Russian historian and public figure.
Graduated from the Moscow State pedagogical institute them. IN AND. Lenin (now the State Pedagogical University). In 1989-1997. and since 1998 has been working at. Since 2001, leading researcher, head of the center at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Doctor historical sciences since 2000. Thesis 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, the organizing committee of the Moscow People's Front (1988). Member of the editorial board and one of the leading authors of the "Community" magazine (1987-1990). Member of the Council of Representatives of the Confederation of Labor, 1990-1991. Since 1992, a member of the Social and Ecological Union (SES). In 1992-1994. - Member of the Council of the SoEU, in 2005 - the Green Union of Russia. Represented SES at the Constitutional Meeting in June 1993. He advocated the inclusion in the constitution of provisions guaranteeing the environmental rights of citizens, for the limitation of presidential power, equality of rights for the 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 the editor of the newspaper's policy department. In 1993-2004. participated in the creation and development of the Kitezh community.
In 1997-1998 - Advisor to First Deputy Prime Minister B. Nemtsov. He contributed to the prevention of the construction of the high-speed highway St. Petersburg - Moscow, considering that it poses a threat to protected forests. Took part in organizing negotiations between the striking miners and the government in 1998, in preparing 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 - a 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 member of the Moscow City Council. In 2013 - a member of the LF Executive Committee, LF coordinator. In 2011-2014. - Member of the Pirate Party of Russia.
Head of the Center for the History of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus of the Institute of Oriental Studies 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 Russian State humanities University since 2007 and State Academic University humanities since 2003 Since 2001 - member of the Russian-Ukrainian Commission of Historians, since 2011 - Russian-Latvian Commission of Historians.
Author of 24 books (monographs, textbook on world history of the twentieth century for school, science fiction novel), more than two hundred scientific and several hundred journalistic articles. The works of A.V. Shubin are devoted to the problems of the history and theory of socialism, revolutionary movements, general patterns historical development, history of Soviet society, international relations in the twentieth centuries., the political situation in the late twentieth - early twenty-first centuries.
Works:
Harmony of history. M., 1992;
The rhythms of history (periodic theory of social development). M., 1996;
Leaders and conspirators. Political struggle in the USSR in the 1920s and 1930s. M., 2004;
The world is on the edge of the abyss. From global depression to world war. 1929-1941 M., 2004;
Perestroika paradoxes. A lost chance of the USSR. M., 2005;
The witch's ring. Soviet Union XXI century. M., 2006;
Devoted democracy. Informals and Perestroika (1986-1989). M., 2006;
Socialism. The "golden age" of theory. M., 2007;
Golden autumn, or a 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.
Xenophobia in both 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 historian and public figure of the left wing Alexander Shubin believes that the annexation of Crimea will only consolidate the status of peripheral countries for Russia and Ukraine. According to the interlocutor of KAVPOLIT, the new course of the Russian foreign policy could lead to NATO expansion eastward 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 General History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Executive Secretary of the Journal of the Association of Historians of CIS Countries "Historical Space". The author of the books "The World at the Edge of the Abyss", "Makhno and His Time", "Perestroika - an Unused Chance of the USSR", etc.
Alexander Vladlenovich, let's start with Putin's address to the Federal Assembly on the annexation of Crimea. What, in your opinion, is the message urbi et orbi of the presidential speech?
Putin continues to pursue the line 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, intensified by the occupation of 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 just the beginning. Now it is necessary to accumulate large funds as assistance to the Crimea. It will be more expensive than Sochi. Soon the 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 in front of the aggressor and bombing. In addition, the West is used to acting on the principle "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 Bolotnoye case and the monstrous and absurd 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 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 held - the inviolability of the borders formed as a result of the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia-Serbia. Will they allow the president to break this system even if they too have to tighten their belts? 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 the officials who have come under the sanctions.
Will Russia withstand more serious sanctions? Let's not forget that the Russian Federation is a "great energy power", that is, a large raw material 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, who do not benefit from the annexation of Crimea.
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 cannot suggest a new strategy, why break the world order? To strengthen the nationalist component 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 no accident that we fought for the rights of Serbia in this matter: further fragmentation of space is a threat, first of all, for such countries as Russia. Our position was logical and consistent. And now this dangerous precedent is at the forefront russian politics... Full reversal. 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 no coincidence that we fought for the rights of Serbia in this matter: further fragmentation of space is a threat, first of all, for such countries as Russia, - Shubin
It turns out that Russia has recognized that it is possible to redraw the borders in accordance with the ethnic principle. All of humanity, and above all the Russians themselves, have something to be afraid of. If this practice is in the order of things, then we will face a period of numerous wars - in every area where the borders do not coincide with ethnic settlement. As if the "gathering of Russian lands" did not end with the loss of "non-Russians".
We know that citizens voted in Crimea Russian Federation... But there are Russians all over the world, as well as in Russia itself there are many citizens of other countries. The principle of ethnic redrawing can explode the world situation, which is 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 obtaining 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 the aggressor in the world, from whom everything can be expected, and the next careless step may cause a military reaction - they will be mentally ready for this, if not ready now. And the next step on the part of the authorities is very likely - it turned out once, it will turn out again. Appetite comes with eating.
Today, the West can theoretically be content with "exchange" - after all, for a small Crimea, it gets a large Ukraine at its complete disposal. The occupation of Crimea by Russia has driven such a wedge between fraternal peoples, which will not be pulled out for a long time, if at all. But now Putin's regime will instill such fears that one can expect the transfer of the Russian Federation into the category of “rogue states” with all that it implies.
But the West may not be satisfied and move from appeasement to punishment. The current phase of the conflict is far from over. Even Crimea has not yet been fully annexed; Ukrainian garrisons are located on its territory.
- And then what?
Suppose Ukraine invites NATO troops under the pretext that their peninsula was cut off, 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: Kiev is much closer to Moscow than Crimea.
So far, it has been possible to keep Ukraine as a buffer between NATO and Russia. Within a few days, the Kremlin turned it into an outpost for the North Atlantic bloc. At the same time, the situation did not bode well for such a scenario, not only in January of this year, but also immediately after the flight of the Ukrainian president. Until there were threats from Russia, the "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
It's not like that now. Moreover, in theory, NATO can still enter even the Crimea - the territory of bases controlled by the troops of Ukraine. The recent armed clash, which resulted in the death of two people, is a very worrying signal. He says that real fighting... On the eve of the beach season, the Crimeans lacked only this. So the situation is still extremely tense. It remains to pray that all this does not develop 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 ultra-right forces in Ukraine, but with the victory of the Maidan itself. Has there been a revolution on the Maidan? Was this 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. Anxiety russian President was caused by the fact that a change of power can occur within the system. That is, the protest of civil society and the lower classes can be combined with the discontent of the oligarchs and officials fostered by it. The rapid fall of Yanukovych showed the instability of neo-authoritarian regimes in eastern Europe. This cannot but scare Putin and his entourage. However, the environment can sacrifice it for the sake of preserving the system.
We must pay tribute to the actions of the opposition, but half of the business of overthrowing 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, according to which power was smoothly and legally transferred and the 2004 Constitution returned. But after the signing of the agreement on February 21, Yanukovych did not fulfill it and fled. This provoked a new round of the crisis, which has already been taken advantage of by those who sent the "little green men" to 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 Kiev also played a role. Appointment of acting President without a proper impeachment procedure, the abolition (albeit soon revised) of the language law - all this contributed to the rocking of the situation, the 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 have been settled on the basis of a compromise, then the foreign policy crisis gave the radical nationalists' trump cards 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 method of economic recovery. 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. The Ukrainian authorities can use it in the same way as the Russian ones, - Shubin
To get out of the crisis and preserve 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, taking into account historical experience, should Ukraine take during this transition period? What about the armed masses in particular?
The armed masses in Ukraine are not that large. After all, this is not a situation, say, of the Russian revolution, when people were at the front and with bayonets in their hands joined in the political struggle. Several thousand people - very different, with different tasks and ideas - this is a problem to be solved.
I hope that the presidential elections will be held in Ukraine on May 25. It will be easier for the legal authorities to clear the streets of home-grown "green men". The "revolution" is over, it's time to sweep the streets, return the police to their posts (this is already being done in the east). Whoever liked walking with a gun - welcome to the National Guard. This is already being implemented, but today Yarosh can ask Yatsenyuk: “Who are you, we are together with 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 no individuals, and production and territorial structures. The Maidan as such remained a rally, and this predetermines its temporary nature. Maidan commanders will be divided into those who obey, will make a career with new government, or will remain in opposition to it. But they may be subject to the same sanctions as against Gubarev. If someone continues armed resistance to the new government, he will put himself outside the law and, most likely, will be crushed. After all, Ukraine is not Afghanistan.
The 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 works, it will be possible to say that the situation for Ukraine ended well. This is also supported by the presence of a stabilizer in the form of the European Union, which will require compliance with the law after May 25.
On the Maidan, I saw not only right-wing radicals. There were normal people, representatives of civic organizations of a completely democratic nature. So there is a good chance of dealing with right-wing radicals and putting them in the framework that exists in the surrounding countries, including Russia.
In addition, the romantic halo of nationalist militias will begin to fade as shock reforms progress. The population will be disappointed in the results of the Euromaidan, and therefore in its fighters. The only thing that can save this halo is confronting the Russian challenge. The actions of the Russian Federation are the main resource of nationalists in Ukraine.
- Is there an optimal way out for Ukraine?
We have proposed a way out of such crises for a long time - not only for Ukraine, but also for Scotland and Catalonia, where they plan to hold a referendum on independence, which the government also does not recognize, and therefore the world community. We are talking about broad territorial autonomy, guarantees of the use of regional languages \u200b\u200bat 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 brains of the artificially inflamed national question. That would allow us to tackle real problems. First of all - social transformations. Exactly social structure the world - not only Russia, but also more developed countries - is in the deepest crisis. It is necessary to move to a new stage in the development of mankind, and this is absolutely impossible to do if you are held in nationalist shackles.
-2Shubin Alexander Vladlenovich
Co-chairman of the Russian Green Party, member of the Council of the Social and Environmental Union.
When asked who he considers himself to be: a green or a party leader, Alexander, without hesitation, replies that he is a politician, so he is offended by the rare mention of him in the press and the absence in all Whois Who reference books that have been published so far ...
This is unfair because in the green movement he is definitely a figure.
Alexander was born on July 18, 1965 in Moscow. In 1982, upon graduation high school, entered the history faculty of the Lenin Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, now - the Pedagogical State University... However, the 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 on the whole the correctness of the Marxist doctrine, A. Shubin was skeptical about its official interpretation. While serving in the army, he came to the conclusion that exploitation existed in the USSR, therefore, after returning from the army in 1985, he began clandestine activities: he began to participate in discussions led by members of the illegal Organizing Committee of the All-Union Marxist Workers' Party (OK WRMP). However, he was not included in this association, since felt that Marxism had outgrown. At the end of 1985, together with his friend Andrei Isaev, they deviated from Marxism and created an informal circle of friends (A. Shubin, A. Isaev, V. Gurbolikov), which, during intensive discussions in 1986, developed his own political concept, which became known later as "communal socialism" or self-government 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 Bakunism, primarily in its pacifism.
In 1986, members of the circle took part in protecting the merchant Shcherbakov's chambers from demolition during the construction of the Severnyi Luch, a high-speed highway that runs through Lefortovo; conducted "theatrical" political discussions (including at their own institute), where they defended the ideas of self-government and "delegation" (recruiting higher bodies from freely recallable 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 squadron, a group organized a one-day student strike demanding the establishment of self-governing bodies and better student nutrition. The administration, not ready for forceful methods of struggle, immediately satisfied all the requirements.
In the fall 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, the famous "patriotic" the issue 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 party's youth organization.
In early December 1986, a group of "socialist-federalists" decided to use the discussion that had begun on the charter of the Komsomol to propagate their views, and on December 13 at the history department of the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, the first meeting was held, which marked the beginning of a long campaign that continued at the institute until March 1987, when Party organs terminated the discussion administratively. 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".
The 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 of the former members of the OK WRMP), "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 was actively looking for contacts with other informal groups in Moscow, Leningrad, Taganrog, Riga, Kaunas; together with A. Isaev represents the "Community" in the Club of Social Initiatives (CSI), which united several informal organizations of the capital. One of the projects of the CSI was the "Self-government" 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. The ligbez was closed when consultations of the plant's activists began, the administration felt that a "parliamentary republic" could emerge 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-government" group affected the development of production "Self-government", but for A. Shubin it was a time for gaining practical knowledge about the functioning of modern Russian production and the possibilities of introducing self-government mechanisms and industrial democracy there. This experience strengthened A. Shubin in the opinion that modern efficient production is impossible without self-management. Since 1987 A. Shubin is a member of the Moscow Workers' Club.
Meanwhile, in the "Community" was growing internal conflictassociated with ideological differences. A. Shubin was a supporter of a regulated market society and sometimes led a sharp polemic with A. Isaev, who then advocated a radical market model based on the idea of \u200b\u200bcollective ownership of the means of production. However, if the strategic differences were resolved (A. Shubin recognized the need for collective property, and A. Isaev - social regulation of the economy), then tactical differences between the two leaders put the "Community" on the brink of split. His danger was intensified after the famous speech of Boris Yeltsin at the October (1987) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. Andrey Isaev, Vladimir Gurbolikov and a number of other Community activists spoke in favor of holding a rally in support of the disgraced leader, and Alexander is categorically against this, motivating his position by 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" became the first example of a demarcation in the democratic community on the issue of "Yeltsin's populism." Despite the fact that a formal split did not occur, the "Community" was actually divided into "Isaevites" and "Shubintsy". In March 1988, the leaders of the groups entered the editorial office of the Obshchina magazine, thereby demonstrating that their conflict was practically settled. Since that time A. Shubin has been a member of the editorial board and one of the regular authors of the "Community" magazine - the oldest of the currently 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 meeting of FSOK organizations from other cities was held. A. Shubin, who participated in writing the charter of the FSOK, 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 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 its program.
Simultaneously with the deployment of all-union structures, the leaders of the "Community" decided to switch to a new campaign in Moscow - this time about the upcoming XIX Party Conference. Together with the liberal group "Civil Dignity" and groups focused on "communal socialism" FSOK "Community" held the first large democratic demonstration in Moscow (more than 200 participants) on May 28, 1988 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 CPSU Central Committee before the 19th Party Conference. June 18, 1988 A. Shubin receives the baptism of fire in clashes with the police during the dispersal of the meeting.
In Moscow, by analogy with the Baltics, the creation of The Popular Front... However, the "Informals" at this stage were unable to put forward a single idea that could "captivate the masses" and failed to create a movement of many thousands. Sharp disagreements are torn apart by "informals" and at the conferences of the "Organizing Committee of the Popular Front," held in June simultaneously with the rallies on Pushkin Square. A. Shubin actively participates in these clarifications of relations, advocating a compromise between socialist and liberal groups.
However, after the dispersal of the June 18 rally, tactical contradictions in the organizing committee also escalated. According to A. Shubin, the version of the split looks as follows: "The small groups that emerged in the wake of the 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 obey the majority."
The "majority" were about 10 socialist groups with exotic names "Che Guevarra 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 assistant to G. Popov), "Citizens' Diplomacy" (Andrey Danilov), Federation of Social Association (Yevgeny Dergunov). These included Sergei Stankevich and Georgy Gusev, who also represented the Interclub Party Group.
"Minority": "Community", "Alliance", Moscow branch Social and Political Club (VSPK) (German Ivantsov) and a number of liberal groups ("Memorial" and "Perestroika-88" (Vyacheslav Igrunov and Dmitry Leonov), the Club of Social Initiatives (CSI) (Grigory Pelman and Gleb Pavlovsky), "Civil Dignity "(Victor Zolotarev).
After the majority of the members of the organizing committee of the Moscow Popular Front rejected the offer of a compromise formulated by A. Shubin on June 21, 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 division into "centralists" and "federalists" affected the fate of the FSOK as well. A smaller part of the confederation reoriented to work in the MNF, and the larger one 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 the declaration of the federalist faction FSOK was adopted, which later became the program document of the Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists (KAS). According to Shubin, the declaration was prepared by him; it formulates Aleksandr Vladlenovich's view of socialism as "a consistently conducted democracy, self-government in all spheres of society, the broadest 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, since after the first success of an organization with such an exotic name, in his opinion, an influx of people will begin to understand anarchism primitively - as "chaos".
In the same period, Alexander Vladlenovich plunged into the elements of the rally. In 1989, at a rally in Luzhniki, he 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 in 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 discussion club of the Moscow intelligentsia formed in 1988 at the initiative of Andrei Sakharov, Yuri Afanasyev and Leonid Batkin, drew attention to it. On November 18, 1989, Shubin, along with 34 other leaders of various political organizations (Mikhail Astafyev, Viktor Zolotarev, Oleg Rumyantsev, Lev Ponomarev, Evgeny Savostyanov, Gleb Yakunin, etc.), were accepted into the club. The anarchist Shubin was included in the elite of the democratic movement.
Alexander describes this period as follows:
Spring day, hopes of the boy,
This is how perestroika began,
Forgetting that the truth is in wine.
Crowds hum, tanks, sticks,
Shooting in the mountains, a lie from the tribune.
So the restructuring went on smoothly,
Not shaky - what can you take from her.
Since March 1990, Shubin faced a new adversary: \u200b\u200bthe radical-anarchist groups in the KAS began to advocate the transformation of the organization from anarcho-syndicalist to a purely anarchist one, A. Shubin again rushes to the defense, now of syndicalism and the self-governing program of the Confederation. At the same time, A. Shubin's concern 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 CAS, he participates in international meetings of anarchists, defending the market concept of anarchism, polemicizing with theorists of the International Workingmen's Association.
In 1991, Alexander decides that it is more effective to implement the political activity of anarchists through workers, environmental and civil movements.
In 1990-1991. he was a member of the Coordination 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 communicated between the workers' organizations of the country. The name of the agency is deliberately consonant with the names of two Polish trade unions "Solidarity" - KOS and KOR - and means renewed "The Confederation of Anarcho-Syndicalists - KORrespondents".
In June 1990, A. Shubin participated in the development of the requirements for a general strike scheduled for July 11, 1990, but in 1991 he left the "independent" workers' movement due to its reorientation towards unconditional political support. russian leadership... From this period to the present, Alexander has been associated with the environmental movement. Back in autumn 1989, Alexander Vladlenovich became a member of the Movement for the Creation of the Green Party, formed in Leningrad by V. Gushchin, I. Blokov and V. Panov. But in March 1990, at the founding conference of the Green Party (PZ), 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, it was possible to select only 13 worthy of this title. Shubin got to represent Moscow.
In 1990-1992 he was co-chairman of the Moscow organization of the Green Party. It was time to start fighting for purity; in the first half of 1991, a split began to mature among the Greens due to the fact that their leaders belonged to two increasingly divergent currents of anarchism - market (represented by A. Shubin) and anti-market (leaders - V. Damier and S. Fomichev). After the non-syndicalists left the CAS, theoretical and personal rivalry began to move 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 (RPG), was one of the authors of the RPG Declaration, and the world environmental movement was enriched by a new direction - self-government, the leader of this party wing, of course, was Alexander Vladlenovich. Simultaneously, from the founding congress (in May 1991), Alexander is the co-chairman of the party.
And now, chronologically, we have approached that historical moment, in connection with which we can ask Alexander the now traditional question: "What did you do on the night of August 19-20, 1991?" So, on August 18, 1991, the KAS Federal Council adopted a resolution written by the sagacious Shubin, which began with the words "the military coup has already begun." During the events of August 19-21, 1991, Alexander on 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 simultaneously in the newspaper Solidarity, edited by Shubin's associate, Andrei Isaev, an article by Alexander appears, exposing an "inept hoax" organized under the guise of a "putsch".
Shubin sharply criticizes the post-August regime:
Carving, crumbs, horn-legs,
Other flags are not leaders
One again - empty spoons,
Others - bill rains.
And on the screen - the same faces,
And the same, in general, Lobuda.
I am the same, and Russia is the same,
And we don't need anywhere.
The Moscow executive power is especially dissatisfied with Alexander Vladlenovich, he participates in the organization of protest rallies against its actions. The militia of the new government is detaining him just like 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 shore of Lake Dontso 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 appealed to the leaders of the League of Green Parties, who broke away from them a year ago, with a proposal to coordinate their 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 the new Basic Law would be entrusted to the Constituent Assembly. Aleksandr Vladlenovich shows particular concern for the resolution "On the chauvinistic threat to the ecological movement", which became the logical conclusion of the struggle of the RPZ Council with the "patriotic wing of the green movement." Back in March, the RPZ Council, at Shubin's insistence, did not accept the Green World-Renaissance group from Krasnoyarsk (leader - Vladimir Panov) into the party of "green chauvinists" (leader - Vladimir Panov); at the II Congress Vitaly Knyaginichev from Chelyabinsk was expelled from the party "for propaganda views ". The Shubin group reserves the definition of "patriotism". In the RPG resolution, the policy russian government, "gradually transforming the country into a global ecological dump", is called unpatriotic. The number of co-chairs after the source is reduced to. Shubin is among them.
In August 1992, Alexander Vladlenovich joined the Social and Ecological Union (SES), and in October 1992 he was elected a member of the Council of the SES and the Council of the Russian SES. Speaking on behalf of the SoEU at a rally of trade unions and constructive opposition on May 1, 1993, Shubin urged the audience to refuse to participate in the struggle of the nomenklatura cliques for absolute power and to participate more actively 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 session on June 5 in connection with a scandal at it. Together with O. Rumyantsev, V. Lipitsky and A. Bogdanov, he took part in drawing up the statement of the "departed". After satisfying the requirements set out in the statement (expanding the number of plenary sessions, giving the floor to Khasbulatov and the representative of the Constitutional Commission, transferring the results of the Conference's work as a legislative initiative to the Congress, "in order to observe legality"), he returned to the Meeting, was "assigned" to the section public organizations ("chief" - A. Sobchak). According to Shubin, "the majority of the inhabitants" of this section "stood out with the seal of involvement in the story that lay on their faces," which was quite satisfactory for Alexander Vladlenovich, who had long ago discovered the seal on his brow.
Alexander, according to him, made amendments to the presidential draft Constitution concerning the right of citizens to a healthy environment, to receive environmental information and compensation for damage caused as a result of environmental offenses. (And before that, the same amendments were introduced by the Social and Environmental Union to 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 Meeting in the Solidarity newspaper, the tactics of the Social and Environmental 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 banning the import of radioactive waste into the country, failed.
In 1989-1992. A. Shubin completed his postgraduate studies at the Institute of General 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 moments and basic laws of historical development. The responses to the book are very different. There are enthusiastic ones: “In addition to substantiating the method of historical analogies and masterfully applying it to 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 piece 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:" Much knowledge does not teach the mind "... ... It is impossible to call what is set forth in this book a theory. How impossible to call this book scientific. ... the analogies from which this edition is woven ... cannot serve as proof, but can be only illustrations. Isn't the book absolutely nothing good? Why is it! The book has a green cover. This is soothing. "
Alexander is one of the regular contributors to the Solidarity newspaper of the Moscow Federation of Trade Unions. 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 the authorities of different levels and about much more.
Alexander Shubin is the fifth in the federal list of candidates for deputies State Duma from the electoral association of the Russian Green Party. In this regard, Mark Borozin (editor-in-chief of the Zeleny Mir newspaper, president of the Rosekopress Association) wrote: "Secrecy, secrecy in the preparation of the RPZ list, explicit political strategy - to put 60 people in the" moat "of elections in order the wall "Zabelin, Shubin, Blokov have risen, the doom of the list of the" greens "because of the ambitions of the leaders of the SEP - all this more than sickened me." ("Salvation". No.38 (98), November 1993. P.6.)
A. Shubin's personal life is not advertised. It is known that he is single, lives in the same house with his parents and answers his married friends to their everyday complaints: "I would say to you:" Do not marry, "but too late." And we also know his couplet from the "Romantic Cycle":
I see myself in your eyes.
I am there. Or are they mirrors?
Favorite books - "Life and Fate" by V. Grossman and "Doomed City" 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, Ivanitch, who is to blame?
And was there a way out in this mess?
I understand: you could not be on your belly -
You are your own marshal and a soldier.
The routes were sewn by a checker like a needle,
Filling sadness with machine-gun crackle,
And the hopelessness of weighty arguments
I could not mortally humble you.
And, leaving with the cars into the sunset,
You came back, immediately confusing
Volumes of scholars, gaps and redoubts,
Tearing down history hundreds of times ...
Could not pull off the steel loop
Neither Frunze, nor Denikin, nor Budyonny.
Squeezing the saber as if in a hop,
He went into dawn, never defeated.
Alexander Vladlenovich spends his free time mainly watching TV and reading scientific literature.
Speaks English and spanish, reads in French.
Alexander Vladlenovich Shubin (July 18, 1965) - Russian historian and public figure of the leftist trend. Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor. Head of the Center for the History of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus of the Institute of General 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 at the State Academic University of 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.
1989-1992 - post-graduate student at the Institute of General History of the USSR Academy of Sciences (then RAS). After completing his postgraduate studies, he remained at the institute, working successively as a junior researcher, research worker, senior research worker, leading research worker. Since 2015 - Chief Researcher. Since 2001, head of the center at the Institute of General History.
In 1993, under the scientific supervision of Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Ya. S. Drabkin defended his thesis for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences on the topic “The problem of social revolution in the ideology of the Russian anarchist emigration of the 20-30s. (based on materials from emigrant periodicals) ".
In 2000 he defended his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic “Anarchist social experiment. Ukraine and Spain (1917-1939) ".
Since 2008 - editor of the site "Soviet Studies".
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 - the Russian-Latvian commission of historians.
The works of A.V. Shubin are devoted to the problems of the history and theory of socialism, the general laws of historical development, the history of Soviet society, the history of international relations, the history of Soviet social movements and movements.
Books (13)
1937. Stalin's Anti-Terror
The book of the historian A. Shubin "1937:" Stalin's Anti-Terror "analyzes in detail the" undercover "political struggle in the USSR in the 1930s, which in 1937 resulted in a large-scale terror.
The author gives his explanation of the “riddle of 1937”, weighs the pros and cons in the discussion about the existence of an anti-Stalinist conspiracy, proposes a solution to the problem of the nature of the Stalinist regime and other issues that are now causing heated debates in journalism and science.
Anarchy is the mother of order
“Hit the red ones until they turn white! Hit the whites until they turn red! " - this well-known slogan from the 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 insurgent movements is the Makhnovshchina.
However, there were others - in Siberia, in 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, Kiev, Zaporozhye and Paris, the book by the historian Alexander Shubin is devoted to the history of the insurrectionary movement during the Civil War.
Great Spanish revolution
This book provides readers with a comprehensive analysis of the Spanish Revolution and the 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. For the first time, many materials of Soviet military specialists are published in the book. However, the main character of the book is still the Spanish people - split, but experiencing “ finest hour»Its history, when the fate of the world depended on enthusiasm and action ordinary people labor.
The book will be useful to researchers of the history of the 1930s, teachers, students of history, as well as anyone 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 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 entire character of the terror was shared by Stalin's personal and political motives,” writes R. Conquest. However, Stalin's personal inclinations in the 1920s. showed rather moderation. All this can be perceived as the result of the devilish calculation of the leader.
The tradition, which follows from the report of N. Khrushchev to the XX Congress of the CPSU "On the personality cult of Stalin and its consequences", presents the Bolsheviks destroyed by Stalin as innocent victims of his maniacal lust for power and (in a liberal interpretation) totalitarian regime. Why was it necessary to kill hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom were sincerely committed to the Communist Party? If Stalin was a maniac, why was his actions supported by his comrades-in-arms, crowds of enthusiastic supporters? Massive mental clouding, hypnosis? Is this too mystical version?
Historian Alexander Shubin is looking for more rational explanations of events soviet history
Democratic socialism is the future of Russia
Socialism in Russia has many supporters and opponents. But very often what the controversy is about has nothing to do with socialism. Good or bad, there was no socialism in our country. If by socialism we mean 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 not at all? Could a Soviet person be free from the myths that the system imposed on him and social domination - to create, to arrange his life the way you want, without interfering with the same right of others?
Such freedom is always limited - in different societies to varying degrees and in different directions, says the author of the book, historian Alexander Shubin, reflecting on the ideological currents and social movements that developed in Soviet society in 1953-1984.
Golden Autumn, or the Stagnation Period of the USSR in 1975-1985
Did our country need Perestroika or could we 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 calm 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 forward, and in many respects the society was thrown back.
And yet, according to the famous writer and historian Alexander Shubin, 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 a mass rebel movement, anarchist Nestor Makhno.
The life of the "father" is shown against a broad background of the events of the revolution and civil war in Russia and Ukraine. Many heroes pass before the reader's eyes: Lenin and Denikin, Stalin and Petliura, Siberians and Ukrainians, residents of capitals and rural hinterlands. 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 has changed under the influence of the 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 policies, the Makhnovists and other rebels, which 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 give battle to 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 strict logic of events in those years, and what depended on the choice of people?
Score of World War II. Who started the war and when. Collection
The authors of the collection give a broad geopolitical context of the events and processes that preceded the war, analyze their background and that 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 Russian Foreign Ministry, many of which are being published for the first time.
The articles and documents presented in the book are undoubtedly interesting not only for specialists in Russian 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 XX - early XXI century. The methodological apparatus of the textbook includes a variety of questions and tasks, author's maps and documentary materials, vivid and imaginative illustrations that will allow students to master the basic facts and concepts of the course.