The paper analyses the tough period in the history of the USSR – the years of the Soviet government establishing itself; of the political, economic, and social decisions after the end of the Civil War and before the beginning of the Great Patriotic War. The author considers the issues of studying history, modern scientific interpretations of political leaders' activity, and the issues of public opinion swings. ; В статье анализируется сложный период в истории СССР — годы становления советской власти, политических, экономических, социальных решений после окончания Гражданской войны и до начала Великой Отечественной войны. Рассматриваются проблемы изучения истории, трактовок деятельности политических лидеров современным научным знанием и вопросы переменчивости общественного мнения.
"They rock the beds they sleep in. They swing even when they answer in front of the blackboard. They gather in flocks and defame those who are not like them. They steal. They smoke and drink. They start sex early. They snarl. They are rude. That is what you know about orphans from orphanages. It is this knowledge, accompanied by misunderstanding and fear, that becomes an obstacle in adoption. Now get ready: This is the confessions of orphan Georgy Ginzhu, whose authenticity no one will doubt. The real story of life in an orphanage, told by a boy, sheds light on everything that frightens and repels you. A story that can improve your life and the lives of thousands of children without parents."--
The article deals with one of the eternal themes of Russian society and the state - Russia between the West and the East. This problem determines the choice of orientation of domestic and foreign policy, and also determines the "swing" of the Russian political vector. The author notes that the geopolitical position of Russia (at the junction of the West and the East) contributed to the formation of different directions of social and political thought, which played a significant role in the development and implementation of the internal - and foreign policy vector of Russian society and state. The author concentrates on the understanding of the zigzags of modern Russian politics - from the pro-Western course in the early 1990s, which was replaced by a multi-vector approach from the 2000s, analyzing the reasons that influenced the choice of one or another course of development of the country, as well as its change. It is argued that the vision of the future of the Russian Federation, which broadcasts the modern liberal opposition, does not meet the needs, needs of the majority of the population, its national interests, sociocultural traditions, and the ill-considered reforms of the 1990s that had disastrous consequences did not contribute to sup-porting this course. As a result, since the 2000s, the policy of modern Russia has been characterized by a multivector approach and attempts to consolidate the status of an independent center of power, based on the principles of civilizational identity and originality.
The article deals with the issues of correlation of external and internal freedom, freedom of thought and wisdom, and their participation in creative choice and action as unintentional thoughts caused by the self-isolation regime. The authors show that the concept of freethinking is closely related to the understanding of freedom in this era. In the free-thinking as its incarnation lay two essential features: negative — "freedom from" and positive — "freedom for". The historical retrospective of their balance appears as a certain regularity, which the authors conventionally call the "swing of free thought": the birth of a new branch of spiritual culture is due to the growing criticism of the previous one and the appearance of a galaxy of thinkers who form it.Thus, in the freethinking of Antiquity, with its tendency to reject the pressure of fate, at first "freedom from" prevailed, to which later, as a result of the positive work of numerous philosophical schools, "freedom for" was added. The formation of Christianity as a branch of spiritual culture was accompanied by criticism of previous philosophy (for example, by Neoplatonists) and the creative work of the apostles and Christian thinkers of the patristic era. In the medieval acquisition of freedom as a gift of God, "freedom for" was asserted, which, under the influence of late dogmatism, turned into negative freedom by the Renaissance. Anti-clericalism and anti-dogmatism were overcome by modern thinkers who, creating the methodology of science (English empiricism and continental rationalism), established new goals and meanings of knowledge, and freedom became necessary "for" the knowledge of the laws of nature. The birth of ideology as a branch of culture in the late XIX-early XX centuries, although it did not occur against the background of criticism of science, still produced a new field of freedom — political freedoms marked by bourgeois-liberal ideas. Global humanity, which now has a common destiny, is approaching a new "axial time", which will probably require a new freethinking — both negative, which is already embedded in the ideas of Western postmodern philosophy, and positive, for example, in the framework of the philosophical-religious-scientific synthesis prepared by Russian religious philosophers. ; В статье рассматриваются проблемы соотношения свободы внешней и внутренней, свободомыслия и мудрости и их участия в творческом выборе и действии как нечаянные мысли, вызванные режимом самоизоляции. Авторы показывают, что понятие свободомыслия тесно связано с пониманием свободы в данную эпоху. В свободомыслии как его ипостаси заложены две сущностные черты — негативная — «свобода от» и позитивная — «свобода для». Историческая ретроспектива их баланса предстает как некая закономерность, которую авторы условно называют «качелями свободомыслия»: рождение новой отрасли духовной культуры происходит за счет нарастающей критики предыдущей и появления плеяды мыслителей, ее формирующих.Так, в свободомыслии Античности с его устремлением к отказу от давления рока сначала преобладала «свобода от», к которой позже в результате позитивной работы многочисленных философских школ добавилась «свобода для». Становление христианства как отрасли духовной культуры сопровождалось критикой предыдущей философии (например, неоплатониками) и созидательной работой апостолов и христианских мыслителей эпохи патристики. В средневековом обретении свободы как божьего дара утверждалась «свобода для», которая под влиянием позднего догматизма превратилась к эпохе Возрождения в негативную свободу. Антиклерикализм и антидогматизм был преодолен мыслителями Нового времени, которые, создавая методологию науки (английский эмпиризм и континентальный рационализм), утвердили новые цели и смыслы познания, и свобода стала нужна «для» познания законов природы. Рождение идеологии как отрасли культуры в конце XIX — начале ХХ вв., хотя и происходило не на фоне критики науки, все же произвело новое поле свободы — политические свободы, обозначенные буржуазно-либеральными идеями. Глобальное человечество, отныне имеющее общую судьбу, подходит к новому «осевому времени», которое, вероятно, потребует нового свободомыслия — негативного, которое уже заложено в идеях западной философии постмодернизма, и позитивного, например, в рамках философско-религиозно-научного синтеза, подготовленного русскими религиозными философами.
