Kuznetsov I.A. Adventures of state capitalism in the Soviet agriculture (about one historical theory) // Rusian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 171-179

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-171-179

ISBN  978-5-9710-1312-9

Annotation

Book review: Beznin M. A., Dimoni T. M. Agrarian System of Russia in 1930–1980-ies. M.: LENAND, 2014. 608 p. (Безнин М. А., Димони Т. М. Аграрный строй России 1930–1980-х годов. М.: ЛЕНАНД, 2014. — 608 с.)

About the author

Igor A. Kuznetsov, PhD (History), Senior Researcher at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 82, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Savinova T.A. “…The case will be over by me preferring Saratov…” // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 167-170

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-167-170

Annotation

This publication introduces into the scientific discourse two letters of Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov to Nikolai Pavlovich Makarov, which help to clarify one episode of his biography related to the choice of a place of teaching and scientific work in 1917.

About the author

Tatyana A. Savinova, PhD (Economics), Chief Researcher at the Personal Funds Department of the Russian State Archive of Economy. 17, Bol'shaya Pirogovskaya Str., Moscow, 119435.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Kopoteva I.V. Civil society and civic engagement in rural Russia // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 142-166

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-142-166

Annotation

The article considers various approaches to the concept “civil society” (designed to serve the state, and therefore created on state initiative and with its support; a classical type of opposition to the government and business; Soviet-type organizations, a part of official and formal structures of the state and society), and discusses the possibilities to apply this concept to contemporary Russia. Although some scientists raise the question of whether or not there is a civil society in Russia, the author is interested in finding answers to other questions: what kind of civil society exists in Russia? Is there a rural civil society? If the answer to the last question is positive, then what are the in dicators of civil society — geography, target audience, registered social activity? The article considers examples of registered and unregistered public, non-profit organizations of different levels (federal level, e. g. ACCOR, and local level — e. g. women’s, sports and other clubs, veterans’ councils, action groups). The author discusses the criteria by which public organizations and initiative groups can be attributed to the rural civil society, and identifies two types of rural social organizations — the first possess political influence, the second focus on solving local problems by the local community members.

Keywords

Civil society, state, civil participation, Russian society, rural communities, local initiatives, non-profit and non-governmental organizations.

About the author

Inna V. Kopoteva, PhD (Geography), Senior Researcher at the Center for Agrarian Studies of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 82/5, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russian Federation 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Il’inykh V.A. The star and death of Siberian grassland farming // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 93-121

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-93-121

Annotation

The article considers the attempts to introduce the grassland farming system in Siberia in the context of the Soviet agricultural policy and the ideological and theoretical struggle in the agronomy. In the early xx century in Siberia, there was a threat of the transition from the fallow farming to the three-field system, which could lead to a crisis in the agriculture. By the mid-i920s, the leading specialists of the land authorities and government leaders of the region believed that the crisis could be prevented only by introducing the grassland farming system. At the beginning of the 1930s, this system was given up for it contradicted the task of solving the grain problem. The oblivion of agro-technological bases under the collectivization led to the decrease in soil fertility, thus, in 1937 the grassland farming was introduced in most regions of the country. Its implementation was interrupted by World War 11 and continued in the late 1940s. After the start of the virgin lands development campaign, the grassland farming was declared ineffective and rejected. After the campaign ended, the grassland farming system was not revived—the bid was made for more intensive technologies and chemicals.

Keywords

agricultural policy, farming systems, grassland farming, agricultural engineering, collective-state farms system, Siberia

About the author

Vladimir A. Il’inykh, D. Sc (History), Head of the Department of Agrarian History of the Institute of History of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. 8 Akademika Nikolaeva Str., Novosibirsk, 630090.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Contemporary Peasant Studies, and Agrarian History of Russia in the XX Century. Round table. // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 68-92

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-68-92

Annotation

This publication is a transcript of the round table dedicated to the presentation of the book “Contemporary Peasant Studies, and Agrarian History of Russia in the XX Century” that took place on March 18, 2016 at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences within the XXIII International Symposium “The Paths of Russia. North–South”. The book consists of the materials of the theoretical seminars “Modern Theories of Agrarian Development” that worked in 1992–2000 under the direction of Viktor Danilov and Teodor Shanin, made a significant contribution to the development of post-Soviet agrarian historiography, and for several decades united Russian and foreign researchers of different generations. The participants of the round table discussed the development of Russian and foreign Peasant Studies in the 1960s — 1990s, their current state, problems and prospects. In particular, it was repeatedly noted that one can argue about whether or not there are real peasants in today’s Russia, however, there is no doubt about the preservation of peasant consciousness features in the Russian population. The round table participants shared their personal memories about theoretical seminars of Shanin-Danilov, their experience of the field anthropological and sociological research and scientific discussions.

Keywords

Peasant Studies, agrarian seminar, peasantry, rural sociology, agrarian history, Russian history, post-Soviet agrarian historiography

Participants

Участники круглого стола: Валерий Георгиевич Виноградский, д-р филос. наук, Институт аграрных проблем РАН (Саратов); Александр Владимирович Гордон, д-р  ист. наук, профессор, ИНИОН  РАН ; Василий Васильевич Зверев, д-р ист. наук, профессор РАНХиГС ; Николай Алексеевич Ивницкий, д-р ист. наук, профессор; Виктор Викторович Кондрашин, д-р ист. наук, профессор, член Совета Федерации (Пенза); Авенир Павлович Корелин, д-р ист. наук, профессор, ИРИ РАН ; Павел Петрович Марченя, канд. ист. наук, Московский университет МВД России; Сергей Анатольевич Никольский, д-р филос. наук, профессор, ИФ РАН ; Сергей Юрьевич Разин, Институт гуманитарного образования и информационных технологий;  Игорь Николаевич Слепнёв, канд. ист. наук, РГНФ ; Сергей Иванович Толстов, канд. ист. наук (Томск);  Теодор Шанин,  профессор,  Манчестерский  университет,  Московская  высшая школа социальных и экономических наук; Галина Александровна Ястребинская, канд.  экон.  наук,  Всероссийский  институт  аграрных  проблем  и  информатики.  Ведущий — редактор  книги  «Современное  крестьяноведение  и  аграрная  история  России  в XX веке» д-р ист. наук, профессор РАНХиГС Владимир Валентинович Бабашкин.

Domnikov S.D. Forms of life and landscapes of culture. // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 38-67.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-38-67

Annotation

The author considers a complex system of man-landscape relationship as a starting point of worldview formation and a primary condition for the development of cultural traditions. This basic level of social and environmental organization is presented as a space-technological and adaptiv e environmental system, which is constructed by the relations of man with the landscape and by a set of external world objects that are vitally important and culturally significant for human existence. The main function of culture is adaptive, whereas the landscape plays an active role in designing human world, i. e. in acquiring basic economic skills, technology development, and related programs and life strategies. The author believes that the historically accurate models of culture embody typologically different forms of social landscape and organize spatiotemporally the local ‘life-worlds’”; for instance, the classic landscape embraces the space of “the lack of the Other”. The author focuses on the genesis of the agrarian cultural tradition, and considers the relationship of two discourses — existential-phenomenological philosophy and philosophical anthropology. The article follows the general evolution of the classical anthropology with the distinction of dzōon (living being) and bios (life form), which led to the problematization of “symbolic forms” (E. Cassirer).

Keywords

totemism, anthropology, form of life, form of culture, symbolic form, cultural landscape

About the author

Sergey D. Domnikov, PhD (History), Senior Researcher at the Department of Philosophy of Culture of the Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 
12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow, 109240.
E-mail: domino‑This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Wegren S. Нousehold Inequality and Village Discord: Toward a Post-Socialist Moral Economy // Russian Peasant Studies. 2016. V.1. №1. P. 122-141

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2016-1-1-122-141

Annotation

The author believes that rural Russia is much more unequal today than during the Soviet period in terms of income and wealth (land). The article describes three periods in the XX century, when rural Russia experienced a significant upheaval in the economic interaction between peasants and their means of production: the Stolypin reform of 1906–1911, the Stalin’s collectivization, and the ending of the Soviet system in the early 1990s. The author analyzes the effects of the market revolution that came with the end of Soviet rule and facilitated the growth of village inequality, and focuses on intra-village relations between different economic strata. The paper has several goals: to quantify the growth in household inequality; to examine intra-village relationships between “rich” and “poor” households; to explore whether high-income households feel communality with the village community. To analyze the level of village discord, the author uses survey data from a geographically diverse sample of 900 rural households. The article argues that the post-socialist moral economy is not based upon state regulated income levels or wealth holdings—rather on opportunity and economic freedom bounded mainly by the energy, willpower, capabilities and adaptability of household members.

Keywords

Village stability, household inequality, village conflict, high- and low-income households, (post-socialist) moral economy, means of production.

About the author

Stephen Wegren, Professor of Political Science at the Southern Methodist University. Dallas, Texas, 75275, USA. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

EDITORIAL BOARD

Judith Pallot, chairman, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (SCOPUS Profile)
Alexander M. Nikulin, Editor in Chief, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Marina G. Pugacheva, Executive Secretary, Intercenter, High School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Irina V. Trotsuk, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, RANEPA, Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Igor A. Kuznetsov, RANEPA, Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS Profile)
Peter Lindner, University of Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany (SCOPUS profile)
Tatyana G. Nefedova, Institute of Geography of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Olga P. Fadeeva, Institute of Economics and Industrial Engineering of Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Natalia I. Shagaida, RANEPA, Moscow, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
Sergio Schneider, University of Rio Grande do Sul, Portu Alegri, Brazil (SCOPUS profile)

EDITORIAL COUNCIL

Alexander I. Alekseev, Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation
Vladimir B. Bezgin, Tambov State Technical University, Tambov, Russian Federation (SCOPUS profile)
David Celetti , University of Padua, Padua, Italy
Saturnino ('Jun') M. Borras Jr., Institute for Social Research, The Hague, The Netherlands (SCOPUS profile)
Stephen K. Wegren, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
Valery G. Vinogradsky, RANEPA, Saratov, Russian Federation
Alexey V. Gordeev, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
Alexander V. Gordon, INION RAS, Moscow, Russian Federation
Vladimir A. Il’inykh, Institute of History SB RAS, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Kim Chang Jin, SungKongHoe University, Seoul, South Korea
Viktor V. Kondrashin, Penza State University, Penza, Russian Federation
Alexander A. Kurakin, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation
Sebastian Lentz, Institute for Social Geography, Leipzig, Germany (SCOPUS profile)
Stephan Merl, Bielefeld University, Germany
Alexander V. Petrikov, VIAPI them. A. Nikonova, Moscow, Russian Federation
Helena A. Potekhina, University of Warmia and Mazury, Olsztyn, Poland
Alexander D. Radygin, RANEPA, Moscow, Russian Federation
Sudhir Kumar Suthar, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
Vasily Y. Uzun, RANEPA, Moscow, Russian Federation
Jingzhong Ye, Beijing Agricultural University, Beijing, PRC (SCOPUS profile)

This page is under construction

User #1