Prawo gospodarcze w trychotomicznym podziale prawa Wramszapu Samsonowicza Tadewosjana

In 1956, the Soviet legal science resumed discussion on the structure of the legal system, in particular — its division into branches. In the years 1938–1956, as a result of rejecting the concept of unified economic law, Soviet science did not use the category of “economic law” at all. The first scholar who in 1956 re-proposed the separation of economic law in the Soviet legal system was Vramshap Samsonovich Tadevosyan. His arguments for the separation of economic law referred to both practical (pragmatic) and theoretical reasons. On the one hand, Tadevosyan pointed out that the separation of economic law would contribute to improving the legal system of national economy management, which would be conducive to the implementation of the sixth five-year plan, adopted at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956. On the other hand, he emphasized that regulating the functioning of the national economy by the provisions of civil law — as has been the case so far — was unacceptable due to the incompatibility of relations within the national economy with the civil law paradigm. Tadevosyan saw economic law as one from among the three branches of the Soviet legal system — the other branches being state law and civil law.

Footpaths of the Late-Soviet Environmental Turn: The “Forest City” of Novosibirsk’s Akademgorodok as a Sociotechnical Imaginary

The founding of Akademgorodok near Novosibirsk in the late 1950s features prominently in the historiography of the Thaw and the general turn of Soviet science to the eastern parts of the country. This article puts this story into the context of the formation of modern “green” ideas in the late Soviet Union and reconsiders the relationship between humans and nature, along with the definition of nature itself. Akademgorodok produced a telling visual perspective: the architectural plan for the city dictated that its scientific, industrial, and living zones were drowned deep in the taiga. Architects named this type of urban planning “diffusive,” and memoirists described it as a “Forest City.” Using the term of Sheila Jasanoff, we designate this “Forest City” as a sociotechnical imaginary of Akademgorodok. Our aim is to study the historical roots of the “Forest City” and how it became a collective imaginary. How did it happen that in the 1950s and 1960s, when the “faces” of Soviet cities were defined by districts of standard panel houses, that a city was built near Novosibirsk in which so much attention was given to pre-human flora, fauna, and landscapes? What ideas and intellectual contexts composed the concept of Akademgorodok as a “Forest City”? Our answer possesses two dimensions. First, the rejection of the use of decorative elements in housing construction in the post-Stalin epoch stimulated architects to pay more attention to the greening of cities. They revived the concept of a “garden city” proposed by Ebenezer Howard on a new level. Second, the evolution of the ideas of Mikhail Lavrentyev, the founder of Akademgorodok, who upon arrival in Siberia applied the productivist program manifested in the slogan “Siberia is a treasure of resources,” but later changed his opinion to more “green” views under the influence of the so-called “Baikal Discussion.” The viewpoints of Lavrentyev influenced the design of this “center” of Siberian science, and then he formulated the idea of a “Forest City.” These contexts enable the utopian horizons and the search for models of a constructed future that were typical of the Thaw era to reflect upon the important challenges of the contemporary Anthropocene.

Anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences in the Victorious 1945: Idea, Celebration Scenario, International Response

The authors focus on the celebration of the 220th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences in 1945. The festive events hosted both due to the anniversary, joyful victory and cease of warfare in Europe were attended by 124 delegates from 17 countries, as well as by nearly 1,000 Soviet academics. The situation was unique in its concept and inspired people with hope for world reconstruction. The occasion was widely publicized, eliciting an extensive response. The anniversary served an occasion to organize the forum where academics discussed their perception of science field in the victorious year of 1945. Based on a wide range of sources, including foreign archives first introduced to the academia, the paper presents the scenarios of the celebration of the 220th anniversary of the USSR Academy of Sciences, as well as the images of the Russian and Soviet science represented by the academic elite, and their perception by the international scientific community. The authors reveal the factors that influence the establishment and functioning of the communicative field of global science. It is concluded that in a contextual way the anniversary events featured the overestima­ted expectations of new forms of international cooperation, with various forms of collaboration being discussed. However, the triumph over the “unified science” and the establishment of the universal communicative field was temporary.

“Pavlovian” session: a new reading

An attempt was made to take a fresh look at a significant event for Soviet science that happened more than 70 years ago – the Joint scientific session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, dedicated to the problems of the physiological doctrine of academician I.P. Pavlov (June 28 – July 4, 1950). The memoirs of contemporaries of that memorable event were analyzed based on a new reading of the speeches of the participants, published in the verbatim record of the scientific session. For the first time, authors examined the report of the physiologist M.M. Koltsova, who was considered one of those who wanted and offered to “close” psychology. Also, for the first time in historiography of the “Pavlovian” session, authors analyzed the unfulfilled (but published in the verbatim record) speech of the employee of the Institute of philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences S.A. Petrushevsky, in which he highlighted the state of contemporary psychology in the USSR and outlined the prospects for its development. As a significant result of the analysis of the materials reflected in the verbatim record authors considered the fact that in the texts of the speeches and in the resolution of the session there was not found an extremely (sharply) negative mention of psychology and psychologists, therefore, the opinion of some authors about the existing decision to “close” psychology, expressed in the session, has not yet been confirmed. Some consequences of this scientific event were considered: the teaching of I.P. Pavlov began to spread directively; after the death of I.V. Stalin the interest in Pavlov's works declined; there were words about the urgent need to create a special psychological institution in the system of the USSR Academy of Sciences. It is shown that the session caused a high activity of psychologists, which led to the strengthening of its methodological positions and scientific-organizational structures.

THE MILESTONES OF THE SOVIET POLITICAL SCIENCE FORMATION: SELECTED ISSUES

The research note is dedicated to the Soviet Political Science foundation and development periodization. The notes reveal the main steps towards including Political Science into Soviet Science through the ideological limitation. The author analyzes the unique findings and memories of the Soviet philosophies - the founders of the Soviet Political Science, which has been never published in English before.