TY - JOUR

T1 - Imperial, Soviet, and Post-Soviet Modernization

AU - Mironov, Boris N.

N1 - Mironov B. N. Imperial, Soviet, and Post-Soviet Modernization (Имперская, советская и постсоветская модернизации) // Bylye Gody, 2018. 2018. Vol. 48. Is. 2. P. 647-676.

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - In Russia during the imperial and soviet periods society evolved from tradition to modernity. As a result, advanced industrial technologies emerged, along with the corresponding political, cultural, and social mechanisms that made possible the maintenance, use, and management of these technologies. Imperial modernization followed the classic European scenario. In its goals, means, and results Soviet modernization served as the continuation of this. While Soviet modernization was reminiscent of the classic Western model in some respects (the formation of the rational, educated, secular-minded individual; industrialization; urbanization; the democratization of the family; the emancipation of women and children), it differed from the model in others (the priority of the state over society, the supremacy of the collective over the individual, the restriction of the freedom of the individual, centralization, central planning). In sum, the formula of Soviet modernization amounted to technological and material progress on a foundation of traditional social institutions. Soviet modernization achieved a lower rate of development and came at a higher cost to society than imperial modernization. Nevertheless, were it not for the enormous and utterly unjustifiable human sacrifices, one could consider Soviet modernization successful even though, as had imperial modernization, it ended in crisis and revolution. Soviet modernization succeeded imperial modernization as a result of the armed revolution of 1917, while post-Soviet modernization replaced the Soviet version after the peaceful revolution of 1991–1993, but these facts do not mean that both modernizations never happened, or that they failed. Imperial modernization encompassed mostly the educated levels of society, the upper strata, a significant share of the urban population, and the part of the peasantry that supported the Stolypin reforms. The population groups enumerated here overlapped to some extent, hence their proportion of the general population barely exceeded 30–35 percent. The lion’s share of the population, living primarily in the countryside, experienced modernization only slightly. Moreover, a significant part of this group reacted to fundamental modernization processes either negatively (such as commercialization and social and material bourgeois differentiation) or with indifference. Soviet modernization involved the entire society, and its effects proved to be deeper and more all-encompassing. Judging by the results of both modernizations, one can consider them fairly successful projects on the whole, although they also did not meet all the challenges and expectations placed upon them. Post-Soviet modernization also did not resolve all of the old problems and at the same time created many new ones. But it is far from complete and rendering a verdict on it is premature. Nevertheless, it is already possible to say that the political, cultural, and social rapprochement with the West over the last 20 years has been unprecedented in history. And this is natural: convergence had been the main trend in the development of Europe from the 18th to the 20th centuries, and in recent decades has transformed into worldwide globalization.

AB - In Russia during the imperial and soviet periods society evolved from tradition to modernity. As a result, advanced industrial technologies emerged, along with the corresponding political, cultural, and social mechanisms that made possible the maintenance, use, and management of these technologies. Imperial modernization followed the classic European scenario. In its goals, means, and results Soviet modernization served as the continuation of this. While Soviet modernization was reminiscent of the classic Western model in some respects (the formation of the rational, educated, secular-minded individual; industrialization; urbanization; the democratization of the family; the emancipation of women and children), it differed from the model in others (the priority of the state over society, the supremacy of the collective over the individual, the restriction of the freedom of the individual, centralization, central planning). In sum, the formula of Soviet modernization amounted to technological and material progress on a foundation of traditional social institutions. Soviet modernization achieved a lower rate of development and came at a higher cost to society than imperial modernization. Nevertheless, were it not for the enormous and utterly unjustifiable human sacrifices, one could consider Soviet modernization successful even though, as had imperial modernization, it ended in crisis and revolution. Soviet modernization succeeded imperial modernization as a result of the armed revolution of 1917, while post-Soviet modernization replaced the Soviet version after the peaceful revolution of 1991–1993, but these facts do not mean that both modernizations never happened, or that they failed. Imperial modernization encompassed mostly the educated levels of society, the upper strata, a significant share of the urban population, and the part of the peasantry that supported the Stolypin reforms. The population groups enumerated here overlapped to some extent, hence their proportion of the general population barely exceeded 30–35 percent. The lion’s share of the population, living primarily in the countryside, experienced modernization only slightly. Moreover, a significant part of this group reacted to fundamental modernization processes either negatively (such as commercialization and social and material bourgeois differentiation) or with indifference. Soviet modernization involved the entire society, and its effects proved to be deeper and more all-encompassing. Judging by the results of both modernizations, one can consider them fairly successful projects on the whole, although they also did not meet all the challenges and expectations placed upon them. Post-Soviet modernization also did not resolve all of the old problems and at the same time created many new ones. But it is far from complete and rendering a verdict on it is premature. Nevertheless, it is already possible to say that the political, cultural, and social rapprochement with the West over the last 20 years has been unprecedented in history. And this is natural: convergence had been the main trend in the development of Europe from the 18th to the 20th centuries, and in recent decades has transformed into worldwide globalization.

KW - модернизация имперская и советская

KW - модели и стратегия проведения

KW - сходство и различия

KW - критика оценок модернизации

KW - конвергенция России и Запада

KW - российская колея

KW - imperial and Soviet modernization

KW - modernization models and strategies

KW - similarities and differences

KW - critiques of modernization assessments

KW - convergence of Russia and the West

KW - Russian path

M3 - Article

VL - 48

SP - 647

EP - 676

JO - БЫЛЫЕ ГОДЫ. РОССИЙСКИЙ ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЙ ЖУРНАЛ

JF - БЫЛЫЕ ГОДЫ. РОССИЙСКИЙ ИСТОРИЧЕСКИЙ ЖУРНАЛ

SN - 2073-9745

IS - 2

ER -