The Institutions and the Ideology

  • Stephen Velychenko


Historians in the tsarist empire were grouped within universities, the Academy of Sciences, and private associations. After 1917 the Bolsheviks retained this institutional division of labor, which allotted research to the academy and teaching to the universities. The academy was called the Russian Academy until 1925, when it was renamed the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Until the mid-1930s, there were independent and semiautonomous institutes associated with universities, such as the Institute of History of Material Culture in Leningrad. Marxists were organized in the Socialist Academy (1918). Renamed the Communist Academy in 1923, this body became part of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR in 1936. Until they were incorporated into the All-Union Academy, Marxist institutes and their historical sections existed alongside the Russian Academy of Sciences, which had its own Historical-Philological Section.


Historical Materialism Class Struggle Factional Rivalry Informal Censorship Polish Historian 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    I am grateful to Sergei Kirzhaev of the Central Academic Library in Kiev for this information. On control over culture in general between 1919–1922, see C. Read, Culture and Power in Revolutionary Russia (New York, 1990), pp. 159–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    M. Fainsod, How Russia is Ruled (Cambridge, MA, 1963), p. 169;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. L. R. Graham, The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927–1932 (Princeton, NJ, 1967).Google Scholar
  4. 3.
    V. Marchenko, Planirovanie nauchnoi raboty v SSSR (Munich, 1953), pp. 9, 12, 18;Google Scholar
  5. A. Avtorkhanov, Memuary (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1983), pp. 377–78.Google Scholar
  6. W. Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge (Berkeley, CA, 1984), pp. 72–314.Google Scholar
  7. 4.
    Vucinich, Empire of Knowledge, pp. 302–04; N. Heer, Politics and History in the Soviet Union (Cambridge, MA, 1973), p. 42;Google Scholar
  8. L. Tillet, The Great Friendship, (Chapel Hill, NC, 1969), p. 276;Google Scholar
  9. H. Rogger, “Politics Ideology and History in the USSR: The Search for Coexistence,” Soviet Studies 16 (January 1965): 253–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 6.
    V. Golovskoy, “Is There Censorship in the Soviet Union? Methodological Problems of Studying Soviet Censorship,” Kennan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies, Occasional Paper, no. 201 (Washington, 1985), pp. 21–22.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    I. Krypiakevych, Bohdan Khmelnytskyi, 2d ed., ed. Ia. Isaevych (Lviv, 1990), p. 7.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    R. Gul, “Tsenzura i pisatel v SSSR,” Sovremennyia zapiski, no. 67 (1938): 442–45; I. Gorokhoff, Publishing in the U.S.S.R. (Bloomington, IN, 1959), pp. 73–83; L. Vladimirov, “Glavlit: How the Soviet Censor Works,” Index on Censorship, Autumn 1972, pp. 31–43.Google Scholar
  13. 11.
    J. Maternicki, Historiografiia polska XX wieka (Warsaw, 1982), pp. 19–38.Google Scholar
  14. 12.
    J. Dutkiewicz and K. Śreniowska, Zarys historii historiografii polskiej Część III (Lodz, 1959).Google Scholar
  15. 13.
    E. Valkenier, “The Soviet Impact on Polish Historiography, 1946–1950,” Journal of Central European Affairs 11, no. 4 (January 1952): 372–96; “Sovietization and Liberalization in Polish Post-War Historiography,” Journal of Central European Affairs 10, no. 2 (July 1959): 149–73;Google Scholar
  16. P. Hubner, Nauka polska po II wojnie światowej: Idee i instytucje (Warsaw, 1987), pp. 37, 91. For an exchange concerning who reluctantly followed, exuberantly led, or quietly sabotaged the Stalinization of Polish historiography, see P. Hubner, “Przebudowa nauk historycznych w Polsce (1947–1953)” and M. Małowist, “Kilka uwag do artykulu Piotra Hubnera,” PH, no. 3 (1987): 451–492.Google Scholar
  17. 14.
    B. Fijałkowska, Polityka i twórcy (1948–1959) (Warsaw, 1985), pp. 415, 424, 524–25.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    W. Serczyk, “Eastern Europe in the 16th-18th Centuries,” Acta Poloniae Historica 32 (1975): 94.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    The 1981 Code appears in translation in G. Schopflin, ed., Censorship and Political Communication in Eastern Europe (London, 1983), pp. 124–35. See also Dziennik ustaw Rzeczypospolity Polskiej, no. 19 (May 1952), art. 14.Google Scholar
  20. 19.
    Cited in S. Fitzpatrick, Education and Social Mobility in the Soviet Union 1921–1934 (New York, 1979), p. 69.Google Scholar
  21. 20.
    A. W. Gouldner, The Two Marxisms (New York, 1980);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. P. M. Vaillancourt, When Marxists Do Research (New York, 1986);Google Scholar
  23. Z. A. Jordan, The Evolution of Dialectical Materialism (New York, 1967).Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    The qualification about the decisive influence of “the base” in “the final analysis” resolves nothing without specification of time limit. See J. Scanlan, “A Critique of the Engels-Soviet Version of Marxian Economic Determinism,” SST 13 (1973): 11–19.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    E. Hobsbawn ed., Pre-capitalist Economic Formations (New York, 1965), pp. 9–66.Google Scholar
  26. 24.
    L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism (New York, 1981), II: 210–11;Google Scholar
  27. A. Besancon, The Rise of the Gulag: Intellectual Origins of Leninism (New York, 1981), pp. 210–11.Google Scholar
  28. 25.
    Z. A. Jordan, Philosophy and Ideology (Dordrecht, 1963), pp. 443–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 26.
    E. Zhukov, Methodology of History (Moscow, 1983), p. 178.Google Scholar
  30. 27.
    Summarized in H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society (Brighton, 1979), pp. 33–113.Google Scholar
  31. 28.
    P. Mattick, Anti-Bolshevik Marxism (London, 1978), pp. 170, 176–80. Mattick argues that Marxism is not affected by the new physics, which does not bother with objective reality except if it is recognized by man.Google Scholar
  32. 29.
    K. Korsch, “The Present State of the Problem of Marxism and Philosophy,” reprinted in Marxism and Philosophy (London, 1970), pp. 111, 117.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Donoso, “Stalinism in Marxist Philosophy,” SST 19 (1979): 113–41; Z. A. Jordan, Philosophy, pp. 478–79.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    See T. Blakeley, Soviet Scholasticism (Dordrecht, 1961);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. J. Scanlan, Marxism in the USSR (Ithaca, NY, 1985);Google Scholar
  36. J. Keep, ed., Contemporary History in the Soviet Mirror (New York, 1967);Google Scholar
  37. C. Black, ed., Rewriting Russian History (New York, 1962).Google Scholar
  38. 35.
    Z. A. Jordan, Philosophy, pp. 57–58; A. Walicki, Stanislaw Brzozowski and the Polish Beginnings of ‘Western Marxism’ (Oxford, 1980).Google Scholar
  39. 38.
    J. Topolski, ed., Dzieje Polski (Warsaw, 1986), pp. 9–10.Google Scholar
  40. 39.
    S. Petroff, The Red Eminence (Clifton, NJ, 1988), pp. 55–57.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    B. Cywiński, Zatruta humanistyka, pp. 5–6; A. Dorpalen, German History in Marxist Perspective (Detroit, 1985), pp. 24–62.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    C. Calhoun, The Question of Class Struggle (Chicago, 1982), p. 219.Google Scholar
  43. 45.
    F. Thorn, Langue de Bois (Paris, 1987);Google Scholar
  44. P. Fidelius, Jazyk a moc (Munich, 1983);Google Scholar
  45. J. W. Young, Totalitarian Language (Charlottesville, VA, 1991).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Stephen Velychenko 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen Velychenko

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations