The article considers the reforms of Peter I from the standpoint of historical sociology and institutional economic theory with the aim to identify the features of Peter's modernization and its role in forming Russia’s path dependence, and this purpose is realized by comparing it with Stalin's modernization. The study rests on the division of modernization into two types:adaptation and westernization models. This division constitutes the methodological basis of the study and allows further use of comparative analysis in reviewing Peter’s and Stalin’s modernization. Peter's reforms are viewed as adaptive modernization: the 17th century formal institutions of Muscovy were replaced by imported (Western) ones, but at the same time basic components of the political system and political culture were preserved.The reforms resulted in a fully state-driven society and developed economy. Totalitarianism in Russia first took shape in the early 18th century. It combined the archaic institutions of Muscovy newly introduced imported ones. The latter strengthened autocratic rule, power-property as an institutional foundation of Russia. At the same time, cultural and everyday westernization was built into Peter's reforms. It subsequently became the basis of indepth westernization in the form of the release of the nobility from compulsory service. A comparative analysis of the Peter’s and Stalin’s modernization showed that they have both common features and differences. Total nationalization of life, focus on militarization, despotism unite them. However, while Peter's modernization transformed the archaic society, Stalin's one revived the archaic in the place of westernized society of the early 20th century

The article deals with the concept of the failures of society. First of all, attention is drawn to the value nature of this concept. What, from the point of view of an external observer, can be interpreted as a failure, for an insider will be a normal state. Moreover, the latter, perhaps, will not want to change life in the traditional environment familiar to him, which constitutes his social identity, for something else, which seems preferable for an external observer. The failures of society are described as far from reality lexicographical preferences. The most typical example is religious fundamentalism. With its dominance, the failures of society are inevitable. However, modern social dogmas, which have become widespread and strongly influencial in the West in the framework of the so-called new ethics, may well be interpreted as failures of society. As a result, the world has lost its orientation and authoritarian (neo-totalitarian) practices do not experience strong opposition. Assessing global processes, it is quite possible to state the failure of the Earth’s civilization as a whole due to the loss of an ideal image of the future. Constructivist solutions are not able to correct the state of affairs. The world will either heal itself through spontaneous institutional change or prolong its state of decline.