Li Jingjie: How Did The Fate Of Soviet Social Sciences Study Change After Stalin’s Secret “Talk”; Problems In Social Sciences Became An Important Reason For The Disintegration Of The Soviet Union
Source: “Eastern Europe and Central Asia Studies” Year 2001 No. 2
Li Jingjie, born in October 1941, is the director, researcher and doctoral supervisor of the Institute of East European and Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. (Beijing 100007)
[Abstract] On December 9, 1930, Stalin met with members of the Party Branch Committee of the Soviet Red Professors’ Academy of Philosophy and Natural Sciences and delivered an important talk on the situation and tasks of philosophy, social sciences and natural sciences. The Soviet social science management system was formed under the guidance of Stalin and under special historical conditions in the 1930s. The Soviet social science management system and the Soviet Communist Party’s line and policy in the field of social sciences led to the stagnation and distortion of the development of Soviet social sciences. The ideology of the Soviet Communist Party and Soviet social sciences have long been dominated by dogmatism. The theories constructed by dogmatists cannot reflect the ever-changing reality in a timely and accurate manner, and cannot give convincing answers to the issues that the people really care about. Therefore, no matter how powerful the Soviet Communist Party uses its propaganda machine to instill its theories into society, it still cannot generate the necessary attraction and appeal to the people. This management system does not conform to the development law of social sciences. It not only hinders the development of various disciplines of social sciences and Marxism itself, but also ultimately leads to the drying up of the ideological source of the ruling party’s eternal youth, causing the country to lose the driving force for prosperity and development. The shortcomings of the Soviet social science management system are an important reason for the Soviet Communist Party’s loss of power. The Soviet Communist Party has been in power for 73 years and has not been able to solve the problem of how to correctly lead social sciences. This is a historical regret and a historical tragedy.
Science includes natural science and social science. The basic function of natural science is to solve the relationship between man and nature, while social science is to solve the relationship between man and society. In the process of its own development, human society has created both material civilization and spiritual civilization. If it is said that human beings cannot create material civilization without the participation of social science, then the task of creating spiritual civilization is mainly undertaken by social science. Therefore, the state of social science directly determines the rise and fall of a country and nation.
The 1930s was the period when the Soviet political and economic system was formed, and it was also the period when the Soviet social science management system was formed. The social science management system is an important part of the Stalinist socialist model. This article mainly discusses the historical background of the formation of the Soviet social science management system and the drawbacks of this management system. The social science mentioned here is a broad social science, including philosophy, social science and humanities. Since social sciences and natural sciences belong to the same academic community, this article not only introduces the situation in the social science community, but also mentions some situations in the natural science community.
1. Stalin’s secret “talk” on philosophy and social sciences
On December 9, 1930, Stalin met with members of the Party Branch Committee of the Soviet Red Professors’ Academy of Philosophy and Natural Sciences and delivered an important talk on the situation and tasks of philosophy, social sciences and natural sciences. This “talk” was kept secret for a long time. It was not until 60 years later, in early 1990, that the Soviet academic community discovered this material from the archives and made it public. This “secret” immediately attracted the attention of academic and public opinion circles at home and abroad.
In the 1930s, the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet academic community held many anniversary commemorations of this “talk”, which shows the importance of this “talk”. If we compare this “conversation” with the relevant resolutions and policy practices publicly issued by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) afterwards, we can see that this conversation actually provided the guiding ideology for the Soviet Communist Party to determine the line and policy in the fields of philosophy and social sciences. Therefore, its role was decisive and its influence was far-reaching. The content of Stalin’s “conversation” can be summarized as follows:
1. Estimates of the situation in the academic field
Stalin’s overall estimate of the situation was that the “opposition” was “dominating philosophy, natural sciences and certain delicate political issues.” Since philosophy is a summary and conclusion of social sciences and natural sciences, Stalin focused on philosophical issues. He pointed out that “the main danger is the mechanists”, “but we must be particularly vigilant against the Deborin elements as formalists. From the perspective of our struggle on the theoretical front, we must pay special attention to the idealism of the Mensheviks.” Stalin mentioned natural sciences twice in the “conversation”. He said that in the field of natural sciences, “God knows what they have done, writing about Weismannism and the like, and all this is disguised as Marxism.” “The works we have written here on the theory of natural sciences contain a lot of materialism. The information on this subject in the Soviet Encyclopedia is at least a bunch of nonsense. Therefore, we are faced with a huge task of criticism here.”
2. On the tasks on the academic front Stalin believed that in the fields of philosophy and social sciences, “the important task is to launch a comprehensive criticism. The main issue is to attack. Attack in all directions, in places that have not been attacked before.” “All the accumulated feces in philosophy and natural sciences should be turned out and turned over. … Destroy all the wrong things.” Stalin mentioned that the objects of “severe criticism” included Bukharin and Ryazanov, who held important positions in the party at that time, in addition to a group of philosophers in the party. It is worth noting that Stalin also mentioned Engels’ name. He said, “Engels is not entirely correct.” “If we, in this work (referring to the exposition of Lenin’s ideas – the author), for example, touch Engels somewhere, this is not a bad thing.”
3. Clearly proposed to link academic issues with political struggles and class struggles within the party When a branch member who participated in the meeting asked Stalin whether the debate in the theoretical field should be linked to the political tendencies within the party, Stalin replied: “It can and should be linked, because any tendency that deviates from Marxism, even the deviation on the most abstract theoretical issues, has political significance under the circumstances of increasingly acute class struggle.” Stalin emphasized that the study of materialist dialectics should be combined with “the most important class struggle tasks facing us” and now “should be based on socialist construction and linked to it.” “If philosophy is separated from politics and theory is separated from practice – what kind of Marxism is that?” In this conversation, Stalin admitted on the one hand that the Deborin school did not provide “formal basis for anti-Marxism”, but on the other hand, he put on them fatal political labels such as “anti-Marxism”, “Plekhanovites”, and “Menshevik idealists”. In a “conversation” of just over 3,300 words, Stalin actually put 13 different political hats on the targets of his criticism.
4. Proposing a method of “all-out offensive” Stalin emphasized that the “offensive” and “criticism” launched in the fields of philosophy, social sciences and natural sciences must be comprehensive, thorough and at all costs. He said, “All the feces accumulated in philosophy and natural sciences should be turned over and dug out. All the things written by the Deborin school should be turned over and all the wrong things should be destroyed.” For writers who have been criticized, such as Plekhanov, Yushkevich, etc., “their works should be turned over again”;
Bukharin should be “thoroughly turned over.” Stalin particularly emphasized that “everything should be turned over. In order to fight, all weapons are needed.” He criticized the criticism of Deborin’s academic views at that time as “too soft and not strong enough”, and characterized the views of the Deborin school as “formalists – this term is too light and too academic, and should be strengthened.” Instructions were made publicly in newspapers and periodicals that “they have embarked on an anti-Marxist path.” In the conversation, Stalin also gave specific instructions on how to organize “offensive” forces in the field of philosophy, “carry out ideological struggles like warriors”, and take organizational measures. In the “conversation”, Stalin also repeatedly emphasized that Lenin made “new contributions” in all aspects of Marxism.
Please Download for Full Text