После Первой мировой войны консервативный мэйнстрим был организован в Немецкую национальную народную партию. Она была крайне националистической и анти-либеральной. Больше того, превалировали антисемитские убеждения. Еще более радикальными были участники интеллектуальных кругов «консервативной революции» в 1920-е гг. Они выступали за возрождение кайзеровского рейха и надеялись на могучую Германскую империю, которая возвратит стране всемирное признание. По этой причине подавляющее большинство консерваторов приветствовали «национальную революцию» в1933 г. и надеялись использовать движение национал-социалистов в русле своих убеждений. Когда эта стратегия не сработала, и нацистский режим развязал войну, более того, когда поражение во Второй мировой войне стало очевидным, многие консерваторы ушли из политики; некоторые даже присоединились к Сопротивлению и рискнули своими жизнями. ; After the First World War, the conservative mainstream was organized in the Deutschnationale Volkspartei (German-national people's party). It was extremely nationalistic and anti-liberal. Furthermore, anti-Semitic attitudes were prevalent. Even more radical were members of the intellectual circles of the "Conservative Revolution" In the 1920's. They opposed the recurrence of the Kaiserreich and hoped for a powerful German empire, that would restore the country's worldwide recognition. In this respect, the vast majority of the conservatives appreciated the "national revolution" in 1933, and hoped to instrumentalize the movement of the National Socialists in this spirit. When this did not work out and the Nazi-regime openly planned a war, and even more when the defeat in the Second World War became apparent, many conservatives abandoned politics; a few even joined the resistance and risked their lives.
В статье анализируется проблема взаимоотношений и полифонии идей консервативной революции и национал-социализма. Идеи двух праворадикальных направлений Веймарской республики рассматриваются сквозь идею формирования германского национального государства и противопоставление демократическим принципам Веймарской республики. Доказывается, что консервативная революция и национал-социализм представляли собой два проекта формирования национального государства в Германии. ; In article the problem of relationship and polyphony of ideas of conservative revolution and national socialism is analyzed. Ideas of two far-right directions of the Weimar republic are considered through idea of formation of the German national state and opposition to democratic principles of the Weimar republic. It is proved that conservative revolution and national socialism represented two projects of formation of the national state in Germany.
The article comments on the concept of «socialism with Chinese specificity», which forms the ideological basis of the «Chinese miracle». The ideological origins of this concept, starting with Confucianism, are revealed. It has evolved to become increasingly pragmatic and to adapt to the realities of national and global development. The relation of this concept with the Marxist concept of socialism is shown. The article substantiates the fundamental theoretical thesis that in the objective-essential sense (in the elimination of, in particular, national specifics) Chinese society is a transitional form to socialism (a certain analogue of the Soviet society of the NEP period). The author talks about a «heterogeneous», «mixed» socio-economic system, the vector and nature of the future evolution of which will depend crucially on the strategic course of the CPC.
The article contains a commentary on the publication of G. A. Maslov «Scientific and technological progress and the advantages of socialism: the evolution of Soviet Economic thought» (Bulletin of the Moscow State University, Series 6. Economics, No. 3, 2021). Against the current difficulties in implementing national projects (criticism of their implementation was voiced at SPIEF-2019 and continues today), the publication of materials praising the organization of scientific and technological progress during the construction of the material and technical base of communism seems a nostalgic appeal. The glorification of real achievements does not raise protest. What is unacceptable is to silence equally evident failures. Here we mean the resolution «On the development of computer hardware production» (#1180-420) adopted at the meeting of the Communist party Politburo and the USSR Council of Ministers on December 30, 1967, which entailed the destruction of the Soviet industry that produced computer equipment for civil needs. This decision resulted in the replacement of Soviet-made computers with obsolete models of the largest US companies. We are still trying to correct the effect of this strategic mistake, but to recognize and, most importantly, draw necessary lessons both from the wrong decision and the accompanying processes is vital for successful implementation of today's national projects, primarily the Digital Economy Agenda.
The paper is devoted to analyzing the development of the German nationalism in the days of the Weimar Republic. A comparison of conservative and national-socialist projects of nationalism is carried out. The author uses the methodological approaches of modern intellectual history. Nationalism is considered as an alternative to the democratic Weimar system. The paper notes the existence of several nationalist discourses in the Weimar Republic, which points to alternativeness of the development of the right movements in Germany. The nationalism, anti-democratism, antiparliamentarism, denial of conditions of the Versailles peace treaty and aspiration to its audit was the general element of the right German movements ; Статья посвящена анализу развития немецкого национализма в годы Веймарской республики. Осуществляется сопоставление консервативного и национал-социалистического проектов национализма. В работе используется методологические подходы новой интеллектуальной истории. Национализм рассматривается как альтернатива демократической веймарской системе. В статье отмечается наличие в Веймарской республике нескольких националистических дискурсов, что указывает на альтернативность развития правых движений в Германии. Общим элементом правых немецких движений был национализм, антидемократизм, антипарламентаризм, отрицание условий Версальского мирного договора и стремление к его ревизии
Th e author focuses on a one-of-a-kind debate "On Socialism", which took place in the House of Lords of the British Parliament in the spring of 1935. For a long time, the upper chamber served as a barrier to the implementa-tion of bold social and political legislation. Until the beginning of the 20th century socialists had never been represented in the Parliament. As the Labor Party came into political spotlight and gradually strengthened its positions in the 1920s–1930s, the House of Lords was forced to adapt its composition to changing reali-ties. In 1924, the Labor faction was formed here for the fi rst time. A decade later, the Lords were prepared to seriously discuss the merits and demerits of the social-ist system. Th e article analyzes both the main arguments of the Laborites, who promoted transition to a new social system, and the theses put forward by Con-servatives and Liberals, supporters of the capitalist system. Particular emphasis is placed on the coverage and feedback which the discussion held in Westminster received on the pages of the British press of various political stances. Th e author comes to the conclusion that the arguments put forward by both supporters and opponents of socialism were in many respects similar to the theses that appeared in the course of the discussion in the Lower house of the UK Parliament in 1923. Th is discussion had a similar nature and was the fi rst of this kind in the British history. At the same time, the analyzed debate which took place in the House of Lords more than a decade later, bore an unmistakable imprint of a new era. Th e "Great Depression" of 1929–1933 had an important impact on the worldview of the generation, as it strengthened the conviction of left -wing politicians that capitalism was not the subject to improvement. Opponents of socialism, on the contrary, argued that a socialist future for Britain was not only economically un-tenable, but also dangerous, and incompatible with the unique English national character, based on individualism.
The article analyzes the conceptual foundations of "prophetic" socialism by Max Scheler (1874–1928). The main principles of a new political and ideological doctrine at that time, designed to become, according to the plan of its creator, an "antidote" to Marxism, are considered. The author analyzes Scheler's argumentation, directed, on the one hand, against socialism in the Marxist interpretation, and on the other, at proving the legitimacy of using the terms "Christian socialism" and "Christian prophetic socialism". Scheler opposes socialism, first of all, to individualism, which he interprets in social and moral-philosophical senses, and only secondarily to liberalism and capitalism. Socialism and individualism, which now appear as antagonistic tendencies of sociocultural development, are for him two equally necessary and interrelated essential principles of the social being of a person, understood as a spiritual-bodily social being. Individualistic tendencies, according to Scheler, prevailed over socialist tendencies in the West in modern times, therefore socialism in its Marxist interpretation turned out to be so in demand in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. But the destruction of private property is contrary to Christianity. "Forced communism" does not bring with it heaven on earth, but catastrophe and cultural degradation, he foreshadows. Based on the teachings of the Church Fathers and starting from the Catholic social doctrine, Scheler offers his vision of an ideal society in the form of a "personal community" (Personengemeinschaft), corresponding to the true destiny of a person. In it, the individual and social principles are in harmony and interdependent development. Scheler opposes the "prophetic" method of comprehending socio-historical reality, applied proceeding from the Christian solidarism ideal, to the materialistic understanding of history. He points to three advantages of his methodology: it takes into account human freedom, the uniqueness of a historical event, combines all types and methods of human cognition, without absolutizing the scientific form of knowledge. The author reveals the deep content of Scheler's definition of Marxism as "the protest ideology of oppressed classes", drawing on the analysis of the "sociological doctrine of idols" of the late Scheler. In it, he reveals the pre-reflexive prerequisites for the formation of class ideologies. The author points to the essential kinship of the class prejudices about which the German philosopher wrote, and the national-mental prejudices of the political elites of the leading Western countries. In conclusion, he raises the question of how relevant the problems raised in Scheler's article are today in the context of modern Russian realities. ; В статье анализируются концептуальные основы «пророческого» социализма Макса Шелера (1874–1928). Рассматриваются основные принципы новой по тем временам политически-идеологической доктрины, призванной стать, по замыслу ее создателя, «противоядием» марксизму. Автор анализирует аргументацию Шелера, направленную, с одной стороны, против социализма в марксистской трактовке, с другой – на доказательство правомерности использования терминов «христианский социализм» и «христианский пророческий социализм». Социализм Шелер противопоставляет в первую очередь индивидуализму, который он истолковывает в социально- и нравственно-философском смыслах, и лишь во вторую – либерализму и капитализму. Социализм и индивидуализм, предстающие ныне как антагонистические тенденции социокультурного развития, – это для него два одинаково необходимых и взаимосвязанных сущностных начала общественного бытия человека, понимаемого как духовно-телесное социальное существо. Индивидуалистические тенденции, считает Шелер, возобладали над социалистическими на Западе в Новое время, поэтому социализм в его марксистской трактовке и оказался столь востребованным в конце XIX и начале XX вв. Но уничтожение частной собственности противно христианству. «Принудительный коммунизм» несет с собой не рай на Земле, а катастрофу и культурную деградацию, предвещает он. Опираясь на учения отцов церкви и отталкиваясь от католической социальной доктрины, Шелер предлагает свое видение идеального социума в форме «личностной общности» (Personengemeinschaft), соответствующей истинному предназначению человека. В нем индивидуальное и социальное начала находятся в гармонии и взаимообусловленном развитии. «Пророческий» метод постижения социально-исторической действительности, применяемый, исходя из христианско-солидаристского идеала, Шелер противопоставляет материалистическому пониманию истории. Он указывает на три преимущества своей методологии: она учитывает свободу человека, неповторимость исторического события, соединяет в себе все виды и способы человеческого познания, не абсолютизируя научную форму знания. Автор раскрывает глубокое содержание шелеровской дефиниции марксизма как «протестной идеологии угнетенных классов», привлекая к анализу «социологическое учение об идолах» позднего Шелера. В нем он выявляет дорефлексивные предпосылки формирования классовых идеологий. Автор указывает на сущностное родство классовых предрассудков, о которых писал немецкий философ, и национально-ментальных предрассудков политических элит ведущих стран Запада. В заключение он ставит вопрос о том, насколько проблемы, поднятые в статье Шелера, актуальны сегодня в контексте современных российских реалий.
The article deals with the causes, course and consequences of the split in 1917, Russia's largest political party — the Socialist-Revolutionaries. We give the political assessment of this event, representatives of the national data of democratic socialism — Right Socialist–Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, People's Socialists. With a different attitude towards the SRP, they all agreed that the split of the Socialist–Revolutionary Party not only caused irreparable damage to itself but led to extremely negative consequences for the entire development of democracy in revolutionary Russia. Basic research methods: analysis, synthesis, biographical method, analogy, comparison.
