Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T05:41:11.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Marxists versus Non-Marxists: Soviet Historiography in the 1920s

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

George M. Enteen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The policy of “using non-communist hands in the building of communism,” almost as old as the Soviet government itself, came to an end at the outset of the First Five-Year Plan. In the early 1920s the Communist Party had come to accept the realities of a socialist regime confined to an underdeveloped country. Consequently, during the years of the New Economic Policy (1921- 28), the party sought to guide numerous institutions in which its members and supporters were a minority. To this end, the Communist Party created a network of scholarly institutions staffed by Marxist scholars which paralleled the traditional institutions staffed and led primarily by non-Marxist scholars. The purpose of this essay is to recount some of the conflicts between Marxist and non-Marxist historians and to make some suggestions about connections between these conflicts and ongoing political changes.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 91 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See Ocherki istorii istorichcskoi natiki v SSSR, vol. 4 (Moscow, 1966), pp. 233-37.

2. See Alekseeva, G. D., “Sozdanie tsentrov sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki i ikh deiatel'nost’ v 1918-1923 gg.,” in Nechkina, M. V., ed., Istoriia i istoriki (Moscow, 1965), pp. 90–116 Google Scholar.

3. See Ivanova, L. V., U istokov sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki: Podgotovka kadrov istorikov-marksistov 1917-1929 (Moscow, 1968), pp. 121–48 Google Scholar.

4. Sidorov, A. L., “Nekotorye razmyshleniia o trude i opyte istorika,” Istoriia SSSR, 1964, no. 3, pp. 134–35Google Scholar.

5. Maksimovich, E, “Istoricheskaia nauka v SSSR i marksizm-leninizm,” Sovremennyc capiski, no. 62 (1936), p. 415 Google Scholar; see also Mel'gunov, S. P., Vospowinaniia i dncvniki, 2nd ed. (part 3) (Paris, 1964), pp. 81–82 Google Scholar; and Novikov, M. M., Ot Moskvy do N'iu- Iorka: Moia shizn’ v naukc i politike (New York, 1925), pp. 324–28 Google Scholar.

6. See Trotskii, I, “Osnovnye voprosy drevnei russkoi istorii v literature poslednikh let,” Istorik-marksist, no. 8 (1928), pp. 182–91Google Scholar; and Volgin, V. P., Tarle, E. V., Pankratova, A. M., eds., Dvadtsafpiat’ let istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR (Moscow, 1942), pp. 91–104 Google Scholar.

7. For a concise, informative description see Platonov, S. F., “Istoriia,” in Akadcmiia nauk SSSR za 10 let, 1917-1927 (Leningrad, 1927)Google Scholar.

8. Formed by the amalgamation of the Academy's Permanent Historical Commission, founded in 1903, and the Archeographic Commission of the Ministry of Education, founded in 1834.

9. Vainshtein, O. L., Istoriia suvctskoi medicvistiki, 1917-1966 (Leningrad, 1968), p. 42 Google Scholar.

10. D. A. Magerovskii, “Rossiiskaia assotsiatsiia nauchno-issledovatel'skikh institutov obshchestvennykh nauk,” Nauchnyi rabotnik, 1927, no. 11, p. 56. For a personal account of the Academy that brings out many of the distinctive features of the evolution of historiography in Leningrad, see the essay of S. N. Valk dedicated to Smirnov, I. I. in Krest'ianstvo i klassovaia bor'ba v jeodal'noi Rossii, Trudy Instituta Istorii, Leningradskoe Otdelenie, vol. 9 (Leningrad, 1967), pp. 5–41 Google Scholar.

11. Magerovskii, , Nauchnyi rabotnik, 1927, no. 11, p. 56 Google Scholar; the Association had 412 members and 311 research associates, p. S3.

12. See Ivanova, , Istoriia SSSR, 1960, no. 6, p. 66 Google Scholar; Vcstnik Komniunistichcskoi akademii, no. 26 (1928), p. 257; Istorik-marksist, no. 5 (1927), p. 276.

13. The same hybrid character was reflected in the composition of the staff. The Marxist component included Pokrovskii, D. Riazanov, and V. Nevskii, an old Bolshevik, trained as a chemist, who had played an important part in the October Revolution. In the earlier 1920s as head of the Leningrad Istpart, he had sided with Zinoviev. In the mid-1920s he was brought to Moscow as head of the Lenin Library. He was a recognized authority on party history. N. Vanag and A. Pankratova were IKP graduates beginning their pedagogical careers. The non-Marxists included A. Presniakov, E. Tarle, M. Bogoslovskii, M. LiubavSkii, V. Picheta, and P. Preobrazhenskii. S. Skazkin was among the senior collaborators, and N. Druzhinin and B. Kafengaus were among the junior collaborators. Its graduates included V. Khvostov, B. Porshnev, A. Neusykhin, A. Erusalimskii, L. Cherepnin, A. Artsikhovskii, M. Nechkina, and S. Nikitin.

14. For a vivid description by a former student, see Nifontov, A. S., “Iz opyta nauchnoi raboty istorika,” Istoriia SSSR, 1963, no. 2, pp. 118–40Google Scholar.

15. Fridliand, Ts, “Ob ideologicheskoi bor'be na istoricheskom fronte,” Komviunistichcskaia rcvoliutsiia, 1928, nos. 23-24, p. 30 Google Scholar.

16. See Popov, N., Outline History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad, 1934), 2: 369 Google Scholar.

17. Ibid., p. 376.

18. “V cheni delo, kak podgotovliaetsia nauchnaia smena (za kulisami RANIONa),” Vcchcmiaia Moskva, February 6, 1928.

19. Ivanova, , Istoriia SSSR, 1960, no. 6, p. 69 Google Scholar; see also Vainshtein, O. L., “Stanovlenie sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki (20-e gody),” Voprosy istorii, 1966, no. 7, pp. 32–47Google Scholar.

20. Fridliand, , Kommunistichcskaia revoliutsiia, 1928, nos. 23-24, pp. 29–30 Google Scholar.

21. Izvestiia Ts. K VKP(b), September 10, 1928, p. 9.

22. Zeimal',, V. Pospelov, P., “Iacheika IKP v bor'be za general'nuiu liniiu partii,” Pravda, December 1, 1931 Google Scholar.

23. The protocol of this conference has been published in Iz materialov V sesoiuznogo sovcslichaniia pri Ts. K VKP(b) po voprosam agitatsii, propagandy i kul'tumogo stroitcl'stva (Moscow, 1928), and is available at the Lenin Library, but not for reproduction. Many of the issues of Kommunistichcskaia rcvoliutsiia for 1928 carry announcements, reports, and summaries of the conference. A portion of the resolutions has been reproduced in KPSS o kid'hire, prosvcshchcnii i nauke: Sbornik dokumentov (Moscow, 1963), pp. 445-46.

24. Including representatives of Commissariats of Education of Union Republics, cultural departments of trade unions, publishers, political organs of the Red Army, local Komsomols, the Women's Committee, and chairmen of leading central organizations. Kommunisticheskaia revoliutsiia, 1928, no. 1, pp. 96-97.

25. Ibid., 1928, nos. 11-12, pp. 180-82.

26. Ibid., pp. 174-77.

27. KPSS o kid'hire, prosvcshchcnii i naukc, p. 445.

28. Kommunisticheskaia revoliutsiia, 1928, nos. 11-12, p. 5.

29. It included M. I. Iavorskii, V. V. Adoratskii, a specialist in philosophy and head of the Lenin Institute, E. B. Pashukanis, the leading legal theorist and a member of the higher councils of the Communist Academy, I. I. Mints, Pokrovskii's assistant and head of the party unit at the IKP, S. M. Dubrovskii, one of Pokrovskii's most talented students at the IKP, and V. A. Iurinets, a Ukrainian philosopher who had studied under Deborin and Pokrovskii. The non-Marxist component of the delegation consisted of V. I. Picheta, a specialist in the history of the Slavs, S. F. Platonov, a well-known non-Marxist historian and head of the Historico-Philological Department of the Academy of Sciences, M. K. Liubavskii, a former rector of Moscow University, and D. N. Egorov, a specialist on European feudalism. German scientists had prepared a similar reception the previous year for Soviet scientists. Mints, I. I., “Marksisty na istoricheskoi nedele v Bcrline i VI istoricheskom Kongresse istorikov v Norvegii,” Istorik-marksist, no. 9 (1928), pp. 84–85, 88Google Scholar; Pashukanis, E. B., “Nedelia sovetskikh istorikov v Berline,” Vcstnik Kominunistichcskoi akademii, no. 30 (1929), pp. 238, 240, 242Google Scholar; see also Shteppa, Konstantin F., Russian Historians and the Soviet State (New Brunswick, 1963), p. 1963 Google Scholar.

30. Pashukanis, , Vcstnik Kommunistichcskoi akadcmii, no. 30 (1929), pp. 238–40Google Scholar; Mints, , Istorik-marksist, no. 9 (1928), p. 87 Google Scholar.

31. Pashukanis, , Vcstnik Konumtnistichcskoi akadcmii, no. 30 (1929), pp. 242–43Google Scholar.

32. The delegation of thirteen Soviet historians consisted mostly of holdovers from the Berlin week. Platonov, however, had been dropped. There were in fact no members of the Academy of Sciences at the Congress. Tarle had been included in the delegation but reportedly fell ill in Paris. Hrushchevskii, the eminent Ukrainian historian, was also a member of the delegation, and like Tarle he failed to appear. Tarle was scheduled to represent the Academy of Sciences. It may be that he fell ill in Paris or that he, along with Platonov and others, was denied permission to attend. See Pokrovskii, , “O poezdke v Oslo,” Vcstnik Kommunistichcskoi akadcmii, no. 30 (1929), p. 236 Google Scholar and Shteppa, , Russian Historians ami the Soviet State, p. 43 Google Scholar. There is a curious discrepancy in reports of the composition of the delegation. Mints, who was not a member, but who accompanied it, includes M. I. lavorskii, the prominent Ukrainian Marxist historian. Istorik-marksist, no. 9 (1928)Google Scholar. According to O. V. Treskova, editor of some recently published documents, lavorskii was dropped and A. E. Presniakov, one of the best known non-Marxist historians of Russia, was included. “Dokumenty ob uchastii sovetskikh uchenykh v VI Mezhdunarodnom Kongresse istoricheskikh nauk,” Sovetskie arkhivy, 1973, no. 6, p. 53.

33. Pokrovskii, M. N., “Doklad o poezdke v Oslo,” Vestnik Kommunistichcskoi akadcmii, no. 30 (1929), pp. 231–37Google Scholar.

34. Ibid., p. 234; for some of the relevant statements, see also Harper, Samuel N., “A Communist View of Historical Studies,” Journal of Modern History, 1, no. 1 (March 1929): 77–86 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. “Klassovaia bor'ba i ideologicheskii front,” Pravda, November 7, 1928.

36. Ochcrki iz ckonomichcskoi istorii srcdnevckovoi Evropy (Moscow, 1928). Dmitrii Moiseevich Petrushevskii (1863-1942) was a renowned specialist in European history—his chief specialty was English feudalism. He graduated from Kiev University and wrote his dissertation under the direction of P. G. Vinogradov in Moscow, a professor in the Kafedra of World History of Imperial Moscow University from 1906. He resigned in 1911 in protest against policies of the Ministry of Education. For an appreciation, see Kosminskii, E. A., ed., Srcdnyc vcka: Sbornik. Posviashchactsia pamiati akadcmika D. M. Petruslwvskogo (Moscow-Leningrad, 1946)Google Scholar.

37. “Dva shaga nazad,” Pod znamcncm marksizwa, 1928, no. 2, pp. 147–61Google Scholar.

38. “Disput o knige D. M. Petrushevskogo,” Istorik-marksist, no. 8 (1928), pp. 79-129.

39. Just a year before the campaign now being treated, Istorik-marksist reported that a paper on Dopsch had been delivered in Leningrad under the auspices of RANION. L. V. Cherepnin, then a student at the Institute of History, presented Dopsch's hypothesis concerning Charlemagne's Capitnlare de Villis. The report noted that a lively discussion ensued (no. 6 [1927], p. 299)Google Scholar.

40. Ibid., no. 8 (1928), pp. 81-82, 95.

41. Ibid., pp. 91 and 101.

42. Ibid., pp. 86, 90, 126, 127-28.

43. See I. M. Kushner's attempt to define the term socioeconomic formation, and to counterpoise his definition to the concept of the ideal type (ibid., pp. 105-6).

44. Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi akademii, no. 26 (1928), p. 267.

45. Tarle, E. V., Evropa v cpokhu impcrializma (Moscow, 1927)Google Scholar. A second enlarged edition appeared in 1928.

46. The remarks were combined with comments on Petrushevskii and published as a lead article, “Novye techeniia v russkoi istoricheskoi literature,” Istorik-marksist, no. 7 (1928), pp. 3-17.

47. Istorik-marksist, no. 9 (1928), p. 108; no. 13 (1929), pp. 235-38, 276. At a discussion in Leningrad, some students defended the book, and then the discussion itself became the subject of a brief controversy at the First Ail-Union Conference of Marxist Historians. The Leningraders succeeded in convincing the Muscovites that no Marxists had been among Tarle's defenders. See Trudy pervoi vscsoiusnoi konfcrentsii istorikov marksistov, vol. 1 (1930), p. 49.

48. Fridliand, , Kommunisticheskaia revolitttsiia, 1928, nos. 23-24, p. 27 Google Scholar.

49. “K voprosu o nachale voiny,” Istorik-marksist, no. 9 (1928), p. 101.

50. Ibid., pp. 108-9.

51. Luppol, I. K., “Ob otnoshenii sovetskikh uchenykh k uchenym emigratsii,” Nauchnyi rabotnik, 1928, no. 12, pp. 13–22Google Scholar, and the Chronicle of the same issue, pp. 111-14. For further information and additional references, see Graham, Loren R., The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927-1932 (Princeton, 1967), pp. 104–8 Google Scholar, and Hamilton Rhinelander, L., “Exiled Russian Scholars in Prague: The Kondakov Seminar and Institute,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, 16, no. 3 (1974): 331–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Zhebelev himself fared well subsequently and continued his work in the Academy of Sciences. During the siege of Leningrad, he had the responsibility of preserving the local buildings of the Academy. He perished in the siege.

52. For details see my article, “M. N. Pokrovskii as an Organizer of Scholarship,” Jahrbüchcr für Gcschichte Osteuropas, 22 (1974): 56–67 Google Scholar.

53. Pravda, January 25, 1929; Luppol, I. K., “K vyboram v akademii nauk SSSR,” Nauchnyi rabotnik, 1928, no. 11, pp. 3–4 Google Scholar; Shteppa, , Russian Historians and the Soviet State, p. 48 Google Scholar.

54. Pravda, January 25, 1929; February 1, 1929; February 9, 1929. For a more complete account, see Loren Graham, The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927-1932, and Vucinich, Alexander, The Soviet Academy of Sciences (Stanford, 1956), pp. 21–41 Google Scholar.

55. Pravda, September 20, 1929.

56. Shteppa, , Russian Historians and the Soviet State, p. 49.Google Scholar

57. Pravda, November 16, 1929; November 19, 1929; Nauchnyi rabotnik, 1930, no. 1, p. 97. Ol'denburg had hitherto enjoyed considerable security. He had known Lenin's brother, Alexander. When Lenin first arrived in St. Petersburg, he sought out Ol'denburg to discuss with him Alexander's scientific work. See Ivanskii, A. I., ed., Mohdyc gody V. I. Lcnina: Po vospominaniiam sovremennikov i dokumentam, 2nd ed. (Moscow, 1958), pp. 389–90 Google Scholar.

58. Shteppa, , Russian Historians and the Soviet State, p. 49 Google Scholar; see also Maksimovich, E. F., “Istoricheskaia nauka v SSSR i marksizm-leninizm,” Sovrcmennyc zapiski, no. 62 (1936), pp. 417–18Google Scholar; “The Treatment of Scholars in the U.S.S.R.,” Slavonic and East- European Review, 11 (1933): 710-14; Vestnik Kominunistichcskoi akademii, no. 32 (1929), p. 229. Naidenov, Istoriia SSSR, 1961, no. 1, p. 92.

59. Sotsialisticheskii vestnik, no. 22 (1931), p. 15; Stuart Tompkins, “Trends in Communist Historical Thought,” Slavonic and East European Reviczv, 13 (1934): 308; G. Zaidel and M. Tsvibak, “Vreditel'stvo na istoricheskom fronte. Tarle, Platonov i ikh shkoly,” Problcmy marksizma, 1931, no. 3, p. 96. Soviet historians usually remained silent about the arrests or referred to them obliquely; note the following statement by F. Potemkin, who was, like Tarle, a diplomatic historian: “Not only theoretical differences separate us now from Tarle, but—speaking without metaphor—thick walls with firm bars separate [us],” (Istorik-marksist, no. 21 [1931], p. S3). Pokrovskii, in March 1930, referred directly to a purge going on of historians in institutions of higher learning (ibid., no. 16 [1930], p. 16).

60. Speak for the Silent Prisoners of the Soviets, trans. N. M. Oushakoff (Boston and New York, 1935). See “Academic Case,” pp. 359-68.

61. Kommumstichcskaia rcvoliutsiia, 1928, nos. 23-24, pp. 23, 28-29, 31.

62. “Institut istorii i zadachi istorikov-marksistov,” Istorik-marksist, no. 14 (1929), p. 3.

63. Pokrovskii, ibid., no. 14 (1929), p. 3. Pokrovskii's interpretation, with slight variations, has become the standard Soviet version. See M. Nechkina, lu. Poliakov and L. Cherepnin, “Nekotorye voprosy istorii sovetskoi istoricheskoi nauki,” Kommunist, no. 9 (June 1961), pp. 58-70Google Scholar.

64. “Vsesoiuznaia konferentsiia istorikov-marksistov,” Istorik-marksist, no. 11 (1929), p. 6.

65. “Novye problemy istoricheskoi nauki v SSSR,” Vestnik Kommttnisticheskoi akadcmii, no. 4 (1934), p. 69.

66. Ibid., p. 70.