Kulikov history of public administration. Library of the online magazine “World of History”. Kulikov V.A. the history of weapons and weapons of the peoples of states from ancient times to the present day. — introduction. History and methodology
V.I.KULIKOV
STORY
STATE
MANAGEMENT
IN RUSSIA
Admitted
Ministry of Education Russian Federation
as a textbook for students educational institutions average vocational education students studying in specialty 0613
"State and municipal administration"
2nd edition, stereotypical
Reviewers:
Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Historical and Archival Institute Russian state humanitarian university A. I. Komissarenko; teacher of social and legal disciplines Moscow technical college I. F. Belova
Kulikov V. I.
K90 History government controlled in Russia: Textbook for students. prof. textbook establishments. - 2nd ed., stereotype. - M.: Publishing Center "Academy", 2003. - 272 p. ISBN 5-7695-1567-8
The history of public administration in Russia is a special part of national history that studies the basic patterns in the development of Russian statehood and the functioning of its government agencies and institutions from the moment the state appeared in Rus' to the present day.
For secondary vocational students educational institutions students studying in the specialty “State and Municipal Administration”.
UDC 93/99
© Kulikov V.I., 2001
© Publication. Publishing center "Academy", 2003
ISBN 5-7695-1567-8 © Educational and Publishing Center "Academy", 2003
Section I. PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OF RUSSIA FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO 1917
Chapter 1. STATE, STATE APPARATUS AND PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
1.1. The emergence of the state. Its signs and functions
The state is a complex social phenomenon. Historians believe that the state has existed as a social institution for more than 5 thousand years. Having arisen in ancient times, it underwent a significant evolution from the first primitive state entities to modern forms of legal and social state. There is no generally accepted definition of the state in science. In its most general form, the state should be understood as a political organization of society, possessing powers of authority, an apparatus of control and coercion, expressing primarily the interests of the dominant social stratum and performing tasks that are socially significant for the entire society.
Theories of the emergence of the state. The question of the emergence of the state is still debatable; More than one generation of scientists has tried to answer it. Various theories of the origin of the state were created and became widespread, in which the reasons and ways of the formation of the state, its nature and essence were explained in different ways.
One of the first to appear was the patriarchal theory proposed by Aristotle. Believing that the prototype of the state is the family, Aristotle looked at state power as a continuation of paternal (patriarchal) power, which, initially covering only the family, gradually spreads to the entire population of the polis.
In the Middle Ages, under the conditions of the monopoly dominance of the Christian religious worldview, theological (religious) theory took the predominant position. Its founders are considered to be Christian philosophers and theologians Aurelius Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. According to their teaching, the state arises and develops as the implementation of a divine plan. At a later time (17th century), the idea of the original God-given state institutions was shared by the English thinker R. Filmer.
Philosophical and political thought of modern times has substantiated the natural law, or contractual, theory, according to which the main reason for the emergence of the state is the free will of people who have entered into a social contract among themselves. This idea was first put forward by the Dutch thinker G. Grotius. Later it was developed in the works of T. Hobbes, J. Locke, J.-J. Rousseau and other thinkers.
The English philosopher and sociologist G. Spencer, considered a prominent representative of the organic theory, compared the state with a living organism. In his opinion, the state is a social organism consisting of people, just as a living organism consists of cells.
Supporters of psychological theory, one of the founders of which was the Russian-Polish sociologist and lawyer L.I. Petrazhitsky, saw the reason for the formation of the state in the natural need of people to live in an organized society, as well as in the psychological need of the weak to obey the will of stronger people.
The Austrian sociologist L. Gumplowicz and the German scientists E. Dühring and K. Kautsky developed a theory of violence. They believed that the state arises as a result of external (conquest of one people by another) or internal (political and economic subordination of some members of society by others) violence.
In Russian state studies, the Marxist theory of the origin of the state reigned supreme for almost seven decades. The founders of Marxism associated the emergence of the state with economic changes in society: the social division of labor, the emergence of private property and classes, and the essence of the state was reduced to ensuring the interests of the economically dominant class. This theory, like any other scientific theory, has both strengths and weaknesses. Strong evidence should include convincing evidence of the role and importance of the economic factor in the formation of the state. Indeed, socio-historical practice has shown that the natural course of development of society and its economy inevitably leads to the emergence of opposing economic interests and, accordingly, antagonistic social classes, thus creating the need for a special political organization - a state. The weak side Marxist theory there remains an underestimation of biological, psychological, moral, ethnic and other factors in the formation of a state.
In the latest scientific literature, especially in French-language literature, the oligarchic theory enjoys considerable popularity. According to it, in any human community there is a certain hierarchy (ranking) of people that arises from the natural differences in the physical and spiritual abilities of its members. As a result, an elite (“oligarchs”) emerges, occupying dominant positions in society, political power appears and a state is born.
Such discord in understanding the reasons for the emergence and essence of the state is quite understandable. The authors of these theories lived in different historical times and in different socio-political conditions. In addition, the problem itself is complex and multifaceted. Today, it is only obvious that any of the theories largely represents a subjective view of its authors and supporters on the objective processes of the emergence and development of the state, and the study of the phenomenon of statehood itself must take into account the entire set of factors: political, economic, psychological, social, ethnic, personal etc.
Signs of the state. The state as a social institution is characterized by a number of features that make it possible to distinguish it from the organization of power and management in primitive society, as well as from other political organizations modern society. These signs include:
1) the presence of public authority, placed over society and formalized in a special structure for managing its affairs - a state apparatus consisting of various bodies and officials;
2) territorial organization authorities and the population, which implies the extension of the power of the state to all people inhabiting its territory;
3) state sovereignty, i.e. the supremacy of state power within the country and its independence in relations with other states;
4) organizing the collection of taxes from the population, which go to the maintenance of the state apparatus, army, police and the implementation of state functions;
5) monopoly on lawmaking, implying the exclusive right of the state to issue laws and other acts that are generally binding on the population of the entire country;
6) monopoly on the legal use of physical and other violence, including the possibility of depriving citizens of life and freedom.
Functions of the state. The main directions of the state’s activities to solve the problems facing it are called functions of the state. They are usually divided into internal and external.
Internal functions represent the main directions of state activity within the country. They, in turn, are also divided into two groups - protective and regulatory. TO protective functions include the protection of the existing state and social system and the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, law and order. Regulatory functions states are quite large; this is: a) economic function- development economic policy, establishing the legal framework for economic and financial activities, management of state-owned enterprises, etc.; b) socio-cultural function - determining policy in the field of health, education, science, culture, social protection of the population, housing construction, etc. Moreover, in relation to modern state It is legitimate to single out environmental activities as an independent function - activities aimed at protecting environment, restoration and improvement of natural living conditions for people.
External functions consist in the main directions of the state’s activities in the international arena. This is, first of all, the defense of the country from external attack and international cooperation.
Expand ▼
The textbook was created in accordance with the Federal State educational standard in the direction of preparation "" (qualification "bachelor").
The textbook is written from the perspective of a specific historical approach, taking into account the current level of development of historical science. It outlines the events and problems of the history of public administration in Russia from ancient times to the present day. The book is equipped with a methodological apparatus: each chapter ends control questions and tasks for self-test, the bibliography introduces the reader to the latest literature on the topic under consideration.
For students of higher education institutions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
Chapter 1. Public administration in Rus' (until the end of the 15th century)
§ 1. Formation of the Old Russian state. State and social order Ancient Rus'
§ 2. First government reforms
§ 3. The collapse of the Old Russian state. Public administration in Russian lands before Mongol invasion
§ 4. Public administration in Rus' during the period of foreign domination
Chapter 2. Public administration at the end of the 15th-17th centuries
§ 5. Formation of a unified Russian state and the formation of national governing bodies
§ 6. The state apparatus of Russia in the 16th century
§ 7. The crisis of Russian statehood during the Time of Troubles
§ 8. Public administration in Russia under the first Romanovs
Chapter 3. Public administration in the 18th century
§ 9. The establishment of absolutism in Russia
§ 10. New government agencies
§ 11. Russian absolutism after Peter I
§ 12. The highest and central government bodies of the Empire in the 20s -90s. XVIII century
§ 13. Local and regional government
Chapter 4. The Russian state apparatus in the 19th century
§ 14. Russian monarchy in the 1st half of the 19th century
§ 15. Ministerial management system
§ 16. State apparatus of pre-reform Russia
§ 17. Russian statehood in the 2nd half of the 19th century
§ 18. Changes in the state apparatus in the era of reforms and counter-reforms
§ 19. Local authorities
§ 20. Management of national outskirts in the 19th century
Chapter 5. Russian statehood at the beginning of the 20th century
§ 21. The evolution of Russian statehood at the beginning of the 20th century
§ 22. Power and society
§ 23. The influence of the First World War on Russian statehood
§ 24. Fall of the monarchy. Provisional Government and its institutions
Chapter 6. Creation of the Soviet state. Public administration in the USSR in the pre-war and war years
§ 25. The emergence of the Soviet state and the formation of its apparatus
§ 26. State apparatus of the RSFSR
§ 27. Anti-Bolshevik governments
§ 28. Education of the USSR. Development of the state-political system in the 20s. XX century
§ 29. Higher and central state apparatus
§ 30. Creation of a system of sectoral industrial people's commissariats. Formation of an administrative-command management system
§ 31. Politic system USSR in the 30s. XX century
§ 32. Changes in the state apparatus during the years of the Great Patriotic War
Chapter 7. Public administration in the post-war period
§ 33. general characteristics Soviet statehood of the post-war period
§ 34. Higher and local state apparatus
§ 35. Controls economic sphere
§ 36. Management bodies of the socio-cultural sphere
§ 37. Management bodies of the administrative and political sphere § 38. Changes in the state-political system of the USSR during the years of perestroika
§ 39. Crisis and collapse of Soviet statehood. Collapse of the USSR..
Chapter 8. State and political development of the Russian Federation (1990-2010s)
§ 40. Formation of a new Russian statehood
§ 41. Evolution of the system of state and municipal government in the Russian Federation (1993 - 2013)
Conclusion
Bibliography
Kulikov V.A.
HISTORY OF WEAPONS AND ARMAMENT OF PEOPLES AND STATES FROM ANCIENT TIMES TO THE PRESENT
INTRODUCTION: A NEW LOOK AT THE LOGIC OF THE HISTORY OF WEAPONS AND ARMAMENT OF PEOPLES AND STATES
Science is often confused with knowledge. This is a gross misunderstanding. The science
there is not only knowledge, but also consciousness, i.e. ability to use knowledge
V.O.Klyuchevsky
It would probably be erroneous to say that everyone who picks up this book will have the same understanding of what kind of history it is talking about: the history of weapons and weapons as a type of human activity aimed at creating weapons and equipping the armed forces with them, or the history of weapons and “ weapons as a set of weapons and technical means that ensure their use” (42. T. 2. P. 266). Therefore, let us immediately agree that in this book an attempt is made reconstruct the history of weapons and the history of armament of peoples and states as one of the main types of human activity (its organization) from ancient times to the present day. The author wants to draw the reader’s attention to the underlying reasons and springs for the development of this story, help him comprehend the internal logic of the events associated with the creation and improvement of weapons, perhaps argue with some of his conclusions and hypotheses, develop and test his own new view of logic using historical material history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states.
For this, in order to be correctly understood in any case and assuming that the reader is already familiar with the main events of the domestic and world history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, the author considered it necessary to first acquaint him with those historical and logical prerequisites for the formation and development of scientific knowledge about weapons and human activity in their creation, which predetermined the choice of the topic of historical and theoretical research, the structure and content of the book. At the same time, he proceeded from the fact that the study and description of known and not so known facts the history of weapons and the history of armament of peoples and states is impossible without a systematic analysis of these facts ab ovo (Latin, literally “from the egg”), i.e. from the very beginning .
In order to establish this “very beginning,” which predetermines both the chronological boundaries and the expected results of the study, first of all, apparently, it is necessary to very clearly understand that the evolution of the weapons of peoples and states is organically connected with the genesis of weapons, their development and improvement. It follows that it is impossible reconstruct the history of weapons separately without reconstructing the history of arming peoples and states with weapons, created by the hands and mind of man, starting from its first, natural manifestations as the only means of self-defense primitive man and ending with the most modern multifunctional weapons systems with theoretically unlimited possibilities of mass destruction (or destruction) of people and causing irreparable damage to their habitat (human ecology).
This premise, on the one hand, is consistent, to a certain extent, with that which became widespread in the scientific literature, including in Russia, in the second half of the twentieth century. weapons concept, which considers it as “a process of qualitative development and quantitative growth of military equipment in the state, as well as equipping the armed forces with it” (42. T. 2. P. 266). On the other hand, it indicates that this definition does not reveal the real essence of the phenomenon under consideration, since “weapons are a type of human activity”, not "process", and "military equipment"- this is essentially not a “weapon”, as domestic and foreign research at the turn of the century convinces us of (46.77), but technical devices that ensure the use of “weapons”.
Of course, the concept of weapons, reflecting certain activities in the state related to military development, has the right to exist. But due to a number of “disagreements” between scientists and politicians, military theorists and practitioners from different countries, including Russia, in identifying the real content of this activity in the form of a “process”, the patterns of its functioning and development, which are still different are interpreted both in military theoretical literature and in the governing documents of the military departments of a number of states, as well as the existing uncertainty in developing this concept makes it difficult further development scientific knowledge about the history of weapons and the arming of peoples and states with them, as well as the development state weapons theory as the scientific basis for carrying out the military-technical policy of the state, anticipating the consequences of decisions and actions related to the creation and improvement of weapons.
These “disagreements” began to appear most clearly in our country, starting with the first conceptual publications on the emerging problem, including Major General I.I. Anureeva “On the scientific substantiation of weapon systems”(“Military Thought”. 1965. No. 12), Major General A.M. Parkhomenko “Management issues in the field of development of weapons and military equipment” And "Weapon Systems Analysis"(“Military thought.” 1966. No. 9; ibid. 1968. No. 11). For the first time, the formulation of this problem and its solution were carried out by the author of this book in the articles “On the Question of the Theory of Weapons” and “The Subject and Content of the Theory of Weapons” (“Military Thought”. 1975. No. 7; ibid. 1976. No. 6), with which the head of the Military Scientific Directorate of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces, Lieutenant General M.A. Gareev, agreed in his article “The System of Knowledge about War and the Army” (“Military Thought”, 1976. No. 8), officially including weapons theory in military science (Appendix 2).
The views on this problem were further developed in a discussion on the pages of the magazine “Military Thought” by domestic and foreign specialists - Colonel-Engineer A.N. Latukhin, Air Marshal, Doctor of Military Sciences G.V. Zimin, Lieutenant General, Doctor of Military Sciences V.K. Reznichenko, Major General, Doctor of Historical Sciences V.V. Larionov, Chief of the General Staff of the Bulgarian people's army Colonel General A.K. Semerdzhiev and others in articles under the heading “On the question of the theory of weapons” (“Military Thought”. 1975. No. 12), “On the system of scientific knowledge about war and the army” (“Military Thought”. 1977. No. 1, 2), as well as in the theoretical work of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the USSR Armed Forces “Military Science” (M., 1992. P. 161 - 167), the Russian Military Encyclopedia (M., 1994. T. 2. S 133, 266 - 268), etc.
The ongoing discussion on the problem posed to this day often leads to distorted (if not erroneous) results of the study of everything related to the creation and sale of weapons, its unjustified substitution with a “philosophically generalized” concept "military equipment", and does not allow us to construct a generalized (universal) classification of weapons and military equipment, and with it to present a description in a generalized and systematized form history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states in the form of a paradigm or strictly scientific branch (section) of knowledge of military historical science.
“Disagreements” on the problem posed also lead to erroneous shifts in the description of the history of mankind from the beginning of the organization of weapons as a type of human activity towards modernity, and at the same time, as a rule, to the time of the formation of states in human society, unreasonably excluding prehistory from the consideration of researchers, and along with it, the real prerequisites for determining the genesis of weapons and the associated trends in their development, which do not lose their significance even today (98).
These “disagreements” manifested themselves especially acutely during the transitional era in the history of Russia and the whole world - at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, in which we live, study and work, when the accumulated amount of military-historical knowledge and practical experience has largely depreciated. Many military-historical and military-theoretical works, textbooks designed for a certain level of education (military schools, universities, institutes, academies and self-education) are becoming outdated and are unsuitable in dramatically changed conditions. The field of military scientific knowledge is becoming unsteady and unstable. Everyone has to relearn. And for this we need monographs, collective works - textbooks and teaching aids, reflecting military-historical and military-theoretical truths, adequate to the new conditions of state and military construction in Russia, based on general scientific principles. Of course, this also applies to writing. true history weapons and weapons of peoples and states. The All-Russian (All-Union) Association of Weapon Historians (VAIO), created in May 1990, should also contribute to the solution of these problems, the charter of which was published in the journal “Technology and Armament” No. 8 - 1991 (Appendix 3).
Reconstruction of the history of how and why peoples and states armed themselves in the past world and in Russia with the traditional division of the past, present and future of humanity into five socio-economic formations with an indefinitely distant beginning (primitive communal system) and an endless completion (communist formation) history would allow me to write quite original in content, since nothing like this still exists in the historiography on the history of weapons and weapons, but traditional in form the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, as has already been done when writing the history of the development of many other socio-historical phenomena in fundamental and non-fundamental works and history textbooks published in our country and abroad.
At present, in a transitional era in the history of Russia and the whole world, a unique opportunity has arisen to reconstruct the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states and describe it in the form of scientific knowledge adequate to scientific views on the history of mankind at the beginning of the 21st century, based on the recently received V scientific world recognition of unconventional views on the logic of this story, even if not entirely established, some of the hypotheses of which may either not be confirmed or become more precise over time. (157. P. 20 - 25; 234. P. 4 - 12)
The book attempts to present new system views on the logic of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states is based on historical and logical premises, based on which this history begins its countdown long before the Neolithic civilization, and the process of its development is under the direct influence of the cyclical dynamics of world and local civilizations, which will continue, as predicted modern researchers, and in the future: “From this new logical position, the end of the twentieth - beginning of the twenty-first century represents a transitional era from industrial to post-industrial civilization, with the aggravation of contradictions, chaos, and the birth in the throes of a new society characteristic of transition periods” (234. P. 7 ).
An attempt has been made to study and describe in the book a generalized reconstruction of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states relies, in contrast to the fragmentary description of the history of weapons in rather rare qualified “weapons studies” works (15.33), as well as its selective description in many works and textbooks on the history of wars and military art, on a new, in a certain sense, system of views on the logic of its development both in form and content, among which the following deserve attention.
Firstly, an analysis of the “disagreements” (or errors?) in determining the real content of weapons as a type of human activity and existing concepts of weapons allows us to assert that a necessary and sufficient condition for obtaining reliable scientific knowledge about the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states must be adequate this knowledge historical sources for a reliable reconstruction of that part of history human society, during which the subject-labor activity of a person, his knowledge about nature and ways of using this knowledge in various areas of life, including first in the field of “appropriation” and use of natural ones, and then in the field of creation and use of artificial (technical) means of self-defense ( means of armed struggle).
It is known that world (universal) history (from the Greek historia - a story about the past, about what has been learned), as well as the history of the continents, individual peoples and states, in the generally accepted, “classical” reconstruction of the past, use all types of historical sources and above all material ones, received both before and after the advent of writing, and written ones (197. T. 1. P. 824 - 842). In addition to those mentioned above, in later historical eras they began to use sources of such types as oral, ethnographic, linguistic, photographic documents, and phonological documents. Material sources are usually archaeological, provide sufficiently objective information for the reconstruction of life and everyday life of primitive, ancient, medieval human societies, and allow us to imagine, to some extent, the social history of unwritten eras. Written sources, namely they, with all their variety - from annals and chronicles (in Rus' - chronicles), various kinds of agreements, correspondence to biographical, autobiographical and literary-artistic works of the rulers of the world, military leaders, historiographers and simply writers of ancient times, historians and theorists of later centuries - form the basis of both the "classical" reconstruction world history and histories of individual peoples and states, as well as new reconstructions of human history, such as, for example, proposed by Dr. economic sciences Yu.V.Yakovets “cyclical dynamics of world and local civilizations” (234).
In this regard, it is necessary to highlight two logical prerequisites inherent in the analysis of written sources, which required the author, like other researchers, to be especially careful when selecting facts for reconstructing both the history of human society and the history of the weapons developing in it. The first, which the famous military historian Academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences V.A. Zolotarev repeatedly draws attention to in his writings, is that “analysis of the basic and superstructural phenomena of the development of human society inevitably confronts the researcher with military-historical problems”(76. C. V). This conclusion indicates that the overwhelming majority of written sources describing the histories of peoples and states contain descriptions of wars, victories and defeats of peoples and states in armed struggle, and they cannot help but distort, as a rule, one or another historical fact, praising the victors and humiliating defeated. The second premise is that everything described from ancient times to the present historical events bear their imprint personal attitude towards them of the authors of written stories, covering these stories with a thick coating of subjectivism and fiction.
At the same time, one cannot help but notice that despite obvious and hidden distortions of historical facts (and, perhaps, even errors) in written history human society, individual peoples and states, it is not yet possible to bring to the reader’s attention the results of one of the first attempts systemic historical and theoretical analysis the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states without relying mainly on the “classical” reconstruction of world history. At the same time, I would like to note that while selecting from written history and generalizing certain facts of the evolution of weapons, the author could not ignore the emergence of new ones associated with them scientific hypotheses development of human history, which include the logical and methodological hypotheses of the so-called creators "new mathematical chronology of antiquity", who questioned the generally accepted, “classical” chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world as written history, the version of which they consider “far from the most obvious” (157. P. 20).
Secondly, the next step in establishing the historical and logical prerequisites that determine the achievement of the research goal led to the revelation that the vast majority of written sources known to date - annals, chronicles, chronicles, legislative acts, articles, monographs, collective works, dedicated to the history of human society, reflects, as a rule, different approaches to determining its beginning and periodization (division) of the chronological boundaries of individual stages within the main cultural and historical periods (11, 48, 67, 133, 157, 197, 234). Therefore, in order to minimize chronological errors when reconstructing the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, it was necessary to agree, at least as a first approximation, about the beginning of the chronological boundary of the description of the fate of weapons. Modern scientific ideas about the historical and evolutionary process of development of living organisms on Earth allowed the author a priori (lat., initially), when establishing the left chronological boundary of our research, to put forward a hypothesis and rely upon the following postulate during reconstruction - “the time of the appearance of weapons on Earth is connected with the time of the appearance of Man on it”.
Setting a conditionally selected "time of appearance of weapons" is implemented in the course of the study both as a basis for determining the starting point for reconstructing the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, and as one of the grounds for creating a generalized (universal) classification of weapons and military equipment. This premise is also used to justify the “division” of the description of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states in retrospect by period into three conventional historical eras, each of which, among other things, is distinguished by the dominant type of weapon that is decisive for it: from ancient times to the end of the 13th century - cold, from the beginning of the 14th to the mid-20th century - firearms, from the mid-20th century to the present - nuclear.
The proposed approach to precisely this representation of the general reconstruction of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states and its periodization is adequate to the idea adopted in a number of historical studies "energy periodization" history of the development of human society, which has been successfully implemented in a number of world-famous historical studies, incl. in the work of the English historian S. Lilly when he presented the well-known concept of the history of technology, scientific discoveries and inventions (130).
Thirdly, to reconstruct the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states with sufficient high level reliability, exploring and consistently describing all the vicissitudes of its complex fate in the era determined by the decisive types of weapons, it was necessary to agree on a unified approach to determining the criterion mechanism for constructing the most general (universal) classification of weapons and military equipment, starting with the choice for its foundation types of weapons - natural and technical. The fulfillment of this condition presupposes the selection of such decisive types of weapons for the study and description of the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, the emergence and development of which is strictly connected with the periodic, ever-increasing speed alternation of world civilizations with a change of epicenters and the uneven wave-like development of local civilizations (234) .
It was precisely this typology of society in determining the decisive types of weapons that made it possible to significantly simplify the study and, in the author’s opinion, minimize possible errors when trying to describe the history of the creation and development of a huge number of the most diverse types and types of weapons that appeared and existed for about 2 million years. vast territories of our planet in the epicenters of world and local civilizations, on different continents, y different nations and in the most different countries, for the classification of which there is only one archaeological science uses at least three bases. In relation to our research, these are functional (purpose of the weapon), chronological (time of production of the weapon) and chorological (place of production of the weapon).
Fourthly, among the essential historical and logical prerequisites for the formation and development of scientific knowledge about the history of the evolution of weapons and weapons of peoples and states also includes the premise that involves conducting research and describing the history of weapons not only as a means of armed struggle, which does not raise questions, but also as a source of emotional and intellectual impact on culture, spiritual world people in different historical eras. This role of weapons is manifested in mythology and folk heroic epics, artistic and poetic literature, works of fine art and music, religious scriptures, writings of philosophers, statesmen and military leaders, and in collecting weapons.
A systematic analysis of the fate of weapons from this angle represents a new and complex problem, the solution of which became possible only with modern stage development of scientific knowledge thanks to the manifestations of new political thinking at the end of the twentieth century and the sharply increased interest in the future of weapons among specialists from various fields of scientific knowledge - political scientists, philosophers, historians, philologists, art historians, engineers, military theorists and practitioners, etc. (57)
One of the first fruitful and, as it seems, of its kind, attempts in our country to pose this problem and outline ways to solve it was the work of domestic military philosophers B.N. Malkov and A.I. Surovtsev, devoted to the study of reflection in written sources of influence individual properties of weapons on the spiritual world of man (206). Without setting ourselves the task of describing in this book the history of the fate of weapons and from this side - from the side of its influence on the spiritual world of man, it was impossible not to touch upon certain facets of the solution to this problem, because the formulated premise presupposes at least their mention in the general reconstruction of the history of the evolution of weapons and armament of peoples and states.
Consideration of the main historical and logical prerequisites for the formation and development of scientific knowledge about the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states from ancient times to the present day, taking into account new views on the logic of its development, allows us to conclude that the stated goal of the study would not have been achieved if if the book had not reflected, at least briefly, one of possible solutions problems of the formation and development, on the one hand, of the logical and methodological foundations of the study and description of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states as a branch (section) of military historical science, on the other - scientific foundations theories of armament of peoples and states.
We regret to note that until now the methodology military history, its essence, structure, principles and functions have been reflected in a systematized form so far only in the only work of domestic military historians published in our country about 20 years ago, edited by corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Lieutenant General P.A. Zhilin (137) . Statement methodology for researching the history of weapons, which is one of the most important sections of knowledge of military historical science, this monograph is devoted to only four pages in the section “Basic principles and features of studying the history of military equipment.” In addition to the most general recommendations that “studying history of military equipment(our emphasis - Author) is based on the same principles as military science and military art"(Ibid. p. 339), this section does not contain other methodological recommendations for conducting research and describing the history of weapons. Therefore, one should not be surprised at the bitter conclusions that domestic military theorists and historians are currently coming to that “the history of weapons has not yet been developed scientifically and has not been presented not only in the form of a book, but even in the form of a good scientific and theoretical article”(53. P. 25 - 26).
The attempt made in this book to outline the logical and methodological foundations of the study and description of the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states in a generalized form allows us to imagine, at least as a first approximation, the conditions for the formation and development history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states as a branch (section) of scientific knowledge of domestic military-historical science. At the same time, the author is clearly aware that these conditions change both in space (from country to country) and in time (from generation to generation). Based on the general provisions of scientific studies, the book reflects such components of the branch of science under consideration as the object and subject of research, its structure, content, problems, principles and patterns of development. The methodology used by the author to study the history of the evolution of weapons is based on the method of system analysis, the main principles of which are scientific objectivity, an integrated approach to the analysis of the problem under study, comprehensiveness and specificity, historicism, as well as methods of induction, deduction and sociological analysis.
Sociological analysis allows the reader to quite fully imagine the role and place of weapons in nature and society, i.e. consider it as a result (product) of the action of various natural, social and other causes and as a factor that significantly influences the development of human society. A comprehensive study of the history of the creation and development of one or another decisive type of weapon - necessary condition making a decision on its inclusion in the generalized (universal) classification of weapons and analyzing the evolution of the weapons of peoples and states. In turn, the resulting scientific knowledge about the history of weapons as a socio-historical phenomenon serves as the basis for assessing specific types and types of weapons from the point of view of their place in historical battles and the battles of the era in question and its role in world history, as well as in the history of human thought, which is embodied not in the metal itself, but in the ideas, thoughts and feelings of man caused by “deadly iron.”
System analysis and theoretical generalization of the historical, centuries-old experience of human activity in creating various types weapons, management of the organization of weapons in different historical eras makes it possible to identify the basic patterns, principles and methods of arming peoples and states of both world and local civilizations. The book substantiates the formulation and analyzes ways of solving the problem of developing the theory of armament of peoples and states, examines the components of its scientific foundations in accordance with the requirements of modern science, as well as some typical tasks theories and methodological aspects of their solution.
Fundamentals of the theory of armament of peoples and states are presented in the book in the form of a description of the formation and development of its most important components as a branch (section) of knowledge of general scientific theory, ensuring a unity of understanding of the object and subject under study, the necessary relationship of the components of this theory with each other, with other branches of knowledge of the theory of military affairs of the state, integral part which it is, as well as branches of general scientific knowledge. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the influence of weapons theory on the formation of a scientific approach to the development of the fundamentals of the theory of operation of weapon systems.
Purpose and specific tasks research determined the structure of the book. It includes - the first chapter, summarizing the logical and methodological foundations of studying and describing the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states, the second, third and fourth chapters, devoted to the analysis of trends in the development of weapons and military equipment in the era of cold steel, firearms and nuclear weapons, the fifth chapter, revealing the basic principles of organizing the armament of peoples and states at the turn of the 20th - 21st centuries, the sixth chapter, which describes the features of the formation and development of the scientific foundations of the theory of state armament, as well as appendices with a brief reference book of the names of outstanding inventors and designers of weapons and military equipment and a dictionary of the most commonly used terms and concepts theories of state armament.
The main restrictions imposed on the content and form of the monograph are due, on the one hand, to the breadth of the problem, which excludes the possibility of a detailed description of the history of the evolution of all types of weapons and military equipment created to date by humanity, and on the other hand, to the historical and theoretical nature of the work.
At the same time, the author tried to summarize and systematize the knowledge accumulated to date about the history of weapons, military-technical and humanitarian problems of their development, as well as problems of organizing the armament of peoples and states as a type of human activity so that the book could be used as a reference or teaching aid, containing the basic scientific and reference data necessary for studying and describing the history of weapons and weapons of peoples and states. The bibliography and appendices included in the book may be of some help in this regard. The references to literature given in the text of the book (in brackets) indicate not only the sources that were used in writing the book, but also the most useful, in the author’s opinion, works of historiography for the reader on the problems discussed in the book.
The work is exploratory and exploratory in nature and for this reason cannot claim to be a complete and final solution to all the problems posed in the study, a number of provisions and hypotheses put forward of which require further clarification and development. Therefore, the author will be grateful to those who send him their comments and suggestions, which will be taken into account when finalizing the book.
The author was given great assistance with their wishes and recommendations in posing and solving the problem of developing the scientific foundations of the theory of armament of peoples and states by the editor-in-chief of the magazine “Military Thought” (1968 - 1977), Lieutenant General Candidate of Military Sciences V.I. Zemskov, chairmen of the Main Editorial Commission of the “Soviet Military Encyclopedia”, in which, as in the magazine “Military Thought”, the author had the honor of working, Marshal Soviet Union N.V. Ogarkov (1976 - 1980), Marshal of the Soviet Union S.F. Akhromeev (1986 - 1991), deputy chairman of the Main Editorial Commission of the “Soviet Military Encyclopedia”, academician of the Academy of Military Sciences of the Russian Federation, Army General M.A. Gareev, academician of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Major General V.A. Zolotarev, colleagues at the 46th Central Research Institute of the USSR Ministry of Defense, editorial staff of the magazine “Military Thought”, “Soviet Military Encyclopedia” of the Institute of Military History of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.
The author cannot but express deep gratitude to Doctor of Military Sciences, Professor I.I. Anureev, doctor technical sciences, Professor Yu.V. Chuev, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor E.K. Minnibaev, Doctor of Technical Sciences, Professor I.M. Penchukov, Doctor of Historical Sciences A.S. Orlov, Doctor of Historical Sciences Yu.V. Rubtsov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor D.N. Filippov, Candidate of Technical Sciences A.I. Starostin, Candidate of Historical Sciences M.E. Morozov, Professors of the Academy of Military Sciences V.A. Semidetko and S.A. Shirinkin, as well as his wife and reliable assistant in the work G.Yu. Kulikova, without whose help the appearance of this monograph would hardly have been possible.
Archive of Kulikov surnames. Origin of the surname Kulikov. Where did the surname Kulikov come from? What does the surname Kulikov mean? History of the origin of the Kulikov surname? What information does the surname store about the ancestors of the Kulikovs?
Meaning and origin of the surname Kulikov.
Kulikov. Value 1.
It is most common in the Volga region (in the Ulyanovsk and Nizhny Novgorod regions, in the Republic of Tatarstan and the Republic of Udmurtia).
The basis of the Kulikov surname was the worldly name Kulik. The worldly name Kulik originates from a similar name for a small wading bird with long legs. Before the introduction of Christianity in Rus', naming a child with a name that was the name of an animal or plant was a very common tradition. This corresponded to man's pagan ideas about the world. Ancient Russian man, who lived according to the laws of nature, imagined himself to be a part of it. By giving the baby a name like Kulik, the parents wanted nature to perceive the child as its own, so that those useful qualities endowed with the chosen representative of the animal world would be transferred to him.
According to another version, the surname Kulikov comes from the nickname Kulik, which could have been given to a long-legged person (due to its external resemblance to the sandpiper bird).
The Kulikov surname is very ancient. Thus, in the “Onomasticon” of Academician S. B. Veselovsky there are related names: Kulik Kotok, peasant of the Semenovsky churchyard (1495); peasant Stepan Kulikov (1539); Matvey Ivanov, son of Kulikov, guarantor for the boyars (1571); Novgorod landowners Kulikovs (late 15th century). Among the famous representatives of the family are Nikolai Ivanovich Kulikov (1815-1891), Russian actor and dramatic writer; Ivan Semenovich Kulikov (1875-1941), Russian artist, academician of painting, student of I. E. Repin; Viktor Georgievich Kulikov (b. 1921), Soviet and Russian military and statesman, Hero of the Soviet Union, Marshal of the Soviet Union.
Kulikov. Meaning 2.
The owner of the surname Kulikov can rightfully be proud of his ancestors, information about which is contained in various documents confirming the mark they left in the history of Russia.Most likely, the basis of the Kulikov surname was a secular name. This name was added by the child’s parents to the name he received at baptism. This name was used more often than a baptismal name and was assigned to a person for life.
The presence of a second, worldly name was a kind of tribute to the ancient Slavic tradition of two names. Its goal was to hide the main, church name from “evil spirits” and “evil spirits.”
Worldly names often completely replaced baptismal names and could even act as official names in documents. So, even in the chronicles there are records like “a son Fedor was born to the Grand Duke Vsevolod, and was nicknamed Yaroslav” (1190), or, for example, the son of a Novgorod priest “Maxim, and the worldly name Stanimir” (1310) is mentioned.
Thus, the surname Kulikov could go back to the worldly name Kulik, which, in turn, is derived from the common noun “kulik”. This is the name of the marsh bird.
Due to their semi-aquatic lifestyle, these birds have characteristic long legs for moving through shallow waters or muddy ground, a long sensitive beak for foraging in soft ground, and large eyes for being active at night.
However, we cannot exclude the possibility that the surname under study could have come from the figurative meaning of the nickname Kulik. So, in dialects Kulik was often called a simple-minded, slow-witted person. In other dialects, Kulik is “a person with a long nose” (probably due to its resemblance to the sandpiper bird).
Documentary sources record the nicknames and name Kulik: Kulik Ivan, Duma boyar, 1456; Kulik Vasil, 1555, Ryazan; Kulishka Trofim, peasant, 1567; Mostyk and Kulik, Zemtsov brothers, 1584 and others.
Already in the 15th–16th centuries in Rus', surnames began to be fixed and passed on from generation to generation, indicating a person’s belonging to a specific family. These were possessive adjectives with the suffixes –ov/-ev, -in, initially indicating the name of the head of the family. Thus, the descendants of a person with the name Kulik eventually received the surname Kulikovs.
The practice of giving a child, in addition to the official baptismal name, another, non-baptismal name, continued until the 17th century. and led to the fact that surnames formed from secular names made up a significant part of total number Russian surnames.
Since the process of formation of surnames was quite long, it is currently difficult to talk about the exact place and time of the appearance of the surname Kulikov. However, we can say with confidence that it belongs to the oldest Russian family names and can tell a lot about the life and way of life of our distant ancestors.
Kulikov. Meaning 3.
The Jewish surname Kulikov (there is also a non-Jewish one) is a Russified (using the ending “-ov”) form of the surname Kulik.There are two versions of the origin of the Kulik surname.
According to the first version, the surname Kulik refers to the so-called “toponymic” surnames, that is, surnames formed from the name of the city or town in which the first bearers of this surname lived. Moreover, most often a surname was assigned to a person not when he lived in this place, but when he moved to a new place of residence. A certain nickname was assigned to a person, because the question “Where is he from?” often answered, for example: “Yes, he is from Vilna. He is Vilnius (or Vilner).” Thus, most toponymic surnames were formed.
The surname Kulik comes from the name of the town of Kuliki on the border of Belarus and Lithuania, in the Berestovitsky district of the Grodno region.
Another possible origin of this surname is from the name of the marsh bird “sandpiper”. In Poland and Belarus, a number of similar Jewish surnames are known, formed arbitrarily from Polish and Belarusian words, most often associated with nature: Drozd - “thrush”, Wierzhba - “willow”, Przepyurka - “quail”, Kwiatek - “flower”. Apparently, these surnames were created as artificial ones, with the help of the rich imagination of the officials responsible for the “familying” of Jews, or the Jewish recipients of the surname themselves.
Surname Kulikov in the territory Russian Empire met in the cities of Grodno, Vasilkov, Kherson.
Topic 1 . Theoretical basis government controlled
Signs and functions of the state- The concept of public administration. Main distinctive features.
- General characteristics of the state apparatus. Classification of government bodies.
Literature:
Atamanchuk G.V. Theory of public administration. M. 2000- Vengerov A.B. Theory of Government and Rights. M. 1999
- Gaivoronskaya Y.V., Samusenko T.M. Theory of Government and Rights. Part 1. Vladivostok. 1999
- Kashanina T.V. Origin of state and law. M. 1999
- Kulikov V.I. History of public administration in Russia. M. 2001
- Lazarev V.V., Lipen S.V. Theory of Government and Rights. - M.: Spark, 2000
- Fundamentals of Political Science. / Ed. V.P. Pugacheva. Part I. M. 1994
- Spiridonov L.I. Theory of Government and Rights. M.1999
- Theory of Government and Rights. // Ed. Marchenko M.N. M.: Mirror, 1998.
- Chirkin V.E. Statecraft. M. 1997
- Chirkin V.E. Public administration. M. 2001
2. When considering the concept of public administration, attention should be focused on its understanding in a broad and narrower sense. Note the differences between these interpretations of public administration. It is important to characterize the constituent elements of public administration and the spheres of life of the society that it covers.
3. When classifying the bodies that make up the state apparatus, it is necessary to show the principles on the basis of which the division of these bodies is made. It is important to highlight two main classification options: according to the main areas of activity of the state apparatus (legislative, executive, judicial bodies) and according to the place of government bodies in the system of the state apparatus (higher, central and local).
Topic 2. Management system during the formation of Russian statehood (VII-XII centuries)
1. Management structure at the stage of decomposition of the tribal system.
2. Formation of statehood among the Eastern Slavs.
3. Princely-druzhina system of government in Kievan Rus, its evolution. The emergence of a palace-patrimonial system of government.
4. Peasant community self-government and city meetings of citizens.
Their interactions with the princely authorities.
Source:
Reader on the history of Russia. T.1. M. 1994- Reader on the history of state and law of Russia
- Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. (texts and comments) in 9 volumes. T. 1. / Ed. O.I. Chistyakova. M. 1984
Gorsky A.A. Old Russian squad. M. 1989- Gorsky A.A. Rus' at the end of the 10th and beginning of the 12th centuries.// National history. 1992. № 4.
- Klyuchevsky V.O. Terminology of Russian history. Lectures IX-X. // Collection Op. in 9 vols. T. 6. M. 1989.
- Klyuchevsky V.O. About Russian history. Lectures IX-X. / Ed. IN AND. Buganov. M. 1993.
- Lubchenkov Yu.M., Klokova G.V. Ancient Rus'. T. 1. M. 1998
- Novoseltsev A.P. The formation of the Old Russian state and its first ruler // Questions of history. 1991. No. 2-3
- Presnyakov A.E. Princely law in Ancient Rus'. M. 1993.
- Platonov S.F. Lectures on Russian history. M. 1996; St. Petersburg. 1997.
- Rapov O.M. Princely possessions in Rus' in the 10th – first half of the 13th centuries. M. 1977
- Froyanov I.Ya. Kievan Rus. Essays on socio-political history. L. 1980
- Froyanov I.Ya., Dvornichenko A.Yu. City-states of Ancient Rus'.
2. The second question is related to the process of formation of the ancient Russian state and involves illuminating the prerequisites, progress and results of this process.
3. Answering the third question, it is important to take into account that the ancient Russian state combined the institutional features of the pre-state stage and the early feudal system. Therefore, when analyzing princely power, it is necessary to turn to the legal monument - “Russian Truth”. Based on its study, give a general description of the legal system of Rus' during the period under review. In addition, based on the “Tale of Bygone Years” and recommended literature, the composition of the princely squad should be analyzed.
4. Considering this question, it is important to note the features of local government both in rural areas and in cities. Here it is necessary to show the basic principles of the functioning of the institutions of local self-government of Ancient Rus' (world-rope; veche), their structure and interaction with the princely power.
Topic 3. Public administration in the era feudal fragmentation and the formation of a unified centralized state(XIII-XVII centuries).
1. The system of government during the period of the Horde yoke. Distinctive features in the administration of the Great Moscow Principality
2. Development of the management system of the centralized Moscow state in the first half of the 16th century.
3. Oprichnina management: causes, essence, consequences.
4. The revival of the state administration system after the Time of Troubles and its further evolution in the 17th century.
Source:
Reader on the history of the USSR XVI-XVII centuries. / Ed. A.A. Zimina. M. 1962- Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. T. 3. M. 1985
Literature:
Alekseev Yu.G. Sovereign of All Rus'. Novgorod. 1991- Alshits D.N. The beginning of autocracy in Russia: the state of Ivan the Terrible. L. 1988
- Bushuev S.B. History of Russian Goverment. Historical and bibliographical essays. XVII-XVIII centuries M. 1994
- Gumilev L.N. From Rus' to Russia. M. 1992
- Zimin A.A. Russia on the eve of modern times (Essays on the political history of Russia in the first third of the 16th century). M. 1972
- Zimin A.A. Knight at a crossroads. M. 1991
- Zimin A.A. Oprichnina of Ivan the Terrible. M. 1964
- history of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 17th century. M. 1996
- Kobrin V.B. Ivan groznyj. M. 1989
- Klyuchevsky V.O. Boyar Duma of Ancient Rus'. M. 1994
- Kuchkin V.A. Rus' under the yoke: how it happened. M. 1991
- Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan groznyj. M. 1983
- Skrynnikov R.G. Reign of Terror. St. Petersburg 1992
- Tikhomirov M.N. Russian state XV-XII centuries M. 1979
- Cherepnin L.V. Zemsky Sobors of the Russian State in the XV-XVII centuries. M. 1978.
2. The second question is related to the processes of change in central and local government bodies. Here it is necessary to show the essence of the “Zemstvo reform”, the process of creating orders, their role in government. It is important to focus on the role of the Zemsky Sobor as an estate-representative body in the system of public administration.
3. Answering this question, it is important to establish the reasons for the introduction of such an emergency system of government as the oprichnina. How the introduction of the oprichnina affected the power of the tsar, Zemsky Sobors and other central bodies. It is important to try to analyze how the oprichnina influenced the process of centralization of the state.
4. The fourth question requires an outline of the process of restoring the system of public administration after a period of troubled times. Here it is important to focus on what changes in the public administration system have occurred compared to the previous period, and what was this connected with?
Topic 4. Public administration during the period of establishment and development of absolutism in Russia
Lesson 1
1. Transformation of the system of supreme and central government bodies in the first quarter of the 18th century.
2. Reform of local government during the reign of Peter I.
3. Public administration during the years of palace coups
Source:
1. Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. T.4. M. 1986
2. Reader on the history of the USSR. XVIII century. M. 1963
3. . Ch. IX
Literature:
Anisimov E.V. The time of Peter's reforms. L. 1989
Buganov V.I. Peter the Great and his time. M. 1989
Eroshkin N.P. Story government agencies. M.1984
Pavlenko N.I. Peter the Great. M. 1990
Pavlenko N.I. Petrov's nest chicks. M. 1985
Solonevich I.L. People's monarchy. M. 1991
Troitsky S.M. Russian absolutism and the nobility in the 18th century. Formation of bureaucracy. M. 1987
When considering this issue, you should pay attention to the main factors that influenced the process of reforming public administration. It is important to note the change in the powers and status of the monarch. It is necessary to trace the process of replacing the highest and central state bodies (Boyar Duma, orders...) with structures with clearer principles of organization and certain areas of competence (Senate, collegiums...). Particular attention should be paid to the bureaucratization of public administration and its distinctive features.- Speaking about changes in the system of local government during the period of Peter the Great's reforms, it is necessary to dwell on the fiscal nature of the reform of the administrative-territorial division of the country and the local government system. It is worth noting the not entirely successful attempts to strengthen local self-government, while analyzing the relationship between the estate and bureaucratic elements in the management of governorates and provinces.
- The answer to the third question involves revealing the reasons for the emergence of new supreme bodies of government of the country during the period of palace coups and strengthening of police regulation of government. It is important to show how the instability of central government institutions manifested itself. It is necessary to highlight the process of further centralization and bureaucratization of local government.
Lesson 2
Ideas of “enlightened absolutism” of Catherine II in the field of public administration- Reorganization of higher and central administration during the reign of Catherine II
- The formation of urban state and public administration in the second half of the 18th century.
- Reforms of Catherine the Great in the sphere of class administration (noble, church, peasant, Cossack).
Sources:
Notes of Empress Catherine II. M. 1989- Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999. Ch. XI
- Political history of Russia. Reader. M. 1996
Anisimov E.V., Kamensky A.B. Russia in the 18th – first half of the 19th centuries. M. 1994- Eroshkin N.P. History of government institutions.M. 1984
- Kamensky A.B. Under the shadow of Catherine...: Second half of the 18th century. St. Petersburg. 1992
- Medushevsky A.N. The establishment of absolutism in Russia. M. 1994
- Omelchenko O.A. The formation of an absolute monarchy in Russia. M. 1986
- Russian statehood: historical aspect. M. 1995
Topic 5. Russian public administration in the first half of the 19th century.
Conditions and projects for the development of public administration- Reorganization of the highest governing bodies of Russia
- System of central institutions. Ministerial reform.
- Local government in the first half of the 19th century.
2. Political history of Russia. Reader. M. 1996.
3. Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. M. 1961
Public administration institutions in Russia: experience of formation and evolution. Nizhny Novgorod. 1994
Literature:
Mironenko S.V. Pages of the secret history of autocracy: the political history of Russia in the first half of the 19th century. M. 1990.
Safonov M.M. Problems of reforms in Russian government policy at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. L. 1989
Troitsky M.M. Third department under Nicholas I. L. 1990
Topic 6. Public administration in the era of reforms and counter-reforms (second half of the 19th century).
1. Supreme bodies of government
2. Development of a ministerial system of central government
3. Local governments. Expanding functions and changing their structure.
4. Management of the national outskirts of the Russian Empire in the second half of the 19th century.
Source:
1. Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries. M. 1986
2. Political history of Russia. Reader. M. 1996
3. Public administration institutions in Russia: experience of formation and evolution. Nizhny Novgorod. 1994
4. Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999. Chapter XII
Literature:
Vselensky B.V. Judicial reform and counter-reform in Russia. Saratov. 1969
Gerasimenko G.A. Zemstvo self-government in Russia. M. 1990.
Eroshkin N.P. History of state institutions of Russia. M. 1983
Zayonchkovsky P.A. Russian autocracy in late XIX centuries. M. 1970.
Zayonchkovsky P.A. Government apparatus autocratic Russia in the 19th century M. 1978
History of public administration in Russia. M. 1997
Kornilov A.A. History course Russia XIX V. M. 1993.
Topic 7. Public administration in the context of political change
1. Changes in the highest echelons of public administration. Creation of the State Duma: the basic principles of its functioning and role in the political life of the country.
2. System of central government bodies
3. The influence of the First World War on Russian statehood
4. Provisional Government and Soviets. Crises of the “dual power” system: causes and results.
Sources:
Witte S.Yu. Memories. T. 1-3. M. 1994- Milyukov P.N. Memoirs of a statesman. M. 1990
4. Russian legislation of the 10th and 20th centuries. In 9 t. M. 1984-1994
5. Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999
Literature:
Avrekh A.Ya. Tsarism on the eve of its overthrow. M. 1989
Power and reforms. From autocratic to Soviet Russia. St. Petersburg 1996
Gaida F.A. The mechanism of power of the Provisional Government (March-April 1917) // Domestic history. 2001. No. 2.
Ganelin R.Sh. Russian autocracy in 1905. Reforms and revolution. St. Petersburg 1991
Gerasimenko G.A. The first act of democracy in Russia: public executive committees. M. 1992
Gerasimenko G.A. Transformation of power in Russia in 1917 // Domestic history. 1997. No. 1.
Demin V.A. State Duma in Russia (1906-1917): Mechanism of functioning. M. 1996
Eroshkin N.P. History of state institutions of Russia. M. 1983
Zyryanov P.N. Russian statehood in the 19th and early 20th centuries. // Free thought. 1993. No. 8.
Izmozik V.S. Provisional government. People and destinies // Questions of history. 1994. No. 6.
The intelligentsia in power: The Provisional Government in 1917. International seminar of historians // Domestic history. 1999.№4.
Protasov L.G. All-Russian Constituent Assembly. The story of birth and death. M. 1997
Startsev V.I. Revolution and power. Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government in March -= April 1917 M. 1978
Florinsky M.F. The crisis of public administration in Russia during the First World War (Council of Ministers in 1914-1917). L. 1988
Shelokhaev V.V. Liberal model for the reconstruction of Russia. M. 1996
Topic 8. The formation of the Soviet system of public administration during the period Civil War(1917-1920)
Creation of the RSFSR. Constitution of 1918- Supreme and central government bodies
- Organization Soviet power in places
- Anti-Bolshevik governments: history of creation, forms of organization, results of activities.
Sources:
Denikin A.I. Essays on Russian Troubles. M. 1995- Kerensky A.F. Russia at a historical turn // Questions of history. 1990. No. 6-12; 1991. No. 1-12.
- Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999
Bystrenko V.I. History of public administration and self-government in Russia. Novosibirsk - Moscow. 1997
Gorodetsky E.N. The birth of the Soviet state. M. 1987.
Garmiza V.V. The collapse of the Socialist Revolutionary governments. M. 1970
Drobizhev V.Z. Main Headquarters socialist industry: essays on the history of the Supreme Economic Council. 1917-1932. M. 1966
Kukushkin Yu.S., Chistyakov O.I. Essay on the history of the Soviet Constitution. M. 1990
Portnov V.P. Cheka. 1917-1922. M. 1987.
Topic 9. Public administration of the USSR in the 20-30s. XX century.
1. Education of the USSR. Constitution of 1924
2. Changes in the highest and central levels of Soviet government. The influence of political and economic factors (20s - first half of the 30s).
3. Establishment of an administrative-command management system. Her character traits and legal framework.
4. Formation of the Soviet nomenklatura
Sources:
- Declaration on the formation of the USSR. Treaty on the formation of the USSR. December 30, 1922 // Congresses of Soviets in documents. 1917-1936. In 3 volumes. T. 3. M. 1960.
- Basic Law (Constitution) of the USSR 1924 // Congresses of Soviets in documents. 1917-1936. In 3 volumes. T. 3. M. 1960.
- Constitution (Basic Law) of the USSR. December 5, 1936 // Congresses of Soviets in documents. 1917-1936. In 3 volumes. T. 3. M. 1960.
- State power of the USSR. Supreme authorities and management and their leaders. 1923-1991: Historical and biographical reference book / Author's compilation. IN AND. Ivkin. M. 1999
- Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999
Administrative command control system. Problems and facts. Collection scientific works.
Bystrenko V.I. History of public administration and self-government in Russia. Novosibirsk - Moscow. 1997
Vert N. History of the Soviet State. M. 1992
Vselensky M. Nomenclature // New World. 1990. No. 6
Gimpelson E.G. Political system and NEP: inadequacy of reforms // Domestic history. 1993. No. 2.
Giuseppe Boffa. History of the Soviet Union. M.: " International relationships", 1990. T.1.
Drobizhev V.Z. Main Headquarters of Socialist Industry: Essays on the History of the Supreme Economic Council. 1917-1932. M. 1966.
History of the Soviet Constitution. M 1957
History of public administration in Russia. / Ed. Prof. A.N. Markova. M. 1997
Korzhikhina T.P. History of state institutions of the USSR. M. 1986
Korzhikhina T.P., Figatner Yu.Yu. Soviet nomenclature: formation, mechanisms of action // Questions of history. 1993. No. 7.
Popov G.Kh. The brilliance and poverty of the administrative-command system. M. 1990
Khlevnyuk O.V. Politburo. Mechanism political power in the 1930s. M. 1996
Topic 10. Public administration during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945).
Specifics of the operating conditions of the public administration system in 1941-1945.- Extraordinary and constitutional bodies of government during the war
- Changes in the system of republican governing bodies
- Economic management in wartime conditions.
Sources:
State power of the USSR. Supreme authorities and management and their leaders. 1923-1991: Historical and biographical reference book / Author's compilation. IN AND. Ivkin. M. 1999
Zhukov G.K. Memories and reflections. M. 1995
Komarov N.Ya. The State Defense Committee decides...Documents. Memories. Comments. M. 1990
Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999
Literature:
Arkhipov T.G. The state apparatus of the RSFSR during the Great Patriotic War (1941-1945). M. 1981
Gorkov Yu.A. Kremlin. Bid. General Staff. Tver. 1995
Danilov V.N. War and power: Emergency authorities of the regions of Russia during the Great Patriotic War. Saratov. 1996
Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. M.: “Lawyer”, 1994
History of public administration in Russia. / Ed. Prof. A.N. Markova. M. 1997
Korzhikhina T.P. History of state institutions of the USSR. M. 1986
Likhomanov M.I. Party leadership of evacuation during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1942. L. 1985
Topic 11. Public administration reforms (mid 50s – mid 60s of the twentieth century): nature and methods of implementation, inconsistency of results.
1. Specific features of the post-war system of public administration (mid-40s - early 50s)
2. Transformations in the structure and mechanism of state power after the death of I.V. Stalin. Reorganization of repressive and punitive bodies, organizational forms and methods of party leadership.
3. Reforms in the field of economic management and social development (education, culture, science) during the reign of N.S. Khrushchev.
4. Changes in the psychology of the Soviet bureaucracy (1953-1964).
Sources:
State power of the USSR. Supreme authorities and management and their leaders. 1923-1991: Historical and biographical reference book / Author's compilation. IN AND. Ivkin. M. 1999
Politburo, organizational bureau, secretariat of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) - CPSU (b) - CPSU. Directory. M. 1990
The Russia we didn't know. 1939-1993. Reader. Chelyabinsk. 1995
Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. M. 1999
Literature:
Barsukov N.A. The other side of the “thaw” (historical and documentary essay). // Centaur. 1993. No. 4
Power and opposition. Russian political process of the twentieth century. M. 1995
Denisov Yu.P. Khrushchev's agricultural policy. Results and lessons. // Social Sciences and modernity. 1996. No. 1.
Zubkova E. Khrushchev’s reforms: the culture of political action. // Free thought. 1993. No. 9
Zelenin I.E. The Virgin Land Epic: development, adoption and implementation of the first Khrushchev “super program” (September 1953 – early 60s). // National history. 1998. No. 4
Isaev I.A. History of state and law of Russia. M.: “Lawyer”, 1994
History of public administration in Russia. / Ed. Prof. A.N. Markova. M. 1997
Korzhikhina T.P. History of state institutions of the USSR. M. 1986
Leibovich O.L. Reform and modernization in 1953-1964. Permian. 1993
N.S. Khrushchev. Materials for the biography. M. 1989.
Essays economic reforms. - M., 1993
Pribytkov V. Apparatus. St. Petersburg. 1995
Light and shadows of the “great decade” N.S. Khrushchev and his time. L. 1989
Sirotkin V. Nomenclature in a historical context // Through thorns. M. 1990
Strekopytov S.P. State management of science in the USSR. 1936-1958
Temirbaev K.M., Ukraintsev V.V. Essays on history Soviet culture. M. 1980
Topic 12. Public administration system in the USSR
(mid-60s – mid-80s) and its crisis
1. Audit of reforms by N.S. Khrushchev in the party-state mechanism.
Features of the party and state elite (70s–80s).
2. Changes in the central management level. Reform A.N. Kosygina.
3. Reform of local Soviet bodies. Inconsistency of results.
4. Attempts at reforms in the state-party and economic
Systems Yu.V. Andropova
Topic 13. Public administration during the period of perestroika (1985-1991).
1. Changes in the state-political system of the USSR. Constitutional reform of public administration.
2. Destruction of the system of party-Soviet leadership.
3. Attempts to improve the control mechanism national economy.
Topic 14. Becoming modern system state and
Municipal Administration Russia.
1. Public administration in transition (1991-1993)
2. Adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on December 12, 1993. Formation of modern Russian federalism
3. Higher institutions power and administration according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993
4. Formation of a modern institution civil service RF
5. Transition from the Soviet system of local government to local
Loading...