Ideological purposes of the Prague and Parisian (Clamarts) centres of the Eurasian movement: the comparative analysis

Eurasianism is the movementof Russian emigration, arisen in the 1920s. Eurasianism is not only a complex of thoughts, ideas. In the beginning of the 20th century Eurasianismwas thought of as the state idea of new Russia. The Eurasian Movement arisen in 1921 and representing initially a small emigrant groupof adherents later transformed into a political organization, whose primary aim was to struggle against the Bolshevism and overthrow the Sovietpower in Russia. Eurasianism as an appreciable movement in the environment of Russian emigration has created enough party cells acrossEurope, and not only there. Operating in one direction, the Eurasian groups represented a uniform organizational structure, having common aimsand aspiring to realizing the tasks of distribution of the Eurasian ideology, attraction of new people, propaganda activity in Europe, and, wheneverpossible, in the USSR. But the period of 1928-1929 became critical in the political history of the Eurasian movement, when Eurasianismwas threatened as a political movement of Russian emigration. During this period the left orientation of some of the most authoritative Eurasians,P.P. Suvchinskiy, L. Karsavin, S. Ya. Efron, D.P. Sviatopolk-Mirsky and others, representatives of the oldest branch of the movement inParis, who later went out of the group and became known as the Clamart Group is most intensely traced. The article is devoted to the comparativeanalysis of the ideological purpose of the Prague and the Clamart centres as largest and oldest branches of the Eurasian movement. Theexplicative, comparative analysis of ideological sets of the orthodox Eurasianism in the Prague Centre and in the Clamarts branch showed thatin the world outlook and philosophical basis left Eurasianism is not much different from the classical Eurasian ideas. Representatives of theClamart Group also perceived Russia and its people as a symphonic personality and a united civilization, they recognized the influence of thegeographical factor and the features of understanding place development of Russia-Eurasia on the history of the Russian-Eurasian civilization,marked the influence of the Turanian element on the history and civilization of Russia. Fundamentally the position of Clamart differedfrom the position of the Prague Centre on the following issues: understanding of the October Revolution, the problem of correlation of Marxismand Eurasianism, acceptable forms of managing, the place and the role of religion in the society.

Keywords

Authors

References