scholarly journals Отражение ранних вариантов советских национальных языков в московских русско-иноязычных словарях

2015 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 91-108
Author(s):  
Jolanta Mędelska ◽  
Marek Cieszkowski

Reflection of early Soviet dialects of national languages in Russian bilingual dictionaries published in MoscowAfter the October Revolution, over half of the citizens of the new Russian state were non-Russians. The historical homeland of some of them was outside the Soviet Union. The experiences of two largest national minorities: the Germans (1 238 000) and the Poles (782 000) were similar in many respects. Members of both nations were persecuted, suffered massive repression, and were deported to Siberia and Kazakhstan. The new cultural and political reality (separation from the historical homeland and national languages, influence of Russian and other languages of Soviet Union nations, necessity to use new Soviet lexis and technical/scientific terminology on a daily basis) forced changes in German and Polish used in the Soviet Union. Soviet dialects of national languages were reinforced in books, handbooks, the press, and propaganda materials etc. published in German and Polish in huge number of copies. The Soviet dialects of German and Polish were reflected on the right side of Russian-German and Russian-Polish dictionaries published in the 1930s by “Sovetskaya Entsyklopedia”. The analysis and comparison of the language material excerpted from the dictionaries show that Soviet dialects of both languages were characterized by the presence of orientalisms (result of the constant contact with the nations and nationalities of the Soviet Union and their culture) and unique lexis related to the Russian way of life (Russian culinary lexis, names of musical instruments, names of garments) and Sovietisms (i.e. new political terminology and words related to the Soviet way of life). The Germans found it more difficult to adapt their native code to life in the Soviet Union.


1968 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 814-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jerome M. Gilison

A few questions are still hotly debated among students of the Soviet political system, but certainly the nature of Soviet elections is not one of them. Everyone agrees that they are more interesting as a psychological curiosity than as a political reality. They are seen by various writers as ritualized affirmations of regime legitimacy, as methods of involving the masses in supportive activity, as a means of publicly honoring model citizens, and as a crushing display of unanimity designed to isolate the potential nonconformist. Both Western and Soviet writers see Soviet elections from the positive side, from the side of the dutiful 99 percent who invariably vote for the single candidate on the ballot.In fact, Soviet and Western writers are in very close agreement on the major functions of elections in the Soviet Union, although their value judgments tend to differ along the lines one would expect. Taking one typical example from the general Western literature on the Soviet political system, we find the purposes of a Soviet election defined as “a public demonstration of the legitimacy of the regime … an invaluable educational and propaganda exercise … and perhaps most important of all, … proof that the system of control is unimpaired.” In the more detailed Western works on Soviet elections we find the same approach. Thus, Howard Swearer, in a very insightful and valuable article on Soviet local elections, states that “in the Soviet Union, the formal act of voting is comparable in purpose to such civic rituals as singing the national anthem or saluting a country's flag. It is a public display of personal reaffirmation of the Soviet way of life and the party leadership.”



1988 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. v-vi

Major events concerning national minorities continue to occur on a daily basis. Long lingering issues surface throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, often after decades of official denial and repression.



Author(s):  
Valerii Kononenko ◽  

The aim of the article is to analyze the state policy towards the national minorities of Ukraine of the Ukrainian Soviet state formations of the period of formation of the Soviet goverment in Ukraine. The author explores the peculiarities of the formation and change of the national policy of the Bolsheviks on the eve of the October coup of 1917 and during the functioning of the Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets (UPR Soviets) and the Ukrainian Socialist Soviet Republic (USSR). The research methodology is based on a combination of general scientific and special-historical methods of scientific research. Using the method of content analysis, the main Bolshevik legal acts of the period of establishment of the Bolshevik regime are analyzed, which reflect the basic principles and provisions of the national policy of the first Ukrainian Soviet state formations on the territory of Ukraine. The scientific novelty of the work is that the author focused on the evolution and functioning of the national policy of the Bolsheviks in Ukraine depending on internal and external factors that were associated with the establishment of the Bolshevik regime of 1917 – 1920’s. Conclusions. We believe that the policy of the Ukrainian Soviet state formations during the period of establishment of the Bolshevik regime towards the national minorities of Ukraine was an indispensable component of the national policy of the Bolsheviks of the RSFSR. The flirtation with the national liberation movements of the former peoples of the Russian Empire through the «right to self-determination» and the «right to national and cultural life» weakened with the stages of Bolshevism in Ukraine, and disappeared altogether with the establishment of the Bolshevik regime. Belief in the rapid and «triumphant» future victory of communism at the initial stage of Soviet rule in Ukraine deprived the Ukrainian Bolsheviks of the opportunity to determine the basic principles and provisions of national and cultural policy toward Ukraine’s ethnic minorities. Preserving the «independent» status of Soviet Ukraine during the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR was nothing more than a tactical step in the process of «convergence» of national Soviet formations in the natural process of victory of communism.



2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 62-71
Author(s):  
Melissa Chakars

This article examines the All-Buryat Congress for the Spiritual Rebirth and Consolidation of the Nation that was held in the Buryat Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in February 1991. The congress met to discuss the future of the Buryats, a Mongolian people who live in southeastern Siberia, and to decide on what actions should be taken for the revival, development, and maintenance of their culture. Widespread elections were carried out in the Buryat lands in advance of the congress and voters selected 592 delegates. Delegates also came from other parts of the Soviet Union, as well as from Mongolia and China. Government administrators, Communist Party officials, members of new political parties like the Buryat-Mongolian People’s Party, and non-affiliated individuals shared their ideas and political agendas. Although the congress came to some agreement on the general goals of promoting Buryat traditions, language, religions, and culture, there were disagreements about several of the political and territorial questions. For example, although some delegates hoped for the creation of a larger Buryat territory that would encompass all of Siberia’s Buryats within a future Russian state, others disagreed revealing the tension between the desire to promote ethnic identity and the practical need to consider economic and political issues.



2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-173
Author(s):  
Fedor L. Sinitsyn

This article examines the development of social control in the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev, who was General Secretary of the Communist Party from 1964 to 1982. Historians have largely neglected this question, especially with regard to its evolution and efficiency. Research is based on sources in the Russian State Archive of Modern History (RGANI), the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) and the Moscow Central State Archive (TSGAM). During Brezhnevs rule, Soviet propaganda reached the peak of its development. However, despite the fact that authorities tried to improve it, the system was ritualistic, unconvincing, unwieldy, and favored quantity over quality. The same was true for political education, which did little more than inspire sullen passivity in its students. Although officials recognized these failings, their response was ineffective, and over time Soviet propaganda increasingly lost its potency. At the same time, there were new trends in the system of social control. Authorities tried to have a foot in both camps - to strengthen censorship, and at the same time to get feedback from the public. However, many were afraid to express any criticism openly. In turn, the government used data on peoples sentiments only to try to control their thoughts. As a result, it did not respond to matters that concerned the public. These problems only increased during the era of stagnation and contributed to the decline and subsequent collapse of the Soviet system.



Author(s):  
Yu.P. Shchukina

Background. Today, analyzing the Ukrainian theatrical movement of the first half of XX century, we can’t bypass V. Morskoy’s critical legacy. Volodimir Saveliyovich Morskoy (the real name – Vulf Mordkovich) is one of the providing Ukrainian theatrical and film critics of the first half of the XX century. He left us his always argumentative, but sometimes contradictious evaluations of dramatic art masters: the directors of Kharkiv Ukrainian drama theatre “Berezil” (from 1935 it named after T. Shevchenko) L. Kurbas, B. Tyagno, L. Dubovik, Yu. Bortnik, V. Inkizhinov, M. Krushelnitsky, M. Osherovsky; the producers of Kharkiv Russian drama theatre named after A. Pushkin – O. Kramov, V. Aristov, V. Nelli-Vlad and many others. Due to the critic’s persecution by the repressive machine of USSR, his evaluations of theatrical process were not quoted in soviet time researches. They still were not entered to the professional usage, were not published and commented in the whole capacity. Methods and novelty of the research. The research methodology joints the historical, typological, comparative, textual, biographical methods. The first researcher, who made up incomplete description of the bibliography of dramatic criticism by V. Morskoy, became Kharkiv’s bibliographer Tetyana Bakhmet. She gave maximally full list of critic articles (more than eighty positions) for the 1924, 1926–1929, 1937, 1948–1949 years. Kharkiv’s theater scientist Ya. Partola [16] in the first encyclopedic edition, that contains the article about V. Morskiy, gave the description of the only publication by critic known for today, in Moscow newspaper “Izvestiya”. Forty six critical articles, half of which didn’t note in bibliographies of both scientists, were collected and analyzed in periodical funds of Kharkiv V. Korolenko Central Scientific Library by the author of this article. Objectives. V. Morskoy was writing the reviews about the new films; the programs of popular and philharmonic performers; was researching the musical theater. This article has the purpose to characterize the features of V. Morskoy’ critical reviews on the dramatic theater performances. Results. It was managed to find out the articles by V. Morskoy hidden for the cryptonym “Vl. M.”, which dedicated to the performances of the “Berezil” theater of the second half of 1920th: “Jacquery”, “Yoot”, “Sedi“. The critic wrote about the setting “Jacquery ” by director V. Tyahno : “Berezil in setting of ‘Jacquery’ emphases it’s ideology, approaching ‘Jacquery’ to nowadays viewer” [2]. Perceiving critically some objective features of avant-garde stylistic, such as cinema techniques, V. Morskoy remarks: “The pictures are discrete, too short, some of them are lasting for 2–3 minutes, they made cinematographically” [2]. In the same time, the young critic already demonstrates the feeling and flair to the understanding of acting art. So, he accurately pointed out the first magnitude actors from the “Berezil” ensemble: A. Buchma, Yo. Ghirnyak, M. Krushelnitsky, B. Balaban [2]. V. Morskoy connected his view to “Jacquery” with the tendency of the second half of the 1920th: “For recently the left theaters became notably more right, and the right one – more left”[2], that reveals his theatrical experience. His contemporaries due to the author’s sense of humor easily recognized the style of V. Morsky’s reviews. Critical irony passes through the his essay about the setting by director V. Sukhodolskiy “Ustim Karmelyuk” in the Working Youth Theatre: “Focusing attention to Karmelyuk, V. Sukhodolskiy left the peoples in shade. Often they keep silence – and not in the Pushkin sense “[14]. Despite on the “alive” style, one of the features of V. Morskoy journalism was adherence to principles. His human courage deserves a high evaluation. In 1940, after the three years after the exile of Les Kurbas, the leader director of “Berezil” Theater, to Solovki, the critic published in the professional magazine the creative portrait of this disgraced director’s wife – the actress Valentina Chistyakova [15]. V. Morskoy arguments on the relationship between the modern works and the tradition of prominent predecessors has always been ably dissolved in an analysis of a performance. Each time V. Morskoy was paying attention to the distinctions of principals of playwriting, stage direction and even creative schools, in the second half of 1930th – 1940th, when the words “stage direction”, “currents”, in condition of predomination the so-called “social realism” method, in the soviet newspapers practically were not mentioning. For example, the critic saw of realistically-psychological directions in the O. Kramov’s performance “Year 1919”[9]. In 1940, V. Morskoy made a review of the performance of the then Zaporizhhya theater named after M. Zankovetska “In the steppes of Ukraine”, insisting on the continuity of the comedies of O. Korniychuk in relation to the works of Gogol and others of playwrights-coryphaeuses: “The play of O. Korniychuk is characterized by profound national form...” [7]. However, in the fact that in the Soviet Union at that time reigned as the doctrine the methodology of the “socialist realism”, the tragedy of honest criticism comprised. In controversy with the critic O. Harkivianin, V. Morskoy expressed the credo about the ethics and fighting qualities of the reviewer: “Apparently, Ol. Kharkivianin belongs to the category of peoples, who see the task of critic in order to give only the positive assessments. The vulgar sociological approach to the phenomena of art could be remaining the personal mistake of Ol. Kharkivianin. But when he presents him as the most important argument, everyone becomes uncomfortable”[8]. In 1949, the political regime fabricated the case of a “bourgeois cosmopolitan” against the honest theatrical critic and accused him in betraying of public interests adjudged V. Morskoy to untimed death at a concentration camp (Ivdellag, 1952). However, the time arbitrated this long discussion in favor of V. Morskoy. Conclusions. For the objective analysis of theater life of the city and the country as a whole, it is imperative to draw from the historical facts contained in the reviews of V. Morskoy, and the methodology of the review while investigating studies of theatrical art and theatrical thought of 1920–1940th. Thus, the gathering of the full kit of the critical observations of the famous Kharkov theater expert of the first half of the XX century is the important task for further researchers.



Author(s):  
Bogdan Grachev

This article attempts to “objectify” and conceptualize the concept of “Eurasia”, determine its ontological characteristics as the sociopolitical space of development of the Russian civilizational project, as well as delineates the contours of this space within the framework of a project-constructive methodological orientation. The author refers to the history of formation of holistic representations on Eurasia within the scientific thought, giving special attention to the contribution of geopoliticians, and emphasizing the implementation of theoretical provisions in real politics. The empirical basis relies on the two megaprojects that are implemented in practice: the Silk Road Economic Belt initiated by China and the Eurasian Economic Union (which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Russia), as well as the “Greater Eurasia” as a potential way of their interlink and development of the space for cross-civilizational dialogue on the continent. The main conclusions are as follows: 1) Eurasia is determined both as the goal of the Russian project of civilizational development and as the space it can be realized within. At the same time, the space for the development of Russia-Eurasia is described as the natural environment of the Russian civilizational project, the space of the “primary circle”. Special role is played by the creation and development of the Eurasian Economic Union, which unites the countries that have faced the escalation of nationalist sentiment after the dissolution of the Soviet Union; 2) The “Greater Eurasia” is designated as the “secondary circle” of the Russian civilizational project, a space for continental cooperation, determines by new political reality.  3) Certain zones of civilizational confrontation and contradictions on the continent have been identified. The author believes that the need for conceptualization of the concept at hand lies in the significant sociopolitical formative potential.



Author(s):  
Ivan Gololobov

This chapter discusses the evolution of punk in Russia since its inception at the end of the 1970s. It pays particular attention to the changing perception of class belonging and the political engagement of the punk scene in Russia. Whereas in the West punk was a political movement closely associated with its working-class background, in the Soviet Union it emerged as a protest of middle-class intellectuals fighting for the right to be different and to stand out from the uniformed workers’ and peasants’ collective. This defined the particular stand of early Russian punk toward the genre’s social engagement and political appeal. Working-classness and political commitment—initial conditions of punk identity in the West—became something early Russian punk was positioned against. The dramatic transformation of Russian society over the following decades inevitably affected the cultural ideology of Russian punk, and from the 1990s onward it had to find its place and defend its significant difference amid the realities of “wild” neoliberal capitalism. The chapter shows how in Russia punk evolved from being a highly individualistic and apolitical practice to one of the most radical and politically committed scenes, closely affiliated with other struggles on the Left.



Author(s):  
Geoffrey Hosking

Traditional interpretations of Russian society rest on a contrast between Russian authoritarianism and the liberties of Western societies. According to these interpretations, Russia right up to the twentieth century was a ‘patrimonial monarchy’ in which there was no distinction between sovereignty and ownership, so that the tsar's subjects were literally his slaves. There is no denying the highly authoritarian nature of the Russian state, and, in its twentieth-century hypostasis, its unique capacity to penetrate and affect the lives of ordinary people. But the image of slavery is overdone and partly misleading. At the base of the Russian power structure throughout the tsarist centuries was the village commune. The basic concept underlying the functioning of the village commune was krugovaya poruka, literally ‘circular surety’, but perhaps better translated as ‘joint responsibility’. This chapter discusses forms of social solidarity in Russia and the Soviet Union, focusing on the enterprise and the communal apartment as twin arenas of the daily lives of the majority of the country's townspeople.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document