Abstract: The object of this article is an in-depth research on the grounds of rethinking the vast historical materials on a multifaceted problem of historical and cultural specificity of the genesis of Russian entrepreneurship and various compositions of its relationship with the government. Based on the analysis of the economic reforms of Catherine the Great, the author examines the problem of establishment and main parameters of the Russian model of relationship between entrepreneurship and the government. A special attention is given to Catherine the Great’s policy to remove restrictions and significant limitations on development of private entrepreneurship from government authorities; the difference between this policy and preceding and future compositions of relations between entrepreneurship and the government; measures on strengthening the role of entrepreneurship, state policy on stimulation of entrepreneurial activity, and creation of a favorable environment for its development within the historical and cultural context of the correlation of formal and informal rules. Among the main conclusions is the fact that despite the importance of Catherine the Great’s reforms, the dominant business strategy and criterion for success of entrepreneurship in Russia, remained the acquisition of the businesses of others, rather than creation and effective management thereof.

Abstract: The object of this article is an in-depth research on the grounds of rethinking the vast historical materials on a multifaceted problem of historical and cultural specificity of the genesis of Russian entrepreneurship and various compositions of its relationship with the government. Based on the analysis of the economic reforms of Catherine the Great, the author examines the problem of establishment and main parameters of the Russian model of relationship between entrepreneurship and the government. A special attention is given to Catherine the Great’s policy to remove restrictions and significant limitations on development of private entrepreneurship from government authorities; the difference between this policy and preceding and future compositions of relations between entrepreneurship and the government; measures on strengthening the role of entrepreneurship, state policy on stimulation of entrepreneurial activity, and creation of a favorable environment for its development within the historical and cultural context of the correlation of formal and informal rules. Among the main conclusions is the fact that despite the importance of Catherine the Great’s reforms, the dominant business strategy and criterion for success of entrepreneurship in Russia, remained the acquisition of the businesses of others, rather than creation and effective management thereof.

Abstract: In this article based upon the communicative interpretation of nature of the social conflict as a result of tematization of the negative communication due to the inadequate response of one social actor towards the challenge by the other, being in a critical stage of discomfort caused by absolute or relative resource deprivation and expressed by certain social practices.  The author evaluates conflict style in the society and offers the analysis of history of Russian cases of deconstruction and destruction of the society, modern internal civilian, social, political, ideological situation in Russia, he describes the specific features of the "genetic" connection formed by the Russian social system and its conflict model with the previous conditions.  The contradictory nature of transformation processes in Russia is analyzed with due regard to the anti-nomity discourse by N. Berdyaev. The system-forming elements of the social reality of the Russian society are operationalized via the term 'conflictological genotype", and it is shown that the variety of conflict institutionalization systems, which existn in different states, may be reflected as a social and political continuum, reflecting the ability of the societies to adapt to conflicts or even to mange them in their own interests.  The author also singles out the Russian configuration of the "conflictogenic pattern ensemble", showing the importance of the concept of A.S. Ahiezer for the analysis of splits as a pathological state of the Russian institutional matrix.