The Theme of the East in the Society of Marxist Historians in the Second Half of the 1920s – Early 1930s

• Published in: Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serii͡a︡ 4, Istorii͡a Vol. 29; no. 4; pp. 235 - 248
• Main Author: Danilov, Victor
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 19-09-2024
• ISSN: 1998-9938; 2312-8704
• DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu4.2024.4.17

Introduction. Oriental studies was not the leading direction in the activities of the society of Marxist historians (the second half of the 1920s – early 1930s), but it played a significant role in bringing this field of knowledge closer to the practical needs of the current policy of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Comintern. Methods and materials. The research is based on traditional methods of historiographical analysis. It uses materials from historical journals of the 1920s and 1930s and archival documents. Analysis. Reports at general meetings of the Society and the History of the East section and publications in the journal “Historian-Marxist” focused on the problems of the history of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries, the policy of tsarist Russia on the southern outskirts of the empire, and socialist transformations in the national republics of the USSR. If in the early years the most influential were the well-known Marxist orientalists M.P. Pavlovich, V.A. Gurko-Kryazhin, and I.M. Reisner, then in the subsequent period Oriental historians who did not have serious scientific authority but firmly adhered to the class approach occupied the leading positions in the society. After the All-Union Conference of Marxist Historians, they focused their attention on criticizing the “old bourgeois schools” in Oriental history and “exposing pseudo-Marxism in their own ranks.” Results. However, they could achieve results in solving only the second task, using, first, discussions about socio-economic formations, about the situation and tasks at the front of the study of the East, and about the non-Marxism of Gurko-Kryazhin’s historical views. The ideological turn of the mid-1930s largely devalued the importance of the research of this generation of Marxist Orientalists, and the authorities recognized the achievements of representatives of academic Oriental studies.