W sytuacji niestabilności i zmian, które charakteryzowały Związek Radziecki w latach dwudziestych ubiegłego wieku, grupa architektów-konstruktywistów pod przewodnictwem Moisieja Ginzburga zajmowała się problemem braku mieszkań dla pracowników w dużych sowieckich miastach. Rozwiązania wypracowane przez zespół Ginzburga zostały opracowane pod patronatem Sowieckich platform OSA i Strojkom. Zostały przeprowadzone w trzech kolejnych etapach zwieńczonych budową Domu Narkomfinu. Niemniej, architektoniczna nowoczesność osiągnięta w Narkomfinie była związana z postępami w sektorze budownictwa mieszkaniowego poczynionymi przez ich kolegów z Europy. Niniejszy artykuł podejmuje analizę faktycznych powiązań pomiędzy owym moskiewskim prototypem a zachodnimi modelami, które zaczynały być opracowywane w Europie, a zwłaszcza w Niemczech. Przedmiotowa koncepcja umieszcza badania prowadzone przez zespół Ginzburga w procesie skomplikowanej i niezwykle ważnej asymilacji, która integrowała nowe modernistyczne techniki Zachodu.

The social and political transformations Russia underwent in the 20th century were also reflected in the sphere of imagery. This also refers to the imagery of movement and means of transport. The process of linking the imagery of means of transportation with the political doctrine in force is mostly visible in the period of Soviet rule, in particular in the interwar period when the foundations of this rule were laid. Then, aviation was to become one of the strongly ideologized means of transport. The ideologization process occurred at various levels, starting from onomastic procedures through advertising and linking aviation and Soviet rule within artistic and literary conceptualisations. In Soviet culture, an aeroplane or a rocket were not merely means of transport but the means by which the expansion of communist ideology globally was supposed to be facilitated.

The author analyses a history of research on culture in communist Poland and the USSR (later Russian Federation). She finds similarities and differences. During the time of communist Poland a tendency was to standardize the supply of culture and make the access to it more democratic. The basic task of the sociology of culture in communist Poland was to control the advancement process of culture dissemination and research into the various forms of participation. However, in the second half of the 70s attention was more and more focused on the directions of cultural sociology development and functions. Following the fall of communism this discipline was faced with a challenge of embracing all the important directions of changes while indicating a now socio-cultural model at the same time. In the USSR, on the other hand, the government was interested only in the cultural research which was to confirm a hypothesis on fast cultural development of masses. Sociology of culture did not exist as a science, though. Following years of deep crisis, when perestroika period began, sociologists of post soviet Russia faced a serious challenge: how to move from “the only one true” Marxist paradigm to the mastering and usage of various theories which functioned in sociology around the world. The Author indicated the contribution in this respect i.a. of Vladimir Yadov or academics circled around Yurij Levada. In general one can say that in Poland as well as in Russia, the sociology of culture following the fall of communist regime and following certain major political, economic, social and cultural changes, found itself in entirely new reality.

The authors presented the tendencies in Russian toponomy after the October Revolution, when geographic naming became one of the most important tools of communist propaganda. They showed – following A. Supieranska – three groups of oekokonyms in the 1920s and 30s: 1) those derived from the names of individuals who had achieved renown (e.g. Ленинакан, Ленинск, Лениногорск, Ленинабад, Троцк, Киров), 2) those commemorating phenomena and events linked with the Revolution and the era of Soviet rule (e.g. Комсомольск-на-Амуре, Красногвардейск), 3) those referring to areas of production (e.g. Асбест, Бокситогорск, Магнитогорск, Электросталь). In this context, changes in the naming of towns inhabited by Germans are presented, in particular Marx and Engels, located in the Volga Region. The presentation of the changes is preceeded by a description of the development of the oekonymic system of Volga Germans.