From December 11 to 15, the winter session of the Moscow School of Civic Education was held in Golitsino, near Moscow (until August 2013, the project was called the Moscow School of Political Studies). On the final day of the school, Dr. philosophical sciences Sergei Nikolsky, Deputy Director of the Institute of Philosophy Russian Academy Sciences.
According to Nikolsky, the type of state affects the legal consciousness of its population.
An empire is one of the types of state structure, an alternative to which can be, for example, a national civil state. It is possible to distinguish it from other types with the help of some features that have become common to the most diverse imperial regimes that have existed in the history of mankind.
Nikolsky singled out the main feature of the imperial state of the state: “The first and main goal of such a state is the maximization of territorial expansion. Empires sought to expand as much as possible. At the same time, the quality, composition of the population and the well-being of the population have always been secondary things. The most important thing is territorial expansion.” IN modern world, the philosopher added, such goals for the state are archaic and hinder development, since now countries compete with each other not with territories and even not so much natural resources. According to Nikolsky, now the states are mainly competing with the quality of life and the “quality of a person,” that is, with how citizens are educated, professional, moral and law-abiding.
The idea that justifies the need for expansion may sound like a set of controversial theses (the Imperials, however, do not doubt them). As an example of such a rationale, Nikolsky quoted the words of a contemporary researcher, an unnamed apologist for Russia's imperialism: “We annex peoples to ourselves or even conquer them by force of arms for their own good, because God is with us. And if they are with us, then God is with them. Russia is Russia because it is always right. Russia is always on the side of God; if she is not right, then this is, as it were, not Russia.” “This is such an interesting set of ideas that suggests the ideological supremacy of Russianness,” Nikolsky concluded.
Sergei Nikolsky. Photo: iph.ras.ru
The expansion of the territories of the Russian Empire was a complex process: assimilation proceeded peacefully only when moving to the East, where Russia did not meet developed cultures. However, where it encountered some degree of development of statehood and culture - as, for example, in the Caucasus, in the western regions, or in the northwest - the process was accompanied by wars and conflicts. The payment for the introduced technologies, raising the level of culture and education was "the total destruction of those who disagree and the total subordination of socio-economic life to the interests of the central state."
The economy of the Soviet empire gave rise to ugly, absurd schemes in which consumers gathered in one place, producers in another, and suppliers of resources in a third. As a result, an artificial situation was created in which timber was delivered from Siberia, for example, to a woodworking plant in Central Asia, and the final products were sent to Central Russia. However, such schemes helped to create and maintain the appearance of economic ties between parts of the empire.
Another example is related to the policy of dispossession, which was carried out in relation to the Cossacks and Bashkirs during the years of collectivization, Nikolsky recalled. “Because the average per capita meat consumption as a whole was X, and among the Bashkirs and Cossacks it was, for example, 3x, then, accordingly, cattle were taken from them, which, of course, did not reach Central Russia later, they died of hunger along the way. Nevertheless, "justice prevailed", and for this the Cossacks and Bashkirs paid 40-50% of their population. This historical fact and there are many such facts. Soviet ideology forbade remembering this, ”he said.
Nikolsky recalled the scandal around the recently erected monument to Chechen girls who resisted the army of General Yermolov (this was the reason for the State Duma deputies Alexei Zhuravlev and Adam Delimkhanov. — RP).
“There has been a correction of people's memory. And thus the first stone was laid in the foundation of the so-called Soviet friendship of peoples. A certain unity was formed on ignorance. How strong this unity was was shown in 1991 and the assessments that are given today,” the lecturer said. Now, when some states have regained their independence from the Soviet empire, the years of being in its composition are perceived as a “colonial period”. Such reviews Nikolsky heard at a recent meeting of historians of the countries of the former republics of the USSR and countries that were part of the Russian Empire.
In his opinion, a normal reaction to an attempt to restore historical memory there would have been an acknowledgment by the state of erroneous policies in the past, but this was not done.
Another example: the recent scandal around Russian diplomats, who were convicted by the US government of fraud with medical insurance, shows that in Russian practice it is generally not customary to give an unambiguous moral assessment of one's obvious mistakes. Instead of an official apology and recognition of the inadmissibility of the behavior of diplomats, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov only stated that the Americans had been collecting information about this for ten years, Nikolsky recalled, stressing that he considered such an answer extremely strange. “Here the logic is as follows: two people were sitting on the bench, one in a cap, the other Uzbek. They tell you that you stole, and you answer: “And you have been collecting information for a long time,” Nikolsky concluded.
Empires have always strived for closeness from the world and self-sufficiency, and in addition to economic and social self-sufficiency, in such societies a cult of “mission”, “super-ideas” arose.
For the Russian Empire, Orthodoxy was such a super-idea; at the birth of the USSR, the idea of proletarian socialism was cultivated; in the Soviet Union itself, faith in the "stronghold of world communism" became central.
For such types of states, the presence of a sacred figure of the supreme ruler, the vicegerent of God, the emperor, the father of nations, the general secretary, etc. is also mandatory.
Another sign of imperial consciousness is the desire for a lack of citizenship among the population, which must take the form of a submissive homogeneous mass of loyal subjects. “This partly fits into the main principle: the principle of controlling the will of the first person and his inner circle,” Nikolsky added, explaining that this is why empires are so often controlled manually. Naturally, in this structure, the human person and the individual are nothing. As the proletarian poet, singer of the USSR empire, Vladimir Mayakovsky, said, “one is zero.”
Anti-Soviet poster, 1918. Source: historydoc.edu.ru
As Nikolsky explained, the “homogenization of the population” refers to the reduction of the level of culture, enlightenment and education in order to increase the controllability of the masses. According to the speaker, features of this phenomenon are also observed in modern Russia where the government relies on state employees: they begin to be manipulated during the election period, they are dependent and therefore easily controlled.
Nikolsky finds another example of the homogenization of the population in the recent reform of the Russian Academy of Sciences, which will finally kill science in Russia. “We are talking about the fact that science should come to regional universities, but in fact this is an attempt to destroy it altogether. I know what regional universities are, I go there. It is impossible to compare the level of development of people who constantly have to teach and transmit knowledge with those who have to acquire knowledge. And now, when the task of increasing the remuneration of the teaching staff has been set, we are talking about increasing the workload. The average humanities teacher should have about 12 lectures a week, that is, every day he should give two lectures, that's four hours. Tell me, please, what kind of science will he be able to produce?!” - the deputy director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences was indignant.
Other examples of the collapse of professional independent structures Nikolsky finds in the recent liquidation of RIA Novosti, as well as in the merger of the Book Chamber and the ITAR-TASS agency (which he calls the "collapse"). “The only explanation that I can find for what is happening is that the authorities do not need independent structures, they do not need free brains, they need an easily controlled mass. We need subjects,” he said.
The politics of colonization, the politics of homogenization is always the politics of degradation, because culture is always an increase in diversity,
emphasizes the expert. Just like in biology, where as development progresses, complexity and diversity increase. In the case when culture and society goes in the opposite direction, barbarization and degradation occurs. Ultimately, the state deprives itself of the future.
Imperial regimes are characterized by a reformatting of the consciousness of the people, who eventually learn to be a subject, to live in dependence, to be irresponsible and to rely on the supreme ruler.
If law is not developed in the country, then social relations begin to obey the will of the authorities. But since the authorities do not always have sufficient authority, social relations are regulated with the help of violence, which becomes the main tool of management - instead of authority and law.
“What to do on the ruins of the Soviet empire? I think that now our authorities have no answer to this question, since we are witnessing a chaotic shyness in different directions. On the one hand, calls for the growth of modernization, culture, diversity, education. On the other hand, such a policy is being pursued that leads to the destruction of culture, education, science, diversity, etc., ”Nikolsky believes. Hope Russian society to get out of a protracted imperial state is connected with citizens who, even in such difficult circumstances, cannot afford to be unprofessional, act immorally and blindly rely on the will of their superiors. According to Nikolsky, the state needs to rely on them.
At the beginning of the 20th century, when Russia faced a serious problem of modernizing the economy, Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin said: "We need not drunk and weak, but sober and strong, we must stake on them." Now Stolypin's metaphor is taking on a very concrete real shape, Nikol'ky believes. The philosopher recalls that now, according to official figures, there are 8 million drug addicts and 20.5 million alcoholics in Russia. “Even if these 20 million overlap with 8 million, this is already the population of an average European country. This is the horror we are in today,” he says. Nikolsky is perplexed by the fact that the state did not find two billion rubles to create rehabilitation centers for drug addicts, despite the fact that Russia managed to find funds for ambitious projects: the Olympics, the APEC summit, etc.
“I am not saying this to say that we are bad, but everyone around us is good. I say this in order to represent the abyss that we have in front of us. I spoke here in one audience, and one person said to me: “Why do you dislike Russia so much?” cancer cells, you have to deal with this, this and that, "and the patient answers him:" You don't love me, you told me a bad thing. I think people need to know bad things in order to know what to do,” Nikolsky said.
A conflict of interest, a split in the team and a strange set of deputies: for the second week now, the rector of the Tver Medical University, Lesya Chichanovskaya, has been an anti-hero of media publications 
In 1756-1762, Central and Northern Europe became another battlefield. Prussia decided to expand its borders, and its claims also extended to Russian lands. As a result, Saxony, Austria, Sweden, England, France, Russia and, of course, Prussia, led by Frederick II the Invincible, joined the war, called the Seven Years.
Despite the fact that the Russians achieved great success on the territory of Prussia, won a number of victories, occupied Berlin and Königsberg, we did not have to take advantage of the victories. The war began under Elizabeth Petrovna, and ended under Petre III, who was an ardent admirer of Frederick II. In the spring of 1762, the new Russian emperor made peace between Russia and Prussia and voluntarily returned the entire territory of Prussia, which was occupied by Russian troops. Nevertheless, Friedrich did not go to Königsberg until the end of his life - apparently, he was very offended that the city surrendered to the Russian troops.
In the period from January 1758 to July 1762, East Prussia and the city of Königsberg became part of the Russian Empire. And, of course, all classes East Prussia swore allegiance to the Russian crown, and it was in January 1758. The philosopher Immanuel Kant, who lived and worked at that time at Königsberg University, also swore allegiance.
Kant was the most famous citizen of this city in its entire history. Neither the rulers, nor the participants in the wars in these lands, nor the merchants of this Hanseatic city, located at the crossroads of important trade routes, could neither surpass nor repeat this glory.
Then the city again became Prussian, but historians have not found evidence that Immanuel Kant renounced Russian citizenship. And today the grave of the philosopher is located on the territory of Russia: in 1945, following the end of the Second World War, this land of East Prussia passed to the Soviet Union. Koenigsberg was renamed Kaliningrad. The world-famous philosopher rests in the center of the city.
“To be refuted is to be feared...
The airport in Kaliningrad, following the results of the Great Names of Russia competition, was named after Elizaveta Petrovna. The Empress outperformed the philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose name had been leading the vote for a long time. At the end of November, unknown people poured paint over the monument to Kant, and statements were made that it was unpatriotic to name the airport after him. What was the "Russian" period of the philosopher's life?
In 1758 Königsberg, hometown Immanuel Kant, was occupied by Russian troops. The inhabitants of the city took an oath of allegiance to Elizaveta Petrovna. The philosopher sent a request to the empress for admission to the post of ordinary professor at Königsber University:
“With the death of the blessed memory of the doctor and professor Kipke, the post of ordinary professor of logic and metaphysics of the Königsberg Academy, which he held, was vacated. These sciences have always been the preferred subject of my research.
Since I became an assistant professor at the university, I have given private lectures on these sciences every semester. I publicly defended 2 dissertations on these sciences, in addition, 4 articles in the Koenigsberg Scientific Notes, 3 programs and 3 others philosophical treatise give some idea of my work.
The flattering hope that I have proved my suitability for the academic service of these sciences, but most of all, Your Imperial Majesty's most gracious disposition to provide the sciences with the highest patronage and benevolent patronage prompts me to most faithfully ask Your Imperial Majesty to kindly appoint me to the vacant post of an ordinary professor, hoping that that the academic senate, in arguing that I have the necessary abilities for this, will accompany my most loyal request with favorable evidence ”
At that time, Immanuel Kant did not receive the desired position. He remained a Russian subject until July 1762. A circle of Russian officers formed around the philosopher, and Grigory Orlov was among his guests. The views of Immanuel Kant then became the subject of discussion. Here are some of his sayings about life and morality:
"Enlightenment is a person's exit from the state of his minority, in which he is through his own fault"
“Suffering is a stimulus for our activity, and, above all, in it we feel our life; without it there would be a state of lifelessness"
"War is bad because it creates more evil people than it takes away"
“It is in our nature to gravitate toward deliberately empty desires”
“A person rarely thinks about darkness in the light, about trouble in happiness, about suffering in contentment, and, on the contrary, always thinks about light in darkness, about happiness in trouble, and about prosperity in poverty”
“To appeal to courage is already half the same as to inspire it”
“Women even make the male sex more refined”
“Being refuted is nothing to be afraid of; one should be afraid of another - to be misunderstood "
"Happiness is not an ideal of the mind, but of the imagination"
“Of all the forces subject to state power, the power of money is perhaps the most reliable, and therefore states will be forced (of course, not on moral grounds) to promote a noble world”
"Don't accept favors that you can do without"
“The longest people live when they least care about prolonging life”
"The more habits, the less freedom"
“Act in such a way that the maxim of your action may become the basis of universal legislation”
"In each natural science contains as much truth as there are mathematicians in it.
“Treat a person always as an end and never as a means”
“Whoever gets rid of excesses gets rid of deprivations”
"Job - The best way Enjoying life"
“From the very day when a person first pronounces “I”, he everywhere, where necessary, puts forward his beloved self and his egoism irresistibly strives forward”
“Everything that is called decency is nothing more than a beautiful appearance”
https://diletant.media/articles/44583328/
"Empire as Russia's Path to Europeanization". With such a report at the seminar of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Academy the well-known historian, philosopher and writer Vladimir Karlovich Kantor spoke. You can watch the video of the performance at the bottom of the post.
Here are the most interesting thoughts of the participants in the discussion.
The Soviet Union was not an empire!
European civilization is a mutation of Asian structures.
Despotia was born in Asia.
Despotism - when one rules, but he is not free either (he is a slave of power, like the rest).
The path of Europe is the imperial path.
The empire originated in Greece.
Greece is the first maritime civilization and the answer to the East.
The first response of the eastern despotism was the empire of Alexander the Great.
The empire of Alexander the Great is a system of reconciliation of different cultures.
The classical empire arises in the era of Rome. IN ancient rome there was a combination of three main Aristotelian power structures: 1 monarchy 2 aristocracy 3 polity
Empire is a legal space. In despotism, only the despot has rights, the rest are slaves.
Literacy is the conquest of an empire. Despotism does not like literacy.
The empire unites many peoples, and the task is to bring these peoples into the legal and civilizational space.
The empire is supranational and supra-confessional.
The idea of Rome did not die with the Roman Empire.
Europe is an idea, a strong-willed decision, unlike Asia.
One is when the peoples are equally subordinate to the emperor. Another - one titular people!
Russia became a nation without including the people in the nation. From this, the Russian Empire perished.
In its state building, Russia was guided by the experience of England.
Struve wanted to build Russia on the model of Great Britain.
Stolypin was against the introduction of the patriarchate. "We leave the Synod as a supra-confessional institution."
Nationalists will never create an empire, because they will start to suppress other peoples.
The RSDLP is a Russian party, but not a Russian one.
The Bolsheviks wanted to restore the empire. But by their methods it was impossible, since a legal framework was required. And thus, they built a despotism.
The USSR was not an imperial structure, but a despotism!
Empire is an open system.
Christianity as a supranational religion could arise and spread in the Roman Empire - a supranational structure.
It doesn't matter which monotheistic religion is used to create an empire.
You can’t ask to enter Europe, you can enter Europe “under the roar of cannons and ships under construction,” as Pushkin wrote.
Peter not only built an empire, but created a matrix, including the city of St. Petersburg.
Every city structures the consciousness of the people living in it.
Saint Petersburg is an imperial city.
The Bolsheviks, breaking the empire, transfer the capital to Moscow. Moscow despotism appeared instead of the Russian empire.
Despotism does not tolerate people who offer something of themselves, but only requires submission.
Modern Russia is not an empire.
Orthodoxy now really holds together the state of Russia.
There is no exact knowledge in history. The philosophy of history is a form of false consciousness.
Russia has imperial qualities.
Today Russia is being created as nation state with ethnic Russian identity and with a typical ethnic religion - Orthodoxy. It is an isolating identity, not of an imperial type, that rejects everyone else.
At the end of the twentieth century, the expansion of peoples began. Peoples, cultures began to go beyond state borders. World diasporas began to form, which are not assimilated, but isolated from the local population, forming their own trading posts (“Chinatowns”).
World diasporas associated with the mother country form imperial structures that go beyond national borders. This is a new type of state, based not on the totality of territories, but on the totality of citizens. Citizenship is key. This new version imperial existence.
There is an expansion of diasporas.
In the European Union, 8 million Russians are the largest diaspora.
The critical mass of imperial components is important, when an empire can arise even without an emperor, with multi-confessionalism or a large mass of the population.
The democratic state is the idea of mechanical statehood of equal individuals.
The empire belongs to organic statehood, the essence of which is in connection with the transcendent.
The meaning of the existence of an empire is that there is always a certain beginning for which it is worth living without deriving practical benefit from it - something turned into eternity.
I ASKED TWO QUESTIONS:
1 Today we see two empires: the European Union and the United States of America. What is the place of Russia between these two empires - between the "hammer" and the "anvil"?
2 If the city structures consciousness, then how has the power changed with the presence of Petersburgers in it?
MY OPINION ON THIS ISSUE IS THE FOLLOWING:
Immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was called the "evil empire", the United States became the hegemon in the world, and the attitude towards the concept of empire changed to a positive one.
One can argue whether the Soviet Union was an empire or not, but it is important that the peoples lived in peace, there was no xenophobia. And in this sense, the USSR for the common man was a prosperous country.
What's for ordinary people means empire? This is the absence of borders and customs, a single space for the dissemination of information and culture, a single labor market, freedom of movement, common rules for all.
The national elites ruined the country of the USSR. Now everyone has their own ministry of foreign affairs, their own embassies, their own ambassadors. And all these freeloaders should be fed by a simple person.
Nation states are an invention of national elites to exercise their dominance within their state.
Elites are fighting, and people are dying!
At one time, Lenin was warned that the right of nations to self-determination would lead to the collapse of the country. And so it happened.
To avoid the sad experience of the collapse of the USSR, Russia is being built as a nation state. This is served by the division into seven federal districts, and the United Russia party.
The Roman Empire certainly gave impetus to the development of the conquered peoples. Roman roads still exist, for more than two thousand years.
Roman law served as a catalyst for the development of legal consciousness on the outskirts of the empire.
An important feature of the Roman Empire was that it did not suppress national cultures and respected foreign gods, did not fight with national traditions.
Obviously, if there had been no Roman Empire, then Christianity would not have become a world religion.
If there were no Roman law, then Jesus of Nazareth would have been killed without trial or investigation.
All empires were based on religious tolerance. But even in the Roman Empire there was religious enmity. This is well shown in the new film directed by Alejandro Amenabar "Agora".
The world strives for unity. But on what basis is this unity possible? Either on the basis of strength or brotherhood. The idea of personal enrichment will not be able to rally people!
It is impossible to unite by loving yourself more than others. The soul feels the need for sacrificial service, and not for selfish enrichment. Therefore, it is natural that unification is possible only on the basis of a sense of brotherhood as an expression of equality and love.
What will be the global empire of the future?
The idea of globalism is the idea of uniting the world. But on what principles will it be built?
The rejection of the principles of globalization leads to the opposite effect - gloCAlization.
No one will give up their advantages for the sake of others. Inequality will persist and always will. There will always be servants and there will always be managers, as there will always be those who find it easier to execute than to think and make decisions. And the work of the leader will never cost less than the work of the performer. Hence the inequality. This, however, does not mean that everyone will want to become leaders.
So everything again rests on individual differences that were, are and will always be.
The only question is how to make this system fair so that it does not lead to conflicts and wars. So that everyone gets what they deserve and does not consider themselves offended. Although, I dare to assume, offended will always be.
Economically, the world may be united, but spiritually it is unlikely. And this is good. Because diversity is the source of development.
A new paradigm is needed as an alternative to the consumer economy; altruistic consumption as opposed to "simulative" consumption.
In fact, we are talking about the future fair structure of the world based on fair social communities.
The question is who will offer a fairer and more satisfying social model with the greatest development potential. A model in which global goals will be linked to individual goals and meanings of existence, taking into account religious and ethnic characteristics.
Or is this another utopia, and the war for the dominance of one over the other will divide humanity into ethnic "corners"?
Either the model of domination-submission, leading to inevitable self-destruction; or a model of solidarity and cooperation.
Of course, the future lies in cooperation. But the thirst for domination and submission is in human nature, and this cannot be ignored.
Solidarity can only be based on justice.
Patriotism is love for one's own, and nationalism is hatred for strangers.
You need to love all people, not selectively Russians or Americans.
Remaining a citizen of one's country, one must be a citizen of the world in one's soul.
I am a Russian citizen of the world!
This is not the topic of succession (the question does not say anything about this) - this is the topic of a single country that has one history, one people (with many nationalities inside), one culture, one language, one memory, one land. Where did today's Russia come from? From nonexistence? We are the direct descendants and heirs of Russia before 1917, in 1917 and after it. We are prisoners of this past, but the future of the country depends on us.
It's not about states (although there is a lot in common), but about people, their lives, their ideas, the change of generations. The continuity is best seen in the old cemeteries, in the crypts of the Dormition Cathedral in the Kremlin and the Peter and Paul Fortress.
If we talk about continuity precisely in terms of the activities of states, it is hard not to see that today's Russia has entered the trajectory of the 1880s-90s in its main forms. (I'm not talking about the volume of GDP).
It is impossible to answer such a question in one word. Of course, just say yes. If we are talking about bureaucracy, then the modern bureaucratic language, the traditions of decision-making took shape in the 19th century. Our modern ideas about modernization and industrialization go back to the image of the future, which was relevant for a subject of the Russian Empire in the 19th century. All the usual ideological trends - liberalism, socialism, conservatism - finally took shape in the 19th century. Finally, Russian culture, the Russian language, Russian literature are products of the century before last. At least for this reason Russian Federation in its modern form is the legal successor of the Russian Empire.
However, the Russian Empire was still very different from modern Russia - and not only in size. It was a much more complex phenomenon. The Russian Empire was full sense of this word a multinational and multi-religious power. Russians did not make up the majority of the country's population (44%). Orthodox were the majority, but not overwhelming (about 70% together with the Old Believers). The empire was complex. Many of its outskirts required a special management regime. Under such circumstances, there could not be a single legal space. Those legal norms by which the Kingdom of Poland lived (after the uprising of 1863-1864 - the Vistula provinces) date back to Napoleonic times. In the Baltic provinces (the territories of modern Estonia and Latvia), the legislation of the times of Swedish rule partially remained. Finally, estates lived in different legal dimensions. So, the peasantry was mainly judged according to the norms of customary law, rarely encountering the crown court. The merchants, the Cossacks had their own self-governing bodies ... The clergy, the military personnel had their own court. Russia was very different.
Secondly, Russia XIX century is distinguished by the existence of society - not in the sociological, but in the political science sense of the word, when society itself recognizes itself as such. When it is not a cog in a huge state machine, but claims to be self-sufficient. Such a society began to take shape in Russia as early as the end of the 18th century; during the 19th it became more complex, increased in numbers, democratized and demanded more and more for itself and for the country. At first it was very small, then it amounted to a few percent of the population of Russia, but nevertheless, these were the percentages that turned out to be capable of self-organization. These were the leaders of the zemstvo, city self-government, journalists, and, finally, more and more numerous readers of periodicals. It is difficult to say whether there was a civil society in the Russian Empire, but its elements undoubtedly took place. This is a fundamental difference between the long 19th century, which ended in 1917.
Thirdly, the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century is a dynamically developing country, and from different points of view. Usually in this connection they talk about the economy. This is true because in the 1910s Russia ranked first in terms of growth rates. No less significant is the demographic factor. According to the results of the 1897 census, the population of Russia was more than 126 million people, and by 1914, according to minimal estimates, it was about 166.5 million. In this relatively short period of time, the population of Russia increased by 40 million people. This created both opportunities and challenges at the same time. Russia is a very young country. A significant part of its population were children and adolescents who were dependent on their parents. A growing population, among other things, is a shrinking peasant allotment. The growing population is a contradiction within the community, when it was not rich and poor peasants who most often clashed, but older and younger representatives of the rural "world". This is a big challenge during the First World War, when it is very difficult to resolve the question: who will you mobilize into the army, because a significant part of the population were those who were not subject to conscription? In addition, this left an imprint on the political life of Russia, because a huge role in the activities of the radical left, socialist parties young people played. Gymnasium students, students, and just students of various educational institutions formed the core of these organizations. Russian politics at the beginning of the 20th century were largely made by young people.
Finally, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century is a very fashionable country. People loved to talk about Russia, write plays, stage performances in Western Europe and North America. Russian ballet, Russian music, painting, literature - this is what they continue to talk about until now. But at that time it was modern, "actual" art, perceived throughout Europe as something fundamentally new, like a breath of fresh air. This also applies Russian science. It is enough to recall the achievements of Russian physiology of that time: the works of Mechnikov, Pavlov, Bekhterev…
All this testifies to the amazing dynamics of growth, which could be converted into a variety of phenomena - both in progress and in revolution.
To this and other user questionsTheQuestionabout the structure of the late Russian Empire, I answered during the presentation of my book .
The modern Russian Federation is the successor state of the USSR. And then there's the issue of succession. Soviet Union and the Russian Empire is highly controversial and ambiguous.
The fact is that the historical continuity with tsarist regime the Bolsheviks, of course, strongly rejected. The Soviet doctrine of international law did not recognize succession from the Russian Empire by virtue of rebus sic stantibus (significant change of circumstances). However, the fact that the soviets have assumed some property rights and the obligations of imperial Russia may indicate that between these states, legal continuity did exist. For example, Articles 3 and 4 of the General Treaty between the USSR and Great Britain signed in August 1924 indicated bilateral and multilateral treaties concluded by the Russian Empire and Great Britain, which were recognized as having remained in force.
Other examples confirming that there is a certain "chain" of succession between the Republic of Ingushetia, the USSR and the Russian Federation, can be considered the fact that the USSR recognized the validity of the Hague Conventions ratified by St. paid with France for the debts of the Russian Empire.
Russia is the legal successor of the USSR. The USSR refused to recognize any debts and obligations of the Russian Empire, respectively, the USSR is not the successor of the Republic of Ingushetia. So yes, the only connection between the Republic of Ingushetia and the Russian Federation is historical and, in part, territorial.
The PS heard a story somewhere about the fact that when they came to Lenin to demand the fulfillment of the debt obligations of the tsars, he sent the demanders to those same tsars.
