserving the existing political system, on the other hand, it embodies the values of the folk culture. Such approach was actively applied to the analysis of conservatism by a lot of scholars including M.P Pogodin, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin, D.I. Tyutchev, B.N. Chicherin, L.A. Tikhomirov, A.D. Gradovsky, M.N. Katkov, N.A. Berdyaev, V.V. Rozanov, S.L. Frank, G.P Fedotov, N.O. Lossky, D.I. Romashkov. Mostly due to their creative efforts the term “genuine conservatism” received its true meaning, combining political, cultural and religious understanding of Russian conservatism and its essence as the idea of Russian culture, state and society development.

Never the Twain Shall Meet? Conservatism in Russia and in the West

Never the Twain Shall Meet? Conservatism in Russia and in the West

Стабилизирующие и консолидирующие ресурсы консерватизма в России. Часть первая

Стабилизирующие и консолидирующие ресурсы консерватизма в России. Часть первая

Conservatism in Russia and Sovereignty in Human Rights

This article examines the correlation between the concepts of sovereignty, human rights, and democracy in Russian legal and political debate, analyzing this correlation in the context of Russian philosophical discourse. It argues that sovereignty often is used as a powerful argument which allows the setting aside of international humanitarian standards and the formal constitutional guarantees of human rights. This conflict between sovereignty and human rights also recurs in other countries, and many legal scholars are demanding the revision or even abandonment of the concept of sovereignty. In Russia, this conflict is aggravated by some characteristic features of the traditional mentality frequently favoring statism and collective interests over individual ones, and by the state building a ‘power vertical’ subordinating regional and other particularistic interests to the central power. These features and policies are studied in the context of the Slavophile-Westernizer philosophical divide. This divide reveals the pros and contras put forward by the Russian supporters of the isolationist (conservative) policy throughout contemporary history—especially in the sovereignty debates in recent years. The 1993 Russian Constitution contains many declaratory statements about human rights and democracy, but their formulations are vague and, thus far, have had little concrete effect in court battles where the application of international humanitarian law from time to time has been counterbalanced by the concerns of the protection of sovereignty. These concerns coincide with isolationist and authoritarian policies, which in 2006 led to their amalgamation in the concept of ‘sovereign democracy’. This concept is considered in this article to be a recurrence of the Russian conservative tradition. Even though the concept in its literal meaning has been abandoned by its author and supporters, most of its ideas remain on the cusp of the official political discourse which reproduces the pivotal axes of Russian political philosophy of the XIX century.

Russia: Mythology in the Service of Realpolitik

The analysis of Putin's post-Crimean speech shows his underlying stance: Russia has been humiliated, lied to by the United States, and rejected by Europe. These have caused Russia to seek redress. Ideological differences between the American and the Russian way of seeing the world and their own country's position remain the basis for Putin's defiance of the post-Soviet world order. He brings back the principal myths behind Moscow's ideological posture, including the idea of “Moscow as Third Rome” and of “Russia as elder brother” (whose mission is to gather smaller nations around the Russian core). Opposite paths taken by the United States and by Russia—national uniqueness and social conservatism in Russia, multiculturalism and political correctness in the United States—have only deepened the geopolitical conflict between the two.

The Resurgence of Radical Conservatism in Russia

The focus of this lecture is the concept of sovereign democracy, the brain-child of Vladislav Yuryevich Surkov (b.1964), First Deputy Head of the Administration of the President of Russia, and the acknowledged ideologist of the regime. In 2006 the collection “Suverenitet (Sovereignty) appeared, edited by the young conservative Nikita Garadja. This contained articles by Putin, Medevedev and Surkov. It has been said that this doctrine has no content. But I wish to show that there is indeed a determinate content – and a dangerous one at that. Policy makers and even scholars in the West are insufficiently aware of this content.

Russia's Conservative Modernization: A Mission Impossible?

“C is in vogue in Russia,” says Dmitri Trenin, director of the Moscow Carnegie Center. The United Russia Party under Vladimir Putin has already acknowledged itself as a conservative party that can bring modernization to Russia without sacrificing its core values: traditional family, a strong state, patriotism, and “faith in Russia.” However, beneath the veneer of conservative modernization, Trenin believes that systemic problems such as institutionalized corruption and cronyism have created a vicious cycle of rent seeking Despite his critique of the conservatives, Trenin focuses not on whether the conservatives are the rightful rulers of Russia, but rather on how the conservative modernization movement can be effectively channeled to improve the Russian political and economic system and the well-being of its people. Trenin asks the main questions, “What is it that Medvedev and Putin are hoping to achieve and is it achievable through their conservative modernization campaign? If not, is there a credible alternative to ‘conservative’ modernization?” While he asks the right questions and delivers a good explanation of the potential dangers of conservatism without modernization, Trenin falls short in answering the latter question. Trenin asserts that the current rent-seeking bureaucracy was created under the conservative Putin-Medvedev coalition and cannot be solved unless drastic changes are made. He suggests that change must come from within, implying a change of heart from Putin, Medvedev, and other Kremlin insiders. However, he does not show us a situation in which they would do so or offer ideas for how a Russian or outside country could encourage this. Instead he claims that the existence of conservative governments spanning from Europe (Germany’s Christian Democrats) to America (the Republican Party under George W.Bush) and China (the Chinese Communist Party) somehow give comfort to Kremlin leaders in pursuing their own conservative policies. But there is no evidence that conservative governments in the West or China are more likely to support or tolerate conservatism in Russia or that liberal governments are necessarily anti-Russian conservatism. The harsh response of George W. Bush’s government to Russia’s actions in Georgia is a telling counterpoint.