Russia Abroad

In October, 1922, Pitirim Sorokin and his wife Elena were expelled from Russia by order of Lenin, as it turned out for good. Looking back, the deportation was the best thing that could have happened to them at the time. Those who stayed either lost their lives or were enslaved by the regime. Sorokin soon recognized the immediate benefit of leaving Communist Russia. Arriving in Prague he described his situation "znai da rabotai"[1], which meant that conditions there were favorable to concentrating on work. Indeed for the first time in years mere survival was not his primary concern. The First World War and especially the Russian Revolution drove Russian society into an abyss comparable to plagues of the Middle Ages when just to be alive was a miracle. Despite feeling humiliated by an unjust revocation of his Russian citizenship, he fully appreciated being given at least minimal living conditions to continue his professional life. Away from the Communist regime he finally had an opportunity to reflect and to write out his experiences. The weight of these was comparable to the collective life experiences of several average men, or to the "nine lives" of a cat. He was not alone in this respect.

The 1920s was a singular time for Russian intellectuals who fled Communist Russia and settled in Berlin, Prague, and Paris. The émigré community was a boiling pot with the Russian military, former political activists, members of the parliament, Provisional Government officials, businessmen, entrepreneurs, and intellectuals thrown together often cheek by jowl. Many of these people knew each other in Russia and belonged to the same circles, but a new environment of emigration posed new challenges and choices to these people. In Prague the temporary community of Russian intellectual émigrés, or "Russia Abroad"[2], eventually broke apart.

Unlike most of his colleagues who were drifting between politics and commerce, Pitirim made a firm choice in favor of science. His short stay of less than two years in Prague was very productive. During this time his books on "The Current State of Russia," "Popular Essays on Social Pedagogy and Politics," "A System of Sociology," and "The Ideology of Agrarianism" were published. A manuscript "The Sociology of Revolution," was written as well. This was later translated and published in the United States. Sorokin was a founding member and member of the Board of "The Union of Russian Journalists and Writers" and editor of the periodical "Peasants Russia" (Krestyanskaya Rossia).

Pitirim's articles were published in the emigrant newspapers. "Contemporary Notes" (Soveremennye Zapiski) in Paris, "People's Will" (Volya Naroda), "A Farm" (Khutor), "Students' Years" (Studentcheskiye Godi) in Prague, and in "Days" (Dni) in Berlin. He taught at the Russian University in Prague, was a professor at Charles University, and also was very popular as a public lecturer.

In order to understand why the Prague period was so productive for Pitirim, one has to consider several factors:

To begin with Sorokin and other Russian intellectual exiles were greeted by a political climate where a new Czechoslovak Republic was seeking to form its own intellectual life founded on pan-Slav ideas and comparatively freed from German and Austrian influence. Although there was overall institutional support in Prague for Russians abroad with a stipend to live, employment, etc. until they could adapt to a new life, Pitirim Sorokin had the advantage of knowing President Tomas Masaryk and received a personal invitation to come to the country. "...the President was welcoming the constitutionally minded academics. However, because the Czechoslovak leadership as a whole was more ambivalent about which Russians were desirable, the country became home to a range of exile loyalties. Masaryk supported the SRs [Social Revolutionaries], while his Prime Minister, Karel Kramar, admired tsarism. One result was that old-world conservatives like Pavel Novogorodtsev and representatives of the ancient noble house of Dolgoruky could live out their days in hospitable surroundings in Prague, their beliefs unsurrendered, while the President dined with modern-minded Sorokin and the pro-Bolshevik Lutokhin and Peshekhonov kicked their heels in the hills." (Chamberlain, p.189)

Here is a striking difference between Sorokin and the rest of the exiles. Most of the emigrated Russian intellectuals expected a short life for the Communist regime[3] and continued political activities, establishing parties, coalitions, and the like which made Russia Abroad extremely factional without true political leaders. Moreover, the Communist GPU (secret service) supplemented their own spies by recruiting others from among the exiles. In this way they instigated more quarrels and suspicions within the emigrant community. In fact, those who fled right after 1917 suspected the entire group deported from Communist Russia in 1922, believing them part of a GPU special operation. Such an environment certainly put Pitirim and Elena under psychological and social pressures because however different they were, they still were part of Russia Abroad. Pitirim, however, was firmly resolved to stay away from any political party. Although he had been one of the leaders of Social Revolutionary party (SR), he kept from affiliating with them and turned aside their advances.

This is not to say that Sorokin did not have or express his political views, for his public speeches and writings were strongly political. Nevertheless they expressed Sorokin's personal views determined by his own experience and sociological background and not by the agenda of any political organization. It is worth clarifying the claim of some researchers that although Pitirim spoke in his autobiography of non-involvement in politics, in reality all his writings in Prague had a strong political flavor. The truth is that Pitirim always had political views and expressed them. All the same, he never joined any political party after he officially left the SRs in 1918. Moreover, he never wrote anything "at the order" of any political organization. Ironically, it was his political individualism that caused him trouble during the Cold War, when his name was prominent in the list of anti-Communists in the Soviet Union. At the same time he was considered a Communist sympathizer by Senator Joseph McCarthy's committee in the United States and was interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to determine whether or not he was loyal to the United States. [4]

Similarly, Sorokin was criticized by all political factions in 1922 for his political views because his analysis after all did not fit any of their programs. Despite criticism from the left and from the right, however, both sides cited his name and his studies to prove certain points. Sorokin was an unquestioned authority in any socio-political analysis of Russia.

Throughout this period Pitirim's principal focus was to make substantial organized contributions to his professional field. Although he had a wide range of interests-- his publications and presentations in Prague dealt with morality [5], the education of youth [6], and rural classes [7], but included a few literary essays [8] as well-- at the core, a theory of social change began to emerge as the dominant theme for his work. This was drawn from his studies of famine, a vision of sociology, and personal experience in the Revolution, and it took initial form as the book entitled, "The Sociology of Revolution."

Independence in political views did not mean that Sorokin was "a lone wolf" who maintained an isolated life style or restricted his communications to an elite circle. In contrast to his outspokenness in public debate, he maintained kind and supportive relations with former colleagues and friends, very much as he later helped talented immigrants to the United States. His correspondence with Dalmat Lutokchin, a former editor of the journal "Ekonomist" in St-Petersburg, illustrates this. Lutokchin was arrested by the Bolsheviks and expelled in 1923 to Berlin. Pitirim helped him to get a position at a research institute in Prague, as well as to receive assistance from the Czech government. Later on Mr. Lutokchin decided to return to Communist Russia and once there joined a smear campaign against Pitirim. (Doikov, pp. 33-35) In the words of Lesley Chamberlain, "The young sociologist Pitirim Sorokin for whom a brilliant professional future in America lay ahead, was a spokesman for global economic freedom and Christian-humanist cultural values" (Chamberlain, p.3).

"The Current State of Russia"

Of the four books Sorokin published during his stay in Prague, "The Current State of Russia" is the most substantial. Many of the exiled Russian intellectuals felt the need to comment on the regime left behind, yet only Sorokin's writing attracted the widespread attention of Russia Abroad. The book grew from Pitirim's presentations and articles [9] and was issued in December, 1922 (copyright 1923).

This book could be classified in modern terms as "a country-report," a term for World Bank drafts about countries of interest. Sorokin's study was unprecedented for its time and was written by an individual rather than a committee. It is highly structured, thoroughly documented, well supported by data, and yet written in the colorful language of a talented writer. Sorokin introduces the book as an attempt at objective assessment of what had happened to Russia and Russian society over the eight years of war and revolution between 1914 and 1922. Its nine chapters cover: (1) demographic changes; (2) changes in social structure; (3) economic changes; (4) the status of power; (5) political life and political parties; (6) changes in morality and law; (7) public education and science; (8) religious life; (9) changes in people's psychic state and ideology. The book is all the more remarkable considering that it was based on articles and public speeches dating from the day of his arrival in the West.

Sorokin stated that the transformation of Russian society was not what had been predicted by the designers of the Revolution, and the very institutions the Revolution was meant to transform ended up much as they had been under the old regime:

"Indeed 'the blind led the blind, and all fell into the hole.' Millions paid for their illusions with their lives, others paid with unbearable sufferings, a third group had a bitter hangover, and those who had inspired the illusions lost the nimbus of leaders and saviors of humankind. They dropped into the abyss of cynicism, criminality, and intrigues, turning into self-loving tyrants and shadow dealers. The main slogan of the Communist revolution was the destruction of capitalism. Where has it led? Firstly, to the collapse of the means of production and distribution. Secondly, to replacement of private capitalism by the worst form of state capitalism. Finally, it led to an attempt to restore the recently destroyed private capitalism."

Pitirim analyzed all essential aspects of Russian society, revealing its degradation and the damage the Bolsheviks had made to the economy as well as to the political, social, and cultural development of the country. Even today people outside of Russia today do not understand how Russian society can survive when all basic institutions are distorted and negative incentives for development are given. Nor do they understand why the people don't replace a corrupt government if they are not happy with it. In 1922 Sorokin explained why the Bolsheviks remained in power despite the catastrophe into which they had driven the country. One can imagine how difficult it was for Sorokin to look at the situation, as this required a high level of abstraction from his personal experience. It was one thing to live and to survive under the regime and another to explain it to people who had never experienced what Russia had gone through. In the book Sorokin reduced his explanation to the level of universal understanding.

"The western reader might be confused, if all this is true why does this government remain in power? For the reader it does not make sense. Yet, this is true. An explanation for this 'strange' situation lies in the following:

Firstly, from the western reader's own experience it must be known (as shown by sociologist Herbert Spencer) that a small but well organized group could administer a group ten times larger. A unit of ten policemen could disperse a crowd of several thousands. A disciplined military cohort could subjugate a large but poorly organized and equipped army. Herzog Alba gives a historic example of how Spain ruled over a Netherlands population of 3 million with a force of 10 thousand men. The army of Bolshevik praetorians of some dozen thousands was able to dominate and abuse a population of millions. It was even easier to accomplish because by 1919 and thereafter the proletariat had almost disappeared from cities-- its size diminished by four to five times with the industrial collapse. It was 'a proletariat dictatorship without the proletariat.' Its massive protests became impossible. The fist of the multi-thousand proletariat mass simply ceased to exist, and the remainder could not present a powerful force.

The village was even more powerless. The population of Russia, scattered over one sixth of the earth, is incapable of acting instantly in an organized and preplanned manner. With the media either captured or shut down, organized action is even more restricted. The authorities captured the telegraph, telephone, post offices, and other means of transportation and communication. One can add to this the fact of skillful disarmament of the population in 1918. Considering all this it is easy to understand why peasant movements that arose were unorganized, without links to each other, and therefore, despite a colossal number of participants were easily defeated by the government troops. A single military squadron handles one village today; tomorrow it is dispatched to another village miles away, the day after tomorrow to a different place. In this way dozens of revolts were liquidated. The army of 'peace keepers' with several thousand soldiers took over many millions.

Extreme exhaustion and starvation of the population also played a big role. Exhausted after five years of war and revolution, people did not have enough energy for the fight. Under such conditions the terror caused apathy and acceptance.

In a way, credit must be given to the authorities. They showed enormous energy in organizing death squadrons. The government fed them at the expense of people, giving these squadrons freedom to rob and abuse; by hypnotizing members of squadrons with propaganda, the authorities welded them into a strong group of praetorians, whose fate was tied up with their own.

Finally, one can add here the custom of obedience, tolerance to a stick and physical abuse, which had been forced on the Russian people for centuries. Now, I believe, a Western-European would understand this 'strange' fact. What happened in Russia was similar to what happened many times in the history of tyrants of various peoples.

The power, borne on the shoulders of workers, soldiers, and peasants in 1917, was transformed during the following year and a half into dictatorship over workers and peasants. From 'labor power' it became pure despotism. Today its army of praetorians, 'the squadrons of special assignments,' amounts to 400 thousand. It is well organized. Next to it its own bureaucracy is established. Media, roads, and mail are in the hands of the government. The population is exhausted, depleted, and dispersed. From this it is clear why the regime is still in power, although 97 percent hate it more deeply and strongly than they hated the old regime."

At the end Sorokin summarized eight years of Russia's development in fifteen points. He found that:

(1) The Russian Revolution exemplifies the law of "social illusionism." (2) None of the goals of this revolution was achieved; on the contrary it produced the opposite of expected outcomes. (3) The social pyramid of Russian society remained unchanged, if anything it became higher. The inhabitants at each floor of the pyramid changed, but even there within the most recent year and half the bourgeoisie were displacing the workers. (4) Inequality was not reduced but increased. (5) Exploitation did not weaken but became stronger. (6) The degree of freedom was sharply diminished. (7) The despotism of power increased. (8) Rather than capitalism, the economy was the one destroyed. (9) Instead of setting up a more advanced type of society, an archaic system of state slavery typical of ancient despotism was put in place. (10) Instead of peace the revolution brought a ruthless war, which depleted the country and its people. (11) Instead of bread the revolution brought hunger, death, and cannibalism. (12) The idea was totally discredited that "communism" represents a distinct type of society with a characteristic social and economic organization. (13) New classes of bourgeoisie emerged, immune to the ideology of communism and despising it. (14) Instead of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" it destroyed the proletariat; instead of the power of labor the revolution created unlimited tyranny. (15) Instead of an Internationale it generated a clique of adventurers to steal the golden reserves of Russia, "immoral anthropoids that sow hatred and bring new cataclysms."

Apart from deploring the catastrophic degradation of Russian society, Sorokin was able to see signs of stabilization and recovery there. This provoked numerous attacks on him as sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, although nothing pertaining to Bolsheviks was in Sorokin's vision.

"Many times over these years I was asking myself 'Is this the final hour of the historic sunset of the Russian people? Is it before death that the nation has washed itself with sufferings?' Now I see that it is not. The patient is recovering, the crisis is over, and the road of life not death lies ahead. I know that this road is not covered with roses. It is hard and full of new abysses of sufferings, humiliations, and hardships. Sharp turns, dangerous hills, ambushes are facing the walker... Yet, let's keep spirits high. We are taking with us values of Knowledge, readiness for Labor and hardships, a strong will for Kindness and a light of Hope... We will stay safe with them. With these virtues we will able to get back from the dark abysses of blood and death to the wide road of history."

In a less emotional way, Sorokin saw possibilities for recovery from an inevitable exhaustion of the revolution's internal resources and the stabilization that followed. Major signs for Sorokin were various grass-root initiatives and new forms of economic activities that appeared in the country in 1922 with introduction of The New Economic Policy (NEP). The more revolution exhausted its potential the more resources for recovery would grow within the society, in spite of a politically despotic regime. Reading this book, one should remember that Sorokin described trends that were appearing in Russia before Stalin's dictatorship ended NEP. In fact Sorokin's theory predicted terror as a second phase of revolution and stabilization as the third.

Response to the Book from Russia Abroad

Within days of its publication, reviews of "The Current State..." appeared in the emigrant newspapers. In one published in "The Russian Economist" in Berlin, Alexander Yablonski wrote:

"It is a very interesting, important, and courageous book. Neither revolutionary illusions nor socialist fetishes exist for Dr. Sorokin. He loves the truth more than the program, and happiness of Russia is superior to the party's well being....The value of Sorokin is that he goes by his own way. He proceeds straight ahead forcefully and is capable of the truth to the very end. As a sociologist and a researcher he approaches the statue of revolution and without hesitation tears all the golden illusions from it." (Doikov, p.42)

In another review in Russkaya Mysl' published in Prague and Berlin Boris Kadmotsev noted:

"This book, written by an author expelled by the Soviet government from Russia, should be read by every Russian who wants to understand what has happened on the other side of the wall set up by Bolshevik censorship.... It is almost impossible to read this book without deep excitement, attributable to skillful description of Russia's "crucifixion" and also the feeling the author seemingly possessed when he wrote it..."

At the same time Ekaterina Kuskova and Afanasy Petrishchev attacked Pitirim in the Berlin emigrant newspaper "Dni" mainly for two "crimes", first for his statement against revolution and second for doubting a quick end for the Bolshevik regime.

Despite accusations from Pitirim's former party mates, Russia Abroad recognized Sorokin's intellectual authority. "The Current State of Russia" was written with such talent and was so well documented that leaders of Russia Abroad decided to use it for a court trial against Bolsheviks that took place in Lausanne during the fall of 1923. On May 10th of 1923 in Lausanne, Alexander Conradi, a former officer of the Russian White Army, attempted to execute several official Soviet representatives to Italy. Vatslav Vorovsky was shot to death and two his companions were wounded. The motive was revenge for parents and siblings who were tortured and killed in Petrograd in 1919 by Bolsheviks. Russia Abroad decided to turn an international murder trial in Lausanne into a trial against bolshevism.

On August 22, 1923, a Mr. Gurko, member of the organizational committee for this trial, wrote to Alexander Guchkov, one of the leaders of Russia Abroad, former leader of the Oktaybrist Party and Naval Minister of the Provisional government, that "we need Sorokin's book very much...there is a strong request to persuade Sorokin to present witness statements at the trial". On Guchkov's request Pitirim wrote on August 28, 1923:

"Dear Alexander Ivanovich,

Thank you for the letter. At the end of September I am going to for the International Sociological Congress to Italy and then to the United States to give lectures in American universities. Therefore I cannot visit our friend personally. Still I have prepared all necessary materials and will send them to Paris. I feel it is my duty and will be glad to do that. If there is anything else I can provide to help him and my motherland, I hope to complete it by early September. 

With deepest respect, 

Pitirim Sorokin"  

(translated from Doikov, p.36-37)

In addition to the book Pitirim sent a written statement in the form of a report. Sorokin's data and analysis made an impression on the jury (Doikov, p.37). In the court Conradi's defense lawyer Ober frequently supported his case "by the exhaustive conclusions of Professor Sorokin...." (Doikov, p.38). The trial continued for twelve days and on November 16th, 1923 Conradi and an associate Polunin were released with a verdict of not guilty.

"Russian American"

In Prague Pitirim was often called "Russian American" by reason of his hard and productive work. It was also because he used every spare moment to study English.

"Feeling the cold wind blowing from Russian Prague, Sorokin spent most of 1923 learning English. From his temporary Cernosice home, ten miles from Prague, he would pace the open countryside committing long lists of vocabulary to heart." (Chamberlain, p.199)

In the fall of 1923 Pitirim left Prague not knowing whether he was going stay in America or to return and accept President Masaryk's offer to head the Czech Institute of Social Sciences. Elena stayed in Prague continuing graduate research work in botany. It was another year before the family made a final decision to move to the United States.

Outcomes

Thus the Prague period ended. It was very productive and led to Pitirim's becoming an authoritative figure in international social science. His personal decency and intellectual independence, added to his brilliant writings and speeches, earned him respect as well from many among the Russians Abroad.

Classic and Public Sociology

Among Sorokin's writings in Prague, "The Current State of Russia" had the most public impact, being conceived in a tradition called "public sociology" today. During the early twenties it was read primarily by Russian émigrés but also by those in the international community interested in understanding events in the Soviet Union and able to read Russian or Czech. Sorokin's conceptualization based on his own experience, his professional capacity as a sociologist, and his use of simple language full of associations every one could understand, collectively accounted for the book's strong influence over an educated but non-specialist community. As stated earlier, this was followed by a more rigorous treatise, "The Sociology of Revolution," intended for professionals. If "The Sociology of Revolution" was a theoretical work to enrich the field of sociology with new ideas and data, then "The Current State of Russia" was an application of his theoretical framework to a specific case. Similarly, several of his later publications in the realm of public sociology, including "The Crisis of Our Age" and "Russia and the United States," were applications largely based on his main theoretical work on social change, "Social and Cultural Dynamics." The Dynamics considered macrosociological fluctuations in society and culture over all of recorded human history, whereas "Crisis" applied its findings to the turbulent times of present-day life. And so it appears that Sorokin always kept an eye on the relevance of his investigations into sociological theory for understanding situations affecting the public interest.

Ninety Years Later

Reading this book we found that many phenomena Sorokin observed during the revolution of 1917 were repeated in 1991 when Russian society went through another revolutionary social experiment with its "shock therapy" reform. This led to a great increase of income inequality among inhabitants with a Gini coefficient (0= complete equality, 1= complete inequality) becoming one of the highest in the world. The income of most of the population fell to the edge of subsistence and yet it contained the greatest number of billionaires. Their wealth has continued to skyrocket, leading to a further degradation of demographics. All this in 2012 is very similar to what Sorokin saw in 1922. In 1922 Sorokin said that "we, contemporaries and actors of these years, represent the generation which within eight years managed to eat up from 60 to 70 percent of all the wealth accumulated by the previous generations." In effect, this is what studies of the recent transition in Russia have shown: Economic development since 1991 has taken place at the expense of redistribution of the old Soviet production assets without reinvestment into production. This is the type of development Burawoy has called "economic involution" [10]. Similarly, Sorokin's study of changes in human behavior and changes in education, morality, growth of pseudo-religiosity and mysticism, etc., make this book relevant for contemporary Russia.

Appendix:  

I. PRINCIPAL RECENT SOURCES

1. Lesley Chamberlain. 2007. LENIN'S PRIVATE WAR. The Voyage of the Philosophy Steamer and the Exile of the Intelligentsia. St. Martin's Press. New York.

2. Yuri Doikov. 2009. PITIRIM SOROKIN V PRAGE (1922-1923). Archangelsk.2009. 

Alexander Doikov is a historian from Archangelsk, Russia, who has carried out several research projects related to Pitirim Sorokin's years in Russia. His recent book "Pitirim Sorokin in Prague" is based on ample archival materials related to the Russian emigration and diaspora in Czechoslovakia. The author has made a substantial effort to collect materials from various archives in the Czech Republic, including the Museum of National Literature, the Karlov University Archive, the Archive of the Czech Academy of Sciences, the Slavic Library, the Institute of Documentation and Investigations of Communist Crime; collections of Sergei Gessen and his sons, those of Yosef Kral, Arnost Blaha, Vladimir Kadlec, Kramarz, and private collections of Gana Vbrova-Piskachkova, Anastasiya Vukolova-Koprshiva.

II. SELECTED PITIRIM SOROKIN'S WRITINGS IN 1922-1923

Books:

СОВРЕМЕННОЕ СОСТОЯНИЕ РОССИИ. Прага: Владимир Винничук; Вена: Лингва .1922(3). 108 с.
СОВРЕМЕННОЕ СОСТОЯНИЕ РОССИИ. Прага: Владимир Винничук; Вена: Лингва .1923. In Czech language.
ПОПУЛЯРНЫЕ ОЧЕРКИ СОЦИАЛЬНОЙ ПЕДАГОГИКИ И ПОЛИТИКИ. Ужгород. Издание Комитета Деловодчиков и Народопросветительных Рад Подкарпатской Руси. 1923.
СИСТЕМА СОЦИОЛОГИИ. Том 1. Социальная аналитика. Прага «Хутoр». (Вена: Лингва) - 120 с. 1923(4).
COЦИОЛОГИЯ РЕВОЛЮЦИИ. Рукопись на русском языке. 1923.
ИДЕОЛОГИЯ АГРАРИЗМА. Прага, «Хутор». - 35 с. 1924

Articles:

Состояние русской социологии за 1918 - 1922 г г. / / Новая русская книга (Берлин). Ежемес. критико - библиограф. журнал. Ред. профессор А.С. Яшенко. № с. 7 - 1 0. 1922
Нравственное и умственное состояние России / / Воля России (Прага). Журнал политики и культуры. Ред И. Давид. №4. С. 2 5 - 3 3; №5. С. 2 1 - 3 3. 1922.
Как мы жили. / / Дни (Берлин) Ред. А. Милашевский 1 ноября. №3. С. 2. 1922.
Еще раз о моральном состоянии России. (Ответ Е.Д. Кусковой) / / Воля России. № 1. С. 3 2 - 3 9. 1923.
На лоне природы / / Современные записки (Париж) №XV(H). С. 262-286. 1923
Неотвратимая лава / / Хутор (Прага). Двухнедельный журнал, посвящ. интересам рус. земледелия. Ред. Э. Мареш. При у ч а с т и и: Х.В. Автономова, А.Н. Анциферова, Н.Е. Анненкова, К.П. Бельговского. Издавался в 1 9 2 2 - 1 9 24 г г. № 26 - 27. С. 4 - 5. 1923
К вопросу о подготовке эмигр(антской) русской молодежи / / Студенческие годы (Прага). Ежемесячн. журнал. Издание Союза рус. студентов в Чехословакии. Гл. ред. К.К. Цегоев. Отв. ред. А. Фринта. Сентябрь. С. 20 - 22. 1923.
Soziologie in Russland / / «Kdlner Vierteljahreshefte fur Soziologie» (Кельн) (Основатель и издатель ( 1 9 2 1-1954) журнала Леопольд фон Визе) H . l. S. 9 2 - 9 3. 1923.
Sorokin P.A. К sociologii revoluce. Uvod z knihy «Sociologie revoluce» / / Parlament (Praha) rocnik I I I , cislo 1, 1 ledna (январь) С. 7 - 1 0, (translated to Czech by Vatslav Smetanka).
In "Peasent Russia" ("Kresyanskaya Rossiya")

То, что часто забывается / / Крестьянская Россия (Прага). Сб. ст. по вопр. обществ.-полит, и эконом. И - Ш. С. 1 4 - 3 1. 1923.
Россия после НЭПа ( пятилетнему юбилею Октябрьской революции. / / Там же. Сб. И - Ш. С. 1 4 0 - 1 5 9. 1923.
Город и деревня (био-социологическая характеристика) / / Там ж е. Сб. IV. С 3 - 2 3. 1923.
Под псевдонимом: Баратынский. На распутье трех дорог. Национальные проблемы в грядущей России / / Там же. Сб. IV. С. 6 8 - 8 5. 1923.
Население, класс, партия / / Там же. Сб. V-VI. С. 8 6 - 8 9. 1923.

References:

1. In the letter to Pherapont Sedenko in Russia Pitirm Sorokin wrote in October of 1922: "Soon my small book will be published about Russia in Russian and Czech languages; received an invitation to write for French, German, and Czech newspapers. In a word "znai da rabotai" (cited from Doikov,p.10)

2. Pyotr Struve coined the term russkoye zarubezhye, literally "Russia beyond the frontier", to capture the uniqueness of the Russian dispersal post-1917 as a world historic event. What happened was "a mighty and unprecedented exodus resulted from the grandest historical cataclysm" and " a mass phenomenon...of an extraordinary impressiveness." With the Turkish deportation of 1.75 million Armenians in mind, he spoke of a rival "Russian Diaspora". Russia Abroad, never one country, might yet be one political force, but its problem was it never settled on a leader. This produced a charged, factional atmosphere and a rather unlovable notional country which between 1920 and 1939 was constantly undermined by its own quarrels and demoralizingly outwitted by Soviet underground maneuvering. (Chamberlain, p.178-179)

3. Tatyana Frank was a member of one of the principal intellectual families whose histories Chamberlin followed extensively. She wrote: "Exile--vysylka-- was completely unexpected, but none of those exiled foresaw that it was a departure from Russia for good. Many consoled themselves with the thought that Russia would soon be liberated and we would return." Cited from Chamberlain, p.170.

4. Mike F. Keen. 2003. Stalking Sociologists: J. Edgar Hoover's FBI Surveillance of American Sociology. Transaction Publishers.

5. Нравственное и умственное состояние России // Воля России (Прага). Журнал политики и культуры. Ред И. Давид. №4. С. 2 5 - 3 3; №5. С. 2 1 - 3 3. 1922. [Moral an Intellectual State of Russia. Will of Russia. Journal of Politics And Culture. Prague.]

6. К вопросу о подготовке эмигр(антской) русской молодежи // Студенческие годы (Прага). Ежемесячн. журнал. Издание Союза рус. студентов в Чехословакии. Гл. ред. К.К. Цегоев. Отв. ред. А. Фринта. Сентябрь. С. 20 - 22. 1923. [On Education of the Emigre Youth. Collage Years. Monthly. Prague.]

7. Город и деревня (био-социологическая характеристика) // Крестьянская Россия (Прага). Сб. ст. по вопр. обществ.-полит, и эконом Сб. IV. С 3 - 2 3. 1923. [City and Rural Village (Bio-Social Characteristics). Peasant Russia. Prague.]

8. На лоне природы // Современные записки (Париж) №XV(H). С. 262-286. 1923 [On Nature's Scenery.  Contempory Notes. Paris.]

9. On October 3, 1922, as soon as Pitirim arrived in Berlin he made his first presentation entitled "About the Current State of Russia". Here he laid out his major thesis that the main outcome of the revolution was the moral and social degradation of Russian society. In addition to that he covered specific issues that caused a broad debate, such as a marked increase of venereal diseases and the collapse of the educational system. At the same time he concluded with hope that people will be able to overcome Communism. As the Berlin emigrant newspaper described it "this presentation had a loud success in the overcrowded hall."

10. Burawoy, Michael, Pavel Krotov. Involution and Destitution: Russia's Gendered Transition to Capitalism. //Ethnography, vol.4. 2000.