Shirinyants Aleksandr Andreyevich

The article is based on the transcripts of the meetings of the State Council of the Russian Empire in 1914−1917. Their analysis shows that members of the upper house of the Russian parliament, who, focusing on “public opinion”, on the “progressive public” and pursuing particular interests, created opposition to the government in the State Council and made their own “contribution” to prepare the catastrophe of 1917, when the empire ceased to exist, and the country, undefeated by the enemy on the battlefields, was among the losers of the war. Even in an extreme situation, they continued to formally comply with the requirements of the regulations and refused to discuss pressing political problems. Many of them, having taken the podium, were engaged not in solving state problems, but in self-presentation, flirting with the liberal public, kowtowing before the “public opinion” expressed by it. Thus, particularism, opposition to the government, the formalism of the State Council of the Russian Empire, the lack of a timely response to the current political situation reduced the role of the upper house of the Russian parliament in politics to zero, that led the country to disaster.

In modern political and theoretical discourse, the concept of a ‘ just society’ is usually perceived as a normative idea that expresses the notion of what society “should be”. Nowadays, social justice as a political slogan is becoming an increasingly universal requirement made by social movements, political parties and groups regarding the ways of social organization and its functions. Regardless of the different interpretations, it is inseparable from other related concepts, such as ‘equality’, ‘ freedom’ and many others. It also represents the projection of various concepts of justice on social relations in individual countries, regions, and, finally, throughout the world (‘global justice’ on the scale of all mankind). Comparative analysis of the A.M. Kovalev’s concept of a just society and the main trends in the interpretation of this idea in modern Western socio-political theory indicate that the methodology developed by an outstanding Russian scientist can rightfully be considered one of the most promising. Its distinguishing feature is the creative interpretation of a set of ideas about a just society, dating back to the early works of Marx. It is combined with the analysis of the ideas of the Western European Enlightenment, the philosophy of Kant, Hegel and Fichte, the evolution of the social philosophy of the Frankfurt School and other equally influential areas of modern political theory (R. Aron and others). An analysis of modern political theories shows that the dyad “ justice / state” constitutes the ontological core of the political and philosophical discourse, in the structure of which the ideas of Marxism play an important role. In the A.M. Kovalev’s theory of a just society, the various assessments of the heuristic potential of Marxism acquire additional incentives, opening the way to new creative discussions. The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A.M. Kovalev.

The article follows the history of the studies of the concept of ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ held at Moscow State University, representing it as an original trend of conservative thought in Russia. Definition is proposed for the notion ‘Khranitel’stvo’, and specific way of the genesis of ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ in the 11th–18th centuries is demonstrated. The supposition is made that ‘khranitel’stvo’ is broader than political conservatism, since it includes the idea of patriotism, protection of traditional spiritual values, and national historical experience, national culture, language, faith, and ‘Russian Khranitel’stvo’ is a patriotic, nationally conservative, close to traditionalism current of Russian socio-political thought. It is shown that in the 11th–17th centuries, the interests of the state and Orthodoxy, the protection of the Land and the Church, in other words, the political and religious notions were inextricably linked, and the main quality of the ruler was piety. In the 18th century, not only the piety of the sovereign was put at the forefront, but also the welfare of the whole society and the greatness of the state. They become the objects of “protection”.