In the history of Russia’s development, there are clear, unchanging constants of empire, autocracy, and property as power. These are persistent structures that have existed over a long historical period, which are created by the state and society, and are upheld by tradition. On the one hand, they are restrictive, but on the other hand, they guide the direction of socioeconomic, sociopolitical, and cultural development, and also facilitate the emergence of the corresponding social actors and institutions. During the Russian revolutionary (...) process, which spanned 1905–1922 and reached its apex in the October Revolution, an attempt was made to change these constants. However, this attempt failed, and Russia returned to its traditional path of development. (shrink)

Philosophical analysis of the Soviet Union as a phenomenon is relevant in light of the approaching centennial of its formation. The significance of this event derives from the Soviet Union’s enormous scale and historically, qualitatively unique formation that included many dozens of nations and nationalities. This formation replaced the equally enormous Russian Empire but arose not due to natural development but on its ruins, by the means of a European Marxism adapted to domestic conditions. Nowhere in the world have societies (...) and states like the Soviet Union arisen spontaneously, while the Eastern European “people’s democracy” countries created after the Second World War repeatedly attempted to free themselves from the kinship and dominance of the Soviet Union and would disappear immediate with its collapse.In this article, the question of what the Soviet Union was in its project and reality is discussed in the following contexts: Marxist solutions to Russia’s agrarian question and their subsequent internationalization to create a “world union of workers and peasants” (V.I. Lenin); analysis of the principle of forced labor as the primary means of creating the “socialist working man”; the formation of the Soviet Union as a “quasi-federal” community of peoples “national in form, socialist in content”; and the forced inclusion of Eastern European peoples in the emerging “world Soviet Union” as “payment” for their liberation from fascism. This article justifies the claim that without analysis of the essential role of these ideas and phenomena, one could hardly expect to gain a holistic understanding of the nature of the Soviet Union. (shrink)

Fyodor M. Dostoevsky’s analysis of the theme of Russia–Europe relations, as well as the nature of Russian society, is replete with concept-metaphors like “people,” “national principle,” “soul,” “sp...

Russia’s October 1917 revolution had an international vector along with its domestic one. The idea of transforming not only a single country but the entire world into a dictatorship of the proletar...