Search results

В результате Петровских реформ в Российской империи появились категории населения, представители которых не входили в то или иное сословие. Для их определения в законодательных актах и делопроизводственных документах были введены в оборот такие термины, как «однодворец», «разночинец». Данная статья посвящена определению правового положения однодворцев как специфической категории населения Российской империи. В ней рассматриваются основные проблемы и противоречия, связанные с путями приобретения статуса однодворцев, эволюцией его правового обеспечения, выявлением состава однодворцев, определением их прав и обязанностей. Посредством фактического материала автором подтверждается основное противоречие статуса однодворцев, связанное с его двойственностью. С одной стороны, они приравнивались к крестьянам в том, что были обязаны платить подушную подать в равном размере с принадлежавшими им крестьянами, нести ландмилицкую (пограничную) службу и вести общинный образ жизни, а с другой – обладали правами дворянского состояния, а именно – правом владения крестьянами и землей. Другим противоречием было то, что права благородного сословия для однодворцев были ограничены: купля-продажа (а также иное распоряжение) крестьян и земли была им запрещена. Автор приходит к выводу, что противоречивость правового статуса однодворцев явилась следствием неоднородности этой категории населения, связанной с существованием множества путей к ее пополнению, а также сложности для власти в определении функций данного сословия, менявшихся с течением времени. Проблемы были связаны с отмиранием необходимости содержания ландмилицких полков (традиционной основной гражданской обязанностью однодворцев): в новых условиях власти требовалось четко определить статус данной категории населения, однако ни понизить его до крестьянского, ни повысить до дворянского она не могла, опасаясь критики и недовольства как дворян, так и самих однодворцев. Однодворцам была предоставлена возможность пополнить купеческое сословие, лишаясь при этом земли, а после 1762 г. – и дворянское сословие, увеличивая прослойку мелкопоместного дворянства. Таким образом, однодворцы были промежуточной податной категорией российского общества, находившейся между дворянством и государственным крестьянством, в более точном положении которой к началу XIX в. власть не определилась.
As a result of Peter the Great's reforms, some categories of the population whose representatives were not included into any social estate appeared in the Russian Empire. To denote them in legislative acts and office documents, the terms odnodvorets (plural odnodvortsy) and raznochinets (plural raznochintsy) were introduced. This article is devoted to the determination of the legal status of the odnodvortsy as a specific category of population of the Russian Empire. It examines the main problems and contradictions related to the ways of acquiring the status of odnodvorets, the evolution of its legal definition, the composition of the odnodvortsy, and the determination of their rights and obligations. By means of factual material, the author confirms the main contradiction of the odnodvortsy status, associated with its duality. On the one hand, odnodvortsy were equated with peasants as they were obliged to pay a poll tax in the same amount as the peasants who belonged to them did, to do landmilitia (frontier) service, and to lead a communal life. On the other hand, they had the rights of the noble estate, namely, the right to own peasants and land. Another contradiction was that the rights of the noble estate were limited for the odnodvortsy: the purchase and sale (as well as other disposal) of peasants and land were prohibited to them. The author comes to the conclusion that the inconsistency of the legal status of the odnodvortsy was a consequence of the heterogeneity of this category of the population, associated with the existence of many ways to replenish it and the difficulty for the authorities in determining the functions of this social estate, which changed over time. The problems were connected with the dying out need to maintain landmilitia regiments (the traditional main civic duty of the odnodvortsy): in the new conditions, the authorities needed to clearly determine the status of this category of population, but they could neither lower it to peasants nor raise it to the nobility, fearing criticism and discontent of both the noblemen and the odnodvortsy themselves. Odnodvortsy were given an opportunity to join the merchant estate, losing land in doing so, and after 1762 they were given an opportunity to join the nobility, thus increasing the stratum of gentry. Thus, the odnodvortsy were an intermediate taxable category of Russian society whose place in social structure was between the nobility and the state peasants. By the beginning of the 19th century, the authorities had not determined the status of the Odnodvortsy more precisely.

В центр внимания статьи вынесена Болгария – старейшее государство в Европе, возникшее в своих нынешних границах уже в 700-х гг. задолго до возникновения большинства других стран, ныне составляющих Европейский Союз. Обращение к обозначенной теме вызвано динамично развивающимися на Балканах сложными, конфликтными процессами, в которых немаловажное место занимает Болгария, как «осевое» государство региона. Статья имеет цель осмысление формирования болгарского видения своего места и роли в мире и регионе, своих национальных интересов, культурно-исторических, ментальных и когнитивных предпосылок и оснований современной внешней политики Болгарии, основных противоречий, проявляющихся в современном национальном геополитическом дискурсе, тенденций изменений болгарского общественного мнения по геополитическим проблемам и поиске связанных с этим осмыслением возможностей для укрепления геополитических позиций России в этой стране, на Балканах и в Черноморском регионе.

In the context of the institutional transformation of education and the complication of the processes of its functioning and development in the information age, the problem of analyzing the self-assessment of educational success as a subjective regulator of human educational activity becomes of particular importance. The article examines the subjective assessment of success in formal education as a reflection of students' ideas about the degree of compliance with the system of institutional requirements through their acceptance / rejection. The analysis of the problems of educational success is bazed on the material of a large-scale sociological study of schoolchildren, students of secondary vocational education (SVE) and universities of the Sverdlovsk region (N = 2489 people). There were carried out the typologization of subjects of educational activity in accordance with the level of self-assessment of educational success; comparison of the types identified during the transition from one subsystem of education to another (school - secondary vocational education - university); determination of individual-personal and institutional contradictions and conflicts in the assessment of educational success as points of growth, the search for coordination of the needs and interests of the individual, on the one hand, and education as a social institution, on the other. The author comes to the conclusion that the self-assessment of educational success is a stable institutional construct that uniformly regulates educational activity at all stages of education, carrying out the process of differentiation of its subjects. At the same time, it can be dysfunctional in relation to the institution of education, its implementation of an adaptive, socio-cultural function, the function of professional self-determination. The results of the sociological study demonstrated that the institutionally formed model of self-assessment of success for educational communities in the current conditions is not optimal. Gradually transforming in accordance with the needs of students, the possibilities of the educational institution, the challenges of the time, it will have to change, creating conditions for broader prospects and diversity of the educational and professional future of students.

The process of reunification of Crimea and the Russian Federation is considered in the context of the content, the basic trends and contradictions of the modern political process at the global, regional and national government levels. Analyzing the reunification of Crimea with Russia, the authors reveal the problem of observing the principle of sovereign equality of the states, territorial integrity, non-interference into the internal affairs of the states, the right of peoples to self-determination. The authors highlight the geopolitical threats and risks arising from the violation of the principle of force non-use or threat of force in the situation of "Ukrainian crisis".

This process is analyzed through the prism of the political history of Russia, the establishment and strengthening of its statehood. Interpreted documentary sources reveal the organizational, legal, and political contradictions of the transfer of Crimean region from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1954. Socio-political importance of the reunification of Crimea and the Russian Federation for the present stage of modernization transformations of the society and the state are considered. The possible scenarios of development of the internal political and international situation with regard to the sanctions confrontation of Russia and some foreign countries are analyzed. The authors identified the resources for: effective assertion of the national interests of the Russian Federation; ensuring stability and security of life for all people living on its territory; permanent reproduction of national elite abilities (political, administrative, military, economic, etc.) to act decisively in critical situations, to make fateful decisions of geopolitical nature.

The article uses the results of sociological surveys of public opinion about the attitude of the Russians and citizens of Ukraine to the process of reunification of Crimea with Russia.

The development of productive forces in time predetermines qualitative change of industrial relations that creates a basis for contradictory property relations involving the division of the range of powers of the owner and their partial transfer to an additional subject of ownership or a hired top manager. The article describes the conflicting interests of a hired manager and owner in relation to ownership object and the implications while realizing these interests which entail the emergence of "agency problem" or "agency relations". We study the concept of "agency costs" and their essence. We propose to use the method of business value management as a basis for a model of long-term motivation of the top manager and, thus, try to reconcile the interests of the owner and the top manager in the course of company expansion.

This article presents the results of a study conducted by the authors from January to May 2022 on the territory of the Stavropol Territory; an analysis of the conducted in-depth interview is presented. The authors describe the main ways to achieve the goal of forming a tolerant attitude towards representatives of various ethnic and cultural groups, including familiarizing students with the peculiarities of the national culture of other peoples through various creative competitions, ethnographic seminars, organizing joint excursion trips to the most interesting places of one or another subject of our country. Brief results are presented that are specific and narrow for studying the study of the characteristics of marriage by students of educational organizations of the Stavropol Territory, which are of particular interest, since for historical reasons it intricately combines the original Russian culture, the Cossacks and the peculiarities of the life of various peoples both in Russia and neighboring countries. As the main culturally conditioned models, the researchers singled out the primordialist and constructivist approaches, which determine a different way of interpreting ethnicity as such and the possibility of building constructive social ties. The article notes that certain ethnocultural contradictions are present, but significantly greater risks in building interethnic interaction are not associated with real contradictions in culture, but with ethnic stereotypes that have developed at the level of cultural and informational space, which provoke members of society to implement conflict models of interaction. The authors describe the process of legal prevention of conflicts on interethnic grounds, through the actions of our state represented by law enforcement agencies that are implementing a program to prevent extremism and terrorism among young people.

It is impossible to imagine a modern world without conflicts. Struggle occurs every day between people for the possession of any good. Conflicts occur in different social strata and between people of different ages and different sexes. But what is conflict? And why are they constantly, even when we do not notice it? How to resolve the conflict in your favor or at least without losses?