Fourth March In March - the month, where the renunciation of Boris Yeltsin shifted the presidential election - the political class recalls two dates: the two years of presidential elections Dmitry Medvedev and a decade from the day when Vladimir Putin was first chosen by the president. Dates on March 2, 2008 and March 26, 2000 - this is the time frame of the current state concept.

As I was going, I went to the Agora. I have several different impressions than V. Solkin. The bottom line, in fact, is that for me a religious conflict is not so important for me, in the millstone of which gypatia fell. There is another. I would say that the main problem is the tragic anachronism of this figure - anticipating the discoveries that were made in Christian Europe only 13 centuries later, it, as it were, inherits the wisdom of the ancient world.

From the editorial office. At the end of the first decade of the 21st century, a certain worldview turned in the world. The leaders of Russia and America, Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama, turned to an ideology that seemed to die in a world, "surviving Auschwitz." This ideology is progress. But who in the modern world is the bearer of this ideology? And is the rehabilitation of progressism in Western societies possible?

Progressism is a political movement that arose in the US at the end of the 19th and early twentieth century, the essence of which was to demand the separation of the interests of the state and large business. "What is good for" General Motors "is good for America." Everyone knows this famous statement. It is much less known that the American politicians of the twentieth century, including the famous Franklin Delaino Roosevelt, made great efforts to make this maxim incorrect.

Initially, Dmitry Medvedev is a typically Putin liberal with the whole set of liberal stamps. When he was still responsible for national projects, he dropped such a phrase: “I thought the market will place everything with an invisible hand, but it turns out that you need to command yourself.” I would determine his worldview like this: the modernizer and progressive is involuntarily . He talks about the modernization trend rather forced.

Modern politicians prefer the image of worldview. The worldview implies a position, responsibility, the presence of a specific program. However, as you know, a program containing ontology elements will attract some voters, but will push away many others. Moreover, a politician with a worldview is inconvenient for his colleagues, since only the fact of his existence casts doubt on the modern democratic “system of refinements and counterweights”, convenient and unprincipled.

A stand with a portrait of Stalin appeared in the council of the Ryazan district of Moscow. There are other “victory marshals” at the stand; And it is established, in fact, to the 65th anniversary of the great event. The vigilant radio listener, seeing this, immediately informed the Echo of Moscow to the journalists, and this became a small one -day scandal.

Review of: Kondrashin V.V. Hunger 1932 - 1933: The tragedy of the Russian village. M.: Rosspen. 2008. 519 p. * * * What is hunger? What are the causes and dynamics of the most terrible hunger of 1932 - 1933 in the history of Russia? What were the features of this hunger in comparison with the great hungry years in Russia and other countries of the world?

I remember very well the day when the modernization program of the Soviet Union reached its peak. This was on November 15, 1988. In the morning, the news reported that the Energia launch vehicle brought the Buran spacecraft into orbit - our response to the American “shuttle”. The answer was much cooler, because, unlike the “shuttles”, “Buran” flew without a crew, controlled by an on -board computer - including sat in automatic mode, which no ship in the world knew how to do.

The worldview of Medvedev - like any Russian policy of the federal level - consists of two main layers. One is a "pragmatic complex." The worldview is dictated by irremovable circumstances - large territory, few population, security, low level of training of managers, centralism, which has become a way, during the time of Putin, etc. All this gives rise to the style of behavior, speech and discourse, regardless of some “spiritual searches” and personal intentions.