among nations in the USSR and attack Stalin for postponing merging to the distant future in The National Question and Leninism. Dzhunusov's version of the dialectic, on the contrary, is more balanced: it pays its due both to flourishing and coming together, although flourishing receives somewhat greater attention. His stand on merging is unequivocal:

The process of the merging of nations and their cultures can be fully completed with the victory of communism throughout the entire world. Therefore one must not artificially force the merging of national cultures for which the social-economic conditions have not yet matured.

Only stupid people can suppose that the time has already come to curtail the development of the national statehood, culture and language of the peoples of the USSR.31

Laws of Development

The three components of methodology-a set of defining characteristics of nationhood, a formula for distinguishing socialist from presocialist nations, and an interpretation of the dialectic-are utilized by participants in the symposium as they depict the rise and decline of the nation as a form of social organization. How certain issues are treated in these images (which are partly explicit, partly implicit) of the laws of development is of crucial importance. The following appear to be the most significant points of controversy: the extent to which nations are related to prenational ethnic forms (plemia, narod, narodnost); the extent to which the existence of nations is pushed back into the past; the extent to which presocialist nations are internally split by class antagonisms and thus distinguished by psychological and ideological conflict; the extent to which relations between the masses of different presocialist nations are marked by friendship or mistrust; the

extent to which the Revolution altered inter- and intra-national relations in the USSR; the extent to which the present socialist nations of the Soviet Union have uniform social structures united by strong indigenous working classes, and thus the extent to which centripetal social, psychological and ideological forces are now pulling these nations together; and finally, the extent to which the merging of nations will occur in the foreseeable future. A

31 Istoriia SSSR, No. 3, 1962, p. 43. In his Voprosy istorii article, Dzhunusov explains (p. 29) that "development" means not only industrial and agricultural programs, but also growth in national self-awareness and pride.

comparison of the writings of the symposium participants reveals markedly divergent images of the laws of development.

By assigning first priority to "community of economic life" as the main factor leading to the consolidation of nations, Sverdlin and Rogachev deliberately emphasize the discontinuity between nations and prenational ethnic groups (e.g., narodnosti). Yet by including the "tradition" of liberation struggle in their definition of nationhood they make room for nation-building in colonial and ex-colonial countries where the will to nationhood far outstrips the level of economic development. The fixation on class as a determinant of thought and behavior leads Sverdlin and Rogachev to discount the presence of elements of social and cultural unity in "heterogeneous" nations, their main concession being the admission that language is a form of cultural community within such nations. By the same token, however, they claim that in the Russian empire ties of friendship between the masses of different nations and peoples were very strong, and that the tendency for nations to come together had become predominant even under capitalism. Predictably, Sverdlin and Rogachev stress the internal psychological and cultural cohesion of the "homogeneous" socialist nations of the USSR, linking this to changes in class structure brought about by the rapid overcoming of economic backwardness. Intranational unity at the same time signifies international unity, because proletarian ideology is the dominant element in the homogeneous culture of Soviet nations, and this ideology is international by nature.

Not surprisingly, Sverdlin and Rogachev set a rapid timetable for the movement of Soviet nations toward "full unity." By asserting that socially homogeneous nations are the "highest" type of nation, they imply that nations in the Soviet Union have already approached the peak of their existence. They view the "Soviet people" (sovetskii narod) a new and higher ethnic group to which all Soviet citizens are said to belong-as a transitional community bridging national and “national-less" (bez

natsionalnoe) social life.

The of Kaltakbelian's

he implications of Kaltakhchian's methodology are likewise revealed in his views about presocialist nations. He suggests, for instance, that even the narodnost (people) stage of ethnic development is permeated with class conflict. He also points out that "the nation does not have a mandatory direct genetic connection with . . . prenational forms of

community of people [primitive human herd, family tribe, people] either biologically or psychologically.' "32 Sverdlin and Rogachev, he indicates, inadvertently exaggerate the cohesion of socially heterogeneous nations by speaking of "community of economic life"; rather, one should speak merely of "community of economic ties" among antagonistic classes. He emphasizes, as they do, that "Marx and Engels proved that from the time nationalities, and then nations, arose, the popular masses were always their foundation, their nucleus." This assumption makes it easier for him to argue that

On the one hand, V. I. Lenin points out the need to take into account the polarization of character and culture of antagonistic classes in one and the same nation, while on the other hand he shows how people of different nations (in the given case V. I. Lenin has in mind the toiling masses) can have many features in common.34

Kaltakhchian's definition of nationhood implies a still sharper contrast between presocialist and socialist nations than that of Sverdlin and Rogachev. He even criticizes the latter for underestimating the "real community of national culture and national character" of socialist nations, heavily stressing instead the "internationalization" that has taken place. Tensions among the Soviet nationalities are dismissed with the observation that "with the disappearance of social antagonisms, national antagonisms also disappeared in the USSR." His projection of existing trends into the future foresees the simultaneous "flourishing" and "coming together" of nations and their "merger" when a "mature Communist society" is created in the Soviet Union.

The moderate interpretation of the "laws of development" of nations in the USSR can be seen in Dzhunusov's writings. His article in Voprosy istorii distinguishes "ethnic community" from "social community" (class, occupational, and geographical groups). "Ethnic community" (defined in terms of common language, ethnic territory, economic ties, ethnic self-consciousness, and specific features of culture and character) is the substance which underlies ethnic evolution. "The categories, 'tribe,' 'people,' 'nation' express stages of development of the ethnic community of people. They have not just different but common features... 99 35 Con

36

sequently, the roots of nations extend far into the past. In the post-Stalin period Dzhunusov has been among those who have denied that the Central Asian peoples ever developed into “bourgeois nations." Accordingly he minimizes the emergence of class differentiation in this region before the Revolution.3 At the same time he points to the oppressed colonial status of the peoples of prerevolutionary Central Asia, the Caucasus, and neighboring areas to the South, openly admits the existence of conflict in Central Asia between natives and Russian settlers, and calls attention to the prerevolutionary "nationalliberalism movement." Stressing the damage which the "cult of personality" inflicted on national relations in the USSR, he indicates that certain inequalities still persist and that a conscious effort must be made to prevent "collisions" among "national interests." He asserts that nations will exist in the USSR well after class differences have disappeared, and criticizes Sverdlin and Rogachev for implying the opposite by including "existence of a working class" among the characteristics of nationhood. He foresees a continued conversion of "peoples" (narodnosti) into nations and a further growth of the nations themselves.

Mnatsakanian also warns that one should not

"absolutize" the differences between the three basic types of nations: "nations of capitalist society, socialist and Communist [sic] nations." They are linked to one another by "deep continuity." A socialist economic system, Mnatsakanian argues, will not by itself assure unity in a multinational country. There must also be “democratic political institutions and political mutual relations based on the principles of equality and respect for the state independence and sovereignty of nations." 37 Political as well as economic and cultural functions still remain to be performed by national state forms. National statehood will provide the necessary setting in which the two equally important and mutually reinforcing tendencies of "flourishing" and "coming together" of nations can find their fullest expression. It will also guarantee the ultimate "merging" of nations, and thus must continue to exist until the latter takes place. But the merging of nations, Mnatsakanian notes, is "a very lengthy process."

Burmistrova's view of the laws of development does not differ fundamentally from Dzhunusov's or Mnatsakanian's. Her interpretation is marked, however, by its emphasis on the distinction between

32 Voprosy istorii, No. 6, 1966, p. 35. 33 Ibid, p. 31.

34 Filosofskie nauki, No. 5, 1964, p. 31. 35 Voprosy istorii, No. 4, 1966, p. 22.

36 Istoriia SSSR, No. 4, 1961, pp. 5-6. 37 Voprosy istorii, No. 9, 1966, p. 34.

Another issue-less explicit-concerns the extent to which empirical facts and actual popular attitudes, rather than citations from the "classics" and policy objectives, should govern the description of national relations. Most assimilationists present little in the way of hard data to support their conclusions, preferring quotations from Marx, Engels, Lenin, and even-in the case of Kaltakhchian19th-century Russian radicals. In contrast, Dzhunusov's appeal for an empirical, multidisciplinary approach (he includes social psychology and ethnography) to the analysis of nationality problems is especially noteworthy.

Still a third area of disagreement involves the connection between domestic nationality policy and the Soviet Union's foreign environment. Those writers who are attempting to revise the concept of nationhood wish to emphasize the opportunities for successful Communist-led class struggle in Western Europe, while constricting the sphere of independent activity on the part of the East European states. At the same time they are eager to remove analytic obstacles which hinder the expansion of Soviet influence in underdeveloped countries. They seem particularly sensitive to the problem of Chinese racist appeals. Thus we find Sverdlin and Rogachev

38 See Voprosy istorii KPSS, No. 2, 1965, pp. 41, 46. 39 Dzhunusov, Voprosy istorii, No. 4, 1966, p. 18.

The writers who oppose revision of the definition of nationhood are less attuned to foreign policy in general, and to an activist, dynamic foreign policy in particular. They appear interested mainly in proving that a favorable domestic nationality policy image is relevant to the achievement of Soviet objectives abroad. In addition, they urge, sotto voce, that relations between nations within the USSR could benefit from the example provided by other multinational socialist countries and even by intrabloc relations. Dzhunusov, who has specialized on the subject of how the backward national minorities of the USSR have "bypassed capitalism," " not unnaturally dwells upon the imperialists' fear that excolonial nations will be attracted by the Soviet Central Asian model of economic and social development. He sees more of a place in history for the trail blazed in Central Asia than that in China. Just as other countries can learn from the Soviet Union, so theories about national relations developed in other multinational socialist countries, as well as experience drawn from relations among socialist countries, can enrich Soviet thinking.

Mnatsakanian repeatedly argues that high stakes are involved in foreign as well as domestic perceptions of Soviet nationality policy:

Belittling the role of national statehood in general, and Soviet [statehood] in particular, cannot serve the goal of further consolidating the friendship of peoples of the USSR, of strengthening the unity of the socialist system, nor the goal of winning over ideologically and politically the masses of both developed capitalist states and of young countries liberated from colonial oppression.42

Assimilationists ignore the image argument. Their silence can plausibly be interpreted to mean

40 Voprosy filosofii, No. 10, 1964, pp. 179-80.

41 The literature on "bypassing capitalism," including Dzhunusov's own writings, stresses flexibility in the implementation of centrally-determined policies and sensitivity toward the feelings and needs of the nationalities being guided from precapitalist social structures to socialism.

42 Voprosy istori, No. 9, 1966, p. 34.

either that they think people in other countries are indifferent to what happens in the Soviet national republics, or that they consider rapid “internationalization" at home more important than any possible propaganda losses abroad. Perhaps they are also concerned about the influence of foreign models on domestic life.

Ideology and Politics

pre

What are the implications of the Voprosy istorii symposium? The directions in which the two models of methodology and laws point are obvious enough. To say that all the defining characteristics of nationhood need not be present for a nation to exist is to tolerate, or even advocate, infringement of the characteristics. To stress the primacy of economic ties as the foundation of nationhood while minimizing psychological factors is to hold that as the economies of the national republics become increasingly merged into a single indivisible whole, so the nations will automatically dissolve. The argument that socialist nations were racked by class conflict implies that the lines between "progressive" and "reactionary" ideologies were sharply drawn, which in practice means to label "bourgeois" most indigenous prerevolutionary political and intellectual movements. And to suggest that nations under socialism are utterly different from presocialist nations in the sense that no tensions exist within or among them is in effect to deny the existence of a "nationality problem," thereby gainsaying both the need for therapeutic measures and the presence of "objective" obstacles preventing the merging of nations.

But do the symposium articles represent anything more than the strictly personal views of the individual participants? The articles are, to be sure, expressions of personal positions. At the same time, they do reflect a number of important features of the general academic discussion of national relations in the Soviet Union. They bring into focus the two ideological models which for some years have competed for favor among the specialists. They offer some evidence that within the academic community assimilationist policies have attracted greater support among the "philosophers" than among the more empirically-oriented disciplines. They illustrate that there is no necessary correlation between doctrinal orthodoxy and political Stalinism, or between theoretical innovation and practical reformism. They demonstrate that even when a press organ seems to favor one particular line in the discussion

of nationality, pressures exist which compel publication of opposing opinions. And they show how the ranks on either side include both Russians and nonRussians.

Und

nder present conditions it is highly unlikely that the discussions will directly determine how specialists in history, linguistics, literature, and other disciplines will treat their subjects with respect to the nationality problem, even though the matters discussed in the symposium are of obvious theoretical relevance. Not only has there been no authoritative editorial summing-up of the discussion as yet, but it is doubtful whether anyone would feel bound by such an expression of sentiment if it were not backed by a party resolution. The discussions are, however, an important battle in a many-sided struggle to capture support within the academic community for either rapid or slow "internationalization."

The question remains whether it makes any dif ference what Soviet academicians think or say about nationality policy. The first observation to be made is that the connection between academic views and "reality" is very close in many activities which influence mass or elite attitudes (e.g., literary criticism or history textbook writing). Secondly, it is inevitable that the ideological guardians of tomorrow, if not of today also, will be affected by ideas abroad in the intellectual community. Thirdly, it is difficult to see how some academicians (like Sverdlin and Rogachev, or Dzhunusov) could not be receiving direct or indirect support from likeminded politicians. If this assumption is warranted, then it follows that the academic debate in all likelihood mirrors differences of opinion within the political elite.

The very fact that there has been a continuing academic discussion of nationality affairs without an official line being laid down is highly significant. Nationality policy is an overtly political matter which has a direct and profound bearing upon the stability of Soviet rule. The relatively broad freedom of expression enjoyed by individual debaters of diametrically opposed views already seems to have led to the crystallization of a non-official public opinion about this highly sensitive question. Such a development in itself represents a certain diffusion of political power. During Stalin's reign the right to define the issues in national relations was a jealously-guarded prerogative of the leader. The party leadership's failure so far to intervene overtly in nationality discussions may reflect a desire at the

moment not to set long-term guidelines. But continued abstinence could indicate an inability to reach minimal agreement over policy. Signs of nationalist feelings, especially among the non-Russian intelligentsia, have not been lacking in recent years. Nevertheless, it is questionable how signifi

cant these feelings can be in the face of a united and determined Communist leadership. If-as suggested above-differences of opinion do exist within the leadership as well, this cannot help but complicate the problem of managing national relations in the Soviet Union.

A nation is an historically evolved, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological makeup manifested in a common culture.

-Josef Stalin, Marxism and the National Question, Moscow, Foreign Language Publishing House, 1950, p. 16.

Such characteristics of a nation as community of territory and economic community have in the given case almost completely lost their former significance. Community of psychological makeup, manifesting itself in a community of culture, has also undergone serious modification. Among the contemporary nations of the Soviet socialist state only community of national language is fully preserved, and this undoubtedly will exist for a very long time. Thus, of the four criteria of a nation which are obligatory, according to Stalin, only one has permanent significance while the three remaining ones will gradually die away. But the nations will continue to exist. This means that the time has come to review the formula which says that if all four of the characteristics noted above are not present, then a nation does not exist. Under the new historical conditions this formula is no longer applicable.

-Ye. M. Zhukov, Voprosy istorii, No. 12,1961, p. 9.

A nation is an historically evolved community of individuals, characterized by stable community of economic life (with the existence of a working class), territory, language (especially a literary language), and self-consciousness of ethnic identity, as well as by some specific features of psychology and tradi tions of everyday life, culture and struggle for liberation.

-M. A. Sverdlin and P. M. Rogachev,
Voprosy istorii, No. 1, 1966, p. 45.

A nation. . . is a social-historical phenomenon, it evolved into a stable community of people in the capitalist stage of social development. The main characteristic features of a nation are community of territory, language, and economic ties of people.

-S. T. Kaltakhchian, Filosofskie nauki, No. 5, 1964, p. 27.

A nation is a large group of people distinguished by stable community of language, ethnic territory, national self-consciousness, and specific national traits of culture and character, formed in the course of development of either capitalist or socialist economic relationships.

-M. S. Dzhunusov, Voprosy istorii, No. 4, 1966, p. 20.

A nation is an historically evolved, stable community of people who have a common language, common territory, common economic ties and a common state structure.

—M. O. Mnatsakanian, Voprosy istorii, No. 9, 1966, p .35.

A nation is a social-ethnic community of people manifested in the unity of an industrial economy, territory, written language, character, and culture.

-T. Yu. Burmistrova, Voprosy istorii, No. 12, 1966, pp. 108-09.

A nation is a concrete-historical community of people, in which the most stable ethnic attributes (language, territory, specific features of character, culture, and ethnic self-consciousness) have grown into elements of national life, are combined with the developed economic and social-political relations of class society (bourgeois and socialist), and with the primary forms. of those broad international ties which are creating the basis for the growth of the nation into an international community of people.

-N. P. Ananchenko, Voprosy istorii, No. 3, 1967, p. 95.

The nation, which has historically evolved in the epoch of capitalism and socialism, is a complex, highlydeveloped, uniform, stable, dynamic community of people who are firmly bound together by an organic unity of language, territory, economic life, self-consciousness of ethnic identity and national character— of psychological makeup which is revealed in all spheres of social life, especially and more noticeably in various . . . forms of material and spiritual culture, and in everyday life, traditions, morals and customs.

—N. A. Tavakalian, Voprosy istorii, No. 2, 1967, p. 118.