Soviet Historical Science Research Articles

«Ukrainian crisis» of the Society of Marxist Historians

The article is devoted to the discussion that unfolded at the turn of the 1920s-30s between "Moscow" and "Ukrainian" historians on the principles of interaction between the Society of Marxist Historians at the Communist Academy and the Ukrainian Society of Marxist Historians. The study of the discussion allows us to come to the problem of building a model of interaction between the center and the regions in Soviet historical science. New documents from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences demonstrate that the Moscow Society of Marxist Historians, headed by M.N. Pokrovsky set a course to build a relatively centralized model, which was opposed by Ukrainian historians who defended the principles of national communism. The confrontation was open in nature, in which Ukrainian historians relied on the leadership of the Ukrainian SSR. During the so-called "Great Turning Point", a wave of political purges swept through, which hit the Ukrainian intelligentsia hard, among others. After that, the obstacles to the Society of Marxist Historians were removed. However, it also found itself in crisis due to the death of its leader, M.N. Pokrovsky. The fruits of the discussion have already been "reaped" by other institutions: first, the Institute of History at the Communist Academy, and then the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. The consequences of the "Ukrainian crisis" were massive. The opponents of building a centralized model of historical science, in which the republican centers were subordinate to the Moscow ones, were eliminated. This directly affected the process of creating the histories of the peoples of the USSR: the overcoming of the territorial historical and cultural approach, associated primarily with the Ukrainian political and intellectual elite, began, and projects appeared to create not individual histories of the republics, but the all-Union history of the USSR.

A. B. Ranovich’s “Essay on the History of Ancient Hebrew Religion” in the Context of Disputes about the Formation Stage of Ancient Eastern Societies (Late 1930s – Early 1940s)

The article analyzes the materials of the discussion of the monograph by A. B. Ranovich, “Essays of the History of the Ancient Hebrew Religion”, submitted in 1939 for defense as a doctoral thesis. These materials, previously held in the archives of the USSR Higher Attestation Commission, have not been widely circulated in the scholarly community. It is imperative to introduce these materials into academic discourse to aid in the study of the development of Soviet historical science. The materials shed light on A. B. Ranovich’s role in advancing the Soviet model for studying early Christianity. They reveal that his initial attempt to obtain the degree of candidate of sciences was unsuccessful in 1935, and he finally attained the degree in 1938. In March 1939, he successfully defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences at a meeting of the Academic Council of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University. Moreover, the materials illustrate the intricate process of forming the Soviet canon of formation theory and the functioning mechanisms of the community of Soviet historians of antiquity. Specifically, Ranovich’s defense of his doctoral dissertation highlights the conflict between Moscow and Leningrad scholars, with both organizational and conceptual dimensions. The critique of Ranovich’s dissertation by V. V. Struve brings to light a new stage of debate on the formational affiliation of ancient Eastern societies, a fundamental question for Soviet historical science in the 1930s. This debate aligns with the longstanding dispute between Academician N. M. Nikolsky and V. V. Struve, wherein the deputy editor-in-chief of JAH took the position of Academician N. M. Nikolsky.

Report of V. M. Turok-Popov at the 1964 meeting of the section of social sciences of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences on the tasks of Soviet Slavic studies

This article presents V. M. Turok-Popov’s contribution to the critical reflection of methodological problems of Soviet historical science, including Soviet Slavic studies, during the thaw. From the documents of the scientist’s personal fund kept in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, his report on the tasks of Slavic studies for the meeting of the Section of Social Sciences of the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1964, the purpose of which was to develop methodological issues of history, is published for the first time. The proceedings of the meeting were published in the collection ‘History and Sociology’ (1964), but Turok-Popov’s report was not included in it, which limited the circle of people who could have familiarised themselves with it. The publication is accompanied by a letter from V. V. Altman’s letter, which conveys the reaction to the report of the participants of the meeting and indicates some reasons for its absence from the collection.

Soviet historiography of the period of «late Stalinism»: on cultural and educational work in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War (22.06.1941–09.05.1945)

One of the essential reasons for achieving the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War (22.06.1941–09.05.1945) was that the Armed Forces of the Soviet state carried out, and permanently, purposefully, actively, proactively and creatively, party political work. Its inalienable part was cultural and educational work, which had a small degree of independence. The historical phenomena mentioned above were constantly in the sphere of scientific interests of Soviet historians. Meanwhile, in post-Soviet historiography, they did not become significant in research practice. In modern Russian historiography at the beginning of the XXI century, such a bias is gradually being eliminated. The author of this small historiographical study, carried out in the format of a short scientific article, presents to the scientific and historical community an analysis of Soviet historiographical sources published during the period of «late Stalinism» (1945 – about the first half of the 1950s), that is, at a time when the cult of personality of I.V. Stalin reached its peak the highest point. The author, revealing the subject of his research, took into account in every possible way the historiographical situation that developed in Soviet historical science during the period of «late Stalinism», in particular, the development of historiography in the coordinate system of the Stalinist theoretical and methodological paradigm (and even more rigid than in the second half of the 1930s); a small number of historiographical and historical sources what was published in the chronological framework indicated above, as well as the absence of a proper historiographical elaboration of our problem. The article is carried out from the standpoint of modern theoretical and methodological approaches.

The Decolonization of the History of USSR’s Peoples in Soviet Historiography (1920–1930)

This article analyses the anti-colonial discourse in the Soviet historical science of the 1920s and 1930s. The work is based on both published materials and documents from the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. It is demonstrated that the anti-colonial discourse was built as an antithesis to the pre-revolutionary state-national historical narrative and was based on a radical and critical class analysis. In the 1920s, a kind of “historiographical sweep” took place, when, using class analysis, the students of M. N. Pokrovsky revealed the “great power” and “colonial” ideologems of the classics of Russian historical science and their followers. The anti-colonial vector of Soviet historiography was embodied in the historiographical concept of the “history of the peoples of the USSR”. It was assumed that all the peoples of the USSR were to receive a full-fledged place in history. However, since the mid‑1930s, there has been a drift from radical revolutionary anti-colonialism towards a more statesmanlike ideology and the development of consolidating concepts. The turning point was the meeting of historians with Stalin in March 1934, after which the process of transition from the concept of “the history of the peoples of the USSR” to “the history of the USSR” was launched, which was fixed in the Short Course of the History of the USSR (1937) edited by A. V. Shestakov. The international context also played a significant role in curtailing anticolonial rhetoric, since there were fears that foreign policy opponents would use this to divide the peoples of the USSR. Historians of the “old school”, who advocated the return to the concepts of pre-revolutionary historiography, also played a certain role in the correction. In turn, these concepts fit better into the current ideological situation and found support in the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). The marginalization of anti-colonial discourse occurs during the war and postwar period.

«Все же не получилось великого содружества Ленина со Сталиным»: стенограмма совещания при дирекции Института Маркса-Энгельса-Ленина (ИМЭЛ) по обсуждению научной биографии В. И. Ленина 20 ноября 1940 г.

The purpose of this publication is to introduce into scientific circulation the transcript of the meeting of the Directorate of the Marx Engels Lenin Institute (IMEL) dated November 20, 1940. The published source belongs to the problematic field of the history of historical science at the turn of the 1930s-1940s. The meeting reflected in the document became one of the few known to us "exchanges of views" within the institute on the development of the author's team of the biography of V.I. Lenin. The document complements the plots related to the functioning of the cult of personality of I.V. Stalin and its limits in Soviet historical science; gives an understanding of how the image of a professional revolutionary should appear; reflects the technical nuances that imposed objective restrictions on the author's team during the writing of the biography of V.I. Lenin. The creators of the text found themselves in a certain ideological framework: they were obliged to build the reviewed Lenin's works, focusing on the "Short Course of the history of the CPSU (b)". Separate text inserts and quotations of V.I. Lenin in the text of the biography were subject to the same kind of adjustments. The construction of the image of the leader from the point of view of his human qualities posed a large number of questions to the team of authors concerning the image of a professional revolutionary. How should one comprehend the theoretical heritage of the leader and how to combine it with practice? How should the portrait of V.I. Lenin be given? Is it worth showing the personality through everyday details (through a description of his rest, attitude to nature, etc.) or is it quite possible to limit yourself to showing high culture in the work and modesty of the leader? And is it necessary to set such a goal at all? Ultimately, during the discussion that unfolded during the meeting of the IMEL directorate, the team of authors decided to focus mainly on the political activities of V.I. Lenin, limiting themselves to only rare references to the personal life of a professional revolutionary. The source was identified in the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) in f. 71. The document is a typewritten original and is published in accordance with modern rules of spelling and punctuation. Obvious shortcomings and a few errors have been corrected in the text. Information about the persons and scientific works mentioned in the source is given in the footnote. An important pre-publication comment updating this source is important. The source is published with banknotes: plots that are insignificant from the point of view of the issues discussed are cut out.

Belorusskie immigranty v stranah Latinskoj Ameriki: sovetskaya istoriografiya problemy

The article is devoted to the problem of the history of Belarusian immigration to the countries of Latin America. The authors focus on the coverage of this topic in Soviet historical science. The authors show that when analyzing this problem, Soviet historians focused on the factors of departure associated with the living conditions of Belarusians in the Russian Empire and in interwar Poland. Considerable attention was also paid to the participation of Belarusian immigrants in the anti-fascist movement in Argentina and other countries of the continent.

S. V. YUSHKOV’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE HISTORICAL AND LEGAL SCIENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES

Serafim Vladimirovich Yushkov is the founder of the history of the Russian state and law, who formulated its subject, developed the periodization and methodology of the corresponding course. At the same time, the contribution of the scientist to the development of certain important issues of the history of state and law in the assessments of his contemporaries has not been fully investigated in modern literature. The archives have preserved littleresearched transcripts of meetings at which the works of S.V. Yushkov were discussed and debated. The study of this heritage, which reflects the controversial theoretical issues of that time, activates interest in the study of S.V. Yushkov’s contribution to historical and legal science, encourages the study of not only of the origins of Soviet historical science, but also of public discussions, as well as the positions expressed on them by scientists who worked side by side with him, on whose his creative search was carried out in front of his eyes. On the basis of archival sources not previously involved in scientific circulation, the article reveals the features and directions of scientific discussions related to the research of S.V. Yushkov, his contribution to the study of specific historical and legal issues. In the course of the research, retrospective analysis, concrete historical and comparative historical methods were used. It is concluded that the individual weaknesses of S.V. Yushkov’s concept revealed at the meetings in the process of criticism later turned out to be its strong point, and the scientific community recognized the outstanding merits of S.V. Yushkov in creating the foundations of the history of the national state and law.

Cultural and educational work in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War (22.06.1941–09.05.1945): the first attempts to study the problem undertaken in the Soviet historiography in hot pursuit

In the Soviet, post-Soviet and modern Russian historiography of the beginning of the 21st century, it was established that the system of party and political work successfully functioned in the Red Army during the Great Patriotic War (22.06.194109.05.1945). Its integral element was (albeit with a relative degree of independence) cultural and educational work. Moreover, in the Soviet historical science, their research was held in the category of priority, which cannot be said about the post-Soviet historiography. The author of the paper has made an attempt to consider the history of studying the problem of cultural and educational work in the Soviet historical science during the Great Patriotic War, figuratively speaking, in hot pursuit. In the coverage of the topic indicated in the title of this paper, the following circumstances are fully taken into account: the conditions for the performance of the first works, determined by the emerging military-political situation, and the process of restructuring of the Soviet historical science during the war; a small number of historiographical and historical sources that were published in the chronological framework indicated above; the absence of works that would correspond strictly to academic canons, the presence of a certain chronicle on them on the subject of the feat of the Soviet people in the fight against Nazi Germany and its satellites; the absence of a proper historiographical understanding of our topic. The paper is made from the standpoint of modern theoretical and methodological approaches, in the key of a lapidary historiographical review (with small elements of conciseness). Consequently, there are no copyright claims to the completeness of the coverage of the problem.

Categories and methods of civilizational approach in modern philosophical and historical discourse

The diverse contradictions of the modern world, social and international conflicts, the growing trends of both globalization and national isolation, the rapid development of communication technologies against the background of growing gap between poverty and wealth of the countries and within them are evidence of another crisis in the system of international relations, of the entire world order. The growth of entropy has once again raised the question of the lack of a holistic and systematic understanding of the processes of socio-historical development, and actualizes the need to analyze theories that consider the development of large socio-cultural communities. In this regard, it is important to study socio-philosophical and philosophical-historical theories and views, united in a civilizational approach. The dominance of the formational approach in Soviet historical science ended in the late 1980s. And in 1995 the Russian Academy of Sciences recognized that civilizational theory can serve as one of the conceptual principles for analyzing and describing the historical process in textbooks for schools and universities. The object of our article is the essence of the civilizational philosophical and historical concept. The subject is the discourse, in the space of which there is developed a methodology, and are analyzed the categories of the civilizational approach to history. We apply general theoretical research methods: analysis, synthesis, comparison, interpretation. It is shown that within the framework of the theory under consideration methodological differences are significant, so several theoretical varieties are identified and the key categories of the civilizational concept in them are interpreted differently.

Roman Republican Statehood in the works of S. I. Kovalev

The subject of this article is the scientific work of the outstanding Soviet historian of antiquity S. I. Kovalev, related to the history of the Roman Republic and its state institutions. The authors analyze the hypotheses expressed by Kovalev on the most controversial problems of the history of republican statehood and compare them with the theories that existed at that time in Western historiography, as well as pre-revolutionary Russian historiography. The authors refer not only to the works of the Soviet scientist himself, his predecessors and contemporaries, but also to archival materials, namely to the correspondence of S. I. Kovalev with his foreign colleagues. The appeal to the study of Soviet historiography of ancient history is currently becoming more and more relevant among Russian antiquarians, but there is still no detailed analysis of S. I. Kovalev's scientific work in Russian historiography. The authors show the validity of many assumptions made by S. I. Kovalev for the level of development of scientific knowledge in the study of the history of ancient Rome in the middle of the XX century, as well as the continuity of many of its provisions from the hypotheses of the outstanding pre-revolutionary Russian antiquarian I. V. Netushil. In addition, the paper demonstrates the groundlessness of the widespread point of view about the complete isolation of Soviet historical science from the global one.

Soviet Historical Science and Foreign Policy Dynamics in the Late 1930s and 1940s: The Mishulin Line

Historical scholarship in the USSR in the 1930s and 1940s developed along with the dynamics of foreign policy. The main issue that shaped the development of historical scholarship was Soviet-German relations. The Soviet alignment with Great Britain and France determined the dominance of the “anti-German” line even in those areas of historical research which, at first glance, were unrelated to modern history in general and German history in particular. Thus, this line is clearly evident in the discussion of the causes of the decline of the Harappan civilisation, which allegedly came about under pressure from the Indo-Aryan tribes, with whom Germany was implicitly identified in relevant studies in the second half of the 1930s. The initiator of the “anti-German” line in ancient history was Alexander Mishulin. After the conclusion of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Treaty on 23 August 1939, the tone of the works on ancient history changed abruptly to “Germanophile” at the initiative of the same scholar. At the same time, the first – “anti-German” – line still persisted and developed in parallel with the second. Soviet-German academic cooperation was also progressing, as can be observed in the documents of the archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The “pro-German line” disappeared with the outbreak of the Great Patriotic War, while the “anti-German” (“anti-Indo-Aryan”) one disappeared with the independence of India in 1947 and the gradual forging of friendly relations between the USSR and India.

Africa in World History: Interpretations of Soviet Historiography

In Soviet historical science from the very beginning of its formation in the 1920’s, Western pro-colonial historiography's claims that Africa is a continent without a history have been heavily criticized. Back in the late 1920’s USSR, a program was developed for the study of the history of Black Africa from the ancient history and onwards. It was an absolutely innovative program for world African studies, for the first time making the history of African peoples, and not the white man in Africa, the subject of study in the context of world history. Soviet Africanists have priority in the study of such problems of African history as the colonial exploitation of the African peoples and their struggle against colonialism. They drew attention to the study of the pre-colonial history of the peoples of the continent in all its diversity. Despite the fact that Soviet scientists were practically deprived of the opportunity to work in foreign archives of both the West and Africa itself, and even, even briefly, visit the Black Continent, they managed to collect extensive material on the history of the peoples of the continent, comprehend it, open a number of new areas of historical research and go beyond the official Marxist-Leninist understanding of history in the country. Soviet historical African studies did not represent a single array. We can talk about the research of the Leningrad school, which is characterized by complex historical and ethnological research, and the school of Davidson with its opposition to ideological dominants and the search for new topics and directions, as well as sources for their research.

Казанский педагогический институт в годы «Большого террора». По письмам Х. Гимади в ЦК ВКП(б) и парторганизацию 1938 г.

The article reveals the degree of influence of the Great Terror policy on the formation of behavioral practices in the scientific, pedagogical, and student environment of the Kazan State Pedagogical Institute (KSPI). The author analyzes letters addressed to the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks and party organizations of the KSPI. The letters, dated April 1938, were written by Khairi Gimadi, one of the leading historians of the TASSR, who stood at the origins of the Soviet historiography of the national republic. The article is to show the source studies significance of epistolary heritage in study of the Soviet humanities development in the context of ideological campaigns. Besides principles of historicism, objectivity, and integrated approach, the study uses hermeneutic method to interpret the texts content, taking into account the author’s age, marital and social status, his attitude to power, and also state’s ideological pressure on society. Having survived the days of repression, Kh. Gimadi became a candidate of historical sciences, senior researcher at the Academy of Sciences of the USSR with a degree in history of Tatarstan. He was engaged in research activities until his death in 1961. After his death, his wife carefully collected notes that he had torn, grouped them according to their content, and filed into two separate notebooks. One of these contains Kh. Gimadi's letters of application. They reflect a form of corporate ethics developed during the Great Terror and relationship between teachers and students. The study shows politically unstable living conditions of the humanitarian intelligentsia, enduring fear for the fate of loved ones. In order to survive, Soviet people often had to overstep moral boundaries and comply with the system. This inevitably led to the destruction of traditional foundations of the society and the breakdown of social ties. This led to the false notion that the only source of justice was the party. This is the reason why H. Gimadi's letters of application were written. The significance of these historical documents lies in the fact that, in addition to highlighting moral and political atmosphere in the days of mass repression, they make it possible to understand the reason behind conciliatory behavior and even complicity in mass arrests. The presented study may be of interest to specialists studying the development of Soviet historical science in the national republics and everyday life in the era of Stalinism.

Ancient Slavery in Soviet Historiography of 1950—1970s

By the mid-1950s, the theme of the “slave revolution” in antiquity had lost relevance, ceased to be considered the “main” topic for Soviet historians of the ancient world. This was evidenced by the disappearance of works on this subject from the capital’s publications, and quite critical responses to the works of A. V. Mishulin. It was necessary to choose a new “main” theme. The importance of the topic of slavery in antiquity for Soviet science was due to the “socio-economic basis” of the study of the history of the ancient world (i.e. “slave-owning formation”), and opposition to “bourgeois science”, which, according to Soviet scientists, underestimated the importance of slavery in antiquity. A series of monographs “Studies on the history of slavery in the ancient world” and the publication of articles in the “Journal of Ancient History” in the section “Materials and research on the history of slavery” showed the potential of Soviet historical science, provoked a response abroad. However, interest in research on slavery in the USSR has been steadily declining since the second half of the 1960s, and in the 1980s it almost died out. Studies on the history of slavery in the ancient world were too “ideological” and therefore ceased to be of interest, especially for young Soviet historians.

Rare and Valuable Copies from the Library of N. V. Ustyugov in the Department of Rare Books and Manuscripts of the State Public Scientific Technological Library of the SB RAS

The article deals with the problem of identifying and studying personal book collections of researchers in the funds of state libraries on the example of the documents from the collection of the Soviet historian N. V. Ustyugov, stored in the department of rare books and manuscripts (RBMD) of the State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (GPNTB SB RAS). The purpose of the article is to introduce valuable documents from this collection into scientific circulation, to attract the attention of the research community to it. The most notable documents from this collection obtained in 2018 are considered. They are: books of the XVIII – first third of the XIX centuries, belonging to the category of book monuments, the oldest of which (“Tsarstvennyj Letopisets”) was printed in 1769. In the process of studying copies stored in RBMD from the Ustyugov book collection , more than 250 books with donation records of outstanding scientists (A. A. Zimin, V. T. Pashuto, N. I. Pavlenko, A. M. Sakharov etc.) were also revealed.; records of 150 donors have been identified in total). They reflect the professional and human relations of the owner with colleagues, students, various aspects of his activities. The value of this collection as a curios reflection of a certain period of Soviet historical science is emphasized.

The Kazakhs and the Siberian Khanate: Soviet Historiography of the Problem

The article analyzes the representation of the place of the Kazakhs in the history of the Siberian Khanate in the Soviet historical science. One of the most interesting and discussed problems in the pre-colonial history of Western Siberia is the problem of the Kazakhs’ place in the history of the Siberian Khanate. On this issue various, sometimes diametrically opposite, points of view are expressed. The basic concepts have developed in the Russian pre-revolutionary science, but in Soviet time they have been considerably improved considering the achievements of ethnology, archeology, and source study. In the Soviet historiography of a problem, it is possible to allocate two basic directions on a question of a place of Kazakhs in the history of the Siberian Khanate. The first, dominant in the Soviet historical science, is the work of V. Ogorodnikov and S. Bakhrushin. According to it, the Kazakhs appeared on the borders of Western Siberia only at the end of the 17th — beginning of the 18th century and play an insignificant role in the history of the Siberian Khanate.The second, represented by the works of N. Tomilov and his followers, relates the Kazakhs to the number of autochthons of Western Siberia and active participants in the processes associated with the history of the Siberian Khanate.

WORKS OF S. I.-Ya. BOROVOGY ON THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR

The published and unpublished scientific and journalistic works on the history of the World War II by the Odessa historian S. I.-Ya. Borovoy are considered in the article. An attempt was made to objectively analyze the data of scientific works, their significance for studying the history of the World War II, to identify positive and negative sides in them in the context of the development of Soviet historical science, to understand their historiographic and methodological value, influence on modern historical science and the current perception of the events of the World War II. The result of the active participation of S. I.-Ya. Borovoy in the scientific and organizational work on the study of the history of the World War II was the publication of his works, which were defined as a task of national importance, as evidenced by the fact that the work of the scientist was carried out on the basis of a special government decision to create Commissions on the history of the Great Patriotic War at the union, republican, regional and district levels with the support of the relevant levels of the Communist Party, which determined their activities political and ideological orientation. His first articles were written on the basis of collected materials, documents, testimonies of eyewitnesses and participants in the events. The content of these articles was aimed at raising the mass consciousness of society, which contributed to the manifestation of the patriotic spirit in the course of a fierce confrontation, the willingness to endure everyday hardships in order to protect the country, to sacrifice personal interests in the name of preserving and strengthening statehood. Particular attention was paid to the heroic struggle of the Soviet people at the front, in the ranks of the partisan movement, and selfless labor in the rear. The decisive importance of the activities of the Communist Party as a leading, inspiring force was constantly emphasized, which led to the formation of the fundamental ideological orientation of the Soviet era. The vices of ideological content in the works of S. I.-Ya. Borovoy were caused by the political situation that took place in the life of Soviet society, in particular in the studies of historians.

IMPERIAL IDEOLOGY AS A PRINCIPLE OF MODERNIZATION OF THE INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT

The purpose of the study. The topic's relevance has been caused by the fact that research on S. Uvarov's ideological heritage was done mainly within the Marxist paradigm from the standpoint of social and class competition for many years. The Soviet historical science argued that imperial education had served the interests of autocracy; therefore, it had adopted the idea of Official Nationality. At the same time, historians quite carefully omitted the fact that S.S. Uvarov had laid the ideological tool for organizing the linguistic and cultural assimilation of the peoples of the Russian Empire. Scientific novelty. There has recently been a tendency to study the complicated bureaucratic and intellectual heritage of S. Uvarov (C.H. Whittaker, R. Wortman, E.D. Dneprov, A. Miller). Such attention has been related to a growing interest of contemporaries in the philosophy of conservatism with the intensification of national processes. The research aims to clarify the content and objectives of Uvarov's conservative and ideological doctrine, which became «an intellectual weapon» of modernization of the educational sphere and part of the domestic imperial national policy. The object of research is the ideological system of the Russian autocracy. The subject is S. Uvarov's intellectual heritage, specifically his Official Nationality program, which provided an algorithm for the «evolutionary» correlation of the ideological foundation of the Russian educational environment for many years. Conclusion. Hence, Uvarov took his place in the history of the empire not just as a talented bureaucrat and reformer of the educational environment but as a politician who tried to emancipate the Russian national consciousness against the background of the imperial ideology, in the key of loyalty to the autocracy. His Triad served to ideologize society to maintain control over the public. Uvarov's proclamation of the Official Nationality program contrasted the uncontrolled spread of materialistic and liberal ideas with a conscious conservative barrier in the form of strengthening bureaucratic regulation in the sphere of education. Within the domestic policy of state nationalism framework, the minister combined «public education» «with the spirit of Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality».

KYRGYZ NOMADIC ECONOMY IN THE PRE-REWOLUTIONARY PERIOD (ON THE THEORY AND HISTORY OF THE ISSUE)

The article deals with the debatable problems of the Kyrgyz nomadic economy in the prerevolutionary period. In particular, to what type of production does the Kyrgyz nomadic and pastoral economy belong: to small-scale production of the feudal or capitalist type? These problems are among the fundamental ones in the historiography of the economic history of Kyrgyzstan, in terms of determining the objective and subjective prerequisites for the industrial revolution in the region, that is, the Great October Socialist Revolution; the article puts forward a hypothesis about the absence of not only capitalist, but even its rudimentary elements. Consequently, a national working class was not formed as the driving force of the socialist revolution, while the opposite was stated in Soviet historical science. The study applied the method of objectivism, i.e. a theoretical and practical analysis of the reality of the Kyrgyz nomadic society at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries was carried out through the methodological content analysis of the Leninist theory of the development of Russian capitalism in depth and in breadth, since it was Vladimir Lenin who gave a specific methodological analysis of the political and economic state of the Turkestan region, traced the process of development of capitalism in Russia in breadth, and the ways of the decomposition of feudalism in colonially dependent regions, outlined the features of the initial accumulation of capital in the colonies. Also, in the article, to solve the problems posed, a systematic method was applied with the help of which the main stages of the development of Russian capitalism were traced - home crafts or home industry, manufactory, factory stage. As a result, the authors of the article came to the following conclusions: the capitalist way of life in Kyrgyzstan had not developed by the eve of the October Revolution. But, the process of decomposition of patriarchal-feudal relations began, bypassing the stage of development, and the factor of this was the Russian capitalism introduced from the outside, and not the internal forces of the Kyrgyz society and economy; Kyrgyz crafts, i.e. domestic industry, were of a natural, noncommodity nature, which means that the Kyrgyz nomadic economy was not a capitalist type of economy; in view of the absence of a capitalist structure in the Kyrgyz society, the objective and subjective prerequisites for the October Socialist Revolution were not formed.