Russian historian and public figure.
In 1989 he graduated from the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute. IN AND. Lenin (now - State Pedagogical University). In 1989-1997 and since 1998 has been working in. Since 2001, leading researcher, head of the center at IVI RAS. Doctor of Historical Sciences since 2000. Dissertation topic: “Anarchist social experiment. Ukraine and Spain (1917-1939)”.
Since 1985, after returning from the army, he began to participate in the socialist movement. One of the founders and leaders of the historical and political club "Community" (1987-1991), the Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (1989-1991), the Green Party of the USSR (1990-1991), the Russian Green Party (1991-1999). Member of the Council of the Federation of Socialist Public Clubs, Organizing Committee of the Moscow People's Front (1988). Member of the editorial board and one of the leading authors of the magazine "Community" (1987-1990). Member of the Council of Representatives of the Confederation of Labor in 1990-1991. Since 1992, a member of the Social and Ecological Union (SoEU). In 1992-1994 - Member of the Council of SoES, in 2005 - the Union of Greens of Russia. Represented SoEC at the Constitutional Conference in June 1993. He advocated the inclusion in the constitution of provisions guaranteeing the environmental rights of citizens, for limiting presidential power, equality of rights for subjects of the federation, and the abolition of the death penalty. In 1991-1997 columnist for the newspaper of trade unions "Solidarity". In 1994, he was editor of the newspaper's political department. In 1993-2004 participated in the creation and development of the Kitezh community.
In 1997-1998 - Advisor to the First Deputy Prime Minister B. Nemtsov. He contributed to the prevention of the construction of a high-speed highway St. Petersburg - Moscow, believing that it poses a threat to protected forests. Participated in the organization of negotiations between the striking miners and the government in 1998, in preparation for the funeral of the remains of Nicholas II. In 1999-2000 - Member of the Council of the Fatherland Party. Since 2004 - coordinator of the "Informational" community, since 2009 - member of the "Informational" working group, author of the "Informational Manifesto". In 2008-2015 - Member of the Left Front, in 2009-2014. - Member of the Council of the Left Front (LF) and a member of the Moscow Council. In 2013 - member of the Executive Committee of the LF, coordinator of the LF. In 2011-2014 - Member of the Pirate Party of Russia.
Head of the Center for the History of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus of the IVI RAS since 2007. Executive secretary of the journal of the Association of Historians of the CIS Countries "Historical Space". Professor of the Russian State University for the Humanities since 2007 and the State Academic University for the Humanities since 2003. Since 2001 - Member of the Russian-Ukrainian Commission of Historians, since 2011 - the Russian-Latvian Commission of Historians.
He is the author of 24 books (monographs, a school textbook on world history of the 20th century, a science fiction novel), more than two hundred scientific and several hundred journalistic articles. Works by A.V. Shubin are devoted to the problems of the history and theory of socialism, revolutionary movements, general patterns of historical development, the history of Soviet society, international relations in the 20th century, the political situation in the late 20th - early 21st centuries.
Compositions:
The harmony of history. M., 1992;
Rhythms of history (periodic theory of social development). M., 1996;
Leaders and conspirators. Political struggle in the USSR in the 20-30s. M., 2004;
The world is on the edge of the abyss. From global depression to world war. 1929-1941 M., 2004;
Paradoxes of Perestroika. Lost chance of the USSR. M., 2005;
Witch ring. Soviet Union of the XXI century. M., 2006;
Faithful Democracy. Informals and Perestroika (1986-1989). M., 2006;
Socialism. "Golden Age" of theory. M., 2007;
Golden autumn, or period of stagnation. USSR in 1975-1985 M., 2007;
Dissidents, informals and freedom in the USSR. M., 2008;
Great Spanish Revolution. M., 2011;
Makhno and his time. M., 2013;
History of Novorossiya. M., 2014;
The Great Russian Revolution: from February to October 1917. M., 2014.
Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich
Co-chairman of the Russian Green Party, member of the Council of the Social and Ecological Union.
When asked who he considers himself to be: a green or a party leader, Alexander, without hesitation, replies that he is a political figure, so he is offended by the rare mention of him in the press and the absence in all the Who's Who reference books that have come out to date. .
This is unfair, because in the green movement, he is certainly a noticeable figure.
Alexander was born on July 18, 1965 in Moscow. In 1982, after graduating from high school, he entered the Faculty of History of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after Lenin, now the Pedagogical State University. However, study was not continuous - in 1983-1985. the student served in the ranks of the Soviet army.
A.Shubin's views, formed by 1982, he himself characterizes as "critical Marxism". Recognizing the correctness of the Marxist doctrine in general, A. Shubin was skeptical about its official interpretation. While serving in the army, he came to the conclusion about the existence of exploitation in the USSR, therefore, having returned from the army in 1985, he began underground activities: he began to participate in discussions that were conducted by members of the illegal "Organizing Committee of the All-Union Marxist Labor Party" (OK VRMP). However, he did not enter this association, because. felt that he had outgrown Marxism. At the end of 1985, together with their friend Andrei Isaev, they departed from Marxism and created an informal circle of friends (A. Shubin, A. Isaev, V. Gurbolikov), which, during intensive discussions in 1986, developed its own political concept, which became known later as "communal socialism" or self-governing federalism. This concept was formed under the strong influence of the ideas of M. Bakunin, but after a serious study of it by the guys, it began to differ significantly from Bakuninism, primarily in its pacifism.
In 1986, members of the circle participated in the protection of the chambers of the merchant Shcherbakov from demolition during the construction of the "Northern Ray", a high-speed highway passing through Lefortovo; held "theatrical" political discussions (including at their institute), where they defended the ideas of self-government and "delegation" (the staffing of higher bodies from freely recalled delegates of lower organizations). At the same time, A. Shubin liked to "play" a social democrat or a supporter of the Yugoslav economic model, who argued with the "anarchist" A. Isaev. At that time, he had not yet fully decided and played sincerely. In October 1986, in the construction brigade, a group organized a one-day student strike demanding the creation of competent self-government bodies and better nutrition for students. The administration, unprepared for forceful methods of struggle, immediately satisfied all the demands.
In the autumn of 1986, A. Shubin wrote his first anti-communist article - "Friedrich Engels and the End of Marxist Classical Philosophy", and after a speech at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute by the well-known "patriotic" teacher Karem Rash - the article "Ordinary Rashism", which was published in a wall newspaper (the first The number came out under the name "Iceberg"). The article caused a scandal, K. Rush saw in it the intrigues of his pedagogical enemies and demanded party intervention. But a group of young historians themselves intervened in the plans of the youth organization of the party.
In early December 1986, a group of "socialist-federalists" decided to use the discussion on the charter of the Komsomol to propagate their views, and on December 13, the first meeting was held at the history department of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, which marked the beginning of a long campaign that continued at the institute until March 1987, when party organs stopped the discussion in an administrative order. At the insistence of A. Shubin and A. Isaev, any principle of delegation was included in the alternative draft charter proposed by the "Initiative Group for the Reform of the Charter of the Komsomol".
"Komsomol discussion" helped to gather a group of active young people striving for changes in society. Most of this group was guided by the ideas of "communal socialism", but there were also liberals, left-wing Marxists (including some former members of the OK VRMP), "market socialists", "Slavophiles". On May 8, 1987, the members of the group proclaimed the creation of the historical and political club "Community". A. Shubin becomes one of its leaders.
In 1987, Alexander actively seeks contacts with other informal groups in Moscow, Leningrad, Taganrog, Riga, Kaunas; Together with A. Isaev, he represents the "Community" in the Club of Social Initiatives (CSI), which united several informal organizations of the capital. One of the KSI projects was the "Self-Management" group, headed by A. Shubin together with V. Korsetov, the group began to study the process of forming self-government structures in production. In late 1987 - early 1988, the group conducted sociological research at the ATE-1 plant and even advised party and economic workers on the implementation of self-government, primarily at the place of residence. Ligbez was closed when consultations of plant activists began, the administration felt that a "parliamentary republic" could arise at the plant and stopped the experiment. At the beginning of 1988, the group entered the "Community". It is not known to what extent the activities of the Self-Management group affected the development of the production Self-Management, but for A. Shubin it was a time to gain practical knowledge about the functioning of modern Russian production and the possibilities of introducing mechanisms of self-government and industrial democracy there. This experience strengthened A. Shubin's opinion that modern efficient production is impossible without self-government. Since 1987, A. Shubin has been a member of the Moscow Workers' Club.
Meanwhile, in the "Community" an internal conflict was growing, connected with ideological differences. A. Shubin was a supporter of a regulated market society and sometimes led a sharp debate with A. Isaev, who then advocated a radical market model based on the idea of collective ownership of the means of production. However, while strategic disagreements were resolved (A.Shubin recognized the need for collective ownership, and A.Isaev recognized the need for social regulation of the economy), tactical differences between the two leaders brought the "Community" to the brink of a split. His danger increased after B. Yeltsin's well-known speech at the October (1987) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Andrei Isaev, Vladimir Gurbolikov and a number of other activists of the "Community" spoke in favor of holding a rally in support of the disgraced leader, while Alexander was categorically against it, citing the inexpediency of supporting the nomenklatura leader. A. Shubin and his supporters were accused of "opportunism" and fear of conflict with the CPSU. And in response they received accusations of "populism" and "participation in the games of the nomenklatura." A compromise was found and the "Community" organized a collection of signatures, but not in defense of Yeltsin, but in support of publicity in his case. This action was carried out in the absence of A. Shubin's supporters.
The conflict in the "Community" was the first example of a disengagement in the democratic community on the issue of "Yeltsin's populism." Despite the fact that there was no formal split, the "Community" was actually divided into "Isaev" and "Shubin". In March 1988, the leaders of the groups entered the editorial office of the Obshchina magazine, which demonstrated that their conflict was practically over. Since that time, A. Shubin has been a member of the editorial board and one of the regular contributors to the journal Obshchina, the oldest of the existing left-wing socialist publications in Russia.
In January 1988, A. Shubin took part in the conference of the Moscow organization of the Federation of Socialist Public Clubs (FSOK), established in August 1987. Simultaneously with the Moscow conference, a semi-underground meeting of FSOK organizations from other cities was held. A. Shubin, who participated in the writing of the FSOK charter, is elected to its Moscow Council, which actually played the role of the coordinating body of the entire Federation.
At the May Day "rally" of the FSOK in a forest near Moscow, as befits a "May Day", the Federation actually turns into a left-wing socialist party. A.Isaev, A.Shubin, V.Gurbolikov and A.Kovalev write her program.
Simultaneously with the deployment of all-Union structures, the leaders of the "Community" decided to move on to a new campaign in Moscow - this time on the occasion of the upcoming XIX Party Conference. On May 28, 1988, together with the liberal group "Civic Dignity" and "communal socialism" oriented groups, the FSOK "Obshchina" held the first major democratic demonstration in Moscow (more than 200 participants) and a rally with a thousand participants on Pushkinskaya Square, marking the beginning of a whole series rallies. Alexander Vladlenovich is among the organizers of these actions. In his speeches, he criticizes the position of the Central Committee of the CPSU before the XIX Party Conference. June 18, 1988 A. Shubin receives a baptism of fire in clashes with the police during the dispersal of the rally.
In Moscow, by analogy with the Baltic states, the creation of the Popular Front begins at rallies. However, the "Informals" at this stage could not put forward a single idea that could "captivate the masses" and it was not possible to create a movement of many thousands. Acute disagreements are tearing apart the “informals” at the conferences of the Organizing Committee of the Popular Front, which were held in June simultaneously with the rallies on Pushkinskaya Square. A. Shubin actively participates in these showdowns, advocating a compromise between socialist and liberal groups.
However, after the dispersal of the rally on June 18, tactical contradictions intensified in the organizing committee. In the presentation of A. Shubin, the version of the split is as follows: "The small groups that arose on the wave of rallies demanded that the Moscow People's Front (MNF) be built as a more centralized organization in which the minority of groups (representing the majority of members) should submit to the majority."
The "majority" were about 10 groups of socialist orientation with exotic names "Che Guevara Brigade", "Alternative", Young Communards-Internationalists (leader Andrei Babushkin), "Socialist Initiative" (Boris Kagarlitsky and Mikhail Malyutin, also representing the Interclub Party Group) , "Lingua" (Mikhail Shneider, later G. Popov's assistant), "Citizens' Diplomacy" (Andrey Danilov), Federation of Social Association (Evgeny Dergunov). These included Sergei Stankevich and Georgy Gusev, who also represented the Interclub Party Group.
"Minority": "Community", "Alliance", the Moscow branch of the Socio-Political Club (VSPC) (German Ivantsov) and a number of liberal groups ("Memorial" and "Perestroika-88" (Vyacheslav Igrunov and Dmitry Leonov), the Club of Social Initiatives (KSI) (Grigory Pelman and Gleb Pavlovsky), "Civic Dignity" (Viktor Zolotarev).
After the majority of members of the organizing committee of the Moscow People's Front on June 21 rejected the compromise proposal formulated by A. Shubin, the "minority" left the organizing committee in early July.
After that, the organizers of the Popular Front tried to combine socialist slogans with a "populist" organizational structure. As the electoral machine of the Moscow Association of Voters, and then the Moscow "Democratic Russia", was created on the basis of the organizational structures of the MNF, socialist slogans were replaced by general democratic ones, and the role of the apparatus in the organization was strengthened.
The demarcation between "centralists" and "federalists" also affected the fate of the FSOK. A smaller part of the confederation was reoriented to work in the MNF, and a large part began to form its own federalist faction, the ideology of which was based on the ideas of self-government, federalism and delegation. In August 1988, the FSOK conference was held, at which a declaration was adopted by the federalist faction of the FSOK, which later became the program document of the Anarcho-Syndicalist Confederation (KAS). According to Shubin, the declaration was prepared by him; it formulated Alexander Vladlenovich's view of socialism as "consistent democracy, self-government in all spheres of society, the widest possible political freedom."
In January 1989, at the founding conference of the KAS, Shubin, one of the authors of the organization program, works on the history and theory of anarchism, unexpectedly opposed the anarcho-syndicalist self-identification of the movement, because. Following the first success of an organization with such an exotic name, in his opinion, an influx of people will begin to understand anarchism in a primitive way - as "chaos".
In the same period, Alexander Vladlenovich plunged into the rally elements. In May 1989, at a rally in Luzhniki, he, according to him, was the first to come out with the initiative to convene a round table of political forces. Despite the support of the Social Democrats (Galina Rakitskaya and Oleg Rumyantsev), the authorities did not notice Shubin's appeal, but since the summer of 1989, regular consultations of political groups in Moscow began, on the basis of which the Elections-90 committee was then formed. The leaders of the Moscow Tribune, a closed debating club of the Moscow intelligentsia formed in 1988 on the initiative of Andrei Sakharov, Yuri Afanasyev and Leonid Batkin, drew attention to him. On November 18, 1989, Shubin, along with 34 other leaders of various political organizations (Mikhail Astafiev, Viktor Zolotarev, Oleg Rumyantsev, Lev Ponomarev, Yevgeny Savostyanov, Gleb Yakunin, and others) were accepted into the club. The anarchist Shubin was attached to the elite of the democratic movement.
Alexander describes this period as follows:
Spring day, hopes are brisk,
Thus began the restructuring
Forgetting that the truth is in wine.
Crowds buzz, tanks, sticks,
In the mountains, firing, from the podium - a lie.
So perestroika went on without a hitch,
Not shaky - what you take from her.
Since March 1990, Shubin faced a new opponent: radical anarchist groups in the KAS began to advocate the transformation of the organization from an anarcho-syndicalist into a purely anarchist one, A. Shubin again rushes to the defense, now of syndicalism and the self-governing program of the Confederation. A.Shubin's concern at the same time is to preserve the unity of the organization. And for all this he is accused of opportunism. In May 1991 - May 1992 - A. Shubin - a member of the Federal Council of the KAS, he participates in international meetings of anarchists, speaking in defense of the market concept of anarchism, arguing with the theorists of the International Association of Workers.
In 1991, Alexander decides that it is more effective to implement the political activity of anarchists through labor, environmental and civil movements.
In 1990-1991 he was a member of the Coordinating Council of the largest organization of the independent labor movement - the Confederation of Labor, participated in the creation of the information network "KAS-KOR", which carried out communication between the workers' organizations of the country. The name of the agency is deliberately consonant with the names of two Polish Solidarity trade unions - KOS and KOR - and now means "Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists - CORRESPONDENTS".
In June 1990, A. Shubin participated in the development of the requirements of the general strike, scheduled for July 11, 1990, but in 1991 he left the "independent" workers' movement in connection with its reorientation to the unconditional political support of the Russian leadership. From this period to the present, Alexander has been associated with the environmental movement. Back in the autumn of 1989, Alexander Vladlenovich became a member of the Movement for the Creation of the Green Party, formed in Leningrad by V. Gushchin, I. Blok and V. Panov. But in March 1990, at the founding conference of the Green Party (PG), Shubin was already among the leaders who proclaimed its creation. In order not to be offended, we decided to elect 15 co-chairs. Because there were 21 delegates at the congress, only 13 worthy of this title were selected. Shubin got to represent Moscow.
In 1990-1992 he was co-chairman of the Moscow branch of the Green Party. It was time to start fighting for purity, in the first half of 1991 a split began to brew among the Greens, due to the fact that their leaders belonged to two increasingly divergent currents of anarchism - the market one (represented by A. Shubin) and the anti-market one (leaders - V. Damier and S. Fomichev). After the withdrawal of non-syndicalists from the CAS, the theoretical and personal rivalry began to shift more and more sharply towards the greens. At the same time, it was the anarchists who created the strongest inter-regional structures in the Green Party. Therefore, the split among the anarchists occurs simultaneously with the split in the PZ in May 1991.
After that, Shubin participated in the creation of the Russian Green Party (RPZ), was one of the authors of the RPZ Declaration, and the world environmental movement was enriched with a new direction - self-government, the leader of this wing of the party was, of course, Alexander Vladlenovich. At the same time, since the founding congress (in May 1991), Alexander has been co-chairman of the party.
And now, chronologically, we have approached that historical moment, in connection with which we can ask Alexander the traditional question: "What did you do on the night of August 19-20, 1991?" So, on August 18, 1991, the Federal Council of the CAS adopted a resolution written by the far-sighted Shubin, which began with the words "the military coup has already begun." During the events of August 19-21, 1991, Alexander was at the barricades near the White House. On August 21, he arrived in Samara, fearing that General Makashov might "take the putsch seriously." The young democracy was in danger. Shubin speaks at a democratic rally in Samara. Almost at the same time in the newspaper "Solidarity", edited by Shubin's associate Andrei Isaev, an article by Alexander appeared, exposing the "inept hoax" organized under the guise of a "coup".
Shubin sharply criticizes the post-August regime:
Carve-out, crumbs, horns-legs,
Other flags are not leaders
One again - empty spoons,
Others - banknote rains.
And on the screen - the same faces,
And the same, in general, lobuda.
I am the same, and Russia too,
And we don't need to go anywhere.
Alexander Vladlenovich is especially not satisfied with the Moscow executive power, he participates in organizing protest rallies against its actions. The militia of the new government detains him in the same way as the militia of the old one. The last time this happens was at a rally on Human Rights Day (1991), where Shubin criticized the environmental consequences of the policies of the Moscow Mayor's Office.
At the second congress of the RPZ (held on the shores of Lake Donzo on July 28 and in St. Petersburg on August 2, 1992), Shubin was one of the authors of all the adopted documents. The party members turned to the leaders of the League of Green Parties, who broke away from them a year ago, with a proposal to coordinate actions and maybe even unite in the future. In the resolution of the Russian Green Party on overcoming the constitutional crisis in the country, the Congress of People's Deputies of Russia was proposed to adopt an amendment to the current Constitution, according to which the adoption of a new Basic Law would be entrusted to the Constituent Assembly. Alexander Vladlenovich shows particular concern for the resolution "On the chauvinistic threat to the environmental movement", which became the logical conclusion of the struggle of the RPG Council with the "patriotic wing of the green movement." Back in March, the Council of the RPZ, at the insistence of Shubin, did not accept the "Green World-Renaissance" group from Krasnoyarsk (leader - Vladimir Panov) into the party, Vitaly Knyaginichev from Chelyabinsk was expelled from the party "for propaganda of chauvinistic views." Shubin's group reserves the definition of the concept of "patriotism". The RPG resolution calls the policy of the Russian government "gradually turning the country into a world ecological dump" as unpatriotic. The number of co-chairs after the litigation is reduced to. Shubin among them.
In August 1992, Alexander Vladlenovich joined the Social and Ecological Union (SoES), and in October 1992 he was elected a member of the Council of SoES and the Council of the Russian SoES. Speaking on behalf of the SEC at a rally of trade unions and constructive opposition on May 1, 1993, Shubin called on the audience to refuse to participate in the struggle of nomenklatura cliques for absolute power and to actively participate in the struggle for their specific social, environmental and civil rights. According to Shubin, "it is better to be active today than radioactive tomorrow" (however, this was said before him).
On June 5-26, 1993, he represented the Socio-Ecological Union at the Constitutional Conference, but left the first meeting on June 5 in connection with the scandal that occurred at it. Together with O. Rumyantsev, V. Lipitsky and A. Bogdanov, he participated in the preparation of the statement of the “departed”. After satisfying the requirements set out in the statement (expanding the number of plenary meetings, giving the floor to Khasbulatov and the representative of the Constitutional Commission, transferring the results of the work of the Meeting as a legislative initiative to the Congress, "in order to comply with the law") returned to the Meeting, was "assigned" to the section of public organizations (" chief" - A. Sobchak). According to Shubin, "the majority of the inhabitants" of this section "stand out with the seal of involvement in history, which lay on their faces," which suited Alexander Vladlenovich, who had long ago discovered the seal on his forehead.
Alexander, according to him, made amendments to the presidential draft of the Constitution regarding the right of citizens to a healthy environment, to receive environmental information and compensation for damage caused as a result of environmental offenses. (And earlier, the same amendments were introduced by the Social-Ecological Union into the draft Basic Law prepared by the Constitutional Commission of the Russian Federation and adopted by it). As A. Shubin wrote in his publication about the Constitutional Conference in the newspaper "Solidarity", the tactics of the Social-Ecological Union at the meeting were based on the incompetence of the "heads of the meeting" in environmental matters, and also on the fact that such amendments were not directly related to the issue of authorities. However, some amendments, such as a ban on the import of radioactive waste into the country, could not be passed.
In 1989-1992 A.Shubin completed his postgraduate studies at the Institute of World History. Since 1992 he has been working at this institute. He is a specialist in the history of anarchist ideology and practice, in 1993 he published a study of the history of the Makhnovist movement.
In 1990, Shubin wrote the book "The Harmony of History", in which he outlined his views on the key points and main patterns of historical development. Responses to the book varied. There are enthusiastic ones: “In addition to substantiating the method of historical analogies and its masterful application for predicting the near future, the book contains many more interesting ideas that help to comprehend our past, present and future. Not all of them are equally convincing ... However, these ideas are always fresh and interesting. ". There are other reviews: “This thing will be stronger than Faust ... The reader, dumbfounded by the abundance of facts, is not able to comprehend them more or less deeply. This is exactly the case that the blind and very ancient Greek Heraclitus spoke about: does not teach the mind "... ... It is impossible to call what is presented in this book a theory. How impossible it is to call this book scientific. ... the analogies from which this publication is woven ... cannot serve as proof, but can be only illustrations. Is there absolutely nothing good in the book? Why, there is! The book has a green cover. It is reassuring."
Alexander is one of the regular contributors to the newspaper of the Moscow Federation of Trade Unions "Solidarity". He writes about the export of minerals from Russia for a pittance, about the Cuban revolution, about legal proceedings initiated by the "greens" in connection with violations of environmental legislation by authorities at various levels, and much more.
Alexander Shubin is the fifth in the federal list of candidates for deputies of the State Duma from the electoral association of the Russian Green Party. On this occasion, Mark Borozin (chief editor of the Zeleny Mir newspaper, president of the Rosecopress Association) wrote: wall" climbed Zabelin, Shubin, Blokov, the doom of the list of "green" because of the ambitions of the leaders of the SES - all this more than disgusts me." ("Salvation". No.38 (98), November 1993. P.6.)
The personal life of A. Shubin is not advertised. It is known that he is single, lives in the same house with his parents and answers married friends to their worldly complaints: "I would say to you:" do not marry, "but it's too late." And we also know his couplet from the "Romantic Cycle":
I see myself in your eyes.
I am there. Is it mirrors?
Favorite books - "Life and Fate" by V. Grossman and "City Doomed" by the Strugatsky brothers, favorite poets - A. Blok and Y. Shevchuk, favorite actors - R. Plyatt and N. Guseva. Favorite political figures are Mahatma Gandhi and Nestor Ivanovich Makhno. A. Shubin dedicated a poem to the latter:
Tell me, Ivanych, who is to blame?
Was there a way out of this mess?
I understand: you could not be on your belly -
You are your own marshal and soldier.
The routes were sewn by a checker, like a needle,
Sadness flooding with machine-gun crackling,
And the hopelessness of weighty arguments
I couldn't bring you down to death.
And, leaving with carts into the sunset,
You returned, immediately confusing
Volumes of scholars gaps and redoubts,
History tearing hundreds of times...
Could not pull off the steel loop
Neither Frunze, nor Denikin, nor Budyonny.
Squeezing the checker as if in a hop,
Gone into the dawn forever undefeated.
Alexander Vladlenovich spends his free time mainly watching TV and reading scientific literature.
He speaks English and Spanish and reads French.
Alexander Vladlenovich Shubin (July 18, 1965) is a Russian historian and public figure of the left direction. Doctor of historical sciences, professor. Head of the Center for the History of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences since 2007 Executive Secretary of the Journal of the Association of Historians of the CIS Countries "Historical Space". Professor of the State Academic University for the Humanities and the Russian State University for the Humanities.
In 1989 he graduated from the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute named after V.I. Lenin. In 1984-1985 he served in the Air Force.
In 1989-1992, he was a postgraduate student at the Institute of World History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (later RAS). After graduating from graduate school, he remained at the institute, working successively as a junior researcher, researcher, senior researcher, leading researcher. Since 2015 - Chief Researcher. Since 2001, the head of the center at the Institute of World History.
In 1993, under the scientific guidance of Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Ya. S. Drabkin, he defended his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences on the topic “The problem of social revolution in the ideology of Russian anarchist emigration in the 20-30s. (Based on materials from emigrant periodicals).
In 2000 he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic “Anarchist social experiment. Ukraine and Spain (1917-1939)”.
Since 2008, he has been the editor of the Soviet Research website.
In 2011-2012 - a member of the Headquarters of the Federal Convention of the Pirate Party of Russia, in 2012-2014 - a member of its Federal Convention from Moscow.
Since 2001 - Member of the Russian-Ukrainian Commission of Historians, since 2011 - Russian-Latvian Commission of Historians.
Works by A.V. Shubin are devoted to the problems of the history and theory of socialism, the general patterns of historical development, the history of Soviet society, the history of international relations, the history of Soviet social trends and movements.
Books (13)
1937. Stalin's AntiTerror
Historian A. Shubin's book "1937: Stalin's 'Antiterror'" analyzes in detail the "covert" political struggle in the USSR in the 1930s, which resulted in large-scale terror in 1937.
The author gives his own explanation of the “mystery of 1937”, weighs the pros and cons in the discussion about the existence of an anti-Stalinist conspiracy, offers a solution to the problem of the nature of the Stalinist regime and other issues that are now causing heated discussions in journalism and science.
Anarchy is the mother of order
“Kill the red ones until they turn white! Beat the whites until they turn red! - this well-known slogan from a popular film belonged to the "green" rebels of the Civil War period - people who represented the "third force" in this war. The most famous of the rebel movements is the Makhnovshchina.
However, there were others - in Siberia, the Far East and even in Moscow, where militants from the "All-Russian Headquarters of Revolutionary Partisans" blew up the building of the Moscow Committee of the Bolshevik Party in Leontyevsky Lane. Based on materials from the archives of Moscow, Kyiv, Zaporozhye and Paris, the book by historian Alexander Shubin is dedicated to the history of the insurrectionary movement during the Civil War.
Great Spanish Revolution
This book offers readers a comprehensive analysis of the Spanish revolution and civil war of the 1930s. On the basis of extensive archival materials and modern Spanish literature, the author reconstructs the difficult circumstances of the history of Spain in the 1930s, when this country found itself at the epicenter of world politics.
The heroes of the book are not only Spanish politicians - from anarchists to fascists, not only the leading world leaders of that time - Stalin, Chamberlain, Mussolini, Hitler and others, but also Soviet people who took part in revolutionary events. Many materials of Soviet military experts are published in the book for the first time. However, the main character of the book is still the Spanish people - divided, but experiencing the "finest hour" of their history, when the fate of the world depended on the enthusiasm and actions of ordinary working people.
The book will be useful to researchers of the history of the 1930s, teachers, students of history, as well as anyone who is interested in the history of Spain, leftist ideas, socio-political and international conflicts on the eve of World War II.
Leaders and conspirators
The Great Terror that broke out in the 1930s seems to be one of the most irrational events in modern history. This event is inextricably linked with the name of Joseph Stalin, and sometimes it seems that the whole thing is in the evil will of the leader of the CPSU (b). “Ultimately, the whole character of terror was shared by Stalin's personal and political motives,” writes R. Conquest. However, Stalin's personal inclinations in the 20s. showed more modesty. All this can be perceived as the result of the diabolical calculation of the leader.
The tradition that stems from N. Khrushchev’s report to the 20th Congress of the CPSU “On the personality cult of Stalin and its consequences” presents the Bolsheviks destroyed by Stalin as innocent victims of his manic lust for power and (in the liberal interpretation) of the totalitarian regime. Why was it necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of people, among whom the majority were sincerely committed to the Communist Party? If Stalin was a maniac, why were his comrades-in-arms, crowds of enthusiastic supporters, supporting his actions? Mass clouding of reason, hypnosis? Isn't this too mystical version?
Historian Alexander Shubin is looking for more rational explanations for the events of Soviet history.
Democratic socialism is the future of Russia
Socialism in Russia has many supporters and opponents. But very often what disputes boil over has nothing to do with socialism. For better or worse, there was no socialism in our country. If by socialism we understand a society of freedom and prosperity, devoid of the exploitation of oppression. In the USSR, freedom and prosperity were not enough.
Dissidents, informals and freedom in the USSR
Was freedom in the USSR limited, or did it not exist at all? Could a Soviet person be free from those myths that the system imposed on him, and from social domination - to create, arrange his life the way you want, without interfering with the same right of others?
Such freedom is always limited - in different societies to different degrees and in different directions, the author of the book, historian Alexander Shubin, believes, reflecting on the ideological currents and social movements that developed in Soviet society in 1953-1984.
Golden autumn, or the period of stagnation of the USSR in 1975-1985.
Did our country need Perestroika, or could we continue to live as before for more than one decade - be “confident in the future” and be proud of a strong country that determines the fate of mankind?
Or maybe, in an era of peace and stability, problems accumulate without being resolved and the “time of change” is already inevitable? Be that as it may, we were unable to break through, and in many respects society was thrown back.
And yet, the famous writer and historian Alexander Shubin believes, Soviet society still exists and may exist for more than one century, despite the fact that its state shell has disintegrated.
Makhno and his time
About the Great Revolution and the Civil War of 1917-1922. in Russia and Ukraine.
In the book of the famous historian A.V. Shubin tells about the leader of the mass insurrectionary movement, the anarchist Nestor Makhno.
The life of the "father" is shown against a broad background of the events of the revolution and the civil war in Russia and Ukraine. Many heroes pass before the reader's eyes: Lenin and Denikin, Stalin and Petlyura, Siberians and Ukrainians, residents of the capitals and rural outback. Describing in detail the development of the Makhnovist movement, confirming his statements with references to documents of that turbulent era, the author at the same time shows how the history of the country changed under the influence of masses of people who decided to fight for freedom and social justice.
Fighting off the Reds and Whites and at the same time influencing their politics, the Makhnovists and other rebels, who are also discussed in the book, began to create their own unusual society of self-government. They were defeated in an unequal struggle. But, having retreated from Ukraine, Makhno continued to fight for his ideals in exile. As shown in the book, he had a considerable influence on the development of the world anarchist movement, which was soon to fight fascism in Spain.
The world is on the edge of the abyss. From global crisis to world war, 1929-1941
The book by the historian A. V. Shubin is dedicated to the dramatic era of the 30s and early 40s - the era that began with the Great Depression and ended with World War II.
This study tells about the social processes and figures that influenced the development of civilization, about the causes of the tragedies of 1933, 1939, 1941, about tragic accidents and missed opportunities, about the disputes that we still have about that time, trying to answer two main questions : what was subject to the rigid logic of events in those years, and what depended on the choice of people?
Score of World War II. Who and when started the war. Collection
The authors of the collection give a broad geopolitical context to the events and processes that preceded the war, analyze their background and the hidden diplomatic and political struggle around them, which is revealed 70 years later on the basis of materials recently declassified and made available to researchers. The appendix to the collection contains documents from the Foreign Policy Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, many of which are published for the first time.
The articles and documents presented in the book are undoubtedly interesting not only for specialists in national history and the history of international relations, but also for a wide range of readers who are not indifferent to the fate of Russia.
Based on modern scientific approaches, it highlights the most important events in the political, economic and spiritual life of society in the 20th - early 21st century. The methodological apparatus of the textbook includes a variety of questions and tasks, author's maps and documentary materials, vivid and figurative illustrations that will allow students to learn the basic facts and concepts of the course.
Xenophobia in Russia and Ukraine is developing at a monstrous pace. The nationalist wave is designed to hide social problems from the citizens of both countries. To distract from the most pressing issues is to preserve the existing system ...
The well-known leftist historian and public figure Alexander Shubin believes that the annexation of Crimea will only secure the status of peripheral countries for Russia and Ukraine. According to the interlocutor of CAVPOLITA, the new course of Russian foreign policy could lead to the expansion of NATO to the East and significantly increase the risk of escalation of global and local armed conflicts.
Alexander Shubin - Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of the Center for the History of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus of the Institute of World History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Executive Secretary of the Journal of the Association of Historians of the CIS Countries "Historical Space". Author of the books "The World on the Edge of the Abyss", "Makhno and His Time", "Perestroika - the Unused Chance of the USSR", etc.
Alexander Vladlenovich, let's start with Putin's appeal to the Federal Assembly regarding the annexation of Crimea. What, in your opinion, is the message urbi et orbi of the presidential speech?
Putin continues to pursue the line that he chose back in 2013. The meaning of this strategy is to distract the citizens of the country from the growing social problems with nationalism.
The wave of nationalism, reinforced by the occupation of the Crimea, will have negative social consequences. The Russians will have to tighten their belts. The initiative to annex Crimea has already cost us dearly due to the fall of the ruble. But this is only the beginning. Now we have to accumulate large funds as assistance to the Crimea. It will be more expensive than Sochi. Soon a trip to the Crimea will affect the prices in the store.
External insulation is also important. In the political tradition of the West - appeasement, which only later gives way to panic before the aggressor and the bombing. In addition, the West is used to acting on the principle of "Samosa is a son of a bitch, but this is our son of a bitch." It is no coincidence that last year the West showed indifference to the Bolotny case and the ridiculously monstrous case of Udaltsov-Razvozzhaev. The problem of sexual minorities seemed much more important there - especially since it was easy for the president to answer questions about it.
External insulation is also important. In the political tradition of the West - appeasement, which only later gives way to panic before the aggressor and the bombing, - Shubin
Now the policy of appeasement is experiencing a crisis - "colleague Vladimir" has crossed the red line on which the system of international relations was kept - the inviolability of the borders formed as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia-Serbia. Will they let the president break this system, even if they have to tighten their belts too? I really don’t want to, and while messages are coming from there: “Vladimir, change your mind! This is the Sudetenland, 1938! In response, they hear the cheerful laughter of officials who have fallen under the sanctions.
Will Russia survive more severe sanctions? Let's not forget that the Russian Federation is a "great energy power", that is, a large raw materials appendage, a country of peripheral capitalism. Serious sanctions can break such a socio-economic structure. And this will hit first of all on us - ordinary residents of Russia, for whom the annexation of Crimea does not give anything.
When the Soviet Union annexed the Baltics, at least the alternative of the two systems was clear. The USSR had an independent economic base, a social structure different from capitalism. Putin calls himself a conservative. Given today's rhetoric, one can consider him a national conservative or even a nationalist. But this spectrum is not an alternative to the Western order. It is perfectly adequate for a third world country. If you can not offer a new strategy, why break the world order? To strengthen the nationalist component of the modern world? We already had this experience in the 30s of the last century, during the Great Depression, when the leading powers began to tear the planet to pieces. How it all ended is well known.
References to the Kosovo precedent are especially dangerous for Russia. It was not by chance that we fought for the rights of Serbia in this matter: the further fragmentation of space is a threat, first of all, to countries like Russia. Our position was logical and consistent. And now this dangerous precedent is being put at the forefront of Russian politics. Full spread. Just like the turn of Primakov's plane over the Atlantic in 1999 - only in the opposite direction.
References to the Kosovo precedent are especially dangerous for Russia. It was not by chance that we fought for the rights of Serbia in this matter: further fragmentation of space is a threat primarily to countries like Russia, - Shubin
It turns out that Russia has recognized that it is possible to redraw borders in accordance with the ethnic principle. All mankind, and above all the Russians themselves, have something to be afraid of. If such a practice is in the order of things, then we will have a period of numerous wars - in every area where the borders do not coincide with ethnic settlement. No matter how the “gathering of Russian lands” ended with the loss of “non-Russians”.
We know that citizens of the Russian Federation voted in Crimea. But there are Russians all over the world, just as in Russia itself there are many citizens of other countries. The principle of ethnic reshaping can explode the world situation, already tense because of the crisis.
The ball is on the West side. Russia is gas, trade turnover. Nobody wants to lose money. What will be the priority: the prospects for receiving income or the threat of new stages of “gathering Russian lands”? Perhaps now it will end in peace - after all, I really don’t want rockets to explode here. But in any case, Russia will be considered in the world as an aggressor, from which everything can be expected, and the next careless step may already provoke a military reaction - they will be mentally prepared for this, if they are not ready now. And the next step on the part of the authorities is very likely - it happened once, it will happen again. Appetite comes with eating.
Today, the West can theoretically be satisfied with the "exchange" - after all, for a small Crimea, it gets a large Ukraine at its full disposal. The occupation of the Crimea by Russia has driven such a wedge between the fraternal peoples that it will not be possible to pull out for a long time, if at all. But now the Putin regime will inspire such fears that we can expect the transfer of the Russian Federation into the category of "rogue countries" with all the consequences.
But the West may not be satisfied, and move from appeasement to punishment. The current phase of the conflict is far from over. Even the Crimea is not yet fully annexed; there are Ukrainian garrisons on its territory.
- And then what?
Suppose Ukraine invites NATO troops under the pretext that they have cut off the peninsula, contrary to the Budapest Convention. As a result, the remarkable foreign policy of the Russian authorities will bring NATO missile bases close to our border: Kyiv is much closer to Moscow than Crimea.
So far it has been possible to keep Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia. In a few days, the Kremlin turned it into an outpost of the North Atlantic bloc. At the same time, the situation did not foreshadow such a scenario, not only in January of this year, but also immediately after the flight of the Ukrainian president. As long as there were no threats from Russia, "little green men" in Crimea, no one was going to revise the existing agreements with NATO.
So far it has been possible to keep Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia. In a few days, the Kremlin turned it into an outpost of the North Atlantic bloc, - Shubin
Now it's not like that. Moreover, theoretically, NATO can still enter even Crimea - the territory of bases controlled by Ukrainian troops. The recent armed clash, which resulted in the death of two people, is a very disturbing signal. He says that real hostilities may break out in Crimea. On the eve of the beach season, the Crimeans only lacked this. So the situation is still extremely tense. It remains to pray that all this does not turn into a big war. The point of no return has not yet been passed.
Many believe that the Russian authorities were concerned not so much with the rampant far-right forces in Ukraine, but with the victory of the Maidan as such. Has there been a revolution on the Maidan? Was it a challenge to the system, or did we observe an act of protest within the framework of systemic relations?
It was an act of protest within the framework of systemic relations. No demands were made to change the social structure. The anxiety of the Russian president was caused by the fact that a change of power could occur within the system. That is, the protest of civil society and the lower classes can be combined with the dissatisfaction of the oligarchs and officials fostered by him. The swift fall of Yanukovych showed the fragility of neo-authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe. This cannot but frighten Putin and his entourage. However, the environment may, after all, sacrifice it for the sake of preserving the system.
We must pay tribute to the actions of the opposition, but half of the overthrow of Yanukovych is the merit of Yanukovych himself. With his attempts to become the Ukrainian Putin in January, he provoked a new escalation of the situation. On February 21, an agreement was reached under which power was smoothly and legally transferred and the 2004 Constitution returned. But after signing the agreement on February 21, Yanukovych did not comply with it and fled. This provoked a new round of the crisis, which has already been used by those who sent "little green men" to the Crimea. And the appearance of "little men" has already caused an escalation of nationalism and Russophobic sentiments in Ukraine.
The national euphoria of the liberal-nationalist bloc that won in Kyiv also played its role. Appointment of acting the president without a proper impeachment procedure, the abolition (albeit soon revised) of the law on language - all this contributed to the swaying of the situation, fears of the Russian-speaking population and, as a result, serious unrest in eastern Ukraine.
But if before the events in Crimea all this could be settled on the basis of a compromise, then the foreign policy crisis gave trump cards to radical nationalists in the Ukrainian internal political struggle.
Both in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation, we now have a nationalist wave that is growing into chauvinism and xenophobia. This is a terrible result of the Crimean crisis. The Ukrainian authorities can use it in the same way as the Russian ones. After all, the country is threatened by shock therapy - not the best way to improve the economy. Ukrainians may be offered to tighten their belts in the fight against external aggression.
Both in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation, we now have a nationalist wave that is growing into chauvinism and xenophobia. This is a terrible result of the Crimean crisis. Ukrainian authorities can use it in the same way as Russian ones - Shubin
To get out of the crisis and save the industrial complex today is possible only by stimulating demand and launching advanced sectors of the economy, introducing new technologies. None of this is expected either in Ukraine or in our country. And the nationalist wave is designed to hide the most pressing problems from people. To distract from these problems means to save your privileges and the system as a whole.
What urgent measures, based on historical experience, should Ukraine take during this transitional period? What about, in particular, the armed masses?
The armed masses in Ukraine are not so great. Still, this is not a situation, say, of the Russian revolution, when people were at the front and, with bayonets in their hands, joined the political struggle. Several thousand people - very different, with different tasks and ideas - this is a solvable problem.
I hope that presidential elections will be held in Ukraine on May 25. It will be easier for legitimate authorities to clear the streets of homegrown green men. The "revolution" is over, it's time to sweep the streets, to return the police to their posts (this is already being done in the east). Who liked to walk with a machine gun - welcome to the National Guard. This is already being implemented, but today Yarosh can ask Yatsenyuk: "And who are you, we are together with the Maidan." But the future president will be able to refer to the mandate of the people.
Maidan will not be able to resist such a mandate, because it has not turned into a system of councils - permanent self-government bodies, where not individual people are represented, but production and territorial structures. Maidan as such remained a rally, and this predetermines its temporality. The commanders of the Maidan will be divided into those who will obey, will make a career under the new government, or will remain in opposition to it. But the same sanctions can be applied to them as to Gubarev. If someone continues armed resistance to the already new government, he will put himself outside the law and, most likely, will be crushed. After all, Ukraine is not Afghanistan.
Maidan has not turned into a system of councils - permanent self-government bodies, where not individual people are represented, but production and territorial structures. Maidan as such remained a rally, and this predetermines its temporality, - Shubin
If the legal regime starts working, it will be possible to say that the situation for Ukraine ended happily. This is supported by the presence of a stabilizer in the form of the European Union, which after May 25 will require compliance with the law.
On the Maidan, I observed not only right-wing radicals. There were normal people there, representatives of civil organizations of a completely democratic persuasion. So there are good chances to cope with the right-wing radicals and put them in the framework that exists in the surrounding countries, including Russia.
In addition, the romantic halo of the nationalist armed formations will begin to fade away as shock reforms take place. The population will be disappointed in the results of the Euromaidan, and hence in its fighters. The only thing that can save this halo is the opposition to the Russian challenge. The actions of the Russian Federation are the main resource of the nationalists in Ukraine.
- Is there an optimal way out for Ukraine?
We proposed a way out of such crises a long time ago - not only for Ukraine, but also for Scotland, Catalonia, where they plan to hold a referendum on independence, which is also not recognized by the government, and therefore the world community. We are talking about broad territorial autonomy, guarantees for the use of regional languages at the state level. This removes the main national problems. A return to this point would save Ukraine from disintegration, and Europe from serious xenophobic waves. But most importantly, it would clear the minds of the artificially inflated national question. That would allow to deal with real problems. First of all - social transformations. It is the social structure of the world - not only in Russia, but also in more developed countries - that is in the deepest crisis. It is necessary to move on to a new stage in the development of mankind, and this is absolutely impossible to do if you are held by nationalist shackles.
-2