Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution of higher professional education

Siberian State Aerospace University named after Academician Mikhail Fedorovich Reshetnev

Faculty of Humanities

Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences

in political science

on the topic: Russian statehood: features, modern problems and prospects

Completed:

student of group BEF 11-01

Paranina A. M.

Checked by the teacher:

Sidorov I.G.

Aleksishen A. S.

Krasnoyarsk 2012

Introduction

4. Russian statehood in modern Russia

Conclusion

Introduction

Russian statehood has its own characteristics, its own uniqueness. Its study is one of the central parts of the course in the theory of state and law. A.B. Vengerov noted: “The course on the theory of state and law would be incomplete if it did not examine some of the most important theoretical issues of Russian statehood.” Theory of Government and Rights. Part 1. Theory of State / Under the general. ed. Doctor of Law, Prof. A.B. Vengerova. M., 1995 This is a key direction of domestic legal science, which makes it possible to verify the applicability of fundamental theoretical constructs and categories to Russian society and the state, to trace changes in Russian statehood under the influence of certain conditions and factors.

The policies of the Russian leadership in recent years, the strengthening of the state and its rather strict dominance in the political field have intensified debate about the “vertical of power.” Some saw its strengthening as a means necessary to ensure the unity, strength and effectiveness of the state, others as a forced and temporary measure caused by the terrorist threat, and still others as a manifestation of a course towards curtailing democracy in Russia and undermining fragile democratic institutions. Without claiming to be the ultimate truth, one thing can be stated firmly: without referring to Russian history, it is impossible to understand this issue. statehood territorial orthodoxy

The history of the Russian state has developed a number of features that cannot be ignored when constructing a new political course. Modern politicians, trying to assimilate Western practice of state management and move away from the Soviet system of management, do not take into account the differences in the formation of Russian statehood.

When determining the features of Russian statehood, it is advisable to consider at least three substantive categories: state, society, citizen. These categories are related, but also independent. Is everything that is good for the state good for society? Is everything that is good for society good for the citizen? And in the name of what (who) do both society and the state exist (should exist)? The history of the people and their fate depend on the meaningful characteristics of these categories, their interdependence, role and place in the life of the people.

1. Statehood: concept and formation

The state is the organization of political power in society.

Statehood is an integral system of ideas and views used in the organization and activities of the state itself.

The concept of “statehood” is a relatively new category for domestic legal science. First of all, the question arises: state and statehood are two different concepts or are they synonyms.

It should be noted that there is no clear, generally accepted concept of “statehood” in legal science. Most often, both categories are identified.

One of the first attempts to formulate the concept of “statehood” in relation to Russia was made by A.B. Vengerov. He distinguished between the concepts of “Russian statehood” and “Russian state”, believing that Russian statehood must be approached not only from political, economic, social positions, but also from cultural ones, i.e. It is necessary to see great cultural value in Russian statehood.

He interpreted statehood not only as a set of political, economic, social and cultural processes inherent in a given state, but also as a historical process covering a significant period of time during which the life of society takes place.

It is obvious that the concept of “statehood” is broader and deeper than the concept of “state”, but certainly includes the state as its component, but is not limited to it.

· Statehood is a complex complex of elements, structures, institutions of public power, determined by the uniqueness of the socio-economic, political, spiritual and moral conditions of life of a particular people or association of peoples at a certain stage of development of society.

· Statehood is a property, quality, state of society at a specific historical stage. This is the system of social relations that affects not only state power, but also other public institutions.

In a state-forming society, a certain idea has historically developed about the role, place and purpose of the state. From this we can say that in one or another state-forming society there may be a different opinion about the necessity and value of the state and state structures. All this depends on the activities of the state, its institutions, as well as on what values ​​the state relies on in the process of organizing the performance of its functions. Therefore, in historical terms, opinions have been expressed regarding the uselessness of the state, the harmfulness of its activities, but in many countries a completely worthy attitude towards the activities of the state has developed and is developing, and therefore in these countries they are thinking about improving state structures. Mostly cultured people live within the framework of statehood. A cultured person is unthinkable without a state. Therefore, cultured, civilized people should always think about improving the state and its institutions, about bringing the activities of the state closer to their interests.

In the process of forming statehood in modern conditions, it is customary to rely on universal human values, to approach the characterization of the state as an objectively necessary, cultural and value phenomenon. And, indeed, there are universal, so-called eternal values, which should be the basis of statehood. These, for example, include: “the source of sovereign power in society is the state-forming people”; “the supreme function of the state is to protect the life, safety and property of its citizens”; “what is not protected by law is permitted”; “free expression of thoughts and opinions must be ensured in the state”; “everyone is considered innocent until his guilt is established by an independent court”; “everyone has the right to demand a substantive answer to his complaint”, etc. This should also include the provision on that “a society where there is no guarantee of rights and no division of power has been carried out does not have a Constitution. Based on these values, the state can always bring its activities closer to the interests of the state-forming people and increase society’s interest in statehood.”

Statehood today should be considered as a conscious process of implementation by the state, as an organization of political power in a certain society, of its functions. Statehood is, as it were, ideas and views on the state implemented into practical affairs. Statehood in general consists of the practical activities of state structures and state institutions.

In connection with the above, I would like to note that although the state is an organization of political power in a certain society, in real life it consists of various structural units that are relatively autonomous from each other and perform certain tasks and functions. These relatively independent structural units, which together make up the integral concept of “state,” are usually called state institutions.

State institutions, which are actually functioning state structures, must be distinguished from legal institutions, which are understood as a system of separate legal norms that specialize in regulating a certain kind or type of social relations (for example, the institution of purchase and sale, contracting, inheritance, etc.) .

· The concept of “statehood” includes the following elements:

1) the central link is the state, which determines the nature of all political relations in society;

2) the economic system of society, where the leading place belongs to property relations;

3) social organization of society, including national, religious, and other interpersonal relationships;

4) spiritual and moral (cultural) organization of society;

5) legal system;

6) information system, since information constitutes the main production resource of society;

7) a person as a subject of social development, a bearer of the most important types of social relations and the main goal of the functioning of statehood.

These components constitute a kind of subsystems that interact with each other and enable society to function as a single whole.

2. Factors influencing the development of Russian statehood

The development of statehood in Russia is influenced by the following factors:

a) the peasant question, i.e. the question of how best to connect the peasant with the land and consolidate the most beneficial method of farming for the peasant and society;

b) the national question, which has always been important for the development of Russian statehood, since the population of Russia is multinational;

c) geopolitical issue, i.e. implementation of Russia's territorial interests and the influence of the country's geographical location on the state organization of society. The geopolitical position of Russia affects the ethnocultural layers of the population, their way of life, traditions, consciousness, etc. And this, in turn, directly affects the organization of public life in the country. The conquests that Russia waged in the past, annexing new territories, also influenced the organization of political power: the state always had to be ready to protect the peoples of the outskirts from possible revenge.

Geopolitical interests are present among almost all peoples, including in the modern period;

d) production and consumption of alcohol

Prohibition under V.I. Lenin; vodka monopoly under I.V. Stalin, introduced in 1924; attempts by N.S. Khrushchev to limit the production and consumption of alcohol and, conversely, increase its sales threefold under L.I. Brezhnev; attempts to solve the problem by cutting down vineyards under M.S. Gorbachev; the reintroduction of a state monopoly on the production and sale of alcohol - all these were ways to solve the alcohol problem in Russia.

The problem of the influence of this factor on the development of statehood is controversial, although it has general social significance;

e) modernization, i.e. change in quality of life. Currently, modernization is understood as bringing Russian society in certain areas up to the level of world standards, including the protection of human rights.

Scientists studying the problems of Russian statehood unanimously note its specificity in comparison with Western states and emphasize its special state-legal spirit. For example, in philosophical and sociological literature there are four main features inherent in Russian statehood:

1) Orthodoxy as a form of collective consciousness;

2) autocracy, i.e. strong state and centralization of state power;

3) community. In Russia, longer than in other countries, the community was preserved as a convenient form of life for peasants. And this everyday side of the life of the Russian peasantry, which made up the bulk of the country’s population, left its mark on the state organization;

4) colonization, i.e. transfer of traditional forms of organization to new territories.

All scientists, emphasizing Russian specifics, call the special mentality of the peoples of Russia, manifested in the uniqueness of the economic structure, political and legal life, spirituality and psychological characteristics of the perception of the world.

3. Features of Russian statehood

The question of Russian statehood is unusually complex, since the history of the formation of Russia itself is unusually complex, it combines an amazing diversity of ethnic groups, customs, cultures and religions. At the same time, it should be noted that the vast majority of works devoted to the analysis of state problems were carried out within the framework of the so-called Eurocentric paradigm, in which any state is compared with the Western one as a reference model.

The main drawback of such works is that they all actually neglect the issue of the uniqueness of the Western state, associated with its genesis, real powers of power and general socio-cultural dominance. Often, numerous publications reproduce the traditional point of view of Western researchers regarding the Russian state as undeveloped, lagging behind in its development and despotic. This traditional Western characteristic of the Russian state does not allow us to see the sources of its internal development, the factors of its compliance with people’s moods, and also to understand the origins of our country’s victories and achievements.

It should be borne in mind that neither Western researchers nor Western public opinion as a whole have ever identified and do not identify Russia and Europe. They see in Russia a special cultural world, a special civilization, different from both the West and the East. Russian civilization, dating back more than 1000 years, was built on different foundations than the West. And one of the foundations of the uniqueness of Russian political development was the understanding of the place, role and importance of the state in the life of society, the attitude towards it and its policies.

The concepts of “Russian society”, “Russian government”, “Russian state” reflect Russia’s own unique experience, the archetypes of which are reproduced throughout political history, right up to the present day.

Researchers have long noted the special role of the state in the history of Russia. Russia, as a distinctive country, is characterized by some problems of statehood, which can be considered in five questions.

The first question of modern Russian statehood lies in the area of ​​choice of guidelines. We all know the classical definitions of the state, and regardless of which classics of the direction of scientific thought they belong to, in essence, they come down to the trinity: people, territory and power. A state is a people that independently and sovereignly governs itself on its historical territory. But we must not forget the fundamental thing: there are no ideal models of the state, its bodies and institutions, constructed once and for all. Not a single state in the world, sensibly assessing itself, can claim that it has embodied the model of an ideal state, the desire for which was outlined by Plato in his “Republic”.

At each stage of the thousand-year development of Russian statehood, we, Russians, Russians, as a state-formed people, ask ourselves a significant question: what is the purpose of our state. The beginning of the new millennium was no exception. Let us ask ourselves the question: what does the world and domestic experience of state development provide that Russia needs to rethink today to ensure the security and well-being of the Russian people? We are forced to admit once again that Russia is characterized by a number of “uniqueities”. Moreover, these are not lyrical reflections about a “mysterious soul” and a “special path”, and not a subject of national pride for Great Russians, but a recognition of the objective difficulties of governing such a country. In Russia there have always been (and still exist) paternalistic relations between citizens and authorities, when the state appears in the role of a “father”, a master, and a citizen as a ward, a supplicant. From the totality of precisely these relationships grows the political tradition of personifying power, linking all appointments and transformations with the name of the leader, the leader.

Against this background, statements about a state that exists only and exclusively to provide services to the population, that we can afford a weak state and a weak state apparatus, and most importantly, that business and civil society should flourish, look somehow unconvincing. It is unlikely that I will say better than the President of Russia in his Address to the Federal Assembly in 2003. “All our historical experience testifies: a country like Russia can live and develop within its existing borders only if it is a strong power. In all periods of weakening of the country - political or economic - Russia always and inevitably faced the threat of collapse.”

The second question of modern Russian statehood. Can a strong Russia exist without a strong central government? No.

From the very beginning, our country arose as a country where the interests of the state were more important than the dominant national groups, classes, estates, dynastic interests, etc. The role of the state in relation to all spheres of public life in pre-revolutionary Russia turned out to be exceptionally great. It increased even more during the Soviet period of Russian history, when the party-state apparatus tried to bring almost all aspects of public and personal life under its control. In the interaction between society and the state, the main role has always been played by the state. All the most significant transformations and restructuring were initiated by him, and society is only mobilizing to implement the next public project. Despite the fact that the state power itself experienced “weaknesses” and experienced crises, the relationship between the state and society never changed significantly.

Therefore, today we have no alternative to the development of strong presidential power. Therefore, we can easily talk about a triad: a strong economy - a strong presidential power - a strong power. Moreover, the characteristic “strong power” does not conflict with the tasks of establishing a democratic system and the principles of the rule of law, and a “strong power” inevitably presupposes the presence of a powerful military machine, without which Russia simply would not have a place on the political map of the world. The state in Russia has always been thought of as person-centric, when rulers absorb the political whole, embodying its main parameters.

The third question of modern Russian statehood is whether Russia can survive as a strong, united state, while remaining multi-confessional and multi-national? Our main ally in this matter is the history of Russia. I dare to say that despite all the difficulties of expanding the territorial limits of the Russian state, Russia has never known interethnic and religious wars. Tolerance was characteristic of the peoples of Russia not so much out of the kindness of their souls, but as a subconscious feeling that doing otherwise would lead to war and the destruction of the state.

A strong modern Russian state is destined to be a federal state. There are limits to both decentralization and centralization of Russia. But it is a strong central state power that will be able to guarantee every citizen of the country, no matter in which of its many regions he is located, full protection and respect for his rights and freedoms. The Russian state and Russian society, while affirming the federal structure of the country, should consider the federal structure not as an end in itself, but as a means of more effective public administration.

The fourth question of modern Russian statehood. This is a matter for local authorities. All measures to divide powers between levels of government, to improve legislation, especially in the field of social policy, to vest local authorities with additional powers were carried out with the same mistake: the Russian citizen was removed from the decisions made, he was not really consulted, he interests are often simply not taken into account. The new quality of the Russian state cannot be ensured without a new quality of local authorities. It is at this level that a qualitative change in priorities should occur. The purpose of regional and local authorities is not in management, not in administration, but in providing services to citizens and businesses. And this is a question not only of the quality of institutions, but of the quality of people’s lives.

Here we come to the fifth issue of modern Russian statehood. Services to citizens are provided by civil servants, that is, the same citizens, but vested with powers in resolving a particular issue. And this is no longer a question of the quality of institutions, but a question of the quality of the management process itself.

Indeed, it is possible to change the structure of state power and the system of government in a historically short time. It is much more difficult to change the managerial mentality, to establish in the minds of an official the perception of the citizen who turns to him not as a bothersome burden (this is at best, at worst - as an additional source of monetary allowance), but as a consumer of the services that he is obliged to provide to this citizen. Therefore, the problem of getting rid of corruption is one of the important problems, the solution of which will allow us to form a strong Russian state.

These problems are extremely relevant for modern Russia, since the weakening of state structures and the active lobbying by oligarchic structures of their narrow group interests, which often run counter to national ones, are expressed quite clearly.

4. Russian statehood in modern times

The study of Russian statehood is important for determining the attitude of Russian society towards Western models and values. Failure to take into account the uniqueness of the peoples of Russia can lead to the fact that many models that have proven themselves in the West may be rejected in Russian society.

The main feature of modern Russian statehood is its transitional nature, transitional to a new social system.

What is the new social order? This question does not have a clear answer. At the same time, it is obvious that Russia has abandoned the socialist model of organizing the life of society, the socialist structure of state power, and the socialist mode of production. A market economy based on a variety of forms of ownership and freedom of entrepreneurship is being formed in Russia. At the same time, Russian society cannot build the capitalism that existed during the development of Marxist theory, since that capitalism practically does not exist. Modern Western society, according to the model of which our society is supposed to be transformed, is usually called post-industrial. Its distinctive features are:

1) balance of interests of various groups, layers, individuals;

2) balance between private initiative and general laws of market relations;

3) a combination of freedom and justice - the eternal ideals of humanity;

4) formation of the rule of law.

There is a certain transition period on the way to achieving these goals. Among the specific features of the transition period in which modern Russian society is located, one should mention the presence of elements of a totalitarian past and at the same time a number of democratic institutions, for example, a multi-party system, openness, the division of a single state power into three branches, and the institution of a referendum. As for the totalitarian elements, we can note the persistence of old administrative practices in certain areas and the desire to return some of the old orders. The combination of elements of the new and the old leaves an imprint on the organization of state power, on the state legal regime, and the relationship between the center and the localities.

Characterizing the form of government in modern Russia, we can assume that a mixed form of government with a combination of elements of presidential and parliamentary republics, with a significant advantage in favor of the presidential one, will remain throughout the transition period. The transitional state is always unstable, so deviations in the direction of both one and the other republic are possible. In Russia, the skills of democratic governance, including self-organization and self-government, are not fully developed. But practice shows that under a presidential republic such skills cannot be developed. Therefore, some scientists and politicians believe that Russia should develop towards a parliamentary republic. But for now this is only a forecast.

The state structure of modern Russia is also characterized by a transitional state. The current constitutional consolidation of the federal structure of Russia represents a political compromise of various interests and approaches to the state structure of the country. The continuation of this compromise was the contractual process - the conclusion of agreements between the Russian Federation and its individual subjects. There is a fair opinion that the conclusion of treaties devalues ​​the role of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the life of society, since the constitutional regulation of federal relations is replaced by contractual ones, inequality of the legal status of the subjects of the Federation is established, which leads to conflicts within it.

The state of transition and inconsistency is also inherent in the state-legal regime that has developed in today's Russia. There is an interweaving of various regulators of social relations: from indisputable state regulations to appeal to traditions, customs, and business practices; from elements of strict state control to the establishment of publicity, pluralism of opinions and beliefs, self-government principles, self-organization of the population, etc.

The transitional stage has clearly emerged in the functioning of Russian statehood. This is expressed, in particular, in the fact that the Russian state is gradually beginning to master the new role of “servant of society”, and in the content of its functions the proportion of general social, general democratic, humanistic principles is increasing.

During the transition period, the relationship between the state and the institution of property changes. State property is increasingly acting as the material basis of state power. However, state property, being in the management and actual possession of the state apparatus, should not be used for the needs of this apparatus, but primarily for social purposes: to smooth out the negative consequences of entering into market relations, including the consequences of unemployment, the sharp contrast between poverty and wealth , to provide assistance to citizens with reduced working capacity, other socially unprotected segments of society, as well as to support the education system, healthcare, art, and the development of basic sciences.

By securing at the constitutional level the equal legal status and equal protection of all forms of property, the Russian state does not consider the right of private property to be absolute. Owning private property implies certain social obligations to society. This means that private property can be limited, and the basis for such restriction is public interests, the common good, and public benefit. At the same time, public interests mean the interests of civil society.

Thus, during Russia’s transition to a new social system, the role of the state in establishing the legal regime of various forms of ownership, in resolving conflicts between owners is modified, and the channels of state control over the implementation of the powers of the owner are expanded.

Taking into account the specifics of Russian society, the leading role of the state will remain throughout the transition period to the market. This trend is due to the following groups of circumstances:

1) only the state, as an official representative of society, is capable of developing and implementing specific economic policies throughout the country;

2) through legislation, the state can regulate property relations and establish the legal basis for the functioning of the market;

3) the state has a special apparatus for the protection and protection of individual rights and freedoms;

4) accumulates through the state budget the means to ensure the economic and other security of society.

To accomplish these tasks, a strong state is necessary, but at the same time, society must be strong in order to force the complex mechanism of state power to act within the framework of the Constitution and control the management system.

It was indicated above that the formation of Russian statehood is greatly influenced by the specifics of national relations, since Russia is a multi-ethnic state. Hence the need for constant attention of government agencies to national problems.

The processes of democratization and renewal in our country contributed to the growth of national self-awareness of all the peoples inhabiting it. This, in turn, led to national confrontation between peoples in some regions and to interethnic conflicts.

It is possible to distinguish several levels of the conflict situation in modern Russia: the first level is the relationship between the federal center and the republics, the desire of the latter for equality not with other subjects, but with the Russian Federation; the second is the movement of subjects, built on a territorial basis, for possessing the status of state entities (republics); the third is personal and everyday, within which there is a conflict between the indigenous and non-indigenous populations; the fourth is the problem of returning peoples repressed under Stalin's rule to their historical homeland.

Russian interethnic relations are a complex, multi-level system of various factors. A conflict situation is not the only indicator of the unfavorable development of national relations. But it indicates that the existing state-legal structures are not able to fully resolve the current situation in a civilized way.

It would be a mistake to consider the surge of national problems in our country as costs of the transition period, i.e. as a temporary phenomenon. The experience of foreign countries and world experience in general show that the national aspect is a constant companion to the development of statehood in a multinational society. The aggravation of interethnic relations is observed in many multi-ethnic states (Belgium, India, etc.), and a search is underway for new methods and means of mitigating interethnic conflicts. Not a single multinational state is guaranteed against interethnic conflicts, despite developed democratic institutions and economic well-being.

The development of statehood is significantly influenced by the factor of ethnicity, i.e. genetic continuity of the peoples inhabiting the country, the uniqueness of their way of life, language, national culture, historically established national psychology, which reflects the individual characteristics of the people. Since ethnicity is a constant factor in the life of a multinational society, it is important to learn to live in these conditions and treat national relations as a unique object of management. This requires, in turn:

1) constant consideration by state authorities of the changing situation in the development of national relations;.

2) searching for means and methods to prevent imbalance of interests;

3) increased attention to the national needs of individual peoples (the ability to use the national language, national symbols, customs, culture, etc.);

4) development of ideas and goals that unite peoples, ensuring the preservation of the integrity of society. A nationwide idea should lead to social harmony and unite peoples to achieve common goals. The national idea represents a certain type of human solidarity. For modern Russia, such an idea is a means of connecting the interests of the state with the interests of various segments of the population and each person.

Recently, much attention has been paid to state-confessional relations, since through them the state of modern Russian statehood is revealed. It is important to note that Russian society perceives religion and various religious associations of citizens as part of the culture of the people, as bearers of universal human values, historical national traditions and a factor in the spiritual and moral revival of society. And although the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the regime of a secular state, the actual isolation of the state from confessions has not occurred; on the contrary, they cooperate in many spheres of life. It comes in the following forms:

a) in solving social issues (mission of mercy);

b) in resolving armed conflicts (peacekeeping mission);

c) in uniting society to solve spiritual and moral problems;

d) in the formation of a certain worldview, including attitudes towards government, politics, and world events;

e) in strengthening ties with fellow believers and followers of the faith abroad.

Cooperation between the state and religious associations, by its nature and essence, has the features of a special kind of partnership, i.e. they act as equal partners in relations affecting the interests of the entire society.

The fundamental principle of the legal status of faiths in modern Russia is the equality of all faiths among themselves and with the state.

At the same time, state control over the organization and functioning of various religious associations is currently being strengthened. It is aimed at suppressing the emergence on the territory of Russia of false religious groups, total sects that encroach on the health, psyche and life of people.

The legislation establishes the following forms of state control over religious associations:

1) preliminary control by registration authorities over the declared goals and activities of religious organizations, including conducting a religious examination of a specific religious doctrine;

2) subsequent monitoring of compliance with legislation, statutory goals and objectives of the activities of religious organizations;

3) specialized financial control over the work of enterprises and organizations created by religious communities, in particular over the payment of taxes, if such enterprises and organizations make a profit;

4) control over the implementation of ownership rights to religious property in accordance with its purpose;

5) licensing the activities of educational institutions of religious education.

Modern conditions for the development of Russian statehood dictate the need to build state-confessional relations on fundamentally new principles. We are talking about achieving a kind of symphony of relationships between the state and religious communities.

The transitional state of Russian statehood is characterized by a revision of a number of positions in the relationship between the individual and the state. There is a gradual abandonment of the priority of state interests and the principle of inalienability of natural human rights, their respect, and legal protection of the individual from the arbitrariness of state bodies and officials is being introduced.

However, one can also observe the other extreme, when an unlimited priority of the interests of the individual is proclaimed in comparison with the interests of society. This reduces the importance of the individual's responsibilities to other people and society as a whole. Therefore, there are limits to the implementation of individual rights and freedoms; they are determined by general guidelines, constitutional and other legislation, direct prohibitions of specific actions and deeds, a system of responsibilities, as well as values ​​accepted in society. Hence, the main conditions for limiting human rights and freedoms are:

1) establishing restrictions only by law and only to observe and respect the rights and freedoms of other persons, as well as public interests and moral requirements;

2) proportionality of restrictions to the essential content of human rights and freedoms, i.e. restrictions should not change the content of these rights and freedoms;

3) legal restrictions based on serious reasons. At the same time, control must be provided for the state power itself so that it cannot abuse legal restrictive means.

The policy of the Russian state in the field of human rights should be based on clear principles and guidelines, which include:

a) freedom to choose a lifestyle;

b) a combination of personal autonomy and self-governing collectivist principles in relations with society and the state;

c) social justice;

d) social responsibility;

e) absence of discrimination on any grounds;

f) non-violence in resolving social conflicts.

5. Prospects for the development of statehood in Russia

Today, Russia is faced with choosing the path to develop its statehood. On the one hand, the country is rapidly overcoming the negative consequences of the 90s. On the other hand, while overcoming internal challenges and obstacles, it actively faces external ones, the toughest and most difficult of which is the accelerated globalization of the world. In order to skillfully resist it, we need a clear and consistent doctrine of development. In other words, we must answer the question of who we are, where we are going and what are our future goals. Among these issues, the theme of statehood in its various presentations and representations will be central and fundamental.

Accordingly, the idea of ​​a strong state is more relevant today than ever. At the same time, there must be an awareness of the dependence of the rights and freedoms of citizens on specific historical conditions, the degree of development of legal consciousness and ethics, as well as the priorities of the interests of the whole (state, society) over the interests of a part (individual, social class, political party).

The order established in modern Russia thanks to the policies of V. Putin is, by and large, an achievement, since in the nineties social solidarity in society was lost and, for a number of reasons, a process began not of social differentiation, but of progressive social disintegration. Under the current conditions, the main instrumental socio-political idea of ​​the state is the idea of ​​consolidating society.

In other words, there must be an awareness that in the modern world it can only really exist as a highly centralized national state, as a state characterized by a high degree of institutionalization, as a state led by a nationally and strategically oriented power elite. The restoration of a strong state will take place in unfavorable international conditions, which may be aggravated by unfavorable internal factors.

The challenges of globalization, however, do not mean the inevitable decline of national statehood. The forms of management have changed, and therefore the strategy of the state has changed, therefore the new role of the state in a globalizing economy should not be assessed as decreasing or disappearing altogether - it is simply changing. The ability of a state to make a positive contribution to economic development is determined not only by its strength, but by its ability to create and maintain “network structures” within which it, together with private group interests, develops and implements an effective, coordinated and targeted system of economic management within and beyond state borders .

Conclusion

So, the analysis of modern Russian statehood allows us to note that its development is in the general mainstream of the laws inherent in the world community and world civilization. At the same time, this development occurs according to its own special laws inherent only to Russia. This is explained by the historical, national, spiritual and cultural identity, as well as the geopolitical position of the country

We can say that the evolution of Russian statehood will depend on the choice of guidelines and the understanding that there cannot be standards of statehood. Much will depend on the development of a strong central government capable of protecting the interests of citizens in a multi-religious country, on the possibility of including citizens in the system of local self-government, changing the bureaucratic mentality and modernizing constitutional norms with a focus on national interests.

Therefore, it is necessary to achieve value agreement in society on the basis of moral, social, political and other values ​​that are shared by the bulk of the population. This should not be about a new version of implementing the ideas of the “social contract”, but about the state’s concern for the practical implementation of the constitutional rights of citizens to life, work, health care, personal safety, welfare, education, freedom, property, justice and personal dignity of everyone .

List of used literature

1. Theory of state and law / Alekseev S.S. / Textbook. M.: -- 2005.

2. Formation of Russian statehood: post-crisis trends // Strategies of Russia in historical and global spaces / Baranov N.A. / M.: Scientific Expert, 2009.

3. What is happening to the Russian system of public administration / Guskova T. / magazine “Vlast” No. 6, 2008.

4. Russian statehood in the context of historical traditions / Diners V / magazine “Vlast” No. 2, 2008.

5. Genesis of views on the formation of state territory and the state border of the Russian state / Palamar N / magazine “Vlast” No. 4, 2008.

6. Personality, society, state in the context of the problem of fighting corruption / Tereshchenko I. / magazine “Vlast” No. 3, 2009.

7. About the problems of Russian statehood.

Access code: http://www.glebfetisov.ru/lib/speeches/index.php - cap. from the screen

8. Russian statehood / Yakovlev A.M. /magazine “Social Sciences and Modernity” No. 5, 2002.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

Democratic foundations and stages of their formation in the history of Russian statehood. Democratic transit in Russia 80-90. XX century and its features. Analysis of the developmental, participatory and pluralistic form of democracy in modern Russia.

thesis, added 10/01/2014


The historical nature of totalitarian societies. The organizational principle of building a democratic statehood. Principles of the rule of law. Signs of a welfare state. Definition and functions of a political party. Party, electoral system.

lecture, added 11/15/2008


Analysis of the process of burdening the Russian government with ongoing internal conflicts. The genesis of Russian statehood as the root cause of fundamental conflicts within the government. Characteristics and solutions to the problems of the current Russian government.

abstract, added 07/24/2011


National security as a system of views, ideas, ideas about the security of the individual, society and state. Global problems of our time, directions and prospects for their resolution in the future. Ensuring the national security of Belarus.

abstract, added 09/22/2013


Society as a system of social public relations. Type of society: method (type) of production and the institutions of power determined by it and forms of social consciousness. Definition of power, its social and technical aspects. Functions and form of the state.

abstract, added 05/19/2010


The formation of social group interests as the basis for the emergence of public power. The main trends in the evolution of social structure during the transition from industrial to post-industrial society. Lobbying and its goals in the political life of Russia.

abstract, added 02/13/2010


Political system: structure and specifics of functioning. Institutional elements in the functioning of the political system of society and the place of the state in it. Characteristics of the political system of the Russian Federation, problems and development prospects.

course work, added 12/12/2010


Problems of Russia through the eyes of the famous Russian philosopher and politician Ilyin, a supporter of open-minded monarchists and an opponent of communism and Bolshevism. Problems of the formation of Russian statehood: sovereignty, power, elections and private property.

abstract, added 12/20/2010


The nature of political power. Power as a social phenomenon. The state as an instrument of power. Structure of political power. Features of the functioning of power in the conditions of reforming Russia. Institutions of power in modern Russia. Problems.

course work, added 05/17/2005


The system of organizing public power vertically; analysis of federal laws and laws of constituent entities of the Russian Federation; problems of territorial organization of the local government system. Formation of civil society in Russia: main functions and forms of activity.

Today, there are many works devoted to Russia as a special civilization; the “special path of development” of our country is often mentioned, but the entire complex of factors that influenced the formation of Russia as a civilization different from the West and East is rarely considered.

If earlier the peculiarities of Russia's development were explained by the existing ideology (although they contradicted some of the basic tenets of Marxism), now there is no explanation at all. And then a lot of things in our history are difficult to explain: why, for example, it was in our country that a socialist revolution took place (in other countries, similar revolutions took place with our support), why the history of our country is so radically different from the world path of development. Much in Russian history will remain incomprehensible if we do not take into account the totality of natural, geographical, geopolitical and a number of other factors that have influenced our history, culture, and economy. These factors were ignored in judgments in the USSR as well; the unique path of development of the state was explained by ideological reasons.

Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky wrote in the “Course of Russian History” that before studying the history of any country, it is necessary to find out where it is located, what natural conditions it has, what the climate is in this territory. Before talking about the “special path of development” of Russia, it is necessary to answer the question of what the natural-geographical, historical, socio-economic conditions were and how they influenced the development of the country.

Interesting views on the above problems of the philosopher and sociologist A. Zinoviev, philosopher S. Kara-Murza, political scientist O. Gaman-Golutvina, economist S. Glazyev, writers A. Parshev, S. Valyansky, D. Kalyuzhny, Yu. Mukhin and a number of others. But there is very little historical research on these problems.

What were the main factors that influenced the formation of a civilization different from others in Russia?

The formation of the Russian state was largely determined by the harsh climate. Its importance for the development of the country was shown by A.P. Parshev in the book “Why Russia is not America”, describing the phenomenon of Russia as the coldest country in the world. “The harsh climate and vast territory have contributed to the fact that our production costs are higher than in other countries. For the economy to function in such unfavorable conditions, state regulation of the conditions for the use and movement of capital was required. With open borders and uniform world prices, capital sought to go where production costs were lower. To save the domestic economy, which was uncompetitive due to climate and distances, from ruin, protectionism was needed, protecting the domestic market from the world market” (Parshev 2003: 37-42). It is no coincidence that the most serious “breakthroughs” in the history of our country, periods of its accelerated development, are associated with the “closing” of Russia from the world market. This trend is most clearly manifested during the reign of Peter I and the years of Stalin’s rule, when the country closed its borders to the import of cheap goods that were also produced in Russia, but at a higher cost, by introducing huge import duties under Peter I or with the help of a state monopoly on foreign trade during the years of Soviet power.

The basis of well-being at the initial stage of the country's development was determined by income from agriculture. In Russia, due to the harsh climate, the yield was very low. And because of this factor, any product produced in Russia was more expensive than in Europe, with which we were forced to compete in order to maintain independence. The small surplus product obtained in Russia influenced the structure of the economy. If in the West the economy was created basically by private capital, then in Russia the economy was built by the state. Only the state had funds sufficient to create industry.

In the West, colonies served as such a resource for development. We didn’t have such a resource. Therefore, it was the state that was the main economic agent. This function manifested itself most clearly during the reign of Peter I and during the Soviet period. The state created industry to quickly solve the problems facing the country. To accelerate the development of the country and accumulate funds, not only the surplus product was taken from the population, but also part of what was necessary. Each such “spurt” was paid for with huge sacrifices. For example, “during the reign of Peter I, the population of Russia decreased by 15-20%” (Novoseltsev et al. 1996: 46-47). But thanks to such “jerks,” Russia not only survived as a state, but also became a world power.

The lack of capital led to the fact that in Russia most of the population was poor, so there was a narrow domestic market. In order to develop and receive sufficient income, capital was forced to rely on government orders. This is primarily an army (weapons, supplies, etc.). The bourgeoisie, artificially and hastily created by the government, could not defend its rights before it, realizing that its well-being depended on its connection with the state. Therefore, in Russia, the bourgeoisie in the full sense of the word was never formed; it was all largely dependent on the authorities. And civil society in the West began precisely with the bourgeoisie, which defended its interests before the state. Subsequently, increasingly wider sections of the population were involved in this movement, until almost all citizens were covered.

The development of Russia was also significantly influenced by the fact that before the beginning of the twentieth century. Full-fledged private property never emerged. In the West, the emergence of wealth was associated with land. Income received from the sale of agricultural products served as a source of accumulation. In Russia, land was not capital. Low yields due to the cold climate made the land unprofitable for investment. And the presence of a huge tract of undeveloped land made it possible to develop virgin areas, use them until exhaustion, and then develop new territories. Extensive rather than intensive development took place. There was no need for private ownership of land. If in the West the emergence of serfdom was associated with making a profit from owning land and accumulating capital, then in Russia it was primarily with the maintenance of people serving the state. In the West, any feudal lord could exist separately from the state. Owning property, land and people, he was largely independent of the actions of the authorities. In Russia, until Peter III adopted the Manifesto on the Freedom of the Nobility in 1762 (Moryakov et al. 2008: 107), every nobleman was obliged to serve the state. His well-being depended entirely on the location of power.

Another significant factor was that while there was an abundance of resources in Russia, there was always a shortage of them. Extraction was expensive. Russia, in pursuit of resources, developed more and more lands, and therefore the economy developed along an extensive path. If now the main export product is energy resources, then previously this function was performed by furs (“soft currency”). In Europe, with its overpopulation, fur-bearing animals were quickly exterminated in the pursuit of profit. And beyond the eastern borders of Russia lay huge tracts of undeveloped land where furs could be mined, which was one of the main Russian exports. It was this circumstance, as well as the need for direct access to trade routes, that influenced the formation of the vast territory of our country.

The harsh climate also influenced the formation of a special type of mentality of the population. It is no coincidence that “Russian” is the only ethnic group that answers the question “which?”, and not “who?” (German, French, etc.). These are those who have adapted to life in the existing conditions of Russia. It was impossible to live alone in such conditions. Hence a much stronger community than in the West, collectivism instead of individualism, cooperation and mutual assistance instead of competition and rivalry. All this formed a special type of mentality of the Russian people, the priority of community values, collectivism, and the role of the state in ensuring the survival of the population.

Russia appeared between Europe and Asia, on a territory through which waves of migration of peoples swept, one of which led to the collapse of the great Roman Empire. Therefore, Rus' was forced to form primarily as a military state. During the next wave of migration of peoples (the fight against the Mongols) in the XIII-XV centuries. “The preservation of Rus' required the enslavement of the population, unconditional submission to its authorities” (Gaidar 1997: 27) for liberation from foreigners. And the state became the main political agent. In such conditions, strict unity of command and discipline are in demand, and opportunities for the formation of democracy are limited. All resources were directed towards the survival of the country and the maintenance of the army. The consequence of unfavorable natural conditions was the scarcity of surplus product, but frequent aggressions forced a significant part of this income to be spent on defense. A special type of power was also emerging, to which the principles of democracy were alien. These factors influenced the formation of a special type of governance and political culture of the population.

How, under such conditions, was Russia able to not lag significantly behind the West and survive as a single state? “The chronic shortage of resources affected the development of the economy, science, education and culture, dooming the country to lag behind Europe. But it was with European countries that we were forced to compete so as not to become their victim. The combination of unfavorable demographic and natural-climatic conditions, a constant external threat coupled with a shortage of development resources (time, finance) caused a contradiction between the tasks of the state (conditions for survival) and the population’s ability to solve them. The way to resolve this contradiction was the mobilization scheme for using resources, which was the basis for the formation of the mobilization type of development. It was the type of development that was the key factor that determined the specifics of the organization of power and the political organization of society as a whole” (Gaman-Golutvina 2006: 31-33).

The “socialist path of development” was also associated with these features, which a significant number of historians still associate with Marxist ideology and the activities of the Bolsheviks. But ideology in the “Soviet project” was only a tool for constructing an economic model that corresponded to the factors described above. If at first the Bolshevik leaders used Marxism to justify their rise to power, then little of it remained. Instead of public property - state property, instead of a world revolution - the building of socialism in one country, instead of internationalism - national interests, etc. Since the second half of the 1920s. Stalin no longer proceeded from ideology, but from the practical expediency of his actions to strengthen statehood, building a self-sufficient economy. The reason for this is the incompatibility of a national market open to the world economy with the condition of maintaining the integrity and development of Russia. For the rapid development of the country, a state monopoly on foreign trade, restrictions on private property, nationalization, etc. were required. At first these were forced actions, but then they deliberately “closed” the country from the world market. In the history of Russia XIX-XX centuries. there was a practice of “opening” the country, which brought huge losses. With “free trade” capital “fled” from Russia. “Our economy was destroyed, and investments did not come to the country. Given the costs in Russia are higher than outside, its investors did not invest capital in the development of our production” (Antonov 2005: 72-73). Therefore, the “Soviet project” implemented by Stalin was based on the need to preserve the state monopoly of foreign trade introduced by the Bolsheviks, to “close” the country to the export of capital and thereby ensure economic development.

In the USSR by the mid-1930s. the foundations of a society unknown to the world were created. A number of researchers (A. Zinoviev, S. Kara-Murza, A. Panarin, etc.) point out that not only ordinary citizens, but also top management did not realize the deep essence of the economic and political system created in the USSR.

If in Western countries production developed for the sake of maximum profit, then in Russia, where the surplus product was meager, the task of survival came first. In addition, the USSR was in a position of foreign policy isolation for a long time. The need for rapid industrialization and rearmament led to the emergence of a mobilization economy in our country. The economy in such conditions could not be built on the basis of the desire to make a profit. The Soviet economic system was conceived as a single national economic organism. Ownership of the means of production was public. Each Soviet citizen received certain benefits for his share of national property (penny rent, free education, healthcare, etc.). Since the price systems in the USSR and in Western countries were fundamentally different, the Soviet economy could function normally only in conditions of isolation from the external market.

“But production in the USSR was efficient, if by efficiency we mean not profitability, but the ratio of costs and results. Even in agriculture, which was considered the most backward in the Soviet economy, with the number of tractors per 1 thousand hectares of arable land 10 times less than that of Western farmers, the cost of a ton of grain was 3-4 times lower” (Antonov 2005: 23). Not only efficiency, but also profitability of production was understood differently than in the West. In the conditions of a mobilization economy, they strived not for narrow economic efficiency, but for survival. Within the framework of this model, they industrialized in a short time, ensured victory in the war, restored the destroyed economy, eliminated the US nuclear monopoly, and were the first to go into space.

During the years of Soviet power, an infrastructure was created to ensure the survival of the population in harsh climatic conditions. It was created by the state, and its main goal is to provide the population with products without which survival is impossible (heat, electricity). “This system was designed and built in Soviet times in relation to the harsh conditions of Russia and the cultural norms that had developed there over thousands of years as a system for general (even communal) use. In the USSR, the maintenance of housing and communal services was a matter of the state - the same as the maintenance of the army, police, etc. The state financed housing and communal services as a whole, as a large technical system that determined the viability of the country” (Kara-Murza, Telegin 2004: 23). After the 1990s a significant part of it was transferred into private hands. But it was intended to ensure the survival of the population, and not to make profit. The state invested huge amounts of money to preserve and maintain the infrastructure. But the private owner, not interested in maintaining unprofitable structures, began to raise prices for services and collect fees from the population, and in order to ensure profit, did not invest anything in maintaining the system in good condition. The state also cut funding, and the system began to collapse, as evidenced by frequent failures of life support systems. Without realizing the essence of the existence of such a system, the authorities tried to reform it according to the Western style. But in the West, due to other conditions, such systems simply did not exist. As a result, the old was destroyed and the new was not created.

The same conclusions are true for the entire complex of factors that influenced the formation of Russia as a special civilization, with a specific economy, politics, infrastructure, and mentality of the population. And now what is needed is historical research into the influence of the complex of factors described above on the formation of Russian civilization. Only by understanding and appreciating their significance for the existence and development of the state can transformations be carried out. Ignoring them has already led the country to the loss of its identity, to the destruction of the fundamental principles that for a long time preserved a single and strong state (the Russian Empire and the USSR). Instead of the Soviet principles of life, new ideological, cultural, and economic foundations were never comprehended and formulated that would help the formation of a new Russian statehood and explain the features of our history that influence the formation of the national economy and ensure the development of Russia.

Literature

Antonov, M. 2005. Capitalism will not exist in Russia. M.: Yauza; Eksmo.

Gaidar, E. T. 1997. State and evolution. How to separate property from power and improve the welfare of Russians. St. Petersburg: Norma.

Gaman-Golutvina, O. V. 2006. Political elites of Russia: Milestones of historical evolution. M.: ROSSPEN.

Kara-Murza, S. G., Telegin, S. A. 2004. Tsar Cold. M.: Eksmo.

Moryakov, V.I., Fedorov, V.A., Shchetinov, Yu.A. 2008. Basics of the Russian history course: textbook allowance M.: TK Velby; Avenue.

Novoseltsev, A.P., Sakharov, A.N., Buganov, V.I., Nazarov, V.D. 1996. Russian historyXVIII- XIXcenturies: textbook allowance M.: AST.

Parshev, A. P. 2003. Why Russia is not America. M.: Crimean Bridge-9D; Forum.

Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural Federal University named after the first President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin"

Institute of Radio Electronics and Information Technologies - RTF

Department of High Frequency Radio Communications and Television

In the discipline "History"

“The role of geopolitical, natural-climatic and ethno-confessional factors in the development and fate of Russia”

Teacher: Rogova E.M.

Student: Anchutin M.P.

Group: RI-120501

Ekaterinburg

1. Introduction (1)

1.1 Relevance

1.2 Purpose of the study

1.3 Research objectives

2 Factors influencing the fate and development of Russia (4-16)

2.1 Geopolitical factor.

2.2 Natural and climatic factor.

2.3 Ethno-confessional factor.

3 Conclusion (17)

4 References (18)

Introduction:

The relevance of this topic is quite high, since the development of Russia was very dependent on the factors given in the problem.

Purpose of the study: to investigate the factors stated in the topic.

Objectives of the study: to identify the factors that most strongly contributed to the development of Russia, and also to analyze each separately to form a holistic picture of the development of Russia.

Chapter 1: Geopolitical factor. The essence and its role in the development of Russia.

First of all, I would like to say what geopolitics and geopolitical factors in general are. Geopolitics is the science of control over territory, of the patterns of distribution and redistribution of spheres of influence of various states and interstate associations. Geopolitical factors are the geographical location of the country, the availability of natural resources, climate, etc.

Next, I would like to talk about the geopolitical factor regarding Russia. The following geopolitical conditions are most often noted: a large, sparsely populated territory, a border that has no natural protection, isolation from the seas, an abundance of rivers.

The geopolitical factor most strongly influenced the nature of agriculture. The soils and climate of Russia have long been unfavorable for agriculture, but Russia has always been considered a rich country. Russia's wealth can be explained by the presence of huge reserves of timber, furs and other natural resources. And this circumstance had a very negative impact on the future fate of Russia.

Since Russia had a very large territory, people used an extensive way of farming, i.e. introduction of new territories to replace old ones. In my opinion, this is wrong, since the extensive way of farming is not effective and wastes the country’s natural resources. To prove this statement, we can cite Western Europe as an example, here everything is regulated because limited space. To survive, to make a profit, a person needs to conduct intensive farming in order to get everything he needs from a small plot of land. And, thanks to the intensive way of farming, Europe is now very developed.

According to many historians, until the 18th century, Russia could not be called a state, since it did not have specific borders. In the east, Russia outlined its borders only in 1861 with the Treaty of Beijing. If new lands were needed for farming, one could simply move east, further and further. Throughout the 20th century, Russia moved east. Various reforms were carried out - resettlement, reforms of Witte, Stolypin, five-year construction plans, etc.

Until the second half of the 20th century, Russia existed comfortably thanks to an extensive type of economy. However, this could not continue for a very long time and by the end of the 50s of the 20th century, the reserves of the extensive route ran out. For the further development of the country, a way out was necessary, and at the end of the 50s, Khrushchev’s reform was maturing on the transition to an intensive path. In 1965, this reform began to be implemented: the country began to transition to intensification and technology development. However, in 1966 Tyumen oil was discovered - and the country acquired finances, and, accordingly, extensive resources appeared. The reform on the intensive way of farming was curtailed. In the 70s of the 20th century, oil prices fell, and Russia pumped oil practically for free. This greatly depleted the country's economy, so perestroika began in the mid-80s.

Also, the geopolitical factor influenced the military fate of Russia.

Russia did not even chalk natural barriers (like Japan - the sea, or India - mountains). Russia, a country rich in resources, was open to conquerors. Therefore, there were many who wanted to take over Russia.

The famous Russian historian calculated that Russian lands were attacked every 4 years, starting from the year 9. Then for 240 years the Russians were under the yoke of the Tatar-Mongols. And then from 1480 until 1880, Russia fought two-thirds of the time, and sometimes the wars were constant.

The destruction of productive forces constantly occurred, which contributed to a slowdown in development, which is why Russia became a warlike country. Another reason for Russia's aggressiveness is the extensive nature of development. It was necessary to constantly expand sources of raw materials, new lands were needed, new workers were required. Because of this, Russia pursued an aggressive policy. But the aggressiveness was not national. The Russians did not kill all the people living in the captured territory, as the Germans did. The captured lands were only added to the general fund.

Further, the geopolitical factor affected statehood, since Russia had a military destiny, it was necessary to have a strong army. And this is only possible with a strong state. However, a large army means a big waste. Since Russia had an extensive policy, service classes emerged - the nobility and the Cossacks, who received land for their service, rather than a salary. Land itself had no meaning, so land was supplied along with labor. What was unique for Russia was serfdom.

Also, the geopolitical factor affected culture. The internationality of Russians is reflected in cultural traditions. When relatives gather at the holiday table, there are dumplings, pilaf, and cabbage rolls on the table. Songs are sung in Russian families - that's all. In other words, traditions are international. In addition, Russians in general, in terms of psychology, are not closed. Because among Russians, sympathy for the grief of others does not have a national coloring. Another feature characteristic of Russians is mobility. Russians easily change their place of residence. The history of no country knows such mass migrations (to the east). In the 20th century alone, over 10 million people migrated to the east.

However, in addition to unfavorable factors, there were also favorable ones for the development of Russia.

Firstly, this is the specificity of the river network of the East European Plain. Since the largest rivers flow to the east and southeast, the Russian state region spread in this direction. Rivers contributed to state and national unity, since special river systems determined the special systems of regions and principalities. Thus, we can conclude that the river network united the country both economically and politically.

Secondly, this is the fact that most of the “Great Silk Road” from China to Europe passed through Russian territory. Many countries were interested in maintaining political stability on Russian territory, so that trade would go on as usual and there would be no unnecessary problems. In other words, the trading countries were interested in the existence of the Eurasian Empire: at first this empire was the state of Genghis Khan, and then Russia.

Chapter 2. Natural and climatic factor.

The natural and climatic factor in the development of Russia played a rather significant role, since the development of the country directly depends on agriculture, which in turn is closely related to climate and nature.

According to many historians, in the central part of Russia, which formed the basis of the Russian state, the cycle of agricultural work was very short, it was equal to 125-130 days, which had a very significant impact on the development of Russia. The central part of Russia is located on the East European Plain, where the climate is sharply continental and harsh. Unfavorable soil - 3% chernozem, and the rest is clay and other low-fertility soils. Accordingly, we can conclude that Russia has very poor soil quality. However, soil quality is not the main thing. The quantity and quality of the harvest depends more on the quality of cultivation than on the quality of the soil. Due to the very short cycle of agricultural work, Russian people had little time to cultivate the soil, and accordingly the quality of cultivation was low.

In the feudal era, the cycle of agricultural work was about 140 days a year. Therefore, Russian people needed to grow only the essentials. Thanks to this, cereals become the main agricultural product. Vegetable gardening was not practiced. They planted only those plants that grow without proper control: turnips, rutabaga, peas. There have always been gardens (dachas) around cities, since the townspeople took care of their own food in the summer, i.e. were gardeners. This influenced the nature of the craft in Russia: in the summer - a gardener, in the winter - an artisan.

For four centuries, the Russian peasant was in a difficult situation: low-fertility soils required high-quality cultivation, but there was not enough time to cultivate the soil, as well as to prepare feed for livestock. The peasant had only primitive tools at his disposal, so he could cultivate the soil with only minimal success. Thanks to this, the life of a peasant most often depended on soil fertility and weather changes. With such a working time budget, the peasant could not always return even the seeds to the harvest. Accordingly, the peasant had to work without sleep or rest, all day, using all the family’s reserves. This was not the case in Europe because the work season was much longer. Of course, this ensured a more favorable pace of work. This is precisely the fundamental difference between Russia and Europe that has continued for centuries.

Difficult working conditions in Russia led to greater stability of community institutions, which guaranteed the survival of the majority of the population. Land redistributions and leveling, as well as various peasant “helps” survived in Russia until the 20th century.

Since many people in Russia were peasants in the summer and artisans the rest of the time, crafts and trade acquired a unique character and quality. Shops appeared only at the end of the 18th century. Until this time, merchants walked around, changed and distributed goods. From this it follows that each handicraft product was made for an abstract consumer. In Europe, it was the other way around: if you make a bad or low-quality product, then the workshop or brand under which the artisan works will have a worse reputation, and in the future there will be fewer buyers.

It should also be said about the influence of natural and climatic factors on the unprofitability of livestock farming. At the beginning of spring, the quality of the land is very low and there is nothing to sow on, therefore there is no food for livestock. Therefore, the peasant harnesses himself and plows the land.

Agriculture provided a very low surplus product, in other words there was a very low cost of living. This gave rise to a peculiarity of the state structure. The country lived off taxes. If there is no surplus product, then it is difficult to collect taxes from the population; accordingly, the state must be strong, which is why there was a despotic state in Rus'.

Over time, the social structure changes. Due to the lack of surplus product, society cannot support the intelligentsia, which provides the country with healthcare, art, and science. However, the people need healthcare, art, and science. Since there is no intelligentsia in the country, these functions are performed by religion.

Therefore, in Russia, before the growth of the surplus product, there was no intelligentsia, there was no secular literature, no music. Russian culture had a religious character.

The natural and climatic factor influenced the social structure. In the leading countries of Europe, the community disappeared and individual farming came. However, in Russia the communal system survived until the 20th century. Even Stolypin’s famous reforms did not change anything. In other words, there was a communal organization in Russia. Many reformers tried to create farms, but these attempts did not lead to anything.

Also, the natural and climatic factor influenced the psychology of society. A community psychology is emerging in Russia. From here the consequence can be traced - the equation of people. This can be explained with an example: if one of the people in a community gets rich, then the whole community breaks down. Accordingly, the equalization of people is the path to self-preservation of communities.

Since Russian people were very dependent on nature and weather, people believed in miracles. Which greatly affected folklore. All Russian fairy tale characters received the joys of life only by miracle.

The natural and climatic factor greatly influenced the characteristics of the national character of Russians. A Russian person can do something for a long time and persistently to the point of extreme exertion, devote all his physical and spiritual strength to the task for a relatively long period of time. However, the constant lack of time, the lack of correlation between the quality of work and productivity have developed in the Russian people a clear lack of thoroughness, accuracy in work, etc.

Chapter 3. Ethno-confessional factor.

First of all, it is worth mentioning the ethnic factor in the history of Russia.

Russia is one of the most multinational countries. Multinationality has long been a feature of Russia, so the ethnic factor played an important role in the development of Russia.

Below are the main ethnic groups of Russians.

Northern zone. This group of Russians has a peculiarity: there are fewer cultural groups and local dialects. This feature can be explained by the fact that the development of the Russian north was spontaneous. The northern zone is characterized by the presence of a specific dialect, the so-called Northern Russian dialect, as well as various cultural features, such as rural settlements with few yards and monumental dwellings. The largest ethnographic group of the North Russian population is the Pomors.

Southern and central zones. These zones received their main development features due to the nature of the settlement of the forest-steppe and steppe zones of Russia. In the 13th-15th centuries, the forest-steppe and steppe zones were devastated due to the Tatar-Mongol invasions. However, they were later repopulated by people from various places as the Russian state pushed its borders south. Thanks to this, many features of this zone were formed.

Siberia and the Far East. The main groups of people living here were masons and “Poles”. The masons are descendants of the Kerzhaks from the Nizhny Novgorod province. “Poles” are descendants of Russian Old Believers from Kaluga, Tula, Ryazan and Oryol provinces.

The ethnic composition of Russia has changed over time. For example, in the 18th century there were serious changes in the ethnic composition of the country. This was facilitated by the following factors: the expansion of the country’s borders, the inclusion of Lithuania, Belarus, the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Crimea. However, at the turn of the 1720s, the number and proportion of the peoples living there did not change, since there were internal migrations, as well as natural growth.

The table below clearly demonstrates changes in the number and proportion of the peoples of the empire in the 18th century.

The main ethnic group of Russia were Russians. However, their share decreased by 30% during the 18th century. This fact is due to the fact that at that time there was a rather low natural increase in the central regions of Russia. The share of Russians in the 18th century decreased in the main regions of indigenous habitat, since other people emigrated to these regions very actively, or Russians were evicted from their inhabited lands (Northern Urals).

However, in many other regions of the country the proportion of Russians increased quite significantly, for example, in the Lower Volga region.

A special stage in the life of Russia can be considered the time when the country was under the yoke of the Tatar-Mongols. During this period of time, the proportion of Russians, as well as their number as a whole, noticeably decreased, which directly affected the further development of the country.

Thus, we can conclude that for centuries Russia has been a multinational country. The presence of a high number of ethnic groups directly influenced the development of Russia.

Confessional factor.

From the fact that there were many nations in Russia, the obvious conclusion follows - an abundance of religions. After all, different nations have different religions. According to historians, in the 18th century Russia was fully formed in terms of nations, therefore, in order to show a picture of the spread of various religions in Russia, the following table can be presented.

Since religion is the main tool for governing people, the difference in the religious composition of the country created great problems for the authorities.

Religion had a strong influence on the development of the country. First of all, it is culture. In Russia, since ancient times, there have been many works of art related to religion: temples, churches, icons, etc.

However, according to the outstanding historian A. Timoshenko, the main role of religion in the development and history of the country is negative. For centuries, the vast majority of people have been ruled by religion. Many bloody wars were covered up by religion.

It should also be said that the large number of religions in the country often gave rise to conflicts within the country, which negatively affected the further development of the country.

Conclusion.

Russia is a great state that has existed for a whole millennium. All of the above factors brought both positive and negative interference into the fate of Russia. The positive ones, of course, helped the development of Russia and made the country stronger. The negative ones, of course, had a negative impact on development, but all the problems only strengthened the character of the Russian person and made him stronger. Thus, we can conclude that Russia is a great state, and Russian people, who have survived so many troubles and problems, are among the most persistent and resilient.

Bibliography.

1) http://www.atheism.ru/library/tim_1.phtml

2) History of Russia. 1900-1945 Grade 11. Ed. Danilova A.A., Filippova A.V.

3) History in diagrams and tables. Severinov K.M.

Geopolitical factors. In the history of Russia, natural and geographical conditions have always influenced the formation and development of society. The vast territories of Russia had both their pros and cons. An undoubted advantage was the vast expanses of the North and Siberia, the development of which brought considerable benefits. However, unlike Western Europe, where, figuratively speaking, there were more people than land, in Russia, on the contrary, there was more land than people. The settlement of new lands could only occur due to the outflow of population from the historical center of Russia, where few people already lived (in the 16th-17th centuries, the population density in Russia was 1-5 people per 1 sq. km, in Europe - 10-30 people) . Continuous territorial expansion was also predetermined by the fact that over the centuries economic development expanded in breadth and was ensured by quantitative factors (extensive type). The Russian population did not have an urgent need to move from traditional management to a more efficient one, since there was always the opportunity to move to new places and develop new territories. In addition, the excess of space gave rise to a dangerous temptation for people to solve all their problems by escaping to uninhabited outskirts. This situation also determined the specifics of the emerging economic, social and political relations. To ensure order on Russian territory, it was necessary to maintain an entire army of officials, soldiers and police. Another disadvantage was the harsh nature, which made conditions extremely unfavorable for the development of agriculture (on average, agricultural work was possible for only 130 days per year). As a result, the Russian peasant was on the brink of survival, and the state forcibly confiscated the surplus product for the needs of the army and the state apparatus. The flat nature of the area, its openness, and the lack of natural geographical boundaries also affected the history of the state. The Russian lands were not protected by natural barriers: they were not protected by either seas or mountain ranges. The constant threat of military invasions (for a long time Russia was under the threat of ruin, sometimes the conquest of the country by nomads) required enormous efforts, material costs, and human resources from the state to ensure its security. In addition, in order to get to the seas, Russia had to wage intense, bloody wars for centuries. A direct consequence of this was the increasing role of the state and army in society. In geopolitical terms, Russia occupies an intermediate position between Europe and Asia; centuries-old parallel interaction with the Christian West and the Muslim-pagan East determined the history of Russia and formed the bifurcated national consciousness of Russians. Russia was not only a bridge connecting East and West (while experiencing the various trends of their culture), but also a barrier separating them and protecting them from a disastrous collision with each other.

Continuous expansion of the country's territory (colonization)– forced (Kazan and Astrakhan khanates, Crimea, Finland..) or voluntary (Georgia, Ukraine) annexation of territories, development of new desert territories by the peasant population (Siberia).

Social factor. Russian society has always remained extremely unstable socially. Due to difficult living conditions, the low-income nature of the economy, serfdom (which turned out to be an inevitable phenomenon in Russia, because it was the only possible system of forcibly and compulsorily confiscating surplus product from the population to solve national problems), the poor sections of the population, who were the majority, were always ready rebel both against their masters and local authorities, and against the state.

Political factor. The vast territory of the country, the weakness of economic relations between individual regions, social and national contradictions, and the presence of constant external danger required strong central government, which has a developed apparatus of control and coercion. The Moscow princes managed to create it by the beginning of the 16th century. In the 16th century, a political ideology was also developed, in the creation of which the first Russian Tsar Ivan the Terrible took part. The system of power built by the Moscow sovereigns received in history the name “autocracy,” that is, an unlimited monarchy. The autocracy existed without any special changes until 1917. One of the features of the Russian historical process was exaggerated role of the supreme power in relation to society. Even estates were formed under the direct influence of the authorities. Society was divided into layers with a clear definition of the status and functions of each. The Council Code of 1649 established the position of various categories of the population and the range of their duties. It should be emphasized that due to the specifics of Russian history reforms were always initiated by the state. Hence, the position of the supreme power: kings, emperors, general secretaries, and now presidents, was decisive for the fate of the transformations. The impetus for the start of Russian reforms, which made it possible to overcome the powerful resistance of traditions and interests, was, as a rule, external factors, namely the lag behind the West, which most often took the form of military defeats. Since the reforms in Russia were carried out entirely by the supreme power, all of them were not brought to their logical conclusion and did not fully resolve the social contradictions that brought them to life. Moreover, many reforms, due to their inconsistency and incompleteness, only aggravated the situation in the future. The special role of the state in the process of Russian reforms “from above” turned the bureaucracy into their only developer and leader. Therefore, its significance in the fate of Russian reforms was enormous. The size of the bureaucracy in Russia grew rapidly. The final fate of reforms in Russia depended on the position of the ruling elite and on the results of the struggle of various groups and clans of the bureaucracy. Besides , a constant series of reforms and counter-reforms, innovations and backward movement are a characteristic feature of the Russian reform process.

National (ethnopolitical) factor. In the process of formation of the Russian people, a large number of different, including non-Slavic, ethnic groups took part, however the Slavic component has always remained dominant(the Slavs, purely outwardly adopting foreign customs, internally retained their originality and over time processed everything foreign in their own way). In other words, the future Russian people were initially born on a multi-ethnic basis. Ethnic diversity of Russia and inevitably accompanying her separatist sentiments served as one of the prerequisites for strengthening the monarchy and developing its military-police apparatus. However, the Russian monarchy gradually developed a fairly flexible and effective national policy. She sought to win over the local nobility, preserving their previous privileges and granting them new privileges, including them in the all-Russian ruling class. Moscow, whenever possible, avoided interfering in the internal life of national communities. Important circumstances were the traditional tolerance and accommodating nature of the Russian people, to whom the psychology of the “nation of masters” was alien.

Related information.

The development of statehood in Russia is influenced by the following factors:

• a) the peasant question, i.e. the question of how best to connect the peasant with the land and consolidate the most beneficial method of farming for the peasant and society;
• b) the national question, which has always been important for the development of Russian statehood, since the population of Russia is multinational;
• c) geopolitical issue, i.e. implementation of Russia's territorial interests and the influence of the country's geographical location on the state organization of society. The geopolitical position of Russia affects the ethnocultural layers of the population, their way of life, traditions, consciousness, etc. And this, in turn, directly affects the organization of public life in the country. The conquests that Russia waged in the past, annexing new territories, also influenced the organization of political power: the state always had to be ready to protect the peoples of the outskirts from possible revenge.

Geopolitical interests are present among almost all peoples, including in the modern period;

d) production and consumption of alcohol

Prohibition under V.I. Lenin; vodka monopoly under I.V. Stalin, introduced in 1924; attempts by N.S. Khrushchev to limit the production and consumption of alcohol and, conversely, increase its sales threefold under L.I. Brezhnev; attempts to solve the problem by cutting down vineyards under M.S. Gorbachev; the reintroduction of a state monopoly on the production and sale of alcohol - all these were ways to solve the alcohol problem in Russia.

The problem of the influence of this factor on the development of statehood is controversial, although it has general social significance;

e) modernization, i.e. change in quality of life. Currently, modernization is understood as bringing Russian society in certain areas up to the level of world standards, including the protection of human rights.

Scientists studying the problems of Russian statehood unanimously note its specificity in comparison with Western states and emphasize its special state-legal spirit. For example, in philosophical and sociological literature there are four main features inherent in Russian statehood:

• 1) Orthodoxy as a form of collective consciousness;
• 2) autocracy, i.e. strong state and centralization of state power;
• 3) community. In Russia, longer than in other countries, the community was preserved as a convenient form of life for peasants. And this everyday side of the life of the Russian peasantry, which made up the bulk of the country’s population, left its mark on the state organization;
• 4) colonization, i.e. transfer of traditional forms of organization to new territories.

All scientists, emphasizing Russian specifics, call the special mentality of the peoples of Russia, manifested in the uniqueness of the economic structure, political and legal life, spirituality and psychological characteristics of the perception of the world.