Suny R.G. (ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia, Volume 3: The Twentieth Century
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
lars t. lih
formulated by Lazar Kaganovich): ‘It’s good that you [leaders] acted decisively
and put an end to the adventurist schemes of Beria and to him personally, but
where were you earlier and why did you allow such a person into the very
heart of the leadership?’
22
The question is here a narrow one about individual
leaders, but the same question was bound to expand to the much more difficult
issue of why the Soviet system as a whole allowed Stalinism.
The June plenum revealed two different narratives about the downfall of
Beria, one mired in the past and the other struggling towards the future.
The paradigmatic examples of these contrasting narratives can be found in the
speeches by Kaganovich and Anastas Mikoyan. Kaganovich insistently defined
the present situation as another 1937. More than once he approvingly referred
to Stalin’s 1937 speech ‘On Inadequacies in Party Work’, a speech that served as
a signal for the terroristic purification campaign of 1937–8. Using 1937 rhetoric,
Kaganovich condemned Beria as a spy in the pay of imperialist powers. Accord-
ingly, Kaganovich called for renewed ‘vigilance’ and ‘purification’. ‘Much of
what was said in 1937 must be taken into account today as well.’
Mikoyan also employed 1937 rhetoric such as ‘double-dealerism’ (dvurush-
nichestvo). But the spirit behind his use of such terms is almost comically
opposed to the spirit of 1937. Here is Mikoyan’s proof of Beria’s double-
dealerism: ‘I asked him [after Stalin’s death]: why do you want to head the
NKVD? And he answered: we have to establish legality, we can’t tolerate this
state of things in the country. We have a lot of arrested people, we have to
liberate them and not send people to the camps for no reason.’ Mikoyan had
no problem with this statement as a policy goal, but he argued that Beria was
a dvurushnik because – he did not move fast enough during the three months
since Stalin’s death to introduce legality and release prisoners!
Kaganovich was genuinely angry at Beria, who ‘insulted Stalin and used
the most unpleasant and insulting words about him’. Beria’s insulting attitude
towards Stalin did not seem to bother Mikoyan – indeed, in his low-key way,
Mikoyan made it clear that Stalin was mainly responsible for Beria’s rise to
power. Mikoyan rejected the 1937 scenario as simply irrelevant: ‘We do not
yet have direct proof on whether or not [Beria] was a spy, whether or not he
received orders from foreign bosses, but is this really what’s important?’ He
was clearly anxious to get past Beria and talk about issues of economic reform.
He described the ludicrous situation in which the government offered unre-
alistically low prices for potatoes, the kolkhozniki had therefore no economic
22 The Plenum proceedings were first published in Izvestiia TsK KPSS, 1991, nos. 1 and 2.
Lazar Kaganovich’s remarks are in no. 1: 187–200 (this hypothetical question found on
p. 188), Anastas Mikoyan’s remarks in no. 2: 148–56.
726
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Soviet Union and the road to communism
interest in growing them, and government institutions sent out highly paid
white-collar workers every year to plant them while ‘the kolkhozniki look on
and laugh’.
The same only partially successful struggle to shed the old language in order
to present newconcerns can be seen in many of the literary works of the ‘Thaw’
that took place in the period 1953–6. A novel such as Vladimir Dudintsev’s Not
By Bread Alone (1956) resembles in many respects the old narrativeof unmasking
evildoers who carry a party card. The noble inventor Lopatkin is thwarted at
every turn by officials such as Drozdov. Drozdov is not a spy who should be
shot or sent to the camps, but he is an enemy of the people who should be
purged.
The historic originality of Not by Bread Alone and other literary productions
of the ‘Thaw’ does not come from its muck-raking narrative but rather from
its mode of being. The novel is a personal statement by an individual, Vladimir
Dudintsev, who wrote it to express his views on the country’s situation. For the
first time in Soviet history, the party-state’s monopoly on shaping the author-
itative narrative was challenged. This aspect was magnified by the enormous
and unprecedented public discussion generated by the book. Again for the first
time in Soviet history, an autonomous public opinion used public channels to
hear and deliberate, pro and con, on vital issues.
The narrative of Not by Bread Alone also affirmed an autonomous space for
‘small, narrow, personal life’. Lopatkin has an affair with Drozdov’s estranged
wife who has left Drozdov partly because of his inability to have any sort of
personal life. Indeed, Lopatkin, the counter-Drozdov, has trouble accepting his
own need and right to have a personal life. The real climax of the novel is not
when Lopatkin’s invention is officially introduced but when he decides to ask
Nadia to marry him – or rather, when he decides he can ask her to marry him.
Some aspects of Dudintsev’s novel are more evident today than they could
have been to contemporary observers. In a brief episode towards the end
of the novel, Dudintsev touches on another great turning-point in Soviet
history: the return of Gulag inmates to Soviet society. In hindsight we can
also see that Lopatkin is a proto-dissident. Lopatkin survives on the margin of
society, outside state service, relying on the support of fellow eccentrics, odd
jobs, material aid from sympathisers and finally on occasional patronage from
people within the system. Given the new possibility of independent material
existence and armed with a ferocious self-righteousness, Lopatkin sets out to
reform the system.
The last lines of the novel evoke the path metaphor. ‘Although Lopatkin’s
machine was already made and handed over to the factories, he again suddenly
727
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
lars t. lih
saw before him a path that lost itself in the distance, a path that most likely
had no end. This path awaited him, stretched in front of him, luring him on
with its mysterious windings and with its stern responsibility.’
23
Lopatkin’s
personally chosen and mysterious road without an end subverts the narrative
of society’s triumphal journey to communism.
Yet the triumphal official version of the path metaphor still had some life
in it. One of the most exuberant, optimistic and inclusive speeches in Soviet
history is Nikita Khrushchev’s comments on the new party programme at the
Twenty-Second Party Congress in 1961. Here Khrushchev updated the path
metaphor in an allusion to the successful exploits in space that appeared to
validate Soviet claims to leadership: ‘The Programmes of the Party [1903, 1919,
1961] may be compared to a three-stage rocket. The first stage wrested our
country away from the capitalist world, the second propelled it to socialism,
and the third is to place it in the orbit of communism. It is a wonderful rocket,
comrades! (Stormy applause).’
The new programme ratified a fundamental shift in the conception of class
leadership within the narrative. The official formula that summarised this shift
was the replacement of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ by the ‘state of the
whole people’. The proletarian dictatorship was defined as not only a time of
repression but also of class leadership:
The workers’ and peasants’ alliance needed the dictatorship of the proletariat
to combat the exploiting classes, to transform peasant farming along socialist
lines and to re-educate the peasantry, and to build socialism . . . The working
class leads the peasantry and the other labouring sections of society, its allies
and brothers-in-arms, and helps them to take the socialist path of their own
free will.
In essence, this shift had been announced already in the early 1930s, but
Khrushchev now drew the full implications without obsessing about the
enemy within. ‘The transition to communism [in contrast to the transition
from capitalism to socialism] proceeds in the absence of any exploiting classes,
when all members of society – workers, peasants, intellectuals – have a vested
interest in the victory of communism, and work for it consciously.’ The trans-
formative function of class leadership was now transferred to the more or less
automatic results of economic growth.
24
23 V. Dudintsev, Ne khlebom edinym (Munich: Izdatel’stvo TsOPE, 1957), p. 296. An English
translation by Edith Bone was published by E. P. Dutton (New York) in 1957.
24 The Road to Communism (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d.), pp. 292,
250, 194, 247.
728
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Soviet Union and the road to communism
On the basis of this combination of class collaboration and institutional
tinkering, Khrushchev promised the realisation of full communism within
twenty years. But this less dramatic and more inclusive version of the path
metaphor ran into trouble whenthe expected ‘advantagesof socialism’ failed to
materialise. During the post-Khrushchev period, the journey to communism
seemed stalled. The Brezhnev period is now known to history as the era
of stagnation, but an even more sardonic label can be found in a song by
Vladimir Vysotskii. Vysotskii was a figure scarcely conceivable in earlier phases
of Soviet society – a hugely popular actor and singer who was also famous for
his contribution to the genre of magnitizdat, the guitar poetry that circulated
unofficially on tape cassettes.
One of his more hilarious songs is entitled ‘Morning Gymnastics’. Sung
up-tempo with manic cheerfulness, the song urges us to preserve our health
by doing push-ups every morning until we drop.
25
The climactic final verse is
given special emphasis:
We don’t fear any bad news.
Ouransweris–torunonthespot!
Even beginners derive benefits.
Isn’t it great! – among the runners, no one is in first place and no one
is backward.
Running on the spot reconciles everybody!
‘Morning Gymnastics’ was not an underground song – it can be found on
a record sold in Soviet stores around 1980. To read the final verse as a satirical
comment on Soviet society may be over-interpreting a highly entertaining
comic song (although this kind of over-interpretation was also a feature of this
complex and ambiguous period). Nevertheless, whether Vysotskii meant it this
way or not, his image of ‘running on the spot’ is a highly appropriate symbol of
the class leadership narrative in its last days. A sense of frantic activity without
real movement, a loss of the earlier dynamic arising from a vanguard seeking
to inspire backward strata, a ‘hear-no-evil’ refusal to acknowledge problems –
many Soviet citizens, even the most loyal, saw their society increasingly in these
terms. Khrushchev had called for conflict-free progress towards communism,
and what was the result? ‘Running on the spot reconciles everybody!’
When the perestroika era began in 1985, there was a widespread feeling
that running on the spot could now finally be transformed into real move-
ment forward. Instead, the perestroika era was marked by an ever-intensifying
25 The text to ‘Morning Gymnastics’ (Utrenniaia gimnastika) can be found in Vladimir
Vysotsky, Pesni i stikhi (New York: Literary Frontiers Publishers, 1981), pp. 230–1.
729
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
lars t. lih
feeling that no one really knew any more where society should go. This
de-enchantment of the narrative of the path to socialism took place in two
interlocking processes. The first process was the development of reform think-
ing away from the question ‘how do we realise the advantages of socialism?’
and towards the question ‘how do we avoid the disadvantages of socialism?’
The other process was a painful rethinking of Soviet history. How and when
did we lose the true way and what must we do to get back on track?
Now that the lid was off, Soviet society had to face up to the full implica-
tions of the question that Kaganovich dimly perceived back in 1953. Mikhail
Gorbachev tried to give an answer that fully acknowledged the disasters of
Soviet history while preserving the sense that Soviet society still had a mission
to complete the great journey. ‘Neither flagrant mistakes nor the deviations
from socialist principles that were allowed could turn our people or our coun-
try off the road on which they set out when they made their choice in 1917.
The impulse of October was too great!’
26
The two processes – the rapid evolution of reform thinking and the ago-
nising reappraisal of Soviet history – came together in the use of NEP as a
symbol of the path not taken. On the one hand, NEP represented a type of
socialism that co-existed with market elements and that could therefore be
used to delegitimise the ‘administrative command system’ associated with
the Soviet planned economy. On the other hand, NEP seemed to represent a
genuine alternative within Soviet history to Stalinist crimes and inefficiency.
But NEP provided only a temporary barrier between the glory of the rev-
olution and the taint of Stalinism. The actual NEP had meant the short-term
toleration of the market on the road to socialism. If the reformers of pere-
stroika were indeed on the same road, they were travelling in the opposite
direction. And the more closely the reformers looked at the political institu-
tions of NEP, the less it looked like a genuine alternative to Stalinism. As the
novelist Fazil Iskander wrote sadly in 1988, ‘the awful thing is that, remem-
bering the party arguments of the time, I somehow cannot remember one
man who put forward a Programme for the democratisation of the country.
There were arguments about inter-party democracy but I don’t remember any
others...Insuch conditions Stalin, naturally, proved to be the best Stalinist,
and won.’
27
The feeling grew stronger that perhaps ‘the impulse of October’ opened up
a fundamentally false path and made it impossible to get off that path – or even
26 Gorbachev, ‘Oktiabr’ i perestroika’, Kommunist, 1987,no.17: 9–15.
27 Moscow News, 1988,no.28: 11.
730
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The Soviet Union and the road to communism
that the path metaphor is simply not a useful way of thinking about a society’s
development. When in 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed not with a bang but a
whimper, this unexpected outcome was partly the result of the previous de-
enchantment of the narrative of class leadership. The Soviet Union had always
been based on fervent belief in this narrative in its various permutations.
When the binding power of the narrative dissolved, the Soviet Union itself
dissolved.
731
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
the pre-revolutionary period
Ascher, Abraham, Pavel Axelrod and the Development of Menshevism (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1972).
The Revolution of 1905, vol. I: Russia in Disarray, vol. II: Authority Restored (Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press, 1988, 1992).
P. A. Stolypin: The Search for Stability in Late Imperial Russia (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press, 2001).
Bernstein, Laurie, Sonia’s Daughters: Prostitutes and their Regulation in Imperial Russia
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995).
Black, Cyril E. (ed.), The TransformationofRussianSociety (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1960).
Bonnell, Victoria, Roots of Rebellion: Workers’ Politics and Organizations in St. Petersburg and
Moscow, 1900–1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
(ed.), The RussianWorker: Life and Labor underthe Tsarist Regime (Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press, 1983).
Bradley, Joseph, Muzhik and Muscovite: Urbanization in Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1985).
‘Subjects into Citizens: Societies, Civil Society, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia’, American
Historical Review 107, 4 (Oct. 2002): 1094–123.
Brooks, Jeffrey, When Russia Learned to Read: Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861–1917
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).
Brower, Daniel, The Russian City between Tradition and Modernity, 1850–1900 (Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1990).
and Edward Lazzerini (eds.), Russia’s Orient: Imperial Borderlands and Peoples, 1700–1917
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997).
Burds, Jeffrey, Peasant Dreams and Market Politics: Labor Migration and the Russian Village,
1861–
1905 (Pittsb
urgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1998).
Byrnes, Robert, Pobedonostev: His Life and Thought (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1968).
Carlson, Maria, ‘No Religion Higher Than Truth’: A History of the Theosophical Movement in
Russia, 1875–1922 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993).
Clark, Katerina, Petersburg, Crucible of Cultural Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-
versity Press, 1995).
732
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Clements, Barbara, Engel, Barbara, and Worobec, Christine (eds.), Russia’s Women:
Accommodation, Resistance, Transformation (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1991).
Clowes, Edith, Kassow, Samuel, and West, James (eds.), Between Tsar and People: Educated
Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1991).
Edmondson, Linda, Feminism in Russia, 1900–17 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press;
London: Heinemann, 1984).
Eklof, Ben, Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861–
1914 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986).
and Stephen Frank (eds.), The World of the Russian Peasant: Post-Emancipation Culture and
Society (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990).
Elchaninov, Major-General A., The Tsar and his People (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1913).
Engel, Barbara, Between Fields and the City: Women, Work and Family in Russia, 1861–1914
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Engelstein, Laura, Moscow, 1905 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1982).
The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Si
`
ecle Russia (Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University Press, 1992).
Castration and the Heavenly Kingdom (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1999).
‘The Dream of Civil Society in Tsarist Russia: Law, State, and Religion’, in Nancy Bermeo
and Philip Nord (eds.), Civil Society before Democracy: Lessons from Nineteenth-Century
Europe (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000).
and Stephanie Sandler (eds.), Self and Story in Russian History (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Uni-
versity Press, 2000).
Evtukhov, Catherine, The Cross and the Sickle: Sergei Bulgakov and the Fate of Russian Religious
Philosophy, 1890–1920 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997).
Frank, Stephen, Crime, Cultural Conflict, and Justice in Rural Russia, 1856–1914 (Berkeley,
University of California Press, 1999).
and Mark Steinberg (eds.), Cultures in Flux: Lower-Class Values, Practices, and Resistance in
Late Imperial Russia
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994).
F
reeze, Gregory, ‘Counter-Reformation in Russian Orthodoxy: Popular Response to Reli-
gious Innovation, 1922–1925’, Slavic Review 54, 2 (Summer 1995): 305–39.
‘Subversive Piety: Religion and the Political Crisis in Late Imperial Russia’, Journal of
Modern History 68 ( June 1996): 308–50.
Frierson, Cathy, Peasant Icons: Representations of Rural People in Late Nineteenth-Century Russia
(New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Galai, Shmuel, The Liberation Movement in Russia, 1900–1905 (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 1973).
Garafola, Lynn, Diaghilev’s Ballets russes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989).
Gatrell, Peter, The Tsarist Economy, 1850–1917 (London: Batsford, 1986).
Government, Industry and Rearmament in Russia 1900–1914: The Last Argument of Tsarism
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
Geldern, James von, and McReynolds, Louise, Entertaining Tsarist Russia (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1998).
733
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Geraci, Robert, Window on the East: National and Imperial Identities in Late Tsarist Russia
(Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2001).
Getzler, Israel, Martov: A Political Biography of a Russian Social Democrat (Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press, 1967).
Gitelman, Zvi, A Century of Ambivalence: The Jews of Russia and the Soviet Union, 1881 to the
Present (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001).
Gray, Camilla, The Russian Experiment in Art, 1863–1922 (London: Thames and Hudson,
1962).
Haimson, Leopold, The Russian Marxists and the Origins of Bolshevism (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1955).
‘The Problem of Social Stability in Urban Russia, 1905–1917’, pt. 1, Slavic Review 23, 4 (Dec.
1964): 619–42; 24, 1 (Mar. 1965): 1–20.
Halfin, Igal, From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia
(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000).
Hildermeier, Manfred, The Russian Socialist Revolutionary Party before the First World War
(New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000).
Kelly, Aileen, Toward Another Shore: Russian Thinkers Between Necessity and Chance (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).
Kelly, Catriona, and Shepherd, David (eds.), Constructing Culture in the Age of Revolution:
1881–1940 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).
Khalid, Adeeb, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1998).
Kir’ianov, Iu. I., and Volin, M. S. (eds.), Rabochii klass Rossii ot zarozhdeniia do nachala XX v
(Moscow: Nauka, 1989).
Kizenko,Nadieszda, AProdigalSaint: Father John of Kronstadtandthe RussianPeople (University
Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2000).
Kline, George L., Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1968).
Kotsonis, Yanni, Making Peasants Backward: Agricultural Co-operatives and the Agrarian Ques-
tion in Russia, 1861–1914 (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1999).
Lawton, Anna (ed.), Russian Futurism through its Manifestoes, 1912–1928 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press, 1988).
Lieven, Dominic, Nicholas II: Emperor of All the Russias (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1994).
McDaniel, Tim, Autocracy, Capitalism, and Revolution in Russia (Berkeley: University of Cal-
ifornia Press, 1988).
McKee, W. Arthur, ‘Sobering up the Soul of the People: The Politics of Popular Temperance
in Late Imperial Russia’, Russian Review 58, 2 (Apr. 1999): 212–33.
McReynolds, Louise, The News under Russia’s Old Regime (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1991).
Russia at Play: Leisure Activities at the End of the Tsarist Era (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University
Press, 2002).
Markov, Vladimir, Russian Futurism: A History (Berkeley: University of California Press,
1968).
Marx, Steven, Road to Power: The Trans-Siberian Railroad and the Colonization of Asian Russia,
1850–1917 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991).
734
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
Bibliography
Melancon, Michael, The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Russian Anti-War Movement, 1914–
1917 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1990).
and Pate, Alice, New Labor History: Worker Identity and Experience in Russia, 1840–1918
(Bloomington, Ind.: Slavica, 2002).
Mendel, Arthur, Dilemmas of Progress in Tsarist Russia: Legal Marxism and Legal Populism
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1961).
Mironov, Boris, with Eklof, Ben, The Social History of Imperial Russia, 1700–1917 (Boulder,
Colo.: Westview Press, 2000).
Moon, David, The Russian Peasantry, 1600–1930: The World the Peasants Made (London:
Longman, 1999).
Nathans, Benjamin, Beyond the Pale: The Jewish Encounter with Late Imperial Russia (Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002).
Neuberger, Joan, Hooliganism: Crime, Culture, and Power in St. Petersburg, 1900–1914(Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1993).
Owen, Thomas C., The Corporation Under Russian Law: A Study in Tsarist Economic Policy
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Pachmuss, Temira, Zinaida Gippius: An Intellectual Profile (Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press, 1971).
Pallot, Judith, Land Reform in Russia 1906–1917 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999).
Pipes, Richard, Struve, 2 vols. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970–80).
Poggioli, Renato, The Poets of Russia, 1890–1930 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1960).
Radkey, Oliver, The Agrarian Foes of Bolshevism (New York: Columbia University Press,
1958).
Rashin, A. G., Naselenie Rossii za 100 let (1811–1913 gg): statisticheskie ocherki (Moscow:
Gosudarstvennoe statisticheskoe izdatel’stvo, 1956).
Read, Christopher, Religion, Revolution and the Russian Intelligentsia, 1900–1912 (London,
1979).
Rogger, Hans, Russia in the Age of Modernisation and Revolution, 1881–1917 (London: Long-
man, 1983).
Rosenberg, William, Liberals in the Russian Revolution: The Constitutional Democratic Party,
1917–1921 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1974).
Rosenthal, Bernice Glatzer, ‘Eschatology and the Appeal of Revolution: Merezhkovsky,
Bely, Blok’, California Slavic Studies 11 (1980): 105–39.
(ed.), Nietzsche in Russia (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).
(ed.), The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1997).
New Myth, New World: From Neitzsche to Stalinism (University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2002).
Ruane, Christine, ‘Clothes Shopping in Imperial Russia: The Development of a Consumer
Culture’, Journal of Social History 28, 4 (Summer 1995): 765–82.
Scherrer, Jutta, ‘“Ein gelber und ein blauer Teufel”: zur Entstehung der Begriffe “bogostroi-
tel’stvo” und “bogoiskatel’stvo”’, Forschungen zur osteurop
¨
aischen Geschichte 25 (1978):
319–29.
‘L’Intelligentsia russe: sa qu
ˆ
ete da la “v
´
erit
´
e religieuse du socialisme”’, Le temps de la
r
´
eflexion 2 (1981): 134–51.
735