R. V. VYATKIN and S. L. TIKHVINSKY. Certain Aspects of Historical Science in the People?s Republic of China

The article examines certain problems of the development of historical science in the People?s Republic of China at the present stage. While noting the successes achieved by Chinese scientists in the field of archeology, medieval and modern history, and publishing activity, which made it possible to reassess and present in a new light a number of periods in the country?s history, the authors at the same time point out that in the past few years this process of growth was retarded and there appeared certain erroneous tendencies connected with the general political line of the Chinese Communist Party leadership.

In the first place the article examines a series of problems connected with the study in China of world history, the appraisal of China?s role in world-historic process, the correlation of general and particular in China?s history. Problems of universal history are elaborated one-sidedly in the works of Chinese scientists, the majority of research works are still confined within the narrow bounds of the country's historical process. Patently erroneous views and conceptions are put forward in a number of general articles relating to these themes. This is typical, for example, of the articles written by Professor Chou Kuo-cheng, who depicts the development of world history in divorcement from social and economic development and exaggerates the role of cultural contacts by linking them mainly with ancient and medieval wars. He substitutes class approach for a racial one by asserting that the yellow race played a leading role in world history up to the 15th century.

The contradictory treatment of the problem of general and specific in application to China?s history in the works of certain Chinese historians cannot but meet with serious objections. While trying to present all social structures of China as classical, they at the same time emphasize in every way the specific and exclusive character of everything Chinese, often enough without even taking the trouble to analyze the sum and substance of various phenomena. In individual cases this leads to an exaggerated appraisal of the level of development of China and her national culture, as well as of the influence exerted by China on world culture. At the same time there is an obvious attempt to disparage the cultural achievements of other peoples.

The authors also examine the attempts to reappraise the Mongolian and Manchurian rule in" China, to depict these periods as progressive by alleging that they contributed to the country?s unification and development, to idealize the activity of Genghi Khan and Manchurian Emperor Kuang-hsu. All these anti-historic conceptions are subordinated to the tasks of nationalistic propaganda. One also encounters erroneous tendencies and views in works devoted to diverse aspects of modern Chinese history. The article makes a critical analysis of certain propositions put forward by Liu Tan-nan in his article entitled "Different Problems of China?s Modern History" and published in "Lishi Yan-tsu" magazine this year. Liu Tah-nan mechanically transfers the conditions of the past century to the present-day situation, thereby imposing on other peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America the "Chinese" path of development of the national-liberation struggle as a sort of model example.

The authors also touch on certain questions of practical work, showing how the leaders of historical science in the People?s Republic of China resort to every possible means to isolate Chinese historians from the scientists of the socialist countries, primarily from Soviet historical science. This finds expression, among other things, in unilateral cessation of contacts and curtailment of book exchange.

In conclusion the authors stress that the Soviet people entertain feelings of fraternal friendship for the Chinese people. Expressing their deep concern over the present state of affairs in Chinese historical science, the authors sincerely hope that the bonds of friendship and businesslike contacts between Soviet and Chinese scientists will grow stronger in the name of the lofty goal of promoting peace and universal happiness.

V. P. IVANOV and S A. MORUCHKOV. Further Development of the Leninist Principles of Party and Government Control

The article examines a number of important questions pertaining to the organization of socialist control, the forms used by control organs for keeping in touch with the masses and the basic principles and methods of improving the Soviet government apparatus at the different stages of our country?s history. Particular attention is devoted by the authors to disclosing the Leninist principles of organization and functioning of a single Party-and-Government system of control. The most important of these principles are: enlistment of the working people in the work of state administration, the reliance of the control organs on the masses, as well as the method of effectively combining Soviet and Party principles in the system of socialist control. The authors convincingly show that V. I. Lenin not only comprehensively elaborated the principles of organizing control but assumed practical leadership and supervision over its establishment. The article examines in detail the early measures taken by the Communist Party and the Soviet government in the organization of socialist control, showing how the world?s most democratic system of people?s control was gradually coming into being. The authors highlight the activity of the joint control organ formed by merging the Central Control Commission and the Workers? and Peasants? Inspection. It is graphically shown how in the period of the Stalin personality cult Lenin?s guiding principles on the need to combine Party and Government control based on the working masses were grossly violated and distorted. The authors cite concrete facts to illustrate the efforts made by the Party and the entire Soviet people at the present stage to re-establish and creatively develop the Leninist principles of Party-and-Government control. The authors graphically show how extensively the Soviet people draw on the rich practical experience of the Central Control Commission and the Workers? and Peasants? Inspection and how effectively this experience is applied in conditions of full-scale communist construction.

VLASTIMILA KLADIVOVA, Comparative Analysis of the Socialist Transformations in Soviet and Czechoslovak Agriculture

The article is based on a comparative analysis of the concrete process of reorganizing Soviet and Czechoslovak agriculture along socialist lines. The author proceeds from the following basic principle: the transition of the countryside to large-scale collective farming in the socialist countries represents an essentially similar process. It is precisely this similarity of the process, V. Kladivova writes, that enables the researcher to compare its progress in different countries, its individual stages, the conditions attending this process and the results obtained. The basic conditions, forms and trends of this process were elaborated by V. I. Lenin. Lenin?s cooperative plan, the author points out, provided the theoretical foundation for the transformation of agriculture in the countries of the socialist camp. V. Kladivova cites extensive factual material illustrating the radical reorganization of agriculture in the Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, as well as the general political, social and economic laws governing this process.

At the same time, proceeding from the Marxist-Leninist proposition that the concrete historical course of the socialist transformation of agriculture, the methods, forms and stages of its implementation are determined by the objective conditions attending the development of one or another country, the author discloses these conditions and the most essential distinctive features determined by them in the process of agricultural production cooperation in the U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia. The international situation is regarded by the author as an important objective condition.

Capitalist encirclement, the possibility of armed attack on the part of the hostile capitalist world, the need to divert substantial resources to enhance the country?s defence potential, complete absence of aid from other countries (with the exception of man-

ifestations of proletarian class solidarity in the capitalist countries), the attempts of the imperialist forces to isolate the world?s first socialist state politically, economically and culturally, armed intervention in the years of the Civil War, numerous military provocations against the Land of Soviets in the twenties and thirties, the perfidious attack launched by fascist aggressors - all this, stresses V. Kladivova, greatly impeded the peaceful constructive labours of the Soviet people - the first builders of socialism in human history, created formidable difficulties and called for immense sacrifices.

Characterizing the much more favourable international situation in which Czechoslovakia proceeded to carry out its far-reaching socialist transformations, the author emphasizes the following points. Although the threat of imperialist aggression continues to exist to this day, with the emergence of the world socialist system mutual assistance of tHe socialist countries assumed an unprecedented scale and the forces guaranteeing the preservation of peace grew immeasurably stronger. The young socialist states have always relied and continue to rely on the Soviet Union?s mighty defence potential, and this facilitated their economic advancement. Lastly, Czechoslovakia was building socialism in cooperation with the other countries of the socialist commonwealth, relying on direct assistance rendered by the Soviet Union.

The article analyzes in detail another factor which determined the essential distinctive features attending the socialist transformation of agriculture in the U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia - the specific nature of internal objective conditions and, primarily, the different level of economic and cultural development attained by the two countries by the moment of production cooperation, as well as the specific state of agriculture and social-economic relations obtaining in the Soviet and Czechoslovak countryside in the period preceding socialist production cooperation.

As distinct from the Soviet state which had inherited from tsarism and the Russian bourgeoisie a backward country with a poorly developed industry, the author writes, Czechoslovakia was already an industrially developed country by the time it embarked on the new path, and, following the conquest of power by the working class, it received an opportunity immediately to launch on direct socialist transformations in all spheres of life, agriculture included.

Proceeding from these distinctions, V. Kladivova characterizes in detail the peculiarities of the process of establishing the material and technical basis for the socialist agriculture in the U.S.S.R and Czechoslovakia, the level of its mechanization, the role played by the machine and tractor stations in both countries, the stages and concrete forms of production cooperation, the process of abolishing the rural bourgeoisie.

The progress of collectivization in both countries clearly demonstrated, the author writes, that the process of repatterning production relations in Soviet and Czechoslovak agriculture was effected, notwithstanding the marked difference in objective and subjective conditions, in the comparatively short period of ten - twelve years, as required by the needs of socialist construction.

The socialist transformation of agriculture in Czechoslovakia, the author writes in conclusion, furnished another confirmation of the brilliant scientific prevision and viability of V. I. Lenin?s cooperative plan, of the vast international significance of Soviet experience in the socialist reorganization of agriculture.

The experience gained by the two countries, the author writes, has convincingly proved that the socialist reconstruction of agriculture can be effected only with the vast material assistance and leadership of the state, by strictly observing the principle of the peasants? material incentive and ensuring complete voluntariness, that it is impermissible to jump over intermediate forms and stages of development to the highest forms of socialization - to the communes, for example - without paying due regard to the level of development of productive forces.

V. I. SHUNKOV. Certain Problems of Siberia?s History (to the compilation of a many-volume "History of Siberia")

The article is devoted to the examination of the most important problems and controversial points arising in the process of compiling a many-volume history of Siberia. The author?s attention is focussed on the following major questions: the underlying idea of research and the way of defining the basic principles of periodization of Siberia?s history. V. I. Shunkov points out that the first question, parallel with a more precise definition of Siberia?s boundaries, required elucidation of the very concept "Siberia." The

article notes that one cannot agree either with the views expounded by Oblastniki,* who believed that this territory had a path of development sharply differing from that of European Russia, or with those who tried to characterize this territory by taking its specific natural conditions as the basic criterion. The author points out that Siberia is an integral part of Russia and that its course of historical development was essentially similar to that of Russia. Already at the beginning of the 18th century Siberia had a predominantly Russian population. However, owing to its distinctive geographical position and conditions of life of its population, Siberia has always been marked by certain specific features which it continues to retain to this day.

Referring to the question of periodization of Siberia?s history, V. I. Shunkov discusses the controversial point concerning the time of Siberia?s reunion with Russia. Disagreeing with those historians who attribute this historical event to the end of the 15th century, the author considers it more correct to assume that Siberia?s reunion with Russia took place at the end of the 16th century. The subsequent history of Siberia, as was unanimously recognized by a scientific conference of Siberian and Far Eastern historians, should be viewed in the light of the generally accepted periodization of the history of the U.S.S.R.

Side by side with the afore-mentioned problems, the article dwells on such issues as ways of establishing the level of development attained by the Russian people and the peoples of Siberia by the time of their reunion with Russia; the significance and peculiarities of this reunion; the settling of Russians in Sibiria and their relations with the indigenous population; the pattern of agrarian relations between the settlers and the local population, etc.

This approach to the history of Siberia, the author stresses, will enable researchers to generalize extensive factual material, bring out the laws of development of this traditionally Russian territory and reveal the common destinies uniting the Russian and indigenous population of Siberia.

G. ROSENFELD. Scientific and Cultural Ties Between the U.S.S.R. and the Weimar Republic

The author of this article traces the cultural and scientific contacts maintained by the two countries from the early 1920?s to the seizure of power by the fascists in Germany. The author has drawn extensively on Soviet and German literature devoted to this subject and has made a close analysis of many documents and materials kept in the central archives of Potsdam and Merseburg. The article emphasizes that the initiative in establishing cultural contacts belonged to the Soviet government, which exerted every effort to promote such contacts with many countries, Germany included. This period was marked by the German people?s growing interest in the world?s first socialist country and a keen desire to gain a better knowledge of its scientific and cultural achievements.

Illustrating the important contribution made by a number of Soviet and German organizations to the promotion of Soviet-German scientific and cultural contacts, the author notes the great benefit and value of reciprocal visits by German and Soviet scientific and cultural workers. The cultural and scientific contacts between the U.S.S.R. and the Weimar Republic enabled the German people to make a closer acquaintance with the Soviet people?s remarkable achievements in the building of socialism, as well as to expose the lies and calumnies spread about the Soviet Union by West-European bourgeois propaganda.

The author arrives at the conclusion that the cultural and scientific contacts between the U.S.S.R. and the Weimar Republic, established in the spirit of Rapallo policy, furnish a brilliant example of fruitful cooperation of states with differing social systems and confirm the correctness of the peaceful co-existence policy.

A. A. FURSENKO. Business History in the Service of American Monopolies

The article discloses the sum and substance of "Business History," whose representatives see their chief task in substantiating and justifying the "historic mission" of monopoly capital. The author shows that the basic aim of most of the "works" produced

* Oblastniki - representatives of a bourgeois movement in Siberia in the second half of the 19th century, who demanded autonomy and even secession of Siberia from Russia.

by business historians is to vindicate U. S. capitalism and present monopoly tycoons in the role of "captains of industry" and "heroes of material progress." The basic theoretical premise of such works is the subjective-idealist assertion that social progress allegedly depends on the activity of "outstanding" enterprising capitalists. It should be clear, the author remarks, that works of this kind cannot be expected to highlight the role of the popular masses in the making of history. A. A. Fursenko reveals certain characteristic features of "Business History" by drawing on extensive material furnished by "Business History Review" magazine and a number of monographic publications. In particular, he singles out extensive literature devoted to the Rockefeller dynasty, which enables one to form a clear idea of the above-mentioned school. Books on business history, the author emphasizes, are intended to serve frankly political aims by camouflaging the indisputable fact that the leading U. S. monopolies hold key positions in the government machine and subordinate to their selfish interests the entire economic and political life of the country. In conclusion the author cites convincing facts on business historians? direct collaboration and contacts with major U. S. monopolies.

N. F. MOCHULSKY. The Political Struggle in Britain Against the Introduction of Universal Military Service in 1939

The article shows the political struggle which developed in Britain on the eve of the second world war in connection with the introduction of universal military service by Chamberlain?s government. The author?s chief attention is devoted to the attitude of the Communist Party, the Left and Right wings of the Labour Party and other organizations of the British working class to this action of the government.

The Communist Party of Britain vigorously opposed the introduction of universal military service under Chamberlain?s government, which strove for collusion with fascist dictators and foiled the attempts to establish a peace front with the participation of the U.S.S.R. In conditions when the "national" government was committed to a frankly reactionary home and foreign policy, the introduction of universal military service was spearheaded against democracy and against the interests of the working people and pursued the aim of inciting the fascist chieftains to war against the Soviet Union. The Communist Party?s resolute stand against the introduction of universal military service under Chamberlain?s government was inseparably linked with its long and unremitting struggle for the establishment of a Popular Front in Britain under the slogan of uniting the country?s democratic forces. In this the Communists were supported by Left-wing Labourites. The Right-wing Labour leaders, on the other hand, confined themselves to parliamentary opposition. They tried to prevent a mass popular movement against the government?s decision and factually reconciled themselves to the introduction of universal military service, rejecting the idea of establishing a Popular Front and a solid Peace Front. It required the grim experience of the early period of the second world war, the author writes, to convince the British government of the need to cooperate with the Soviet Union in establishing an anti-fascist coalition.

Publisher:

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Found source (search robot):

Comments: