Articles

In December 2016, the Program on Comparative Politics and the Program on International Relations and Integration Processes of the Political Science Department of Lomonosov Moscow State University held a round table devoted to the analysis of regional processes in the conditions of current world development. Teachers and graduate students of two programs took part in the round table. During the discussion, a broad range of issues was covered, both in terms of geographical scope (from Africa and Latin America to the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region) and the substance of the issues under consideration (from the risks of integration processes and regional security to the role of the expert community and the cooperative potential of professional sports). At the same time, the central theme remained the interests and values of Russia, its place and role in the ongoing processes and its relation to the development of regional interaction. Abstracts of the participants’ presentations appear below.

This article is devoted to an analysis of the theoretical correlation of two topics: the theme of the university in politics and the theme of identity politics. The author examines the academic discourse on national identity and the position of political theory, which determines the most common view on the political role of the university. Using the example of relations between the university and the state that arise in the formation of national identity, the problem of conceptual compatibility of the two topics in one study is addressed. This problem arises if the researcher examines the role of the university in politics from the position dominant in modern political theory and represents it in most cases only as an object of politics. A solution to the problem, as demonstrated in the article, is possible via revision of the dominant theoretical approaches to the theme of the university in politics and to the topic of identity politics and the discourse of national identity.

This review examines the problems and prospects for the development of the national system of educational training for political professionals in the context of the transformation of the Russian market of political activity. The study examines the logic of the main stages, the factors of the evolution of educational training for professionals working in the political sphere, then analyzes the conformity of the content of educational standards and programs in the field of political science and related areas to the changing demands of the national market of political professions. Attention is paid to the consideration of significant domestic conceptual developments that characterize the key niches of relevant labor activity in the innovative process of the Russian market of political professions, and to analysis of the socio-political context of the transformation of the activities of political specialists in the country. The authors identify, problematize and systematically characterize the tendency of increasing the practical orientation of the national system of political science education, its gradual approach to the requirements of the labor market and the demands of the state and society at the current turbulent stage of Russia’s development.

Thomas Spence (1750–1814) was one of the originators of British radicalism in the mid-18th century. His political views were at base an ideology for landless peasants and workers who suffered oppression during the transition from manufactory to factory production. Spence’s program of reforms was first voiced at a meeting of the Newcastle Philosophical Society on November 8, 1775. In the pamphlet “Human Rights,” Spence advocated abolition of the private ownership of land and its transfer to parish communities. Commonly-owned land and the parish as an administrative formation were the requisite components of Spence’s ideal society, and it was precisely such a society that the radical described in his utopian works. Spence’s political ideas had a significant impact on the development of popular radicalism and the labor movement in England from the second half of the 18th century up to the early Chartist period. The pamphlet “Human Rights” appears here in Russian for the first time.

This article is devoted to the social and political heritage of the English radical Thomas Spence (1750–1814), who had a significant influence on the development of popular radicalism and the labor movement in England from the second half of the 18th century to the period of early Chartism. Spence’s political doctrine is considered through examples from his various works, but particular attention is paid to a lecture that gained wide popularity under the title “Human Rights.” In it, Spence for the first time summed up his political program, which can be reduced to the following thesis: if natural law represents an equal opportunity for everyone to take all that nature gives, then the land must also be the common property of the people living on it. To implement this principle, Spence proposed to transfer all land ownership to the management of parishes, which were to provide their members with land and oversee a fair distribution of income from the leasing of land.

This study maintains that the events in the South Caucasus after the February Revolution developed under the influence of several factors, among them the desire for political freedoms and autonomy, the presence of three governments, confusion and chaos in the region and the struggle of the two competing blocs for access to the resources of the region. The main goals of the Entente countries were not to restore the overthrown Provisional government, but to overthrow the Bolshevik government, break up Russia and to gain access to its natural resources. The Entente countries, strengthening their military, political and economic presence in the South Caucasus and cooperating with anti-Bolshevik elements, sought to ensure control over the Caspian and Baku ports. Thus, these countries had to control not only the Baku oil trade, but all routes leading to Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.

This article is devoted to the problem of the legitimacy of revolution in general and of the Russian revolution of 1917 in particular. The problem of legitimacy of revolutions may be divided into two components: first, the legitimacy of anti-government protests; and secondly, the legitimacy of the new revolutionary government. The second point divides society into uncompromising camps, which happened to the government of the Jacobins in the French Revolution and to the government of Bolsheviks after Russia’s October Revolution — and still divides Russian society today. The Russian revolution of 1917, in its February and October segments, based its legitimacy — as had all its predecessors — on the existing legislature and on the right of force. The particular feature of the Russian Revolution was that the extreme left, represented by the Bolsheviks, was able, unlike the Jacobins, to retain power thanks to sufficient societal support. Thus they were able to win the civil war, first, and secondly, to take over a society that was exhausted after a prolonged period of disorder and which, in its majority, was eager for peace — and therefore either accepted the new power or was prepared to tolderate it.

This article addresses the underlying socio-economic causes of “color revolutions” and the consequences that states have had to endure after coups d’état had been effectively carried out on their territory. The authors point out that in reality unresolved domestic problems — first of all economic — do not constitute a determining factor in the implementation of a “color revolution” scenario: most of the “color revolutions” took place in states that showed sustained economic growth rather than in countries with backward economies. After the coups, those countries saw a decline in most key macroeconomic indicators. The authors conclude that in the case of the post-Soviet space, the series of “color revolutions” came about as a result of a synthesis of interests pursued by national financial and industrial groups (oligarchs) and the interests of external actors who could achieve their geopolitical and geoeconomic objectives by dismantling “inconvenient” political regimes.