(SANITIZED)THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHERS, 1945-1957: REPORT ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD OF SOVIET PHILOSOPHY(SANITIZED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 80
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 7, 2013
• Sequence Number: 10
• Publication Date: June 4, 1958
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
e?-? "s,
,
50X1 -HUM
41ORMATION REPORT INFORMATION REPORT:
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Thisfnaterial contains information affecting the National Defense of the United States within the meaning of the Espionsgeit1:5OX HUMws,
Title
18, V.S.O. Secs. 793 and 794, the transmission or revelation of which in any manner to an unauthorized person is p"1'
-N-T-I-A-L
COUNTRY USSR
SUBJECT
The Soviet Philosophers,
DATE OF
INFO.
PLACE &
DATE ACQ
tkr-L.,?-1091-nr...1,1S k.r)
Souict ??"")k.keDStzAD
?
1945-1957
Cr)
REPORT
DATE DISTR.
NO. PAGES
REFERENCES
4. June 1958
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
c cVALI.:::.-riONS ARE DEFINITIVE.
APPRAISAL
OF CONTENT IS TENTATIVE.
A 150-page intelligeny.
between 1945 and 19571
The above study bears The claosification dONFIDENTIAL,
50X1 -HUM
50X1-HUM
study on developinvents_in the field
lf Soviet philosophy
Distribution of Attachment:
state.
Loan
n
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
STATE
ARMY NAVY
AIR
(Note: Washington distribution indkated by "X"; Field distribution by "#".)
INFOROATION REPORT INFORMAILVN REP,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized
Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R1)n99nnlRnnl
41.
Declassified in Part-Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
V.
*- THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHERS, 1945 - 1957.
INTRODUCTION
1. The history of the fate of Soviet Philosophy since
the end of the war can be divided into four phases.
2. The study begins in 1947 with an attack directed by
Zhdanov which took the form of an all-Union discuosion of
G.F. Aleksandrovt s History of Wostern Phiaosophy. Two aspects
of this were notable. In the first place, its primary object
was to jerk the professional Philosophers out of the position
of entrenched independence as a college of ideological high
priests, into which they had succesafully intrigued themselves.
But secondly, they were enjoined to become obedient executors
of party directives to supply the theoretical arguments and
thus to create among the intellectuals a favourable atmosphere
for the acceptance of the general policy of the leadership.
3. The next phase represents the attempt of the philo-
sophers to apply themselves with abject vrillingness to carrying
out the injunctions of Zhdanov. In this they failed lamentably.
They picked an apparently safe winner in backing the viows of
Professor Earr, which they with full reason believed to coincide
with those of Stalin. They seriously miscalculated, however,
and their endeavour to rehabilitate themselves misfired. In
1951 Stalin himself came out against the views of Liarr, to
2/the serious
50X1 -HUM
9959
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R00220018001n_ri
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
- 2 -
the serious discomfiture of all the professional philosophers
who had backed them. The reasons for this surprising devel-
opment suggested in this paper are that Stalin's reactions
were less ideological than personal. The supporters of Marr
had unwisely, as events showed, used some of idarr's political
activities in Georgia in 1905 to bolster the claims of their
champion. This indirectly gave authority to certain early
writings of Liarr which Stalin, ever sensitive to the history
of Georgian Bolshevism, was anxious to keep suppressed.
(There is ample evidence of the lengths to which Stalin was
prepared to go to fake the history of Georgian Bolshevism in
order to bolster his own role, which lends support to this
hypothesis).
4. The chastened and rebuffed philosophers now entered
on their third phase, from 1951 until Stalin's death. Their
activity was now confined to commentary on, and exaggerated
praise of, Stalin's contribution to 'Marxist theory, and to
systematic misrepresentation of Western philosophy in a manner
bordering on the ludicrous. In so far as the philosopherS
during this period ventured inlo the field of ideological
speculation, they confined themselves to carrying out the
injunctions clearly deducible from Stalin's own work on
Linguistics, which he had written against the views of Marr:
3/they no longer
? ? ,
they no longer attempted to interpret official Soviet policy
in the light of -,iarxism, but on the contrary set about re-
writing liarxism so as to InPko it fit with Soviet, or Stalin's,
policies. It is of interest that, even before Stalin's death,
there was one sphere in which their anticosmopolitan. fervour
seems to have gone too far - that of theoretical physics.
The usual vulgar attacks on the theories of Western physicists
were eventually quelled, in 1952, by the distinguished mathe-
matician Pok, who won official support. Plainly, the importance
of physics in a nuclear world outweighed the importance of
anticosmopolitan zeal.
5. Stalin's death and the subsequent denigration of
Stalin at the XXth Congress have not to date (mid 1957) led to
any great daring on the part of the philosophers. Indeed, the
leading philosophers are too far compromised by their record
of exemplary sycophancy to put themselves forward as leaders
of a "now; liberalism". Two main trends have been discernible:
first, an attempt.to present a somewhat more objective picture
of the current achievements of Western philosophy. This trend
is dictated perhaps not so much by "liberalism", as by the
practical recognition that if there is to be academic co-
existence, it is necessary to have professional philosophers
who know more, say, of Freud, than the fact that he was an agent
4/of imperialist
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
985.9
'to
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
of imperialist oppression. An interesting sideline to this
trend has been the rehabilitation of cybernetics - hitherto
condemned as a device used by capitalists for the exploitation
of the wprkers. The second trend has been evident in tho
slight signs that the younger philosophers; especially in tho
non-Russian republics, are pressing for greater academic
objectivity and freedom. This trend has been stoutly opposed
by all the leading philosophers, who have used the example of
Hungary to urge the dangerous consequences of any ideological
deviation. This is the position at the moment. That much
private and unpublished discussion is going on in the numerous
university faculties of philosophy is, however, certain.
Latterly, there have appeared protagonists of academic freedom
notably the present Rector of Leningrad University. The argument
which these new "liberal" protagonists adduce is that the proper
course is not to suppress free discussion, but to guide it and
lead it along orderly and controlled lines. This is strongly
reminiscent of the argument of the "liberal" bureaucrats and
police officers in Imperialist Russia - notably the Deputy
Chief of -the Moscow police, Zubatov. It remains to be seen
if, as did their predecessors, the present advocates of "con-
trolled freedom" will find that it can only too easily get
out of hand.
THE SOVIET PHILOS()
"
1957
50X1 -HUM
CHAPTER I.
1. Post-war development in what might be described as
the Study of Philosophy in the Soviet Union was largely determined
by a number of spasmodic attempts (all of them abortive) to
implement the principle of "party-mindedness" in philosophy.
Party-mindedness (partiinost) means - in connection with
philosophy - far more than mere compliance with the political
line of the Party, and more than the party-control practised
in other branches of cultural activity. In theory, the philo-
sophy taught in the proletarian State is identical with the
ideology of the ruling Party.
2. The Marxist-Leninist principle of unity of theory and
practice requires philosophy to perform a dual function:
a) It has to be the theory on which all practical
decisions of the Party are founded, and has to pro-
vide an ultimate justification for them, and
b) it has to be a powerful instrument for
implementing these practical decisions, in organizing
their acceptance by all concerned and in providing
an effective foundation for successful propaganda.
This - in short - is what philosophy should be according to
Lenin and, in fact, this is what it had been for Lenin, under
Lenin, and in Lenin's own thinking. In him tho fusion of
2/theory. and
50X1 -HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
t;14
9358
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-2
theory and practice was complete. His political decisions
wore based on the theoretical views which he hold sincerely
seriously, and these theoretical views were used as a means
achieve the practical ends for which they seemed in Lenin's
and
to
eyes
to provide a theoretically unimpeachable justification. Never
did he all= himself to voice a theoretical principle if this
did not seem expedient for the achievement of a concrete
political target. For instance, in 1906 he kept quiet about
his dissension from Bogdanov's "empiriomonistioll philosophy
as long as - for Party organizational reasons - it was necessary
for him to work hand in hand with Bogdanov. As soon
political alliance became obsolete and also in order
Plekhanov, he attacked Bogdanov on the philosophical
as this
to attract
front
with a violence of language which has over since been the
dominant tone of Communist philosophical writing.
3. After the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' became
established in Russia, and the Communist Party took control
of all scholarship and educational activities, demands for
'the unity.of theory and practice' were put to those academic
circles of professional philosophers who were responsible for
the development and propagation of Party ideology in the
Soviet State. The history of philosophical debates and the
personal fates of many professional philosophers in the Soviet
3/Union,
- 3 -
Union, in the course of the last forty years, demonstrate that
this unity - which was so nauurally and easily achieved in the
person of Lenin - has never been emulated, and perhaps could
never have been applicable to the activities of professional
philosophers. They were on the one hand the repositories of
highly-specialized knowledge, pundits to whom the sources and
origins of the
should be more
other hand, in
ideology of the rulers of the Soviet State
familiar than to anybody else. But, on the
an overwhelming majority of cases they were
not directly concerned with the work of the policy-making
strata of the Party hierarchy with whom all practical decisions
rcsted. In the late twenties and thirties, in the struggle
between the mechanists and the Deborinists, the professional
philosophers had to learn by bitter experience all the dangers
of becoming (more often than not inadvertently) purveyors of
ammunition for possible and actual deviationists. The lessons
of the pogroa of mechanists, and the eclipse of Dcborin in
-the early thirties wore never forgotten by them. Philosophers
became timid
the works of
Appeals from
50X1 -HUM
and restricted themselves mestly to epitomising
Lenin and Stalin by copious and uncritical quotation.
high official places to show 'initiative and
boldness', to produce theoretically well-founded textbooks of
dialectical materialism, failed to restore their self-confidence.
44-any of them,
50X1 -HUM
9358
-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
If
Many of them, particularly tho intellectually inclined, turned
to the study of historical problems of a non-controversial
character.
4. Such was the atmosphere in which a collective throe-
the
volume work on/History of Philosophy was produced and published
at the beginning of the wa:: under the general editorship of
G.F. Aleksandrov. At about this time, the same Aleksandrov
produced a textbook on the History of WObtern Philosophy for
university students. The first drafts of the book are said
to have appeared before the war. The first edition of the
complete work was published by the Higher Party School, and
had a restricted circulation. Aleksandrov's critics implied
that this was done in order to keep the book out of general
circulation and to protect it from criticism during the statutory
six months' period preceding presentation for the award of a
Stalin prize. The high position of the author in the Party -
(Head of the Central Committee Directorate for Agitation and
Propaganda) secured the most favourable auspices for this
publication, the first reviews in. the Soviet Press were most
flatterin6, and the hinistry of Education recommended the book
for use in the universities and Institutes of Higher Education.
Then, at the start of the period with Which we concern ourselves
(1946) in this paper, there came a reaction which not only _
reversed the situation with regard to Alcksandrov's book but
5/detersAined the
-5
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
determined the whole further development of academic work on
philosophy in the Soviet Union for the next ten years. It
appears that the publication of the third volume of the collec-
the
tive work on/History of Philosophy had already caused some
discontent in the Central Committee, and there had been a
decision pointing out the shortcomings of this book. Aaeksandrov,
obviously relying on his strong position in the Party, dis-
regarded this criticism and had his book published.
5. This caused a direct intervention by Stalin to which
Aleksandrov himself refers, and the Central Committee ordered
a discussion on the merits of Aleksandray's book to be held by
tLe Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences. There
is no published record of this first discussion in the summer
of 1946, and the way it was staged only increased the suspicions
which had already existed in the Central Committee. No steno-
graphic minutes were taken, and not all those who wanted to
take part in the debates were allowed to speak. Accusations
were made that the speakers had been handpicked by Aleksandrov
himself and included a number of his friends who had already
eulogized his book in print. And yet those who took part in
the discussion were equally divided in their opinion on the
merits of the book.
6. The heavy guns of the '-)entral Committee were therefore
brought to bear on the Institute of Philosophy, and an
6/Unprecedented
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
4855
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
6
unprecedented public philosophical discussion, on
scale, was organized in June, 1947 in jescow. It
over by A.A. Zhdanov, who arected the debates for
an all-Union
was presided
ten days.
Moreover, he himself delivered an oration which was the official
expression of the Central Committee's views, not only
Aleksandrov's book itself, but on the whole situation
philosophical front" in the Soviet Union. The record
on
on "the
of the
proceedings of this fantastic gathering was published as the
first volume of the new philosophical magazine: "Questions of
Philosophy". The discussion, in which more than forty speakers
took part (over forty did not speak but their contributions
wore later published in the proceedings), reflected many sides
of the academic conditions prevailing in the Soviet Union
immediately after the war. And yet the reading of this record
leaves us guessing as to the purpose for which this unprecedented
show was staged. Many of those who attended, and even some of
those who took part in the rliscussion, Obviously had no idea
what it was all about. One of the speakers, a woman Professor
of Philosophy from Odessa, made the unchallenged and surprising
statement that she had not been able to get the book under
discussion from libraries or bookshops and ha a hal to borrow
it from friends: Another speaker referred to the earlier
discussion of Aleksandrov's book as if it had been about some
shameful secret, an unavawable illness which had befallen
7/philosophical
- 7 -
philosophical circles. The fact that no-one attempted openly
to defend the views criticized by Zhdanov, and that Aleksandrov
himself meekly accepted all that was said against him (and
much of it was rather humiliating) and-indeed masochistically
embroidered on it, only makes it more difficult to find out
what this dAsease really was.
7. It has sometimes been said that the attack on
Aleksandrov's book was only part of the anti-cosmopolitan
campaign headed by Zhdanov, and that it is comparable with the
latter's criticism of the Leningrad literary magazine in 1946:
in other words, according to this view the philocophical dis-
cussion was only part of the extreme anti-western carapaigi which
culminated before Stalin's death in the frame-up of the doctors
and the anti. semitic witoh-hunt. The proceedings of the debate
in 1947 do not quite bear out such an interpretation. In the
case of the writers there had been victims (Zoshchenko and
Akhmatova, for example), but some of the philosophers who came
under criticism were treated more leniently. Aleksandrov
himself was removed from the Directorate of Agitation and Propa-
ganda and was appointed Bead of the Institute of Philosophy of
the Academy of Sciences. Under Halenkov he became Minister of
Culture of the U.S.S.R., from.which office howas removed after
halenkovts resignation from the Chairmanship of the Council of
Ministers. The tenor of Zhdanov's indictment against Alcksandrov
indicates that he was not so much out for the liquidation of
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
8/a heresy
50
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
1-HUM
pass
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-8
a heresy as for instilling more courage and fighting spirit
among the professional philosophors so that they might bocome
worthy representatives of Leninist/Stalinist orthodoxy.
8. Zhdanov's speech, as it appears in print, is divided
into two parts. The first doals with the shortcomings of
Aleksandrov's book; the second with the situation on the
philosophical front. Aloksandrov's book is, indeed, a most
undistinguished concoction which
criticism so lavishly poured out
logically important part of this
invites the kind of sarcastic
on it by Zhdanov. The ideo-
criticism is, however, that
dealing with Aloksandrov's treatment of early 1.-_arxism. In
his introductory chapter Aloksandrov paid the inevitable lip-
service to the principle of party-mindedness in philosophy.
Applied to this History of Philosophy, this principle would
roquiro Aleksandrov to show how changes in philosophical ideas
were brought about by the process of class struggle, whenever
this became acute, as the result of changes in the basic economic
and social structure of society. Zhdanov pointed out in his -
criticism that whenever Alcksandrov tried to apply this method
of historical interpretation he failed, either because he stuck
to generalities and did not explain how specific social conflicts
determined the emergence
or because he lacked the
misinterpreted the basic
of one or -another philosophical theory;
necessary historical knowledge and
conditicihs. And so he was 'forced to
9/fall back.
9
fall back, according to Zhdanov, on the old-fashioned bourgeois
mothod of expounding philosophical development as an association
of ideas in which new theories emerge as the result of develop-
ment or criticism of old ones without direct relation to the
underlying process of class struggle. This inconsistency between
the principle of historical research proclaimed in 'Aleksandrov's
introductory chapter, and the actual exposition of philor,ophical
development in his book culminated in the greatest error of all
when Aleksandrov explained the formation of liarx's and Engels'
philosophical views as part of such an association of ideas.
According to Aleksandrov, the philosophy of Marx and Engels
aiipears to be the crowning stage of all "progressive thinking"
in the preceding centuries. In this connection Zhdanov remarks:
"The vague wording of the author's definitions glosses over
the enormous revolutionary significance of the discovery of
genius made by Marx and Engels; while emphasising the connec-
tion of Liarx with his predecessors in philosophy, the author
fails to demonstrate that with Harx a totally new period in
the history of philosophy came into being, a period in which
philosophy became a science for the first 'Uric it Zhdanov
blames the author of the textbook for quoting Chornyshevsky
to the affect that in our days we should look upon our historical
predecessors with "respect and almost filial love", recognizing
the grcatness of their genius and the noble character of their
10/teaching
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
pass
oe.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
- 10 -
teaching which contains the nucleus of our own ideas. Zhdanov*
contrasted this with Lenin's attitude towards those who did
not share his materialistic views. "Lenin himself", Zhdanov
went on, "has - as is well known - not spared his opponents.
Lenin saw in every attempt to gloss over tho contradictions
between philosophical schools, and to reconcile than, nothing
but a tactical manoeuvre of reactionary professorial philosophy.
How, after that, could comrade Lleksandrov come out in his
textbook as a preacher of toothless vegetarianism towards
philosophical opponents and definitely pay tribute to pro-
fessorial quasi-dbjectivism, whereas harxism was born, grew up,
and became victorious in a merciless struggle against all
representatives of idealist trends?"
9. According to Zhdanov, Aleksandrov's errors and short-
comings wore not merely the result of his personal ideological
slackness. The whole position on the philosophical front -
"which reminds one much more of a quiet backwater, or a camping
site far away in the roar of the battlefield" - seemed to him
unsatisfactory. Tho lagging behind of the philosophers was
only part of the general ideological slowing-down which had.
been severely criticised and condemned by the Central Committee.
Zhdanov went out of his way to analyse the "subjective" reasons
for this 'lagging behind'. These subjective reasons he saw in
the dictatorial way Aleksandrov was directing the work of the
11/philosophical
philosophical front, in his intolerance towards criticism,
in his reliance on a narrow circle of collaborators and admirers
of his awn talent. Zhdanov reproached the philosophers,
especially those of the younger generation, for not having
grasped sufficiently the foundation of :C.arxism/Leninism and
for having failed to detect the remnants of the influence of
bourgeois ideology.
10. It is clear that Zhdanov was disingonous in his
attempt to reduce the causes of the ideological slackness of
the first post-war years to such "subjective" factors. We must
bear in mind that during the war the Party had to soft-pedal
its awn propaganda in order not to antagonize elements in the
country who were ready to co-operate in the common war effort
from patriotic or other motives. Among these motives was the
consciousness of fighting in defence of a common inheritance
with the West which was threatened by Nazi/Fascist barbarity.
This sense
West was a
importance
of solidarity with the "progressive forces" of the
new factor, and Zhdanov himself testified to its
as far as the younger generation of party ideo-
logists was concerned. For them the days of militant communism
seemed to ,belong to the past, and to be overshadowed by the
new solidarities which were justly believed to have contributed
to victory in the war. Perhaps, some of those younger people
hoped that the same forces of solidarity which helped to win
12/the war
50
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP8
1-01043R002200180010-3
1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
- 12 -
the war would now be used in the enormoue task of reconstruction.
The demand that philosophers should stop commenting and epito-
mizing basic works of ilarxis eninism, and should not neglect
scholarship, detailed study of philosophy and monographic
work", came from such circles. It was sharply rebuked by Zhdanov.
"Of course," he said, "the creative work of a philosopher must
be the cornerstone of his activities but that-does not mean
that he should wind up his work as commentator or - better say
his popularising work. This is also needed by our people."
It was certainly needed at that time by Stalin, the Central
Committee, and Zhdanov himself.
11. Zhdanov wont out of his way to rekindle the flame of
revolutionary fervour in the motley gathering of professional
teachers of philosophy whom he was addressing. He admitted
that the days of revolutionary class struggle were over in
. Soviet society. This, however, should not-load to a stagnation
in tho ideological field. Anticipating a doctrine proclaimed
by Stalin in. his work condemning the Maxrist heresy, Zhdanov,
said that progress in Soviet society does not proceed by .
way of class struggle and cataclysms as it does under capital-
ism. The real moving force in Socialist society takes the
shape of criticism and self-criticism - "a powerful instrument
in the hands d the Party. This is, without any doubt, a now
kind of movement, a new typo of development', a new dialectical
13/1E.1.w."
- 13 r
law." It falls to the philosophers to take an active, and
indeed a leading part in it. Zhdanov took it on himself to
demonstrate how old Leninist methods of fighting idealist
philosophers should be revived. Idealist philosophy, he said,
had led whole nations to Fascism. Now it stands before us in
all its revolting, dirty essence, reflecting the whole depth,
baseness, and filth of bourgeois degeneration. Soviet philo-
sophers were invited to expose and denounce the slanders and
obscurantist campaigns of such debased thinkers as present-day
Thomists, existentialists, and bourgeois scientists who were
supplying fideism and popery with new arguments. "Take for
instance the teaching of the English astronomer Eddington on
the physical constants of the world which loads you directly
to the pythagorean mysticism of numbers, and evolves from
mathematical formulae such essential constants of the world
as the apocalyptic number 666; take for instance the Kantian
sophistry of contemporary bourgeois atomic physicists who
proclaim a freedom of the will for electrons, and attempt to
represent matter as a certain conglomeration of waves and
similar devilry." There is no limit to Zhdanov's extravaganzas
as far as denunciation of bourgeois philosophy is concerned.
It is according to him but a servant of 'atom-dollar democracy'
dressed up in the shattered armour of obscurantism and'popory.
In their struggle against Ilarxism bourgeois philosophers have
aligned themselves with gangsters, soutoneurs, spies and
14./criminals
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
criminals, and so on, and so on. Zhdanov concluded with an_,
impassioned appeal to philosophers to keep their powder dry
and to remain 'worthy of the eptich of Lenin and Stalin, 'the
epoch of our people - the victorious people.'
12. The obligatory applause, stormy and long-lasting,
could hardly conceal the dismay caused by Zhdanov's oration-
in the audience. Alcksandrov himself showed such dismay less
than any of the others. He was given the last word in the
discussion and this he used to endorse every accusation brought
against him by Zhdanov. He admitted that he had failed to
make proper use of his 'study of 1:arxism and Leninism-when _
writing his book and that he had failed as an organizer of the
Institute of Philosophy. Aleksandrov ended by promising to
improve, provided the Central Committee did not refuse its
support and guidance to the leaders of the philosophical front.
Aleksandrov evidently had some reason to feel confident and
one is tempted to think that the real fight at the discussion
may have concerned some Other personalities. In a speech
nado after Zhdanov, P.F. Yudin (Head of the Institute
of Philosophy, 1 938 - 1914) throw some light on what was going
on behind the scones. Ho began sarcastically by saying that
after Zhdanov's speech it had become easier for people to find
out what they should
say, although some of them might find it
difficult to re-arrange their ideas in three minutes. The
villain of the piece was, according to Yudin, Fedeseev. It
15/Was he who,
- 15 -
was he who, with the connivance of Professors Kruzhkov and
Vasctsky, had sabotaged the first discussion on Aleksandrov's
book held under the auspices of the Institute of Philosophy.
Yudin attacked them for lack of principles and for building
up a clique. Yudin accused Fedesecv of concentrating power
in his hands, and of misusing his position for influencing
appointments. Ho said: "Take, for instance, the Chair of
Philosophy of the Academy of Social Sciences - it is in the
hands of Comrade Fodosecv. If the Chair shags unsatisfactory
work you have to complain to the Administration of Propaganda
- that is to Comrade Fedosoev; if you write an article for
the Bolshevik and find yourself in disagreement with the
Managing Director, Comrade Fcdoscov, you must complain to the
Administration of Propaganda - again to Comrade Fedosecv."
All that Fcdoscev had to answer to these attacks (in a speech
he was not alleged to make at the Conference, but which was
published in the proceedings), was that Yudin himself was
guilty of the very same shortcomings of which he accused others.
It was Yudin who pressed for the publication of the third
volume of the collective History of Philosophy, tainted by
the same errors as Aleksandrov's Liz,ok; and it was-Yudin. who
hoped to get the Stalin Prize awarded to it.
13. Yudin's intervention in the debate lifts a corner
of the curtain which conceals from us a kind of conspiracy
between the loading specialists in'philosophy which had aroused
16/the anger
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-H UM
- 16 -
the angor of Stalin and of the Central Committee. The dejected
surrender of those people to the criticisms meted out to them
at the Conference of June, 1947 should not let us forget that
they were the very people who had created the situation which
led to the interference of the Central Committee, Zhdanov and
Stalin himself. It should not be forgotten that they had shown
considerable stubbornness in the face of repeated warnings, and
pursued for a time a line of policy which was known to be frowned
on by the supreme masters. Their protestations, that they had
done so inadvertently through lack of guidance from the Central
Committee, through slackness or personal inability to find the
right way (i.e. the one approved from above) lacked sincerity.
People like Fedoseev and Aleksandrov, even if at that time not
sufficiently influential to determine the Party line, were
close enough to the ruling circles to know what this line was.
We are entitled, therefore, to ask two question: i) What
were they after? ii) What or who encouraged them on their ....
path and what were they relying upon when risking the dis-
pleasure of the Supreme Leadership?
14..
However difficult it may be to find a satisfactory
answer to these questions;-thi.s must be attempted. We must,
at least, have a working hypothesis to understand the compli-
cated situation on the ideological front in 1947, and to grasp
its far-reaching implications for succeeding years, including
-
the current one.
17/15.
- 17 -
15. Proceeding by the method of elimination, we must '
first of all exclude the possibility that the aims pursued by
tho "philosophical clique" were anti-communist or, in any way,
directed against the regime. In spite of many unpleasant
things Zhdanov had to tell them, the tone of his statement in
June, 1947 was quite different from the one he adopted in
criticizing certain authors and poets a year before. There
was no imputation of anti-soviet motives in his attack on
Aleksandrov and company, but merely a reproach for their in-
ability to fulfil the task which the Central Committee expected
philosophers to perform. In saying so, Zhdanov can hardly have
been quite candid. If anything, he himself was a formidable
administrator, and had the philosophers
nincompoops, he would have known how to
to attract more coppetent people to the
indeed been inept
deal with them and haw
important work of
agitation and propaganda. In his criticism Zhdanov himself
"glossed over" - to use his awn favourite term - the real
offence of the accused. He did not tell them what they were
expected to be, and what part they should play in Soviet society,
but he did not denounce thea for wanting to play a different
role and did not expose what this role had been in their con-
ception in the days preceding the philosophical discussion
of 1947. It is only by implication from his
from the fortuitous revelation of a document
24th) in Pravda, that we can reconstruct the
own speech and
in 1952 (December
secret alms
- 18/pursued
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
ir
50X1-H UM
q
6e-
r
_
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
- 18
..i.ursued by the philosophical clique before 1947. That yesi.
the meteoric rise pf Voznosensky who became a member of tho
Politburo about the time whLa the philosophical discussion took
place? It is possible that at least one of the philcsophc.m
who came under crit::.cism, Fodosca7, sincerely supported Voznesonsky.
Two years later,
in 194, Fedosuov togothor with Aleksandrov
ra.0 Iovohuk, was dismissed from the editorial board of Bolshal.k
for having been supportors.of Voznesensky and for having pro-
pagated the views expxlssed by him in hip book"Tho iJilitary
Feenomic-; of the U.S.S.R. durir.7, the War fDr the Fatherlrnd,"
But that was, of course, after the fall and disappearance of
Voznesonsky, the circumstances of which have net been reveale::
oven now when Voznesensky is, at least partly, rehabilitated.
It is, however, significant that the decree of the Central
Committee of 14th July, 1949 severely reprimanding Fedoseev
and dismissing him and.his associates from the Bolshevik,
follows closely the line of criticism directed against them
at the philosophical discussion. Here again they are accused
of building up a clique, of having alienated themSelves from -
. .
Party life, of relying on a narrow group-of authors, and of
-Citering.the texts of articles sent to Bolshevik without
the knowledge of their authors - all accusations which were
19/voiced
voiced from various quarters at the Philosophical Conference
of 1947. --
16. In 1947, however, Voznesensky was still in paver and
no-one could be attacked openly for supporting him. It is
nevertheless possible that the criticiPm of the philesophers
by Zhdanov was really directed against Voznesensky, and was to
serve as a warning to him. There is no necessity, however, to
make such an assumption. The philosophers were at fault because
of their own behaviour, although this behaviour mi.ght have been
influenced by what Voznesensky had been doing when he was the
Head of the Gosplan. In that position Voznesensky shaved a
tendency to emancipate himself from the control of the Politburo,
basing his pretensions on his special knowledge and understanding
of economic techniques and on his achievements in the adminis-
tration of Seviet war economy. Under Voznesensky, the Gosplan
organization presumed to play the role of an independent
"adviser" of the supreme leadership on economic questions,
and its advice was to be based on its special knowledge of
economic necessities and its till in solving economic problems
20/( documented
Note: The key document - a Resolution of the Central Committee
dated 14th July, 1949 - was quoted in an article by Suslav
on 24th December, 1952. In this article Suslov attacks Fedoseev
for his contributions to Izvestiya of 12th and 21st December of
the same year. The Resolution of the Central Committee of 1949
also.contains a stricture'on Shepilov who was at that time accused
of having recomeraedVoznesonsky's book as a textbook for
Secretaries of District Party Committees and for propagandists.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
-20-
(documented by its ability to organize war-time production)
far more than on the light and guidance emanating from the
supreme authority. It looks as if the philosophers around
Aleksandrov and Fedoseev wanted a similar status for their work
in the field of ideology to the one Voznesensky wanted in the
field of economic activities. Aleksandrov, and the authors
of the third volume of the History of Philosophy, pretended
to introduce young people, most of whom were to become party
propagandists, journalists, and ideologists, to the highly
specialized knowledge of the origins of 1,1arxist theory and
of its historical antecedents. The philosophical contents
of their writings are naive and primitive to a degree, but
they did introduce their readers to a new world of specialized
knowledge lying beyond the direct control of those who are not
specialists. And Aleksandrov and his friends did claim a
monopoly of this teaching, dust as Voznesensky did in his
field, to the exclusion of criticism by Party rank and file.
17. Such pretensions to become Gurus on questions of
philosophy were quite intolerable from the point of view of
the Party leadership. However orthodox and conformist the
teachings of such philosophers may have been, they had to be
kept under direct Party control. The Central Committee - for
which, at that time, weshould read "Stalin!' - could not
surrender the build-up of the ideological foundation of
21/Communism
- 21 -
Communism to any group of specialists whose authority was based
on their own scholarly achievements and academic position,
instead of being derived from an investiture by the Supreme
Leader. In other words, the Party leadership was not prepared
to accept the existence of a College of ideological Iligh-priests
and this - we must assume - ve.s exactly what the pretensions
of the philosophical clique amounted to. It is possible that
the philosophers were encouraged to put forward their claim
for an exclusive leading position in their special field by
Voznesensky who was a member of the Politburo. The support
they gave him in his own similar pretensions in the economic
field might well have been reciprocal. But they were the first
to burn their fingers; they climbed down and were forced to
a humiliating surrender, whereas Voznesensky possibly resisted
and was broken. Zhdanov's position is particularly interesting
in this connection. While carrying out Stalin's instructions
for a cleansing operation on the philosophiCal front, he seems
to have made it possible for the philosophers to bend and not
to break under the storm. When the Voznesensky affair came up
he was already buried in the Kremlin wall and Dialenicov was
too cautious to protect the philosophers. They suffeled a
minor defeat, but lived to return to power and glory after
Stalin's death.
18. In analysing the policy of the-leading philosophers
before the discussion of.1947 we have been forced to rely an
- 22/conjecture
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9S58
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
-22-
conjecture. There is no such necessity with regard to the
role which was assigned to them. This role was clearly stated
by Zhdanov and further elaborated by the philosophers themselves.
They were to become obedient executors of the Party leadership
directives, and were to apply themselves to the establishment
of a favourable atmosphere among intellectuals for the accep-
tance of the general policy dictated by the leadership. They
were to supply theoretical arguments in support of such decisions
as the leadership might take, and not to suggest what these
decisions should be according to their own reading of the
fundamental texts of karxisi eninism. As far as the history
of philosophy was concerned they were to accept the thesis that
all philosophers in a non-socialist society were conscious and
unconscious instruments in the hands of the ruling classes,
i.e. elements of the superstructure designed to maintain the
supremacy of these classes in the social order. All non-marxist
philosophy was to be treated as an instrument in the hands of
the enemies of communism and, therefore, as obscurantist and
war-mongering. Beyond that, the philosophers should assist
the Party in its struggle against the survival of bourgeois
mentality in Soviet society itself, and intensify its fight
against religious prejudices and religion in general. In
particular, the philosopher should keep a watch on activities
in the various branches of science. Whatever the achievements
of scientists in their particular field might be, they
23/are apt
-23-
are apt to fall into error when generalizingt The philosophers
should become the watch-dogs of communism, attacking all possible
ideological deviations which might emerge from the general
conceptions of modern physics, physiology, biology, genetics
and the humanities.
19. As far as the organization of the philosophical world
was concerned, Zhdanov demanded that wider strata of Party
workers should become associated with it and that no academic
body, such as the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of
Science, should have the monopoly of ideological policy. This
last demand gave a kind of populist democratic slant to the
criticism voiced against Aleksandrov and company during the
discussion. It must also be seen in conjunction with the re-
organization of Agitprop (the ideological section of the Central
Committee Secretariat) which took place about the same time.
Aleksandrov and several philosophers were removed from this
section. The philosophers then did indeed lose their monopoly
of ideological policy, which now passed to professional
apparatchiki. The change in leadership soon became apparent --
possibly because the new party bureaucrats felt less sure of
themselves in the ideological field than had the professional
ideologists. At any rate, as will be seen, the party leader-
Ship did not thereafter very closely supervise and guide the
activities of the Central Philosophical Institutes. It did,
of course, exercise control through the medium of the party
24/organizations
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
fty
50X1-HUM
- 24 -
organizations within those Institutes. But to a large extent
the leading philosophers were loft to their awn resouroes for
finding out which way the wind was blowing, and for learning
to comply with the whims of the supremo leadership by a method
of trial and error.
25/0HAPTLa II
- 25 -
CHAPTER II
20. Tho execution of he programme, clearly defined in
Zhdanov's historic speech presented greater difficulties than
the willing philosophers over expected. It seems that they
were given far too great a freedom in selecting the best way ,
to implement Zhdanov's instructions; in other words, they
seem to have been given enough rope to hang themselves.
Aleksandrov, after having confessed to everything of which he
was accused, was appointed Head of the Institute of Philosophy
of the Academy of Sciences, and was co-responsible ex officio
for the contents of the magazine Voprosy Filosofii (the first
issue of which was for July, 1947) of which Kedrov became chief
editor. Zhdanov had required the philosophers to become watch-
dogs in all ideological matters resulting from the activity of
scientists and scholars in their special fields. Eedrov's
method was, accordingly, to commission prominent specialists
in those branches of knowledge where ideologically contro-
versial ideas had recently clashed, in order to reconcile these
ideas with the official Diarxist/Leninist/Stalinist doctrine.
21. By 1947 an ideological crisis had broken out in a .
number of fields of scientific enquiry. Einstein's remoulding
of fundamental ideas in physics had already preoccupied Lenin,
and required a re-orientation of official ideas of physics,
because the founders of Harxism had worked out their attitude
26/on the basis
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
50X1 -HUM
II
II
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 26--
on the basis of a now-antiquated Newtonian conception. Both. 's
and Heisenberg's contributions to quantum mechanics and, in
. .J., . .
particular, the'physicalisis' indeterminiam of Heisenberg,
,.
..1.7P:: :(...;.::" .. . . , . . ..
required a special treatment and adaptation to official and
,..... _
. , .... .
old-hishioned Marxist determinism. In the field of biology
Lysenko had already launched his vicious attack on the classical
theories of heredity, which were shared by the majority of well-
established authorities on biology in the Soviet Union, and had
given his support to the agricultural and horticultural methods
of Michurin and Vilyams. In philology, the controversy between
the-folleWors of Warr and the exponents of the more orthodox
theory of language was reiching a climax. Kodrov, as editor,
published in Voprosy Filosofii a number of articles in which
the authors, -while paying lip-service to the wisdom of official
dialectical materialism, tried to show that certain achievements
of western science in the last thirty years were reconcilable
with tho official Marxist view. "The nature of physical know=
1.
ledge" was discussed by M.. Markov, and Shmalgauzen, the veteran
authority on biology, in an article entitled "The Concept of
the Whole in Modern Biology", attacked llichurin's and Lyeenkois
positions.
22. The diehards of Bolshevikdoctrine were not slaw to
react. iaxinov exposed the "hypocrisy of Markey' s attitude",
and demanded a much stronger condemnation of Einstein and the,
27/Copenhagen
- 27 -
Copenhagen School in physics. The
and of his followers lay not only
quences which they themselves and
from their'theories. There were,
50X1-HUM
shortcomings of Einstein
in the philosophical cense-
idealist philosophers drew
according to Maximav, mistakes
in the physical theories themselves. The attack on the Institute
of Philosophy and on the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii
was well organized by the Party. On 7th December, 1949 Pravda.
published an editorial demanding a philosophical magazine with
a "fighting spirit". This was preceded by an all-uniaa conference
of Directors of the Chairs of Marxism and Leninism and Philo-
sophy in Institutes of Higher Education, which was opened by
the then Minister of 'Higher Education of the U.S.S.R., Kaftanov
(see his article in Bolshevik, N? 12 for 1949, pages 22 - 23).
The same failings as those already mentioned in the discussion
of 1947 were listed once more:- lack of fighting spirit in
the criticism of western ideologies, in particular of cosmo-
politanism; academic approach to ideological questions;
Objectivism in the exposure of philosophies alien to Marxism;
a detached and dispassionate attitude tb current problems raised
by the progress of the building of communism in the Soviet
Unison. The failure to support the Machurin movement in biology
at the very height of its struggle against Weismanism and
Morganism was mentioned as an instance of such shortcomings.
It was also said that no lead had been given by philosophers
28/in the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9958
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 28 -
in the struggle for materialism in physics, In other words,
it was alleged that the directing tales of the 'philosophical
front' he not learned the lessons of Zhdanov's speech of 1947.-
23. It is surprising that after such devastating criticism
coming two years after Zhdanovis admonition, Aleksandrov still
managed to keep his position as Director of the Institute of
Philosophy at the very time when he was ousted, together with
Fedoseev, from the editorial board of Bolshevik. Perhaps the
reason is that even at that time the Academy of Sciences
possessed a certain degree of independence, and it was less
easy to dismiss their officials than those who were working
directly in the Party apparatus or under the Ministry of Higher
Education. However, the Editor in Chief of Voprosy Filosofii,
Kedrov, was replaced by Chesnokov, and the articles which
Kedrov had published in the first five issues of the magazine
were deClared inadequate and insufficient. The blurb of the
magazine under the new editorship (issue N? 3 of 1948, which :
did not go to press until June, 1949) announced that it pur-
sued the aim of active and uncompromising struggle against
the philosophy of bourgeois reaction; against bourgeois
objectivism; for Lenin's principles of party-mindedness in
philosophy; and for militant materialism.
24., The philosophers were obviously hard pressed by
this Party criticism, which came at the very time when the
anti-cosmopolitan campaign was at the height of its fury.
29/A number
?
50X1 -HUM
- 29 -
A number of philosophers came in for sharp criticism of their
Party work in the resolution of the Central Committee of the
Party, quoted in Chapter I. Their reaction to the attacks and
the dangers which beset them is typical of the technique of
political struggle of that period. The philosophers registered
the criticism meted out to them, and recognized their short-
comings in humble public admission of guilt. They even joined
the Lysenko front in a number of articles denouncing Mendelismo
They revised Markov's arguments and denounced, in an article
by corresponding Academician Vul, Markey's interpretation of
the quantum theory. Vur declared a merciless war on physicalist
idealism, and proclaimed that the conscious application of the
methods of dialectical materialism was speeding up the development
of physics and helping Soviet physicists to achieve the targets
put before them "by our great leader Comrade Stalin". But all
this was of little consequence. Lysenko had already triumphed
after the discussion on biology in the slimer of 1948. His
opponents were silenced and disappeared from cireulation.
Physicists, even when accused of cosmopolitanism and idealism,
had a natural protection because they were indispensable for *
the development and digestion of nuclear physics; and 'could
avoid being drawn into ideological discussions. The philo-
sophers found a safe wozr to protect themSelves against'
accusations of slackness by raising the banner of'St'alinism
as the great philosophical revolution ofour tithe': Two'hundred
30/and
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
9859
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
t
-30-
and seventy-three pages out of three hundred and thirty-four
s,
of the second issue of Voprosy Filosofii in 1950 wore dedicated
to the praise of Stalin for his great work as a leader and
teacher who carried on the immortal work of Lenin, as the great,
master of Marxism end Leninism, as the leader of the Part/ who,
had solved the problems .of historical materialism during the
groat war for the Fatherland, who had worked out the principle
of socialist competition as the moving force in the development.
of Soviet society, and even as a leading marxist epistouologist.
25. At the same time, the philosophers took a lead in.
the new ideological struggle ofEarrism. The biological dis-
cussion of 1948 seemed to provide a pattern for a militant,
aggressive policy. These discussions had shown that a theory
professing to be radically marxist could win the support of the
? supreme authority even against the opposition of the best-
established authorities in a special branch of knowledge. It -
lookea pretty safe to back a horse in another field which would'
be running under the same colours as Lysenko. An opportunity
to give such backing arose when the struggle between Marrist
and Conventional linguists took a sharper turn in 1949.
Voprosy Filosofii, backed the Earrists right froM the beginning:-
Voprosv Filosofii, in its.first issue edited by Chesnokov in
1949) published an article by Nikolsky and Yakovlev - "Basic
Principles of the Materialist Theory of Language of N. Ya. Marr".
In it the authors gave some biographical details on Karr, and
31/expounded
expounded the principles of his theory. Tho article concluded
with the words: "the new theory of language of Harr and of his
followers, based on the teaching of hhrx/Bngel/Lenin/Stalin,
is a powerful weapon in the struggle for Narzism/beninibm, for
dialectical and historical materialiHm, against idealizt
pseudo-science in the field of linguizticsn.
26. Certain points in this article shou:d be noted at
once. In the first line both authors link the theories of Karr
with Stalin's own ideas on the development of language and,
where necessary, correct Marr's sanguine expectations of the
emergence of one common human language in socialist society
in accordance with Stalin's conception. While Marr expected
all languages to merge into one under Communism, Stalin, in his
article - "The National Question and Leninism" - distinguished
two successive stages after the forthcoming inevitable victory
of socialism. Stalin wrote: "In the first period of world
dictatorship by the proletariat, after the cessation of national
oppression, formerly oppressed nations will flourish and
develop and so will their languages, and only in the second
period of world dictatorship of the proletariat) when the
world socialist economic system adlioves a sufficient
degree of strength and socialisu penetrates the daily life of
the nations will national differences and languages
begin to die off, giving place to a world language common
to them all". Then Nikolsky and Yakovlev, while recognizing
32/kcademician
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9958
50X1 -HUM
, r
tst
,Ot
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
-32-
Academicianiieshchaninov as a faithful pupil and follower of
Earr, criticized some of his theories, mainly those concerning
the priority of syntax over morphology in linguistics, a point
later made by Stalin himself. This shows that thei
larristoo-
as represented in V2p2L'ililosi, wore quite willing to
modify the theory in compliame with the supreme party authority.
Furthermore, the article is militant in its attacks on an
objectivist attitude to reactionary, idyllist, and bourgeois
theories in linguistics, They are both "progressive and
patriotic" in accusing bourgeois linguists of a tendency to
assume the qualitative superiority of the so-called Indo-
European languages, and especially the superiority of analytical
languages, such as English, over synthetic, such as Russian.
It thus looked as if the Marrist offensive had been well pre-
pared all round and could safely rely on support from supreme
authority.
27. And yet, something must have gonewrong right from
the beginning. On 24th-27th January, 1 950 long before Stalin's
pronouncement on linguistics, a Scientific Conference dedicated
to the eighty-fifth birthday, and the fifteenth anniversary
of the death of Harr, took place in MOSbOW. It is reported
on ten pages of small print in the third issue of Voprosy
Filosofii for 1949 (the third issue for 1949 did not allocar
until the spring of 1950). The publishing of the minutes
Of the Linguistic Conference must have been done in haste,
33/and for some
-33-
and for some special reason. This Conference was to assert
the unchallenged authority of liarr - a true son of the Party
of Lenin and Stalin - and of his theories, which were hailed
as a product of the great October Socialist Rovoliruione rho
roper,: in Voprosv Filosofii states that the partioipunts of
the Conference stressed in thelr papers the fact that 'Gho
theories of Harr - based on the unahakeable fol_adatl.c.s.ns of
dialectical and historical materialism - are tiro sharpest
ideological weapon in the struggle against bourgeois "idealist"
linguistics which propagate reactionary and racial theories.
The main speakers were AcademicianHeshchaninov, correspondent-
Academician Serdyuchenko and Professor Chemodanov. All three
speakers stressed the "party-mindedness" of liarr's work.
Professor Serdyuchenko stated in his paper: "in solving the
question of the emergence and development of national languages,
Harr based himself completely on the fundamental works of
Comrade Stalin dealing with the problems of the nationalities". .
And again: "for all the successes achieved, Soviet linguistics
owe a debt of gratitude to the leadership of the great Communist
Party of the Bolsheviks, and its leader of genius I.V. Stalin".
28. One can therefore safely say that the standard of
subservience to Stalin in the initial stages of theidarrist
campaign was not less than that in the Lysenko campaign, and
that it should have satisfied the most 'stringent requirements
34./of Stalinist
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
of Stalinist loyalty. There were, however, signs that the
launching of the campaign had not gone through mithout a
hitch. The hitch was to be founa in the article by Nikolsky
and Yakovlev in Voprosy Filosofii. The article was criticized
hotly by Professor Chemodanov, and by a Comrade Yaroshevsky
of the Institute of Philosophy, who accused the authors of
"formalism", and of a conception of Iiarr's theory which he
called "theoretically vitiated and politIcally noxious". The
account Of the meeting was followed by an editorial note in
Voprosy Filosofii which, while Continuing to support the harrist
campaign, condemned the article of Nikolsky and Yakovlev as
containing serious mistakes, both factual and of principle.
A feature of the proceedings at the conference was a private
war waged by some Georgian linguists against others. Thus
Comrades Glonti, Negrelidze, N. Gozalishvili, came out with
a sharp criticism of another Georgian, Professor Chikobava,
who soon was to be called to deliver the firstIoloW against
the iibrrist campaign andliarr's scientific reputation in the
all-Union discussion which was to be staged in Pravda in the
summer of 1950.
29. The accusations against Nikolsky and Yakovlev are
worded either in very general terms such as "formalism", or
concerned with details of the rather abstruse theory of _
on the origins of language in general. Thu politically noxious
35/character
50X1 -HUM
-35-
character of the article is merely assorted and not even
exposed. It is therefore important to discover the real reason
for the wrath of the authorities against this article which,
as a whole, hardly differs in its political attitude from
other Stalinist scientific contributions of the time. It
would be futile to seek the errors of the two authors of the
article in VoprosyFilosofii in anything they had or had not .
said about Marr' theoretical views. This had been said by
various and more important people before them time and again
and could hardly have aroused the attention, and certainly
not caused the intervention of the supreme authority. And .
such an intervention must be assumed because it is otherwise
inexplicable why so many liiarrists tried to dissociate them-
selves from this article and because its authors were given no
opportunity, and possibility did not even try, to defend them-
selves. Their mistake must have been something completely
.
unmentionable, so that all criticism had to be cloaked in the
.vague accusation of "formalism" with the ominous warning of
the political danger which the article represented. Voprogy
Filosofii and the speakers at the conference mentiened a
criticism of the article in Nauka i Zhizn, a.pppular scientific
,
magazine. When one looks up this short critical note one
finds nothing but a rather unfair presentation of the authors'
views and a sarcastic comment on the extravagance of Barrist
views. No indication of "political noxiousness" can be found
there.
36/30:
50X1 -HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
30. There is,-hOwe-ier, an interesting passag,., in Nikolsky
and Yakeviev's article rhich was intended to establish Ilarr's
reputation as a symPathizer of the' revblutionary movement in
Russia as far back as 1905; Nallarrists have ever'had recourse
to this argument in favour of their idol in the subsequent dis-
custhion,'and.this Subject lims never mentioned in the final
condemnation by Stalin in June, 1950:--The-relevant passage
-
of "the article in Vaarosy Filosofii runs as follows: "But
.4
it is 'articularly important that N. Ya. Harr was not a scholar
who had]ocked himself up in the sphere of "pure" science,
In the ccinditions of Tsarist Russia he sincerely sympathized
with the revolution. In 1905, in a "letter to the Caucasian
yeuth", he declares: "power should be in the hands of the
people" (there is a footnote to the article by Nikolsky and
Yakovlev quoting Marr's "letter" as published in the paper
Rassvet, N" 209, 21)i. and 222 for 1905. The quotation is,
as the footnote says, taken from a book by V.A. Nikhankova and
Marr i133, published in 1948 inidoscaw-Leningrad). The
Imrsi.y.-Filosofii article goes on to say that in the summer
of 1905, Herr vent to the Georgian province of Guriya and gave,
in the paper. Rassvet, an-eyewitnese account of revolutionary
activities there. Harr is said to have declared himself an
admirer of the Bolsheviks at these meetings, and to have roused
the anger of the Ebnsheviks who criticized him in theidenshevik-
controlled Iskria.','N? 111, of 29th April, 1905. Finally, in
37/a footnote .
e
a footnote, the paper quotes a separate publication by N. Ya.
Harr, entitled "From Gurian Observations and Impressions (on
the question of the Baku Events)", published by Al. Al'abidzel
St. Petersburg, 1905, pages 24 and 25.
31 ? There can hardly be any doubt that it was precisely
this reference tollarr's eye-witness accounts of the 1305
revolutionary events in Transcaucasia which stung the authorities.
As has now been conclusively shown by Bertram Wolfe in "The
Three Who made a Revolution", ever since the early thiritcs
Stalin had begun to build up a legend about his own role in.
Transcaucasia. In this he was helped by Beriya, who published
a faked biography of Stalin, and liquidated all eye-witnesses
who would not corroborate tho blatant falsifications which
were required to glamourize the early days of the Supreme
Leader. Naturally, llarr's eye-witness account contained no
direct attack on Stalin's behaviour. He does not mention
Stalin-Dzhugashvili-Kdba at all, but that only made things
worse for the authors of the article. Any direct reference
to authentic original sources, without mention of the established
authority, viz. Beriya, was a rash and foolish thing on the
part of the contributors to Voprosy Filosofii, and it is quite
natural that the Harrists were quick to dissociate themselves
from the authors of the obnoxious and ill-timed attempt'to
recall to memory the revolutionary reminiscences of Marx'.
38/The fact
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-38-
The fact that the harrist and anti-Earrist war was particularly
acute in Georgia itself confirms the hypothesis that the final
verdict on Harr was connected with something ho had seen and
recorded on the 1905 revolution in Transcaucasia. It was mainly
there that any eye-witness account of the true course of events,
and the role of personalities, was to be wiped out completely
by Beriya methods. Should Harr, as the harrists wanted, have
been proclaimed the supreme I'.arxist authority in a large field
of human knowledge comprising linguistic history, pre-history,
anthropology, archeology, ethnology and so on, he would have
entered the pantheon of socialist Fathers whose earlier writings
could not be suppressed for ever. Sooner or later the contra-
dictions of ii.arr as an eye-witness of the 1905 revolution, and
of Beriya's legend, might come to the fore and acquire dangerous
importance. Stalin and Boriya could not tolerate this.
32. Stalin's condemnation of Harrism has often been
explained as the reaction of a somewhat pedestrian sanity and
commonsense against the extravaganzas of a brilliant but
fantastic inventor of scientific hypothesis. It is; howeVer,
more in keeping with what we know of the-character of Stalin
to assume that the manifestation of sanity and commonsense-
in this case waS prompted not by the merits or demerits of the
theory which. he criticized, but by the ulterior motive - always
present in his mind - of building up the legend of a great
_
39/revolutionary
revolutionary leader in 1905 wholahe wanted to substitute for
the real Dzhugashvili - an otscure and rather sordid Caucasian
rebel with but little following in the masses.
33. Of course this real reason for Stalin's belated con-
demnation of .L.i.arrism could not be stated openly There is,
50X1-HUM
however, sufficient evidence that it was the reference to Harr'
writings on the Transcaucasian situation in 1905 and connected
matters, which roused the supreme leader's wrath. It is interesting
40/tomote
:4 Footnote: The practice of accusing publicly a delinquent of
a crime he had not committed while concealing the one for which
he is actually to be punished, had been established by Stalin
at least as long ago as the great trials in the thirties. In
the Bukharin trial, Bukharin was accused of all sorts of crimes
he had never committed while the writing of a seditious letter
to a friend abroad, which had been published in 1925 through an
indiscretion and which can be proved to have been written by
Bukharin, was not even mentioned at the trial although it was
well known to all concerned. Stalin's touchiness on everything
concerning his status and his activities before 1906 in Trans-
caucasia was well known; it must be left open whether the
article by Nikolsky and Yakovlev hell been instigated in order
to raise Stalin's wrath. The fact that the article was signed
by two names hardly known to the general public and not by some
prominent idarrist such as Moshohaninov or Chemodanov, makes it _
seem highly suspicious. Articles signed by a couple of youngish
authors have frequently been used in order to evade responsi-
bility even on the pages of 21s-2/1s0211.211Cii itself. (Quite
recently in the article by Nazarov and.Gridneva, see Chapter
IV). It may well, however, have been an innocent slip of the
pen on the part of the authors which gave rise to the whole of
the Harr affair. Somebody must, nevertheless, have drawn Stalin's'
attention to the danger such references to the early writings
of Marr presented to his reputation. It is a fair guess that
this might have been either Professor Chikobava"who was'sufferifig
under the persecution of Georgian liarrists, or possibly somebody
of the standing of Academician Vinogradov, whose serious work
on linguistics was threatened by the growth of semi-literate
NPrrist charlatanism.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM.
9853
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
11,
- 40 -
to note that in quoting Iskra the authors of the fatal article
in Voprosy Filosofii omitted to quote the name of the Bolshevik
propagandist who attracted lierr's attention, and who was
praised by him. Is it possible that this man - a certain
Khtis-Tskaloba - had shared the fate of other eye-witnesses
of the Transcaucasian events who, like Enukidzel Lidiveni and
many others (see Wolfe "Three Who liade a Revolution", Chapter
25) were eliminated? In any case, the article in Iskra
24th September, 1905 ends with the assertion that "now as is
well known the very odour of Leninism has disappeared from
Guriya", and this was the text which the authors of the article,
following :garr's biographer, hikhankoval were inviting their
leaders to consult:
34. quoting Narr's articles of 1905 was even more dangerous.
:Harr was far less enthusiastic about the Bolshevik activities
in Guriya than Nikhankova and the authors of the article pre-
tend. In the tarm pamphlet which they quoted (Iz Gurivskikh
Nabludenii ? Vpechatlenii, St. Petersburg, 1905), and which is
a reprint of the articles in Rassvet, Yarr criticizes the
behaviour of Bolshevik agitators in Guriya, while giving
sympathetic account of the Guriyan revolutionary movement
itself. He writes on page 26, describing a political meeting
in a Guriyan village: ,
"The speaker criticized violently local public
views, in particular federalist and autonomist ones.,
41 /In e st imat ing
In estimating them he showed a sharp Party bias.
The orator' i infatuation with the views of his Party
vent so far that he - although a Georgian - not only-
identified himself with the Russian Social Deracorai:s
but made the disavowal of all Georgian national .
elements or, at best, the complete ignoring of them,
the basis of his awn political Weltanschaung.
"Later I was told that the organizers of the
meeting aid not allow one of the dissenting orators
to speak, although he was a member of the same Social
Democrat Party. There can be no doubt that a certain
censorship exists in Free Guriya. By the way, the
speaker whom I mentioned, Khtis-Tskaloba, was re-
proached for gathering people in private houses
instead of talking to them publicly beca-Ise in this
way one can, in secret, disseminate ideas which are
dangerous for the people", etc.
35. -But this is not all. The very reference to the
Guriyan movement was singularly tactless in 1950. In1904 the
peasants in Guriya established a kind of independent republic
of their own, ignored P.nd boycotted the Russian imperial admin-
istration, established courts and administrative offices of
their own, carried out a sort of land reform, challenged the
authority of the ecclesiastics, reduced the "Church tax" and
42/defied
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
4,0
4.;
)1
50X1 -HUM
,t
9853
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-42 -
defied the legal authorities in numerous and successful
demonstrations. They were ruled by a revolutionary Committee,
owing allegiance to the Batura Revolutionary Committee, con-
sisting of Eensheviks. In the first edition of the Great Soviet
Encyclopedia (1930) there is a more or less objective account
of the Guriyan movement, a movement which was suppressed by
military force after the 1905 revolution. In the new edition,
started under the supervision of Beriya, this account Was
suppressed, and not even replaced by a revised version.
1.70
know from Stalin's writings (also quotaaby Beriya in his book)
that Stalin did not approve of the Guriyan movement, for he
believed that the Guriyan peasants were particularly impervious
to Bolshevik indoctrination. Under such conditions a revival
of interest in the Guriyan movement in an article intended for
general circulation was very much out of place.
36. Moreover, li.EIrr's own part in the events in Trann-
caucasta preceding the 1 905 revolution is far from unequivocal.
He was a popular and influential figure in that region. .Be
sympathized with national aspirations and was accused of doing
so at that time. Be was highly critical of socialist extremists,
possibly even of hensheviks. In a contemporary pamphlet
(Erestvansko c Dvizhoniya v Gruzii i botsial-Demokratiya,
published in :Moscow in 1906) a certain Shakhnazaryan quotes
the same passage fromMarr's pamphlet as does Idikhankova,
4.3/but adds
50X1-HUM
but adds in a footnote on page 112:
"It is characteristic that these words have
been used by the very same Marr who, being popular
among the population, has shown himself an enraged
ene,ny of the lievement together with the priest and
Dean I. Rashvili who has been executed as a 5py.
Be said that the heads of the Movement are youngsters
who had received no education, he argued with the
peasants to stop the Movement, threatening them with
Siberia and the gallows, he described the Peter and
Paul fortress and abused the Social Democrats, calling
them "Traitors to the Motherland' It
(Obrazovanic N? 1, page 38, 1905)
37. So Marr was a well known figure at the critical time
and a
friend of a man whom the revolutionaries had executed.
It is highly improbable that Stalin, who was at that time
active in Transcaucasia, would not have heard of Marr and of
the part he played in the events of those days. It is there-
fore significant that Stalin does not refer to them in his
criticism of Marr. Even more to the 1-Joint is the fact that
after the unlucky attempt to recall Earr's revolutionary pant
in the article in Voprosy*Filosofii this theme was dropped
by the followers and by the opponents of Marrism, during the
"discussion" in the pages of Pravda in the summer of 1950.
38. There is, however, one passage in Stalin's "7ork of
Genius" on "Marxism in Philoogy" in which we may well detect
44/an indirect
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
-
9959
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-
an indirect allusion to tho unfortunate passage in the Voprosy
Filosefii article. "It iS generally recognized," writes Stalin
in his inimitable style; "that no science can develop and
prosper without a clash of opinions and tho freedom of criticism.
This generally-recognized rule has boon ignored and trampled
on in the most unceremonious way. IL closed group of infallible
masters has been formed which, having protected itself from
all possible criticism, began to act in an arbitrary and hooligan
way." One would expect that Stalin world quote examples of
this arbitrariness of tho Marrists in dealing with their
opponents before branding them for establishing an "Arakcheev"
regime. And an example he actually quotes. But typically
enough this example has nothing to do with the persecution of
opponents, as we can see from the passage immediately following
the preceding quotation: "To quote only one instance: the so-
called "Baku course" (i.e. the lectures which idarr read in-
Baku in 1927 and which the author himself had rejected and
republication of which he had forbidden) was re-published by
order of the caste of those masters whom Comrade lieshchaninov
calls the "pupils" of Marr, and was included in a number of
textbooks recommended to students, without any reservation.
This means that the confidence of the students was abused,
and that they were presented with a rejected course as if it
was a completely commendable textbook. Had I not been sure
of the honesty of Comrade .jeshchaninay and other workers on -
philology, I might have said that such behaviour amounts to
sabotage."
' 45/39.
-45-
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
39. The reference to the caste of philology pundits
who would be accused of sabotage but for Stalin's personal
trust in their honesty, is ominous. The instance of criminal
activity, however, which has been chosen by Stalin to pillory
the guilty is merely the publication without reservations of
an earlier and rejected version of'I5.arr's linguistic theories,
Is that not, we should ask, the clearest way to drop a hint
to the linguists that they should stop referring to Marr's
works written long before 1927, and stop investigating a past
with which nobody but such masters of the re-writing of history
as Beriya should be concerned? In any case, tho condemnation
of Marr was final and radical. Stalin writes: "Having recog-
nized 'some' of the mistakes of Harr, 'the pupils' of Harr -
as it appears - intend to develop in the future Soviet philology
on the basis of a corrected theory of Marr which they consider
to be Marxist. Oh no spare us the lelhrxism of Harr. Marr
really wanted and tried to be a Marxist, but he did not succeed
in becoming one: he was merely a simplifier and a vulgarizer
of Marx, something like a J21et1e1lt and rapp-man."
40. It. is clear from Stalin's words, that what he feared
was not so much the theory or the various changing theories
of Marr, about which he must have heard mostly from secondary
soarees, but the reputation of the man. It must be' born in
mind that the efforts of liarrists to establish a Earr-cult had
46/gone
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
50X1-Fidm
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-4.6-
gone rather far. There existed an archive of all Mezr's un-
published works of which a partial catalogue was printed in
the above-mentioned book by liikhankova. This also was hardly
a circumstance which would escape Stalin's attention. Such
archives could easily have contained material bearing on events
in Transcaucasia in 1903-1905 which for special reasons Stalin
did not want to be touched by "unqualified" people.
The unfortunate initiative of Nikolsky and Yakovlev
in the pages of Voprosy Pilosofii and the subsequent development
of the anti-;Uarrist campaign show clearly the political and
extraneous motives for Stalin's interference in the linguistic
discussion. The theoretical contents of his writings on this
subject must be considered, therefore, as casual and accessory,
as a kind of cover for the denunciation of Marr. Nevertheless
they at once assumed great importance, because they provided -
philosophers and other theorebicians with a new text for
commentary and speculation. Indeed, all philosophical activity
in the Soviet Union from then on and up to the publication of
Stalin's contribution to the economic theory of socialist
society in 1952, centred on his anti4larrist writings, which
were hailed as a great step forward in the development of
Marxist theory. WC shall consider Stalin's remarks and, their-
repercussions on ideological writing in the next chapter.
4.7/2HAPTER III
- 47 -
50X1 -HUM
CHAPTE.R III
42. Whatever reasons may have prompted Stalin to interfere
in the linguistic debate of 1950, they have never been d:Ivulged
either by him or by any of the numerous commentators in sub-
sequent years, %alien the "work of genius" of the leader was
discussed at all levels of the Soviet educational and plopaganda
system. At a special meeting of the Academy of Sciences the
former Chief Editor of Iraprosv Filosofii, Kedrov, could not
refrain from pointing out that a considerable reponsibility
for launching the ill-fated litarrist offensive rested with the
editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii, then under the chairman-
ship of Kedrov's successor, Chcsnokov. The first anniversary
of the publication of Stalin's pamphlet was celebrated by
another meeting of philosophers as well as of linguists, At
all these meetings, and in innumerable articles, the point was
made that Stalin's remarks were a great contribution to Marxist
theory. Indeed, the pamphlet affected Soviet ideological writing
for the next three years as no other work had done since the
October Revolution. The adulation of Stalin as the "greatest
theoretician and scholar of our days" reached its apex in the
commentaries on this work.
43. It would, however, be a mistake to consider Stalin's
pronouncements of 1950 as a further turn of the Screw to:wards
the establishment of total uniformity and dogmatism in Communist
48/ideology
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
';11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 4-8 -
ideology. Stalin's contribution was, on the contrary, a direct
attack on Marxist dogmatism and on those whom ho called "book-
worms" (nachetchiki)ii and Talmudists. The latter, said Stalin,
consider Marxism, the separate conclusions and formulae of
Marxism, as a collection of dogmas which nevor change in spic
of the changes in the conditions of development in society.
They think that if they memorize these conclusions and formulae
and quote them at every opportunity they will bo able to solve
all problems and hope that the conclusions and formulae which
they have thus memorized will be useful to them at all times,
in all countries, and in all circumstances of life." In place
of this view ofIlarxism, based on the study of the letter but
not the spirit, Stalin presents Marxism as "a science of the
laws of development of nature and society, a science of the
Revolution of the oppressed and exploited masses, a science
of the victory of socialism in all countries, a science of
building Communist society; as a science Marxism cannot be
static. It does not recognize conclusions and. formulae
applicable to all epochs and periods end unalterable." And
Stalin concludes: "Marxism is the enemy of all dogmatism."
49/44.
34 Note: A "nachetchik" was a 'reader' in the small sects in
Russia which had no properly established priesthood. Be was
responsible for the maintenance of the traditien of the sect
and was always ready to answer a question on dogma by a more
or less appropriate quotation from the scripttres or the
sectie founders.
' Note:
44. This tirade cannot be regarded as an attack on Earr
and his followers. The "bookworms and Talmudistn" whom Stalin
was attacking were the self-appointed High Priests of Marxism
against whom Zhdanov had already thundered in 1947.
the philosolhers who were repeating Marxist formulae
taking into consideration the reflection 'which thenr;
Thoy were
without
formulae
might cast on the day-to-day policies of Stalin's government,
Such an attack on the specialists of Marxist theory, combined
with denunciation of the "Arakcheev?4 regime in certain branches
of science, and the proclamation of the necessity of free
discussion in scientific matters, must have been welcome to
all those scholars who found irksome the close control of their
work by professional Marxist ideologists. Stalin made it clear
that science and scientists were not at the mercy of such
"bookworms and Talmudists", and that there was an appeal
against them to the benevolent commonsense of the oupreme
ruler himself. For some of them the arbitrariness of the.
tyrant must have appeared more tolerable than the pedantic
nagging of ignorant and self-important Marxist ideologists.
The enthusiastic reception of Stalin's platitudinous pamph13t
on linguistics might well be explained as an attempt by the
50/specialists
Arakcheev, a hated reactionary figure of the later
years of the reign of Alexander I. He introduced agricultural
Military settlements.
988
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
+.1
-50
specialists in various branches of knowledge to secure their
emancipation from the ideological control of the diehard
ideologists and philosophers of official liarxism.
45. This, however, is only part of the general loosening
of dogmatic rigidity which was caused by Stalin's contribution.
Possibly far more important was the effect of his impromptu
remarks on certain basic concepts of liarxism. These remarks
became the object of endless discussion, and they led to an
erosion of the formalized conception of the world and of
society, which professional philosophers had worked out on
the basis of the writings of lisrx, Engels and Lenin as well
as those of the earlier Stalin. Stalin's remarks deal with
such fundamental Marxist concepts as the relation between
basis and superstructure; the respective functions of antagon-
istic and non-antagonistic contradictions as factors of
development; the sudden "jump" from a quantitive to a quali-
tative change; the emergence of now qualities; and finally,
the prospects of revolutionary changes in the future.
46. The publication of Stalin's work on linguistics
thus brought about a change, a certain easing of controls
both for the victims of ideological regimentation and for
those whose job it was to carry out this regimentation. The
new mood found expression in a number of "discussioneon
various general subjects connected Vith the foundations of
51/different
50X1-HUN
- 51 -
different branches of knowledge, and their relation to tho
basic ideas of Marxism. In these discussions the representat-
ives of specialized science became bolder in defence of their
views against possible attack byliarxist diehards. It must
be admitted that those discussions never developed into the
controversial debates between specialists which ?caul' in
western academic circles. In the U.S.S.R. they were still
vitiated by irrelevant comments on whether one point of view
or another was in greater harmony with some casual remark on
the subject by one of the four founders of Harx-ism/Lenthisra.
The technique in such debates was to find a quotation which
would expose the opponent as a deviationist. The answer to
this attack would be to denounce it as Talmudism or "quotationise,
i.e. the using of quotations out of context, and thus the dis-
cussion would go on inconclusively. This procedure was
complicated by the introduction of the nationalist element.
Any theoretical view which sought general acceptance or hearing
could do so only by claiming to have its origins in Russia;
otherwise it would have been decried as cosmopolitan or as
implying a servile attitude to the West.
47. Some of these discussions wore more or less formal,
others developed in a less organized way in the -philosophical
and scientific periodicals. Tho principal ones were the dis-
cussions on the relation of formal logic to dialectics; the
52/discussions
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R00220018001n-ri
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 52
discussions on the later views of Einstein and on the signifi-
cance of the quantum theory; on the role of art in social
life; and on the significance and imeortance of Pavlov's
physiological theories, in particular in their application to
psychology. In these discussions the top representatives of
theoretical Marxism took little part. But even for them the
publication of Stalin's work on linguistics meant, in a sense,
a loosening of the shackles. The discovery that such an
important phenomenon in human activity as language cannot be
classified as belonging either to th, basis or to the super-
structure of social life, came as a revelation to the traditional
Marxist the
48. The original Liarxist text introducing the distinction
between basis and superstructure is in the preface to the
Critique of Political Economy. It states that the sum total
of the circumstances of production (i.e. the circumstances of
propel-ty holding within which the material powers of production
operate) constitute the economic structure of society, the
real basis on which a juridical and political superstructure
is reared, and to which correspond determined forms of social
consciousness. From this relatively narrow claim Marx goes
on immediately to draw farreaching and vague generalizations:
"the mode of production of the material moans of life conditions
in general the social, political and spiritual process of
living." Marx ends with another even vaguer and wider
53/generalization
-53-
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUN
generalization: "It is not mass consciousness that determines
their existence, but - on the contrary - their social existence
that determines their consciousness." The dogmatic acceptance
of this last generalization led Soviet ideologists of the '405
to believe that all cultural activities belong to the so-called
superstructure.
49. As language was part of culture, there had never
been much protest against Marr's classification of it as part
of the superstructure. Stalin accused Ea= and his followers
of having confused the "mode of production of the material
means of life" (of which ltiarx says that it conditions in
general the social, political and spiritual processes of
living) with the "material powers of production!' (i.e. th
actual techniques, the capital goods, the raw materials as
well as the actual labour employed on them). liarx, according
to Stalin, meant by "mode of production" nothing but the
economic structure, i.e. "circumstances of property-holding",
within which the material powers of production are operated.
According to Stalin, only those elements of cultural human
activity which arc conditioned by a certain "mode of production!',
i.e. a certain economic structure of society, belong to the
superstructure. Language is not conditioned by the economic
basis whereas law, religion and State all are, both according
to Stalin and to Marx, fully/conditioned by it. It is not the
54/intention
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy A
?
proved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
intention of this paper to find out whether this restricted
and limiting interpretation of 1,:arx's text by Stalin is th6
correct one or whether Karr (and for that matter many other
Marxists) were right in believing that the Marxist text had
a wider significance. It should, however, be noted that
anybody who had dared to challenge Stalin on a question of
Marxist theory could have pointed out that Marx's generalization
went much further than Stalin would admit, and that Marx pre-
ferred in this context his dictum about "existence determining
consciousness" - a dictum which has certainly become the very
basis of historical materialism.
50. Stalin, however, went even further in deviating from
what he now called a vulgarized version of Marxism. Be pointed
out - and his admirers and adulators could not praise him
enough for doing so - that the superstructure itself, while
being fully determined in its origin by the economic basis
of society, is by no means a passive phenomenon. It is active
in strengthening the basis in which it has its origin and
is, to a great extent, responsible for the continued existence
of a basis even beyond the time at which it has ceased to fulfil
its function as the most adequate system for the development
Of the production capacity of society. .Indeed, according to
Stalin, this action of the superstructure gains in importance
with the advent Of socialist society, in which ideology and
55/institutions
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy A
?
50X1-HLA
institutions are established by the conscious application of
scientific Marxism. The part of these institutions as a
regulating factor of production relations is overwhelming.
This basic idea of the
which Stalin expressed
revising :larxist ideas
supremacy of politics over economics
more and more explicitly as he vent on
is also at the root of his view that
no political revolution is possible after the establishment
of the dictatorship of the working masses. The work on linguis-
tics only hinted at Stalin's subsequent development of this
idea and Stalin merely warned comrades not to be taken in by
the theory of explosive changes leading to the emergence of
new qualities. In his later work on Soviet economics Stalin
explained with greater clarity how revolutions in a prolet-
arian dictatorship are prevented and made unnecessary, and
indeed superfluous, by the fact that social contradjctions
are being and will be solved by direct action of the Government.
It is a safe assumption that this claim is based on the
professed conviction that the only State machine .which can
prevent revolution is the one which makes use of the weapon
of scientific Marxism.
51.. The development of the theory of basis and super-
structure is reflected in successive editions of the "Short
Dictionary of Philosophical Terms" edited by Rozental and
Yudin. In 1941, under the title "Basis and Superstructure",
56,/the
proved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R0077nn1Rnn1n_q
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
the dictionary explains that "the means of production, that
is the production forces and the production relations which
correspond to them form the economic basis (foundation) of
society." In this formula the short dictionary follows
closely the text of the introduction toDlrx's Critique of
Political Economy. However, even in 1941 Rozental and Yudin
thought it necessary to warn their readers against the vulgar
interpretation of this text by economists who could see in
the superstructure only a passive consequence of economic
conditions. The dictionary also points to the collectivization
of agriculture in the Soviet Union as an instance of the
reverse action of the superstructure upon the basis.
52. In the third edition (1952) of the dictionary the
article is considerably enlarged. It states that in his work
":iarxism and Questions of Linguistics" Stalin has "profoundly
uncovered the essence and the inter-relations of the super-
structure with economics". The Importance of the superstructure
in the socialist State is, according to the new version,
"enormous". This'increase of importance is caused by the
planning of the economy by the State.
53. In the fourth edition of the dictionary in 1955, (that
is after the appearance of Stalin's work on Soviet economics
and after his deazh), the same entry in the dictionary marks
the further development of the argument. The increase in
importance of the superstructure of socialist society is not
57/merely the
11?101.....4011.1e1.1,,,...???????????+
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 20
50X1 -HUN
merely the result of a widening of the sphere of activity of
the Soviet State but-much more the result of the wisdom of
the Party which knows what is best for the masses; "Rno..7ing
the laws of social development, the Communist Party foresees
in advance the basic processes of economic development in th.:
future and accordingly plans the programme of State'adtivity
necessary for securing the welfare of the popular masses".
In all three 1.8.541 editions of the dictionary the article on
"basis and superstructure" is intended to bolster the cane for
a stronger and permanent socialist State apparatus.
54. The idea of the dofainant role of the superstructure
in socialist society is, of course, totally alien to the
teaching of idarx and Engels, although it may well go back to
Lenin; but this could not be admitted openly either by Stalin
himself or by the professional 1:arxist theoreticians who
commented on Stalin's "work of genius". The hysterical style
of these commentaries,and their hyperbolic praise of Stalin's
genius,
clearly
feature
which allegedly enabled him to discover and to express
such elementary and simple truths, were, an outstanding
of Soviet philosophical writing. in the years 1950 to
1953. The abject hypocrisy of this praise-singing is loss
striking than the sincere surprise of the Soviet iarxists at
discovering that all their efforts to interpret Stalin's
policies as compatible withliank's and Engel's teaching were
58/not only
zra
.,9
13/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R0022001800in-fl
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
not only dishonest, which they must have known throughout,
but also quite superfluous. Now, after the publication of
Stalin's work on linguistics, Marxist theoreticians discovered
to their surprise that they were not required to eXplain the
principles of Stalinist policy in terms of traditional Marxism.
Instead, they were obviously expected to state these prin-
ciples boldly and then to give an interpretation of Marx which
would make *the obvious contradiction with Stalinism less
noticeable. To make things even more absurd this was not to
be put forward as a revision of Marx; on the contrary,
Stalin's views were to be explained as the highest form of
development of the original teaching of Marx and Engels.
55. The professional philosophers took up their new
assignment with the greatest enthusiasm. Immediately after
the appearance of Stalin's work on linguistics the Academy of
Social Sciences organized a special conference dedicated to
the study of the pamphlet. Both G.F. Aleksandrov and Feaoseev
made a first attempt to appreciate Stalin's great contribution
to Marxism. A year later the anniverSary of the publidation
of Stalin's work on, linguistics was celebrated by another
conference of the same Academy. Both in Voprosy Filosofii
and in Bolshevik , article after article dealt with Stalin's
new pronouncements and Aleksandrov himself published a
sPecial book epitomizing them. Reading this litereature is "
59/one of the
0
one o e mos pai u spin i ua an in e cc a x rcis s
to which one can submit oneself. The writings of Aleksandrov,
Fedoseev, Looney*, Glesermann and others, give the impcession
that these people were aware throughout the fifteen or -',;venty
years preceeding the appearance of Stalin's works that the
Soviet State was not run on lines which were in any way con-
sistent with the Harxist theory they had learned, and yet
they refused to admit in their writings that this was soo
They Obstinately described Soviet reality as if it were nothing
but the fulfilment of Marx's prognosis. Their interpretation
of vbat was happening had less and less resemblance to real
life, they indeed became "bookworms and Talmudists" but at
least up to 1950 they had been consistent in their ova system
of lies. Now the situation suddenly changed and Stalin told
them that it was not he who had deviated from orthodox
-4Jarxism, but *Um,' who had interpreted Marx in a vulgar and
popularizing way and therefore had invented this false and
superfluous interpretation of Soviet reality. They could
have spared themselves the efforts of finding excuses for
Stalin's policies, had they accepted the principles on which
these policies were based and revised their own view of Marx.
56. A few examples of the effect of Stalin's "work on
linguistics" on the "discussions" which took place in 1950/53
may suffice to illustrate the new situation. Stalin had
explained that language was neither an element of the superstructure
60/nor the result
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9358
'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-60-
nor the result of class struggle. The question immediately
arose whether other social and cultural features. which had _
been wrongly classified as elements of the Superstructure
should not now be declassified. Stalin remarked that there
could be no thinking without language, therefore thinking as
such was declared not to be an element of the superstructure,
notwithstanding liarx' s claim that economic conditions deter-
mined human consciousness. According to the licence issued
by Stalin it was legitimate to assume that thinking is a
human activity in all human beings indepeudently of class
struggle, and that the laws of thinking, which find their
expression in formal logic, are therefore independent of the
progress of social evolution. All talk of "proletarian
logic" as opposed to bourgeois logic was declared to be as
dangerous as the Marrist heresy itself. This did not go off
quite smoothly; there had been certain attempts to create a
special socialist logic by trying to revise the rules of
formal'logic and to alter them to suit the style of Marxist
dialectics. The results were handed out to the secondary ,
schools as text books of logic; in quick succession projects
of new text books of logic wore compiled by various authors
and rejected at special conferences *as confusing. The question
lost its practical interest when logic was again withdrawn-
from the curriculum of the secondary schools, but the solution
whidh emerged after Stalin's work on linguistics remained
61/the accepted
11
4
- 61 -
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
the accepted theory on logic in the Soviet Union. According
to this, formal logic was the science concerned with human
thinking as such and had no class significance. Dialeeics
was the scientific method of Marxism and therefore a moi,hod
concerned with the whole universe, and in particular with
human affairs. Dialectics was determined by class struggle
and belonged, therefore, to the superstructure of socialist
society. Dialectics as the method of Larxism was still con-
sidered to be some kind of logic and the Georgian logician
Bakradze was sharply criticized for having denied that dia-
lectics was a form of logic. But according to the diehards
of orthodox Marxism, dialectics was a "higher form" of logic,
the understanding of which presumed complete mastery of formal
logic and which stood in a similar relation to formal logic
as higher mathematics stands to elementary arithmetic. With
this vague comparison the discussion more or less petered
out,
57. The course of this discussion showed that works
by modern mathematical logicians had penetrated into the
Soviet Union. Indeed, Tarski's "Introduction to Logic" and
Milbert and Ackermann's classical work on mathematical logic
had been translated into Russian. However, in the discussion
it was decided to consider mathematical logic as part of
mathematical studies. The translators of Tarski were attacked
62/for their
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA RDP81 01043R00220018001n
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
for theiruncritical approachland :the dangerous connection
of mathematical logic with neo-positivism was pointed out as
a warning against ovor-enthusiasm. It may be noted here that
the study of mathematical logic was revised after the death
of Stalin in connection with the "rehabilitation" of cybernetics
as a science. In 1951 cybernetics was still considered to
be one of those pseudo-sciences which capitalist ideologists
invent in order to corrupt and mislead the masses. Later,
Er. Wiener's book on cybernetics received official recognition.
So aid the mathematical theories of logical calculation on
which cybernetics is largely based:?1
58. Another discussion of the foundations of physics,
the significance of Einstein's contribution to it, and the
theory of quantum mechanics followed similar lines to that
on logic. Lenin had viewed the beginnings of modern develop-
ment in theoretical physics with an unfriendly eye, mainly
because of its connection vith. Ernst rach's epistemological
ideas which he abhorred and which he most violently attacked.
hedern physics, however, continued to develop independently
of any Earxist theoretical views oven though so many pro-
anent physicists of the inter-war period professed very
63/advanced
i? Note: See a detailed account of this develop?ment in C
r.
Dip
advanced political views. Work on piysics von on in
Soviet Union on the same-lines as in non-communist countries
and it soon became necessary to reconcile Lenin's criticism
of modern physics with the general ideas which Soviet physicists
had to share with their western colleagues, in order not to
lag behind in the development of science. This was atmpted
by a professor of Kiev University, M.E. Ome3iyanovsky, at the
50X1-HUM
beginning of 1947. He published
20th Century Physics". Although
120 pages and was published in a
(10,000 copies
cations, it is
in 1948. This
a booklet: "V.I. Lenin and
it was only a pamphlet of
relatively small edition
in 1947) as compared with other Soviet publi-
said to have been widely read and was reprinted
second edition coincided with the crisis in
the editorial board of Voproay Filosofii, (mentioned at the
beginning of the second chapter of this paper and which
resulted in the replacement of Kedrov by Chosnokov as editor
in chief). In the same issue in which the ill-starred article
by Nikolsky and Yakovlev on Marx' s linguistic theory appeared,
the new editorial board published a review of Omclyanovsky's
book signed by Karasov and Nozdrev (two quite unknown authors).
An editorial note stated that the mistaken views contained in
Omolyanovsky's book had escaped criticism and that the book ?
had boon favourably reviewed in the Soviet press. The mistaken
views of Omelyanovsky had influenced his own contributions
-60 o V opr osy
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA RDP8 -0 0
50X1-HUM
9353
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
to Voprosy Filosofii as well as the position which the
editorial board of the journal had adopted in questions con-
cerned with physics.
59. The review adhered strictly to the instructions
laid down in Zhdanov's speech at the philosophical discussion
of -1947. OmelyanovsXy was accused of adopting an "evolution-
ist view" of the development of physics instead of showing
haul according to the rules of dialectics, progress had been
made in the relentless clash between the reactionary idealist
tendency in physics and the progressive materialist views
acting against this reaction. Whereas Lenin always insisted
on the "party-mindedness" of science, Omelyanovslcy was accused
of drawing a smoke screen over the political aspect of modern
physical controversies. "In Omelyanovskyis book there is no
substantial criticism of the methodological positions of Bohr
and Einstein. Tho attempts of certain contemporary schools
of physics to saddle scientists with a "physical" idealism
are passed over by the author in silence and everything leads
to the assumption that certain philosophers - idealists are
attempting to make use of contemporary physics for their own
purpoSe". This, according to the reviewers, was a grave'
error. Bohr and Heisenberg as well as Jordan (whom the ailthors
call a "fascisant") were said to have put forward idealist
views in physics itself. Omelyanovsky was accused of white-
.
washing the leaders of the Copenhagen school and of portraying
65/them as
701 7gignr1
s- ' ?
50X1-HUN
-65-
them as "potential materialists" whose views have been mis-
represented by idealist philosophers. Omelyanavecy was also
accused of being unable to appreciate the real significance
of Einstein's theory of relativity from a material:1.st point
of view. This criticism was linked with the anti-couraupolitan
campaign and denunciation of a servile attitude to tbc.; Vest;
of which Omlyanavsky was said to be guilt
60. Tho attack on OmeIyanavsky set the ball rolling.
There were three parties to this discussion. The one lod by
a corresponding member of the Academy, A.A. liaximev, repres-
ented the Party view on modern physical controversies and the
other two were led by eminent physicists, Academician Fok
and Professor Blokhintsev. The latter published n 194-9 a
book on the "Foundations of Quantum Mechanics" in which he
attempts to review Bohr's "principle of complemontarity".
Blokhintsev himself was joined by Omelyanovelcy, who took
advantage of the discussion to demonstrate that he had in no
way been dragged in the wake of Bohr and Heisenberg (Voprosy
Filosofii N? It., page 151, 1951). In doing So Omelyanovsky
attacked the Leningrad physicist Academician V.A. Fok, whom
he accused of accepting Bohr's principle of complementarity
"which is bound to drag physics away from a correct inter-
pretation of micro-phenomena into an idealist bog" (page 166).
Academician Pok reacted by publishing a short appreciation of
Blokhintsov's theory in Voprosy Filosofii 1952, N? It.. The
66/controversy
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R0022001800102.1
????
50X1-HUM
9358
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-66-
controversy between these two emimnt physicists is one of
theoretical physics and the polemics were maintained on a
high academic level by both protagonists (Blokhintsev answered
Fok's criticism in Voprosy Filosofii 1952 N? 6).
61. On the whole it can be said that Blokhintsev tended
to revise the physical part of the Bohr/Heisenberg theory,
whereas Academician Pok was ready to accept the physical
elements of the teaching of the Copenhagen school in their
entirety with a vague promise to adapt them to the requirements
of dialectical materialism. It was under these circumstances
that llaxiraov, (a corresponding member of the Acadew and a
member of the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii), launched
an attack on modern physics in the paper Krasny Plot, a
publication of the Soviet Navy. (on 13th Juno, 1952). The
article bore the title "Against Reactionary Einsteinism in
Physics". The more fact that a subject which was under dis-
cussion in specialized periodicals should be brought out in
a widely road daily paper was considered by the Leningrad
physicists - headed by Pok - as hitting below the belt (see
the article by A..D. Aleksandrov in Voprosy Filosofii 1953,
N? 5, page 244). Academician Pok reacted with an article in
Voprosy Pilosofjj (1953, N? 1) of unusual violence in polemics
even in Soviet Russia: The article is entitled "Against_
Ignorant Criticism of Present-Day Physical Theories". Pok
67/wrote
-67-
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
wrote that the article by liaximov in the Krasny Plot "produced
the most painful impression by its anti-scientific attitude
and its unbelievahle mistakes both in questions of physics and
in questions of philosophy", Pok accused Maximov of confusing
relativity ard subjectivism. He reminded him that Lenin t3on.-
sidered Einstein as a great reformer of natural scionces
whereas, according to 1.ia.imov, Einstein morr;ly corrupted the
materialist contents of physical laws d:1=overed before him.
Pok broke .a lance In defend? of the Memory of the late
Academician L.I. Mandelshtarn who had been attacked in lial?simovi s
article. The final passage of Pok' s article explains thcJ
position better than the confused arguments in the discussion
and is worth quoting in full. On page 174. he writes:
"The adversaries of the theory of relativity
are misinforming our scientific workers and our
undergraduate students when they appeal to them
to reject one of the most important achievements
s of the physics of our age and to go back, in fact,
to a stage which belongs to the past.
"We are particularly indignant when wa see
that reactionary anti-scientific views are brought
forward by the opponents of the the Ory of relativity
in the name of dialectical materialism. Apare.from
anything else, they are thus doing extreme damage
68/to the '
50X1-HUM
? 9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
62.
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-68-
to the cause of spreading the ideas of dialectical,
materialism in ,the countries of people's democracy -
where the struggle between the supporters of idealist
and materialist philosophy is still going on and
where every word spoken by the scientist in our
country is listened to with the greatest attention.
"Soviet scientists should-develop present-day
physical theories in a creative way, considering -
them in the light of the teaching of dialectical
materialism and cleansing their exposition from _
their husk of .idealism which only renders them more
difficult to understand. Nothing is, however, more
alien to the tasks confronting progressive Soviet
science than the ignorant criticism of these theories
which leads to their Senseless and damaging rejection".
The courage shown by Aeademieian Pok in launching"
this attack on an orthodox Marxist is even more remarkable,-
Air the following two circumstances. First, the Academy of _
Sciences seems, to a large extent, to have supported the point
of view of Maximov and had accepted his article on the "struggle
of Lenin against physical idealise in its Bulletin dedicated
to the ."great.force of the ideas of Leninism", 200,000 coplps
of *441.aPPPare:d: in 1950. Secondly, Pok speaks only vaguely
.,???
-of the approach to modern physics in the light of dialectical
materialism. Be does not attempt to show how the ideas of -
69/dialectical -
gf.
-69-
50X1-HUM
dialectical materialism and the antiquated views of Marx,
Engels and Lenin on physical problems can be upheld and re.-
conciled with the great revolution
have undergone in the last thirty
must have had very powerful trumps
which basic physical ideas
or forty years But Pok
in his hand when challenging
Maximov. The latter was allowed to publish a long rejoinde:c
to Fok's article in the same iosue of yasyFnosofti..; but
this rejoinder carried a note by the editorial board disclaiming
-
responsibility for anything Maximov said.
63. Subsequent developments vindicated Fok's attitude
coMpletely. In the fifth issue of 3m?.51.1.mofii for 1955,
Fok's pupil and friend A.D. Aleksandrov (the present - 1957 -
Rector of Leningrad University, who should not be confused
with the one-time Minister of Culture G.F. Aleksandrov),
attacked Maximov and his supporters once more and seems to
have silenced him. The lesson to be drawn from this dis-
cussion is the triumph of the specialists' point of view
represented by Pok, which amounts approximately to the
following, when put into plain language: "Never mind what
the old fogies of Marxism thought of the early timid steps
towards new ideas in physics. These ideas have come to stay
and without a thorough mastery of them no physical science
is possible.. The task of the philosophers, if there is any,
is to adapt Marxist theory to this modern physics by finding
70/a suitable
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9358
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
a suitable dialectical materialist interpretation of it". In
this respect Pok follows the example of Stalin whose admonition
of Marxist theoreticians amounted to exactly the same in the
political field. Obviously his position as a leading physicist
at a time when nuclear physics became almost as important in
the Soviet Union as political power itself, allowed him to
adopt such an attitude.
64. The pattern of the discussions on other subjects
which went on from 1950 to 1 953 is very much the same as that
of the discussions on logic and physics. They all reflect the
far-reaching revision of Marxist ideas initiated by Stalin's
contribution to linguistics. Art is no longer a mere part of
the superstructure and literature is not solely determined
by class consciousness; those who, by inertia, continue to
profess the opposite views are denounced as revivalists of
the "proletkult" movement, which was connected with the
Bogdanovito heresy in the 1920s and was condemned by Lenin.
Professor Glesermann dedicated a whole book to this revision
of the concepts of basis and
him, neither science nor art
superstructure, but they can
superstructure when they are
servient to the needs of the
superstructure. According to
are by themselves part of the
accidentally become part of the
used by or make themselves sub-
econobic basis of society, that
is when they become instruments of State power, which wields
71/thora as a
them as a weapon against its enemies. Nene of this made the
task of teachers of Marxist philosophy and ideology particu-
larly easy. No vender that at that period (1950-53) no text
books of dialectical materialism or of historical materialism
could be produced. The drafts of such books were contini.11.11y
discussed and revised but nobody dared to bring out a defiLl-
tive version. Teachers and lecturers on philosophy in the.
Soviet Union found it difficult to adapt themselves to the
changing situation. It was left to them to estimate what
importance they should attach to the new pronouncements by
Stalin and how far they should go in revising his former views.
The teachers stuck to their awn programmes and were criticised
for not showing a close connection between:Marxist/Leninist
philosophy and "life", i.e. Stalin's policy. It is astonishing
that in 1953, only two days after Stalin's death, e. professor
of Moscow University (KharapinsIsy) could have been accused
of not having mentioned, when speaking of the creative
evolution of *Marxism, Comrade Stalin's work on linguistics.
Such teachers were reminded that ",indispensable professors
who are not perfecting themselves, who lag behind the in-
creasing demand of the undergraduates, should be replaced by
able and growing comrades". (fterosy Filosofii, 1953, No 1,
page 88).
65. The majority of Soviet philosophers avoided entering
into theoretical discussions6of the kind we have analysed
72/avocc.
50X1-HUM
9859
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
It
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
?
- 72
above. 'Like Professor G.T. Aloksandrov, they proforrod the
safer way of contriiouting.to tho "philosophical development"
of their time by surpassing themselves in praising the latest
contributions of Stalin and in vicious attacks on "bourgoois"
philosophy as an instrument for the maintenance of a capitalist
imperialist system. One need only look at titles of articles
such as "Tho learned Lackoys of the U.S.A. Monopolists are
fanning Military Hysteria", or "The Struggle of tho German
Unity Party against the Idooloa of War and the Betrayal Of
National Interests", or "Present-day American Theoreticians
aro justifying Lawlessness and Arbitrariness", or "Gangsterism
in the Service of the Monopolies of the U.S.A.". Tho last
two aro signed by B.S. Nikiforov and are a particularly men-
dacious and stupid.attadlc on American conditions. (This same
Nikiforov is now at the head of the department of foreign "
relations of Moscow University. All nogotiations about tho
.practical arrangements for exchanges of students, delegations
and so on go through him, although ho is treatod by the
academic 'authorities with some reserve).
66. Soviet criticism of Western bourgeois philosophy
during the years 1950-53-gaVe hardly any information as to -
what the much-abused Western.philosophors were actually
saying. Bertrand Russell was again and again merely roforrod
tojas'a "war-mongering obscurantist." This activity of Soviot
?
73/philosophy
-73-
philosophy was even organized as a special oranon callou
"Criticism of Bourgeois Ideology". It was a useft2 activity
for many pooplo since it provided opportunities for authors
such as Nikiforov, who could not have othorwise contributed
to Voprosy Filosofii, to join the exalted circle of philoso-
phers. On the other hand, it gave prominent people in academic
circles such as Tarle or Deborin, an opportunity to mako a
contribution to the "World Peace Movement" by denouncing
imperialism and militarism. They thus performed a useful
funotion in support of the policies of the Soviet *Government.
67, Closely connected with the so-called criticism of
bourgeois ideology and of such bourgeois lackeys as the
British Labour Movement and the non-communist socialist
parties of the West was the direct support given to foreign
communist i'deologists. But even hero Soviet philosophors'
wore careful not to publish too much authentic information
about discussions in communist parties abroad. In 1951 there
wore hardly any foreign contributors to Voprosy
However, a slaw ohange in this respect became noticeable in
the policy of the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii. In
the autumn of 1952 a lecture by Professor Rogpr Garaudy took
place in Moscow to a selected audience of the collaborators
of the Institute of Philosophy of the Acadepy of Sciences
and the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii. Garaudy, whose
74/lecture
50X1 -HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
-
14
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
lecture was summarized in Voorosy Filosofii, gave an account
of the struggle being carried.on by French communist intellec-
tuals against "reactionary official philosophy" in France.
The level of his criticism can be judged by what he said of
the study of Hegel in France; "Hegel's reactionary apology
of Prussian feudal monarchy has been adopted by the French
fascist philosopher, Aron, as a pattern for justifying reaction
in France". Free philosophical study in France, according to
Garaudy, was only a camouflage for the poisoning of the
imagination of the philosophers by all sorts of "ridiculous
fantasies", in order to prevent ideas from having a connection
with reality: "a philosopher locked up in such an idealistic
cage becomes harmless to the existing regime". Garaudy also
explained the efforts made to prevent the penetration of
reactionary ideas from England and the United States into
France. Toynbee's "Outline of History" was classified as a
"philosophical concoction directly serving the purposes of
war". The "American, occupation authorities in Francd' impi:irted
a considerable amount of "luxuriously published papers, magazines
and, books' but only "a few philosephors in Franco" were Said
to indulge "in this farm of intellectual prostitution and to
take part in this new way of collaborating with the occupation
authorities". This lecture by Professor Garaudy, then a
'member.oftthe, Central _Committee of the French Communist .Party,
75/inaugurated
- 75 -
inaugurated a period of more or less clode-ceoperation between
him and the philosophical inatitutions of the Soviet Union.
Garaudy became a Doctor. of Philosophy of lioscow University in
1955.
68. The other relatively safe field in which-Soviet
philosophers could work and publish was the study of-meri6.1-
50X1-HUM
ist Russian thinkers, and scientists of he 19th century, both
those who belonged to the revolutionary intelligentsia and
those who worked as obscure teachers and professors in the
Universities. Obscure and insignificant figures were dreSsed
up as fighters for an advanced materialist trend in some
special branch of-philosophy. Casual remarks on general subjects
by the great Russian scientists of the past were commented on'.
in endless articles. This literature is of negligible value
for real historical research and is nothing but a falsification
of the views of the persons concerned, whose work is criticized
according to a ready-made pattirn.
69. Stalin's swan song, his work on the "Economic
Problems of Socialism-in the U.S.S.R.", was published in "full
with all the additional letters in Voprosz PilOsofil: (1952,
1\113 5) together with an analysid'of the ideological findings
of the 19th Party Congress. However, the shock which' Stalin'
intervention in the linguistic controversy: had produced in
ideological circles was not repeated. Besidesaienkov'S
?
76/comontary
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9359
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
r4efl
------- .
-76-
commentary on Stalin's latest -scientific effort provided a
pattern for further commentaries by the philosophers. _Only
the very top of the ideological hierarchy, i.e. G.F. Aleksandrov,
Fedosoev and Kammari ventured to comment at once on the general
principles of Stalin's new contribution to knowledge. It is
characteristic, however, that one of the first commentaries
made, this time by a Leningrad contributor, L.I. Kon, vont a
step further in explaining the loading role of political and
legal views in the development of society It attacked certain
lawyers who gave an erroneous interpretation of the inter-
relation between political and legal institutions. Those were
on no account to be opposed to each other. Lenin was quoted
to the effect that "law is a political measure, is itself
politics". The main thomo of the article was the rehabilita-
tion of the State as a necessary instrument of socialism.
"The bourgeois State is an instrument of exploitation and is
an-enemy of the popular masses, therefore, as Lenin points
out, socialism has inherited from capitalism a hatred and a
lack of confidence among :bhp masses towards anything which has
to do vith the State. We needed intensivo educational work
carried out by the Communist Party in order te overcome this
obsolete view. This work has been crowned with success.
Popular masses brought in by, the Soviet Government on a large
,scale to participate in the, business of State administration
77/have understood
?
-77-
have understood that the Soviet State is indeed a people's one".
50X1-HUM
The article is remarkable for its praise of the Soviet legal
system as it actually worked at that time and for its theoret-
ical justification of the practices of Soviet co,trt proceedings
(with ample quotations from Vyshinsky). It also vindicated -
interference by the executive power in the Soviet judiciary?
It should be borne in mind that this was the philosophical
reading material for people who might have had a sleepless
night after the announcement of the discovery of the Doctors'
Plot (Kon's article appeared in November, 1952 and the announce-
ment of the Doctors' Plot in January, 1953).
70. The period between the publication of Stalin's work
on linguistics and his death was marked by a total collapse
on the ideological front as it had existed before the end of
the second world var. In the '30s and even in the beginning
of the '40s under the active leadership of such people asiditin
and Yudin and, to a certain extent, of G.F. Aleksandrov himself,
there existed in the Soviet Union something like a doctrine
which was formally binding for the authorities as well as
for the rank and file communist.' True, it had long ceased
to be a scientific theory open to discussion and criticism
from any sources. The supreme argument in any discussion was
the quotation from the works of Lenin or Stalin-interpreted
in one's own favour and intended to silence one's opponent.
78/And yet a doctrine
50X1-HUM'
9953
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
1
,
Ui
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-78-
And_ yet a doctrine it was, although perhaps a doctrino-similar
in its function to that of a religious sect with its final
authority rooted in the sacred texts, rather than the scientific
theory which Marx and Engels intended it to be.
71. It was this fossilized conception of Marxism that
Stalin attacked. Zhdanov's warning in 1947 had not been under-
stood by those to whom it was addressed. They showed great
willingness to mend their ways and to comply with any demands
which might be mado on them by the authorities; but they
seemed not to understand what these demands were and, in res-
ponse to them, could only offer protestations of loyalty,
good will and subservience. Stalin's work on linguistics
destroyed the very concept of an accepted and established
doctrine of Marxism and Leninism. Marxism, according to Stalin,
is the theory of revolution, the theory helping the proletariat
and the only bearer of the proletariat's real interests, the
Communist Party, to seize and hold power. Accordingly,
Marxism as a theory was identical with the policy pursued by
the Communist Party and, as long as Stalin was alive, ;by
Stalin himself as the leader of the Party.
72. This was a doctrine which it was not easy for the
professional Marxist theoreticians to swallow. Indeed, the
older generation - the Iiitinb and Yudin's - withdrew from the
straggle. The somewhat younger AleksandroVis and Fedoseev's
attempted to apply sly and clever tactics and to combine
79/servility ,
-79-
servility to Stalin and Byzantine sycophancy with the main- 50X1-HUM
tenance of their status as high priests of the doctrine.
They hoped, in a sense, to fulfil the function porfoxmed by
the highest church dignitaries in a State where the lay abseluto
Monarch is the head of the church. This would not do. Fedoseev
got his reprimand in December, 1952 from Suslov, who ridiculed
Fedosoev's tone of doctrinaire priesthood by using the vi3rb
veshchati(to play the oracle).
73. Aleksandrov, on the other hand, in his book on
Stalin's works on linguistics and questions of historical
materialism, went perhaps too far on the path of servility.
The book contains many expressions of the most humble and,
indeed, humiliating self-criticism and it is certainly not
lacking in strong expressions emphasizing the supreme impor-
tance of Stalin's "contributions" to Marxism. But Aleksandrov
was criticized - and rightly so - for not developing the hints
made by Stalin into an elaborate theory and not using his
knowledge and ability to provide a "profound" eritici6m of
such obscurantists as Russell, Jeans and Dewey. Almost every
chapter of the book was criticized for this lack of ability,
or possibly desire, to develop Stalin's pronouncements into a
full-fledged academic theory. For instance, critics. accused
Aleksandrov, when speaking of the evolution of language,- of
not supporting his thesis that language does not develop in
"jumps". "Aleksandrov should not have satisfied himself by
80/merely
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
merely quoting the theses of J.V. Stalin's work; he should
have supported it with the necessary argumentation".
74. This reserve of Aloksandrov's and of some other
critics was possibly originally caused by their reluctance
to believe that Stalin really meant to liquidate the existence
of all independent Marxist theorising and to replace it by a
kind of top-level propaganda department dedicated to providing
a "scholarly" dressing for every new line of Stalin's policy.
Such doubts as these theoreticians had must have boon com-
pletely dispelled by tho publication of Stalin's work on economics
and the ensuing discussions at the 19th Party Conference. The
theoreticians indeed showed every willingness to assume the ?
new role assigned to them and the last months of Stalin's life
were marked by a growth of the cult of his personality in
philosophical literature. A stronger imagination than that
of George Orwell would be needed to picture the depths of
degradation to which Soviet philosophers would have sunk had
Stalin lived to see the.development of the great purge for
which the Doctors' Plot was to be the prologue. There are
clear indications that a part was assigned to them in this
fantastic drama which was never played out.
75. Following Kon's article, to which we have referred
above, Voprosy Filosofii published in its first issue_of 1953
(signed for publication two days after Stalin's death)- an
50X1-HUM
editorial on "The state of legal scholarship". The article
claims that there is a need for a basic reconstruction of the
"science of law", which can be carried aut sucuessfully only
on the basis of a profound assimilation of the,work of genius
of J.V. Stalin. The article warns against over-estimating
the importance of the reversed action .of the superstructure
on the basis and especially against an interpretation accorging
to which the superstructure had a kind of independent existence
Superstructure rests on the realities of the basis and the
task of the legal scholars is to show haw this reality in-
fluences the contents and the function of the legal norms and
State institutions of the Soviet Union. On page 101 the real
purpose of this vague diatribe becomes apparent: "We must
further remember that our State and legal institutions to a
certain extent reflect international relations. J.V. Stalin
has shown that our Army, our punitive organ, and our intelli-
gence service point their sharp, edge not inwards but outbide.
our borders against external enemies, against attempts -to
undermine the security of the U.S.S.R. on the part of hostile
imperialist States, against the spies and saboteurs who are
sent into our country by the enemy. The .exposure by the organs
of State security of the terrorist group of base hirelings of
Anglo-American imperialism, of murderers who hid behind the
mask of Professors of Diedieine demonstrates once more thato
81/editorial
82/capitalist
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
capitalist encirclement uses the most revolting methods in
the struggle and reminds us of the rpcossity of increasing
political vigilance and mercilessly fighting slovenliness
and carelessness. It is obvious that legal scholarship should
take into consideration this function of the Soviet state -
the function of the defence of the country against attacks
from outside".
76. The article goes on to explain that legal science
is not a deductive system "inferring concept from concept,
definition from definition, construction from construction.
Its task is to study the concrete objective conditions which
give rise to one or other legal norm, legal status or State
institution and,: after having studied the specific nature of
this norm, status or institution to show what their "recoil
action" is on the social economic conditions which have given
rise to them. Legal science also has to find out hay to secure
a better functioniu of this "recoil action" in the interests
of the Soviet people as represented by the policy Of tho
Communist Party and of the Soviet State." It is obvious that
this editorial article was planned and inspired as a arst
stop for a theoretical justification of the blood bath which
Stalin envisaged in 1953. That it was allowed to appear
after Stalin's death in tho same issue as the official
obituary notice by the Central Committee, the Council of
83,4'Iinisters
Ministers and the Presidium Can only moan that tho ideological
front was not in the centre of attention of Stalin's successor50X1-HUM&
Otherwise they would have certainly prevented the publication
of such an article, oven if it had been already sot. But it ?
may well be the clearest indication of the real purpose for
which, on the instructions of Stalin, and with the hop of his
latest writings and pronouncements, the last remnants of lie.rxist
dogmatism based on literary and revolutionary tradition had to
be liquidated and replaced by a running apologetic commontaxy
on the day-to-day policies of Stalin himself.
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
ft:
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
CHAPTER IV.
77. . The outstanding feature of Soviet ideology during
the years 1950 to 1953 had been the erosion of Marxist dogma;
the period following Stalin's death witnessed a further stage
in the decomposition of the remains of Marxist idedlogr in
Russia. The contrast between both periods is, however, not
spectacular4 The phraseology, the way of putting and answering
questions, the very subjects of philosophical discussions
remained much the same as before. The changes were mainly
confined to the gradual reduction of the stature of Stalin,
to an increased interest in Western philosophy and determined
atteopts to get at least some factual information on it, and
possibly to a return to less biased and tendentious methods
of historical research. The modesty of those changes should
not, however, conceal from us the basic difference in the
situation on the "philosophical front" before and after Stalin's
death.
. -
78. In the last years of Stalin's life everything stated
. or printed in philosophy which was not immediately denounced
as a heresy could be taken as having the sUpport or at least
the tolerance of the supreme leadership. Even attempts at
ideological deviations, such as the harrist heresy, could .
all be traced to the desire to comply with the whims'of the
dictator or, at the most, to try and win him over to a certain
85/point of- view.
-85-
50X1-HUM
point of view. Tho-period after his death. with Which= are
now concerned lacks any such unifying factor as that of Stalin's
personal control. For the firSt time" for years-confL:cting
views are being put forward at the same time and no authoritY
has, as yet, emerged to which they cbuld be put for final
arbitration.
One would naturally expect polemics in this
period to have becohe Sharper but, on the contrary, opposing '
views have, in fact, been put forward -with muoh greater moder-
ation than in Stalin's time. It is as if ideological opponents
within the framework of official ideology are pulling their
punches, whereas in Stalin's clay they went all out for their
adversaries-as soon as they realized that these could be
hounded down.
79. The first thing which attracts attention when reading
the latest Soviet philosophical-literature is that in the first
two years after Stalin's death his stature as a supreme teacher
of Marxism suffered a gradual reduction. Quotations from
his works became scarcer and laudatory qualifications which
used inevitably to be attached to his name disappeared almost
entirely. The highest praise to be dispensed was that of ?
having faithfully continued the work of Lenin. The eclipse
of Stalin aid not affect even the style of philosophical
works as much as might have boon expected, because .6116 ex-
aggerated claims of a uhique method and a supreme 'ability
0
86/to understand
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA-RDP81 01043R002200180010
9855
,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-86-
to understand and direct processes of social development were
now attached to the name of Lenin. Some of the early articles
printed in Vberosy Filosofii after Stalin's death give the _
impression that they were written before the event and that
the editor simply crossed out Stalin's name in the purely
sycophanticpassages and replaced it by Lenin's.
80. After the first number of 1953 announcing Stalin's
death, which gave the impression that the main subject of
future philosophical discussions would be Stalin's latest work
on "The Economic Problems of Socialism", articles specifically
dealing with Stalin's contribution to Marxism gradually dis-
appear from the pages of the magazine. (It should be noted,
however, that a number of pamphlets dedicated to Stalin and
designed for propagandists were still published in 1953).
From the third number of Iroprosy Filosofii of 1953 it becomes
clear that the study and epitomizing of Stalin's lastmork had
been definitely dropped. The most surprising thing is that
nobody ever mentioned this process of do-Stalinisation or
admitted that it was taking place. This only shows . if there
was any necessity for such a proof - that the most basic and
far-reaching changes in the Soviet Union can, and do, occur
without anybody daring to acknowledge them openly. The degree
of hypocrisy, self-deception and conscious inhibition which is
required from those who are engaged in effecting such changes
has never been Sufficiently appreciated.
_
87/81.
-87-
81. We should realize that every contributor to Soviet 50X1-HUM
philosophical literature after Stalin's death, in fact every
writer on ideological matters, must have been profoundly
worried by the question - whether he should mention Stalin or
not and haw often he should mention him, if at all, in connec-
tion with any subject he was writing on., Take, for ilmt;ande,
Kammari, later Chief Editor of Vnerosy FAlos.ofp., and a
corresponding member of the Academy; he welcomed ,the appearance
of Stalin's last work with twenty.psgos of the most servile
praise (ImEal1722112m22:211952, N? 6). In 1954. 110:22y2.112Effii
No 3, Hammari publishes an article on the triumph of the
ideology of friendship between the nations. The article
deals with a subject which was considered to be one of Stalin's
reserved specialities and before 1953 a work on this subject
could not have failed to refer to Stalin's numerous writings
on the question of nationalities. And yet,
in 1954 Kammari
mentions no works by Stalin. Be replaces Stalin's name by
Lenin's in such meaningless sentences as "Lenin exposed and
.
smashed the nationalism and the great-power - chauvinism of
the bourgeois landowners and small-bourgeois farmers". ?But
even then, as if to prove that there had been no intentional
attempt to suppress Stalin's name, Kammari mentions him
"incidentally" together with Lenin and his "collaborators",
(page 131). The suppression of any reference to Stalin's
88/eclipse
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010 3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
e7
eclipse created a most unreal situation. It was as if all
concerned were continuously and more or less uniformly changing
the colour of their skins; all the time pretending not to
notice and never mentioning the fact to each other.
82. The strain which this imposed must have been partly
alleviated by the opportunity to vituperate against the cult
of personality - a new vice discovered at that period among
intellectuals. The first mention of it seems to have been
made in connection with the celebration of the fiftieth anni-
versary of the C.P.S.U. in 1953. At a meeting of the Academy
of Sciences, the chairman,Acarlomician Nesmoyanov, proclaimed
that "the Party demands the elimination from scientific propa-
ganda work of the established practice of interpreting in a
non-adarxist way the .role of personality in history - a practice
which found its expression in a
liaxxism".' But in launching the
personality the representatives
enough not to link it up openly
cult of personality alien to
campaign against the cult of
of the Party were cautious
with the process of de-
Stalinisation. P.N. Pospelov, who was the main speaker at
that meeting of the Academy, expressly disclaiLed Stalin's
responsibility for the establishment of the cult of-person-
ality. Pospelov joined in Nesmeyanovis demand for the
elimination of. the cult of personality and added that "it leads
to an under-estimation of the role played by the Party and
its directing centre and to an under-estimation of the creative5m -HUM
activity of the Party's rank and file and of the Soviet people".
83. The authority which Pospelov invoked in this context
was J.V. Stalin. According to Voerosv Filosofi.1; 1953,
No 6, Pospelov said: "on this question there arc a number of
categorical pronouncements by the classics of Marxisra/Leninismo
In 1938 J.V. Stalin wrote a letter agains't the publication of
a book entitled "Stories from Stalin's Childhood" whlnh was
then prepared by the 'Detizdat' of the Komsomol. In his
letter - as quoted by Pospelov J.V. Stalin pointed out that
he "decidea5yprotests against the publication of such a book
because it is full of factual inaccuracies, distortions, exagg-
erations and undeserved praise. Obviously the author had been
led into error by lovers of fairy tales, by story tellers,
possibly by honest story tellers, but nevertheless by fairy talc
tellers and sycophants. The book has a tendency to instil in
the consciousness of Soviet children, and of the people in
general, a cult of personalities and of infallible heroes;
this is a dangerous thing because the theory which opposes
heroes to the crowd is not a Bolshevik theory but a theory of
the Socialist Revolutionaries. Such a book would pour water .
on to the mill of the Socialist Revolutionaries and would
damage our common Bolshevik cause; any such book sheuld -be
burnt".
50X1 -HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
84. The camouflage of the process of de7Stalinisation
a3 a mere correction of over-emphasis on tho role of person-
ality and as being in complete agreement with Stalin's own
theoretical views, was maintained throughout Soviet .
to
philosophical literature un/the spring and summer of 1956,
when ithrushchev's speech to the IXth Party Congress was
gradually publicized at special Meetings of Party diTanizations
at all levels. The technique of camouflaging was-convenient
for 'both sides in a contest which developed inside the process
.of de-Stalinisation.. Those who hoped for an easing of Party
controls over discussions of theoretical Marxist ideas or of
historical research in philosophy, were paying for their
right to indulge in their private hobbies (or even to bring
forward .an idea which they would not have dared to put forward
before) by an occasional quotation from Stalin or Zhdanov. On
the other hand, the "reactionaries" like, Kedrov, Fedoseev,
Kamuari and RuMyantsov - who were rather apprehensive that
an upsurge of spontaneous activity on the part of the ideo-
logists or teachers of philosophy might get out of the control
of the Party - were also ,pleased with the camouflaged system
of de-Stalinisation. It gave them the opportunity-of
criticizing Stalinist theses, contained in the text books of
dialectical materialism or in Aleksandrov's book on-Stalin's
contribution to harxism, merely as "vulgar simplifications"
91/condemned
50X1-HUM
condemned in advance by all serious authorityand, in
peiticular, by Lenin himself (e.g. in his famous strictures
on Shulyatikov).K
85. From 1954 on a certain number of works and articles,
written in flagrant violation of the directives given by
Zhdanov in 1947, have been published. As an example wa can
quote N? 5 of Veprosy Filozofii, 1954 which carries an article
by Professor Asmus on Kant and another one by Friodlendorc'on
the aesthetic theories of Leasing. These articles are of no
importance as contributions to knowledge, but they are a
sign of a change in the approach to historical r:Dsearch.
They tend to show that the views of Kant and Leasing had been
taken seriously by the founders of Marxism and even by Lenin
himself, and they are an invitation to a further
of German philosophy. Such articles would coealfotay have
been qualified in 1947 as manifestations of an Objectivist,
"toothless", cosmopolitan approach to reactionary idealist
German thinkers.
92/86.
Note: Shulyatikov was an autodidact who produced a theory
explaining how economic conditions directly in-
fluence philosophical theories, and was derided by
Lenin in his book on empiriocriticism.
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-92-
86. The attitude of tho 'purists' is perhaps best
exemplified by a peculiar discussion which developed after
Stalin's death. In his mark on linguistics Stalin made an
ill-tomperod remark warning comrades not to get carried away
by the idea of "explosive changes". Ostensibly Stalin referred
to changes in language and was criticizing :Aarr's sanguine
expectation of the sudden emergence of a new language under
socialist conditions. But he was hinting at far more impor-
tant things than. that, he was giving a warning to those who
hoped that with the proolamation of the establishment of a
socialist economic order, or of the inauguration of the
communist phase,
a sudden change would occur in the political
structure of the Soviet Union, a change forecast in harxist
eschatology as the "withering away of the State". This was
clearly understood by the editors of the short dictionary of
philosophical terms who re-wrote the entry under "antagonistic
and non-antagonistic contradictions" accordingly. In the
Soviet Union, they said, where there is no exploitation there
can be no antagonistic contradictions and therefore no-ex-
plosive changes. A "political revolution" in the Soviet
Union is unthinkable. The use of Such a phrase is noteworthy,
for the very mention of a "political revolution" in the
Soviet Union, even to deny its possibility, seams to clash
with the predominant style.
93/87.
50X1-HUM
87. Stalin's casual remark put Soviet Marxists in a
difficult position. For many, the emergence of a new quality
in dialectical development had always appeared "explosive")
in the sense that quantitative changes became qualitative
suddenly "by a jump". If future changes in the Soviet Union
were to proceed without explosion, how could the necessary
new qualities emerge which would characterize the advent of
communism. It was in the expectation of these new qualities
that enormous sacrifices had been imposed on and borne by the
people. There developed a lengthy discussion concerning the
question whether revolutions can occur without "explosive
changes" and whether "jumps" can be "gradual". The hair-splitting
character of these discussions is shown, for instance, in
Kedrov's article on "Gradualness as a form of Change from an
Old Quality to a New One". Kedrov begins by saying that one
should not speculate in the abstract about jumps in general.
But twenty-one pages later he comes to the amazing conclusion:
"it follows that speaking of the gradualness of the process
of a jump, we must distinguish the beginning of a jump, ?t?
development or process, and its endings or conclusion. A
jump has its own quantitative denominators and we must take
into account with what moment of it - whether its, beginning,
development or ending - we have to deal in every concrete
instance".
,94/88.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
?
50X1-HUM
9558
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
88. The passage might appear gibberish, and yet it
explains the difficulty with which a Stalinist like Kedrov
had to deal in 19.54. On the one hand he had to maintain the
gradual character of all future changes (even revolutionary
ones) in the Soviet Union, especially at a time when the
expectation of a sudden betterment of general conditions
was particularly acute. On the other hand, he had to avoid
"evolutionism", that is a theory by which qualitative changes
will emerge as the result of an accumulation of imperceptible
quantitative ones without our being able to point out the
moment in the development at which the changes occur. Such
evolutionism would be tantamount to a criticism of Marx and
would smack of Bukharin's theories of "the grad-nal growth of
capitalism into a socialistsystem".
89. . Closely connected with this problem of the junp
from quantitative to qualitative changes is the other problem,
mentioned at the end of Chapter III, of how contradictions
in Soviet society are being overcome. Another "reactionary",
Stepanyan, published in Voprosy Pilosofii, 110 21 1955, a
typical attempt to reconcile the new trends in ideology with
the maintenance of Stalin's authority. An editorial note
points out that the article is published as a contribution
to a discussion. Stepanyan vindicates Stalin's claim that
non-antagonistic conflicts can be solved by administrative
s
95/
-95-
administrative measures and illustrates this point by now
examples. Be repeats Stalin's theories that the contra-
dictions inherent in the Soviet regime, whore dtate-planning
economy is 'opposed to the marketinc-goods-producing-oconopy
of the collective farms, can be ove'reomo only by a transformation
of the Kolkhoz property into "national" property. This moans
ultimately nationalization of tho produce of the collective
farms.
50X1-HUM
90. There is, houover, a now note in Stepanyan's article
as compared with Stalin's last work. Tho loading role in tho
discovery and the overcoming of contradictions in the socialist
society is, according to Stepanyan, played bytthe Communist
Party and not, as was foreshadowed by Stalin and by the article
quoted at tho end of Chapter III, by the State. Stepanyan,
however, takes his "development dialectics" seriously. In
order to be able to solve contradictions, the Party has itself
to develop and development necessarily presupposes the exis-
tence of contradictory tendencies. Such contradictory tenden-
cies inside the Party had been exposed shortly before Stepanyan's
article in a much-discussed play by Zorin, "The GUests",
where the-selfless fighting spirit of Lenin's generation of
with
communists was contrasted/ the bureaucratic spirit prevailing
among Soviet contemporary ruling strata. Stepanyan accuses
Zorin of seeing contradictions where there are none. "Tha
96/law of the
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9859
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-96-
law of the development of tho Party is the further unwavering
strengthening of the monolithic unity of the Party by way of
a broad development of criticism and solf-criticism as O.
proved method of uncovering and overcoming contradictions
between the old and the new". Therefore there can be no -
sudden explosive changes in tho devolopment.of tho Party, and
Stopanyan closes his article with a quotation from Stalin
saying: "in our Party as in ovary organism a metabolism takes
place. old, dying-off elements drop out and new, growing
elements live and develop. Some go - both at tho top and at
the bottom. Others come, both at the top and at the bottom
and carry on with the work; this is the way the Party grow
in the past, this is the way it will grow in future".
91. The editorial note to Stepanyan's article may have
been an indication that some of the members of the board did
not share his attitude which excluded any major shake-up in
the structure of the Party. However, no one said so explicitly
and the same Stepanyan was allowed in December, 1 955 to -
publish the obligatory article preceding the meeting of every
PrrIly Congress. Not a word in this article pointed to tho-.
possibility of a denunciation of Stalin. True, ,quotations
from Stalin are relatively rare but groat emphasis is put en
his persenal ties with Lenin. "J.V. Stalin - writes Stepanyan
has at all stages of the development of the Bolshevik Party
97/stood for,
-.97 -
stood for, propagated and developed Leninism an a.: or on= s
death, when at the head of the Central Committee of the T'ax?tYy50X1-HUM
he led it in tho struggle for the further luplementacion of
Lenin's plan of a revolutionary change of society".
underlining),
92. Those few examples prove clearly that the loading
philosophical circles of the Soviet Union adopted an ext.4'emely
cautious attitude, to say the least, towards the changes which
culminated in the XXth Congress and Ehrushchevls speech. The
fact that various shades of opinion were probably represented
on the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii, and the philo-
sophers' consideration for their personal status in the new
situation might explain this caution. As we have seen, Stalin
reducoa the philosophers from the status of a relatively
independent caste of ideological specialists to that of
commentators on his political line, of ideological civil
servants. After his death an opportunity was given to them
(Our
to regain some independence and to start playing a political
role again, if net by putting forward theoretical ideas which
politicians could translatu into practice, then at least lpy-
giving support to certain political trends representecIsby one
Or the other personality at tho top of. the Party hierarchy.
The lament issued by the editorial board of Voprosz:Filosofii
on the status of philosophy in the spring of 1956 might
98/possibly
50X1-HUM
1=I?6
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-98-
possibly point to such a situation. "Can wo say that our
philosophers have succoodod in reaching a high loyal of
thooretical gonoralization concorning actual theoretical
problems of the practice of the building-up of commdnism?
Wo rogrot to say that this is not so. Our philosophical
cadres have not yet produced important theorotical works
which would deserve to be considered as equal to independent
original research studios. Ue are still under the spell of
lagging.bohind the development of life, under the spoil of
an insufficiently high level of theoretical work",
93. Tho way to improve this situation was, according
to Voprosy Filosofii, t6 allocate a cortain minimum of time
to-philosophors for research work "making rational uso of the
availablo time budget", to show "daring in putting thooretical
problems which correspond to tho spirit and to the demands of
our days, daring In saving problems of the revolutionary
transformation of the world, daring in tho philosophical
oxplanation.of tho data 'of modorn science". Veproszia2m1EIL
makes it clear, howevori that such "daring" should not lead
ono beyond til6 protecting reach of tho Communist Party
leadership.
94. Nor was 'any daring or even courage shown by the
SoviC't philosophors when the "nuclear bomb" exploded at tho
XXth Congress. The first reaction was to admit that the
99/cult of
-99-
cult of personality, which had been criticized foi the last - 50X1-HUM
two years, was net a cult of personality in general but a
cult of the personality of 3..V. Stalin. And yet, critieism
of Stalin in a loading article published in. VoRE2ELEilosofii
after the Congress is extremely weak, not only as compared
with the text of Khrushchuv's speech, which has since become
available, but even as compared with the decisions of tho
Central Committee on the "overcoming of the cult of personality".
The criticism in yarlstiailosofii is confined to a few re-
marks on the inflated importance which had beon attached to
Stalin's work on dialectical and historical materialism,
which was, the leader in Voprosy Filosofii admits, wrongly
considered to be tho summit of harxist philosophy. This had,
in its turn, brought about "a discontinuance of a profound
study of the works of liarx, Engels and Lenin". Sticking close
to Stalin's formulae and words was said to be the main reason
for the narrowing down of philosophical interest: Stalin's
formula, according to which German speculative philosophy .
was nothing but "an aristocratic reaction to the French
bourgeois revolution and French materialism", was made res-
ponsible for the shortcomings of research on the history of '
philosophy.
95. In their self-criticism in the leading article in
Voprosy Filosofii, however, the philosophers borrow their
100/terminology
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 100 -
terminology almost entirely from Stalin's awn strictures on
philosophers when he accused them of being Talmudists and of
replacing the study of real life by deductions and an abstract
analysis of some allegedly indubitable truths. Nor does tho
article', in spite of all its abject self-criticism, mention
the scathing remark Lallikoyan's speech at the XXth Congress,
according to which tho work of Soviet philosophers was below
contempt and not oven worthy of a word of blame. Unmoved by
what was said at tho Congress, the editorial board of Voprogy
Filosofii still maintained that the philosophers have to
perform an important task in the class struggle, that they
must head the fight against reactionary bourgeois ideology
which must go on in spite of co-existence. True, such criticism
of bourgeois philosophy must be subtle and must differentiate
between those who are obvious reactionaries and the wavering
elements among bourgeois philosophers and scientists who,
under. the influence of persuasive criticism, can still find
the right path.
96. Nevertheless, the editorial board of Voprogy Filosofii
could not long withstand the pressure of discuSsions which
broke out immediately after tho toxi of Kbrushchev's-speech
became known in the Stepanyan's article, quoted
above, was understood by it readers, and probably rightly
so, as an attempt to justify and maintain certain views
101/which were
- 101 -
which were now considered to be Stalinist and which many wanted
50X1 HUM
to shake off. In' the summer of 1956 the article was discussed,
not only by specialists in Soviet philosophy, but even in a
philosophical circle by undergraduates. (This is, by the way,
the only mention of the existence e such a philosophical
circle). In an article signed Perlov (Odessa) in V9Rrogy,
N? 4, 1956 Stepanyan is accused of believing that
a contradiction in society can be overcome by a "one-act
action", and not "as a process". This seems to be a rather
awkwardly expressed criticism of Stalin's theory according
to which non-antagonistic conflicts in Soviet society will be
overcome by State and/or Party interference.
97. Perlov points out that Stepanyan's definition of
the basic contradiction in socialist economy - which was that
of Stalin - does not explain anything. The tension between
the ever-increasing needs of the whole population and the
level of production of material and cultural goods
Perlov says, in capItalist economy as well, and is
not a specific contradietion of socialist economy.
is inherent,
therefore
Such a
specific contradiction Perlov sees in the inequality in the
standard of living of people who have the same "relation to
the means of production". This contradiction will be wholly
overcome in some distant future in the "second stage of
communism", but the Party and the State are already, according
100 o Perlov,
50X1-HUM
994
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
1
t'
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
? - 102 -
to Perlov, taking stops to weaken this contradiction, by-in-
creasing the wagos of tho lower paid werkors and measures of
social welfare.
98. Tho wholo purposo of this discussion about contra-
diction bocomes clops when Porlov attacks Stopanyan for saying
that cortain contradictions in socialist society are antagon-
istic, that is that they can bo surmounted only by violdrit
methods of repression. Net even plundorors'of socialist
property should be
to Soviet' society;
liquidated classes
indiscriminately considorod as antagonistic
only those who aro connoctod.with the
or with the capitalist surroundings and
are acting in thoir interests, have placed themselves in an
antagonistic contradiction with socialist society. If thieves
and ombozzlors are working people with an under-developed
class consciousness, if they aro simply not keen on their work,
there is
reaching
ideology
no antagonism. Porlov goes on to make rathor far-
assertions; it is true, ho says,, that a religious
is antagonistic to a scientific one, but there -is no
antagonism between Soviet society and, those citizens who are
believers. Even more surprising is Porlovis statement that
although cosmopolitanism and bourgeois nationalism is anta-
gonistic to the ideology of Spviot patriotism and proletarian
internationalism, certain cosmopolitanist and nationaliSt
errors of scientists and artists should not be considered- as
105/antagonistaclly
- 103 -
antagonistically opposed to Soviot socioty. This means that
they should not be dealt with, as they were under Stalin, by
"one-act action", but by the "process" of education and per-
suasion.
99. Thc article criticizing Stepanyan's theory of con-
flicts shows haw difficult it was avon after Khrushchev's
speech to voice a criticism of Stalinist conditions and to try
and build a theoretical foundation for such criticism. Not
until the beginning of October, 1956 do we encounter iniroprosz
50X1-HUM
Filosofii
an indication of a systematic attack on Stalinist
views as such. Such an attack came with the article signed
by Nazarov and Gridnova (lib-prosy Filosofii, No 5, 1956) on
questions of the lagging behind of dramaturgy and the theatre.
It is not a more accident that the strongest manifestation
of de-Stalinization was connected with questions of art. Those
had already boon discussed and some daring words had boon
spoken by writers and critics in litorary.magazinos and in
the Literary Gazette.
100. In publishing the article by Nazarav and Gridnova
on the question of the lagging behind of.dramatic writing
and of the theatre in general, the oditorial board of Veprosy
Filosofii did not make any of the usual reservations. Never-
theless, the article certainly could not have represented the
views of the majority of the editorial board and must have
104/boon forced
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9359
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
I ;_
- 1014- -
boon forced upon them by some outside authority. Tho article
gives a-detailed acCount of the development of State inter-
ference in matters of Soviet art and theatre in particular.
It brings out facts which have become well known outside the
U.S.S.R. through such books as Elagin's "The Taming of the
Arts". It quotes Lenin and Lunacharsky as defenders of relative
freedom when policing artistic activities. According to those
authorities, State and Party interference must be flexible
and stiff directives Should not be applied too literally.
Lenin's and Lunacharsky's principles were, according to the
authors, implemented in the 1925 resolutions of the Contral
Coraraittoos which stated that "comminist criticism must fight
mercilessly counter-revolutionary manifestations in literature
but at the same time it Should demonstrate extreme tact,
caution and tolerance towards all those intermediary literary
-stratas which might fall in stop with the proletarait and will
eventually do so". The authors emphasize by underlining the
following passage of the same resolution: "Marxist criticism
must purge itself in the most decisive way of any pretentious,
semi-literate and isuffisant' communist boastfulness". The
change in the policy inaugurated by Lenin as far as the theatre
is -concerned took definite shape in 1936. ,It began with sharp
criticism of Shostakovich's opera "Lady Macbeth: of the Ntsonsk
District". It vent on under the slogan of "uprooting formalism
from the arts". The reasbri for that fatal change was, according
105/to the authors
- 105 -
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
to the authors of the article, the cult of personality and in
fact Stalin's personal interference. The article prcposcs
"to reorganize the method of control over tile theatre and the
ores in general, on the basis of Lenin's principle of loss
guidance and more practical help" It proposes "to create an
Academy of Arts, and to transfer the controls of artist:.c
activity to such an autonomous organization".
101. The article is significant, not so much becaube of
its complaints about the state of the theatre as because of
its attempt to oppose Lenin to Stalin in the most drastic way.
Nowhere is there a direct attack on the Party 0/ the principle
of Party control and the whole criticism is confined the
action of Soviet State officials, and in particular of the
All-Union Committee of Arts established in 1936 undue Kerzhentsev.
It is an indication of the sensitivity of Soviet public opinion
that, oven in this form, the article was understood to bo a
direct attack on the Party and on Party controls. It was
condemned in the daily press and in the Literary Gazette and
in the very next number (signed for publication on 22nd December,
1956) Voprosy Filosofii was forced to apologize for publishing
this article. The editorial says: "In this article, methods
of administration of theatrical art which had taken place in
a past period are being criticized. However, the article,
while directing its fire against naked administration as a
106/Method of
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9853
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-106-
mothod of guidance in art, at the same time under-estimates
the importance of the guiding activity of the Communist Party
in the development of Soviet socialist art. Although the.authors
do speak of Lonin's principles for the guiding of art by the
Party, and although they quote Party decisions and instruc-
tions by Lenin from which it follows that the Pariy should
guide the process of the development of arts according to plan,
nevertheless, in a number of points, their criticism, of the
methods of administration becomes in substance a negation of
the necessity of Party guidanco". The editorial explains the
mistake of the authors by the general conditions resulting
from an over-estimation of Stalin's mistakes. "In a number
of cases we see to much haste in the solution of complicated
thooretical problems, an unprincipled shying off from one
extreme to another, a substitution of primitive self-concoctions
for serious Marxist analysis a global negation of all
the theoretical positions of Stalin including those which aro
correct".
102. The picture of this "shying off" in ideological
matters which the editorial givps is very different from
that obtained by reading Soviet philosophical. literature.
It emerges from the editorial that thd poisonous influence
of bourgeois propaganda has infiltrated "certain pronoucements
in which the socialist nature of our democracy is questioned
107/and proposals
? ?
Sae
- 107 -
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
and proposals are made to allow freedom to preach idealism,
and so on. There have been pronouncements to the effect that
a materialist philosophy and learning in general can develop
successfully only if one allows freedom for idealist -21-1i3o-
sq,plie. The editorial refers to some workers on the ideolo-
gical front who interpreted the demand for a differentiated
approach to various trends of bourgeois philosophy; sociology,
etc. as a softening of the criticism of bourgeois ideology
and a first step to making peace with it. It speaks also of
certain scientists who 'are alleged even to have said that the
philosophy of dialectical materialism is of no 11,9e to tIlem
and that natural science can do without dialectics. :".1.ings
went so far that t7MS proposed to abolish phllosophinal,in-
struction altogether.
103. The editorial admits that philosophers idere res-
ponsible for having provoked such erroneous views by incompetent
discussions of physics, biblogy and other sciences, by a'utacks
on the theory of relativity and so on. It also points out
that a number of Stalin's pronouncements were inconsistent
with the far more flexible and dialectical teaching of Marx;
for instance, his conception that' with the liquidation of a
basis, the superstructure also suffers a total liquidation.
To this the editorial opposes a theory of traditionalism in
superstructure which, it claims, is more consistent with
the teaching of Marx.' It is clear, that this sharp reaction
108/to the
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9958
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 108
" _
to the belated penetration of the, demands for radical reforms,
of which the article by Nazarav and Gridneva is.an exanple,
f I ?
was caused by the October events in Hungary: "bourgeois
ideologists are trying to discredit Soviet democracy, the,
real democracy of the popular masses and are opposing to it
bourgeois democracy which they call an expression of the .spirit
of the 'free world'. What this free world is has been .shown .
best of all by the bandit attack of England, France and Israel
on the independent people of Egypt and by the expleits-of the
organizers of the counter-revolutionary fascist putsch in
Hungary and their bloody terror against the best sons of tho
Hungarian people".
104. There remains one unclear question: who are all
those 'certain people' who voiced illegitimate oritioiAm
(according to Voprosy Filosofii's editorial) undermining the
Marxist foundations of Soviet cultural life? Some light on
this question is thrown by the reports of the proceedings
of the all-;union co-ordinating conference on questions of
philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of
Sciences of the U.S.S.R. The report is.published (in Part
and in a short version) in Voprosy Filosofii, N? 6, 1956 in
,
which the editorial apology. for Nazarey's and Gridneva's
. ? : ,
article also appeared;
it is clear that very
but, even in this shortened version,
,
sharp, things wero. said at that.modting.
" loVbne
- 109 -
One of the subjects of discussion was the
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
"Essays on the lastor;iof Philosophical and Political Thought
of,thellations of.tho.U.S.S.R."edited tyVaseteg, Iovcliuk
and others. The sharpest criticism was made by *a. Profe;lsor
of the University of EreVan (the Armenian Chaloyan) who
criticized the method applied in writing and compiling the
"Essays". He spoke of the erroneous definition of the history
of philosophy given by Zhdanov. Philosophy is not, as Zhdainov
had postulated, a history of materialism and it is impossible
to explain the development of materialist views in' Russia
without giving an account of the idealist tendencies in the
struggle with which materialist views are developed.
105. A lengthy discussion developed in which Iovchuk gave
rather half-hearted support to Zhdanav's definition of the
history of philosophy. Chaloyan criticized the "Essays" because
the authors avoided mentioning the influence which foreign
philosophical trends used to have in the past on Russian
philosophy or the philosophies of other nations of the U.S.S.R.
To this ravel-auk andwered that one should take the bbbk edited
by him in its historiCal aspect; It had been likitten at a
period of 'struggle against bourgeois oonCeptioni of a cosmo.
?
politan character and that w6lainedhertaiii omissions;, but
there was no intention of ighoi-ing the ijifluenoe Of 'Western
philosophy. Chaloyan pointed out the poor planning of the
110/book which
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9953
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
?
- 110 -
book whioh did not show% tho speoific features of tho,dovelop--,
ment of philosophy among theryarious nations, of the
Ho said that it was wrong to start with the ninth century.A.:.D.
:
True, the Russians had no philosophy before that date simply
because there was.no Russian nation, but in Georgia,.Armenia
and Central Asia there was an established philosophical tra-
dition,going back to the third and fourth centuries.'
106. This last criticism by Chaloyan waa accepted without
much protest by the Moscow philosophers. One gets the impression
that special allowance had _been givep, to thc,Armopian philo-
sopher to express rather daring views. Generally speaking,
ever since Stalin's death aid to a certain degree eyen before,
there had been.a special ideological regime in Transcaucasia
which 'wasaccepted by the, Lioscow philosophers as a manifestation
of national peculiarities, without necessarily being a sign
of bourgeois nationalism. Another sign of the independence
of Marxist thought in Georgia was the publicatipp,:in:1955,
of a special text book, in Georgian, for students of Marxist
Leninist philosophy entitled "Questions of DialecticalMater-
. ?
ialise. It was published in Georgian under he auspices,,
and with the collaboration of the same Professor Bakradze
who had been accused, in the. discussion on lpgic of over-
,.
. , ? .. ??
? ..
estimating formal logie,at the expense.of dialectical logic.
.?
1 1 1 /1 07.
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
107. The Russian reviewer in Voprosy Pilosofii olarm
that the Georgian work is original, that it successfully shows
the historical connection of dialectical materialism with
pre-Marxist philosophy as well as the qualitative difference
between both and that it is relatively free from the defects
of quotationiam, set pattern and rubber stamp formulations.
There can be no doubt that Professor Bakradze departs from the
usual style of 'diamat' text books when he deals with the
epistemology of dialectical materialism. Be gives much space
to the analysis of the concept of truth and the examples he
quotes to illustrate what he is saying are not without daring.
For instance, he cannot accept the definition of truth as of
knowledge which has been verified in practice and comments:
"Was the theory of Marx not true before it had been verified
by practice? Or was the statement on the building of socialism
in one country not true before socialism was built? And is
the possibility of building communism in our country not true,
even before oommunism is built?"
108. There is no indication, however, that this fresh
wind coming from Transcaucasia will fill the sails of the
Moscow 'boat,. A report on the meeting of the Institute, of
Philosophy of the Academy of Science (25th.Decepiber, 195,6)
to discuss the work of Vaprosy Filosofii.shows clearly that
the Moscow philosophical organizers were on the defensive .
-
112/against too
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9358
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
against"t6o-i'ar4eachini:-reforms. The main speaker at the
Meeting Was Kammari, who had never been an enthusiast for
?
the new look. "It is now necessary to resist and reject all
elements whieh are against Marxism/Leninism and are trying
to of the criticism of the cult of the personality
of Stalin-tdbmuggle'in under thisfiag their anti-Marxist,
anti-Leninist theories and eontentions". "Some comrades";
Kammari goes on, "have come to the conelusion that the whole
struggle of the Party against idealism which plays up to the
Mensheviks is wrong. And yet, the basic features of this
idealism are a development of the most dangerous dogmas of
the Second International, a divorce of theory and practice
and a smuggling in of Hegelianism under the banner of Marxism".
109. ' Who "some eomrades" are, and who the elements
inimical to Marxi Leninism are, remains unsaid. The only
named people who had mad dangerous pronbuncements are the
SaMe Nazarov and Gridneva who are accused of having put':
forward statements directed against Party guidance of the
Arts. This Was, however, obviOusly done with the knowledge
and the support of the editoriai. board over which Kammari
presides. And yet, no purge has so far taken place among
the meMbers'of'the'editorial board. The method adopted now
is OhviOu'sly t6 take the-criticism of the cult of personality
filoml,:( in hand 'and to soary out on 4proved Party lines.
113/Kammari..
.11.4,71
50X1 -HUM
Kammari promises a number of "serious articles" which wa.
criticize the cult of personality and discuss methodological
problems of the history of philosophy.
110. This is the situation on the philosophical front
with regard to the main problem, the one of de-Stalinization
at present. Vie have devoted mach space to the discussion of
this problem, the very existence of which had Leen implicitly
denied for a long time and which is now mentioned only
occasionally, because we believe that this was and remains
the main problem in the minds of those who are entrusted with
carrying on "philosophical" work. Tie have seen that, so far
as a revision of the cultural situation existing under Stalin
is concerned, philosophy lagged behind other branches of
cultural activity in the Soviet Union. The new look was much
more forcibly expressed in literature, where a determined
struggle for a new approach has been waged ever since Pomerantsav's
famous article on sincerity in literature (December, 1953).
Nothing like it is noticeable in philosophy and the ripples
which have passed over this backwater of Soviet cultural life
are only consequences of the high wind blowing over literature
and science.
111. This is, of course, explained by the special position
of the philosophers under the Stalin regime. They were com-
promised to a far greater extent by their subservience to the
114/Stalin regime
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA RDP81 01043R00220018001n
50X1-HUM
9858
ob.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 114 -
Stalin regime than anybody else, except the secret police.
Whereas the physicists, the biologists, tho novelists and
oven the economists could retirein the last years of Stalin's
rule from the front lino of the ideological struggle and carry
on some useful work in a small way waiting for things to change,
the philosophers were forced to justify their existence by
remaining in the forefront. Any attempt to justify their
existence by politically innocuous research into the history
of philosophy or some abstract branch of knowledge such as
mathematical logic, was just as compromising as active resis-
tance to the demands of Zhdanev and Stalin. There was nothing
in philosophy on which Stalin could not claim, or would not
claim, to be an authority, and there was no escape for the
philosopher to en ivory towers
112. It is open to a poet like Simonov to confess and
deplore his weakness in having toed the Stalinist line because
he has something in his past to atone for it: his patriotism
and his achievements as a poet and writer. The majority of
the philosophers and all those responsible for the organization
of the philosophical front have no such achievements to fall
back upon, to facilitate a renunciation of their Stalinist
past. Therefore, they welcomed the technique of exposing the
personality cult without attacking Stalin, which was applied
before and up to the 0th Congress. The revelations_ made at
115/the XXth- Congress
7
115 -
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
the XXth Congress obviously caught the philosophers unaware.
They found themselves in a difficult position because they
had been the main instrument in the establishment of what is
?
now conventionally called the cult Of the personality of
Stalin. They had indeed taken pride in being such an instru-
ment. When Kammari now explains the mistaken attacks on
Marxism by the fact that present-day critics have read the
last works of Stalin but have read neither Marx nor Lenin and
are therefore unable to distinguish between the correct
Yarxist ideas in the works of Stalin and "separate formulations
lacking exactitude" - Komori speaks of his own shortcomings.
Between 1950 and 1953, he and his like all readily and
willingly forgot anything they had read in Lenin and Marx
and undertook with enthusiasm the task entrusted to them of
dressing up Marx and Lenin in the style of Stalin.
113. The tension caused by the denunciation of Stalin
at the XXth Congress increased during the summer and autumn
of 1956. The crisis threatened to become a personal one:
those who were compromised by their attitude to StaliniSm
since 1947 were obviously faced with the alternative of either
being isolated and ostracized or with the necessity of leaving
their leading positions. .Their line of defence was to try and
demonstrate their usefulness to the Party. Stalin had no need
of ideological high priests because he laid down the dogma of
116/the Marxist
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 116 -
the Marxist faith himself. But the collective leadership
might want the support of ostensibly independent scholars
in questions of Harxist theory. And this such people as
Fedoseev, Kammari or Stepanyan were ready to provide. ,They
were helped in their efforts to stabilize their positions on
this basis by the October events in Hungary. The danger of
an uprising of the intellectuals, of a general ideological
stampede, the danger of a breakdown of official double talk
and double thought, which would threaten the very existence
of the regime, became apparent. Indeed, such a danger must
have become far more apparent in academic ideological and
even Party circles in the Soviet Union than can be ascertained
from abroad. On the other hand, of course, such people as
Kammari all had an interest in exaggerating this danger in
order to increase their own importance as the main bulwark
against ideological deviations.
1124.. This is the situation at the present moment. The
question is: will the revisionists continue their attacks
on everything Stalin stood for, upsetting and freely dis-
cussing even orthodox iyiarxist views, or will they be silenced
by a clique of ideologists whose academic integrity is com-
promised and who have nothing to lose but their academic
posts? Will the new approach to philosophy maintain itself
on the so-called periph9ry. of the Soviet 'Ilion - in Georgia
il7/or Armenia -
50X1-HUM
- 117 - 50X1-HUM
or Armenia - and will the struggle develop on the basis of
decentralization? Or will the reaction of Kammari and his
like provoke a further stiffening of the resistance of younger
men in the universities and in the Academy of Sciences who
will organizt, themselves ..1.n the same way as the dissident
poets and writers appear to be organizing themselves? Thoro
are signs favourable to each of these trends of development;
there is the demand for philosophical magazine S in the Union's
Republics, there is the pressure of scientists and artists
and writers who do not want to fall again under the Control
of discredited Party ideologists-, and there is the ever-
increasing outcry on the part of the latter giving warning
to the .Party of the imminent danger to the existence of the
regime presented by ideological vacillations.
115. . The process of de-Stalinisation and the attempts
to canpuflage it are the main features of the development in
what was still called "philosophy" in'the Soviet Union in the
period after Stalin's death. At the same time changes Occurred
in other directions. The most outstanding one is an opening
of eyes to realities in the' philosophical development in the
West. We have Mentioned a special branch of Soviet philo-
sophy which developed after the war and was officially called
"Criticism of Bourgeois Ideologe.' Originally this branch
was supposed to satisfy Zhdanov's demand for a militant
118/denunciation
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-_118
denunciation of Western philosophy as an instrument of capit-
alism and imperialism. Any attempt to acquaint even the res-
tricted number of the readers of philosophical magazines with
the contents of the works of Western philosophers and the
general trends of Western philosophy would, at that time,
have been a dangerous thing and those who risked doing so
would have laid themselves open to accusations of cosmopolit-
anism and objectivism.
116. Criticism of Western ideology was therefore restricted
to the most violent and ridiculous abuse directed against a
few names such as Dewey in the U.S.A. and Bertrand Russell in
England. Pages and pages were filled with the most fanatic
abuse. One passage from an article by E. Kolman, "Bertrand
Russell, the Araparer of Imperialism" in Voprosy Fi;osofii,
N? 21 1953 can serve as an example. Speaking of the conflict
as a result of which Russell had to leave the U.S.A. in 1943,
ISoIman says: "Why did Russell fall out of favour lidth the
'Uncle from America'? The Yanks, both Quakers and Catholics,
did not understand at that time that RusSell's free-thinking
which shocked them is actually helping 'this agile pedlar of
. obscurantism to spin his web around those social strata which
resisted the influence of their own all too rigid and primitive
propaganda", and the article concludes by saying that Bertrand
Russell is the "sworn eneiny-of all working people,, an
119/experienced
- 119 -
50X1-HUN
50X1-HUM
experienced and clever agent of imperialism who has now
become one of the main purveyors of Bitlerite theories
'turned the other way round". The counterpart in America
of Bertrand Russell as a war-mongering pragmatist is John
Dewey, who ccmes in for the same kind of abuse. The fact
that he had been the Chairman of the Independent Tribunal;
which investigated the case of Leo Trotsky after the first
twoldoscaa show trials in 1936/37 had taken place, is never
even mentioned. Apart from these abusive allusions hardly
anything can be found conveying information on philosophy
in the West before the death of Stalin.
117. The contrast in the treatment of Western thought
after Stalin's death can be appreciated only by comparison
with this-preceding state. This contrast is possibly even
greater than that of the treatment of Stalin before and after
his death. Here again, however, the real reason for the
.change has not been admitted until very recently. Steps'
had already been taken to allow moreor less reliable communist
and 'progressive' thinkers in the West to report on their
activity under the capitalist yoke. We hav'e mentioned already
Garaudy's appearance in Moscow in 1953. Joliot-Ourie'was
frequently mentioned as a supporter of progressive ideas
and a leading fighter in the ranks of the Peace Congress,
but for some reason he did not contribute personally to the
12, "rapprochement
50X1-HUM
9858
-V7.4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9958
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 1.20 -
rapprochement between Soviet official philosophy and 'progressive'
Western thought. Approximately at the same time as Garaudy's
visit to the Soviet Union, Professor J.D. Bernal came to
Moscow with a delegation of 'progressive scientists'. In a
conversation with members of the Institute of Philosophy of
the Academy of Sciencea,Professor Bernal commented at length
on the backwardness of scientific development in England and
the divorce of theory and practice and e science and social
life. Professor Bernal has acquired a reputation in the Soviet
Union as a leading British progressive thinker, and was elec-
ted an Honorary Professor of HOSCON7 University in September,
1956.
118. During 1954/55 a systematic and controlled effort
was made to acquaint Soviet readers with what is going on in
Western philosophy. Every major Western country had been
allowed one or two representatives to explain ideological
developments on accepted Marxist lines; France was represented
by Garaudy; the U.S.A. by Barry Welles, a teacher at the
Jefferson School of Social Sciences in New York; Italy by
Marius Pinella and Togliatti; and Great Britain by Maurice
Cornforth. The contributions of all these "foreign -
correspondents" wore obviously intended to follow a certain
pattern and give an account of the struggle of revolutionary
and progressive thinking against the official reactionaries in
their respective countries. But not all the contributors have
followed this pattern.
121/119.
- 121 -
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
119. Thus Cornforth, instead of giving an account of the
struggle of Marxist philosophy in England against icaction,
provides lapsmy_EIL.22f11; with a lengthy article on the
opponents of idealism in contemporary English bourgeois
philosophy. The article opens with a risky declaration that
not all those who champion peace are socialists; not all
those who champion healthy realist art and literature are
followers of socialist realism; and not all those who raise
their voices against idealism in philosophy ara Marxists.
Aftef a few introductory remarks on Collingwood, Alexander
and Whitehead, who are all represented as materialists who
had missed their opportunity to develop their views consis-
tently because they failed to appreciate Earxism, Cornforth
gives an account of the latest work of Gilbert Ryle. Be
refers to Ryle's "bashful materialism" and explains it by his
desire not to be drawn into the social and party struggle of
our days and to remain a free-lance, which is a characteristic
feature of English philosophers and English intellectuals in
general. According to Cornforth, this prevents them from
carrying on an effective struggle against idealism which is
possible only from the position of an openly professed mat-
erialist explanation of the world. Cornforth concludes with
an appeal not to ignore and snub anti-idealist tendencies in
bourgeois philosophy, but tc, make the best use of them, for
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07- CIA RDP81 01043R 0 0
. 122/they are the
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
9858
EZEE!
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 122 -
they are the first steps which will lead an opponent of idealism
towards revolutionary criticism of the social conditions on
which idealism is based.
120. An editorial note in Vopprosy Filosofii points out
that besides the information contained in it, Cornforthls
article is particularly valuable as it is a pointer towards
an incorrect, simplified and non-differentiating approach to
the various trends of bourgeois philosophy. Bbuover, the
editors of the magazine reinsure themselves against malevolent
criticism by saying 7aguely that some of the contentions of
the author "require further discussion".
121. When this discussion took place (as late as the
spring of 1957) Soviet criticism was mainly directed against
Cornforth's interpretation of Alexander's and Whitehead's
views. The Soviet philosophers did not seem to be able to
say anything about Ryle. The Soviet critics (Bogomolov,
Ptmogaeva and. Trofimov) do not agree with Cornforth, that
the study of Alexander or Whitehead can be of any use for the
struggle against idealism: "It, is our duty", says one of
them, "to expose and denounce everything dead, everything
impeding the development of fresh progressive thought. The
philosophical inheritance of Alexander and Whitehead belongs,
according to our opinion, to this category". The other two
critics point out that the enlisting of idealists into the
123/camp of the
- 123 -
V?
50X1 -HUM
camp of the adversaries of idealism, of which Cornforth made
himself guilty, in no way reinforce the camp of materialism,
but on the contrary weakens, it by wiping out the demrcation
line between materialism and idealism, and by diverting the
energies of materialists and of all the fighters for science
from the struggle against the idealist schools and trends in
contemporary bourgeois philosophy.
122. Cornforth's ansWer to his critics is most significant.
Be admits that the common purpose which he shared with his
critics is the struggle against idealism. But every philoso-
phical system, he says, is always a mixture of various trends.
The philosophies of Descartes, Locke and Leibnitz, as wall as
those of Alexander and Whitehead were "neither pure idealism
nor pure materialism, but are characterized as a combination
and a confrontation of both!'. "No philosophical system can be
criticized", Cornforth goes on, "and appreciated by a certain
abstract standard: this is materialism, that is idealism".
Only by finding the materialist element in academic bourgeois
philosophy, can one establish a contact with many philosophers
who are not materialists, but who can still be "forced to join"
the materialists.- Therefore, according to Corni'orth, one
should not miss the opportunity of building bridges between
different philosophical positions. Such opportunities are
far more frequent, says Cornforth in conclusion, "than we have
been ready to assume in the past".
124/123.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
50X1 -HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-
123. The polemics of Cornforth and his opponents are
typical of the diffident attitude of the Moscow philosophers
towards Western communists and fellow-travellers. Cornforth's
contentions are very much the some as those no mentioned when
dealing with Chaloyan's criticism of the official Soviet
approadh to the problems of history of philosophy. If it is
true that Kammari's attack on those who are using criticism
of the cult of Stalin's personality for anti-Leninist purposes
was aimed at Chaloyan, it is certainly also aimed at Cornforth's
position. The fact that Cornforth is a militant communist
and sympathiser, would not, ir Kammarils View) make the situation
any better. On the contrary, it only shows how dangerous it
is to have ideological allies whose education and intellectual
habits are basically different from those of the Soviet philo-
sophers, and who cannot be controlled by the some methods of
Party supervision as are Soviet citizens.
124. Nonetheless, it is deemed necessary in Moscow to
create the impression that there is a complete unity between
-ale Moscow conception of Marxism and the communist ideologists
of the Nest. This, is illustrated by the review of the "Marxist
Quarterly" Voprosy. Filosofii, N? 2, 1956 signed by B.A.Lapidus.
It quotes Pollitt's.article in number 3 of the quarterly,
Campbell's review of Cornforth's three volumes on Marxist
philosophy, Campbell's attack on Weldon's "Vocabulary of
125/Politics",
;
- 125 -
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
Politics", and John Lewis' analysis of the works of authors
who have "approached communism", according to Lewis' opinion,
"after a more or loss serious study of Mcixist classics".
These works are Caren, Hunt's "Theory and Practico of Communism",
which, according to yarTly Filosofii is a "reference book
.
for the employees of the Foreign Office", and John Plamenatzl.
"German Marxism and Russian Communism". Lapidus concludes
his article by saying that the propaganda of Marxism in the
Magazine "Marxist Quarterly" is remarkable for its creative
approach to theory and for the connection it establishes
between theoretical ideas and the practical problems with
which the English people are now faced.
125. Gradually, informabion about philosophical trends
in the West which was originally confined to articles by
communist contributors from abroad, has become avaatble also
in articles by Soviet contributors. It does seem that the
long period of isolation in which philosophers in the Soviet
Union have lived makes it difficult for them to appreciate
present trends and their origins at the beginning of the
century and in the period between the two wars. There is,
however, a definite desire in 'certain circles to convey what
is believed to be Objective information on what is going
on.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 CIA RDP8 -0
126/126.
0
50X1-HUM
9959
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Ap?roved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
126
126. In an article by Gorsky and Burkbard in Voprosy
Filosofii, N? 3, 1956 an account is given of the English
philosophical magazine "Analysis" in which the article by
George Paul on Lenin's "Theory of Perception" is mentioned.
True, no account of Paul's masterly criticism of Lenin's
"Theory of Reflection" (-written in 1936) is given, but the
mere fact that the article is quoted is significant. The
necessity of filling in the gap in the education of Soviet
philosophers by conveying to them some knowledge of the dis-
cussion which took place in the West in the last fifty years
was emphasized in a recent article by a corresponding member
of the Academy of Sciences, S.L. Rubinshtein, a loading psycho-
logist in the Soviet Union. The article is outstanding for
its courageous attempt to explain the origins of modem
realism and positivism as a development of the psychological
discussion of the beginning of the century. It is exceptionally
well-informed and quotes its sources liberally. It also-makes
a serious attempt at an objective explanation of Russell's
"epistemology" and refrains from any accusations of class
subservience, even as far as Dewey himself is concerned.
127. An article by the "progressive American philosopher",
Harry K. Welles, specially commissioned by Voprosy Filosofii
to acquaint Soviet readers with the history of Freud's
psychological theories, falls in the same category as
. _ ?
127/Rubinshtein' s
- 127 -
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
Rubinshtein's contributions. The article strikes one by its
"objectivism". Tho only concession to the negative attitude
to Freud is a treatment of him as of a frustrated physiologist
who - having failed to find a physiological explanat'on for
the."behavicur" he observed - invented a pragmatically useful
but unrealistic theory to explain it. The article is okilfully
written and convoys most of the relevant information. And
yet, obviously this proved too much for the editorial board
of Voprosy Filosofii. They made no correction to Welles'
article but in the next issue they published a review of the
work of a Japanese communist, Singe Sibata. According to
Sibata, Freud's doctrine, which had been imported into Japan
by the Americans, "is useless as an ally of progressive forces".
"Freud and his followers are not only cutting off human mental
activity from its physiological foundation and socio-historical
conditions but they even exclude the possibility of a connec-
tion between the two", writes the lumpy Filosofii reviewer.
He goes on to quote Sibata as saying: "Freudian determinism
is therefore profoundly idealist".
128: As compared to the whiffs of fresh air which are
blowing in the secluded atmosphere of Moscow philosOPhiaar.
circles in the form of articles from abroad - even-of such
articles as those by Welles or P. Togliatti (e.g. on early
Hegel) - the occasional contributions from the Western
128/satellites
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
9ggi
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
128 -
satellites are of less interest. In 19541 a delegation of
Polish philosophers came to Moscow to establish contact -with
the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences. They
explained the special circumstances of philosophical develop-
ment in Poland where several trends, inimical to Marxism, are
firmly rooted. The leader of the delegation, Adam Schaff,
mentioned the activity of the Catholic Institute in Ljublin
where, in 1953, seven hundred students were systematically
indoctrinated in Thomist philosophy. Some of these students,
Schaff pointed out, would mot become priests and would later
take part in normal civil activities. Apart from Thomism,
there was the neo-positivist school founded by Kasimir
Tvrardowski and a movement started by the neo-Kantian philosopher
Tatarkievicz. Schaff proposed to establish close contact with
Soviet, philosophers in order to help Polish communists in their
struggle against neo-Thomism. There is little indication that
such cnllaboration has, in fact, developed. Either it was
deemed in Moscow inexpedient to enter into detailed and serious
arguments with the Catholic point of view, or else the Poles
themselves understood that Soviet ideology developing in
con-
ditions of .strict regimentation could produce no effective
0_
weapons for a struggle which was..to. be carried out in the
circumstances of semi-freedom prevailing in Poland
'129/129,
- 129 -
129. As far as philosophy of the Eastern peoples in co
corned, there have been number of articles on Chiriese and
Indian philosophy. Their main tendency was to show .;hat
everywhere in the East there had been a strong materialistic
tradition which had been suppressd by the ruling clans on
the spot and ignored or slandered by the bourgeois philosophers
of the West. Recently, their Chinese colleagues seem to have
been putting pressure on the Soviet philosophers to give more
information about Chinese and Indian philosophies. One can
only imagine the reaction of the Moscow philosophers to these
insistent proposals. They cannot believe that acquainting
their leaders with the works of obscure Chinese materialists
of the past can be of any use. They will probably pay lip-
service to collaboration with Chinese philosophers and then,
at most, start the publication of a special magazine f Dr the
study of Eastern philosophy under the auspices of Oriental
Studies.
130. From all these new developments of the post-Stalin
era in philosophy, such as information on philosophical trends
in the West, contacts with the ideological struggles in the
Satellites, as well as from the increased interest in the
history of Russian radicalism and early Marxism which produced
a flood of articles in connection with the anniversary of
Plekhariov in 1957, we can draw the general conclusion that a
certain "objectivism" in the approach to these themes and a
13q/tolerance
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
Ass
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 130 -
tolerance towards higher academic standards is mainly dictated
by the desire to increase the academic prestige of Soviet
philosophers, a consideration which had little weight with
Stalin. In.other words, speaking crudely, at a time when
co-existence and academic contacts are encouraged, it is
impossible to have teachers of philosophy in universities
who know nothing more about Freud than that he was an "instru-
ment of capitalist oppression".
131. There is, however, no real attempt to pursue the
study of divergent view to the point when an open discussion
of the essential differences can become useful. The
philosopher has to know-what the miscreants believe.
to know that they are wrong, and that they should be
Soviet
He has
silenced.
He has to know the answers he should give in order to save his
face, but there is no attempt to show him the way he should
set about refuting his opponents' views. One gets the impression
that those responsible for philosophical education have long
abandoned any hope that this can be done. Nor is it necessary -
in their view - to do so. Did 'Lenin refute the views of his
opponents? His methods of polemics were violent abuse and
insinuation and, ho was proved' right, not by his arguments",
but by the victory of the cause he championed, The Soviet
philosophers are still working on the same Leninist line and
nothing which happened in the period of de-Stalinisation can
be interpreted as an abandonment of this line..
131/132.
? 131 ?
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
132. And yet, although the policy as far as philosophy
remains unchanged, the situation in which the philosophers
find themselves has considerably altered. The increa'se of
information, both about Western theories and about th'.: develop-
ment of social and political thinking in Russia itself, is
considerable. .Even in the most abusive articles in which such
specialists in ideological vituperation as Arab-Ogly or
Episkoposov attack bourgeois thinkers and scientists, Catholic
critics of Marxism such as Wetter or emigre Russian philoso-
phers such as Lossky and Zenkovsky, a considerable amount of
bibliographical information is conveyed. One is tempted to
think at times that the authors of these libels might themselves
be using this channel to convey information for the use of
their colleagues which it would be impossible to convey other-
wise. In the last years of Stalin's rule even such smuggling
of information into propaganda literature would have been very
dangerous for the authors.
133. These changes were not without their effect on the'
"philosophical discussions" which we selected as examples in
the third chapter of this survey. We have seen that contacts
between Polish and Soviet-philosophers did not yield any
results until recently. However, a Polish philosopher and
logician.who visited Moscow in'the spring of 1957 gained the
impression that the official philosophy, represented by the
132/Institute
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
9958
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-132-
Institute of the Academy of Sciences had lost all contact with
the young people who are really interested in philosophical
and logical problemsy the majority of whom are studying mathe-
matics and theoretical physics. They are well acquainted with
the work of modern logicians abroad and are eager to learn as
much as possible. All their sympathies are with the neo-
Positivist trends in the Vest which have been official7y.de-
nounced as crypto-idealist. The professcrs of mathematics
and theoretical physics at the large universities in the. USSR
are, according to this Polish philosopher, willing to provide
opportunities for gifted young men to study logic and episte-
mology as it is understood in the West. Be also received the
impression that philosophy in Georgia under Bakradze has a
different standing from that inlioscau, where the people in
the Institute of Philosophy are merely Agitprop officials. -
The contact between physicists was far more fruitful and
affected the development of the philosophical discussion on
the foundations of modern physics. There was an interchange..
of articles between Soviet physicists and Polish physicists
and Academician Pok even published InVoorosy Filosofii his
private scientific correspondence with the Polish. physicists.
According to the Rector of.Leningrad University, Aleksandrov,
it was Pok who personally established contacts with Louis de
Broglie in France. De Broglie had for years doubted the
. 133/soundness
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
- 133 -
soundness of the Bohr-Heisenberg interpretation o e princip es
of indeterminacy and complementarity. De Broglie is possibly
the leading physicist who is strenuously trying to re-restablish
a strictly determinist theory of miCro-physical event. He is
neither interested in philosophical or materialist determinism
as such, nor goes he claim to have substituted something better
for the theory of the Copenhagen School. But he believes he
has found the best way of doing so and he is looking for fellow
physicists who would carry on his research. As far as can be
judged, his is a far more radical attempt at a revision of
Quantum mechanics than that of Blokhintsev. yoprosy Filosofii,
N? 6, 1956 published a translation of an article by de Broglie
on this subject.
134. The same issue carried an article by Professor Vigier
of the Institut Henri Poincare, specially written for Voprosy
Filosofii, in which Vigier makes a direct appeal for the
collaboration of Soviet physicists and for their support of
de Broglie's theory. Vigier writes: "I consider it absolutely
indispensable for all opponents of the Copenhagen School to
unite on a platform of dialectical materialism to fight back
against all liachist and idealist influences in modern physics".
The militant and, indeed, military phraseology of Vigier is
quite in tune with the pronouncements of the most militant
Soviet philosophers. Vigier offers the Soviet physicists his
134/ideological
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
.9858
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 134.
ideological support of Marxism in order to get some kind of
technical co-operation in carrying out research in the fields
of submicro-physics. At the same time, Vigier warns his Soviet
colleagues against Narxist ideologists in France who may be
pure Marxists but arc physical ignoramuses.
135. De Brogliets name is also involved in tho other
discussion studied in Chapter 3, that on mathematical logic.
The new development in mathematical logic began shortly after
an article was published in Voprosy'Filosofii over the signa-
ture of "Materialist". Attacking cybernetics as a pseudo-
science invented by capitalists as a new instrument of oppression
of the working.classes, the article speaks of "the ideologists
of imperialism who -seized by panic in the face of the energetic
creative activity of human thought - were led to invent such
misanthropic theories as cybernetics". From time to time, a
jibe at cybernetics can be found in the philosophical literature
of the period between 1953 and 1955. The inventor of cybernetics,
Wiener, is-always denounced as a "reactionary". The situation
changed abruptly in 1955 when Kolman revealed, in an article
in Voprosy Filosofii, N? 4, that the attacks on cybernetics
had been organized by "progressive thinkers" all over the
135/world
.1.C?01?11???????
Note: Kolmanls attitude to Bertrand Russell is referred to
in paragraph 116 above.
?
- 135 -
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
world and that the views expressed by materialists had ben
shared both by French and Polish supporters of Marxist philo-
sophy. Kolman admits that this approach to cybernetics was
profoundly mistaken, as had been demonstrated by the fact that
"one of the greatest physicists of our time", de Broglie, had
spoken in favour of cybernetics. Kolman proceeds to rehabili-
tate the founder of cybernetics, Norbert Wiener, as one of the
most prominent American mathematicians. According to Holman,
Wiener is not a boastful charlatan inventing pseudo-theories,
but a serious scientist who even quoted the works of Russian
and Soviet colleagues with sympathy and went so far as to
criticize certain conditions prevailing in capitalist industry.
Thus cybernetics was restored to a place of honour as "one of
the major hopes of progress in industry".
136. It remained to explain why cybernetics had been
originally at No direct answer is given, although an
Academician, Sobolcv, and two other authors in an article
following that of Kolman admit that the Soviet press had '
"slandered" the inventor of cybernetics, who had been accused
without any reason of having made statements to'the effect that
automatbn must be directed against the workers and become an
instrument of oppression. Sobolev and his colleagues reveal
that considerable work had been carried out in the Soviet '
Union on cybernetics and that Soviet mathematicians, biologists
136/and physicists
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Il
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 136 ?
and physicists co-operated in this work with mathematical :
logicians. Kolman, on his part, regrets very much that philo-
sophers had kept aloof from this work on mathematical logic.
Be asserts that the use made by bourgeois ideologists of the
theory of information and mathematical logic for reactionary
ends had confused Soviet philosophers and led them to adopt
a sharply negative and incorrect attitude towards both of
these disciplines. In a footnote, Kolman says: "A typical
example of such a nihilist attitude towards mathematical logic
can be found in the article by V.P. Tugarinev and L.E. Kaistrov
'Against Idealism in Mathematical Logic', although there is no
question in this article of 'liquidating' mathematical logic".
Kolman goes on to say that both the "theory of information"
and mathematical logic are now being successfully developed
by mathematicians but not by philosophers;
in consequence,
problems of epistemology remain in the background. Kolman
makes it clear that the study of mathematical logid has been
saved from liquidation to a great extent because of this work
OA ,cybernotics which requires some application of symbolic
logic such as, foi' instance, the Algebra of Logic of BoOle.
137. , One would think that Soviet philosophers, like
Kolman, would draw a lesson from the bankruptcy of the attacks
on symbolic logic and would be more cautious in'asCribing
ridiculous conceptions to boui-geois philosophers. But far
137/from it,
4
,6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-
? 137 ?
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
from it, Holman argues that just as a nihilistic attitude to-
wards the theory of relativity and quantum physics among Sovie
philosophers had been provoked by the Use which was made of
these theories for idealist purposes, so have Soviet thilosophers
been induced to reject cybernetics as a pseudo-science b.:cause
of the reactionary uses to which it is put in the capitalist
world, Cybernetics is being used in the capitalist world,
according to him, to frighten the strata of medium intelli-
gentsia into submission to work at low salaries. "Hold on to
your jobs",- the capitalists are alleged to say to the intell-
ectuals, "soon the machines will put you out of them and only
highly qualified scientists will remain". The situation in
the Soviet Union is quite different, according to Kaman; here
the medium intelligentsia is really needed. As in other respects,
Soviet philosophers when altering their attitudes to these
discussions are, as we see, making a strenuous attempt to
give up as little as they can of the methods and.attitudes
they had adopted in the Stalinist period. -
138. There are, at present, about fifteen hundred teachers
of philosophy in the various universities and institutes of
higher education in the U.S.S.R. They are organized in units
attached to the Chair of Philosophy of the Institute in question.
In some institutions, philosophy plays an important part, in
others it seems to be limited to the humdrum indoctrination
138/of the accepted
RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
9359
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Ap?roved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 138 -
of the accepted text books on dialectical and historical
materialism. Not all the universities have a faculty of
philosophy comprising a number of Chairs such as the Chairs
of Dialectical Matorialisr.a, of Historical Materialism, of
History of Philosophy and even of Criticism of Bourgeois
Philosophy. Such faculties exist only in Moscow, Leningrad
and, apparently, recently establishedlin Kiev. But certain
Departments of Philosophy are themselves rather large bodies,
numbering some ten or more members. Teachers of Philosophy
in other institutes of higher education of the same town take
part in the discussion of theoretical and organizational questions
which are going on in such Chairs. Important Chairs of Philo-
sophy can be found in Yaroslavl, Sverdlovsk and in some of the
capitals of the Union Republics, Among the latter the Chair
of Philosophy of the Tbilisi University is outstanding for -
its activity and its rebellious attitude towards leadership
and guidance coming from Moscow Besides carrying on with -
the teaching of the curriculum established by the Ministry
of Higher Education, the Chairs or Departments of Philosophy -
are the bodies in which post-graduato studios are organized.
1394 Any discussions which take place in such Departments'
,of Philosophy remain Private and no Chair has, as yet, managed-
to publish anything but occasional selected collective works
of its members. Delaands have now been raised several times'
139/for the publication --
AmmElOr
- 139 -
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
for the publication of philosophical magazines on the periphery
or in the Union Republics, which would compete with Iroprosy
Filosofii, the only philosophical periodical appearing in the
Soviet Union. It is remarkable that such demands havi.. been
voiced and that they have not been immediately suppressed but
it is most improbable that they will be satisfied. They arc
accompanied by complaints about the arrogance and self-importance
of the Moscow philosophers coming from provincial teachers ever
since VoprosyFilosofii was published.
in
140. Inlioseow itself, the main body/which the direction
of all philosophioal activity is concentrated is the Institute
of Philosophy of the Academy of Science. A visit to this
Institute by the Oxford University delegation was scheduled in
September, 1956 but was cancelled at the last moment. The
delegation was told that the philosophers were still on vacation
in September and, besides, they varrelled with each other' so
violently that it was no pleasure meeting them. The Institute
of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences.is closely connected
with the editorial board of VOprosy Filosofii, which occupies
a key position in the philosophical world.
141. The persons who play an important part in both the
Institute and the editorial board of Vaprosv Filosofii are
also regular contributors of ideological articles to'the
Party press as well as Heads of Departments in the Higher
114.0/Party- School.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
14.o
Party School. The Party press organs sometimes take the over-
flow of philosophical discussions which start on the pages of
Voprosy Filosofii. Sometimes the political significance of
these discussions is more apparent in articles in Kommunist
than in Voprosy Filosofii, where they are cocooned in an
academic cobweb. For example, the discussion on basis and-
superstructure was finally transferred to Kommunist.
142. In an unsigned. article entitled "For a Creative
Study and Development of the Theory of Basis and Superstructure"
in Kommunist, N? 4, 1957, Stalin's conception of the liquidation
of the superstructure after the revolution is said to be, if
not necessarily wrong in itself, at least wrongly interpreted
by commentators. In order to reconcile the theory of the
liquidation of the bourgeois State, law, etc., with the main-
tenance of national and cultural traditionsl'the article falls
back on the suggestion, made by Kammari and others, of a
distinction between the 'bourgeois superstructure' and the
'superstructure of. the bourgeois State'. Roughly speaking,
this hair-splitting definition means that those parts of the
superstructure which serve the bourgeoisie in its effort to
maintain its supremacy - such as the legal and State apparatus,
religion, etc. - are 'bourgeois superstructure and will be
liquidated, whereas other elements, of the supe-structure of
a bourgeois regime such as progressive thinking, communist
141/parties and
50X1-HUM
-; 111.1 -
parties and other workers' organizations which also belong to
the superstructure, will be modified and some of them will
expand into the superstructure of the new socialist or cerimuaist
society.
143. The emptiness of all this scholasticism becomes clear
when one looks for a principle by which one could determine
whether a certain element of the 'superstructure of the bourgeois
State' belongs to the 'bourgeois superstructure' or not. But
it must be admitted that the article in Kommunist shows far
more clearly than anything written in VoprosyFilosofii what
the discussion on basis and superstructure is about. It emerges
clearly as a by-product of the struggle for survival waged by
those who are fighting for the maintenance of the 'cultural
inheritance of the past' against nihilist tendencies in the
Soviet Union. It also shows once more that the development
of a so-called' philosophical thinking in the Soviet Union
cannot be carried out successfully without a study of the
function assigned to it by the Party in the political develop-
ment of the Soviet Union.
14.
It would be, however, futile to look in this philo-
sophical development for any independent initiative in the
struggles and tensions which are noticeable in Soviet cultural
life in recent months. There has been no ouch overt professional
deviation among philosophers as that which has been exposed
142/and censured
50
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
1-HUM
9858
1
t
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
11+.2
and censured by Kommunist among historians. Possibly tio
outcome of the conflict between the editorial board of Voprosy
Istorii and the Comaunist Party will determine the future
attitude of the philosophers. One can hardly expect, however,
the people who are now in charge of theEoscow Institute of
Philosophy of the Academy of .Sciencesto show any ideological
daring. It would be naive to expect that in the event of
another split at the top of the Party hierarchy, the roal-
protagonists of the struggle would require the support of..
philosophical arguments to strengthen their position. Tho
task of the philosophers would only be to produce an ideo-
logical facade for a situation which would be the outooe of
a struggle by intrigue and political power and not by theoretical
argument.
145. The composition of the Institute of Philosophy and
of the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii is such that one
could hardly expect sufficient polarization of opposite ten-
dencies to produce a split among the philosophers except in
the eventuality of a split at the top of the Party. And Yet,
certain divergencies of opinion and reactions are noticeable
among top level philosophers. There are a few representatives
of the old generation of Ilarxists like NAtin and Rozental who
are trying to restore their reputations as independent Marxist
scholars; there is the inevitable Foaoseov, a representative
AMC
143/of the Byzantine
_
of the Byzantine opportunismof the last years of Stalin's
rule who Can now turn to his advantage the reprimand addressed
to him by Suslov for having supported Vozenensky, but who io
generally despised for his ignorance and weathercock tactioe;
there is Stopanyan who could be considered as the representative
of the Stalinist line and who has been silent ever since the
X?th Congress; there is Kammari, the chief editori of Voprosy
Filosofii who, like his predecessor Kedrairsis a master at
providing an academic dress for every new ideological campaign
started by the Party. It is impossible to believe that such
people could have any theoretical interests for which they
would stand up and fight. The other members of the editorial
board of Voprosy Filosofii are even more insignificant (for
instance, Shishkin, whose recent book on 'Communist Morals'
is possibly the most vulgar, commonplace Soviet propaganda
patchwork, particularly at a time when the reo.1 moral problems
are being acutely discussed in Soviet works of fiction). There
is, however, on the editorial board of VoprOsyFilosofii,
Professor A.D. Aleksandrov, the present Rector of Leningrad
Univerity. He joined the editorial board as an outsider and
a specialist on physics after Stalin's death and as the dis-
cussion on the theory of relativity and the principle of in-
determinacy Was developing. He has-now, become a rather
?
prominent figure in Soviet cultural life. In the autumn of
144/1956 he attacked
50X1-HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
CONTINUED CONTROL
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 142. -
and censured by Kommunist among historians. Possibly the_ .
outco9e of the conflict :between the editorial board of Voprosy
Istorii and the Communist Party will determine the future
attitude of the philosophers. One can hardly expect, however,
the people who are now in charge of thehloscow Institute of
Philosophy of the Academy of Sciencesto shag any ideological
daring. It would be naive to expect that in the event of
another split at the top of the Party hierarchy, the roal-
protagonists of the struggle would require the support of
philosophical arguments to strengthen their position. The
task of the philosophers would only be to produce an ideo-
logical facade for a situation which would be the outcome of
a struggle by intrigue and political power and not by theoretical
argument.
145. The composition of the Institute of Philosophy and
of the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii is such that one
could hardly expect sufficient polarization of opposite ten-
dencies to produce a split among the philosophers except in
the eventuality of a split at the top of the Party. And yet,
certain divergencies of opinion and reactions are noticeable,
,
among top level philosophers. There are a few representatives
of the old generation of 1.;arxists like Mitin and Rozental who
are trying to restore their reputatiens as independent Marxist
scholars; there is the inevitable Fedosecv, a representative
143/of the Byzantine
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
of the Byzantine opportunism of the last years Of Stalin's
rule wh6 can now turn to his advantage the reprimand addressed
to him by Suslov for having supported Vozenensky, but who id
generally despised for his iamorace and weathercock tactic;
there is Stepanyan who could be considered as the representative
of the Stalinist line and who has been silent ever since the
Xith Congress; there is Kammari, the chief editori of Voprosy
Filosofii, who, like his predecessor Kedrovo is a master at
providing an academic dress for every new ideological campaign
started by the Party. It is impossiblil to believe that such
people could have any theoretical interests for which they
would stand up and fight. The other members of the editorial
board of Voprosy Filosofii are even more insignificant (for
instance, Shishkin, whose recent book on 'Communist Morals'
is possibly the most vulgar, commonplace Soviet propaganda
patchwork, particularly at a time when the real moral problems
are being acutely discussed in Soviet works of fiction). There
is, however, on the editorial board of Voprosy Filosofii,
Professor A.D. Aleksandrov, the present Rector of Leningrad
University. He joined the editorial board as an outsider and
a specialist on physics after Stalin's death and as the dis-
cussion on the theory of relativity and the principle of in-
determinacy Was developing. He has now become a rather
prominent figure in Soviet cultural life, In the autumn of
Sanitized Copy Approvedf Release 2013/08/07 CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
144/1956 he attacked
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
.?
- 114 -
195 he attacked the Ministry of Higher Education for its
rigid policy with regard to curricula and the question of
attendance at lectures. And ever since, he has been a pro-
tagonist of a certain measure of academic freedom. It is a
fair guess that it was through him that the article ,of Nazarov
and Gridneva was forced upon the reluctant editorial board
of VoprosyFilosofii. At least views which he expressed privately
on the disastrous effect of the regimentation of arts are ,
practically the same as those in that article.
146. Quite recently, Aleksandrov came out with an article
entitled "The Education of thu Students is a Political Task
of the Utmost Importance" in Vestnik Vysshei Shkoly. In it
he pays lip service to the principles of Party control and
Party leadership in the education of university students. Bo
does so in the strongest terms and, at the same time, he is
no less d!termined about the way in which Party control should
.be implemented. He is against administrative measures-eqccept
in cases where formPl breaches of discipline have taken place.
The students should be allowed to speak their- mind p as long as
they do so in an orderly manner. He reports a students'
meeting at his university in which oriticism of the Ministry's
educational policy was aired on the very same lines as in his
own article published in Literaturnaya Gazeta at the beginning
of the term. The students wanted to pass e resolution asking
. ,
145/for reforms
- Sanitized Coov APP
- 145
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
for reforms and Aleksandrov claims he had dissuaded them from
doing so becauthe "one should leave such matters to the com-
petent academic bodies". Aleksandrov is also in favour of
close co-operation between students and factory workers and
collective farmers at harvest time, and attaches great edu-
cational importance to these contacts. He claims that a
benevolent and tolerant attitude in all cases where there is
no gross violation of academic discipline is the only right
policy in fighting "liberalism and anarchism", The presence
of this man in the councils of Soviet official philosophers
might become important if he succeeds in introducing sone of
the people who share his views into their central organs.
This type of benevolent and intelligent servant of a reactionary
regime who claims that, provided one is firm and does not
tolerate disorder, one can with advantage introduce liberal
methods and adopt a tolerant attitude towards progressive
elements, is typical of Russian tyrannies in general. Loris-
Melikoff in the nineteenth, and Stolypin in the twentieth
centuries belonged to this typo. The emergence of such
characters in politics has always been a sign of the lack of
self-confidence felt by a despotic regime. They were mostly
tragic figures who fell victims to both sides which they
believed they could serve and save from ultimate disaster.
But it was under the influence of such men that tyranny
146/learned subtler
Release2013/08/07? CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
'9858
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
-14.6-
i
learned subtler ways of control and a greater measure of under-
standing of the social phenomena to be controlled, and it was
also under the protection of such men that opposition to tyranny
became organized and disciplined.
1 47/CONOLUSI0NS.
777 c
1'
i;
:1
1
-14.7-
CONCLUSIONS
147. The history nf philosophical development ii the ,
50X1-HUM
post-war period in the Soviet Union falls into four clearly
distinguishable periods which are possibly followed by at
least a fifth ono, the initial stage of which we are now wit-
nessing. At the beginning we note that the .philosophers were
about the last people in the Soviet Union to learn anything-
from the mar-time changes inside the country. They ignored
the strength of nationalist feeling, which Stalin was to ex-
ploit for building up impenetrable barriers between the West
and the realm of his power. At that time, G.F. Aleksandrayts
book on the'History of Western l'hilosophy'was selected as an
example of the shortcomings of philosophers and Zhdanov.gave
the philosophers a severe lesson, telling them how they should
mend their mays. At the same time, he saved them from far
more drastic punishment such as, for instance, was meted out
to Voznesensky and other people accused of cosmopolitanism.
148. Zhdanovls intervention inaugurated a now phase in
which the philosophers applied themselves dutifully to the
tasks indicated in his speech. But as they did Ao, they tried,
to maintain the initiative in ideological work, tried to.act
as specialists of Marxist thinking, who can be trusted to
develop a theme of their awn choice in accordance with the
general instructions hinted at in the pronouncements of the
14.8/supreme
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
50X1-HUM
50X1-HUM
9853
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Ap?roved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
supreme leadership. In this task...the philosophers failed
lamentably and incurred the wrath of Stalin by giving support
to the building up of Earr's authority as a Iiarxist. After
Stalin's rebuff in 1951 a general freeze-up of independent
activities by the philosophers set in. Work was practically
confined to commentary on and exaggerated praise for Stalin's
contribution to Marxist theory. Simultaneously the isolation
of'philosophical thinking in the Soviet Union from any philo-
sophical discussiOns going on in the outside world reached
its utmost limits. This isolation meant not merely ignoring
what was going on in the 'Jest, but active and systematic mis-
representation on.a gigantic scale. The philosophers were
carried away by this anti-cosmopolitan campaign and began
attacking general ideas in other branches of human knowledge,
in particular in theoretical physics. This brought about a
reaction on the part of the physicists which became manifest
even before Stalin's death. We can, therefore, say that, as
perhaps in other branches of Soviet cultural activity, the
process of de-Stalinisation. in philosophy had already begun
in the last months before the dictator's disappearance.
149. After Stalin's death, the change in the tendency
of Soviet philosophical writing is very marked, and yet it
is far less so than in literature, science or even in economics
and legal theory. This may partly be explained by personal
149/considerations
-.149 -
considerations on the part of the philosophers-who are amen
the persons most coMpiomised by their awn sycophantic exploits
50X1-HUM
in the last years of Stalin's rule. The people at the head
of philosophical departments and institutes have everything
to lose by too sharp a change in the general trend of Soviet
philosophical work. They are obviously not sufficiently aca-
demically equipped to produce a revision of the foundation of
. Marxism which would make it a theory *defensible in modern
conditions. Nor have they the necessary authority to preach
any change of heart to the ruling clique in the Soviet Union.
They-,are also in a particularly exposed position: whereas a
man of letters or a scientist can easily take cover behind
his professional interests and achievements when putting forward
demands which are frowned on by the Party, a philosopher openly
deviating from the Party line would simply be usurping the
right of ideological propaganda which has been declared a
monopoly of the Communist Party since 1921.
150. This situation explains why official Soviet philosophy
has been lagging behind in the process of de-Stalinisation
and why it has been over-keen in the reaction against it
which set in after October, 1956. Manifestations of philo-
sophical and ideological thinking which showed independence ?
from Party guidance have been limited, as far as official
publications are concerned, to two instances. They were caused
150/either by
50X1 -HUM
50X1 -HUM
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/08/07: CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
/
9353.
?
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release 2013/08/07 CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3
- 156 -
either by intruders dn;the philosophical field coming fiord"
'literature_ or. science, -or by philosophers from the' net fonal
minorities in the Caucasus :who;**Iike the' Arthenians S c,
Georgians, are to a certain degree independent el' the-Itisslan-
?
?speaking hi080017 centre of philosophical research at thol-Acaderv
of Sciences Sciences and are possibly enjoying the special protection
of certain members of the ruling group. Whatever rebeiiiots
attitudes towards off.ical"Soviet philoscpki may have de:I/eloped
in.the Soviet Union and even inside Moscow Universitik'i.'t'ardif,
_ .1. ?
they have never been directly reflected in print: ? Indireef;
indications, however, can be found in certain wrin\giv
to, the. Party by recognized philosophical authoritie's-,suChna's
Kamari or ,Fedoseey that all is not well in the ranks of-
philosophical students?and that there have been dangoroi'r ?
deviations from the officially accepted view. Hints at 'the'
existence of such .deviations can be found in articles sildh as
that by A.I. Lutchenko in Vestnik Vysshei Shkoly for SelitOthber,
The abortive attempt to propagate certain views on ?:ihe
theatre, which was made b Nazarov and Gridneva in Voprosy'
Filosofii has shown that any. philpsophica3. discus 0.ion. of
claims for loosening Party guidance anct.centrols oh ideo=
logical questions is at least premature,
d
'r.
na .
im,,,I,ccifiarl in Part - Sanitized Com/ Approved for Release 2013/08/07 CIA-RDP81-01043R002200180010-3