A Soviet Government

Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
Toshkentboy Pardaev ◽  
◽  
Zhavli Tursunov

In the article : In the second half of the 20 century the process of preparation of local experts in South Uzbekistan industry changes in this field a clear evidence-based analysis of the problematic processes that resulted from the discriminatory policy toward the Soviet government-dominated local policy makers


2019 ◽  
pp. 512-519
Author(s):  
Teymur Dzhalilov ◽  
Nikita Pivovarov

The published document is a part of the working record of The Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee on May 5, 1969. The employees of The Common Department of the CPSU Central Committee started writing such working records from the end of 1965. In contrast to the protocols, the working notes include speeches of the secretaries of the Central Committee, that allow to deeper analyze the reactions of the top party leadership, to understand their position regarding the political agenda. The peculiarity of the published document is that the Secretariat of the Central Committee did not deal with the most important foreign policy issues. It was the responsibility of the Politburo. However, it was at a meeting of the Secretariat of the Central Committee when Brezhnev raised the question of inviting G. Husák to Moscow. The latter replaced A. Dubček as the first Secretary of the Communist party of Czechoslovakia in April 1969. As follows from the document, Leonid Brezhnev tried to solve this issue at a meeting of the Politburo, but failed. However, even at the Secretariat of the Central Committee the Leonid Brezhnev’s initiative at the invitation of G. Husák was not supported. The published document reveals to us not only new facets in the mechanisms of decision-making in the CPSU Central Committee, the role of the Secretary General in this process, but also reflects the acute discussions within the Soviet government about the future of the world socialist systems.


Author(s):  
Alan D. Roe

Into Russian Nature examines the history of the Russian national park movement. Russian biologists and geographers had been intrigued with the idea of establishing national parks before the Great October Revolution but pushed the Soviet government successfully to establish nature reserves (zapovedniki) during the USSR’s first decades. However, as the state pushed scientists to make zapovedniki more “useful” during the 1930s, some of the system’s staunchest defenders started supporting tourism in them. In the decades after World War II, the USSR experienced a tourism boom and faced a chronic shortage of tourism facilities. Also during these years, Soviet scientists took active part in Western-dominated international environmental protection organizations, where they became more familiar with national parks. In turn, they enthusiastically promoted parks for the USSR as a means to reconcile environmental protection and economic development goals, bring international respect to Soviet nature protection efforts, and help instill a love for the country’s nature and a desire to protect it in Russian/Soviet citizens. By the late 1980s, their supporters pushed transformative, and in some cases quixotic, park proposals. At the same time, national park opponents presented them as an unaffordable luxury during a time of economic struggle, especially after the USSR’s collapse. Despite unprecedented collaboration with international organizations, Russian national parks received little governmental support as they became mired in land-use conflicts with local populations. While the history of Russia’s national parks illustrates a bold attempt at reform, the state’s failure’s to support them has left Russian park supporters deeply disillusioned.


Author(s):  
John Toye

Keynes’s writings are often disregarded in the context of economic development, overlooking that Russia was a developing country in his lifetime. He wrote about the experimental economic techniques that the Soviet government employed. He visited Russia three times and wrote A Short View of Russia in which he explained and criticized Bolsheviks’ policy of export and import monopolies, an overvalued exchange rate, inflationary government finance, and the subsidization of industry. These were policies that many developing countries adopted after decolonization. Keynes’s conclusion was that they were inefficient and that ‘bourgeois economics was valid in a communist country’. Did Keynes change his mind in the 1930s? If anything, he grew more harshly critical of Soviet economic policies and carefully distinguished them from his own endorsement of moderate trade protection and government supplementary investment in times of depression.


1946 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 248-277
Author(s):  
John N. Hazard
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (7) ◽  
pp. 34-43
Author(s):  
Muysin Dusaliev ◽  

The article highlights the problems and needs of the population for education as a result of the concentration of the Soviet government on the formation of a public education system in the spirit of its socialist ideas by creating new Soviet schools and increasing their number.In November 1918,the Soviet government of Turkestan decided to separate church from state and school from church. Although the existing private old religious schools were not completely banned by this decision, the creation of new Soviet schools and the increase in their number became more and more important. It is clear that this is a sign that the system is completely politicized. The schools were divided into two levels: the first level educational institutions included the first three classes, and the second level consisted of four classes. There was also a high school with three classes. Under the conditions of that time, more primary schools were opened in the country.This article discusses the current problem in the Soviet-era public education system under the Soviet government from 1994 to 1991, as well as the impact of this problem on today's education system


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document