Editor's Column
Golden Collection
MFA Russia News
All Tags
Archive material
July 2020 (7)
June 2020 (27)
May 2020 (19)
April 2020 (20)
March 2020 (23)
February 2020 (21)

Since the time the famous dispute between the "physicists" and "lyricists" first took place, the "economists" won, and the lyricists finally had to take a back seat. But for what good reason! Firstly, they should be inspired that thanks to the vanguard of economists nearly all of the physicists moved to the lyricists’ camp. Secondly, the determined attempt by world-class economists to hoist the victory banner over the carcass of modern civilization with the inscription: "The End of History" was not as strongly swept away by the harsh reality. In addition, the same fate changed the thesis of Bill Clinton to "It's the economy, stupid!" Face to face with the economists, who by conviction the lyricists had always lacked an understanding of the economy, as the humanities are not an exact science. As for the physicists, the "scientific minds strictly raised on the natural sciences ... allow themselves to doubt the scientific political economy", in which pragmatism "not only prevails, but is clearly rampant" (Sergey Bulgakov). Yet neither the one nor the other is the answer to the question, "Where shall we sail to from here?" How do we overcome the crisis of the modern ideology of development?


"There are as many historians as there are histories," once remarked the English Sovietologist Edward Carr. Perhaps that's why so many today speak and write about the falsification of history. We must at least agree on the terms. Already at the first session of the Presidential "Commission to counter attempts to falsify history to the detriment of Russia's interests," a logical question was raised: "how does one separate a falsification from a simple difference of opinion?