Search

Background. Recently, scientists have paid attention to the structuring of the federalization process, highlighting among other stages the moment of constituting a federal state. According to the author, it should include not only the development of a federal Constitution and (or) Treaty, but also the formation of new government bodies. This approach is implemented in the article using the example of the creation of the USSR in 1922–1924, which became the first socialist federation in history. The purpose of the study is to conduct an inventory of the available material, eliminate doubts in determining the chronological framework and clarify the nature of the historical process that took place. Materials and methods. The article was written with extensive use of documents and scientific publications. Of key importance are the transcripts of the 12th Congress of the RCP(b) in April 1923 and the Fourth Meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) in June 1923. The method of comparison and historical reconstruction is used to analyze the materials. Results. When determining the initial date of constitution, the author proceeded from the fact that in the spring of 1922, perhaps, only the awareness of the need to create a more formalized union of Soviet republics came, but the practical actions themselves relate only to August – October 1922. The author believes that the date is September 1922 is more optimal, since at this time there is a collision between the two polar points of view of I.V. Stalin and V.I. Lenin, from which, due to intellectual and organizational authority, the latter emerges as the winner. In the subsequent period of time, until December 30, 1922, the ideological formalization of the federal Treaty was carried out against the backdrop of the “Georgian Affair”, which was scandalous for the Bolshevik Party. An attempt at rebellion by old Georgian revolutionaries, infected with the mania of Georgian ethnocratism, had little chance of success, but signaled to the leadership of the RCP(b) about intensified national deviations. These deviations also manifested themselves in other parts of the emerging USSR – in Ukraine, in a persistent, semi-hidden form, to obtain as much power as possible from the center, and in territories with a predominantly Muslim population in the form of variations of the doctrine of pan-Turkism. Therefore, the leadership of the RCP(b) considered it necessary to discuss the national question after December 30, 1922 – at the 12th Congress of the RCP(b) and at the Fourth Meeting of the Central Committee of the RCP(b). Moreover, in parallel with this, the powers of the bodies of the new union state were clarified and their formation took place. J.V. Stalin himself made a gesture of goodwill towards the republics, advocating the organization of a second chamber in the All- Union Central Executive Committee, built on the representation of ethnic groups. Conclusions. The completion of the constitution was the approval of the Constitution of the USSR at the 2nd session of the Central Executive Committee of the USSR, on July 6, 1923, the final formation of government bodies in the second half of 1923 and the adoption of the constitutional document by the highest authority – the 2nd Congress of Soviets on December 31, 1924. Thus, the entire process turned out to be more difficult in our country than on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. This was due to the fact that historical rates were much higher and initially required serious centralization.

Background. The timeliness of writing the article is due to the urgency of the Ukrainian topic, aggravated by many pro-Western anti-Russian myths, and the importance of federal issues. The purpose of the publication is to demonstrate the circumstances sur-rounding Ukraine's participation in the formation of the Soviet federal state. Materials and methods. Statistical materials and the latest publications on the history of Ukrainian lands and the Civil War were used. A geopolitical and historical, ideological, political and ethnic analysis of the situation was carried out, the concept of “buffer space” and “buffer state” was formulated. Results. The author draws attention to the complex ethnic situation on the Ukrainian lands during the late Russian Empire, which was by no means reduced to the dichotomy of Little Russians – Great Russians, but was aggravated by the presence of other ethnic groups living mainly in an inclave. Novorossiya had a particularly stable Russian identity. At the same time, the population of rural areas and especially cities did not identify themselves with Ukrainians. Nationalist ferment was stimulated by the February and Octo-ber revolutions. They brought to the forefront of public life Ukrainian nationalists of the left (V. Vinnychenko) and authoritarian adventurers (S. Petlyura), peasant atamans (N.I. Ma-khno). The Bolsheviks, under the conditions of the temporary German occupation and the hetmanship of P. Skoropadsky, the offensive of the White Guards and the passivity of for-eign interventionists, and the military unpreparedness of the White Poles, turned out to be the best suited to receive public support in a fragmentarily organized territory. Conclusions. The pace and features of involvement in the construction of the Eurasian Soviet empire were determined by the entire sum of objective and subjective circumstances. At the same time, the Bolshevik leadership, in which the dogmatism of internationalism is clearly strong, clearly overestimated the importance of the national agenda and set a course for hasty Ukrainization. Stalin’s plan of autonomization was largely abandoned and replaced with Lenin's federalization due to the nationalist biases of the Ukrainian party leadership.

Background. The process of establishing the first federal state and its propagandistic design is of both theoretical and practical interest. Moreover, the Federalist papers is not an individual, but a collective work of major ideologists of the late 18th century. The purpose of the study is to trace not only the logic of the authors, but also random deviations from it in the heat of controversy and the implementation of the plan, as well as the most interesting fragments of the popularizers of the federalist idea – A. Hamilton, J. Madison, J. Jay. Materials and methods. The article uses the minimum necessary biographical data of American publicists, allowing them to give some socio-psychological assessments, as well as materials from all 85 articles. Methods of socio-political analysis and comparison are used. Results. The conducted study shows a more complex structure of articles than is commonly believed, going beyond the textbook important publications No. 10, 39, 51. The first articles clearly play the role of some kind of exposition – they show the geopolitical opportunities and dangers for the emerging country in its former, non-federal state. At the same time, Articles 18–20 outline the negative experience of past confederations. Starting with publication No. 23, a positive program is given: the possibilities of a common defense for all states, a tax system, and separation of powers are considered. There is a demand for the weakening of the legislative and strengthening of the executive power, the independence of the judiciary. The final articles reveal the details of the functioning of the future mechanism of the state. Conclusions. It is impossible to make an absolutely verified conclusion about the degree of impact on contemporaries of 85 articles published in New York newspapers in late 1787 – the first half of 1788, but given the high intensity and drama of the ratification campaigns in the country and the complexity of the situation in New York itself, it does not could be insignificant. Moreover, about three dozen newspapers of that time from different states were inclined to reprint each other's materials, that is, we are dealing with the effect of a propagandistic echo.