Russian Liberalism Research Articles

Russian liberalism per se. Review on the book: Kitaev V. A. To the history of liberalism in Russia: the second half of the XIX — early XX century. N. Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory, 2023, 320 р

Russian liberalism per se. Review on the book: Kitaev V. A. To the history of liberalism in Russia: the second half of the XIX — early XX century. N. Novgorod: Publishing House of the Nizhny Novgorod Conservatory, 2023, 320 р

State power and society of Late Imperial Russia in the assessments of V. A. Maklakov

The article describes the publication of part of the memoirs of a prominent political and public figure in Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, one of the leaders of the Kadet Party, the famous lawyer Vasily Alekseevich Maklakov. The excellent style and content of the memoirs are noted, reflecting the development of the social movement in Russia, the relationship between government and society, the fate of the Kadet Party, and vivid portraits of contemporaries through a biographical context. This publication is very important for the study of the social movement and Russian liberalism of the early twentieth century.

Формирование доктрины российского либерализма в конце XIX века

The formation of Russian liberalism in the 19th century doctrinally followed the path of historically determined development in the context of the Western-centric paradigm. However, political events in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries made significant adjustments to the further development of liberal ideology. Based on institutional and historical-comparative approaches, a study was conducted of the theoretical heritage of Russian liberalism, its features were noted, and it was proven that the contribution of Russian scientists of the late 19th century can become the basis for developing a strategy for the further development of Russian statehood in the modern geopolitical situation.

Social Dialogue as a Problem and Prerequisite for Mediation

The article examines the efficacy of social dialogue as a mechanism for addressing societal issues. While social dialogue was once viewed with great optimism, its effectiveness has waned in recent years, despite participants employing various persuasive strategies. The study distinguishes between two forms of dialogue: formal and substantive (productive), emphasizing that only the latter genuinely catalyzes shifts in participants’ perspectives. By analyzing historical examples and contemporary cases, the study identifies key factors that influence the success of social communication. Employing J.L. Austin’s speech act theory, the article frames dialogue not merely as an exchange of information but as a form of social action, where the utterances of participants are performative, possessing the power to directly transform social reality. A historical case study is presented, examining the dialogue between Western-oriented Russian liberals who viewed their nation as socially and economically backward, and thinkers who challenged this assessment, perceiving Russia’s unique spiritual potential to address pan-European challenges. The statements of P.Ya. Chaadaev and F.M. Dostoevsky are analyzed as performative acts that shaped a new vision of Russia’s role in world history. Additionally, the author explores the role of identity in social dialogue, showing through examples from the lives of A.S. Pushkin and M.I. Tsvetaeva how identity structures can influence one’s openness or resistance to personal transformation in the face of internal conflict. The study hypothesizes that dialogue effectiveness correlates with participants’ ability to integrate new values into their identity without compromising its core. Furthermore, the author argues that rhetorical commitment to mediation alone is insufficient for bridging deep social divides and examines the historical social conditions required for effective mediation, such as a shared cultural foundations, formal dialogue platforms, robust legal frameworks, and flexible power structures. In conclusion, the author considers the question of whether it is inherently possible to create effective mechanisms for social dialogue under the current conditions of globalization and information society.

The political guidelines of the cadets in 1906 in the estimates of V. A. Maklakov

The article is dedicated to the representation of one of the leaders of the constitutional democratic party V. A. Maklakov about the main ideas of the Russian liberals in 1906, the period of work I the State Duma, the importance of interaction between government and society with the aim of strengthening the state and protection of the right to initiative. The interpretation by Maklakov circumstances of the growing popularity of the cadets in 1906 revealed its socio-political values: the state, establishing the legitimacy that ensure the integrity of the country; a person of interest in the rule of law, freedom, and prosperity; the constitutional rights of citizens and reasons for criticism of the cadets of the monarchy.

Русский политический Кант после либерализма: С. И. Гессен о юбилее Канта в 1924 году

Using the Kant jubilee in 1924 as a pretext, Sergey Hessen, a Russian émigré neo­Kantian, draws no direct political conclusions but sets forth a view of the great philosopher’s legacy from the position of a “legal socialist”, selecting from his heritage those parts of German socialist doctrines that to his mind experienced a departure from a recent flowering of Kantian ideas in Neo­Kantianism and the collapse of traditional liberalism in the wake of the First World War. The fact that the text was first published in the Berlin­based Russian liberal newspaper “Rul’”, gives us reason to see it not just as a formal jubilee tribute, but as an act addressed to the qualified liberal audience which witnessed thecollapse of liberalism in Russia.

Principles of Law in the Russian Liberal Doctrine of the Late 19th – Early 20th Century: A Positive Approach

The article examines the principles of law as interpreted by Russian liberal jurists of the late XIX – early XX centuries – N.K. Rennenkampf, G.F. Shershenevich, S.V. Pakhman and M.N. Kapustin. In the absence of special studies that allow to study the principles of law in the legal science of the Russian Empire the author reveals the signs identified by domestic scientists in understanding the guiding principles of legal regulation; the characteristic of the principles of legality, justice, humanism, democracy and formal equality proposed by lawyers of the pre-revolutionary period at the stage of problem formulation is presented. Special attention is paid to the concept of M.N. Kapustin according to which the legal sphere focuses on two types of principles at once: some carry the basic meaning of law and are an integral part of its essence (justice and formal equality), others are introduced artificially in the course of human mental activity in order to optimize the processes of creation, application and development of legislation. It is proved that the Russian jurists of the late XIX – early XX century insist on the scientific development of the principles of law and their investment in the form of legal norms that have a constituent character, direct action, stability and formal certainty. It is noted that the supporters of legal positivism, emphasizing the importance of legal doctrine and firmly fixing the term ≪principle≫ in scientific circulation, had a significant impact on the formation of the modern categorical apparatus. The relevance of the views of liberal jurists of the late XIX – early XX century, projecting the effect of the principles of law on overcoming gaps in legislation and optimizing law enforcement activities in terms of the exercise of discretionary powers is emphasized.

The Eastern Question in the Views of the Russian Liberals of the Early 20th Century

The study deals with the attitude of Russian liberals of the early 20th century to the Eastern question, which occupied a special place in international politics and whose aggravation became one of the factors leading to the World War I. Various political forces in Russia developed their own variants of its solution, realizing that the fate not only of the country, but of the whole world largely depended on the projects they proposed. The analysis of the liberals’ ambiguous perception of the Russian government’s actions in the Balkans, their attitude to the South Slavs, to the problem of the Black Sea Straits, and to the confrontation between the great powers united in alliances, i.e. all aspects of the Eastern question, will allow us to reconstruct and understand the liberals’ understanding of the connection between foreign policy and Russia’s internal development, national interests, and ideological values. Looking at the views of the liberals of the early 20th century on the Eastern question reveals not only the peculiarities of its perception by the ruling elite and representatives of the legal opposition, but also the roots of the growing alienation of the country’s elite from the people. It was this alienation, which intensified during the war years and manifested itself, among other things, in the different perceptions of the importance of the Eastern question by the authorities, the liberals, and the people, that led to the fall of the first liberal Provisional Government in the spring of 1917. As a result, the people tired of the war and unable to understand the meaning of Russia’s struggle for foreign lands, came to support the Bolsheviks, who exposed the “imperialist plans” of the Provisional Government and advocated peace without annexations and contributions. The paper touches upon the problem of the liberals’ attitude not only to the government’s foreign policy, but also to Russian statehood, the conceptual reasons for their transition from a restrained peace-loving position and the desire to prevent war to its unconditional support. The authors identify the ideological and foreign policy factors that influenced this liberal transit. The main attention is paid to the understanding of representatives of various liberal movements of the Eastern question, which, without exaggeration, took a central place not only in their foreign policy program, but also in the project of internal transformations, which envisaged the creation of Great Russia as a result of its solution. The study identifies and analyzes the innovations introduced by the liberals in the interpretation of the Eastern question under the influence not only of the changing international situation, political and economic modernization of Russia, which was becoming a “Duma monarchy,” but also of the development of the ideology itself; the peculiarities of its perception by representatives of various liberal currents in the country are examined.

Russian Intelligentsia toward the Legal Nihilism. Reading the “Landmarks” (1909) and “Out of the Depth” (1918) after February 24, 2022

The aim of this paper is to re-read the criticism of the Russian intelligentsia, which was made by authors of Landmarks (“Vekhy”, 1909) and Out of the Depth (“Iz glubiny”, 1918), in the context of the support given to the Russian invasion on the Ukraine in 2022 by the large part of Russian intellectuals. Instead of perceiving the current “rapprochement” of the Russian intelligentsia to the Putin government as a kind of “aberration” and a departure from its “moral mission”, the author would like to show the arguments concerning long duration of the tradition of their acceptance of the anti-liberal and authoritarian course of the Russian government. This tradition was unveiled by such outstanding Russian liberals and religious thinkers as, among others: Nikolai Berdyaev, Petr Struve, Bogdan Kistyakovski, Iosif Pokrovsky and Sergei Kotlyarevsky. They believed that the susceptibility of the intelligentsia to revolutionary slogans was caused not only by hostility to the Old Regime, but by their instrumental attitude to the state and law. They claimed that the Russian intelligentsia had much more in common with the representatives of Tsarist autocracy than would result from the hostility felt towards it. A common feature of both was “legalnihilism” – a point of view that assumed a distrustful attitude towards rational law. The only way to overcome this distrust was therefore instilling Kant’s personalism and raising the authority of natural law among the broad strata of the Russian intelligentsia.

«КАК ЖИЛ, КОГО ЛЮБИЛ, КОМУ РУКИ НЕ ПОДАЛ...» «КАК ЖИЛ, КОГО ЛЮБИЛ, КОМУ РУКИ НЕ ПОДАЛ»: К ВОПРОСУ ОБ ЭТИЧЕСКИХ ОЦЕНКАХ ПОВЕДЕНИЯ СТУДЕНТОВ ИСТОРИЧЕСКОГО ФАКУЛЬТЕТА МГУ НАЧАЛА 40-Х ГОДОВ ХХ ВЕКА

In the article on the material of memoirs of graduates of the Faculty of History of the Lomonosov Moscow State University the specific ethos characteristic of this subculture in the second half of the 1930s and the first half of the 1940s is considered. The author describes this ethos as complex, including academic ethos, political (or civil) ethos, and ethos of interpersonal relations. The analysis of sources shows that often these three elements were not separated in students' ethical perceptions and discourse. This syncretism of ethos brings them closer to the pre-revolutionary liberal Russian intelligentsia, although the political orientation of these two groups was different.

Vladimir Solovyov: The Philosophy of the Last Classic. Lecture

The article was prepared on the basis of an open lecture given on April 8, 2022 at the Center Church and International Relations MGIMO of the acting Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University A. P. Kozyrev. The article raises the question of the significance of the legacy of Vladimir Sergeyevich Solovyov (1853–1900) in Russian philosophy. It is argued that Vladimir Solovyov was a man of the universal, ecumenical type. The author characterizes Solovyov’s philosophy as the completion of European philosophical systematics, noting the syncretic nature of his teaching and the influence of Platonism, Gnosticism, Hermeticism, and early Christianity on the thoughts of the Origen of the 19th century, as Solovyov’s contemporaries called him. He also cites the characteristics of Solovyov’s thought given by individual contemporaries and representatives of subsequent Russian philosophy — S. N. Bulgakov, G. V. Florovsky, F. A. Stepun, A. Kozhev and others. In answers to questions at the end of the lecture, a number of essential provisions on works and personality of V. S. Solovyov are clarified. According to the thinker, the fate of Russia depends on the choice of Christianity or opposing oneself to the entire Christian world. For him, there is a distinction between religious Westernism and non-religious Westernism. A.P. Kozyrev subsumes P. Ya. Chaadaev to the type of religious Westerner, since P. Ya. Chaadaev based his ideas of building a Christian kingdom — the city of God on earth, as Augustine wrote on medieval Christianity. Solovyov per se considered himself somewhere in between. A genius cannot be limited to one political ideology, narrow political worldview, a genius does not think in black and white the categories. It makes Solovyov’s idea that there are not only different Wests, but different Easts — China, Japan, and above all the Middle East, Jerusalem — as well. The nature of these and similar constructions allows us to see in Solovyov not only a taxonomist, but a religious philosopher, who argues that a metaphysical lever is necessary to fight evil. It is not for nothing that Solovyov begins Three Conversations with a reflection on whether evil is only a lack of good, a kind of ghost that can easily be eliminated, or whether evil is a real force with its own substance and its essence, and can be defeated not by abstract good, but by the God-man. Therefore, Three Conversations, Including a Short Story of the Anti-Christ is not just a prophecy about the finale of world history, where the Antichrist appears under the guise of a socialist, humanist and philanthropist, he is a politician, president of the United States of Europe, ready to open sacristies to the Orthodox and return the papacy to Catholics, Protestants create an institute for the study of the Bible, you just have to worship him as God. This idea of fake good is destructive for life itself. All that glitters is not gold — this is the maxim of Three Conversations. Good is determined not by the amount of goods that a person produces, but by the name for which they are done, what is put at the forefront. Solovyov, in a certain sense, founded Russian liberalism and the philosophy of law (the human right to a dignified existence, criticism of the death penalty). P. I. Novgorodtsev will call Solovyov the founder of the Moscow school of legal philosophy. Solovyov thinks of law as a way to ensure a minimum of good in society, connects law and morality, basing law on a moral imperative, from which it cannot be decoupled, otherwise the legal norm degenerates, turning into a moral fetish. “The task of law is not at all to turn the world lying in evil into the Kingdom of God, but only to ensure that it does not turn into hell before the time comes,” wrote Solovyov.

L.N. Tolstoy and V.S. Solovyov as the Inspirers of the New Generation of Russian Liberals at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Abstract. On the basis of the publications, correspondence and memoirs of Russian liberals at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, the author of the article examines the problem of the ideological infl uence of Leo Tolstoy and Vladimir Solovyov on the younger generation of politicians who played a decisive role in the transformation and overthrow of the “old order”. He comes to the conclusion that the idea of the possibility of creating a new world, so characteristic of the Silver Age, was also fully manifested in the political sphere. At that, the Russian forerunners of this perception were precisely L.N. Tolstoy and V.S. Solovyov. The young liberal politicians of the turn of the century countered the offi cial ideology with the ideas of panmoralism and individual rights, borrowed in the works of these two thinkers. Tolstoy’s teaching inspired primarily with the call to overthrow offi cial idols. V.S. Solovyov was interesting for them due to his idea of equal value and interconnection of an individual and society. Though Solovyov was not an ideologue of social liberalism, the infl uence of Solovyov’s thought on the liberation movement turned out to be very serious.

Vanessa Rampton. Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia: From Catherine the Great to the Russian Revolution.

Vanessa Rampton’s ambitious book on Russian intellectual history, Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia: From Catherine the Great to the Russian Revolution, explores the evolution of ideas in the liberal band on the political spectrum in Russia during the long nineteenth century. Rampton situates her account in a broad international context, teasing out liberalism’s many strands and identifying the tensions that became apparent in it as political ideas formulated in Europe and America collided with Russian political realities and instability during and after the 1905 revolution. In her introduction, she usefully surveys some of the European philosophical underpinnings of liberalism in the writings of Locke, Kant, Rousseau, Hamann, Herder, Hegel, Constant, Tocqueville, John Stuart Mill, and Humboldt. In chapters 1 and 2, she examines the ways in which liberal ideas of Western origin shaped Russian political theory in the period up until the late nineteenth century and in the period around the 1905 revolution, respectively. In chapter 3, she deals with Russian liberals’s reflections on constitutionalism, the rule of law, and democracy in the early twentieth century and discusses their modification of their views on such matters in the light of their experience in 1905 and in the four dumas that functioned in the period 1906–1917. Chapter 4 is concerned with the loss of cohesion in the liberal camp after 1905 and contains a fresh discussion of the epochal Landmarks volume of essays—by Nikolai Berdiaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Mikhail Gershenzon, Aleksandr Izgoev, Bogdan Kistiakovsky, Petr Struve, and Semion Frank—published in 1909. Chapters 5 and 6 delve into the thought of two pairs of important thinkers in the Russian liberal camp whom Rampton characterizes as affected predominantly by idealist philosophical influences, in the case of Kistiakovsky and Pavel Novgorodtsev, and positivist influences, in the case of Maksim Kovalevsky and Pavel Miliukov. In her brief conclusion, she then underlines the topicality of discussion of liberal values in the modern world, in which these values are threatened by the surge of nationalistic populist ideologies, and the continuing relevance—not least for those in the middle of the political spectrum in post-Soviet Russia—of Russia’s encounter with liberalism in the late imperial period.

Liberalism and the Law in Late Imperial Russia

Liberalism and the Law in Late Imperial Russia Daniel Beer David Feest, Ordnung schaffen: Bäuerliche Selbstverwaltung und Obrigkeit im ausgehenden Zarenreich (1834–1889) (Making Order: Peasant Self-Administration and the Authorities in Late Tsarist Russia). 358 pp. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. ISBN-13 978-3447107228. €49.90. Stefan B. Kirmse, The Lawful Empire: Legal Change and Cultural Diversity in Late Tsarist Russia. 341 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN-13 978-1108499439. $105.00. Vanessa Rampton, Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia: From Catherine the Great to the Russian Revolution. 229 pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020. ISBN-13 978-1108483735. $105.00. No less than by revolution, Russian history is haunted by the specter of roads not taken. Historians of late imperial Russia might seek to avoid teleological shadows cast by 1917, but the denouement of revolutionary collapse and violent civil war inevitably looms on the horizon of all attempts to explain what became of the Great Reforms. Why did the 1860s apparently fail to deliver the promise, cherished by Russian liberals, of a law-bound, constitutional order underpinned by individual rights and representative government, which would integrate the peasantry and the non-Russians into a cohesive and stable society and withstand the dislocations of rapid modernization and ultimately of World War I? And what did liberals themselves make of the opportunities afforded to them during the turbulent decades before 1917? Were they the hapless victims of historical forces beyond their control or the authors of their own political failure? Taken together, David Feest's Ordnung schaffen, Stefan B. Kirmse's [End Page 412] The Lawful Empire, and Vanessa Rampton's Liberal Ideas in Tsarist Russia offer a series of fresh yet interlocking perspectives on the prospects for social and political stability and constitutionalism in late imperial Russia. ________ Feest's Ordnung schaffen traces the impact of attempts by governmental and landowning elites to modernize the Russian countryside by removing practices they saw as "contradictory and irrational" (2). Central to this endeavor was the production of new forms of knowledge about peasant society that would facilitate the integration of the peasantry into the wider administration and economy of the empire. Feest scrutinizes the interplay among peasants, landowners, and state officials in Riazan Province from the 1830s to the 1890s. Tapping an impressive range of regional archives, legal publications, and administrative reports, he paints a somber picture of how the bid to break down intermediary barriers between the peasantry and the state, and to rationalize rural life, failed in the decades that spanned the emancipation of the serfs. At the heart of Feest's account lies the ambiguous nature of the peasant commune itself: part institution of self-governance; part adjunct of state power. While some historians have argued that the village communes remained fundamentally autonomous and resistant to state-led change, others have emphasized that they did acquire the characteristics of state institutions, not least in the ways they were recognized as legal bodies.1 Ordnung schaffen challenges the implied binary posited by these views of the commune and argues for the need to acknowledge that both characteristics and roles of the village commune "existed in parallel, competing with each other or assuming different forms of symbiosis" (34). The result was that the commune in both the pre- and (especially) post-emancipation era was a highly ambiguous institution into which different actors—state officials, landowners, and the peasantry themselves—all inscribed their [End Page 413] own agendas. These agendas conflicted because they were premised on incommensurate ideas of rationality; reformers strove for universal standards and a statistical "capture" of information that would facilitate policy-making. The peasantry, by contrast, prized local knowledge and was wary of emissaries from the central government instructing them how to manage their affairs—and with good reason. Feest argues that elite visions of the peasantry were shot through with fixed assumptions about the peasant commune that paid scant regard to the highly diverse manifestations of the institution. Even within Riazan Province, which Feest takes as a case study broadly representative of European Russia, the communes differed enormously, from the heavily forested regions to the north of the River Oka in which the peasants lived...

ВЗГЛЯДЫ М. Н. КАТКОВА НА ЛИБЕРАЛИЗМ КОНЦА 70-Х – НАЧАЛА 80-Х ГОДОВ XIX ВЕКА

The purpose of the article is to analyze the contribution of Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov to the development of ideas of liberalism in the Russian Empire of the late 70s - early 80s of the 19th century. The historical context and the ideological genesis of Katkov's views on liberalism in this period are revealed. The editor in chief of the «Moskovskie Vedomosti» in his leading articles at the turn of the 1870s – 1880s pays great attention to the criticism of liberalism in Russia. M.N. Katkov adhered to the point of view that the actions and ideas of Russian liberals led the state to disastrous consequences. As a result the authors come to the conclusion about the relevance of appealing to the position of M.N. Katkov in order to form an idea of the ideological struggle in the Russian Empire, which prepared the ground for the policy of «counter-reform».

МОЛОДЁЖЬ И ПОЛИТИКА: МЕЖДУ ЛИБЕРАЛЬНЫМ ИДЕАЛОМ И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ ЦЕЛЕСООБРАЗНОСТЬЮ

The purpose of the article is a historical and legal analysis of the features of the youth policy formation during the transition of domestic liberalism from the level of theoretical developments. The authors consider the concepts of transformation of the socio-political system of Russia at the stage of political and organizational constitution of liberal political forces of the early 20-th century. Youth and politics is a complex and multifaceted subject that uses historical, political and sociological analysis, comparison and syn-thesis. For a more complete study, the authors use an integrated approach that combines various methods and principles. Based on archival materials of the collegial governing bodies of the People's Freedom Party, con-gresses, conferences, the Central Committee, as well as sparsely distributed materials of the Moscow and St. Petersburg committees of the party, an analysis of inter-action with youth organizations is presented. The authors trace the evolution of ideas about ways to involve young people in the political environment. As a result, the authors conclude that not everyone reacted unambiguously regarding the expediency of student youth participation in the party life of cadets. It is shown that the basic trend of the youth policy of the Russian liberals remained the refusal to involve students in the process of political struggle. The consequence of this is the loss of popularity among Russian liberals among students, as well as the predominance of the influence of radical political forces of Russia on students.

‘“Russian-Polish Dispute Resolved by History”: The Polish Question in the Liberal Projects of the Basic Law of Russia at the Beginning of the 20th Century

The paper considers the process of the evolution of the “Polish question” in the Russian legal liberal thought of the early 20th century. The specificity of this period lies in the attempts to transfer purely theoretical projects to the practical sphere during the formation of proto-party organizations and the development of drafts of the Fundamental State Law of Russia. The national component of these documents has largely remained beyond the scope of scholars’ interests, which explains the focus of the paper. The research relies on archival records and, on the one hand, aims to evaluate the contradictions with regard to this issue within the liberal camp , and on the other hand, to trace the complex process of reaching a compromise between representatives of Russian liberalism and the politically active Polish public in the context of growing opposition.to Russian autocracy. In an effort to keep the Russian Empire united and indivisible, representatives of the new liberalism were gradually beginning to perceive the “Polish question” as one of the directions for finding allies in the struggle to establish a constitutional law and order in the country. The main outcome of the examination by Russian liberals of the “Polish question” within the framework of the drafts of the Fundamental Law of Russia was their acknowledgment of the need to make the problem of Polish autonomy a separate item in the political program as well as to develop its borders in details.

ЛИБЕРАЛЬНАЯ МОЛОДЁЖНАЯ ПОЛИТИКА В РОССИИ КОНЦА XIX – НАЧАЛА ХХ В.

The purpose of the article is to consider the development of youth policy in Russia in the early 20th century. In this context, the authors define the significance of the Constitutional Democratic Party and its political and legal practices. One of the main directions of its activity was the process of implementing theoretical concepts regarding the involvement of young students in party work. The research is based on the positions formed at the beginning of the 20th century, during the period of active party building of the leading Liberal Party of Russia. On the basis of a comparative analysis, the liberal political practice in relation to students is compared with the practice of the Radical Right and Left Parties in Russia. As a result, the authors conclude that the political practice of Russian liberalism was sub-ordinated to theoretical postulates suggesting that the involvement of students in political activity causes more damage to society than the benefits that political organizations of the liberal camp receive.

The influence of ideology on the choice of Russia’s institutional model: Retrospective and forecast

The article shows that ideology in Russia launches the mechanism of transition from one institutional cycle to another, since the image of the future in it is associated with the denial of the existing order. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the ideology of socialism, which denies private property, contributed to the rooting of the razdatok (distributive) economy, which has been the base of Russian state since its inception. At the end of the twentieth century, the ideology of Russian liberalism led to the introduction of market institutions into the Russian economy, but as a result, a quasi-market rent based economy was formed. Such a model has become, both at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, and at the present time, the cause of economic stagnation and social polarization. A hypothesis is put forward that at the present moment, the existing socio-economic mechanism performs an auxiliary and temporary role of a “shell” for the maturation of a new development model, which will cause a transition to a new institutional cycle based on the “contractual razdatok economy” and the ideology of solidarism.

К 80-летию профессора В.А. Китаева

The article was prepared for the 80th anniversary of the doctor of historical sciences, professor Vladimir Anatolyevich Kitaev. Student of the outstanding soviet historian P.A. Zaionchkovsky, graduate of Gorky State University V.A. Kitaev is an authoritative expert in the field of social movement and public thought in Russia of the 19th century. V.A. Kitaev revealed and convincingly proved that the Russian thought of the 19th century sought answers to topical political and socio-economic issues on the path of ideological synthesis. Conservatism contained elements of liberalism (slavophiles); Russian liberals have not escaped the influence of conservative ideas (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin); the journal “Bulletin of Europe” became the ancestor of social liberalism in Russia; one of the leaders of the decembrists, P.I. Pestel, in his constitutional draft attempted to combine liberalism, conservatism, and socialism. The article suggests that such an ideological synthesis could be a reflection of the ideas of the Russian people, which contained the age-old dreams of freedom and the pursuit of it, commitment to traditional national and state values, thirst for social justice. In 1983–1999 V.A. Kitaev worked at Volgograd State University. He was the first dean of the Faculty of History and permanent head of the Department of Russian History. Under his leadership the traditions of the Faculty of History (now the Institute of History, international relations and social technologies) were laid. Now V.A. Kitaev is a professor at Nizhny Novgorod State University.