The article deals with the condition of the global economy, problems in financial and investment spheres. Concentration of capital that precludes a serious competition is observed. Many factors bear witness of the global economy restructuring. The increasing economic inequality is one more problem of the global economy that is acquiring greater acuteness. The author devotes a considerable attention to American President D.Trump’s economic program, considers all “pro” and “contra” for realization of Trump’s economic program. Nowadays Europe is in a deep economic and political confusion. Three main blows to the European prosperity and unity are Britain’s exit from EU, crisis created by Moslem migrants and unexpected Trump’s victory. The EU economy is far from being successful. As in the USA, in Europe programs of quantitative restrictions pursued by the European Central Bank in form of bailout of bonded debts of companies and problem-plagued countries do not produced considerable economic growth. China’s chances to gain the global leadership are very high. In spite of numerous problems, there are no signs that economic and financial might of China will crumble. Integration projects initiated by China will meet resistance of the USA. All these factors portend long and complicated years of economic, social, political and military-strategic instability for the world.

The article presents an analysis of the decline of traditional values in the USA and European Union as demonstrated by recent developments in redefinition of marriage and family. The author describes intellectual and political debates between liberal opponents and conservative defenders of traditional values. The main trend in his view remains growing secularization and liberalization of social life leading to further decline of traditional values. The article also focuses on the efforts of Russian diplomacy and the Russian Orthodox Church to defend and promote traditional values within international organizations.

The letters published in this article reflect daily and intellectual life of the Russian emigrants in France after the WW2. The author of the letters reacts to analysis of the 20th century events made by Volski. The correspondents focus their attention on peculiarities of pre-revolutionary Russia and its culture and the tie between the Soviet history and history of pre-revolutionary Russia. Intelligentsia, its role in events of the epoch and evolution of this social group is one of the correspondence cross-cutting themes.

The article deals with the Russian modernism’s fate in connection with WWI that disturbed the Russian people’s habitual life. Paradoxically, principal figures of the modernist culture did not consider this disturbance of habitual peaceful life as an exclusively negative event. The war was not its own reason and cause, it was just a consequence of problems the humankind had accumulated. The war is the crisis, internal, spiritual crisis that requires resolving. At the same time the war provided an opportunity to transform a person’s inner world. That was the first step to later transformation of the outer world in its relation to a person. Literary and philosophical experience of the modernism fulfilled itself out and demonstrated that the crisis was present not only in the humankind but within the modernist current itself. The modernists debated the issue of whether the modernism would retain the Individual personal perspective of the Individual’s self-assertion as its constituent basis or the pristine Slavophilist myth of the Orthodox state interests of which were supreme in conditions of war and the crisis of modernism consisted precisely in this issue.

Article depicts the role and place of genealogy in modern world, describes how the main current trends (globalization, IT-technologies, development of genetic and medicine, commercialization of science, new methods of historical research, etc.) influenced on it. Article provides an account about the term “family” and new methods of translation of genealogical information. Explains the socio-genealogy: the new academic discipline of complex historical and genealogical studies which helps to integrate an analysis of macro-historical processes and micro-historical events.

The paper examines administrative practices of the Sverdlovsk region party-state nomenclature in 1937–1938 during the leadership of A.Ya.Stolyar. Regional leadership headed by Stolyar demonstrated commitment to Stalin’s political reforms and directives of the supreme power but in reality offered tacitly stubborn resistance to their implementation on the grounds that these changes limited absolute power of the regional party nomenclature, threatened its material well-being and stability.

Breakdown of monarchy in Russia brought about the fall of censorial restrictions Topics that until recently were under the ban became open for discussion and presentation on satirical publications, cinema and at theaters. How did the educated society take advantage of the freedom the society had got? First of all, the old regime in persons of Nicholas II, Empress Alexandra Fedorovna, and czar’s ministers were subject to the total mockery. Upon V.I.Lenin’s return to Petrograd, enhancement of the Bolsheviks’ positions and the July crisis the total critics was hailed on the Bolsheviks. Later on the critics was diverted on “Kornilovschina”. Finally A.F.Kerensky became the subject of derision. In result a part of intelligentsia moved from reprobation of certain individuals to the criticism of the people and Russia as a whole.

The authors consider evolution of the “refugees” concept and of the international system of displaced persons’ rights protection on the basis of broad massive of historical facts and theoretical material. Making of regime for refugees and of respective branch of international law is connected with the Russian émigré community of the 1920s and 1930s. Causes of institutions’ transformation from the League of Nations High Commissioner for refugees to the UN Office of the High Commissioner for refugees and expansion of their authorities as well as of criteria for refugee status receiving are shown. Data on the present day status of refugee issue are adduced.

The split of modernism lied in divergence of opinions in respect of the state appeared within modernism during WWI. Some modernists began to profess the highest value, the Orthodox State, while other modernists maintained (as they had maintained earlier) that the highest value was any individuality that was the beginning of everything and constituted reality. Two forces encountered in one movement but the outcome of this collision was determined not by adversaries’ arguments but by the harsh reality of defeat in the war. The Russian people did not endure hardships and that was the outcome of the internal conflict that tore the modernism down. Neither Orthodox State nor the national identity rose above itself in an attempt to transform the world upon new, just grounds. Destruction of the empire became the destruction of the Russian modernism that had acquired its form and essence during the First Russian revolution of 1905–1907. Yet a seed that fell in the earth will, without fail, spring into the new life because the spirit of individuality, the immortal spirit that seeks for the metaphysical beginning of and justification of life in despite of melancholy and pessimism cannot die.

In 1869 in Yelysavethrad, Kherson Governorate several former members of revolutionary groups of 1860s came into the view of the political police, accused by an author of poison-pen letter of preparation for attempt on the Russian emperor’s life. During the investigation they confessed to attempt to set up a store for illegal publications in the city; “terrorist” version of “the Yelysavethrad affair” changed into “propaganda” version. Some new materials, not encountered in the literature, suggest that S.G.Nechayev, who was in Yelysavethrad and met with the accused of this affair there, probably wrote the poison-pen letter for the purpose of impelling them to conflict with authorities and radicalize their views.

The article examines the events held by governmental and party bodies in the early years of the Soviet Russia in the field of artistic creativity. First and foremost it concerns the activities of Мusic, Theatre and Photo departments of People's commissariat for education. Some specific features are defined as they were caused by the creation of the state of proletarian dictatorship and ongoing Civil war.

The author considers “Story of Dracula”, one of the most interesting monuments of old Russian literature and social thought of the 15th century. Usually researchers interpret this piece of work as an apology of the strong power and justification of repressions undertaken in the interest of state and the common good. It is assumed that appraisal of the “Story” protagonist, the prince of Walachian (Rumanian) state, hospodar Dracula is ambiguous. Dracula connects traits of a despot and sadistic cruelty with valiance, justice, and statesmanship. As the author argues, the appraisal of the protagonist is totally negative and his methods of rule are presented as not just sinful but as maleficent. Ideologically “Story of Dracula” fits in the old Russian tradition and has nothing common with social-political notions of such representatives of the formidable and cruel power as Ivan Peresvetov and czar Ivan the Fourth. The Story’s originality consists not in its author’s position but in means of its expression: the Story’s author prompts his readers to make an effort and understand why Dracula was a despot who served to the devil.

The work on scientific and publishing projects “Stalin’s economic heritage: Plans and discussions (1947–1953)” and “Social heritage of the late Stalinism” goes on the basis of the Russian State archive of social-political history”. This article deals with analysis of the International Economic Conference held of 1952. These materials demonstrate significance of economic aspect for the Soviet leadership’s choice of national economic strategy. Another aspect of the problem is attractive too. Reports of interpreters who worked with foreign delegation provide a unique opportunity to look into the humdrum of Moscow spring of 1952 through the “glance from without”, i.e. impressions of foreigners who tried to form their own attitude to achievements and omissions of Socialism while relying on the picture of common everyday life.

This publication introduces a previously unknown manuscript by Irakli Grigor’evich Tsereteli into scientific turnover. Tsereteli was one of the early 20th century Russian Social-Democracy leaders, a notable public and statesman of all-Russian level who was a member of the Socialist International Operative Executive Committee in 1918–1931. In that capacity Tsereteli represented the Georgian Social-Democracy in a very dignified way. The manuscript was discovered by Doctor of historical sciences, Professor and the Principal of the Parliamentary archive of Georgia I.P.Yakoboshvili. Yakobashvili and his colleagues from the Russian state archive of social and political history, R.M.Gainullina and P.Yu.Savel’ev prepared the manuscript for publication. For readers’ benefit and convenience I.G.Tsereteli’s manuscript will be published in two successive magazine issues.

The author deals with the situation of exceeding strain that has developed in the world in result of Trump advent and due to escalation of several international conflicts. According to the author, situation is dangerous as it has never been. At the same time it is necessary always to understand that foreign policy is intimately connected with domestic policy. Ideological duality of the Russian power bears a great danger. So far there are forces in the Russian leadership that support hazardous initiatives aimed at extension of juvenile justice, development of trends that pose threat to traditional values. The future of the country depends on efficiency of patriotic forces resistance to these threats. The power has to revise its attitude to economic crimes, corruption, and dalliance with nonsystematic Orange opposition. Half-measures are of no use in these issues.

The German foreign policy discourse of the first half of the XIX century indicates an exaggerated attention of the German audience to Russia, and inadequate compared to actual impact of the latter on the domestic and foreign policy in the German lands during the revolutionary unrest in 1848 and on the eve of the Crimean War. The main reason for such an inconvenience is the fact that the image of Russia in the German political literature of that period had initially been constructed as a tool to manipulate of public opinion in the political rivalry in Germany. It was demanded not only by conservatives in power, but also by the liberal opposition for self-consolidation and reinforcement of own ideology and self-perception.

In 2015, the publishing house "Political Encyclopedia" released collective monograph "Patriotism and Nationalism as Factors of Russian History (the end of the 18th century – 1991)" edited by the winner of the State Prize of the Russian Federation, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor V.Zhuravlev. Soon the book was awarded the National Prize "The Best Books and Publishing Houses of the Year – 2015". Reflection of the author of the article is aimed at the process of formation and evolution of the ideas of Russian patriotism and nationalism, analyzed in the monograph. He tries to trace how the idea of ​unraveling a complex coil of problems connected with the history and essence of the concepts "patriotism" and "nationalism" in Russian history, ideology and public consciousness is realized in the course of the research.

The name of M.V.Lomonosov holds a significant place in Russian symbolic space, plays an important role in forming national identity and self-consciousness. His image was partially formed under the influence of mass-media and official ideology. Not always the ideas promoted by the power and press fell on the fertilized soil. Historical memory is selective and variable. This article is the first attempt to show the transformation of M.V.Lomonosov’s image on the materials of press.

The author considers “Story of Dracula”, one of the most interesting monuments of old Russian literature and social thought of the 15th century. Usually researchers interpret this piece of work as an apology of the strong power and justification of repressions undertaken in the interest of state and the common good. It is assumed that appraisal of the “Story” protagonist, the prince of Walachian (Rumanian) state, hospodar Dracula is ambiguous. Dracula connects traits of a despot and sadistic cruelty with valiance, justice, and statesmanship. As the author argues, the appraisal of the protagonist is totally negative and his methods of rule are presented as not just sinful but as maleficent. Ideologically “Story of Dracula” fits in the old Russian tradition and has nothing common with social-political notions of such representatives of the formidable and cruel power as Ivan Peresvetov and czar Ivan the Fourth. The Story’s originality consists not in its author’s position but in means of its expression: the Story’s author prompts his readers to make an effort and understand why Dracula was a despot who served to the devil.

While the word ‘craft’ can be used today in a neutral way to denote any productive or creative activity, the concept behind the term often bears a negative connotation: this is connected with the evaluations of technological and scientific progress in industrial civilisation sometimes posited by the historiographical tradition. As a rule, ‘craft’ is attached to adjectives bearing negative associations, such as ‘routine’, ‘narrow’, ‘primitive’, or ‘illegal’. In this article, we attempt to understand what constitutes the work and products of craftsmen – can crafts be art? Are craft masters artists? While this may seem rather contradictory, we show that these terms are interchangeable and complementary. A craft can be art and a craftsman an artist: it depends on the interpreters, participants, and the context in which the activities in question occur.

People are capable to remain themselves (in the best as well in the worst manifestations) in any situation. The “interest rules the world” axiom remains to be hard and fast even if it is applied to revolutionary epochs. The range of such personal, private interest manifestations on the part of representatives of various social strata and political forces of the society should be recognized as all-pervading one. This range embraces a great variety of manifestations, from a requirement of spiritual self-realization which is a far cry from petty or even big selfish or other “earthly” calculation to a conscious set of assumptions aimed at a hope that the revolutionary wave can raise people who joined it to the other, higher level of social stratification, in accordance with “the last will be the first” principle. Analysis of private interests’ structure, private interests’ content, quality and hierarchy of private interests, their complex intertwining and conflict in a revolutionary period in comparison with periods of evolutionary development allows making more detailed and more correct judgments in respect of extent to which a revolution can be considered as a painful social process which finally brings salutary results and to what extent revolutions can be considered as stages of “mass insanity” of desperate masses as it is fashionable to declare nowadays.

The article deals with the conference held on Malta at the end of January - early February of 1945. At the conference British and American diplomats and military discussed their plans connected with the end of war and reorganization of the world. During the meeting leaders of the US and Great Britain Roosevelt and Churchill tried to accord the common line they wished to maintain in respect of principal issues of negotiation with Stalin who was the head of the USSR delegation at the “Big Three” Yalta conference in February, 1945.

We keep on publication one of those documents of the Great Russian revolution of 1917 that should close up a significant gap in our notions of how the Russian Social-Democrats tried to comprehend not considerable but their own historical experience in the years after the first Russian revolution, how they tried to define and enunciate particularity of Russia’s economic and political development, Russian social groups, their political culture and to explain inevitability of some Russian Social Democratic Labor Party’s programmatic ideas revision and refinement.

The article attempts to periodize the history of domestic political technologies. According to the author's hypothesis, the formation of domestic political technologies depended entirely on two historical conditions-the cultural-value specificity of Russia and the development in it of new types and elements of communication. The methodology uses the axiological heritage of Gramsci, which singled out such an instrument of power as hegemony, exercised through the control of cultural discourse and political agenda by intellectuals. The author comes to the conclusion that all types of Russian political technologies should be integrated in a composite state strategy of patriotic education, since this, in turn, not only consolidates the society valuefully, but also determines the level of stability and centralization of the state itself. But it will be unrealistic to fulfill, if, for example, only to hyperbolize pre-revolutionary historical experience and at the same time to abandon the Soviet experience of patriotic consolidation of society.

In article the author analyzes the historical, political, economic and military-strategic aspects of the Russian approach toward the Arctic region, shows interaction of various factors that shape the Russian policy in the Arctic, highlights its goals and motivations, and attempts to answer a question whether Russia's actions in the Arctic region are of offensive or defensive character. The general idea of this article is to emphasize the historical role of the North in the process of formation of the Russian nation and the unique Orthodox civilization. The author evaluates the security motivations of Russia both in the regional and global context, draws attention to the fact that Moscow's efforts to develop an up-to date security infrastructure in the Russian North surpass plans aimed at economic development of the region. This creates a so-called effect of militarization of the Arctic. The author’s idea is to highlight internal and external limitations of the Russian economic policy in the region, for example the regime of economic sanctions imposed against Russia that affected the implementation of joint projects of Russian and Western companies. The author’s research method is based upon the comparative and analytical approach.

The author examines the development of Senate’s structural elements in 1730–1741 (“presence”, the Office, the most important positions, the Moscow division), when the new management reality has come. Actuality is determined that the recent literature are neglecting to specified issues. This problem has been studied in a positivist works of pre-revolutionary researchers specifically. On the basis of legislation and record keeping documentations the historian shows that in this period the Senate’s organizational structure has experienced many transformations, caused by temporary factors of the current administrative needs and the court disposition, but the main elements of the previous Senate organization were preserved.

The article offers the first comprehensive analysis of Prince V.M.Golitsyn’s attitudes to the Russian revolution. V.M.Golitsyn was the Mayor of Moscow and an active participant of revolutionary events in 1904–1905. Subsequently Golitsyn remained to be a person of influence in the liberal movement. In fact, he took the side of centrist current in this movement and took up position between Constitutional Democrats and Octobrists. As the President of Moscow club of independents in 1906–1908 and a member of the Progressist Party in 1912 Golitsyn supported trends to unification of the “peaceful renewal of Russia” adherents, substantiated necessity of creative efforts undertaken by the “moderate” opposition and aimed at building of state governed by the rule of law. Golitsyn thought that spheres of education and culture and development of local self-government should be the top priorities. According to Golitsyn, revolution in Russia was the expected and logical result of the autocracy. The revolution developed for a long time and did not confine itself to events of 1905–1907 and 1917. Golitsyn’s opinions on the problem are reconstructed on the basis of his diary (which, to a considerable extent, remains to be unpublished) for the period from the early 1900s to1918.

Since times of “late Stalin” the Soviet nomenklatura was afflicted with anti-Semitism. In the subsequent period this systemic ailment weakened to a considerable extent and lost its repressive component. Yet it continued to exist finding its manifestations predominantly in form of restrictions imposed on career advancement of Jews. Having become the leader of the USSR Brezhnev had to live with such paradigm though he personally was not a hater of Jews. Moreover, Brezhnev had some sympathy to Jews. Though he did not went to the open conflict with anti-Semitism of the Party apparatus he nevertheless spoke for development of the Jewish culture in the USSR, felt a sympathy and provided the covert protection to so prominent master of the theater satire as Arkady Raikin and to other Jewish representatives of creative intelligentsia.

The factories of the 20th century, the results of the Industrial Revolution and the megalomaniac arrogance of the past, are now akin to the pyramids of Ancient Egypt – they have become historical relics. In their place have arisen ecological, flexible, highly technological, and small forms of production: these have a direct genetic link with craft workshops, a fact which has led to a re-evaluation of the history of crafts and new horizons in historical research. Often, however, gigantic industrial factories, masterpieces of technological progress, sometimes obscure craft workshops in their shadows, making it seem as if they are towering over an economic wilderness. Looking at workshops, factories, and manufactories, we attempt here to consider the relationship between these terms in both the proto-industrial era of the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries and the period of industrialisation in the second half of the 19th century.

At the tipping point of epochs General N.N.Dukhonin (1876–1917), the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army, had to perform the most arduous task: he had not only to reinforce the defense of warring Russia but he had at the same time to restrain influence of rebelling elements on the tired army. The rebelling elements promised to solve painful problems if Russia made the immediate peace with Germany and its allies. Having committed himself to the uncompromising struggle against the imminent anarchy Dukhonin kept his guard at the General Headquarters in Mogilev and ignored threats and blandishments originated in Red Petrograd. Relying on the human reason Dukhonin strove to avoid the bloodshed though he was aware that the odd come shortly days of the revolution would be charged with deadly dangers for him personally.

The article deals with the letter written to I.V.Stalin by A.N.Garry, the journalist who in 1938 was sentenced to 8 years of hard labor camp imprisonment. A.N.Garry described reasons of the sentence he had got, his own merits before the USSR and entreated Stalin to give him a chance to return to the literary activities. In autobiography attached to the letter A.Garry described the main events of his life.

The critique had to become Zereteli’s debut on pages of “The Russian Treasure”, one of the most popular and influential Russian monthlies of narodnik and, later on, liberal trend. For Zereteli a publication in so prestigious magazine was the desired but earlier unobtainable trial of strength in the path of Russian journalism. However that debut did not happen. As Zereteli put it himself, the great Russian revolution of 1917 opened opportunities for actual transition from words to deeds on the basis of implementation of lessons given by the revolution of 1905 and for unification of all democratic forces in the common struggle for the country’s happiness and prosperity. But that was only an illusion. New discords, political deafness of rivals and opponents, new splits and the fratricidal civil war waited in the future. And the scale and consequences of this civil war were on par with the bloody world war that had changed the world and hardened the human hearts.

The article deals with the Muslim movement in the territory of Eurasia in conditions of the Great Russian revolution of 1917, analysis of this movement’s goals and its leaders who led, through the All-Russian Muslim Council, the numerous Muslim population of the Empire which became the Russian Republic in September, 1917. A particular attention is devoted to the personality of Akhmed Tsalikov, the Chairman of the Council, the theorist and leader of this movement.

The article describes the problem of budgeting the newspaper “Pravda” after it’s republish in march 1917. Incoming and expenditure parts of Pravda’s budget in march–may 1917 are analysed. Financial resources of buying by the Bolsheviks their own printing works in publishing house “Trud” are in the article.

The article analyzes the genealogical culture of the Russian nobility after October 1917. It is noted that the process of its loss occurred simultaneously regardless of the place of residence of the nobles, but the reasons for this were different: sociocide in the USSR and assimilation in emigration. There was a devaluation of kinship as part of family life, a significant part of the information about the origin and kinship ties was lost, the boundaries of the ancestral memory were reduced, terminology was simplified, the role and place of kinship in the system of interpersonal relations between the nobles changed. In the USSR, the noble lineage was concealed in order to avoid repression, and in emigration among the nobility the value of family ties with foreigners increased. In general, the loss of the estate genealogical culture occurred by the beginning of the 1960s.

The article is devoted to the problem of combination in the Russian political culture of the eighteenth century the aspirations of the ruling elite to the ideal of governs by laws and “lawless” Palace coups on the materials of the legitimation of Elizaveta Petrovna's accession to the throne in 1741. Some historians believe that Elizabeth built the legitimacy of his accession on the fact of blood relationship with Peter the Great. As the article shows, first of all Elizaveta Petrovna used the legal arguments, not to the fact that her father was Peter I. Thus, her legitimacy was built on the basis of the new secular legal culture. At the same time, the fact that she was able to portray the coup as a triumph of law, was possible due to insufficient development and weak stability of the elements of the secular legal culture in Russia.

The Jewish emigration has played an important role in the history of the USSR in the last two decades of its existence. The Jewish emigration became a catalyst and a litmus paper that contributed to and demonstrated the USSR degradation and its forthcoming fall. At the same time it was a bargaining chip in then leaders of the USSR attempts to rectify political, economic, and scientific-technological cooperation with the West and thereby to reinforce the Communist regime. However the contrary happened: having raised a little the “iron curtain” for the Jewish emigration and violated conservative air-tightness of the Soviet empire the Soviet leaders unwittingly accelerated the systemic enthropy process. The responsibility for that falls, to a large extent, on Leonid Brezhnev, a man who was, in his own way, a worthy person though he was vaingloriously fascinated with the visionary “real Socialism” and “Peace program”. Consequently, Brezhnev was unable to prepare the Soviet society to those pivotal trying trials it had to encounter soon.

The article touches upon the place of social dance in leisure and everyday life of Soviet working class of 1920s. The proletarian youth stepped dances based on foxtrot, which was the regarded in Europe. Such dances became a symbol of the small bourgeoisie influence hence were criticized and even banned. The Soviet government therefore aimed at creating a new social dance within the framework of proletarian culture of future socialism, which will correspond to the ideological principles of the time.

The article is based on the analysis of Russian satiric journals (“Novyj Satiricon”, “Pugach”, “Bich”, “Strekoza”, etc.), of their public position and political esteems of the revolutionary crisis in Russia. The central point of the study – the feminine images of the triad “Russia – Revolution – Liberty” as metaphors of the revolutionary changers. The research attests: Rus-sian political satire of the epoch in its main genres is a very valuable historical source because it demonstrates in a form of the images a way to appropriate by the society the experience of revolutionary changes and so provides a researcher with the instrument to penetrate the struc-tures of everyday life in times of revolutionary crisis of 1917–1918.

The author focuses on the profound impact the turbulent XXth century had on the destinies of the Caucasus people. In some cases he also tries to cautiously approach the age-old question “what if” when it comes to nowadays developments in the South Caucasus, the former part of the Soviet Union. Whatever the answer, any scholar could feel free to ponder over the future of the Eurasian space in terms of either optimistic or pessimistic scenarios.

The article discusses the debate the liberal, socialist and partly conservative circles of the Russian emigration 1920–30-ies about the Eurasian philosophical and political ideas. Based on the statements of Eurasianism such well-known figures of emigration as N.A.Berdyaev, L.P.Karsavin, F.A.Stepun, P.M.Bitsilli, P.N.Milyukov, V.V.Rudnev, and others. Analyze the key problems of the polemic: the ideological origins of Eurasianism, the ratio of Russian and European cultures, the historical construction and a political program of the Eurasians, etc. It is shown that wide circles of the emigration had not taken a position Eurasians: the underestimation of European culture, the allegations about her imminent death, the idea of building ideocratic state attempts to justify Bolshevism. To the merits of the Eurasians took trying to find a new ideological synthesis to awaken in the revolution of the Russian national consciousness. The conclusion provides the outcome of the controversy, summed up by A.S.Izgoev in 1932. He showed that the Eurasians tried to find a new base for the Russian national statehood, created the ideological Foundation for future Russian right-wing political groups.

The article discusses the features of the process of development of the Russian working class in the second half of XIX – early XX cent. The conclusion is that the workers of peasant origin remained in close ties with their villages and to the agricultural activities. They were tied to their rural communes and the householders. As a result, more than half of the industry was located outside towns, and the peasants leaving on earnings became the dominant type of workers. In the minds of the workers the traditional rural commune values were not superseded by the bourgeois ones and were not lost, but were transformed within the framework of new communities – labor collectives, taking a pronounced anti-bourgeois orientation. In the early twentieth century, with a decrease in the growth rate of the total number of the factory proletariat, there declined in the manufacturing industry the possibility of receiving labor force from villages and other regions, due to the fact that vacant jobs were increasingly occupied by those who came from the working-class families. This conduced to strengthening the socio-economic enclaveness of the working class, the gradual decay of the process of proletarianisation, as well as to the development of pauperisation.

The article examines the process of changing the semantic field of the units of borrowed political vocabulary in peasant environment in the 1920s. The pair "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat" sets the example of transforming the ideological component of political concepts under the influence of extralinguistic factors. Peasants’ "letters to power" are of particular interest for studying the flexibility of the semantics of political vocabulary in revolutionary and post-revolutionary Russia, since the peasants were the most illiterate and politically unaware group of the population. The way the peasants used the new borrowed political vocabulary is viewed as the basic model of how the common people acquired the essentials of the Soviet "newspeak".

The article examines the phenomenon of communication between the religious dissident movement of Russian Protestants led by the Evangelical Christian-Baptist Churches Council and power in the Brezhnev era. "Letters to power" of believers and documents of the Council for Religious Affairs under the Council of Ministers of the USSR for 1964-1982 reflect the formation of a new model of interaction between the Soviet authorities and Protestant organizations. Protestants reacted sharply to any restrictions of religious freedoms addressing collective written appeals to both the Soviet authorities and international organizations. As a result, "letters to power" have turned into an effective tool for public protection of the rights of believers. The authorities in turn closely monitored appeals of believers and reacted to them in order to correct state religious policy in a certain way.

Analyzing German literature of the thirties–forties of the 19th century, the author examines the process of formation of "Petersburg" narrative in the context of conservative discourse on Russia as an ambivalent construct based on personal impressions of eyewitnesses, on the one hand, and on political myths and ideologies on the other.

The text consists of two parts that represent a certain unity of fragments of mythological character and points of attraction of the interested public. Such interest is understandable, as through the world history there appeared a fascinating variety of plots and guesses bourn out of facts and tall tales about the Tower of Babel and the biblical Noah's Ark. Since the number of interpretations related to cultural artifacts is growing, the author has set himself the task of recalling the importance of the research results in this area, and paying tribute to the experts who helped clarify the real course of the events of the past, contributed in archeological research and decoding of ancient scripts.