EDITORIAL: The Tasks of Historical Science in the Light of the Recent CC CPSU Plenum Decisions (June 1963)

The editorial stresses that side by side with effecting deep-going changes in the economic sphere, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union shows an unflagging concern for the creative development of Marxist-Leninist theory, for the ideological education of the Soviet people and all-round scientific progress. The June Plenum fully approved the CPSU Central Committee's activity in this field and condemned the splitting tactics and unseemly behaviour of the Chinese Communist Party leaders, who are spreading slanderous statements in an effort to discredit our Party and undermine the unity of the world revolutionary movement.

The article points out that the Plenum's decisions are of the utmost importance for the development of Soviet historical science. Proceeding from the Plenum's decisions, Soviet historians believe that their research should now be concentrated on urgent problems of the history of the U.S.S.R. and universal history, particularly on the history of socialist and communist construction and contemporary history. They must intensify their struggle against bourgeois ideology, against revisionists and dogmatists. The article reviews the activities of a number of research institutes directed by the U.S.S.R. and Republican Academies of Sciences.

In conclusion the article describes the reorganization of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, which is being carried out with a view to enhancing the role of science in communist construction.

V. V. BOLTUSHKIN. State-Farm Development in the Russian Federation in 1954 - 1958

The author examines the following three problems: the establishment of new state farms in virgin-land areas, the reorganization of a number of collective farms into state farms and the amalgamation of existing state farms. The article illustrates the important part played by state farms in ensuring a steep rise in the country's grain production and emphasizes the high economic effect yielded by the development of virgin land.

The author exposes the attempts of reactionary foreign economists to depict the transformation of a certain part of weak and unprofitable agricultural artels into state farms as nothing short of winding up the collective-farm system. The article analyzes the results yielded by the new state farms' production activity, which convincingly testify to the economic expediency of the reorganization. Pointing out that the mass amalgamation of existing farms represents one of the most characteristic features of state-farm development in 1954 - 1958, the author highlights the immense significance of this measure for the further expansion of state-farm production. In the concluding part of the article the author shows the impressive achievements scored by the state farms in increasing the country's agricultural output.

O. D. SOKOLOV. V. I. Lenin and the Shaping of M. N. Pokrovsky's Bolshevist Views

Drawing on numerous archive materials, the author shows the vast influence exerted by V. I. Lenin on the prominent Soviet scientist and statesman M. N. Pokrovsky in the shaping of his Marxist views. Citing many graphic examples, O. D. Sokolov shows how, beginning with 1905, V. I. Lenin enlisted the scientist's participation in Party work, how much attention he devoted to Pokrovsky's scientific and literary activity and how greatly he contributed to the shaping of Pokrovsky's Bolshevist views. The article analyzes the causes responsible for M. N. Pokrovsky's mistakes, delusions and vacillations in' the period of reaction, when he succumbed to the influence of the "Vperyod" ("Forward") factional group. The author shows how, under V. I. Lenin's influence, he understood his. mistakes, broke with the opportunists and, beginning with 1914, became an active contributor to the Bolshevik press.

Serious attention is devoted in the article to the significance of the correspondence, resumed in 1915, between V. I. Lenin and M. N. Pokrovsky, which enables one to form

a clear idea of V. I. Lenin's attitude to the scientist and elucidates certain details connected with the beginning of V. I. Lenin's work on his brilliant book "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism."

After the victory of the October Revolution M. N. Pokrovsky's socio-political and scientific activity proceeded under V. I. Lenin's guidance. Drawing on a wealth of factual material, the author shows how V. I. Lenin enlisted the co-operation of M. N. Pokrovsky in the elaboration of a number of major problems connected with the development of public education, science and culture, and tells of the attention and concern shown by the leader of the revolution for his creative scientific work. At the same time, the author points out, V. I. Lenin trenchantly criticized M. N. Pokrovsky for his erroneous position in the period of concluding a peace treaty with Germany.

After V. I. Lenin's death, the article notes, M. N. Pokrovsky waged an active struggle against the Trotskyites and Right-wing opportunists in defence of Lenin's ideological heritage. The author shows the extensive and serious work done by the historian in carefully studying Lenin's writings and assimilating the Marxist-Leninist historical conception.

TJie shaping of M. N. Pokrovsky's world outlook, the article says, was a contradictory and complicated process. Having overcome his vacillations, errors and delusions, he finally became a confirmed leader of the Communist Party. Tracing M. N. Pokrovsky's evolution, his tortuous path from a bourgeois scientist to the Soviet Bolshevik-minded historian, one will find it easy to understand how the finest representatives of prerevolutionary intelligentsia, under the powerful impact of Marxist-Leninist ideas, were able correctly to grasp the operation of the objective laws of social development and dedicated their life and energy to the cause of the working class and its party.

S. O. SCHMIDT, I. D. KOVALCHENKO, S. S. DMITRIEV and A. M. SAKHAROV. The Basic Content of the University Course in Historiography of the History of the U.S.S.R.

The articles by S. O. Schmidt, I. D. Kovalchenko and S. S. Dmitriev are devoted to the problems of Soviet historiography which have become the subject of discussion on the pages of our journal (see articles by A. M. Sakharov in "Problems of History" No. 8 for 1962, as well as by L. A. Derbov, N. P. Kalistratov and A. G. Bespalova, which appeared in No. 3 of our journal for 1963). In this issue A. M. Sakharov sums up the discussion results.

Essentially, the authors of the articles subscribe to the views put forward by participants in the discussion. S. O. Schmidt makes a contribution of his own by further developing the concept of historiography content which, in his opinion, must embrace the history of the creation of historical research works, the history of dissemination of historical knowledge. I. D. Kovalchenko devotes chief attention to questions concerning perio-dization of the history of historical science in Russia, In doing so, the author enters into polemic with S. O. Schmidt who likewise touches on this subject. I. D. Kovalchenko and S. O. Schmidt propose that the university course in historiography should reflect not only the principal stages and trends in the development of historical science but also the struggle waged for the triumph of these trends, in the course of which historiography in our country succeeded in discovering the objective laws governing the process of social development, in ensuring the triumph of the Marxist-Leninist trend.

S. S. Dmitriev makes a point of stressing the importance of drawing on materials devoted to the history of historico-scientific publications and historico-scientific institutions and organizations.

All the authors are inclined to the view that the course in historiography is intended for the theoretical and methodological training of young historians and is of the utmost importance for the training of Soviet specialists in historical science.

Concluding the discussion, A. M. Sakharov emphasizes that particular attention should be attached to sustained research in diverse aspects of historiography of Soviet society.

L. N. KUDASHEV. From the History of Kurile Islands

Drawing on extensive factual material disclosing the history of discovering, settling and developing the Kurile Islands by the Russians, the author of this article convincingly proves the inviolability of the Soviet Union's rights to these islands and effectively refutes the allegations of the Japanese ruling circles that the islands should belong to Japan.

L. N. Kudashev shows that the international agreements concluded between the U.S.S.R. and the other Powers of the anti-fascist coalition during the second world war providing for the transfer of the Kurile Islands and the return of Southern Sakhalin to the Soviet Union, as well as a number of historical facts testify to the utter insolvency of the arguments advanced by the Japanese government in justification of its territorial claims. That the Russian explorers were the first to set foot on Kurile Islands way back in the thirties and forties of the 17th century and to launch on their active assimilation

and development in the opening part of the 18th century is convincingly proved by numerous archive materials and historical documents, including Japanese literature devoted to this subject.

The article examines the policy of the Japanese ruling element in the 19th and the early part of the 20th century aimed at the seizure of Kurile Islands and their conversion into a bridgehead for the conquest of new territories on the Asian continent and in the Pacific.

The author stresses that the international agreements concluded in the period of the second world war rectified this historical injustice. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 it was recognized that the restoration of the Soviet Union's historic rights to Kurile Islands and Southern Sakhalin fully accorded with the task of ensuring postwar peace and security in the Pacific. The decisions of the Yalta Conference predetermined the. adoption in the Potsdam Declaration of a provision stipulating that Japan's sovereignty would be limited to the four principal islands, as well as to several smaller islands to be specified by the Allies. Japan recognized this provision by signing the act of surrender and subsequently, in 1951, the San Francisco Treaty.

However, the author points out, in 1955 the Japanese side put forward the allegation that the decisions of the Yalta Conference and the provisions of the San Francisco Treaty did not apply to the southern group of the Kurile Islands, i. e., to Iterup and Kunashiri, though in actual fact the Kurile Islands were regarded as an integral whole for nearly three centuries.

In conclusion the author highlights the Soviet government's consistent efforts to settle all disputed issues with Japan.

I. P. OLEINIK. Socialization cf the Basic Means of Production in the European People's Democracies

The article illustrates ways and methods employed by the European People's Democracies for the practical implementation of certain general laws of socialist construction: abolition of capitalist ownership and the institution of socialist public ownership of the basic means of production; the gradual socialist transformation of agriculture; systematic and planned development of the national economy with the aim of building socialism and communism and raising the working people's living standards. The experience of the U.S.S.R. and the People's Democracies shows that in the process of socialization of the basic means of production there emerge two forms of public socialist property: publicly-owned state socialist property and cooperative socialist property. The institution of state socialist ownership of the means of production in the European People's-Democracies was effected-by combining uncornpensated confiscation of capitalist property, socialist nationalization and socialist socialization through diverse forms of state capitalism.

Having taken over political power, the Communist and Workers' parties carried out uncornpensated confiscation of the property belonging to the bourgeois state as well as to traitors, enemies of the country and the biggest monopoly associations, which enabled the people's democratic states to acquire key positions in the economy. The further process of socialization was effected in several stages by means of socialist nationalization. It is important to note that realization of this process is attended by specific features in each individual country.

The application of diverse forms of socialist socialization of industry ensured the passing of all major industrial establishments, the overwhelming majority of medium-sized and small enterprises and transport facilities into the hands of the people's democratic states, thereby contributing to the rapid growth and strengthening of the socialist sector in the national economy.

The completion of production cooperation in most of the socialist countries consummated the process of establishing two forms of socialist property.

The further development and perfection of public socialist property is proceeding on the basis of balanced, proportionate development of the national economy. An extremely important part in the extension and consolidation of public socialist property is played by socialist industrialization which ensures uninterrupted progress in all branches of the national economy.

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Comments: