The political uncertainty following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rejection of the revolutionary model has brought Russian political thought full circle as democratic forces contend with authoritarian nationalism. This volume is essential to understanding the antidemocratic tradition in Russia and the persistent danger of totalitarianism.

The political uncertainty following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rejection of the revolutionary model has brought Russian political thought full circle as democratic forces contend with authoritarian nationalism. This volume is essential to understanding the antidemocratic tradition in Russia and the persistent danger of totalitarianism.

The political uncertainty following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rejection of the revolutionary model has brought Russian political thought full circle as democratic forces contend with authoritarian nationalism. This volume is essential to understanding the antidemocratic tradition in Russia and the persistent danger of totalitarianism.

"Sandwiched between the East and West, Russian intellectuals have for centuries been divided geographically, politically, and culturally into two distinct groups: the Slavophiles, who rejected Western-style democracy, preferring a more holistic and abstract vision, and the more rational and scientific-minded Westernizers. These two ideologies cut across the political spectrum of late nineteenth-century Russia and competed for dominance in the country's intellectual life. The tension created between these two opposing groups caused the feeling that violent upheaval was Russia's future. In turn, many began to think that Russia was possibly following the path of France and that a French-style revolution might be possible on Russian soil. In The French Revolution in Russian Intellectual Life, Dmitry Shlapentokh describes the role that the French democratic revolution played in Russia's intellectual development by the end of the nineteenth century. The revolutionary upheaval in Russia at the beginning of twentieth century and the continuous expansion of the West convinced most Russian intellectuals that the French Revolution in its democratic reading was indeed the pathway of history. Yet the rise of totalitarian regimes and their expansion proved the validity of the sober vision of nineteenth-century Russian intellectuals. Some conservative Russian intellectuals believed that not only would Russia preserve its authoritarian regime but it would spread this regime all over the world. In this context, Shlapentokh argues the French Revolution with its democratic tradition was only a phenomenon of Western civilization and hence transitory. The flirtation with Western ideology, with its democratic polity and market economy that followed in the wake of the collapse of the communist regime, culminated in an increasing push for corporate authoritarianism and nationalism. This work helps explain why Russia turned away from democratic to autocratic stylesi?1"--Provided by publisher.

Sandwiched between the East and West, Russian intellectuals have for centuries been divided geographically, politically, and culturally into two distinct groups: the Slavophiles, who rejected Western-style democracy, preferring a more holistic and abstract vision, and the more rational and scientific-minded Westernizers. These two ideologies cut across the political spectrum of late nineteenth-century Russia and competed for dominance in the country's intellectual life. The tension created between these two opposing groups caused the feeling that violent upheaval was Russia's future. In turn, many began to think that Russia was possibly following the path of France and that a French-style revolution might be possible on Russian soil. In The French Revolution in Russian Intellectual Life, Dmitry Shlapentokh describes the role that the French democratic revolution played in Russia's intellectual development by the end of the nineteenth century. The revolutionary upheaval in Russia at the beginning of twentieth century and the continuous expansion of the West convinced most Russian intellectuals that the French Revolution in its democratic reading was indeed the pathway of history. Yet the rise of totalitarian regimes and their expansion proved the validity of the sober vision of nineteenth-century Russian intellectuals. Some conservative Russian intellectuals believed that not only would Russia preserve its authoritarian regime but it would spread this regime all over the world. In this context, Shlapentokh argues the French Revolution with its democratic tradition was only a phenomenon of Western civilization and hence transitory. The flirtation with Western ideology, with its democratic polity and market economy that followed in the wake of the collapse of the communist regime, culminated in an increasing push for corporate authoritarianism and nationalism. This work helps explain why Russia turned away from democratic to autocratic stylesi?1/2economic pulls to capitalism notwithstanding. It has insight which helps to explain why Russia moved towards an authoritarian regime instead of democracy.

Russian intellectual discourse on the French Revolution as a representation of the West rather than a symbol of revolution.

Because they were Marxists, the Bolsheviks in Russia, both before and after taking power in 1917, believed that the past was prologue: that embedded in history was a Holy Grail, a series of mysterious, but nonetheless accessible and comprehensible, universal laws that explained the course of history from beginning to end. Those who understood these laws would be able to mould the future to conform to their own expectations. But what should the Bolsheviks do if their Marxist ideology proved to be either erroneous or insufficient-if it could not explain, or explain fully, the course of events that followed the revolution they carried out in the country they called the Soviet Union? Something else would have to perform this function. The underlying argument of this volume is that the Bolsheviks saw the revolutions in France in 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1871 as supplying practically everything Marxism lacked. In fact, these four events comprised what for the Bolsheviks was a genuine Revolutionary Tradition. The English Revolution and the Puritan Commonwealth of the seventeenth century were not without utility-the Bolsheviks cited them and occasionally utilized them as propaganda-but these paled in comparison to what the revolutions in France offered a century later, namely legitimacy, inspiration, guidance in constructing socialism and communism, and, not least, useful fodder for political and personal polemics.