L. M. ZAK and M. I. ISAYEV. The Problem of Evolving Written Languages for the Numerous Soviet Nationalities and Its Place in the Country?s Cultural Revolution
The problem of evolving written languages for the numerous Soviet nationalities was of paramount importance for the cultural revolution in our country. In the very first years of Soviet power more than fifty new literary languages were evolved, which signified an outstanding contribution to the cultural and national advancement of the formerly backward peoples.
L. M. Zak and M. I. Isayev are the first authors to examine problems of language- building in the U.S.S.R. in close connection with the cultural revolution. Their conclusions are based on a close analysis of archive materials as well as of historical and linguistic literature. For the first time an attempt is made to single out most important stages in the history of Soviet language-building. Profound research and generalization of the rich experience accumulated by our country in the field of language-building is regarded by the authors as an urgent task facing historians and philologists, as a problem of equal importance to historical science and linguistics.
M. E. NAIDENOV. The Leninist Stage in Historical Science
The article examines two questions: the basic content of the term "Leninist stage" in the development of Russian historical science and the initial chronological boundary of this stage. The author maintains that the Leninist stage means a definite period in the development of historical science, characterized by the predominant influence of Lenin?s ideas on its methodology, conception and problems as a result of mastering V. I. Lenin?s scientific methodology and historical conception by historians.
In this connection the article comprehensively substantiates the view that the beginning of the Leninist stage in Russian historical science is indissolubly linked with the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Carried out under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, the October Revolution created the necessary prerequisites for transforming the Marxist trend in Russian historiography, which arose way back in the 1880?s - 1890?s, into a professional Marxist historical science. At the same time, the author?s close analysis of this process enables him to reveal numerous circumstances, chiefly ideological in character, which hampered and complicated the development of the new professional science on the methodological principles of Marxism-Leninism.
A turning point in the development of Soviet historical science, in the author?s opinion, set in only in the mid-1920?s. That is precisely why the author proposes to regard the second half of the twenties as the initial chronological boundary of the Leninist stage in historical science.
S. M. TROITSKY. Historiography of the "Palace Coups" In 18th-Century Russia
The author makes an attempt critically to examine pre-revolutionary and Soviet historiography of the "palace coups" carried out in Russia in the mid-18th century.
S. M. Troitsky shows that from the very outset there emerged two distinct trends in explaining the causes of the "palace coups," which reflected the views of the old aristocracy discontented with the encroachment on their privileges by the absolute monarchy, and the ideologists of the basic mass of the nobility which favoured unlimited autocracy.
The opinion that the "palace coups" reflected the struggle between the Russian and foreign "parties" for favouritism, for influencing the emperors, became very widespread in mid-19th-century historiography; the exponents of this view stubbornly refused to see any social meaning in the events taking place and attributed the latter solely to the activity of "strong personalities," accident or bad laws on succession to the throne. In conditions marked by the aggravation of class and inter-class contradictions in the country, bourgeois historians made strenuous efforts to deny the existence of conflicts between the autocracy and the people and to prove that there were no constitutional movements in the past. That explained their heightened interest in the aristocracy?s rising of 1730. On the whole, bourgeois and nobiliary historians proved unable correctly to explain the causes and character of the palace coups and show their significance for the history of Russia
Only the appearance of works by V. I. Lenin and his disciples at the turn of the 20th century, and of numerous research works by Soviet historians in the subsequent period, S. M. Troitsky stresses, marked the beginning of genuine research in the history of the palace coups from positions of Marxism. In the course of this research Soviet historians have incontrovertibly proved that the "palace coups" were determined by the entire socio-economic and political development of Russia in the 18th century and were a manifestation of the struggle for power and privileges between individual sections of the ruling feudal class.
E. B. CHERNYAK. The Socialist International and the Struggle Against the War (1924 - 1939)
An essential element in the strategy of international reformism was to make people believe that the chief aim of the Socialist International was to uphold and strengthen universal peace. However, the article convincingly proves that in actual fact the Socialist International tried to oppose the struggle against the war to the idea of the proletarian revolution. In the period of the relative stabilization of capitalism (1924 - 1929) the leadership of the Socialist International identified the struggle against the war with attempts to "reconcile" the imperialist powers on an anti-Soviet basis. The Socialist International?s congresses at Marseilles (1925) and Brussels (1928) proclaimed the mythical "Communist export of revolution" one of the chief causes of the war danger. During the world economic crisis of 1929 - 1933 the Socialist International continued to cling to its positions of militant anti-communism, confining itself to sterile pacifist declarations. In 1934 the Socialist International categorically rejected the Comintern?s proposal for united action in the struggle for peace and against fascist aggression. The leadership of the Socialist International approved the "Munch" policy of the Western Powers, which enabled the fascist aggressors to unleash their criminal war. Of course, the causes responsible for the bankruptcy of the foreign policy of the Socialist International?s parties, the author stresses, were rooted not in the allegedly "unrealistic" or "opportunist" character of the anti-war struggle as such, but in reducing this struggle to the level of bourgeois pacifist phrasemongering. The pernicious anti-communist policy of the Right Social-Democrats led to the triumph of national egoism over internationalist principles in the socialist parties, which naturally resulted in the disintegration of the Socialist International after the outbreak of World War II.
M. D. DEMIKHOVSKY. The U. S. Ruling Element?s Policy Towards the Indian Population
The article highlights the U. S. "Indian" policy from the conquest of independence to the final banishment of the Indians to the territory west of the Mississippi. The author singles out two stages in implementing this policy. In the first stage (1817 - 1828) the "Indian" policy was chiefly based on "land-exchange" agreements; the government prohibited any violence or coercion. The second stage began with the election of Andrew Jackson, a Tennessee planter, to the U. S. Presidency in 1829. On the basis of the Indian Removal Act of May 28, 1830, the Indian tribes were forcibly moved to the territory west of the Mississippi. The author shows the insolvency of the sectionalist interpretation of changes in the "Indian" policy and reveals the economic and political causes of the contradictions which arose among America?s ruling circles over this question. Being vitally interested in extending the plantation system to the areas inhabited by the Indians, the big
planters from South-Western States and Georgia advocated the speediest possible eviction of Indians from their lands. They were supported by capitalists who battened on land speculation. The main sections of the bourgeoisie were opposed to the forcible "removal" of the Indians: in the 1820?s and 1830?s they tried to hamper the resellers? westward movement, fearing that it might reduce the supply of manpower and thus increase the cost of labour. Much the same position was held by planters from the "Old South," who were anxious to prevent the emergence of new non- slaveowning states on the territory expropriated from the Indians. Each successive government reflected, first and. foremost, the interests of one or another group of the bourgeoisie or planters. This was the main cause of changes in the U. S. "Indian" policy at different historical periods.
Y. M. GARUSHYANTS. The Asian Mode of Production
The article is devoted to the Asian mode of production which is now being widely discussed by Soviet historical science. The author shows the different stages of research into this problem from the time it was first raised in the works of Marx and Engels to its present state. In the author?s opinion, Marx and Engels did not evolve a comprehensive theory on the Asian mode of production; they initially used this logico-methodological category as an instrument for studying the forms preceding private property, but subsequently abandoned it, coming closely to the problem of early class societies, which, however, they could not solve completely because of inadequate development of science at that period. Emphasizing the universal character of this concept in the works of Marx and Engels, the author at the same time singles out the problem of historical peculiarities attending the socio-economic development of the Eastern countries. Any attempt to confuse these two aspects, the article stresses, can only result in serious theoretical errors. Having further examined the progress of this concept in Soviet historiography and the earlier discussions connected with it, the author tries to show the reasons prompting Soviet scientists again to revert to the problem of the Asian mode of production. In conclusion the author briefly sums up the results of previous discussions, brings out the emergent viewpoints and expresses certain considerations concerning the further progress of discussion.
About · News · For Advertisers · Donate to Libmonster
Libmonster ® All rights reserved.
2014-2023, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of the United States