G. I. SHITAREV. The Party of the Whole People

The article shows that the formation of the Bolshevik Party fully conformed to the laws of historical development. The author convincingly proves that the entire development of the Party has been intimately linked with the revolutionary struggle waged by the working class of Russia for a radical transformation of society, for the overthrow of the tsarist autocracy, for the abolition of the bourgeois-landlord rule and for transforming an economically and culturally backward country into a mighty socialist state marching in the van of social, political, scientific and technical progress.

The author points out that although the Bolshevik Party originated as a party of the working class, as its vanguard and militant detachment, its programmatic aims and ultimate goals enabled it to express the age-old aspirations of the entire working people of Russia, their cherished dreams of happiness, of a more progressive social system founded on justice, as a result of which the process of its development into a party of the entire people began from the day of its birth. However, the process of transforming the CPSU from the party of the working class into the party of the entire people required the carrying out of a victorious socialist revolution in October 1917 and the building of socialism, which ensured the moral and political unity of Soviet society.

The article exposes the falsification of the CPSU history by diverse reactionary bourgeois historians and journalists. To the subjectivist and pseudo-scientific views of bourgeois researchers, to their malicious distortion of the historical process connected with the emergence and development of the CPSU, the author opposes concrete facts which utterly refute the fabrications of bourgeois ideologists.

E. N. GORODETSKY. Historical Research Methods ' Elaborated in V. I. Lenin's Works Written After the October Revolution

The article is devoted to the basic principles of the Leninist methodology of historical research. Analyzing V. I. Lenin's works written after the October Revolution, the author shows Lenin's contribution to the development of the Marxist theory and characterizes the principal features of the Leninist method of historical research: the dialectical unity of the past, present and future of the historical process; the principles of historism and partisanship; historical analogies; singling out the basic link and periodization of the investigated process, etc.

The author emphasizes that V. I. Lenin's brilliant contribution to the Marxist theory of social-economic formations, his teaching on the various social-economic systems within one and the same formation, V. I. Lenin's theoretical elaboration of the period of transition from capitalism to socialism and of the laws governing the rise and development of a socialist society constitute the methodological basis for conducting research in world history.

In conclusion the author writes that the Leninist methodology of historical research, which is based on the unity of revolutionary theory and revolutionary practice, provides a firm foundation for the elaboration of a correct tactic in the fight for peace, democracy and socialism, in the great work of building a communist society.

V. S. GORYAKINA. The "Workers' Question" in Russia During the Revolutionary Situation of 1879 - 1881

Drawing on materials published in the leading periodical magazines and a number of newspapers of the end of the 1870's and the beginning of the 1880's, which reflected the sentiments of the liberal and revolutionary-democratic camps, the reactionary press (Katkov's "Russki Vestnik" ["Russian Herald"], "Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti" ["St. Petersburg Records"]), as well as on the archives of a number of government institutions, V. S. Goryakina shows that at the turn of the 1880's the "workers' question" was

actively discussed by diverse sections of public opinion, was examined by specially appointed committees and figured on the agenda of the government policy.

The article reveals the sum and substance of various liberal projects and proposals aimed at restricting the excessively rude forms of exploitation of the Russian working class.

The author arrives at the conclusion that notwithstanding the rich variety of shades, there were no essential qualitative differences between liberally-minded government officials, bourgeois liberals, and the liberal narodniks (populists) who shared their views, in their attitude to the workers' question. They were united in the common desire to prevent the further growth of the workers' revolutionary struggle by granting minor concessions and carrying out insignificant reforms.

At the same time the author emphasizes the fundamentally different attitude to the working class, its position and struggle by representatives of the revolutionary camp. The upsurge of the working-class movement at the end of the seventies confronted the revolutionary narodniks with the question concerning the role of the city workers in the revolution. The influence exerted by the working-class movement on the revolutionary narodniks was reflected in their heightened activity among the city workers, in their changed attitude to the working class and in the shift to Marxism manifested by certain narodniks.

In the closing part of her article V. S. Goryakina draws the conclusion that although the working-class movement at the turn of the eighties did not yet reach the required degree of maturity and organization to compel the government to make bigger concessions, it nevertheless was sufficiently strong to cause a serious crack in the tsarist government's traditional "workers' " policy-a policy of coercion and mass repressions.

L. Y. SLEZKIN. Russia's Attitude Towards Spanish America at the Turn of the 19th Century

Analyzing the events which unfolded in the period 1786 - 1812, the author examines the principal causes that prompted the government of Russia to take into account in its foreign policy the possibility of Spain losing its American colonies, as well as the attitude of the Russian government and public circles towards the insurgent Spanish colonies in the early period of their war for independence. The author shows how the progressive decline of Spain weakened its rule over Spanish America, where the local patriotic forces were becoming increasingly active and were rising more and more resolutely for the struggle against colonial oppression. In the international situation prevailing in that period every political move made by Spain immediately resulted in the loss of its American possessions. The tsarist government tried to take advantage of the prevailing situation to strengthen Russia's North-American colonies bordering on Spanish colonies. In the period of the Napoleonic wars Spain formed an alliance with France. Preparing for war against France, Russia tried to disrupt this alliance and re-establish friendly relations between Spain and Britain in order to form a coalition against France. The peace treaty of Tilsit, which in 1807 put an end to Russia's war against France, compelled the tsarist government to take part in the continental blockade which proved extremely disadvantageous and burdensome for the Russian economy. In 1810, when the Spanish colonies in America rose to fight for their liberation and when Russia was heading for a break with Napoleon, the tsarist government intended to establish direct commercial relations with the governments of the newly emerged states as a means of expanding its foreign trade. The tsarist government's position of benevolent neutrality towards those Spanish colonies which were at war with Spain was explained chiefly by economic factors. In those days Russia proved to be the only country whose top government circles were seriously considering the possibility of establishing official contacts with those countries of Spanish America that were fighting for their independence.

Drawing of extensive material published in the Russian press, the author also shows the attitude of the progressive sections of Russian society to the question concerning the destiny of Spanish America. The finest people of Russia hailed the liberation struggle waged by the patriots of Spanish America and firmly believed that Spain would soon lose its possessions in the Western Hemisphere.

V. N. BALYAZIN. Russia and the Teutonic Order

The article contains a brief survey of historical literature devoted to the foreign policy of Russia and the Teutonic Order in the first quarter of the 16th century and makes a comprehensive critical analysis of contemporary West-German revanchist historiography.

After the signing of the second peace treaty at Torun, the author of the article writes, the grand masters of the Teutonic Order saw the chief aim of their foreign policy in the conquest of Western Prussia annexed by Poland, while the leaders of the Teutonic

Order in Livonia made the struggle against the centralized Russian state the principal object of their foreign policy. Thus, the foreign policy of the Teutonic Order was spearheaded against these two Slavonic states and the Teutonic Knights did their utmost to sow dissension and strife between them and make the best possible use of the permanent conflict between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian state to further their own selfish interests.

The article shows that the foreign policy pursued by the Teutonic Order in the last years of its existence was determined not by the traditional idea of struggle against the "infidels," but, first and foremost, by the aim of satisfying the class interests of the German nobility who had firmly established themselves in the conquered Prussian territories.

Examining Russia's short-lived rapprochement with the Teutonic Order in 1517 - 1521, the author comes to the conclusion that it did not have any real significance. At the same time the signing of a five-year armistice between Russia and Poland in 1522 played an important part in stabilizing the internal and external position of both states, contributing to the defeat of the Teutonic Order and liquidation of its military state in Prussia.

A. N. KRASILNIKOV. The Labour Party's Policy on the German Question (1945 - 1951)

Drawing on extensive documentary material, monographic researches by Soviet and foreign historians, memoirs and periodic publications, the author of this article analyzes the Labour Party's policy on the German question in the period 1945 - 1951, when the leadership of this party held the reins of government in Britain.

Many leaders of the Labour Party were members of the military coalition government headed by Winston Churchill and were later represented in the third Labourite government which succeeded it, when Britain joined the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. in appending her signature to the Yalta and Potsdam agreements on the postwar conversion of nazi Germany into a single peace-loving and democratic state. During the first postwar parliamentary elections the Labour Party leadership, bowing to the sentiments and demands of the popular masses, promised the British voters that following their advent to power they would cooperate with the Soviet Union and the U.S.A. in building up a single democratic and peaceable Germany.

But having taken the reins of government, the Labour Party leaders went back on their election promises. Step by step, the author of the article shows how the third Labourite government, jointly with the governments of the United States and France, grossly violated the Yalta and Potsdam agreements. In its efforts to serve British monopoly interests the Labour government was gradually building up Germany's war-industrial potential in its occupation zone, rehabilitating nazi war criminals and conducting a policy of partitioning and remilitarizing Germany. Already in December 1946 the British occupation zone joined its American counterpart to form Bizonia. From Bizonia to Trizonia, from Trizonia to a separate West-German state, from the formation of "police" units to the overt policy of remilitarizing Western Germany - such is the path taken by the third Labourite government, acting jointly with the U.S.A. and France, of grossly violating the Yalta and Potsdam agreements.

The author of the article shows that the partitioning of Germany was necessary to the ruling element of Britain in order to carry out their plans of remilitarizing Western Germany and incorporating it in aggressive imperialist groupings. The division of Germany and the establishment of the German Federal Republic were designed to create the foundation for the resurgence of German militarism. The article cites convincing evidence to prove that the encouragement of German militarism by the leadership of the Labour Party was prompted by a desire to use it in the struggle against the world socialist system.

Making a comprehensive analysis of the Labour Party's programmatic documents and the statements of its Right-wing leaders, the author exposes the methods with the help of which the leadership of the Labour Party camouflaged its policy of partitioning and remilitarizing Germany, deceived the rank-and-file members of the Labour Party and British public opinion. The numerous facts cited in the article convincingly prove that in the few years it was at the helm the Labour Party leadership pursued a policy on the German question which was dictated by the monopolies' imperialist interests, a policy utterly alien and detrimental to the national interests of the country and its people.

D. G. NADJAFOV. A Tendentious Concept of U.S. History

The article is devoted to an analysis of one of the main trends in contemporary American bourgeois historiography, reflected in the works by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., former professor at Harvard University and now one of President Kennedy's professorial advisers. In a number of books, especially in the first two volumes of the many-volume historical research entitled "The Age of Roosevelt," Schlesinger puts forward the "dem-

ocratic progress" concept, according to which U.S. history of the end of the 19th and the first half of the 20th century represents the evolutionary transformation of American capitalism into a society based on "equal opportunities" allegedly enjoyed by every one of its members. Franklin D. Roosevelt's presidency (1933 - 1945) is regarded by Schlesinger as the turning point of this period, with the decisive role in U. S. socio-economic transformations played by the development of the ideas of American liberalism and their practical implementation through the state apparatus by the exponents of the New Deal. Similar treatment of the historical process is contained also in works by L. Hartz, J. M. Burns, H. S. Commager, R. Hofstadter and E. F. Goldman. The author of this article trenchantly criticizes such a primitive treatment of U. S. history, which ignores the basic factors of, historical development-the deep-going changes in the American economy and the resultant giant growth of industrial corporations, intensification of the class struggle and mass popular movements. In examining the genesis of the New Deal the article shows that its concrete causes were directly connected with "the great depression of the 1930's," with the sharp aggravation of American capitalism's internal contradictions. A graphic example of this is provided by "state regulation" of the economy in the thirties with the aim o? overcoming the grave consequences of the economic crisis of 1929 - 1933. Analyzing Schlesinger's thesis that "regulation" through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA). and Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) made it possible to avert "the inner tendency towards stagnation" in the U. S. economy, the author of the article draws the reader's attention to such generally known facts from U. S. history in the 1930's as deceleration of the rate of industrial production which registered an upward trend only in the years of the second world war, under-capacity operation of American industry (not exceeding 66 per cent of its actual capacity), the existence, of a huge, 8-million-strong army of unemployed throughout the 1930's. Ever since that time state interference has been unable to avert periodic recessions in the American economy. The author of this article shows the growing influence exerted in the thirties on U. S. political life by the working-class and mass democratic movement, under the impact of which certain reforms were carried into practical effect in the New Deal period. The article also examines the role played by U. S. monopolies in the thirties. To Schlesinger's wrong thesis on the progressive weakening of monopoly influence in the U.S.A. the author opposes concrete facts testifying to the further strengthening of U. S. monopoly positions by taking advantage of the economic "regulation" measures. In the closing part of his article the author draws the conclusion that Schlesinger's "democratic progress" concept represents an apologetic theory aimed at embellishing American capitalism and concealing its vices and contradictions.

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Comments: