Share this article with friends
B. G. GAFUROV. International Orientalist Forum (on the results of the 25th International Congress of Orientalists)
This article by B. G. Gafurov, chairman of the 25th International Congress of Orientalists, sums up the results of this scientific forum, which was attended by representatives from more than sixty countries.
Held in Moscow, this Congress, the author stresses, will undoubtedly exert influence on the development of world Orientalogy. It showed that the centre of Oriental research is now moving to the Afro-Asian countries and that research work in this sphere is directed at solving the urgent socioeconomic, political and cultural problems confronting present-day Asia and Africa. This is due to the colossal changes in the modern world. The victorious national-liberation movement of the Afro-Asian nations, who constitute the greater part of the world's population, has brought about the political liberation from the colonial yoke of almost all the countries in Asia and two-thirds of the African Continent. The savants of these countries have set out to study their own history, economy and culture, linking their research work with the tasks of national regeneration.
The discussion of urgent problems at the Congress reveals that, after the victory of the national-liberation movement in Asia and Africa, world Orientalogy must devote serious attention to present-day issues. The Congress graphically and convincingly demonstrated that the final victory of the new and progress in Orientalogy is closely bound with the work of Asian and African scientists. The future of Orientalogy is in the hands of the savants of Eastern countries. Western Orientalists must take an active part in this big job, help the scientists of the East and actively cooperate with them. West-East cooperation in this sphere will spiritually enrich the nations.
The shift of world Orientalogy to the East is symbolized by the Orientalists' unanimous decision to hold the 2Gth Congress in India.
One of the biggest achievements of the Congress, the article points out, was the promotion of closer ties among scientists of diverse social and political views.
The fruitful work done in a friendly atmosphere by this scientific assembly of Orientalists is vivid evidence of the fact that scientific progress vitally demands an end to the danger of a new world war.
The scientists presented altogether 658 papers, of which the Soviet Union accounted for 241, the People's Democracies - for 99, the countries of the East - for 107, and Western Europe and the United States - for 211.
The article analyzes the activity of Soviet Orientalists. At the 25th Congress, the author says, Soviet Orientalogy was represented in all its branches by scientific research carried out on the basis of Marxist-Leninist methodology. The profound and original manner in which the most important problems were elaborated showed that Soviet Orientalogy is superior to the bourgeois.
There have been two trends in Orientalogy from its very inception. One is expressed in the works of those who, directly or indirectly, help to consolidate the capitalist powers' colonial domination in the East. The other is expressed in the works of those who deeply respect the culture of the Eastern nations, condemn the colonialists and strive to promote progressive cultural co-operation between West and Fast.
These two trends were inherent in Russia's pre-revolutionary Orientalogy, but the second, the humane trend played the leading role. There was, however, only a small group of Orientalists in our country before the October revolution.
The situation changed radically after the establishment of Soviet power. The Communist Party and the Soviet Government actively assisted in the development of new Soviet Orientalogy in the early post-revolution years. This new Soviet Orientalogy dropped everything connected with the first trend and, on the other hand, took what was best in and characteristic of the second, humane and democratic trend. An All-Russian Scientific Association of Oriental Studies was founded on V. I. Lenin's instructions in 1922. The policy of the young Soviet state, which opposed all forms of exploitation and national and racial discrimination, created exceptionally favourable conditions for the development of Soviet Orientalogy.
The part taken by Soviet Orientalists in elaborating new alphabets and written languages, studying cultural heritage, actively promoting a new, Socialist culture, and training national intellectuals - all that created a possibility, for the first time in history,
for harmoniously combining theoretical research with the practical promotion of a new, genuinely popular culture in the East. "Traditional" Orientalogy, which was the monopoly of Western scientists, outlined itself in the Soviet Union back in the 1930's, when it was joined by young scientists from the Soviet republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia, for whom research into the history, culture and languages of the Eastern nations was essentially research into their own history, their own culture, their own languages.
In addition to the Institute of Orientalogy of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences there appeared new institutions for the study of Orientalist problems: the Pacific Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, the institutes of history, literature and languages of the Union Academies of Sciences, the Institutes of Orientalogy of the Uzbek and Azerbaijan Academies of Sciences, the Orientalist departments of the Academies of Sciences in other republics of Central Asia and Transcaucasia. Rich collections of Oriental manuscripts were accumulated in Tashkent, Stalinabad, Erivan and other towns.
During World War II Orientalist departments were opened at the Historical and Philological faculties of Moscow State University (since then reorganized into the Institute of Oriental Languages), and Orientalist faculties were set up at the Leningrad, Central-Asian (Tashkent), Azerbaijan (Baku) and Tbilisi universities.
The 1950's were distinguished by the publication of a large amount of scientific literature, by the increasingly extensive and effective training of specialists at post-graduate courses, intensified coordination of Orientalist research, promotion of closer cooperation between the Orientalists of Moscow and Leningrad and the national Orientalists in the republics of the Soviet East.
In 1956 the work of the Orientalogy of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences was reorganized. The number of researchers increased and that made it possible to start research in countries and branches which had been studied but little in the past. A big success has been notably scored in the study of the problems of present-day Africa.
The establishment of a special Eastern Literature Publishing House and the publication of a number of journals and periodicals ("Problems of Orientalogy", "Contemporary East," etc.) have increased the possibilities for publishing the works of the Orientalists and that helps to develop Oriental studies.
Soviet Orientalists, both those studying the historical past of Afro-Asian countries and those dealing with their present-day problems, concentrate their attention on discovering the progressive national traditions of the peoples, studying the heritage of the old social institutions that has been preserved to this day, determining what is a survival from the remote past and hampers progress and what is progressive, genuinely popular and worthy of support and further development.
There are two noteworthy features distinguishing the development of Soviet Orientalogy in recent years. Firstly, the development of the branch specialization of Orientalists along with the simultaneous strengthening of ties among scientists specializing in various branches of Orientalogy (antiquaries, medievalists, specialists in modern and contemporary history, linguists, economists, literary critics and so on). Secondly, establishment of close contacts between Soviet Orientalists and scientists of Eastern countries who, as science and culture develop in their newly independent countries, are beginning to play the leading role in the study of their own history, culture and languages.
These peculiarities of the development of Soviet Orientalogy have brought about certain organizational and even terminological changes There have been two scientific institutions established: the Institute of the Asian Nations (on the basis of the Institute of Orientalogy of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences) and the Institute of Africa.
Foreign delegates at the Congress could convince themselves that Soviet Orientalists, while preferring to study contemporary problems, do not relax their attention to the ancient history and culture of the East, bearing in mind that the East was the cradle of human culture.
The author further analyzes the work of various Congress sections. Not one of the previous congresses, he stresses, had so many urgent historical themes and acute contemporary problems on its agenda. The Soviet Orientalists and the scientists of the People's Democracies were invariably backed by the savants of the East and the progressive scientists of the West on diverse important contemporary problems. That proves that the collective efforts of progressive scientists can do much to further promote Orientalogy, which can contribute to the victorious national-liberation movement and the building of a new life in Afro-Asian countries.
The 25th International Congress of Orientalists showed that the main problems of Afro-Asian modern and contemporary history are national-liberation movement, solution of vital socioeconomic and scientific-cultural questions confronting Asia and Africa in their development, and the radically new character of relations between the non-socialist countries of the East and the Socialist countries.
The Congress showed that principled, friendly cooperation and mutual understanding will bring about the triumph of the progressive line in Orientalogy. This line reflects the grandeur of life, historical realities, and it will triumph because the triumph of the progressive and new is the law of social development.
P. V. VOLOBUYEV. Apropos of the Logicality and National-Historical Conditions of the Victory of the Socialist Revolution in Russia
The author criticizes the traditional claims made by bourgeois historiography and sociology that the victory of the Socialist revolution in Russia was "accidental," as well as the allegations of the Right Social-Democratic and revisionist theoreticians that the victory of the revolution was due solely to Russia's national peculiarities.
The outline on the Marxist-Leninist theory on the logicality of the Socialist revolution as the only means of solving the basic contradictions of the capitalist society precedes a detailed analysis of the economic and political prerequisites for the victory of the revolution in Russia. The author establishes that it was precisely the radical contradictions' of Russian capitalism, weighed down by numerous vestiges of feudal and semi-feudal relationships, that constituted the objective basis for the rise of a mighty revolutionary movement which led to the Socialist revolution. Politically and socioeconomically, Russia lagged behind the more developed countries of the West, but that did not prevent a rather high level of development of capitalism in her industry and its considerable expansion in agriculture. This gives reason to affirm that the basic forms of public economy and the classes forces were the same in Russia as in any other capitalist country.
The specific features of Russia's historical development were responsible for the fact that the Socialist revolution developed there first, and not in the advanced countries of the West. In spite of the Mensheviks' predictions, Russia's comparative backwardness not only did not hinder the victory of the revolution, but even accelerated and facilitated it. The inherent weakness of Russian capitalism brought about a situation in which the forces of the revolution had to deal with a weaker opponent than in the West. V. I. Lenin's historical merit lies in the fact that, having skilfully analyzed the internal and external peculiarities of the October revolution, he smashed all the Menshevik arguments about the "impossibility" of Socialism's victory in Russia (because of her backwardness) and proved that in the concretely historical conditions obtaining in 1917 it was easier to accomplish the revolution for the Russian proletariat than for the proletariat of any other country.
The article analyzes the importance of World War I for the victory of the people's revolution in Russia. The war was not and could not be the root cause of the outbreak of the revolution. But, imposing incredible suffering on the country's popular masses and shaking the state and economic apparatus, it brought the Socialist revolution nearer. The Russian people could get out of the crisis created by the war and dislocation only by overthrowing capitalism.
The decisive political force in the revolution was the country's working class which, within a brief span, went through an important school of revolutionary struggle and succeeded in rallying the majority of the people around it. The article describes the reasons for the high revolutionary spirit of the Russian working class (combination of democratic and Socialist tasks, extreme sharpness of class antagonisms, tsarism's military-police regime, etc).
The Russian proletariat's main source of strength was the ideological and political leadership by the Bolshevik Party.
The participation in the revolutionary struggle, apart from the proletariat and under its influence, of the multi-million peasant masses and the oppressed peoples of Russia's national outlying areas, gave the revolutionary movement added scope and accelerated it. The Russian bourgeoisie, unable to solve the democratic tasks facing the country, could not lead the people.
In the end, the author comes to the conclusion that the revolutionary collapse of capitalism logically had to start in he country where the capitalist system was relatively weak and where the social contradictions and the class struggle of the proletariat and its allies were most acute and widespread.
Subsequent historical developments confirmed the viability of the October Revolution and the correctness of the laws of the Socialist revolution discovered by Marx and Lenin.
V. Y. KRUPYANSKAYA. Concerning the Problems and Methods of the Ethnographical Study of the Soviet Working Class
The author deals with a new trend in Soviet historical research, the ethnographical study of the working class. Prerevolutionary Russian ethnography did not set this task before itself. It regarded the proletariat as some conglomeration, deprived of ethnical specific features.
V. Y. Krupyanskaya stresses that in our days, when the role of the working class in the life of the Soviet country is growing constantly, it is impossible to study any aspect of the culture and life of the people without taking into account the role and importance of the working class in the history of society. Therefore Soviet science has advanced the ethnographical study of the working class as one of the most important and urgent problems.
The article sums up the results and outlines the problems and methods of this study.
In 1951 the Institute of Ethnography of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences held a special discussion on the tasks and methods of the ethnographical study of workers. This discussion helped outline a programme which the institute made a basis of its research work in the Middle Urals and especially at the enterprises of Nizhny Tagil. Today the ethnographical study of the Urals workers is conducted on a comparatively lagre scale. The article describes the methods and results of a questionnaire investigation conducted by ethnographers among the workers of Nizhny Tagil. Similar studies are conducted by a number of other scientific centres (in the Ukraine, Byelorussia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, and others). The questions which, in V. Y. Krupyanskaya's opinion, demand special attention of the ethnographers, include the formation of the working class in the past and its present composition; changes in the social-productive activities of the workers, specifically the influence of the mechanisation and automation of production on the cultural and technical level of the workers, on broadening their world outlook and cultural requirements: the family and everyday life; the influence of Soviet legislation, and also of the so-called common law, on the family life of the workers and so on.
Stressing the special importance of the study of spiritual and social life, the author notes that Soviet ethnographers by no means belittle the need for the study of material culture: its separate elements can help trace clearly the role of ethnical traditions in the development of its new forms.
The author stresses the necessity of pooling the efforts of historians and ethnographers for the ethnographical study of the working class.
N. Y. IVANOV . From the History of the Second Kornilovtschina
The article is about the counter-revolutionary plot against the imminent Socialist revolution in Russia in the autumn of 1917 and the role played by the Bolshevik Party and V. I. Lenin in exposing and smashing this plot.
The author stresses the particularly active part taken by Kerensky in mustering the counter-revolutionary forces. Early in September, alarmed by the fact that the Petrograd Soviet went over to the Bolsheviks on August 31, he sought to carry out the Kornilov plan of routing the Petrograd revolutionary proletariat. What made the preparations for the second Kornilovtschina easier was that Kerensky had retained Kornilovite generals on the commanding posts in the army. The Provisional Government left untouched one of the main Kornilov hotbeds on the River Don.
The article shows that the Kornilovites were well assisted by the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries. With the active participation of their leaders, Kerensky concluded negotiations with the Constitutional-Democrats on September 24 and formed a "new" coalition government. Thus, thanks to the assistance of the compromisers, Kornilov's Constitutional-Democratic Party actually found itself again at the helm of the state.
The working masses soon realized that the new government was extremely hostile to the revolution. That, the author points out, was facilitated decisively by the activity of the Bolshevik Party and its leader, V. I. Lenin.
The counter-revolution also launched active ideological preparations for the second "advent" of the Russian Cavaignac.
The article cites concrete data to show that the second Kornilovtschina like the first, was actively inspired by international imperialism. The political leaders of the "Allied" countries-Lloyd George, Poincare and Woodrow Wilson-did not conceal that they hoped the revolution in Russia would be suppressed.
International reaction helped the Russian bourgeoisie in every way possible to organize a new Kornilovtschina. The imperialist powers openly interfered in Russia's internal affairs and went so far as to plan to send a "plenipotentiary commissioner" to the Provisional Government. It was only because they were afraid to show how much they were pressuring the Provisional Government that they gave up the idea.
The author describes the numerous steps undertaken by the Anglo-French and American imperialists to fetter Russia and smash her revolutionary forces.
As the article reveals, the counter-revolution paid particular attention to the military preparation of the second Kornilovtschina. Preparations to open the front to the Germans and surrender Petrograd and the Baltic Fleet, attempts to withdraw revolutionary detachments from Finland and the capital, disbandment of the Bolshevik-minded regiments and despatch of such units to certain death in the most dangerous sectors of the front, establishment of counter-revolutionary bases in the Cossack areas, provocations, arrests and massacres-such is the incomplete list of the military preparations undertaken at that time by the Kornilovites. The author cites archive and other materials to show that reactionary generals and admirals openly betrayed Russia's national interests in their hope to suppress the revolution.
Making good use of the rapid growth of the revolution, the Bolshevik Party worked selflessly and tirelessly among the masses and smashed the Kornilovites' attempts to build strong armed counter-revolutionary forces.
The study of the second Kornilovtschina, the author concludes, shows that this was a serious and well-prepared plot against the imminent Socialist revolution in Russia. This plot united the forces of foreign and domestic imperialist reaction. The part taken by the Right Social-Revolutionaries and the Mensheviks decisively facilitated the preparations.
The second Kornilovtschina was a graphic illustration of the deepening crisis in the "upper crust" on the eve of the October Revolution The bourgeoisie's attempt to break out of this crisis by setting up a military dictatorship in the country had still less chance of succeeding in September and October than it had in August 1917. At that time the revolutionary forces were everwhelmingly superior to the reactionary forces.
The study of the second Kornilovtschina shows ever more clearly the great wisdom of the historical decision taken by the Bolshevik Party's Central Committee regarding the October 1917 uprising. In the conditions prevailing then, an immediate armed uprising was alone capable of saving the country from the danger of the generals and the Constitutional-Democrats setting up a bloody dictatorship.
The victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution smashed the plans of the enemies and torpedoed their plot.
I. S. KREMER: The Great October Socialist Revolution and the Working-class Anti-war Movement in Bavaria (End of 1917-Beginning of 1918)
The article deals with the direct influence the Socialist revolution in Russia exerted on the working class of Bavaria, one of the biggest provinces of the German Empire.
The author drew his material chiefly from the unpublished German court and investigation records preserved in G.D.R. archives. These documents contain evidence by arrested revolutionaries and militant workers, police reports on the illegal activity of the members of the Spartacus League and Left Radicals, witnesses' testimony, leaflets, clippings from local newspapers, correspondence between participants in the strike movement. These materials have only recently been made accessible to the historian and make it possible to study more thoroughly than ever before the revolutionary anti-war struggle waged by the Bavarian working class in the winter of 1917 - 18.
The article devotes particular attention to the history of the Bavarian workers' mass action-general political strike - at the end of January and the beginning of February 1918. The documents from the archives have enabled the author to analyze the nature of the strike, the ideological ties between the Left elements in the movement and the Socialist revolution in Russia, and the popularity of Lenin's peace programme among the Bavarian workers. The court records simultaneously expose the behind-the-scenes treachery of the Right Social-Democrats, who fully supported the authorities in their struggle against the revolutionary workers.
In conclusion, the author speaks of the lesson drawn by the German working class and its vanguard, the Spartacus League, from the experience of the general strike, the biggest workers' action in Western Europe in wartime, and from the experience of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
The struggle waged by the Bavarian workers in the winter of 1917 - 18 is one of the most glorious pages in the history of the German labour movement.
B. I. KOVAL: Labour Movement in Brazil at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Century
The author of the article has set himself the task of analyzing the rise and growth of the Brazilian proletariat's class struggle in the latter half of the 19th century and at the beginning of the present century. The article describes the features distinguishing the formation of the Brazilian working class and reviews in detail the history of Brazil's labour movement from its inception to 1918. Much space is devoted to the questions of the country's economic position, notably to the development of capitalist and penetration of foreign capital. The author makes wide use of industrial statistics of 1907, 1912 and 1920, and cites the latest works of foreign savants, primarily the Brazilian.
In his article, the author disagrees with the opinion prevailing in political literature that the Brazilian labour movement began to develop after the abolition of slavery (1888). He cites interesting factual meterial on the first worker manifestations in the mid-19th century, on the propagation of Utopian socialism ideas, on the labour press. The article says that the period from the middle of the 19th century to the abolition of slavery and the proclamation of the republic was the period of capitalism's birth within the old system and the beginning of a spontaneous labour movement. In those days, the author writes, "he proletariat's struggle developed as part and parcel of the over-all democratic revolutionary movement against slavery, monarchy and the predominance of foreign capital.
After the abolition of slavery, (he labour movement grew in the conditions of comparatively rapid extension of capitalism, on the one hand, and Brazil's growing economic, and consequently political, dependence on foreign (Anglo-American) imperialism, on the other. The article analyzes the changes in the structure and composition of the Brazilian proletariat, treats of the ideology and struggle of progressive workers, as well as of the revolutionary-minded intellectuals, for the establishment of a Socialist workers' party. The author also writes of the spread of Marxism in Brazil and the foundation of the proletariat's first class political organizations.
At the turn of the century there appeared anarchist and anarcho-syndicalist worker organizations. The author deals in detail with the nature of anarcho-syndicalism, its distinguishing features in Brazil, the reasons for its spread and its role in the history of the labour movement. To a certain extent, the anarcho-syndicalists helped to develop the strike movement and establish trade unions. At the same time, anarcho-syndicalism exerted a pernicious influence on the evolution of the proletariat's class awareness.
The article cites vivid examples of the struggle waged by the Brazilian workers against the war threat in 1914 - 18, describes the more important strikes, and characterizes the strong and weak points of the labour movement in that period.
In conclusion, it says that in 1917 the Brazilian labour movement had developed so much that it became necessary to establish an independent labour party of a new type- a Communist Party. This task was successfully fulfilled in the course of the mighty revolutionary upsurge after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution.
Permanent link to this publication:
LRussia LWorld Y G