Перегляд за Автор "Nefodov Dmytro"

Зараз показуємо 1 - 2 з 2
  • Документ
    Industry and Workforce of the Ukrainian SSR During the Postwar Years (1946-1965): the Genesis of the Historiosophical Concept of Ukrainian-Centered Historiography
    (2025) Nefodov Dmytro; Нефьодов Дмитро
    The article highlights the key milestones in the formation of the historiosophical concept of Ukraine-centered historiography of the 1990s in the context of the study of industrial development and workforce in the Ukrainian SSR during the postwar years (1946-1965).It has been noted that the significant and positive changes in the theoretical, methodological, conceptual and historiosophical fields of Ukrainian history, which began in the perestroika period, were further developed during the 1990s. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the unexpectedly powerful impetus for a thorough reconsideration of Ukraine’s entire history as well as the postwar twentieth century and the role of Ukrainian workforce and industry during this time was not the result of the internal logic of the historical science development. The transformation of national historiography was notably propelled by a robust external political motivation in 1991, which, along with the groundwork that had been laid, initiated a thorough reconsideration of the field.The development of an independent national historical science has led to numerous conceptual and fundamental questions for its scholars. These questions focus on the perspectives and contexts from which Ukrainian history should be the studied and written (and frequently rewritten). For the sake of real, not just paper, independence and, at the same time, for integration into the world historical community, a course of Ukraine-centeredness was chosen on the basis of theoretical and methodological principles generally accepted by the world scientific community and modern methods and technologies of historical epistemology. In the context of renewal, the only possible solution was to find comprehensive, integrated approaches to the object of study and to combine the methodological and methodical principles of historical knowledge, proven through years of practical application, with new ones. The main conclusion of the early 1990s was the understanding that researchers should focus on people (humanity, communities, social groups), that is, the history of the Ukrainian postwar industry and workforce should be studied from a historical and anthropocentric perspectives.
  • Документ
    Ukrainian SSR Working Class (1946-1965) in the Modern National Historographic Tradition
    (2023) Nefodov Dmytro; Marynchenko Hanna; Нефьодов Дмитро; Маринченко Ганна
    The article examines the modern national historiography of Ukrainian working-class issues of the postwar 20 century (1946-1965). The existence of several methodological levels, the highest of which is philosophical, is the historiographical research specificity. The authors of the article used analysis and synthesis from the list of this group methods. The next level is considered to comprise general scientific methods, of which the method of classification and typologization and the method of idealization (abstraction) were used. Special historical methods are the third gradation of the methods. The research tools of the proposed work include historical and genetic, chronological, problematic and chronological, biographical, comparative historical methods, as well as methods of periodization, content analysis, dialectic of retrospective and prospective analysis. The authors of the article conclude that the main thesis of the modern national historiography of the problem is the statement that the postwar economic recovery was carried out on a predominantly extensive basis. More than 90% of workers at Ukrainian industrial enterprises achieved production standards mainly by manual labor. Lack of proper safety precautions often resulted in significant injuries. Much was said about the working-class leading role in the society, but little was done to ensure that workers actually managed the enterprises. To a certain extent, this was facilitated by the permanent mobilization and propaganda activities carried out by that period regime, inspiring “socialist competition” and various kinds of “movement of shock workers and innovators.” People’s real, everyday enthusiasm, their readiness for another sacrifice in the name of a better future were closely intertwined with the formalism and demagoguery inherent in the communist system. The overwhelming majority of contemporary Ukrainian historians support the idea that by rebuilding the economy, people were reviving a normal life for themselves and their children, while the system attributed everything primarily to the “highest interests of the Bolshevik Revolution homeland.” Living and working conditions of people were difficult. Nevertheless, people believed in a better life. This feeling also increased as workers saw that thanks to their valiant labor the country was gradually overcoming enormous difficulties and solving extremely complex tasks of the destroyed economy reviving. However, J. Stalin and his entourage, trying to strengthen the totalitarian regime, rejected the possibility of the country’s development in a democratic direction, and so did those forces interested in preserving the command economy and vulgarized forms of ideology. At the same time, to the researchers’ point of view, it was also crucial that the mass consciousness had no experience of living in a society developing on the principles of democracy, which in itself hindered the understanding of the need for a radical renewal of the entire political system.