Krasilnikov S. A. Repressive de-peasantization in the USSR as a research question: Approaches and search for new solutions // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2024. V.9. №1. P. 6-22.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2024-9-1-6-22

Annotation

When considering the peasant component of special settlements in Stalin’s epoch, the author proposes to combine the repressive paradigm with the socially transformative one, which leads to the idea of repressive de-peasantization. This term focuses on the peasantry and peasant families deportation to special settlements as a state policy based on coercion, violence and discipline through punishment, which resulted in the loss of the most basic values (including religious ones) by the peasantry, the deformation of labor incentives and ethos, the transformation of family models and intergenerational ties. These issues are considered in the article through their study since the late 1980s (historiographical approach). Thus, the conceptual “breakthrough” (N. A. Ivnitsky, V.Ya. Shashkov, V.N. Zemskov) limited this analysis to the records of the central authorities, and the dictate of such sources affected the historical discourse, determining the dominance of quantitative characteristics (numbers, dislocations, spheres of labor application, living conditions, etc.) and the ignorance of the implicit qualitative aspects of the exiles’ life (marginality, adaptability, excessiveness, everyday activities). Having noted the presence of terminological ‘relics’ in contemporary historical works (“raskulachivanie”, or de-kulakization, “legal status”, etc.), the author emphasizes the need to consider such qualitative concepts as “regulation of special settlements”, “hierarchy of exiles”, “intergenerational ties and conflicts”, and “the price of repression”. As the basis of de-peasantization, the social-professional mobility of the exiled peasantry, including to other strata (workers, employees), was generally leveled by its regime status.

Keywords

Forced de-peasantization, dynamics of research, peasant family, exile, special settlement regime, mobility, marginalization.

About the author

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

The article was submitted on 06.12.2023.

Ershov A.M. International typologies of rural areas // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 41-53.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-41-53

Annotation

The article presents international, mainly European, typologies of rural areas, focusing on the features and differences in the criteria for identifying ‘rural’ territories in the European Union. The author explains the reasons for the need for more comprehensive typologies based on the transport accessibility of the territory, trajectories of its transformation, and macro-regional characteristics. The article considers the main methodological difficulties in developing a universal typology of rural areas for all regions of the world and emphasizes differences in the indicators and their threshold values used for typologies and in the levels of administrative-territorial analysis. The author provides references that reflect the methodological foundations of contemporary national typologies and mentions scientific innovations used in such research works. Finally, the article identifies the main common features of the presented typologies, focusing on their methodological limitations.

Keywords

Rural areas, international typologies, spatial differentiation, types of rural areas, assessment methods, rural-urban continuum, transition zones, identification criteria.

About the author

Ershov Alexey M., PhD Student, Department of Economic and Social Geography of Russia, Faculty of Geography, Lomonosov Moscow State University; Leninskie Gory, 1, Moscow, 119991.
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

Nikulin Alexander M., 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.

Trotsuk Irina V., 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. 

Chayanov A.V. A short review of the centers of economic thought in the field of agriculture in Europe and other countries (based on the book exchange and scientific correspondence of the Institute of Agricultural Economics) (Article of A.V. Chayanov) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 10-22.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-10-22

Annotation

In 2024, it will be 125 years since the establishment of the Higher Seminary of Agricultural Economics and Policy at the Petrovsky Agricultural Academy, which was later transformed into the famous Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (RIAE) headed in the 1920s by A. V. Chayanov. His article “A short review of the centers of economic thought in the field of agriculture in Europe and other countries”, published in the Bulletin of the Research Institute of Agricultural Economics in 1927, is presented for the English-speaking reader for the first time. Chayanov provides a brief description of the most important centers of the agrarian economic thought, including those with whom the Institute managed to establish correspondence and book exchange, and concludes the review with a conditional classification of trends in the science of organizing agricultural production in the 1920s. Certainly, this long list of scientific institutions and research partners was to prove the high importance and usefulness of the Institute for strengthening the prestige of the Soviet science and Soviet Russia in the international arena. However, fate decreed otherwise: in 1928, Chayanov was removed from the leadership position; in 1929, the Institute was reorganized and merged with the Institute of Large-Scale Economy into the Institute for Organizing Large-Scale Economy and Agricultural Economics; in 1930, after the final removal of Chayanov from the scientific staff, this new Institute was transformed into the Collective Farm Institute. Thus, all international contacts were cut off; Chayanov’s Institute, which united researchers with different approaches and views on the object and tasks of agricultural economics as a scientific discipline, was destroyed, and Chayanov’s materials on international relations, ironically, formed the basis for the future work scenario of the punitive authorities (as follows from Chayanov’s interrogations by the Chief of the Secret Department of the Joint State Political Directorate (OGPU) Ya.S. Agranov).
The English translation of the concept “agricultural economy” used by Chayanov for the field of scientific knowledge is still debatable. According to specialists in the history of economic thought and in Chayanov’s works, there are two options: agricultural economics and agricultural economy. It was suggested that the term “agricultural economy” would more accurately reflect the diversity of approaches in the Soviet agrarian-economic thought of the 1920s: general economic theory (applied to agriculture) in its interpretation by the world science of the 1920s; technical and technological (agronomic) approaches to organizing the economy; theory and practice of agricultural policy with an emphasis on its social aspect; accounting and taxation. We should not understand “economy” as anything else than a historical, outdated by the end of the 19th century synonym for economic science, which in the late 19th — early 20th centuries was abandoned in favor of “economics” all around the world, including in Russia (B.D. Brutskus, N.N. Kazhanov, A. I. Skvortsov, A. F. Fortunatov, etc.). Thus, in 1925, the title of the famous work by G. A. Studensky was translated by the publisher in English as Outlines of Agricultural Economics. In other words, “economics” is just the name of economic science and cannot be reduced to A. Marshall’s ideas; therefore, the term “economy” interferes with the correct understanding of Chayanov’s text by the English-speaking reader, providing wrong connotations with real economic phenomena — industry and economy.
The text is provided with notes that clarify and supplement facts mentioned by Chayanov. Editor’s notes are marked as Ed.

Keywords

A. V. Chayanov, Research Institute of Agricultural Economics (RIAE), centers of the agrarian economic thought, Soviet science, international contacts.

About the authors

Chayanov Alexander V.
Afanasenkov Vladislav O. (publisher), Senior Researcher, Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences; Junior Researcher, Research Centre for Economic and Social History, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82, Moscow, 119571, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Rogozin D.M. Peasant son Anton Bolshakov (1887–1941): A scientific obituary of the executed historian, sociologist and local historian // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №3. P. 27-45.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-3-27-45

Annotation

The article presents a scientific biography of the outstanding Russian historian, sociologist and local historian Anton Mikhailovich Bolshakov (1887–1941). The author outlines the milestones of his scientific career: from historical research to the ethnographic and local-historical descriptions of the Soviet village. The most fruitful, productive period of his scientific activity was in the 1920s, when the NEP provided new opportunities not only for entrepreneurs but also for researchers and activists — to realize their intentions and strengths. Despite poverty, censorship and partisanship of the mass media and science, the 1920s were a golden time for the Soviet humanitarian thought and social research. The article identifies three most important directions in Bolshakov’s scientific work: (1) expansion of historical knowledge through the systematic development of related disciplines; (2) promotion of economic history as a collection of documents, statistical analysis and observations; (3) development of rural sociology as a regular observation of the peasantry’s life. Despite attempts to adapt to the Soviet regime’s demands for control and supervision, Bolshakov failed to avoid repression, and he realized the tragedy and ambiguity of his situation. On March 6, 1939, he was arrested, convicted by the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union on charges of participation in the counter-revolutionary terrorist organization, sentenced to death on July 9, 1941, and executed on July 27, 1941. Bolshakov was rehabilitated on September 1, 1956, by the decision of the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Soviet Union 15 years later.

Keywords

History of the Russian sociology of the 1920s, historical sociology, peasant studies, rural sociology, economic history.

About the author

Rogozin Dmitry M., PhD (Sociology), Head of the Center for Field Research, Institute of Social Analysis and Forecasting, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prechistenskaya Nab., 11, bldg. 1, Moscow, 119034, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Gordon A.V. The phenomenon of protest in peasant culture // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №3. P. 6-26.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-3-6-26

Annotation

The article considers peasant protests as a form of the peasantry’s life activity in pre-capitalist class societies, which is not adequately interpreted in popular approaches that emphasize the antagonistic nature of such societies, ignore the possibilities of non-antagonistic interaction of social subjects, absolutize the factor of cruel exploitation of peasants, ignoring the certain success of their resistance. Features of peasant protest are determined by the nature of the peasantry as a social community both autonomous and dependent on macro-social environment (‘part-society, part-culture’, according to A. Kreber, R. Redfield). The combination of autonomy and dependence developed in ancient times as a part of the worldview of primitive agricultural societies. Anthropologists consider the so-called gift-exchange relations of such societies with powerful external forces, whose favor was achieved in exchange for a certain part of peasant produce. The mythologeme of a peculiar balance of services according to the ancient principle of do ut des was preserved by the so-called patriarchal worldview in class societies, while the balance was maintained by the everyday peasant resistance to the excessive seizure of their produce and to the gross personal oppression. Such resistance, conceptualized by J. Scott as ‘weapons of the weak’, implied sabotage of landlords’ orders, their untimely or improper execution, theft or damage of masters’ property. An open fight or rebellion meant the exhaustion of the potential for nonviolent resistance. Protesters sought to restore what they considered to be a just order with extreme forms of disobedience: from plowing masters’ land and cutting down forests to direct vandalism and looting, including plundering masters’ property, setting fire to homesteads, mocking or even killing masters and those representing for peasants the order they hated. The highest form of traditional social protest — peasant wars — led to devastation of entire regions and numerous casualties. However, given the power of their traditional worldview, peasants wanted to replace the ruler who had lost legitimacy but not to destroy social hierarchy — in order to restore the autonomy of the communal order and the rights to manage land. Peasant revolutionary ideas were the result of the destruction of the traditional worldview which was undermined by the introduction of egalitarian, socialist, and anarchist ideologemes ‘from outside’.

Keywords

Peasant movement, peasant culture, peasant war, social protest, nonviolent resistance, rebellion, revolution in Russia, V. I. Lenin.

About the author

Gordon Alexander V., DSc (History), Chief Researcher, Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences, Russian Academy of Sciences, Nakhimovsky prosp., 51/21, Moscow, 117418, Russia.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Didenko D.V. How demographic shocks affected the production-factor income and the institutional path of the Russian pre-industrial economy // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №2. P. 6-20.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-2-6-20

Annotation

The author considers several Russian cases of population-loss shocks in the 14th — 17th centuries and their consequences for the production-factor markets, comparing them with those in England. The article aims at verifying theoretical ideas and at tracing the institutional path of mediaeval Russia’s development based on the empirical data represented in the research works, two chronicles and the legal act (Code of 1649). The author’s review of narratives and statistical data contributes to the historical comparative studies of economic systems and of the path dependence in the institutional economic history. The article contributes to the explanation of the causes of the ‘Little Divergence’ between (North)western and (South)eastern Europe in the 15th — 19th centuries, and of the roots of the ‘Great Divergence’ between Europe and Asia in the 18th — 20th centuries. The author argues that the empirical evidence from the Soviet Marxist economic historiography is consistent with the recent findings of the neo-Malthusian structural-demographic theory supported by the Cliodynamics school of quantitative history. After the shocks, wages rose in Russia just as in England. The dynamics of the skill premia highlights the background for formation of human capital ingredients in the bowels of the pre-industrial societies. Contrary to England, serfdom, one of the most extractive institutions, remained in Russia as a response of landlords to the pressure from the disadvantageous combination of production-factor incomes, which led to an increase in land rent to wage ratio and to reliance on land-saving (versus labour-saving) technologies in agriculture.

Keywords

Land rent, real wage, skill premia, Black Death, Time of Troubles, serfdom, Malthusian growth regime, structural-demographic theory.

About the author

Didenko Dmitry V., DSc (Economics), PhD (History), Leading Researcher, Centre for Studies in Economic and Social History; Professor, Department of Social and Economic History, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. Prosp. Vernadskogo, 82, Moscow, 119571.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Chayanov A.V. Reports “Popular readings’ method”; “Characteristics and general requirements for visualization” (Reports of A.V. Chayanov) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №1. P. 11-22.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-1-11-22

Annotation

The author presents two A. V. Chayanov’s reports on the methodology for disseminating agronomic knowledge among the peasantry — “Popular readings’ method” and “Characteristics and general requirements for visualization”. Chayanov’s presentations were made at the meetings of the Circle of Social Agronomy of the Moscow Agricultural Institute in 1914–1915 and became the basis of the chapter in his book Main Ideas and Methods of Social Agronomy.

Keywords

A. V. Chayanov, Moscow Agricultural Institute, social agronomy, visual aids, poster.

About the authors

Chayanov Alexander V.
Savinova Tatyana A., PhD (Economics), Head of the Department, Russian State Archive of Economy (RGAE). Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., 17, Moscow, 119435.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Korandei F.S. Rural wastelands: Places of belonging and “ghosts” cartography of the rural depopulation landscape // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №1. P. 23-44.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-1-23-44

Annotation

The interpretation of the walking interviews, which were conducted in the rural Iset Region in the summer of 2022, allowed the author to identify “places of belonging” (Yi-Fu Tuan’s term) in the rural depopulation landscape, which are hardly noticeable to any external observer but are extremely important for local residents. The author uses the post-phenomenological optics of social sciences, which defines the cultural everyday landscape as a single process of mutual transformation that generates both personal experience and forms of sociality. The second theoretical basis of the article is the cultural geography works on the connections between everyday landscape and human memory, in particular the “ghosts geography”, and the thin line between the present and the absent in both everyday landscapes and narratives about them. The author’s method is walking interviews with local residents in open areas. The article aims at showing the possibilities of the simultaneous transcription and subsequent mapping of the walking interviews’ archives. The cases considered in the main part of the article focus on the structuring role of “places of belonging” in the standard narrative. As walking interviews show, it is the presentation of local places to a newcomer as important for the daily life of local people but hardly noticeable to outsiders that forms the basis of the typical go-along narratives. Thus, places out of active everyday use but with great emotional and vital significance for local communities acquire the status of “ghosts” — fragments of the past involved in the today’s life of the depopulating rural settlement.

Keywords

“Places of belonging’, walking interviews, place, rural depopulation, everyday cultural landscape, “ghosts” geography, cultural geography, social anthropology.

About the author

Korandei Fedor S., PhD (History), Senior Researcher, Laboratory of Historical Geography and Regional Studies, Tyumen State University. Volodarskogo St., 6, Tyumen, 625003.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Savinova T.A. “Everything conceivable can be an issue of science” // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №1. P. 6-10.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-1-6-10

Annotation

The author presents two A. V. Chayanov’s reports on the methodology for disseminating agronomic knowledge among the peasantry — “Popular readings’ method” and “Characteristics and general requirements for visualization”. Chayanov’s presentations were made at the meetings of the Circle of Social Agronomy of the Moscow Agricultural Institute in 1914–1915 and became the basis of the chapter in his book Main Ideas and Methods of Social Agronomy.

Keywords

A. V. Chayanov, Moscow Agricultural Institute, social agronomy, visual aids, poster.

About the author

Savinova Tatyana A., PhD (Economics), Head of the Department, Russian State Archive of Economy (RGAE). Bolshaya Pirogovskaya St., 17, Moscow, 119435.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.