«Заземленная» история: В.Н. Шерстобоев и исследовательский проект изучения истории земледелия в СССР / “Grounded” History: V.N. Sherstoboev and a Research Project Studying the History of Agriculture in the USSR (original) (raw)
Related papers
Иркутский историко-экономический ежегодник: 2022 / Irkutsk historical-economic yearbook, 2022, 2022
Объектом непосредственного исследовательского внимания выступает в статье открытое противостояние В.Н. Шерстобоева местному сообществу историков, его борьба с позитивистской моделью исторического исследования, историографией ножниц и клея, достигшая своего апогея в ходе обсуждения первого тома «Истории Бурят-Монгольской АССР» в марте-апреле 1952 г. Отчетливо выраженная сциентистская направленность критики, усматривавшей основной порок местной исторической науки в поверхностности и ненаучности используемых ею приемов и способов познания, в отсутствии опоры на аналитические возможности методологии исторического материализма, потребовала обращения к общенаучному и дисциплинарному контексту. Важнейшими элементами последнего, реконструируемыми в статье, стали: обращение в первые послевоенные годы к изучению исторических проблем неисториков, их занятия историей как способ сциентизации исторического знания; Конференция по изучению производительных сил Иркутской области (август 1947 г.), давшая мощный импульс сциентификации общества и местной науки; политико-экономическая дискуссия 1951 г., немало способствовавшая реабилитации методологии материалистического понимания истории и выступившая в роли своеобразного триггера инициированных В.Н. Шерстобоевым «боев за историю» / The object of immediate research attention in the article is the open confrontation between V.N. Sherstoboev to the local community of historians, his struggle against the positivist model of historical research, the historiography of scissors and glue, which reached its culmination during the discussion of the first volume of the “History of the Buryat-Mongol ASSR” in March-April 1952. The clearly expressed scientistic orientation of criticism, which saw the main flaw of local historical science in the superficiality and unscientific nature of the methods and ways of cognition, which was used by it, in the absence of support on the analytical capabilities of the methodology of historical materialism, required an appeal to the general scientific and disciplinary context. The most important elements of the disciplinary context, reconstructed in the article, are: the appeal in the first postwar years to the study of the past reality of non-historians, their study of history as a way of scientization of historical knowledge; Conference on the study of the productive forces of the Irkutsk region (August 1947), which gave a powerful impulse to the scientification of society and local science; the political and economic discussion of 1951, which contributed a great deal to the rehabilitation of the methodology of the materialistic understanding of history and acted as a peculiar of trigger initiated by V.N. Sherstoboev “battles for history”.
Порівняльний аналіз сільського господарства передодня утворення Давньої Русі (Comparative Analysis of Agriculture on the Eve of the Formation of Old Rus’), 2018
S. A. Gorbanenko Comparative Analysis of Agriculture on the Eve of the Formation of Old Rus’ The article is a definite result of the study of agriculture of archeological cultures of the last quarter of the 1st millennium AD in the south of Eastern Europe, which became the basis for the formation of Old Rus’ material culture. The object of the study are archeological cultures, which were the basis and / or the place for the emergence of the Old Rus’ culture. They are the Borshevo culture on the Don, the Saltiv culture (mainly based on the materials of the Siversky-Donetsk region), the Volintseve and Romny sites (the left bank of the Dnieper), as well as the Raiky culture (the territory between the Dnieper and the Carpathians) (Fig. 1). The subject of the study are the components of agriculture (farming and livestock breeding) in these cultures. Nowadays the degree of research of these sectors allows us to conduct their comparative analysis and to determine the vectors of influences. The analysis of potential resource zones shows that ancient settlers at the time of settlement probably did not attach much importance to the surrounding lands, and gradually adapted them to their needs. According to the results of the analysis of the location of the Saltiv and Romny sites in the Siverskyi-Donetsk region contact area, we can say that the bearers of the Romny culture came to the resource zones already absorbed by the Saltiv people. Above all, this concerns the use of the land for agricultural purposes. We can offer a similar situation for bearers of the Raiky culture, which often continued to use the resource areas assimilated by their predecessors — the Prague culture bearers. Comparative analysis of agricultural implements (Fig. 2; 3) shows that the Saltiv culture bearers had a negligible positive influence on the spread of certain forms of tools of agricultural labor. Biological definitions and palaeoethnobotanical and archaeozoological analyzes (Fig. 4—6) are more likely to show insignificant differences in environmental conditions, as well as, possibly, in the ethnicity of ancient farmers. No influences of one culture on another were found on these materials. Probably, meat production among the population of the Saltiv culture has acquired certain forms of specialization because only in this culture such specific tools as cutting knives are known now (Fig. 7). The overall result may be the following. Among the comparable cultures, both branches of agriculture were the most developed among the bearers of the Saltiv culture. They had some influence on the development of agriculture among their neighbors — the Siverians and the Slavs on the Don. However, in all these cultures, the level of development of agriculture was approximately the same. It is not possible to take certain differences in livestock production for criteria of greater or lesser degree of development, since livestock production reflects most likely the ecological differences of settlements and the ethnic difference of settlers. Keywords: last quarter of 1st thousand AD, agriculture, paleoecology, farming, livestock breeding, palaeothnobotany, archaeozoology, tools of agriculture, tools of animal husbandry.
Вестник Пермского университета. История. 2021. № 2(53). С. 73–85, 2021
В статье анализируется возможность применения теории крестьянского хозяйства А. В. Чаянова к личным подсобным хозяйствам колхозников и рабочих совхозов (ЛПХ). Несмотря на широкую востребованность этой теории для характеристики современных форм семейного сельского хозяйства, хозяйственные структуры, сложившиеся в аграр-ной сфере СССР после коллективизации, в таком контексте практически не рассматри-вались. Отмечается, что существенными факторами, влиявшими на функционирование ЛПХ, были урбанизация села, связанная с ней демографическая эволюция сельской се-мьи, а также политика жестких административных ограничений по отношению к инди-видуальным хозяйствам. Несмотря на неблагоприятные условия развития, подсобные хозяйства демонстрировали устойчивость во времени. Отмеченная Чаяновым демогра-фическая дифференциация, т. е. взаимосвязь между численностью семьи и размерами хозяйств, сохранилась в них лишь отчасти; она искажалась системой репрессивного налогообложения, активной внехозяйственной занятостью членов хозяйств и естествен-ными процессами деформации семьи. Характеризуются причины утраты личными хо-зяйствами функции основного источника существования сельской семьи. Делается вы-вод, что идеологические ограничения по отношению к подсобным хозяйствам приво-дили к искусственной архаизации производства внутри ЛПХ и ограничивали их эволю-цию по фермерскому пути, т.е. трудопотребительский баланс в бюджете сельской семьи, как и в традиционном крестьянском хозяйстве, достигался на крайне низком уровне. С другой стороны, именно распространение немеханизированного ручного труда в ЛПХпозволяет в значительной мере применять к ним положения чаяновской теории крестьянского хозяйства.
The material gives perspective of the life of Yakov Arkadjevich Yakovlev (Epstein) who was in charge of collectivization and appointments of personnel in the fi eld of agricultural science in 1929–1937. Along with A.G. Shlichter and L.M. Kaganovich, he played crucial role on the fi rst stages of Lysenko’s career and unconditionally supported him in the confl ict with N.I. Vavilov. The following text is the publication of Yakovlev’s article that was originally printed in the newspaper “Pravda” observing the 55th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s death. This article gives evidence that those today who are criticizing N.I. Vavilov and N.K. Koltsov, are, in fact, only repeating Yakovlev’s arguments.
2010
In this paper, the current situation in Russian agriculture is analyzed on the basis of constructivist institutionalism as a result of the institutional evolution during several centuries. In particular this analysis has shown that such agrarian upheavals in Russia, as the abolition of serfdom in 1861, Stolypin reform in 1906, the October Revolution in 1917, the collectivization of the late 1920s - early 1930s., as well as post-Soviet reforms in the 1990’s and theirs adjustments at the beginning of this century, took place following specific cycles. These cycles can be summarized as follows: the functioning of institutions produces reactions of different actors, which are expressed in ideologies; ideologies are competing for influence, and for whatever reason one of these ideologies determines the content of the legislation, which is created to solve problems in the functioning of institutions; the new legislation affects (but does not define) the operation of institutions with the ...