Search results

This article aims to identify the model of relations between the civil and military authorities, an attempt to construct which was made between August and November 1918 by the anti-Bolshevik Provisional Regional Government of the Urals (PRGU). This problem seems relevant in view of its fragmentary study and contribution to the disclosure of the reasons for the defeat of the White movement and the "third way" in the Russian revolution. As a theoretical basis, the author refers to works of E. Hoffman on total institutions and S. Huntington on the historically established types of civil-military interaction. The study draws on the funds of the Sverdlovsk Region State Archive, including the memoirs of a few PRGU founders, its regulations, and office documents (PRGU minutes of meetings, correspondence with zemstvos and city bodies, chief representatives in counties). The article considers the PRGU's plans for the formation of the Ural Region branches of power and local self-government with the deprivation of military voting rights, the PRGU's relationship with the White Guard and Czechoslovak command, as well as the establishment of bodies and practices for the demilitarization of the spheres of civil administration in the Urals. The study shows that the PRGU demonstrated complete subordination to the All-Russian anti-Bolshevik authorities, while excluding the participation of the military in solving local political and economic problems, realizing their lack of specific experience, leading to excessive cruelty, and undermining the loyalty to the White regimes among the local population. At the same time, the PRGU made efforts to help the armed forces without interfering in the military sphere, which demonstrates greater optimality in comparison with the Provisional Government or White generals' regimes.

The emergence of new models of socially oriented cooperatives in the agrarian sector of the economy is a necessary condition for the realization of successful economic policy of the state, implemented in conditions of institutional tension. The cooperative movement in Russia has a unique multifaceted and at the same time complex character of functioning. With the powerful development of agricultural holdings, which act as the main drivers of agricultural production and export, small farmers face signifi cant problems in building a successful cooperative system. The purpose of the research, the results of which are presented in this article, is to develop a comprehensive approach to the study of social motives for the development of agricultural cooperation in the modern market environment in the context of its special role in the development of the agricultural industry, rural communities and rural areas. In the framework of this study, the factors constraining the development of cooperative associations were identifi ed, the model of values of new-type cooperatives was proposed, including the key role of leadership as the main driving force for the powerful development of agricultural cooperation. The factors of cooperative trust formation are identifi ed in order to increase motivation and encouragement to join these associations. The conclusions formulate the most signifi cant parameters of the new model of cooperative knowledge management, contributing to the sustainable development of the Russian cooperation in modern conditions, acceptable for its realization with the following parameters.

The purpose of this article is to analyse the content of the projects substantiating the autonomy of the Urals and the composition of its territories reviewed by the Provisional Regional Government of the Urals (PRGU) in 1918. The presence of theses regarding the formation of a special Ural identity in them gives the study relevance not only due to an extremely fragmented coverage of these projects in the previous historiography but also in terms of filling the gaps in the history of the formation of the special regional social and political thought of the Urals in the context of the PRGU's coalition activity. Also, it is interesting to consider the projects from the point of view of the continuity of territorial planning practices by Soviet and post-Soviet Russia. To analyse the content and compare projects with each other to identify similarities, differences, and traces of manifestation of regional ideas, the author considers six notes submitted to PRGU by its main departments and the final report. Also, the article refers to individual views of L. A. Krol who initiated the establishment of PRGU, reconstructed according to his memoirs and minutes of the meetings of the PRGU Commission on Borders. It transpires that not all projects contained a reflection on the subject of a special regional identity, which is the essence of regionalism since the reason for the discussions was the pragmatic need to determine the electoral system for the regional parliament. A separate and unique project by Krol, which instrumentally justified the borders of the Urals, taking into account the current, but not the future political situation, cannot be considered regional. The discussion itself where Krol's proposals were ignored characterises the PRGU as a unique coalition body for 1917–1918 based on the principles of party dialogue.

The article highlights a little-studied form of social protection of the eve and during the Great Patriotic War – public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers. The party and state policy and the activities of the authorities to preserve and develop the system of funds were studied and the evolution of their network were studied in materials from the Greater Urals (Bashkir ASSR, Udmurt ASSR, Kurgan, Molotov, Chelyabinsk, Chkalov regions). The problems that arose in the public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers, primarily related to the formation of their material and financial resource base and adaptation in wartime conditions, were identified. The differences between the two stages of development (pre-war and war) of the funds as an institution of social protection of collective farmers, which arose in line with the Soviet social policy in the collectivized village on the «from the bottom up» initiative, was revealed. It was concluded that social assistance, social support, and social services have become the three main areas in the activities of public mutual assistance funds for collective farmers, and despite the unfavorable conditions during the years of war, this social institution was not destroyed and continued to perform its functions.