Suchergebnisse

The paper discusses the factors that determined the structure and competence levels of local governmental bodies in Soviet Russia between 1918 and the early 1930s and the major trends in their evolution. It is demonstrated that the utopian ideas of the Bolshevik leaders gradually lost their relevance and were replaced by more pragmatic, bureaucratic decision-making aimed at solving practical problems. The government had to address several issues at once – establish political control over the vast territory of the country, ensure economic development of the regions, and realize the principle of national self-determination. Therefore, the process in which the administrative-territorial infrastructure evolved was riddled with contradictions and comprised three main stages. The conclusion is drawn that it was the logic of the country's previous development and the specific nature of the Soviets as bodies of government that led to the authoritarian administrative principle taking precedence over the economic and national paradigms. ; W artykule omówiono czynniki determinujące strukturę i poziom kompetencji organów samorządowych oraz główne kierunki w ich rozwoju w Rosji Radzieckiej między rokiem 1918 a początkiem lat trzydziestych. Utopijne idee bolszewickich przywódców stopniowo odsuwały się na drugi plan, ustępując bardziej pragmatycznym i biurokratycznym procedurom decyzyjnym, ukierunkowanym na rozwiązanie kwestii praktycznych. Rząd musiał realizować kilka zadań jednocześnie: rozciągnąć kontrolę polityczną nad ogromnym terytorium kraju, zapewnić rozwój gospodarczy regionów oraz zrealizować zasadę samostanowienia narodu. Proces ewolucji infrastruktury administracyjnej w terenie był więc pełen sprzeczności i przebiegał w trzech etapach. W artykule stwierdzono, że logika wcześniejszego kierunku rozwoju państwa oraz specyficzny charakter Rad (Sowietów) jako organów zarządzania spowodowały, iż autorytarny system administracji terenowej uzyskał prymat nad paradygmatem ekonomicznym czy narodowym.

This article continues to examine the issue of 'escapees' raised by L. Siegelbaum and L. P. Moch in their work Escaping in Twentieth-Century Russia. In the author's opinion, during most of the 20th century the Russian state reacted most strongly to violations of the political regime, often preferring not to notice economic migration. This was due to the carefully concealed inability of the authorities to control the population totally. Violations of the regime of territorial movement by individual migrants were possible due to the uncoordinated actions of central and local authorities. With the gradual liberalisation of the Soviet system in the second half of the twentieth century, migrants were increasingly able to move legally. Refusing to coercively regulate migratory flows led to the displacement of the political factor in migrations by the economic one, which in turn caused a narrowing of 'autocratic' space. ; Статья продолжает тему «самовольных мигрантов», поднятую Л. Сигельбаумом и Л. П. Мох в работе "Escaping in Twentieth-Century Russia". По мнению автора, Российское государство в течение большей части XX столетия наиболее остро реагировало на нарушения политического режима, часто предпочитая не замечать экономическую миграцию. Это происходило из-за тщательно скрываемой неспособности власти тотально контролировать население. Нарушения режима территориальных перемещений индивидуальными мигрантами были возможны по причине несогласованных действий центральных и местных органов власти. По мере постепенной либерализации советской системы во второй половине XX в. у мигрантов появлялось все больше возможностей для легальных перемещений. Отказ от силового регулирования миграционных потоков, вытеснение политического фактора в миграциях экономических привели к сужению пространства «самовольности».

This article focuses on the role that land development played in the views and projects of Vladimir Lenin and his supporters and analyses how these ideal concepts were affected by real-life challenges, that is, how the exalted romantic vision of the early post-revolutionary period was later replaced by a more pragmatic neo-imperialist approach. Throughout the early Soviet period (until the early 1930s), there were three main mythologemes which determined the Bolsheviks' attitude to the territory they had come to possess: the "World Revolution", "self-determination of nations", and the "Communist society". The Bolsheviks believed that the first two concepts corresponded mostly to tactics while the last one was concerned with strategy. After the Bolsheviks' plans for a world revolution were ruined, they concentrated on a transition from tactical to strategic principles applied to developing the land of the former Russian Empire wherein, until 1923, the nation-building project had played a key role in the way the Bolsheviks had chosen to develop their land. As in the case of the "World Revolution" ideologeme, the "self-determination of nations" gradually transformed from a practical issue into one of propagandist clichés when the Bolsheviks realised that it was impossible to fully achieve the proclaimed ideological goals. Aiming to build a Communist society in Russia, the Bolshevik government prioritised industrialisation and urbanisation, following Marx's views and some nineteenth-century utopian theories. Both of the two approaches to zoning – economic and national – were well grounded ideologically but in the end it was the third, administrative approach which prevailed. Interestingly enough, it was not so much socialist but imperial in its nature. Before the mid-1920s, all ideological doctrines related to land development had been revised and readjusted. The Bolsheviks did not completely reject their old ideal concepts but instead adjusted and used them for propagandist purposes to exert more direct, Stalinist-type control. ; Цель исследования – уточнить, какое место занимала задача освоения российской территории в представлениях Ленина и его сторонников, как идеальные конструкции видоизменялись под влиянием требований реальности, когда возобладала прагматика неоимперского толка. Этот вопрос рассматривается в контексте трех основных мифологем: «мировая революция», «самоопределение наций» и «коммунистическое общество». Показано, что в течение 1920-х гг. наблюдается переход от тактических принципов освоения территории бывшей Российской империи к стратегическим, при этом до 1923 г. основным следует считать фактор национального строительства. Как и в случае с идеологемой «мировой революции», по мере осознания невозможности реализовать в полной мере идеологические цели тезис самоопределения наций становился все более ритуальным. Для идеи построения коммунистического общества наиболее актуальными были сформулированные Марксом задачи индустриализации и урбанизации. В результате борьбы экономического и национального подходов к районированию утвердился третий, имперский по сути, административный подход. До середины 1920-х гг. были переосмыслены практически все идеологические доктрины, имевшие отношение к освоению территории. Прежние идеальные представления большевиков не отбрасывались полностью, а уточнялись, выполняя задачу пропагандистского обеспечения сталинского режима.

This review article analyses approaches to the study of the rural family of the Soviet period that have taken shape in foreign (mainly Western) historiography between the 1960s and the present. The rural family was in the focus of social and political transformations of the twentieth century, suffered a severe deformation as a result of world and civil wars, as well as the urbanisation process, which took on a forced character under the influence of state policy measures. The article is intended to help bring together the methodological and thematic positions of Russian and foreign researchers in considering the phenomenon of the rural family.The study of the Soviet rural family, usually in a wider thematic context, began in line with the "anthropological" turn at the turn of the 1970s. At the suggestion of T. Shanin, family households entered the focus of the emerging peasant studies. Methodological preferences, as well as the relatively small number of available primary statistics, determined the limited interest of Western authors in the historical and demographic study of the Soviet rural family. In the 1980s and 1990s, within the framework of the revisionist paradigm, the rural family was studied mainly as an object of influence from the authorities (radical projects of the 1920s, collectivisation, and measures to strengthen the family in the 1930s). "Feminist" historiography was especially active in this field. In the second half of the 1990s and early 2000s, time came for balanced characteristics, quite free from politicised assessments. There was an opportunity to consider the Soviet family and family policy in a global context. The post-war period in the development of the rural family is represented in foreign works rather poorly. In general, Western authors managed to capture the directions of evolution and the new quality of the rural family, which have become apparent in the later Soviet decades. ; В обзорной статье анализируются подходы к изучению сельской семьи советского периода, сложившиеся в зарубежной (преимущественно западной) историографии с 1960-х гг. до настоящего времени. Cельская семья оказалась в фокусе социальных и политических трансформаций XX в., пережила сильные изменения в результате мировых и гражданской войн, а также процесса урбанизации, принявшего форсированный характер под влиянием мер государственной политики. Статья призвана способствовать сближению методологических и тематических позиций российских и зарубежных исследователей в рассмотрении феномена сельской семьи.Изучение советской сельской семьи, обычно в широком тематическом контексте, началось в русле «антропологического» поворота на рубеже 1960–1970-х гг. С подачи Т. Шанина семейные домохозяйства оказались в фокусе зарождающегося крестьяноведения. Методологические предпочтения, а также относительно небольшое количество доступных первичных статистических источников определили ограниченный интерес западных авторов к историко-демографическому изучению советской сельской семьи. В рамках ревизионистской парадигмы в 1980–1990-е гг. сельская семья изучалась главным образом как объект властного воздействия (радикальные проекты 1920-х гг., коллективизация, меры по укреплению семьи в 1930-е гг.). Особенно активной на этом поле оказалась «феминистская» историография. Во второй половине 1990-х — начале 2000-х гг. пришло время взвешенных характеристик, достаточно свободных от политизированных оценок. Появилась возможность рассматривать советскую семью и семейную политику в общемировом контексте. Послевоенный период в развитии сельской семьи представлен в зарубежных работах достаточно слабо. В целом западным авторам удалось зафиксировать направления эволюции и новое качество сельской семьи, ставшие очевидными в последние советские десятилетия.

The volume comprises proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Recent Advances in Civil Aviation. The contents focus on air traffic control and management, quality control and reliability improvement of radio equipment and avionics, designing and testing aircraft assemblies and mechanisms, reliability improvement of aircraft management systems, aviation enterprise management, etc. There is also emphasis on the current problems and prospects for development of unmanned aircraft systems. This volume will be beneficial to researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers alike.

This review article analyses approaches to the study of the rural family of the Soviet period that have taken shape in foreign (mainly Western) historiography between the 1960s and the present. The rural family was in the focus of social and political transformations of the twentieth century, suffered a severe deformation as a result of world and civil wars, as well as the urbanisation process, which took on a forced character under the influence of state policy measures. The article is intended to help bring together the methodological and thematic positions of Russian and foreign researchers in considering the phenomenon of the rural family. The study of the Soviet rural family, usually in a wider thematic context, began in line with the "anthropological" turn at the turn of the 1970s. At the suggestion of T. Shanin, family households entered the focus of the emerging peasant studies. Methodological preferences, as well as the relatively small number of available primary statistics, determined the limited interest of Western authors in the historical and demographic study of the Soviet rural family. In the 1980s and 1990s, within the framework of the revisionist paradigm, the rural family was studied mainly as an object of influence from the authorities (radical projects of the 1920s, collectivisation, and measures to strengthen the family in the 1930s). "Feminist" historiography was especially active in this field. In the second half of the 1990s and early 2000s, time came for balanced characteristics, quite free from politicised assessments. There was an opportunity to consider the Soviet family and family policy in a global context. The post-war period in the development of the rural family is represented in foreign works rather poorly. In general, Western authors managed to capture the directions of evolution and the new quality of the rural family, which have become apparent in the later Soviet decades.