Sharapov S.V. Informal (expolar) economy of the collective-farm village in Western Siberia in 1939–1953 // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2026. V.11. №1. P. 72-88.

EDN: GEDQPV

Annotation

The author applies T. Shanin’s concept of expolar economy to analyze the ways in which the collective-farm village adapted to the new round of the state mobilization policy in 1939–1953. The article presents various ways of craft resources “penetration” (including land, money, labor and draught power, inventory, equipment, machinery, livestock and all kinds of agricultural products) into the informal sector. They were unevenly redistributed among many “recipients” — local government structures, individual officials, non-agricultural enterprises, top management of collective farms, and peasants. The informal economy provided the state with an invaluable service by compensating for the shortcomings of centralized management, eliminating the gaps in the goods exchange between the city and the countryside, thus reducing the severity of food crisis and shortages of goods in both urban and rural areas. Resources outside the state control allowed collective farms to perform social assistance functions that the state did not provide to the peasantry. The collective-farm economy was rooted in the peasant social life. The expolar ties that held the collective-farm society together helped peasants survive under the aggressive mobilization policies of the state. 

Keywords

Collective farms, peasantry, survival, adaptation, agrarian policy, mobilization.  

About the author

Sergey V. Sharapov, PhD (History), Researcher, Institute of History, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Nikolaeva St., 8, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Lyapin D.A. Soil factor and historical-geographical development of rural settlements in the Central Black-Earth Region in the 17th – early 18th centuries // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2026. V.11. №1. P. 55-71.

EDN: FIHGNB

Annotation

The article considers the location features of rural settlements in the BlackEarth Region in the 17th–18th centuries. The author focuses on the soil factor as affecting villages and hamlets in the formation of the anthropogenic landscape and on the Belgorod, Voronezh, Yeletsky, Kozlovsky and Shatsky uyezds as actively developed by the Russian population. The article is based on the data collected in the studies of rural settlements and compared on the basis of the soil type. By mapping the data, the author identifies the location features of rural settlements within the uyezds. Thus, settlements concentrated near areas with black soil were located on the banks of large and small rivers. In addition to the soil factor, military and water factors are also significant for the development of the anthropogenic landscape. In some uyezds, the military factor played a dominant role for a long time, while the soil composition was secondary. The location of settlements connected to black soil influenced the formation of new uyezds. Each uyezd relied on its own economic base — fertile black soil, which made it possible to support a large army and build military-defensive fortifications. Thus, the soil factor had a great impact on the history of the development of the Black-Earth Region, not only determining its anthropogenic landscape, but also providing food for a large army.

Keywords

Soils, black earth, peasantry, small landowners, rural settlements, historicalgeographical features, economic development, census books, Belgorod uyezd, Voronezh uyezd, Kozlovsky uyezd, Shatsky uyezd.  

About the author

Denis A. Lyapin, DSC (History), Leading Researcher, Bunin Yelets State University. Kommunarov St., 28, Yelets, Lipetsk Region, 399770, Russia. 
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Brutskus B.D. Agricultural Economy: National-Economic Foundations. Chapter 14. General Principles of Agricultural Cooperation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2026. V.11. №1. P. 6-24.

EDN: DORWDB

Annotation

This is an English translation of Chapter 14 “General Principles of Agricultural Cooperation” from the textbook published in Russian by the agricultural economist B. D. Brutskus in Germany in 1923. Boris Davidovich Brutskus (1874–1938), a liberal economist, always emphasized the importance of the multi-structured national economy in which various social institutions can have goals and values   different from those of entrepreneurial enterprises of the capitalist market economy. Brutskus recognized the specificity of agriculture compared to other economic sectors, in particular the different organization of the peasant economy and the capitalist enterprise. Thus, he was a like-minded colleague of scholars from Alexander Vasilyevich Chayanov’s organization-production school. The Soviet government declared Brutskus a reactionary bourgeois economist and expelled him from the USSR in 1922 for his profound and witty critique of the political-economic foundations of the socialist economy.
While in exile, Brutskus presented his agrarian-economic views as a textbook on agricultural economy. In both Tsarist Russia and Soviet Russia of the 1920s as a primarily agrarian country, such textbooks were very popular. Brutskus’s textbook had two distinctive features: first, since the author was an agronomist by basic education, he placed a strong emphasis on agricultural biological processes in relation to agrarian economy; second, two final chapters of the textbook focused on agricultural cooperation, which was also unusual for textbooks that certainly included information about cooperation, but not in such large volumes and not in such a structured manner. 
Brutskus’s textbook attracted attention not only in the Russian emigrant community, but also in Soviet Russia, where it was reprinted and widely used in universities until the start of collectivization in 1929, despite the fact that the author was in exile and had been declared an enemy of Soviet power. However, in the USSR the textbook was published without two last chapters on cooperation due to Soviet censorship. Brutskus commented on this ban in the article on cooperative ideology published in the German newspaper in Russian: “Recently, the Soviet government showed minimal liberality towards my academic work. After 15 months of censorship, my course on agricultural economy was cleared for publication4... But in one respect censors showed extreme intolerance: two chapters on agricultural cooperation were cut from the first page to the last. Although there is nothing specifically political in these chapters. However, the Bolshevik censorship could not accept my description of cooperation as a unique principle of economic construction, different from socialism”5. According to Brutskus, cooperative social institutions — a special economic phenomenon, a unique third force, different from institutions of both capitalist and state-controlled, socialist economies; however, cooperation always faces the risk of being incorporated and absorbed by both market entrepreneurship and state bureaucracy. The past hundred years seem to have convincingly confirmed many of Brutskus’s ideas of cooperation and his concerns about the distorting influence of both capitalism and socialism on cooperation. We publish this chapter from Brutskus’s book in English as a still-relevant example of the classic legacy of Chayanov’s school from its golden age.

Keywords

Cooperation, agrarian policy, market, peasantry, capitalism, socialism.  

About the authors

Boris D. Brutskus

Alexander M. Nikulin (publisher), PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Irina V. Trotsuk (translator), DSc (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp, 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Isyangulov Sh. N. Family divisions in the South Ural village in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centuries // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2025. V.10. №4. P. 72-91.

EDN: HATXCK

Annotation

The article considers the dynamics of family divisions in rural areas of the Orenburg and Ufa Provinces in the second half of the 19th — early 20th centurits. The author shows that most family divisions in the Southern Urals in the post-reform period were carried out without the permission of the rural assembly, and legislative measures could not stop fragmentation of farms. The author presents the prevalence rate of family divisions (per 1,000 average annual population) among various groups of the peasantry in the Ufa Province in 1880. Bashkirs, free grain farmers and mining peasants had the highest rate of family divisions, former landowner peasants had the lowest, while the figures for the former state and specific peasants turned out to be average. The article explains the main reasons for family divisions as described in the sources: quarrels, cramped quarters and polygamy boiled down to the natural cycle of family development. The author emphasizes that military and political factors had a great influence on the rate of family divisions, whether it was the peasant reform of 1861, introduction of universal military service in 1874, Stolypin agrarian reform, liquidation of family property or destruction of the peasant community. The deterioration of the economic situation of the peasant economy due to famine, crop failures and wars hindered the fragmentation of farms.

Keywords

Family divisions, Southern Urals, peasantry, causes, factors, rural gathering.  

About the author

Shamil N. Isyangulov, PhD (History), Senior Researcher, Department of Contemporary History of Bashkortostan, Order of Honor Institute of History, Language and Literature, Ufa Federal Research Centre of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Prosp. Oktyabrya, 71, Ufa, 450054.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Laperdin V. B. Chairmen of collective farms in Western Siberia in the 1930s: Practices of co-adaptation and maladaptation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №4. P. 144-158.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-4-144-158

Annotation

The article considers the role of the collective-farm chairman in the rural society. As the central figure of the collective farm, the chairman largely determined the degree of collective-farmers’ consolidation. At the same time, the head of the collective farm was “created” by social environment, and his behavior often reflected the collective-farm atmosphere. After becoming the head of the collective farm, the chairman realized its community’s opportunities. In a friendly atmosphere, the head acted effectively for the benefit of all. In case of conflict relations, he could more easily pursue his own interests. The peasantry adapted to the collective farm society within its communities, and successful adaptation depended on the relations between villagers and their head. At the same time, coadaptation of chairmen and collective farm collectives was also determined by social environment. In a favorable environment, both peasants and collective farm chairmen successfully adapted to new living conditions. On the contrary, conflict relations led to the maladaptation of the chairman and disintegration of the labor collective which lost its ability to economic activity and social interaction. The data presented in the article proves the key role of chairmen in collective farm collectives and describes their interaction as reflected at the economic level, in peasants’ attitude to the collective farm and in the nature of work and interpersonal communication of collective farmers.

Keywords

Agrarian history, collective farms, peasantry, collective farm society, chairman, adaptation, Siberia.

About the author

Vyacheslav B. Laperdin, PhD (History), Researcher, Institute of History, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Nikolaeva St., 8, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Titarenko E. M. Peasant cosmos of the Russian avant-garde and N. F. Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 105-118.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-105-118

Annotation

The author conducts a comparative analysis of the peasant cosmos representations in the Russian avant-garde art and of Nikolai Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism based on the works of visual art, articles, treatises, autobiographies and letters of K. Malevich, N. Goncharova, P. Filonov and V. Chekrygin. Aesthetic supra-moralism as the highest morality or “Universal Synthesis” is Fedorov’s religious-philosophical doctrine promoting the idea of cosmism as a project of world order based on the all-unity and a synthesis of science, art and religion. Avant-garde artists expressed their understanding of the human involvement in the multifaceted and complex spatial relationships through images of the peasant world. By comparing the anthropological projection of the Russian avant-garde art with Fedorov’s project of aesthetic supra-moralism, the author shows the similarity between the artistic images of peasant cosmos and the cosmic ideas about the correlation between macrocosm (universe) and microcosm (individuals). In this context, the author explains Malevich’s return to figurativeness and anthropocentrism in his second peasant cycle. The article also considers cosmic intuitions of the Russian avant-garde as related to the perception and interpretation of the sacred church space and of the nature as a temple. Feodorov’s ekphrasis of the Orthodox church describes the liturgical image of all-unity and kinship, uniting the peasant world as a cosmos. Malevich reduces this description to a color image or a feeling, in which the temple’s objectivity dissolves.

Keywords

Peasantry, Russian avant-garde of the first quarter of the 20th century, peasant cosmos in art, suprematism, K. S. Malevich, analytical art, N. F. Fedorov’s aesthetic supra-moralism, cosmism.

About the author

Evgeny M. Titarenko, PhD (Philosophy), Associate Professor, Faculty of Philology, Saint Petersburg State University; Senior Researcher, Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. Universitetskaya Nab., 7–9, Saint Petersburg, 199034, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Onosov A. A. Peasant question in the common cause philosophy // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №3. P. 7-24.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-3-7-24

Annotation

The article presents the results of the explication and analysis of the “peasant question” as one of the semantic centers of N. F. Fedorov’s common cause philosophy. In its various formulations and analytical sections, the peasant question is an ideologically complex issue of cosmism, which combines multiple antinomies of being — urban and rural, present and due, secular (universal-philistine) and sacred (cosmic-peasant). The cause-and-effect analysis of the peasant question shows that its polysemantic nature is determined by the extreme ontological tension of the main nerve of the cosmism philosophy — issues of “life and death” in its moral-family form as issues of mortal sons who lost brotherhood and universal fatherland, and as issues of fathers awaiting bodily resurrection, a rebirth. The article identifies the supra-moralistic significance of the “bread labor” — various subject-life, planetary-cosmic expressions of agriculture in civilizational practices and projective goal setting of cosmosophy. The author emphasizes that in his deep retrospective and prospective historical analysis Fedorov clearly realized the peasant essence of the question of life and was a pure pragmatist of life as immortal and perfect for all sons of men, psychocratically integrated into the “adult society”.

Keywords

N. F. Fedorov, common cause philosophy, cosmism, supra-moralism, peasantry, peasant question, agriculture, village, regulation of nature, resurrection.

About the author

Alexander A. Onosov, PhD (Philosophy), Leading Researcher, Faculty of Philosophy, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Senior Researcher, Center for Cosmism Studies, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Associate Professor, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, RUDN University. Lomonosovsky Prosp., 27–4, Moscow, 119991, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Nikulin A.M., Trotsuk I.V. Utopias of Alexander Bogdanov and Alexander Chayanov: The choice of rural-urban development and its consequences for rural human capital and social differentiation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 23-40.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-23-40

Annotation

A science-based conversation about the current state of rural areas, prospects for rural human capital and trends in rural differentiation is impossible without the conceptual approaches and futuristic projects of great Russian agrarian scientists. The article presents an attempt of comparing such ideas of two outstanding social thinkers of the early 20th century — Alexander Bogdanov and Alexander Chayanov, focusing on their utopias as representing the essential features (proletarian and peasant) of their social-economic and cultural-ethical views. Bogdanov and Chayanov had extensive encyclopedic knowledge and brilliant organizational skills; they wrote original works on social philosophy and political economy; both were prominent leaders of alternative social-political directions of the Russian Revolution. Moreover, Bogdanov and Chayanov wrote several famous utopias: Bogdanov’s utopia develops Marxist ideas of proletarian revolution and construction of socialism not only on earth but also in space; Chayanov’s utopia of moderate cooperative socialism defends the new revolutionary significance of the peasantry. The proletarian ideologist Bogdanov was skeptical about the political potential of the peasantry, arguing that opponents of proletarian revolution would use peasant conservatism against socialist revolution. The peasant ideologist Chayanov was skeptical about the creative potential of the working class, predicting that in the coming social revolution it would be used to build authoritarian-bureaucratic socialism. However, both thinkers sought prospects for rural-urban development through the analysis of possible ways of interaction between man and nature. Despite the ignorance of the positive revolutionary potential of the proletariat (Chayanov) and the peasantry (Bogdanov), both thinkers made huge contributions to the theory and practice of the Russian Revolution, and their utopian ideas still inspire the search for a new just, humane and happy world.

Keywords

A.V. Chayanov, A.A. Bogdanov, utopia, proletariat, peasantry, Marxism, corporatism, colonialism, human capital.

About the authors

Alexander M. Nikulin, PhD (Economics), Head of the Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; ViceRector for Research, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Irina V. Trotsuk, DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Department, RUDN University; Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Intercenter, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Bezgin V.B. Peasant children and adolescents in the agrarian protests of 1905–1907 // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №3. P. 63-77.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-3-63-77

Annotation

The article considers the participation of village children and adolescents in the agrarian movement of 1905– 1907 as a part of the study of the role of the “generation of revolutionary change” in the peasant revolution of 1902–1922. The study aims at the historical justification of Danilov-Shanin’s concept through generational history combined with peasant studies and interdisciplinary approach. The author focuses on the underage peasants’ participation in the agrarian turmoil of 1905–1907, based on the archival documents and media materials. Police and governor’s reports and court records show that children and adolescents participated in such forms of peasant protest as destruction and arson of landlords’ fields and estates, which is evidenced by deaths and injuries of rural children during punitive actions and by illegal actions of rural adolescents mentioned in investigative cases, court proceedings and newspaper articles. Thus, rural children were observers of protests, while rural adolescents played an active role, sometimes including the role of rioters. Such a participation of children and adolescents in the peasant movement was determined by the nature of collective actions in the peasant community and by the peasant traditional attitude to ‘alien’ property. The experience of peasant protest was used by the younger rural generation during the ‘black redistribution’ of 1917.

Keywords

“Generation of revolutionary change”, rural community, peasantry, children, adolescents, protest.

About the author

Vladimir B. Bezgin, DSc (History), Leading Researcher, Tambov State Technical University. Sovetskaya St., 106/5, Tambov, 392000.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Gorskaya N.I. Рub as a public space of the peasant world under the excise trade in Russia (1860s – 1890s) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №2. P. 21-35.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-2-21-35

Annotation

The article considers Russian rural pubs in the second half of the 19th century as a specific place of peasant meetings with the club features. The author describes rural life based on the narrative and legislative sources of the 1860s –1890s for the north-western and central agrarian provinces. By the end of the 19th century, the number of voluntary associations in Russia had significantly increased, and clubs were very popular. Until recently, clubs were considered as an exclusively social-cultural phenomenon of urban social and everyday life. In the late 19th century, the social functions of clubs widened beyond some leisure places for urban residents. In the second half of the 19th century, there was a tendency to consider pubs in rural areas not only as clubs but also as the sprouts of civil society. The article shows that pubs as a public space of peasant life had signs of urban clubs, but their functions were limited to leisure with some elements of business and communication. The traditional dichotomy of peasant life — family and community — gained additional meanings due to the expansion of peasant interaction and to the additional functionality of rural pubs. Moreover, as a phenomenon of rural life pubs represented a social anomaly (drunkenness) and absorbed some changes in the traditional way of peasant life, which reflected both the developing ties between the village and the city and the greater openness of the peasant world.

Keywords

Russia, the second half of the 19th century, peasantry, public space, excise duty, pub, club, leisure, everyday life.

About the author

Natalia I. Gorskaya, DSc (History), Professor, Department of Russian History, Faculty of History and Law, Smolensk State University. Przhevalskogo St., 4, Smolensk, 214000.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.