Table of contents - A Revolution Comes to Boil - Revolution from Below: Down with Autocracy! - Revolution from Below: Land and Liberty! - The Peasant War 1905–07: Who Led Whom? - History Teaches: Learning, Unlearning, Non-Learning - History Teaches: The Frontiers of Political Imagination - Postscript: Matters of Choice
OBE Professor Teodor Shanin, president of the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, is an esteemed sociologist whose long-standing commitment to the study of peasant societies has led to a prolific academic career and has earned him numerous accolades.
Shanin was born in Vilnius, Poland in 1930 and enjoyed a comfortable life until the age of 10 when Stalin’s police imprisoned his father and exiled Shanin and his mother to Siberia.
After the World War II and some stay in Poland where he finalized secondary education at the age of 17 he traveled clandestinely via France to Palestine and joined commando units during the war of independence 1948-1949. After that war he studied and proceeded to work in social work later graduating also in sociology and economics.
In 1963, Shanin began a PhD at Birmingham University, studying the role of peasants in the Russian Revolution and graduated in 1969. This ground-breaking work not only paved the way for his academic career, but also helped to launch in the UK an entirely new research field.
By 1974, Shanin had received his chair at the University of Manchester. He taught sociology and served on and off as the head of the sociology department for many years. In the period of Perestroika he became increasingly involved in effort to transform Russian university education which led to the creation of graduate Russian-British university with him as its first rector. In 2002, Shanin won the Order of British Empire for promoting tertiary education in Russia. In 2007 he became the president of the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences.
Shanin has held more than two dozen research or visiting fellowships and has written or edited more than 100 publications. His second book, The Awkward Class (Clarendon Press, 1972) was particularly admired thanks to its timely connections to the issues related to Third World nations. His exploration of historical sociology reached another peak with Russia 1905 07: Revolution as a Moment of Truth (Macmillan, 1986). Within Russia Shanin contributed majorly to its tradition of rural studies and introducing the issues of qualitative research of rural society and informal economy as a phenomenon the understanding of which changes considerably our understanding of contemporary Russia.
Shanin continues with research interests in late 19th century and early 20th century rural Russia, the role of informal economies in understanding the contemporary social economy of Russia, and educational reform in contemporary Russia.
Never imagined that the someone would link the Russian revolution to development studies - the idea of pre revolutionary russia as a 'developing society' in the modern sense of the word, placing it not alongside europe but rather the nations Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Also, not as though I needed the reminded, but fuck Marx, Lenin and Trotsky were bloody brilliant.
Shanin argues against the dominant understanding (in the 1980s and largely within Soviet Historiography it seems), particularly regarding Peasants. The first part of this 2-part book argues that Russia was not unique or the most backward (least European) European states, rather it was at the vanguard of 'developing states' and the 1905 revolution was the first of a type that included Mexico, China, and others. In describing revolutions as "moments of truth" he means that revolutions require political actors to reevaluate theory in the face of reality, this is quite a difficult thing to do, and most of the political actors of 1905 retreated to earlier ways of theorizing about progress and revolution. For Shanin, Stolypin - who without any real political support tried to create a revolution from above through the agrarian reforms and Lenin who reevaluated the peasantry as a potentially revolutionary class were able to learn from this moment of truth.
Recent historiography had accepted Soviet party-line stuff that suggested the peasants in 1905 were simply following the lead of the rural intelligentsia or the urban workers (a rough equivalent of this idea was believed by conservatives and monarchists in 1905 as well), but in fact, they were following their own program quite independent from outside control (if not influence).