10:00 – 13:00 Parallel Sessions
11:30 – 12:00 Coffee break
"Small deed theory: history and our times"
(room 121, in Russian)
Chairs – Theodor Shanin (MSSES), Alexander Nikulin (Center for Agrarian Studies RANEPA, "The journal of peasant studies")
The session is supported by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation. "Between education and co-authorship. Social Research in public space"
(room 208, in Russian)
Chairs – Mikhail Rozhansky (Center for social research – Irkutsk), Dmitriy Sporov ("Oral history" Foundation)
The session is supported by Mikhail Prokhorov Foundation "Populism in an organization and the subjective well-being of the employees: phenomena and interconnections"
(room 210, in Russian)
Chairs – Veronika Kabalina (NRU HSE), Evgeny Morgunov (MSSES) "The people" as a concept in civil religions of modernity: between the necessity and the impossibility
(room 419, in Russian)
Chairs – Oleg Kildushov (Center for Fundamental Sociology NRU HSE) , Alexander Marey ("Philosophy. The HSE journal"), Andrey Teslya (Institute of humanitites Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University)
The session is supported by the Center for Fundamental Sociology NRU HSE and the journal "Sociological Review" 13.00 – 14.00 LUNCH
14.00 – 16.30 What does "imperialism" mean? Rosa Luxemburg and "The Accumulation of Capital" today
. (room 325, in English, synchronous interpretation)
Chairs – Ilya Budraitskis (MSSES), Ilya Konovalov (NRU HSE)
The hundredth anniversary of the tragic death of Rosa Luxembourg presents an important opportunity to reconsider her theoretical legacy. The theory of imperialism, proposed by Luxembourg in fundamental work "The Accumulation of Capital", had a huge impact on the social and economic progressive thought of the twentieth century. The global growth of social inequality, the spread of military conflicts and the deepening dependence of the so-called "developing countries" have brought up to date the debate on imperialism and the grounds for its criticism. However, what can this criticism take from Luxembourg's legacy? How pertinent is her well known thesis that capitalism constantly appropriates non-capitalist elements external to it? What role does militarism and military production play in stabilizing capitalism? Can the conception of Luxembourg serve as a basis for a complex and non-linear concept of capitalist development, which take into account the simultaneous coexistence of different socio-economic forms? Finally, what place should the legacy of Rosa Luxemburg occupy in the new internationalist response to the challenges of the present?
The session is supported by Rosa Luxemburg Foundation.
Alex Callinicos (King's College London) Rosa Luxemburg's Critique of Capitalism and Contemporary Imperialism
Ingo Schmidt (Athabasca University) Rosa Luxemburg: A Theoretical Guide to the Political Economy of Capitalism from its Early Days to the Present
Eric Toussaint (Committee for the Abolition of Illegitimate Debt) Rosa Luxemburg and the Debt as an Imperialist Tool. The Case of Egypt, China, etc 17.00 – 19.00 Round table "Populism and the Postsoviet Transformation of Russia" (room 325, Russian/English synchronous interpretation)
Supported by the Gorbachev Foundation
Moderated by Olga Zdravomyslova (The Gorbachev Foundation), Andrey Ryabov (Institute of World Economy and International Relations)
The Perestroika could be viewed as historical chance to constitute the rule of the people in Russia. The First Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union (May, 25 – June, 8 1989) that launched the modern Russian parliamentarianism signified such a possibility. Various contradictions created an environment favorable to populism which prevailed in the early period of Boris Yeltsin's politics. Nevertheless when Yeltsin turned into a leader of a radical democratic opposition to Perestroika his features of a populist faded away. Neither in Russia nor in any other former Soviet Republic (with the noticeable exception of Belarus) populism played a decisive role. Radical reforms of the 90s did not produce any pronounced demand for the populism in the Russian society. The majority of the most people struggled to survive, while a more well-situated minority bided on the individual adaptation models.
However at the beginning of the XXI century the populist technologies came into play. Does this lead to the emergence of populist politicians? What are the specifics of a contemporary Russian populism (beyond technologies)? What explanation can be found for the combination of populism with ideology and practice of "new elitism"? And what is the ideological justification of the division of the society into classes? What conditions could bring about the appearance of strong populist key players in Russia?