Constructive Department
Scientific Advisory Center "Consciousness"
My Great Web page
1.1. The experience of the Soviet Union.

The Russian state has historically evolved into a multinational power in specific geopolitical circumstances. P.N. Milyukov noticed the formation of a "general state of the Russian nation" which began long before 1917. On the way to becoming a multinational state was often a lot of atrocities, wars of conquest, ethnic inequality, religious intolerance, but it was also the desire for voluntary unification in the strong state. In Russian history, the core of the prevailing was long-term convergence of interests favored nations in the vast expanses of large parts of Europe and Asia. For many people this awareness the need to combine with a powerful country, its patronage helped them in matters of self-preservation and development.

National regions which were joined (or attached) to the Russian state, organically built into it, keeping all their national characteristics. The state relatively long-term adherence of national territories shows on the organic expansion of the state. Long-term processes of international cooperation and integration formed the Russia as a multinational state, where people maintain their identity regardless of the prevailing political regime. In support of this view is evidenced by the historical fact that nations, ethnic groups, combined with Russia, preserved over the centuries its own identity and culture, whereas in other states assimilation most often leveled a distinctive of culture of their people. Culture of Russia, absorbing the cultural achievements of hundreds of people, is not able to suppress them, and vice versa - actually to combine in a distinctive Russian civilization.

M. A. Slavinsky left a vivid description of the process of foundation in tsarist Russia a new "imperial nation", which, however, did not become a nation in a certain sense. A distinctive feature of the emerging new community, as the author notes, was that its members have felt and worked in two different national sectors - the Russian imperial and in its own national, in which they were born. "On the one hand, they were being committed by Russians, on the other - were the Great Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Georgians, Armenians, Turkmens, etc.".

Range of views on the national question of prerevolutionary Russia was placed between two poles, were defined in the second half of XIX century. Any kind of well-intentioned and loyal to the authorities of the subjects most often stood in this matter at the point of view of national and nationalist, not making much difference between them as they do not do it sometimes today.

The radicalization of the nationalist movements in the early twentieth century in many ways and the attempts was called by tsarist hauvinist the III rd Duma (1907-1912) to eliminate all exemptions and concessions. The Russian government, in fact, offered again the only way to solve the national question in the country - the Russification of the population of the empire. As you might expect, this policy had the opposite effect, promoting the growth of separatist sentiment. Proclaimed by the Bolsheviks, who came to power during the World War II, "the right of peoples of Russia to free self-determination up to secession and the formation of an independent state" put them in an advantageous position compared to their predecessors - "velikoderzhavniki and chauvinists."

Russia has always been characterized by multiculturalism and ethnic and cultural diversity. "At all costs, even crimes that took place in Soviet policy towards minorities, ethnic diversity was recognized and encouraged, not only in purely cultural areas (art, literature, science, education), but also in socio-economic and political spheres. In the Soviet Union than anywhere else in the world, was conducted an intensive cultural production. This was due to the fact that the existing system is not able to provide benefits in the economic arrangement of people who spend huge material and promotional efforts on the development of culture and education. Despite the severe ideological support for excessive prestigious professional culture at the expense of neglecting the mass culture, sponsoring of cultural and ethnic mosaic in general civil damage values, one cannot deny the tremendous achievements that have largely been preserved to this day. There is no region in the world, wherever in the XX century, as it was in the Soviet Union actually kept all the cultural mosaic of the huge state. In other regions of the world during that time have disappeared hundreds of small cultures ", - says Vladimir Tishkov. Simultaneously, the researcher emphasizes a specificity of Russia, as over the significance of ethnic and cultural factors.

As in the Soviet Union and in Tsarist Russia an integrative approach to national politics was one of the key. Vast territory of modern Russia inherited a legacy can evidence eloquently on this. After the revolution, the Bolsheviks inherited a legacy of geographically fragmented country with a collapsed mechanism of state power. The yield found by Bolshevik leadership, was to proclaim a federation of national type, for the establishment the principle of autonomy has been used. Russia during the Soviet era was a complex multiethnic build, bringing together people of different language groups, cultures and faiths. Considering this factor, the Soviet government attached particular importance to the maintenance of international peace. The Soviet social science hasn’t been lack of attention to national issues. A certain bias of research involves understanding the scope of international polysyllabic relations with their class position determination, lack of conflict in conditions of socialism, bringing people closer together in eventually to merge them. In those cases there were ethnic conflict, intense ideological state machinery suppressed these symptoms.

According to P.L.Lavrov, in the 40s. of the XIXth century the internationalists in the face of Karl Marx and his followers have revived the tradition of cosmopolitan encyclopedists of XVIIIth century by giving it a different character and finding a completely new social base. As cosmopolitans, the new internationalists didn’t see in the nations of any independent historical value. On the contrary, they believed that ethnicity is only "the remains of prehistoric mankind, or the unconscious products of its history." Ethnicity itself, P.L. Lavrov wrote, "not an enemy of socialism as a modern state, it is nothing more than random or accidental interference allowance of socialism." However, as ethnicity are very real and imminent stage for each of the social process, supporters of socialism will inevitably have to act in the national environment, the success of this activity a socialist, by PL Lavrov, in fact, was obliged to act as "the most ardent nationalist ". However, the activity of such a nationalist is very peculiar. It is to "bring people of their nation as best as possible to the work of socialist ideas" for eventually the national differences between people are overcome and forgotten, "with all the other".

"The social question is a paramount issue for us" - P.L. Lavrov wrote in 1873. The national question, in his opinion, "should disappear completely before the important tasks of the social struggle," for which" there are no borders, language, traditions. There are just people and they all shared goals. These principles require inevitably the most resolute struggle against the national separateness. "Every nation is approved on must do its job, agreeing to common search for universal human goals." By achieving these goals, nationals, as believed P.L. Lavrov, "will become equal members in a future system of federation Europe", internal borders where from the very beginning, "will have very little value", and with the further development and the very distinction of nationalities will only a "pale tradition of history, without a practical sense".

Another prominent ideologue of the future national building of Soviet state P.N. Tkachev (1878) in his article-review "Revolution and the principle of nationality", writes: "... among educated people, between intelligent people, there are no and can’t be" neither the Greeks nor the Jews”, there are only people ...

Intelligent progress seeks to destroy national characteristics which is composed of unconscious and emotions, habits, and traditional ideas and inherited predispositions ... All the most important factors of bourgeois progress - the state, science, commerce, industry - have the same general pattern: they are all more or less tend to smooth out the national characteristics when a sharply divided between a people tend to mix the last into a single homogeneous and unit mass and pour them into a nationwide, universal type. Revolt against the leveling effect and kosmopolitize progress can only be "socialists by mistake”... The principle of nationality is incompatible with the principle of social revolution, and it should be sacrificed for the latter - this is one of the elementary requirements of this real socialist ... It’s impossible at the same time to be a socialist and remain a nationalist ... between the principle of socialism and the principle of nationality, there is an irreconcilable antagonism” ...

Socialist, as emphasized P. Tkachev, was obliged to act "without insulting anyone's national feelings, however, using it in all those cases where it can be useful to the revolutionary cause, he should not, however, inflate it with any artificial means, on the one hand, he should help all that favors the elimination of barriers that separate people, all that smooth and reduce the national peculiarities, on the other he has most energetic manner to oppose anything that strengthens and develops these characteristics. And he cannot do otherwise".

P.B. Struve, assessing the situation developing in postrevolutionary Russia, in August 1918 concluded: "This is the first case in world history, the triumph of internationalism over nationalism." However, this was a victory for internationalism not a pacifist, preaching the spirit of love and brotherhood of people. On the contrary, it was a militant or a class internationalism, which is vitally linked to the idea of class struggle and the mood of the Civil War.

Many anthropologists believe that the cosmopolitan tradition (in the form in which there is today) was founded and designed by encyclopaedists of XVIII century. Then in the 40s. XIX century internationalists in the face of Karl Marx and his followers have transformed a little cosmopolitanism, giving it a global and evolutionary conditioned form. Not seeing in the nations any independent historical value, they argued that ethnicity is only "the remains of prehistoric mankind, or the unconscious products of its history."

During the life of Vladimir Lenin could affect the implementation of only the first step towards the integration of intra-Russian peoples (decision of the Xth Party Congress, the formation of the USSR). Lenin did not consider himself a cosmopolitan but an internationalist. Even for the slightest nationality, he acknowledged the right to free and independent existence. But, nevertheless, in its internationalist doctrine, he underlined that "the proletarian party ... seeks to get closer and further integration of nations', differing in this respect from the cosmopolitan and the great-chauvinists that it wants to achieve this goal without violence, but only free fraternal union of workers and the toiling masses of all nations." The future of Russia he saw as a state with a "tremendously accelerated" convergence and merging of nations. The idea of federation, no doubt, was born with good intentions - to find a way to connect the interests of nations and multinational communities, while respecting the territorial integrity of the multinational state and not hindering the integration processes.

M. J. Lazerson identified "three historical phases, which are simultaneously the three legal forms of nationality in the state: 1) state centralism - as the suppression of all foreigners Sovereign nation; 2) regional federalism as the rule of the "indigenous" nationality inherited historically over region national minorities (local centralism) and 3) a national federalism - as the full equality of nations, doesn’t know the national principle of "minorities" as collectives, unequal with numerically or socially and historically dominant ethnic origin."

1 April 1917 conference of RSDLP (b) were made following slogans: "We are not the national people, but members of the Social Democratic Party," "for internationalist there no nationals," nation-state now belongs to the past, but not the future" . P.B. Struve, assessing the situation developing in postrevolutionary Russia, in August 1918 concluded that: "The Russian Revolution was the first in the history of the world event celebrations of internationalism and class ideas over nationalism and national idea." Destruction of the actual inequality was possible only as a result of a long struggle with all the national relics. Its task the party saw to "help the working masses- non-great Russian people to catch up developed Central Russia."

30 years before the October Revolution, P.N. Tkachev, in his article-review "Revolution and the principle of nationality" in 1878 wrote, "among educated people, between people's mental development, there can be neither the Greeks nor the Jews, there is only people. Intellectual progress of efforts to destroy the national identity, which is composed of unconscious and emotions, habits, and traditional ideas and inherited predispositions. All the most important factors of bourgeois progress - the state, science, trade and industry - have the same general pattern: they are all more or less tend to smooth out national identity, once sharply divided between a people tend to mix the past into a single homogeneous and unique mass and pour them into a nationwide, universal type. Revolt against the leveling effect and kosmopolitizing progress can only "socialists of a misunderstanding."

Socialist, as P. Tkachev underlined, was obliged to act "without insulting anyone's national feelings, however, using it in all those cases where it may be useful. However, he did not have to inflate it by any artificial means, on the one hand, he should help all that conducive to eliminating barriers that separate people, all that smooth and reduces the national peculiarities, on the other - he has to oppose most energetic manner anything that strengthens and develops these characteristics. And he cannot do otherwise."

After analyzing the previous work of cosmopolitans and internationalists, a famous domestic socialist P.L. Lavrov in 1887 concluded: "The social question is a paramount question for us. It must disappear before the important tasks of the social struggle, for which the boundaries, languages and traditions are not existed. There are just people and they all shared goals. These principles will inevitably require the most resolute struggle against the national separateness. Every nation must do its job, agreeing to common search for universal human goals. "Just over a hundred years before the formation of the EU P.L. Lavrov said that in the future "all European nations, will enter full-fledged members in order federal Europe, which inner boundaries from the outset will have a very small value, and with the further development of self and ethnic difference will be only a pale tradition of history, without a practical sense."
P.L. Lavrov, confidence can be called one of the first Russian ideologists of the "soft" assimilation policy "on its own nationality is not an enemy of socialism as a modern state - is nothing more than random or accidental interference allowance of socialism. However, as nationals are very real and imminent stage for each of the social process, supporters of socialism have to act inevitably in the national media and for the success of this activity they are required to act as "the most ardent nationalists." But as explained P.L Lavrov explained the activity of such "nationalist" is to introduce people of their nation as best as possible to the work of socialist ideas, so that, eventually, the national differences between people were overcome and forgotten with all the other ".

The Russian Marxists and later followers of Lenin had negative attitude to the sharing of the multinational Russian state - "an idiotic system of small states negates all the effort." However, Lenin was forced in June 1917 on the Ist All-Russian Congress said: "We want a united and indivisible Russian republic with the firm power and the separation of the republics is not terrible, though Russia is union of free republics." And later in 1921: "We gave all the non-Russian nationalities their own republics or autonomous regions."

In the formation of the Soviet Union (December 1922) they didn’t hide the fact that the federal structure was only a temporary, transitional form to complete the state unity of nations and it was only necessary in order to streamline and facilitate the gradual process of rapprochement and merging of nations. From this point of view, it become quite obvious and decoying character of distribution of national status, and randomly-generous drawing of many borders, and as they believed in Petrograd, the nations would have to 'wither away' soon, and the boundaries would have to be absorbed by self- assimilation

Trotsky argued: "The naked national idea ... reactionary, it drags the human economy back in diapers of national narrow-mindedness." He proposed to do away with it, worship it in the "extravagant dress." "Without national future is the crown of the evolution of nations, the highest point of national progress." A similar view had V.A. Vahanian, "National culture is synonym of bourgeois culture and during the transition to socialism must share the fate of the bourgeoisie. Where are the bourgeoisie and the national culture there." Authentic culture and cultural development were possible, according to V.A. Vaganyan only by overcoming national, transformation of the "elements of the culture of democracy." "I think the most dangerous form of nationalism under the guise of its revival of a national culture." "Under socialism, the process will be accomplished that dialectically contradictory way will - and cannot lead - to the gradual destruction of the national languages, their merging into one or a few powerful international languages."

Subsequent Stalin had planned from the Lenin’s name a few years later came to the conclusion that, before the nation would unite on a global scale, they must be "pour into the USSR" and he declared openly: "the demand for separation of margins is deeply counter-revolutionary." In the postwar years, a one hint of "Russian nationalism" in the famous "Leningrad case" (1949-1950) was enough to sentence its "participants" to be shot. National policy was determined with the goal not only convergence but also the merging of nations, and barriers were seen as a manifestation of nationalism and chauvinism.

Much later, at the XXII Congress Khrushchev, continuing the party’s line on intersoviet assimilation brought the interim results, "there is a process of rapprochement of nations, increasing their social homogeneity. During full-scale construction of Communism complete unity of nations was reached. Results of previous integration processes in the national sphere of society have led to the fact that in the Soviet Union, a new historical community of people of various nationalities who have common features - the Soviet people was formed". The creation of national and state unity was not the goal itself. Effected in this way self-determination of nations, as for example, N. Nurmakov wrote in 1933, was seen by the party as a "tool of the United Nations to complete their merger in the future."

In national policies of the Soviet period there are three approaches (phase). The first stage. "The declaration of independence."

The right of nations to self-determination "up to secession and formation of independent states" was officially proclaimed by came to power in Russia the Bolsheviks, however, this declaration was pursuing the tactical goals. During the Civil War, when the revolutionaries were in need of allies, they actively supported the national movements, especially left-wing "Muslim socialist" in the Volga region, Caucasus and Central Asia. Having defeated the White armies and entrenched in power, the Bolsheviks dealt with the leftist leaders of national movements and strength overwhelmed the attempts to create independent national states in the border regions of Russia. After creating the Soviet Union Soviet leaders addressed the slogan of the right of nations to self-determination to peoples of neighboring countries, using the national liberation movement of colonial peoples of the East as an ally in the fight against the hostile "imperialist" powers. Later, during World War II, the same tactics was used by German Nazis, supported actively the national liberation movement in the USSR and the liberation struggle in the English colonies.

The Soviet national and cultural politics of the 1920s was naive and not always successful. In hindsight, the failure of the Soviet project cast a shadow on the efforts of the first postrevolutionary years, which resulted in many nations of the ex-empire gained self-esteem and the opportunity to develop their own culture, not in opposition to Russian culture.

Post-revolutionary period is comparatively well-provided with statistical data on which to judge the ethnosotsiocultural characteristics of Russian society, thanks to this Soviet population census in 1926. According to the census of 1926, the Russian lived in the whole territory without exception of the RSFSR. The state sought to consolidate its social base in the formerly backward regions. Industrialization, creating a heavy, primarily defense industry, was organized with spectacular migration of peoples across the country. Since the mid of the 20s. till the end of the 50s. the proportion of indigenous population declined in all (except the RSFSR) republics. Almost all regions became more multinational than they were to October 1917. There was a particularly high rate of migration from Central Russia. This led to the fact that in all the Union republics the share of Russian population (in 1959 it ranged from 3.2% in Armenia to 43% in Kazakhstan) increased.
Second stage. "Nativization." This resulted in the establishment and operation of a specialized institution - the State Research Institute of Colonization in Moscow (1922 - 1930). During the period of this institution were hold such important events for the study of migration, as the organization of the current account of migration and integration issues of migration in the population census program in 1926. Also in this period, a large number of publications on the resettlement movement appeared. However, there were no revolutionary changes in the areas of research of migration, despite the revolution occurred: the study of migration processes have continued the same scientists and specialists, as before the revolution, they used the same scientific approaches.

Soviet policy of nativization 1920-1930's, along with the creation of ethno-territorial autonomy has contributed to the rapid spread of literacy among the peoples of the UK and the emergence of the intelligentsia. In the struggle against the elimination of backwardness "of the national borderlands” early set of the Bolsheviks included the translation of education on the mother language, which in turn meant the need for writing.

It should be emphasized that after the revolution not only social, but also the formation of a national database of the intelligentsia have changed. Consistent course of "nativization" of the state apparatus in the union and autonomous republics, has led to an expansion of training numbers of persons belonging to a "titular" nations. Moreover, all nationalities, except for Russian, have been declared cultural backwardness and received benefits for university entrance. For them in the 20 - 30s. the reservation system of places in schools of national importance was reserved.

As the scholar of this issue Zulai Khamidov underlines, as "in the XVIII-XIX centuries. Islam dominated in public life, Arabic script was used not only to religion but also in public administration, official and private correspondence". The opening of schools, high schools, the emergence of new primers and textbooks in national languages contributed to the birth of pedagogical vocabulary and expanding language usage in new areas. Very soon, the orientation of the Soviet government changed in favor of the Latin alphabet, so, as one of the then leaders A.I. Mikoyan said, "to break the wall between the European and Muslim culture," "to bring together East and West." In 1925, the decision to switch to Latin script, in spite of strong resistance to the Muslim clergy was accepted. These were years of rapid development of Caucasian culture and language built. The first books using the Latin alphabet were published: arithmetic, natural history, reader book, dictionaries, compilations of folklore. Institutions of a national culture started to work.

Local officials vigorously implemented policies of nativization, and in February 1936 Regional Council adopted a resolution on the training of national personnel, involvement of representatives of Caucasian nations in manufacturing, distribution of native languages among them. The document read: "Ignoring and the opposition to the establishment of the national proletariat, nativization of bureaucracy and paperwork’s translated into the native language will be considered as counter-revolutionary foray of the class enemy." The same resolution the council of all levels might "bring to the end of 1936 the proportion of representatives of the people of the NC in the state machinery to 60%, develop a question of teaching in rural schools in their native language, introduce their native language in all schools, secondary, vocational and higher education in the city, to organize training courses for workers of the Soviet system - the secretaries, typists, bookkeepers, accountants, trainers, and so on". By early 1937, "nativization" apparatus was finished to 70%. "According to Zulai Khamidova, everyone who had any education and prestige among the population received work and prestigious appointment."

Curiously, all these issues were not just appeared, but a large extent solved in Russia of the 1920s. Lenin's words about "the two cultures in every national culture" were seemed to many as a primitive simplistic, but they had far more practical sense than a liberal political correctness, "... it should not support a foreign culture at all in the name of the general principle of tolerance, but the most progressive, democratic tendency in this culture…" In other words, it is necessary to treat other cultures as well as to own.

Third stage. "Russification." After the revolution, they even hatched plans to transfer to the Latin alphabet of the Russian language and branded as Russification any attempts to consider the Cyrillic alphabet as the basis of non-Russian peoples of the USSR. And it was for quite a long time. In 1938 the desigion to translate all the languages of the NC on Russian alphabet (about 70) : all the textbooks were reprinted, the font changed, spelling and terminology were ordered, carried out new translations of political, agricultural, medical and technical literature. After the reform, the national languages and literature remained at school only as school subjects, and all other subjects were taught in Russian.

From that moment the process of intensive linguistic assimilation of Caucasians in favor of the Russian language began. Russian language was seen as the only universal means of communication. According to G.P. Fedotov, "assimilation was accepted as an inevitable consequence of civilization. Half a century or a century, and the whole of Russia will read Pushkin in Russian, and all vestiges of ethnographic will be museums, and the specialized journals property". Linguistic assimilation was generally supported by public opinion. Russian language in the conditions of rapidly growing urbanization and high social mobility was seen as an objective necessity, and was the most prestigious among non-Russian population.

Russification was stated in the instructions of the Ministry of Education of Russia, which stated: "The ultimate goal of education of all foreigners living within our country, no doubt, should be their Russification and merge with the Russian people." It was an open policy of ethnolingvitsid, which road was blocked in October 1917. The Bolsheviks, in making the revolution launched in the ethnic politics the most scientifically sound concept: "There is no privilege to any nation, for any language!" This provision formed the basis of linguistic construction of a huge multinational Soviet socialist state. It was seen everywhere as a fair ethnic politics. But it should be noted that the breadth and depth of impact on the entire process of language at the time the public functions of the Russian language was enormous: it eventually became a kind of interpreter (translator from other languages) and the second native language of the Soviet Union. It is no accident that Russian was considered the core of a new social formation, which was called the "Soviet people is a new historical community of people."

Massive migration flows between regions are inevitably led to an increase the role of Russian as a language of interethnic communication. Mastery of them became an important condition for initiation to a new manufacturing and spiritual culture. And since the new elements included in the life of the Russian language many representatives of non-Russian peoples had the illusion of purposeful Russification. These sentiments were reinforced with the holding of the language policy, among which is the introduction in 1938, the compulsory teaching of Russian in the republics. In general, the facts do not speak about the process of Russification, but the process of denationalization, which affected everyone, without exception, people of the country. No accident that many contemporary researchers agree that the policy was not pursued of national coloring.

Russification, that is, compulsory study of Russian language in all educational institutions in the country, was considered a birth of prerequisite for a citizen of a new type. At all schools in the country the main focus and financial resources were directed to study of the Russian language. Due to the economic needs of the Soviet Union, governments pursued a policy of rapid transfer of education of all minorities in Russian language teaching, which acquired the status of a language of interethnic communication. Gradually, many ethnic groups began to lose their language and culture. National language left the city life and cultural border was not so much between Caucasians and Russian, as between rural and urban areas. A considerable part of the Caucasians, not only stopped to use their own language, but in general had lost the ability to speak it. "The Russian language has become attractive because it was the language of a new culture, the language of socialism. In this is the source of love for it, all peoples of the Soviet Union and all the fighters for progress and socialism in the world."

It is hard to overestimate the contribution of the Russian people in overcoming actual inequality in the cultural field. In the 1920-1930's a lot of attention paid to the creation of scientific and cultural centers in the republics. For the future of the spiritual progress of the peoples the training of national personnel (in schools, colleges and universities) had the greatest importance. In 1935, in the RSFSR there were 22 145 of non-Russian schools where were studied 2340 thousand children in 80 languages. In the 1936/37 academic year in RSFSR there were over 160 of non-Russian colleges, 20 pedagogical institutes and 22 teachers' institute. A great contribution to the decision of national staffing problems gave universities in Moscow, Leningrad and a number of other centers. Only in 1936 in the RSFSR were studied 329 170 non-Russian students at universities and 430 429 in colleges, where the training was going only in Russian.
According to national politics, all the people who lived in the Soviet Union had to become Russian speaking. At the same native languages were seen as obstacles to mastering the perfect Russian. This idea was reflected in many programs, of the Communist Party, proclaimed as the main tasks of the party establishment, "people's state" and the formation of a "unified Soviet people." This assumes that the process of building a classless society would be erasing of national differences, including language, and "Russian" in the socio-political context became as synonymous of the words "Soviet", "socialist," "deeply internationalist."

However, as the researchers already noted in the "post-Soviet" era, the most stringent policies with regard to languages of small nations was not only in the RSFSR, but in other Soviet republics. For example, in Georgia were not allowed to write Megrelian and Svan languages, in Tajikistan - Pamir’s and Yagnob, but in Azerbaijan was not a single Lezgian school and Lezgins didn’t mention in the books of the history of Azerbaijan.

The pre-war North-East Caucasus lived by the rules, which can be called a kind of symbiosis of Soviet norms and laws with traditional adat rules of law, while maintaining some Islamic traditions and values. The vast majority of ordinary people were not in the party ranks and were not open enemies of the regime. Since the beginning of 1941 the war with Nazi Germany 29 thousand of Chechens went to war to defend their country - the Soviet Union. Although some Chechen authors now take the word "his" in quotes, the former generation of Chechens was set up patriotism and perceived the USSR as their homeland.

Not only beginning linguistic assimilation, but also a deep Sovietization, including Soviet patriotism and loyalty to the government, were typical for the majority of Dagestan, Chechens, Circassians. It was the general picture around the NC, and Chechnya was no exception. From the data pre-war image of the Chechen "proud savage" or "perpetual rebel" does not stack, and the paternalist-chauvinistic (in fact, neo-colonial), the stereotype must be rejected. Especially this image is not suitable for the Chechens of the second half of the XXth century.

New North Caucasian republics were largely artificial. Many ethnic groups were divided. The formation of nations hampered by lack of coincidence of their settlement with the autonomous boundaries. Significant groups of the titular ethnic were minorities in the neighboring republic. The influx of Russian educational system contributed to the Russification and the formation of a significant layer of Russian-speaking population.

Tsarist Russia sought to assimilate the elite of the conquered territories, the Soviet regime its Sovietized progress has been remarkable. Elite of the NC integrated fully into Soviet society and culture, they have received Russian taste and feel in Moscow and the Urals as at home as where they were born. There was a difference between the abstract Russia, which they felt hatred to, inherited from the tradition of resistance to Russian conquest and the Russian culture, which they respected.

We cannot deny that in the USSR there was an interesting national literature, all of these writers were read with pleasure, they were native to the country. National books taught to perceive culture as their neighboring nation. A lot of national stories for children were published in Russian translation. Multi-volume 'Library of the pioneer "," Library of Friendship of Peoples "were printed, where the story of national writers were published.

Errors. For a variety of reasons, as mentioned above, the national policy of the Soviet state was represented primarily as a policy based on preservation of ethnic identity. So the focus on national statehood within a single state, promoting the so-called "prosperity" of nations, and so, in what was concluded fallacy, largely explains the current crisis and ethnic relations in Russia.

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union in 50-100 years after the collapse of many would call an ideal society, comparing it to ancient Greece. All of his domestic policy let in the shortest time to bridge the gap in socio-economic and cultural development of the huge number of people. However, one-sided propaganda "heyday" of nations not only contributed to the growth of national consciousness of small nations, but also the formation of such negative traits as self-congratulation while ignoring the assistance and support of other nations, primarily Russian. Moreover, the development of the representatives of the Russian people the natural resources of the republics, the creation of businesses, cities and cultural centers (accompanied by a complex migration and demographic processes) is sometimes treated as a "capture area" or a manifestation of "Russian colonialism". It is understood that changes in the country in those years were carried out primarily in the interests of the Russian nation. One way or another, but at the end of the 80s., local leaders have publicly stated a desire for complete control over "their" territory, and thus formulated the national idea played a role in the breakup of the Soviet Union.

All the mistakes of the national policy of the USSR were bare and catalyzed the collapse of the great international powers. "I am a nationalist," - said Boris N. Yeltsin at a meeting with the creative intelligentsia on the eve of a referendum, possibly hinting at the future of numerous ethnic conflicts. As a result, the national question has become one of the main axes of political (and other) life in Russia for many years. R. Abdulatipov states: "The Russian parliament, Boris Yeltsin supported the Baltic republics, hoping that they would affect the democratization process in Russia. Instead ... we got ethnocratic countries implementing the state policy of persecution according to the ethnic grounds. "

In general, the modern concept of national processes and state system of Russia in many ways reminiscent the historical realities of the 1991. Collapse of the Soviet Union is fully consistent with the nationalist aspirations of the national elites to indigenous of the NC republics. In almost all the republics established themselves openly nationalist regimes, eliminating the results of former internationalism and cosmopolitanism. They clearly have consolidated priority indigenous nations and forced "foreigners" to take a subordinate, unequal position. A new basis of international and interstate conflicts is completed, and that obviously has nothing any attitude to declared solemnly the integrity of the Russian Federation.

In the Soviet Union's collapse ethno-social engineering has revealed a significant inadequacy of the national division of the country. The collapse along the ethno-boundaries raises questions about the difficult process of ethno assimilation. Analysis of the tragic experience of (the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Georgia) leads to the conclusion that the ethno-territorial division of the internal administrative state can quite easily lead to its collapse in ethno lines even a very powerful state. In this regard need to underline of dubious value of national enclaves (republic) with the characteristic features of (territory, language, culture, religion) to stabilize the integrity of the state.

The prophecy of L.A. Tikhomirov was right, who wrote in the early twentieth century: "Never, no blessings of subordinate peoples, by any kinds of cultural unity, as they were skillfully developed cannot ensure the unity of the state, if the basic strength of the tribe becomes weak." The policy dictated by the intention "to buy the favor of" nations at the expense of which was created and maintained the state - "is - a policy of self-destruction."

In analyzing the national questions in Central Asia in the early '90s as a "failure of the policy of paternalism," O.G. Dmitrieva makes logical conclusion: "The redistribution of resources could provide a general rise of nations only if the lagging have made efforts relatively large, than going ahead. Without such a desire to keep pumping money played objectively a negative and even reaction role, because sooner or later was bound to lead to loss of interest in cooperation on the part of "going ahead", lower overall growth rate the stagnation of society and the weakening of the state. "

One of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was a continuous increase of centrifugal forces. The weakness of centripetal forces, which may be called the weakness of Soviet federalism, follows naturally from the whole of the Soviet model of development, although the origins of the processes are more visible in the Russian Empire. The values of federalism, so revered in countries like the U.S. or Germany, have never been truly popular, neither Russia nor the Soviet Union.

The process of assimilation itself, both in the USSR and in Czarist Russia, was achieved through two pillars: a high demographic trend of the nation, and most of the high cultural level. The tremendous biological force of the Russian ethnos was somewhat coerced at first after the revolution as a result of collectivization and industrialization, and then after the Soviet collapse. The situation was complicated even with greater violent liquidation of the cultural and ideological institutions of the traditional strata.

Certainly, one of the few, but a fatal mistake the Soviet Union in the national policy has been - to preserve national and their spatial definition and high ethno concentration in these places. Perhaps assimilation could occur due by national migration and was successful, but it is not enough time. Interethnic marriages are not prohibited, but discouraged by custom and tradition. The power, of course guessed about existence of consumer ethnocentrism, but did not attach sufficient importance that due to the collapse of the state allowed him to instantly transform itself into nationalism, and some people in the NC and separatism. National Education became a major force for "rocking" and the disintegration not only in the Soviet Union, but also some its successors (Georgia). With skillful assistance of the international community (in terms of global man-made problems and ethnic conflicts) multiculturalism policy as it was "saving".

The following error in the Soviet national policy can be considered accentuation on the political and ideological issues, forgetting about the national-ethnic psychology and historical consciousness of the peoples of the components ethno specification of the NC. As a result of this inter-ethnic conflicts "silenced" and transferred to a so-called latent form, - "waiting for" democratic change. Democratic processes opened up the national energy that instantly hyper intensified ethno-national interests and inter-ethnic conflict have come to light.

Hierarchical national- government power and certain priority of "titular" national in the entities, playing on the early stages a positive role of alignment and convergence of socio-economic and cultural levels of development of the Soviet peoples, later turn around with his negative side. This was a tragedy, especially for the Russian, many of whom believed that their historical homeland is not the Russian Federation but the Soviet Union as a whole.

Failure of policies of adjustment have contributed to the rise of a powerful republican nationalism, got an anti-Russia pronounced trend. As a writer Igor Rogov noted "Russian, Russia are blamed for all historical troubles and ills, beginning with original sin of the October Revolution and later into ancient times ... conquerors, colonizers, occupiers ... This image of Russian is strongly embedded in consciousness of local people and responds to a host of stereotypical expressions of primitive philistine: "Russian, go home!" to the intellectual-sensible, "You Russian, fulfilled your historical mission, and now it’s time to get back home" . General negative attitude to the Russian acquired political and legal shape in the form of programs and declarations of the Popular Fronts, in the draft of laws about language and nationality. In fact, the "Russian question" was asked by non-Russian and has emerged as a reaction to anti-Russian pressure in the "national" republics of the USSR.

And in today's Russia national unit and the alignment gaining the same negative effect. As an issue, A. Kibrik advises: "... to cancel the national-territorial division, as it became a wall, which and political reform and economic renewal of Russian society rested. If we continue the path of "improvement" of this "medieval" division, we finally sink in the depths of ethnic wars. To replace the existing national-territorial division will take at least 10-15 years of "propaganda from the perspective of common sense" in favor of the new system, so that now prevailing in the mind "even the most progressive and free-thinking" citizens of Russia ethnonocratic ideology "has given way to a new system of values orientation."

It must be recognized that the principle of nationality, in fact, declared as the basis of the current nation-state and national-territorial system of Russia, is not implemented and can’t be fully implemented as it involves the creation of an infinitely large number of national-territorial entities, the purification of these structures from the "foreigners" or their allocating to the plight of second-class citizens in those territories.
Soviet ethnoelits, as well as today's Republican, were a status, "nomenklatura" and depended on relations with the center of his benevolence. They feel comfortable in a rigid vertical of the power pyramid, typical of the entire Soviet system, but little is lost if the decay, this pyramid was just broken into similar shapes of smaller sizes. In the small pyramids the local elites are closer to new heights, the collapse of the Soviet Union meant to them, raising the status of that for them was the chief. Strengthen the same positions, their power, legitimacy, which sanctified before the Union center, has helped to support ethnic nationalism.

There were no nonstatus elite, social levels, consisting of independent individuals, from property owners, based on the horizontal, indifferent to the administrative boundaries of communication in the Soviet Union, or at least they were much less developed, because those connections themselves were developed very little. But only those layers are vitally interested in federalism and serve it reliable support1.

From the above a little that is different from today’s situation in the republics of the NC. The inviolability of the Soviet Union was a major, always declared values of the Soviet political establishment. The Union of republics was unusually strong. But it was the strength of a wooden barrel fastened with iron bands on the outside, rather than the strength of the iron barrel. Great efforts and resources have been directed to ensure that external iron hoops didn’t rust or weak, almost the entire structure of Soviet mobilization model of development were obeyed to this problem. But everything was in vain, because this model itself was the main cause of underdevelopment much more important internal cohesion forces.
USA/UK 2007-2012  © FALCOGROUP