NOTES & VIEWS Ideology, Science, and the Party EDITORS' NOTE: The relation between the position of various, scientific disciplines in the Soviet Union on the one hand, and Soviet ideology and the Communist Party apparat on the other, has been the subject of a great deal of controversy among students of Soviet affairs. Below we present two views on the matter: The first, by Mr. Dan Heldman, deals primarly with the problem of political controls. The second, an essay-review by Mr. David Joravsky, addresses itself to what the author considers to be some lingering fallacies about the conflict between party ideology and the autonomy of science in the USSR. The Need for Controls By Dan C. Heldman uch has been written about Leral and of various sciences in particular in the Soviet Union. It would appear that the Soviet political and scientific hierarchy has now entered a period of relatively quiet reflection, following three decades in which one science (evolution-heredity) was almost wrecked and others (notably physics and chemistry) sustained heavy blows. Controversy has by no means disappeared-witness Mr. Heldman is a University Fellow, Department of Government, University of Texas (Austin). This is his first contribution to Problems of Communism. developments in one of the newer 1 See Lee Kerschner, "Cybernetics: Key to the Future?," Problems of Communism, November-December 1965; and L. R. Graham, "Cybernetics in the Soviet Union," Survey (London), No. 54, July 1964, pp. 3-18. Apparently the controversy is temporarily quiescent since, as with the physical science issues, the technological aspects (computer science especially) are of paramount importance to Soviet industrial and scientific development. For Soviet comments see Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, No. 4, April 1963, pp. 54-61; and Literaturnaia gazeta, Feb. 24, 1962, p. 2: translated in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, June 26, 1963, and April 18, 1962. concerned with describing rather than explaining its checkered course, and where explanation has been attempted it has often been colored by personal bias. The present article will attempt to explain the problems that have bedeviled the scientific world in terms of the unique structure of the Soviet state: for what separates the Soviet Union from most non-Communist countries is, primarily, its attempt to fuse government, party and ideology, with profound effect on all sectors of the society. Two assumptions in this paper should be clearly understood from the beginning. First, it is the author's view that prerevolutionary Russian history provides at least some foun dation for official attitudes toward science in the Soviet era. In studying other fields numerous writers have recognized a pattern of continuity stretching from Peter the Great through the Imperial period and into Bolshevik rule; the same is no less true of science. During the reigns of Peter I and Catherine the Great, science particularly with regard to its more practical applications in such fields as shipbuilding and navigation -was officially encouraged so that Russia could take her place as an equal among other, more advanced nations. Thus the way was paved for the "Golden Age" of Russian science in the first half of the 19th century, which produced some of the greatest scientific minds and most important breakthroughs of the era, especially in physics, mathematics, and chemistry. Yet the nature of the society in which these advances were achieved foreshadowed the later precarious position of the sciences during and after the reign of Nicholas I. Resting upon the firmly pronounced triune principle of autocracy, nationalism and Orthodoxy, split by the schisms between Slavophile and "Westerner," reinforced by a return to harsh censorship following the rule of Alexander I (1805-25), and characterized generally by extreme reaction, Russian official society acted against whatever opposed it; and science caught up as it was by radicals, secret societies, nihilists, and similar elements-definitely opposed official society. Thus, 2 In view of Russia's relative state of isolation in the past and the consequent lack of deserved recognition for Russian scientific efforts, it is somewhat understandable that the Soviets have overstated many of their claims of prior achievement. But this only detracts from the real accomplishments of such as Euler, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, Butlerov, Impatiev, Buniakovsky, Ostrogradskii, Lobachevsky, Chebyshev to name but a few. See American Association for the Advancement of Science, Soviet Science: A Symposium, Washington, Horn-Shafer, 1952; and A. Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture: A History to 1860, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1963. or the Tsars swung between the horns of the dilemma: whether to encourage the sciences as necessary for any progressive nation or to discourage them as a probable source of opposition. The second assumption of this paper, concerning the controversies of the Soviet era, is that the conflict over evolution-heredity was more intense, more severe, and without question more personalized than the conflicts over physical science. The physicochemical problems involved in the latter dispute were debated almost exclusively on a philosophical plane— i.e., in terms of their epistemological, ontological and materialist import whereas the genetics controversy provoked direct refutation of the claimed results of actual experimentation. Moreover, the different degree of personal involvement as well as personal sacrifice-marking these conflicts sets them apart. The author was able to discover no clear instance of bodily harm befalling any of the major protagonists in the physical science conflicts that seemed to be the result of their advocacy of one theory or the other: at most, all that was involved was loss of position or of special privileges. This is, of course, in sharp contrast to the fate of many embroiled in the genetics controvery.* 3 See N. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism, trans. P. M. French, Ann Arbor, Mich., The University of Michigan Press, 1960, pp. 54-57, for indications of this alliance. 4 The Journal of Heredity (Wash., D.C.), March-April 1956, pp. 55-56, listed 18 leading geneticists who were known to have died in prison or from unknown causes, or to have dropped from view during the period of the controversy culminating in the August 1948 Conference. Compare this with the more gentle treatment accorded physicists and chemists in the physical science controversies. L. R. Graham, "Quantum Mechanics and Dialectical Materialism," Slavic Review, September 1966, pp. 381-410; D. Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Sciences: 1917-1932, New York, Columbia University Press, 1961; E. Rabinowitch, "Soviet Science-A Survey," Problems of Communism, March-April 1958, pp. 1-9; and G. A. Wetter, "Ideology and Science in the Soviet Union: Recent Developments," Daedalus, Summer 1960, pp. 581-603. A s noted, a few commentators of widely different political bents have attempted explanations of why science has suffered at the hands of the Soviets." An examination of these arguments may show wherein their fallacies lie. To be considered first are the extremes of opinion. At one end are the contentions that no real controversy or intimidation ever took place, or that if it did it was a quirk of nature, or that it was due completely to the aberrations of Stalin. These contentions have been expressed for such varied reasons as a desire for continuation of wartime cooperation, personal disbelief, and political necessity. For example, Eric Ashby, writing in 1947, acknowledged offhandedly the serious conflicts then crystallizing in the Soviet Union in the genetics field, but he seemed so eager for amity that he was willing only to mention in passing that several of his Soviet colleagues were incommunicado. Later Soviet studies intended for foreign consumption similarly avoided any hint of a conflict other than one fought on the clean and non-sanguinary ground of the intellect. Yet the story of what was really going on could be easily put together from official internal 5 The author thanks Dr. A. V. Bushkovitch of St. Louis University for urging a comment at this point that science and scientists have of course been mistreated in many countries, from as long ago as Galileo to as recently as the Scopes trial in Tennessee. The Soviet Union is used here both as an example and as an object lesson: that there are other offenders does not change the character of the conclusions to be reached. 6 E. Ashby, A Scientist in Russia, Harmondworth, England, Penguin, 1947, Chs. 1 and II. 7 Many works fall into this category, including A. F. Joffe, Development of the Exact Sciences in the USSR, New York, American-Russian Institute, 1943; and M. I. Rubinstein, Soviet Science and Technique in the Service of Building Communism in the USSR, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954. On a more specific subject, see A. S. Kompaneets, Physics in the Soviet Union: An Exposition of Theoretical Physics, trans. George Yankovsky, and reprinted by New York, Dover Publications, 1961. periodicals, which published extensive reports of the various conferences held in the course of the disputes. There is only slightly more truth to the proposition that Stalin must bear all the blame for the upheavals in science. While a clear change can be seen in the years 1953-56, immediately following the demise of Stalin, the change is one of tempo or of severity and not one of basic character. Lysenko's position was successfully challenged, and he was even accused of outright fraud.10 A conference on the problems of science held in October of 1958 showed a marked lack of personal recriminations or imputations of unpatriotic intent.11 Yet this conference still reflected the very basic disagreement over philosophical implications that had long been the hallmark of the physical science controversies. And reminiscent of the Central Committee's endorsement of Lysenko's work in 1948 12 was 8 For such reports from several sources, see C. Zirkle, Death of a Science in Russia, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949, Chs. V through X; Plant Breeding Abstracts, 1948, Vol. XVII, pp. 642-64; T. D. Lysenko, The Science of Biology Today, New York, International Publishers, 1949; and G. S. Counts and N. Lodge, Country of the Blind, Boston, Houghton-Mifflin, 1949, Ch. 9. 9 Wetter, op. cit., p. 592. 10 New York Times, July 6, 1954. 11 See "Documents," Daedalus, Summer 1960, pp. 632-47. 12 The reference here is to a remark made by Lysenko at the conclusion of the conference: "The Central Committee of the party has examined my report and approved it." See Zirkle, op. cit., p. 249. 13 Paraphrased in Wetter, op. cit., p. 598. "decided" after 1953 14 and that Khrushchev continued to play the game of scientific favoritism begun by Stalin. Khrushchev, the Ukrainian dirt-farmer obsessed with corn production and with the rapid introduction of this crop into the agriculturally-depressed Soviet Union, was as enamored of Lysenko as was Stalin; for only by Lysenko's supposed theories could these visionary programs be accomplished.15 It seems clear, then, that each Soviet leader up to the present has intruded upon science to a degree roughly equivalent to the strength of his hold on the reins of government and party. It will be interesting to see what the future will bring; for the present leaders have strong ties with science, a significant change from the predominantly rural and agricultural background of their predecessors. At the other end of the extremes of opinion are those who feel that science in the Soviet Union is a losing proposition, an endeavor which has become so denigrated that there is little or no hope of its recovery. Those who equate, in some absolute fashion, intellectual and personal freedom with the successful practice of science are often found to take this view.16 While this position may provide an outlet for intellectual outrage or indignation, it is based on considerations other than facts. It overlooks the scientific advances which have been and still are being made in the USSR. To the argument that such advances represent mere "technology," the reply must be that all technology or engineering above the level of ancestral nostrums or magical incantations rests upon the theories pro duced by scientific experimentation. If the contentions of this school were at all true, Marxism and the Soviet Union could have been forgotten long ago as a curious but unsuccessful attempt at modern nation-building. S till another explanation for the maladies of Soviet science is the contention that the Soviet Marxist ideology, dialectical materialism, is in itself inherently inimical to science and to the practice of science. This may or may not be true, and of all the explanations it is the most difficult with which to deal. The usefulness of the dialectic as a research tool and unifying framework for the various sciences has been the subject of much study, producing a wide spectrum of opinion ranging from the effusive acclamations of Engels and the modern Soviet philosophers 17 to the wholly contrary views of such men as Acton, Wetter, and Eastman.18 For the present discussion, two observations will suffice. 17 First, the most objectionable aspect of the issue is the Soviet claim of exclusivity. Even granting, with many reservations, the claim that dialectical materialism is scientific or that it has value in scientific research and theorization, there is not the slightest shred of evidence to suggest that it may be the only tool or that it is the only true explanation of physical or biological processes. Indeed, the controversies in genetics, rela 17 F. Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955; V. Afanasyev, Marxist Philosophy, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, n.d., Ch. IV and pp. 374-77 esp.; for a non-Soviet Marxist, see J. B. S. Haldane, Marxist Philosophy and the Sciences, New York, Random House, 1939, Ch. I. 18 H. B. Acton, The Illusion of the Epoch: Marxism-Leninism as a Philosophi cal Creed, Boston, Beacon Press, 1955, pp. 54-74; G. A. Wetter, Dialectical Materialism, trans. Peter Heath, revised ed., London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958; and M. Eastman, Marxism: Is It a Science?, New York, W. W. Norton, 1940. tivity, Heisenberg uncertainty, resonance, and quantum mechanics have been predicated upon the presupposi tion that at least in some areas of human knowledge the dialectic is not applicable. Such evidence aside, there is the further consideration that others have postulated basic forms which vie with the dialectic for philosophical supremacy. Marxists and others have offered no sound argument for their belief that the dialectic is innately superior to phenomenalism, positivism, determinism, or modelism: they simply accept it as an article of faith. L.R. Graham has offered what is perhaps the most succinct description of how the dialectic now operates in Soviet science: he states in a recent article on quantum mechanics that "if dialectical materialism currently influences the thinking [of top Soviet scientists] in any way, it is surely only in the sense of defining their positions as cognitive realists."19 This is to say that the dialectic has been elevated to the level of a priori doctrine, rather than functioning as a working set of principles. Second, even from the standpoint of the controversies themselves, it is not possible or even fruitful to embark on a philosophical discussion about which of the opposing theories in genetics or in the various physical sciences was more consonant with Marxism-Leninism. An attempt of this nature would undoubtedly fall far short of satisfaction, since some of the most agile minds in the Soviet Union debated the issue with something less than solid success: Marx, Engels, and Lenin were on their side according to each of the protagonists. While it would be foolish to suppose that none of the participants was seriously concerned with the Marxist implications of these controversies, it must be assumed that, if and when ideological considerations played any part in the action of the higher 19 Graham, op. cit., p. 409 party and government command, they portant political considerations. Russian state (especially from the conversion to Orthodoxy), through the Petrine period, and up to 1917, Russia's governance was increasingly characterized by central authoritative rule supporting and in turn being supported by a particular philosophy, at times more explicit than at other times but always present to some degree. For seven centuries, this philosophy was equivalent to Byzantinism-Orthodoxy. Following Peter's successful displacement of the Church as the dominant element in Russian society,21 the ruling idea became one of autocracy—its rights, prerogatives, and preservation. As might be expected from a nascent concept, it was at first neither very rigorous nor If one rejects in whole or in part coherent, but by the middle of the the positions that political con- 19th century, it had become firmly trol of science in the Soviet articulated as an amalgamation of Union (1) has never existed, (2) was autocracy, nationalism, and Orthoan historical aberration attributable doxy. As noted earlier, a central to one man (there is a choice beproblem of the Tsars became the contween Stalin or Lysenko) or to flict between preservation of these chance, (3) represents the utter deg principles and support of the scientific I radation of science with no chance From the earliest beginnings of the 20 Stalin is purposely overlooked as a "theoretician" who, with few exceptions, was a compulsive quoter. institutions and ideas which were necessary to develop Russia as a modern state. At the time the Tsarist age came to an end, the pendulum had swung to the point where the official philosophy was unalterably opposed to change and to the sciences responsible for these changes. But what was substituted?-a system which was predicated upon change, which was supposedly derived from science, and which was at least as far-reaching as Orthodoxy and autocracy ever were. The core of this system was the Communist Party, the instrument by which the capitalist bonds were to be broken. According to M. C. Cornforth, a British Marxist: the working class. In its struggle, the working class gives rise to its political party, the Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism. And the task of leadership in the sphere of the sciences, too, devolved upon the party.22 But why should the party have any interest in science? Aside from the claim that Marxism is derived from scientific precepts, there is a philosophical necessity for such an interest. As an element of the superstructure theoretically determined by the nature and direction of productive forces and productive relations, modern science [i.e., Western science] is the creation of the bourgeoisie. It is one of the most typical products of bourgeois society. And it carries the mark of its bourgeois origin in its methods and in its ideas. It is the means for understanding and controlling the processes of nature and society created under the conditions of the development of capitalism.23 By this dictum socialist science must differ fundamentally from bourgeois science. Somehow, it must be more profound, more efficient, more true, and, in short, more descriptive of reality, since the social and economic structure from which it springs is itself more profound, more efficient, more "true" than capitalism. This element of philosophical necessity was easily translated into such actions as the rejection of "Morganism" simply because it was considered an American product, or the adoption of the notions of Michurin, Timiriazev, and Butlerov because they were Russians or Marxists. But here the philosophical shades into the more basic political necessity. A state built around a party which rests upon a single ideological commitment cannot have that commitment challenged; for, insofar as its ideology is challenged, its power to rule-in fact, its right to rule—is also challenged. Whether or not one accepts Djilas concept that a "New Class" has arisen in the Soviet Union, it can be taken as axiomatic that the Communist Party cannot allow opposition to make itself felt for long. In One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, (1904) Lenin gave an accurate description of the party to come. According to this pamphlet, the party represents or is the vanguard of the "whole" to which every part of society 24 must be subordinated. Later, in "Left Wing" Communism-An Infantile Disorder (1920), he noted the preeminent role which the party must play in all sectors of society.25 What this means in terms of political dynamics is that, since the party has the responsibility for guiding every aspect of Russian culture-from science to art to production-any schism dividing these areas becomes a potential schism dividing politics and, therefore, splitting the party. Daniel Bell has expressed this phenomenon best: 24 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, irregular years of publication, Vol. I, pp. 322-29. 25 Ibid, Vol. II, p. 593. 26 D. Bell, "Ideology and Soviet Politics," Slavic Review, December 1965, p. 602. Emphasis in original. into question the basic "knowability" of material processes or refute the Marxist claim of limitlessness in human understanding, if cybernetics attempts to reduce thought to a mechanical process, or if psychology shows the body to be a product of the mind, then all of these must be dealt with at the highest levels-for they strike at the highest levels when ideology is a partner to government. Whether or not the source of the conflict is originally non-philosophical is immaterial; for claiming universality on the part of the ruling ideology makes inevitable its ultimate entrance into the dispute. Someone, at some point along the line, either because of a personal ideological commitment or for purely selfish reasons, will raise the issue, and it is at that point that the party is threatened. There is another dimension here. Not only must the ideology remain sacrosanct, but so must the practical manner in which it operates. The cry throughout the Soviet Union is "science for the building of communism!," and science must be pragmatically successful as well as politically acceptable. Arising from the concept of "unity of theory and practice” is the notion that what does not "work" is, ipso facto, theoretically unsound: hence the charges of "wrecking" which abounded in the 1930's and 1940's during the Yezhovshchina. Overall, then, state control of science in the Soviet Union is philosophically-and therefore politically— necessary to effective party control. When the state is threatened from within or without, the ideology is brought to bear against its opponents: similarly, when the ideology is questioned, the state with all its powers of coercion must eliminate the source of dissension. The Soviet Union is particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon because its ideology, dialectical materialism, is by definition supported by science and derived from scientific processes. |