Trotsuk I.V. A few words about (un)certainty and its management in the rural part of the contemporary uncertain world // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 174-182.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-174-182

Annotation

Review of the book: Scoones I. (Ed.) (2023) Pastoralism, Uncertainty and Development, Rugby: Practical Action Publishing. 180 p. URL: https://practicalactionpublishing.com/ book/2667/pastoralism-uncertainty-and-development

About the author

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. Vernadskogo Prosp., 82. Moscow, 119571.
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. 

Nikulin A.M., Cañón Voirin L., Diaz-Geada A., Trotsuk I.V. Introduction. Special Issue — Differentiation in contemporary rural societies // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №4. P. 6-9.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-4-6-9

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.

Lisandro Cañón Voirin, DSc (History), Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Oviedo. C. San Francisco, 3, 33003 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Alba Diaz-Geada, PhD (History), Professor, History Department, Faculty of Humanities, University of Santiago de Compostela. Campus Terra Complexo docente do campus de Lugo, s/n, Lugo, 27002, Spain.
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. 

Shagaida N.I., Ternovsky D.S., Trotsuk I.V. Russia’s ways to ensure food security (control food prices) in 2020–2022, and their impact on consumers // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №3. P. 87-112.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-3-87-112

Annotation

This year confirmed an ambiguous situation with food security in Russia. On the one hand, the government insists on the achieved sustainable food self-sufficiency/sovereignty: “Russia is self-sufficient in all basic types of food”2 ; “the level of food security in Russia is one of the most reliable in the world”3; “the Eurasian Economic Union has reached a level of self-sufficiency in most food products (grain, vegetable oils, pork, lamb, sugar, eggs)”4. The Russian leadership admits the “very complex nature” of food sovereignty as depending on climate change, population growth, trade wars, sanctions, and so on5. However, the official discourse emphasizes that “we should not be pessimists”, “a country striving to be sovereign must provide itself with food”, and Russia solves this task so successfully that has become one of the largest food exporters. Therefore, “in 2023, food inflation in Russia will be one of the lowest in the world due to self-sufficiency in basic products” 6 and “systemic measures of anti-crisis support for enterprises and sectors that ensure food security”7 . Since mid-2020, rising prices on world markets have determined higher prices on domestic markets, and high food inflation affected many countries. In Russia, food inflation is lower compared to other regions (10% vs 19.1% in the EU or 14.9% in the OECD), and the rate of increase in food prices is lower than general inflation, while in other countries food prices became key drivers of accelerating retail prices. The article considers Russia’s measures for keeping food prices down and its population’s everyday food-consumer practices for keeping usual diet under rising prices. The survey confirmed the persistent inconsistency of Russians’ assessment of food practices, which can be explained by the trend to ‘normalize’ one’s life situation in general and in its most essential part (daily diet) in particular. 

Keywords

Rising food prices, foreign and domestic markets, food inflation, food prices volatility, food (in)security, (everyday) food-consumer practices, economic and physical access to food, sociological data.

About the authors

Shagaida Natalia I., DSc (Economics), Head of the Center for Agro-Food Policy, 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.
Ternovsky Denis S., DSc (Economics), Senior Researcher, Center for Agro-Food Policy, 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.
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. 119571, Moscow, Vernadskogo Prosp., 82.
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 

Trotsuk I.V. Agroholding – great and terrible? // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2023. V.8. №2. P. 166-181.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2023-8-2-166-181

Annotation

Review of the book: Uzun V.Ya., Shagaida N. I., Gataulina E. A., Shishkina E. A. (2022). Holdings in the Russian Agricultural Business. Moscow: RANEPA’s Publishing House “Delo”. — 344 p. ISBN 978-5-85006-446-4

About the author

Trotsuk Irina V., DSc (Sociology), Senior Researcher, Center for Agrarian Studies, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Professor, Sociology Department, RUDN University. 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. Organization of agricultural production at the local level (Article of A.V. Chayanov in English) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №3. P. 21-34.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-3-21-34

Annotation

This typescript was found in the fund of the Soviet party economist Lev Natanovich Kritzman (F. 528) in the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (ARAS), and has never been published before. The typescript consists of 16 sheets without an autograph or any handwritten corrections and marks. The typescript does not have any direct indications of the time of its creation. There are two more documents: a letter to Kritsman of December 26, 1929, and a fragment of the text written by Chayanov’s hand, which is very close to this typescript and seems to be one of its drafts. On the back of this sheet, there is an inscription — “2nd House of Soviets. Room 327. To L. N. Kritzman from A. Chayanov”.
The typescript presents the concept of the gradual ‘rooting’ of the peasant economy in socialism through the voluntary ‘cooperative collectivization’ and with the incentive mechanisms of a purely economic nature. We can see similar theoretical bases in Lenin’s ‘cooperative plan’ and Bukharin’s theory of the peaceful ingrowth of capitalist elements into socialism. In these ideological-theoretical alternatives to Stalin’s collectivization, the peasant was considered a full-fledged subject of the economic activity and socialist construction, who needed all possible assistance with the state policy measures rather than commands.
Chayanov refused to choose between the state-farm construction and the total socialization of the peasant agricultural sector. He developed an alternative program of socialist construction, which included the thorough revision of his own positions on some issues. Based on the data, Chayanov sought to show how far the Soviet village had moved from the pinnacle of the pre-war economic development, and that the Soviet peasantry had ceased to be ‘an object of the agronomic influence’. Thus, according to Chayanov, in contemporary realities, old methods and schemes of agronomic work became ineffective.
Archivists dated the documents in the file to 1930. We do not know reasons for such dating, but it raises some doubts. We can be certain about relative dating and the lower chronological frame — 1927. According to the address-reference book All Moscow, Kritzman moved to Room 327 of the 2nd House of Soviets in 1927 (All Moscow (1927) Address-Reference Book for 1927: 3rd year of publication by the Moscow Council; with the new plan for the city of Moscow, Moscow, p. 147).
There are more doubts about the upper chronological frame. If all these documents are really related to each other, the text should be dated according to the letter to Kritzman. Chayanov wrote that he had not finished an agronomic essay (in collaboration with P. Ya. Gurov and S.G. Uzhansky), because he was terribly upset by the first days of work of the First All-Union Conference of Marxist Agrarians. Moreover, Chayanov “did not get Sadyrin’s article, which made him throw away the whole ‘reality’ and end his ‘cooperation’ in the same purely theoretical terms as he had started” (ARAS. F. 528. Inv. 5. F. 137. L. 1). Chayanov could mean his articles for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, in which Kritzman edited the section of economic sciences and the subsection of economic policy until 1931; or for one of the periodicals, in which Kritzman was a member of the editorial board (for instance, On the Agrarian Front). Chayanov could use the word ‘cooperation’ as a title for the typescript sent to Kritzman for proofreading and editing.
By the end of 1929, Chayanov was in an extremely difficult situation, and it became even worse after the First All-Union Conference of Marxist Agrarians, at which Chayanov and his colleagues were ideologically persecuted. Probably, after Stalin’s speech, Kritzman decided to postpone or abandon this publication. There is no article by Chayanov in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, and no articles by Gurov or Uzhansky in the corresponding volumes; and this typescript was not published.
If our reasoning is correct, Chayanov’s courage can hardly be overestimated: under the huge ideological and psychological pressure, he decided to publicly announce his disagreement with Stalin’s course.
Editor’s notes are marked as Ed. and given in square brackets.

Keywords

Chayanov, collectivization, peasantry, state, social agronomy, socialism.

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. 
Trotsuk Irina V. (translator), DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; 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. 

Shagaida N. I., Trotsuk I. V. Russia’s food security under the crisis of 2020–2021: Objective and subjective dimensions // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №2. P. 93-121.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-2-93-121

Annotation

The article presents the results of the assessment of Russia’s food security in 2020–2021 based on the available statistical data and sociological monitoring of the population’s ‘food well-being’ conducted since 2015 by the Center for Agro-Food Policy of the RANEPA. The authors believe that the pandemic risks for Russian agriculture were limited, and agricultural production ensured a high level of food self-sufficiency. Although the physical access to food remained at the same level, the economic access has deteriorated; however, Russian families managed to keep their usual diet by redirecting the money saved due to the pandemic restrictions to food consumption. Rising food prices have become the most important problem under the crisis, and to solve it, the Russian government has used a wide range of measures — from reducing duties on food imports and temporary bans on food exports to setting marginal retail prices for certain food products. The sociological assessment of the population’s ‘food well-being’ (the all-Russian telephone survey) showed that the families’ requirements to the access to food are rather modest due to the huge credit of patience and sustainable practices of adaptation to the objective social-economic restrictions. Given the achieved indicators of Russia’s food self-sufficiency according to the Food Security Doctrine, the state should shift its focus from food self-sufficiency (and increasing exports) to the economic access of the population to food.

Keywords

Food security, food well-being, self-sufficiency, economic and physical access to food, pandemic, statistical and sociological data.

About the authors

Shagaida Natalia I., DSc (Economics), Head of the Center for Agro-Food Policy, 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. 
Trotsuk Irina V., DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; 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. 

Trotsuk I. V. A new look at the old problems of the Russian hinterland // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №1. P. 228-238.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-1-228-238

Annotation

Review of the book: From Family Homesteads to the Far Eastern Hectare: Non-Trivial Issues of Public Administration and Municipal Government. Moscow: Khamovniki Foundation for the Support of Social Research; Common Place, 2021. 312 p.

About the author

Trotsuk Irina V., DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; 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. 

Makarov N. P. Russian economic thought on agricultural issues (Article of N.P. Makarov) // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2022. V.7. №1. P. 6-28.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2022-7-1-6-28

Annotation

The author of this article, the remarkable Russian economist Nikolai Makarov (1886–1980), is one of the brightest representatives of Chayanov’s organization-production school, who had a long and dramatic life. After graduating from the Faculty of Economics of the Moscow University, he conducted economic-statistical studies of the Russian peasantry and cooperation, and taught a number of agrarian-economic disciplines at the universities of Moscow and Voronezh. Makarov took an active part in the preparation of agrarian reforms during the 1917 Revolution. During the Civil War, he emigrated to the United States and wrote books about American agriculture. In 1924, at the invitation of Alexander Chayanov, Makarov returned to Soviet Russia — as a wellknown professor and influential expert in the comparative studies of rural development in various regions of the world2. The fruitful scientific work of Makarov and his colleagues from the organization-production school was stopped in 1930 — when Stalin accused Chayanov and Makarov of sabotaging collectivization and preparing a counter-revolutionary coup in the USSR. Makarov spent several years in prison, and in the mid-1930s, he was sent to work as an economist at the state farms of the Black-Earth region. In the late 1940s, he was allowed to return to research and teaching, and in old age, he published a number of books on the Soviet agricultural economy.
The article presents the emigrant period of Makarov’s life, when he collaborated with the editorial board of the Peasant Russia journal published in Czechoslovakia in the 1920s. Makarov conducts a political-economic analysis of the main issues and topics in the Russian agrarian thought of the late 19th — early 20th centuries. First, he describes the features of the Narodnik and Marxist theoretical-methodological approaches to the study of the Russian rural evolution. Then, in the spirit of the Chayanov school, Makarov looks for a fruitful compromise between these two ideologies. He notes the important impact on Russian agrarians of the international, primarily German, studies of the agricultural organization and evolution. The final sections of the article explain Makarov’s original classifications and typologies of the forms and directions of the agricultural evolution. Today, a hundred years later, this Makarov’s work helps us to better understand the debatable roots of the Russian and global agrarian ideologies in the early 20th century.

Keywords

Agrarian question, Narodniks, Marxists, differentiation of peasantry, agricultural evolution.

About the authors

Makarov Nikolai P.
Trotsuk Irina V. (translator), DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; 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. 
Nikulin Alexander M. (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. 

Trotsuk I. V. Questions without answers, or one more ‘dimension’ of the Russian rural differentiation // The Russian Peasant Studies. 2021. V.6. №3. P. 180-190.

DOI: 10.22394/2500-1809-2021-6-3-180-190

Annotation

Review of the book: Enchanted Place. Media Consumption, Media Literacy, and Historical Memory of Rural Population / Ed. by A. Novikova, A. Kachkaeva. Moscow: HSE, 2021. 168 p.

About the author

Trotsuk Irina V., DSc (Sociology), Professor, Sociology Chair, RUDN University; 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.