A. T. KINKULKIN and I. Y. LERNER. A New Stage In the Teaching of History in Secondary Schools

The article points out that further development of the system of public education in the U.S.S.R. along the lines of establishing closer links between school education and life has confronted the Soviet school and its teachers with the task of raising the level of general and polytechnical knowledge imparted to pupils and improving the methods of upbringing and educating erudite and harmoniously developed people-conscious builders and members of communist society.

A new stage in the development of school education has brought about certain changes in the methods of teaching history in secondary schools. The authors note that at the present juncture instruction in history acquires even greater significance than before. More extensive knowledge of history should enable the youth practically to apply the knowledge received at school in the process of communist construction in our country, develop in young people a scientific understanding of the laws of social development, give them firm conviction in the inevitability of the victory of the new social system, consistently and systematically reveal the role of the popular masses as genuine makers of history and creators of all material and spiritual values, and bring out the significance of the individual in history.

The article comprehensively analyzes the new programs on history and emphasizes the bigger attention devoted in them to developing and shaping in the pupils a dialectical-materialist world outlook.

Sustained efforts in the field of shaping the pupils' world outlook have found their vivid manifestation in the introduction of a new subject in the senior grades of general-education schools - a popular course in the fundamentals of political knowledge. Crowning as it does the process of school education, this course is based on the knowledge received by the pupils in studying natural sciences and the humanities, primarily history. The course acquaints the pupils with certain easily comprehensible problems of philosophy, sociology, political economy, law, ethics and the current problems of the theory and policy of the CPSU; the course also includes certain aspects of international relations.

One of the major changes in the methods of teaching history in secondary schools consists in the sharply increased importance now attached to Russian and Soviet history. It is achieved by the introduction of an elementary course in the history of the U.S.S.R. in the eight-year school parallel with retaining the systematic course in general history in senior grades. In addition to this, an episodical course of simple stories depicting major events in Russian and Soviet history has been introduced in the fourth grade. The secondary schools of the Union Republics are devoting much more attention to acquainting the pupils with their national history. The programs also envisage extensive use of the local material provided by one or another region.

Much greater attention is also devoted now to the study of modern and especially contemporary history of foreign countries. The systematic course in ancient and medieval history in the fifth and sixth grades will be followed by the study of the major events in the history of foreign countries from the 17th century to our days in the 7tn-8th grades and by a systematic course in modern and contemporary history, with much more attention devoted to the history of Asian, African and Latin-American countries, in the 9th - 11th grades.

Significant progress has been made in improving the methods of teaching history In the evening schools for young workers and collective farmers, whose significance in the system of public education is growing steadily. Despite the fact that schools of this type are allocated less time for the study of history, the level of knowledge envisaged by the program is equivalent to that received by the pupils of ordinary secondary schools. This is to be achieved by excluding from the history programs the unnecessary details and less important material superfluous for adults, as well as by an accelerated study of certain sections and themes that are well known to any grown-up person possessing, in many cases, vast social-political experience.

The new programs and the changed pattern of instruction in history are a result of the collective efforts of many Soviet scientific .institutions, higher educational establishments and the vast number of instructors in history. Created by the joint mass effort, the

new programs highlight the most important aspects of social life in their interconnection and dependence on the development of the mode of production. The pupils are acquainted with the basic historical facts and events in their chronological sequence and development. General laws governing the process of historical development are illustrated by the facts from the history of individual countries where these laws found their most salient manifestation. The common nature of the laws of historical development is disclosed by analyzing the principal historical stages taken from the history of several countries. While rejecting Eurocentrism, the programs pay due attention to the countries of the other continents. The system of historical knowledge gives a comprehensive idea of each social-economic system and the principal stages in its development, and illustrates the historical process as a whole.

Parallel with the history of technology and production, the programs devote considerable attention to the characteristic of the different stages in the history of culture, laying particular emphasis on illustrating its national, democratic trends. An important place in the programs is given to the problems of scientific atheism, to educating the pupils on materials furnished by the history of religion and the church.

The Russian Federation's Ministry of Public Education has announced a contest for compiling textbooks for all grades of the secondary school in conformity with the new programs. The contest is open to all wishing to take part.

To raise the level of instruction in history in secondary schools it is necessary for scientific and research institutions to establish still closer contacts with school. Throughout the history of the Soviet school our historians rendered it all-round assistance in the compilation of textbooks, readers and popular-scientific works. However, the new tasks confronting secondary schools in the field of instruction in history and the appearance of the new programs have given rise to considerable difficulties in the teaching of history in view of the fact that certain problems of the school course in history are inadequately reflected in scientific and popular historical literature. The authors of the article propose to publish a mass, popular three-volume edition of "World History" along with a series of works on Russian and Soviet history. The article urges Soviet scientists and historians to get acquainted with the basic problems of teaching history in secondary schools in order to render still greater assistance in the training of instructors in history and improving the methods of teaching history in secondary schools, which is an important condition for the upbringing and educating the rising generation of Soviet citizens.

S. F. KECHEKYAN. Concerning the Role of law in History

In the opening part of his article the author briefly outlines the Marxist interpretation of the essence of law.

The article shows that although the legislative acts are essentially determined by the economic development of society, they cannot be regarded as documents of purely descriptive and recording significance. They play an active part in the life of society. The active and creative role of the Soviet law stems from the fact that the legislative policy of the Soviet state is based on cognition of the objective laws of social development and their utilization in the interests of society.

It must be borne in mind, the author stresses, that in analyzing the influence of law on the historical process one should not identify legislation with law. Law is a complex phenomenon which embraces the entire multiformity of legal relations taking shape in society. Hence, in studying the legal system prevailing in a given society it is important to trace the process of carrying into effect the legal norms embodied in the law, to examine the practical application of the law in everyday life. In conditions of an antagonistic society we frequently observe serious divergencies between the text of the law and the actual legal norms regulating social relations. The article cites examples of such divergencies and shows their underlying causes.

The author also emphasizes the attention devoted by Soviet historians to the legal system and its place in the historical process, highlighting the important contribution made by the jurists to the solution of the problems of historical science.

Having examined the part played by law in history and in the process of social development, the author dwells on the significance of historical research for the law, on the historical aspect in interpreting and bringing out the essence of one or another legal system. The author points out that side by side with general principles, the development of legislation reveals a number of distinctive features reflecting the specific peculiarities characteristic of the historical process in a given country.

The article stresses that these specific features of the legal system should be attributed not to some mystical "national spirit," as the exponents of the reactionary historical legal school asserted, but primarily to the objective conditions of social life. In this connection the author criticizes the anti-historical, modernist approach of bourgeois jurisprudence to problems relating to the history of law. He also touches on the reception of the legal system of one nation by another, examines the causes and conditions of such reception, etc.

Drawing on his analysis of the role of law in history and of the significance of historical research into the legal system for understanding its essence, the author writes in conclusion that it is necessary to strengthen and extend the coordination of research work carried on by historians and lawyers. He singles out some of the common themes in various branches of historical and legal science which can be elaborated by the joint efforts of historians and lawyers.

K. N. TARNOVSKY. Soviet Historiographical Research into the Problem of State-Monopoly Capitalism in Russia in the Years of World War I

The author analyzes the principal stages of research conducted by Soviet historians and economists into the problem of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia in the years of the first world war, summarizes the chief results of this research and makes an attempt to single out the most important questions requiring further scientific elaboration.

The first comprehensive analysis of the essence of state-monopoly capitalism and its historical significance was given in Marxist literature by V. I. Lenin. The underlying basis of state-monopoly capitalism is utilization of the state apparatus by the monopolies with the aim of strengthening their domination and raking in the highest possible profits. To secure maximum mobilization of the country's forces for the prosecution of an imperialist war the monopolies combine their forces with those of the state to form a single mechanism. During the war, as was revealed for the first time in 1914 - 1917, state-monopoly regulation of the economy was effected on a country-wide scale through a whole system of specially established institutions, which, for all its restricted and transitory character within the framework of the capitalist mode of production, was indicative of the high degree reached by the process of socialization of production and furnished a graphic illustration of how far the closest connection and interdependence of diverse branches of industry and the banks had grown, strengthened and expanded under imperialism. Hence V. I. Lenin's conclusion that state-monopoly capitalism constitutes the material prerequisite of socialism. It is precisely this aspect that determines the keen interest of Soviet historians and economists in the problem of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia.

There appear three very distinctive stages in the study of the problem. The first stage dates back to the 1920's, when erroneous propositions of Russia's colonial dependence on West-European powers, weak development of monopoly capitalism in Russia and the impossibility of coalescence of the tsarist government machine and the capitalist monopolies as socially differing phenomena were very widespread in historical and economic literature. Accordingly, the existence of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia was either denied or recognized only in an embryonic form (in the works by Y. Rudoi, G. Tsyperovich and G. I. Shigalin). This view was founded on erroneous methodological prerequisites connected, in the final analysis, with the thesis that the situaition in Russia had not yet grown ripe to carry out a socialist revolution. But even then, in the twenties, the thesis concerning the impossibility of a coalescence of the tsarist government machine with the capitalist monopolies was trenchantly criticized. A. V. Venediktov and A. L. Sidorov showed in their works that regulation of the war economy was a direct result of the joint activity by the government and the bourgeoisie. This created the necessary prerequisites for a revision of the erroneous conception that state-monopoly capitalism was nonexistent in Russia. The second stage of research into the problem dates back from the forties to the mid-fifties. As before, the concept of the nonexistence or inadequate development of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia was fairly widespread (notably in the works by P. I. Lyashchenko, G. D. Bakulev, I. V. Mayevsky and A. P. Pogrebinsky), but this conclusion differed from the literature of the 1920's in that it resulted from the errors of a methodical nature, inasmuch as it was based on the study of only one link in the system of state-monopoly organs set up to carry out the military-economic mobilization of tsarist Russia's rear, namely, the Special Conference on Defence, which was, essentially, a government institution. A deeper and more comprehensive study of monopoly capitalism in Russia on the eve of the first world war (works by N. V. Volobuyev, M. Y. Gefter, A. L. Tsukernik and others), Russia's economic development in the war years (A. L. Sidorov's monographs and articles), the tsarist government's economic policy (primarily I. F. Gindin's works), the entire system of institutions for effecting state-monopoly regulation (works by V. Y. Laverychev, K. N. Tarnovsky, K. F. Shatsillo) and, lastly, the first socialist transformations in the economic sphere carried out in our country after the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolution (research works by A. V. Venediktov) led to the critical analysis and revision of the view that state-monopoly capitalism in Russia was nonexistent or existed only in an embryonic form.

The third stage of research began in the mid-fifties. The first results of this research were summed up in December 1958 by the Research Council of the Institute of History of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences at its session devoted to the problem "The Historical Prerequisites of the Great October Socialist Revolution." There developed a broad discussion which helped to establish that the system of state-monopoly capitalism was not confined to four Special Conferences defining the general trends of the tsarist government's military-economic policy. Alongside these conferences the system included state-monopoly or-

gans for directly regulating the production of the key branches of industry and of the joint state-capitalist monopolies. The appearance of this system cannot be attributed to, or explained by, the fact that the government machine was dominated by the monopolies. This process was based on two similar currents-on the part of the state and the monopoly associations - towards state-monopoly regulation. The system of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia had its own specific feature, namely, the predominance of representatives of the landlords and bureaucracy in its superstructure! organs - the Special Conferences. However, the dependent political position of the bourgeoisie in conditions of tsarist Russia cannot be extended to the sphere of economic relations between the state and monopolies within the system of state-monopoly capitalism taken as a whole.

Further research into the problem should embrace the entire system of state-monopoly regulation of the major national-economic branches, including the fuel, metalworking and chemical industries; it must be extended to those aspects of the problem that have so far remained uninvestigated, the paramount of these being the labour question in the system of state-monopoly capitalism. This research must be conducted by drawing a comparison with the development of state-monopoly capitalism in other countries and at different stages. All this is bound to lead, in the author's opinion, to more comprehensive and substantiated conclusions on the forms, peculiarities and the level of development of state-monopoly capitalism in Russia in the years of the first world war.

V. I. GLUNIN. From the History of China's United Front

The author of the article makes an attempt at elucidating the position of the Chinese national bourgeoisie in the final stage of the bourgeois-democratic revolution in China, i.e., in the period of the third Revolutionary Civil War (1945 - 1949). He traces the evolution of the national bourgeoisie from its attempts to take over the leadership of the revolution from the proletariat and organize an independent bourgeois-democratic movement under the "third force" flag to its recognition of the guiding role of the Communist Party and direct collaboration with the revolutionary working masses headed by the working class.

As is generally known, the national bourgeoisie together with the top crust of the urban petty bourgeoisie and bourgeois intelligentsia represented an intermediate force of the Chinese revolution, The dual nature of the Chinese national bourgeoisie determined its contradictory attitude to the revolutionary movement and the complexity and tortuousness of its political path. Having given a brief characteristic of this path, the author points out that in the final period of World War II the national bourgeoisie, despite its participation in the united anti-Japanese front, was wavering between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang. It tried to maintain its independent status within the united front under the "third path" flag. During the anti-Japanese war and in the early period after its conclusion the "third path" idea became an official program of all political parties representing the national bourgeoisie and other intermediate forces adhering to it.

The author believes that the national bourgeoisie most actively advocated the "third path" idea in 1945 - 1946, that is, in the period of the peaceful negotiations between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang. While recognizing the markedly heterogeneous character of the social forces rallied under the banner of the "third path" and the dissimilarity of the political programs of individual bourgeois parties determined by this heterogeneity, the author at the same time maintains that the majority of these parties were united in their views on the fundamental issues. Drawing on the materials of the Chinese press and numerous documents pertaining to that period, the author analyzes the attitude of the bourgeois parties to such cardinal problems of the Chinese revolution as the hegemony in the revolution, the question of power, the agrarian problem, the question of bureaucratic and foreign capital and the methods of struggle for China's national liberation and democratic reconstruction. This analysis leads the author to the conclusion that in the first years following World War II the national bourgeoisie supported the Communist Party's slogans of peace and democracy, including the slogan calling for the formation of a coalition government, but was sharply opposed to Communist views on the character and depth of the future democratic reconstruction of China and the methods of struggle for democracy. As a whole, the "third force" in China came out as a party advocating reforms from the top bourgeoisie and sowing illusions in the masses about the possibility of a peaceful democratic reconstruction of the country by the reactionary Kuomintang. Hence, in spite of the fact that many democrats adhering to the "third path" waged a courageous struggle against Chiang Kai-shek's dictatorship, objectively the activity of the "third force" hampered the development of the people's revolution.

When the Civil War unleashed by Chiang Kai-shek broke out in July 1946, the national bourgeoisie remained true to the "third path" policy. On the one hand, it sharply condemned the Kuomintang for unleashing the Civil War, protested against the reign of terror instituted by the Kuomintang and against American intervention and refused to support the Kuomintang in its struggle against the revolution which was inspired and directed by the Communist Party; on the other hand, it resolutely dissociated itself from the armed struggle of the working masses headed by Communists, condemned the agrarian reform launched in the liberated areas and other revolutionary measures of the popu-

lar government dictated by the Civil War. When reaction temporarily gained the upper hand in the tense armed struggle with the forces of the revolution, the national bourgeoisie adopted the position of a passive onlooker, waiting for the further development of events and hoping to retain the necessary conditions for its legal political activity under the Kuomintang's terrorist dictatorship. Inasmuch as this position was in crying contradiction to the development of the political situation in China, the author notes that for the bourgeois parties the period in question (the end of 1946 - 1947) was marked by indecision and wavering, by the efforts to find new paths, by acute inner-party struggle, differentiation and splits. The legal political activity of bourgeois parties sharply deteriorated, practically all opposition bourgeois publications were closed by the Kuomintang authorities and towards the close of 1947 bourgeois-democratic parties were either officially banned by the Kuomintang or wound up their activities themselves in Kuomintang-controlled territory. This, in the author's opinion, is conclusive proof of the complete bankruptcy of the "third path" theory and practice in China.

From the end of 1947, the article notes, considerable changes began to take place in the position of the national bourgeoisie. Among the chief factors that decisively influenced the Leftward swing of the intermediate sections were the failure of the Kuomintang offensive against the liberated areas and the subsequent powerful counter-offensive mounted by the People's Liberation Army, catastrophic deterioration of the economic and political situation in Kuomintang-controlled areas and increasing American expansion in China. From the close of 1947, following a period of vacillation and confusion characteristic of the early stages of the Civil War, the national bourgeoisie gradually began to support the armed revolutionary struggle directed by Communists and the radical program of the popular-democratic revolution proclaimed by the Communist Party. Convincing proof of this turning point, in the author's opinion, is provided by the statements issued by the Inaugural Congress of the Kuomintang's Revolutionary Committee (December 1947) and the Third Plenary Meeting of the Central Committee of the Democratic League (January 1948), which renounced neutrality in the Civil War, declared support for the Communist Party, its armed struggle and agrarian reform, and openly condemned the "third path" policy. Rejected by the national bourgeoisie, the tattered banner of the "third path" was seized and raised aloft by reactionaries of every stripe and colour, including members of the "Four Families" clique, and began to serve exclusively the aims of counter-revolution.

Characterizing the subsequent policy of the national bourgeoisie, the author points out that in the early period of its formal alliance with the Communist Party of China, particularly in 1948, it hoped to retain full independence in the united front in order to influence the Communist Party from within, halt the further progress of the revolution and in this way safeguard its narrow class interests to the maximum. However, the powerful sweep of the revolutionary movement of the vast popular masses and the Communist Party s firm resolve to carry the revolution to its victorious conclusion forced the national bourgeoisie to recognize the leading role of the working class and cooperate with it in the establishment of a new popular-democratic state.

On the basis of the numerous facts cited in the article the author draws the conclusion that in the period of the third Revolutionary Civil War the development of the united trout proceeded along an ascending line: under the impact of the victories scored by the working masses in their revolutionary struggle the intermediate forces gradually renounced the "third path" and went over to the side of the revolution. The chief factor responsible for this political transformation of the bourgeoisie is the radical change in the alignment of forces in China in favour of the revolution. This course of development of the united front became possible as a result of the Communist Party's correct policy, a policy aimed at strengthening the chief force of the revolution-the alliance of the working class and the peasantry, with the leading role belonging to the working class. It was on this firm and reliable basis that all the democratic forces of China merged to form a single popular-democratic front.

J. DOLEZAL and J. HROZIENCIK. International Solidarity in the Slovak National Uprising of 1944

Drawing on extensive archive materials and newspaper articles, the authors paint a vivid picture of the international solidarity manifested by representatives of different European nations during the Slovak national uprising of 1944. Owing to the fact that the uprising enjoyed the active participation of representatives of many nations, this antifascist movement assumed a multi-national character. Hegemony in this movement belonged to the working class led by the Communist Party. The authors emphasize that the uprising contributed to the rebirth of the Czechoslovak Republic and to the triumph of the popular-democratic system in the country. .. The Slovak uprising merged with the anti-fascist movement in Czechia and Moravia. The authors show how the Czech patriots foiled the attempts of the nazi command to dispatch large military contingents to Slovakia and how they crossed the Slovak border to take a direct part in the uprising. They cite concrete data from a number of periodical publications ("Hlas naroda", "Grenzbote", "Poledni list", "Nedelni Ceske slovo", the Slo-

vak "Pravda," "Ceskoslovenske listy," "Partizan") and archive sources (Archiv Ustavu dejin KSS, Archiv Ustavu dejin KSC, Statny slovensky ustredny archiv, Ustredny dopravny archiv). The article contains a detailed analysis of the information relating to the events in Makyta, Northern Slovakia, Holic, Valasska, Kunerady, Moravska Ostrava, Myjava, Cremosny Podbrdsky kraj, Liderovice and Southern Czechia. The authors vividly illustrate the outstanding role played by the Czechoslovak Communist Party in directing the mass Resistance Movement.

The Slovak patriots received invaluable assistance from the Soviet people. The material, technical and organizational assistance was rendered through the leaders of the Czechoslovak Communist Party staying in Moscow. Direct responsibility for the aid to the partisan movement in Slovakia was borne by the Kiev partisan headquarters headed by General Strokac. Many participants in the uprising were trained in the art of guerilla warfare at special military courses organized in the environs of Kiev or took part in the partisan struggle carried on in the temporarily occupied Soviet territories. Paratroop units were landed in Slovakia and partisan detachments were rushed there from the Ukraine and Poland, including groups commanded by Kvitinsky, Kurov, Kokunov, Mayorov, Velichko, Valiansky, Makarov, Yegorov, Snezhinsky, Ivanov, Martynov, Lovinenko, Karasev-Stepanov, Shukayev, Pozharsky and Sadilenko. These partisan detachments and groups were joined by Soviet citizens who had fled from concentration camps or had managed to escape from hard labour in Germany, and operated in close contact with the population of Slovakia. The leadership of these groups was exercised by Communists and general command was entrusted to the Central Headquarters of the partisan movement in Slovakia, consisting of Czechoslovak and Soviet officers headed by General Asmolov.

Drawing on the afore-mentioned sources and the archive materials of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian S.S.R., the authors describe concrete operations carried out by the partisan groups from the U.S.S.R., as well as by the French ("Detachement francais combattant en Tchecoslovaquie" operating in the area of Strecani Pass, Turiec and Goregrony), Polish (detachments in Eastern Slovakia), Bulgarian (student group operating in close proximity to the Hronov River area) and Yugoslav units (a detachment of fugitive war prisoners in the Strecnice Gorge). The article also contains information on British and American pilots who fled from captivity, Austrian anti-fascist units operating in the Hronov area, Rumanian anti-fascists, Hungarian partisans (combined operations in Southern Slovakia and Northern Hungary) and German Communists residing in Slovakia (Muller's detachment in Gelnica district).

The fascist menace hovering over mankind impelled the working people of many countries to rally their ranks and join forces in the fight against the brown plague. That explains why representatives of 27 nations took part in the Slovak uprising. They often merged to form International Brigades, which rendered invaluable assistance to the Slovak uprising by their gallant struggle against the nazi invaders.

The international working-class solidarity manifested during the uprising largely contributed to the defeat of nazism and to the consolidation of internationai friendship in the postwar period.

A. N. KRASILNIKOV. V. I. Lenin's Analysis of Certain Problems of the British Labour Movement

The author of this article makes an attempt to examine certain theoretical conclusions drawn by V. I. Lenin on a number of problems relating to the history of the British labour movement. The article sets forth Lenin's views on the peculiarities of the historical development of British capitalism and the specific features characteristic of the principal stages of the British labour movement. Citing historical facts, the author shows how V. I. Lenin exposed the opportunism of the British "labour" leaders, how Lenin's trenchant criticism helped to rally the Left forces in the British labour movement and revive the revolutionary traditions of the labour movement in Britain.

Analyzing the objective historical causes which retarded the development of the British labour movement, V. I. Lenin arrived at the conclusion that in Britain the attempts to split the ranks of the working class, infuse them with opportunism and cause temporary stagnation within the labour movement were manifested much earlier than in other countries. The vast colonial possessions and enormous profits derived from its monopoly position on the world market and the monstrous exploitation of the colonial peoples enabled the British bourgeoisie to make certain material concessions to the top crust of the working class. V. I. Lenin revealed the process of the emergence in Britain of labour aristocracy which diverted workers from political struggle by persuading them to fight only for the improvement of their economic position.

One of the most important theoretical conclusions drawn by Lenin is that opportunism presupposes, first and foremost, sacrificing the vital interests of the masses to the transient interests of an insignificant minority of workers. V. I. Lenin shows that already in the second half of the 19th century the political arena in Britain "was completely dominated by the jubilant, self-complacent bourgeoisie, which had no equal in the art of deceiving, corrupting and bribing the workers." A great deal of attention in Lenin's works is devoted to the dissemination in Britain of the ideas of scientific socialism, to the growth

and maturing of the Left forces in the British labour movement in the early and subsequent stages of its development.

In .the first decades of the 20th century the stratum of trade-union bureaucracy and officialdom became more numerous in the midst of the British labour aristocracy. And precisely that period witnessed the rise and development of the British Labour Party, whose activity was closely watched by V. I. Lenin. He disclosed a number of specific features typical of this party, which created a receptive soil for the domination of opportunism and reformism within its ranks. The most characteristic features of the labour movement, in V. I. Lenin's view, were its organizational weakness and the predominance of the Right-wing opportunists. As for the Labour Party, it was regarded by Lenin as the most opportunist workers' organization permeated with the spirit of the liberal labour policy. But while exposing the real essence of the Labour Party as a party bourgeois to the core, with "most rabid reactionaries" as its leaders, V. I. Lenin at the same time pointed to the existence of a revolutionary wing in the British labour movement.

Insisting on a resolute struggle against opportunism, V. I. Lenin urged the British workers to study the theory of scientific socialism. Noting the Britons' "pride in their practicalness and dislike for abstract theories," Lenin stressed that beginning with mid-19th century the underestimation and contemptuous attitude to theory within the British labour movement had developed into a pernicious tradition. The theoretical conclusions and theses contained in Lenin's works proved of valuable assistance to the more consistent British Socialists. Harry Pollitt, that veteran leader of the British labour movement, wrote that V. I. Lenin, guided by his internationalist, revolutionary duty, not only closely followed the courageous struggle carried on by genuine Socialists, but actively and skillfully directed the movement for a closer rapprochement between different Socialist groups -a movement that culminated in the establishment of the British Communist Party in 1920.

Towards the end of World War I and especially after the Great October Socialist Revolution. Lenin's ideas and the Bolsheviks' heroic struggle under V. I. Lenin's leadership stimulated the movement among the forward-looking British workers for the establishment of a Communist Party in their country. However, this was obstructed by the existence of serious political and theoretical differences among the country's Left forces concerning the policy and tactics of such a party. V. I. Lenin's role, particularly his articles and letters to British workers, as well as his book "'Left-Wing' Communism - An 'Infantile Disorder'" and his speech delivered at the Comintern congresses, proved of immense significance in overcoming these differences. A logical consummation of the process of uniting and consolidating the Left revolutionary elements in the British labour movement was the establishment, in the summer of 1920, of the Communist Party of Britain- the vanguard of the British proletariat, which assumed leadership in the struggle for liberating the working people from the ideological and organizational fetters of opportunism, in the struggle for socialism.

The Great October Socialist Revolution and the formation of the Communist Party of Britain strengthened the active propaganda of the Leninist ideas in Britain. The British Communist press has always been and remains the faithful exponent of these ideas At first jit was the "Communist" weekly, then the "Workers Weekly" and finally the "Daily Worker." They rendered inestimable service to the British working class by disseminating Lenin's ideas and by fostering revolutionary socialist consciousness in the working masses. The year 1934 marked an important stage in the dissemination of Lenin's ideas and works in Britain. It witnessed the publication of Palme Dutt's book "V. I. Lenin's Life and Teaching," which acquainted the British people with Lenin's biography and the basic principles of his teaching. That same year saw two editions of a collection of V. I. Lenin s selected works entitled "Lenin on Britain," relating to the history of Britain and her labour movement. New editions of this collection appeared in 1941 and 1959.

The publication and dissemination in Britain of Lenin's works and books about V. I. Lenin is growing with each passing year. For instance, the 90th birthday of Lenin was marked by the appearance of two books - N. K. Krupskaya's "Reminiscences of Lenin" and the collection entitled "V. I. Lenin on Britain." A nation-wide campaign has been launched in Britain for mass subscriptions to V. I. Lenin's complete works Rallied under the banner of Lenin, the British Communist Party is forging closer unity of the British working class and consolidating the ranks of the organized labour movement. For progressive-minded workers of Britain Leninism has been and remains the source from which they draw new strength for their revolutionary struggle. A brilliant example of the British Communist Party's creative approach to Lenin's teaching is provided by its "Britain's Road to Socialism" program, whose final version was published in 1957. It maps out the concrete path leading to the victory of the working class and to the triumph of socialism in Britain.

HERBERT M. MORAIS. Contemporary Trends in American Civil War Historiography

This article by progressive American historian Herbert M. Morais analyzes the basic contemporary trends in American Civil War (1861 - 1865) historiography. The author emphasizes that a broad campaign, inspired and encouraged by the government circles, has been launched in the United States in connection with a centennial celebration of the

Civil War. The country is being inundated with a flood of propaganda which distorts the whole cause and meaning of the war. In weighty volumes, gaudy magazine articles, public proclamations, pompous speeches, staged spectacles, etc., the American people are being duped into believing that the Civil War was merely an unfortunate misunderstanding for which there were no serious grounds whatever. No distinction is made between the pro-slavery group of Rebel secessionists and the pro-Union forces: the principles of the two are being equated in such a way as to drive home the point of letting the past be forgotten. In short, let bygones be bygones.

The "Bygones" approach to this most epochal chapter in American history, writes Mr. Morais, is part and parcel of the New Conservatism which characterizes much of contemporary American Civil War historiography. It is implicit not only in the "needless war" doctrine of the Randall-Craven group, but also in the "new" nationalist thesis of the burgeoning Nevins group. To the proponents of the "repressible conflict" theory, the Civil War was an unnecessary war, the product of a mass hysteria engendered largely by abolitionist "fanatics." Had these "inflamed minorities" been taught a lesson, the statesmen of North and South would have made the compromises necessary to avoid war. Since time was rendering slavery obsolete, reasonable men would have seen to its peaceful elimination. In brief, the war was an unnecessary waste of life and effort, tragic in its consequences. The same conservative spirit of forgive and forget dominates the rapidly rising Nevins school of nationalist historians. Unlike the "needless war" group, Nevins and his followers accept the thesis of James Ford Rhodes that the Civil War was an "irrepressible conflict" fought over the moral issue of slavery. Yet, to Nevins and his followers today, as to Rhodes and his disciples at the turn of the century, the war was more than an anti-slavery crusade. It was a struggle to mold the conflicting sections into one united nation. Implicit in this thesis is the idea of sectional reconciliation to the tune of an overriding nationalism. But this approach in no way satisfies the reactionary racialist historians of the South who keep insisting that the war waged by their ancestors to preserve slavery was a just one fought with the highest and noblest motives (defence of Southern "way of life against "invasion" from the North, struggle for "white supremacy," etc.). The works by these historians (E. Merton Coulter, Ulrich B. Phillips, Stanley M. Elkins and others) are permeated with hatred of the Negro people and adherence to the arch-reactionary views of the Southern slaveowners. A distinguishing feature characteristic of the overwhelming majority of works by bourgeois historians devoted to the Civil War history is their idealism, failure to understand the role of slavery as a decisive social-economic factor which determined the inevitability of a military conflict between North and South. The "needless war" and "repressible conflict" doctrine preached by the Randall-Craven school has been subjected to criticism by the majority of conservative Northern historians (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Allen Nevins, Prof. D. W. Brogan and others), who champion the thesis of the "moral irrepressibility" of the Civil War which was allegedly based on the "ethical factor" of struggle against the immoral factor of slavery.

Conservative historians of the "moral irrepressibility" school, in rejecting the importance of social-economic factors in bringing about the Civil War, have been trenchantly criticizing Charles A. Beard for attaching too much importance to these factor? in explaining the causes of the Civil War. Several books have recently been published which reflect the liberal bourgeois approach to the Civil War (Bruce Catton, John S. Blay, George R. Woolfolk, Robert P. Sharkey), explaining the outbreak of the Civil War in terms of an irrepressible conflict between two opposite economic systems. At the same time it should be noted that these works completely ignore the vast role played by America's working class in bringing the Civil War to a triumphant conclusion, distort and minimize the magnificent contribution made by the Negro people to the defeat of the rebel slaveowners, etc.

The greatest and most valuable contribution to the history of the Civil War has been made by contemporary Marxist historians who are guided in their research by the brilliant works of K. Marx, F. Engels and V. I. Lenin-William Z. Foster, Herbert Aptheker, Philip S. Foner, Richard O. Boyer and others. Based on a profound Marxist-Leninist analysis of extensive factual material, their works reproduce a majestic picture of the great clash between two opposite social systems, which culminated in an inevitable victory of the capitalist mode of production. Their works irrefutably prove the decisive role of the popular masses, including the Negroes, in bringing victory to the North.

The author also emphasizes the outstanding contribution made to the Civil War history by distinguished Negro historians W.E.B. Dubois and Benjamin Quarles.

The rise of a group of young writers, some of whom have already taken a tough-minded realistic look at the Civil War, is regarded by the author as a hopeful sign in contemporary American historiography. "Awaiting this brave new generation," the author writes in conclusion, "is a rich mine of information-the writings of Marx and Engels on the Civil War. For a long time now writers have been mining these precious lodes, extracting from them valuable nuggets... Armed with the writings of Marx and Engels and the contributions of pioneering Marxists in the field, present-day historians have available a rich stock of knowledge for a deeper understanding of the truly revolutionary character of the Civil War."

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Comments: