- Email: [email protected]
Resolution of the presidium of the hungarian academy of sciences
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
the new questions of our era, real creative work should be carried out at the scientific institutes; dissenting opinions should be confronted with each other in theoretical and scientific debates, and erroneous stands should receive scientitic Marxist criticism. The leaders of the Philosophical Institute, in their official capacity, are responsible for the establishment of the conditions necessary for this. It is incompatible with party policy to resolve theoretical debates by administrative methods. Methods which are designed to turn away people rather than win them over are contrary to the policy of the party. Policy may be enforced only by party-minded, comradely methods aimed at convincing people and appealing to their sense of justice. The sectarian distortions of party policy led to the creation of a false ring of solidarity around the representatives of rightist views at the Philosophical Institute. The Secretariat stresses the great significance of philosophical and sociological research work in the service of our actual social demands, and considers the sectarian and rightist distortions of this work to be harmful. The matter under discussion proves that, just as sectarian views cannot be fought successfully from rightist grounds, so rightist views cannot be defeated from sectarian grounds. The Secretariat considers the earliest possible normalization of the party organization and the scientific activities of the Philosophical Institute and Sociological Research Group to be necessary. In the interest of this: ( 1) The strengthening of party organizations must go forward in both institutes. In the spirit of the struggle on two fronts-presenting a front against both rightist and sectarian views- the clarification of opinions is to be achieved by intellectual means. The scientific, 150
COMMUNISM
educational and cultural department of the CC, as well as the Budapest and district party committees, should pay special attention to the problems of both institutes and both party organizations, and should give all support possible to guarantee the conditions of normal research work and a healthy political life. (2) The Secretariat-starting from the the principle that the state leaders are responsible for the ideological and political condition and work of the institutes entrusted to them-suggests that the competent state agencies should pass the necessary measures for the improvement of the management of the two institutes. (3 ) The communists working at the scientific, educational and cultural department of the CC and in the competent state control agencies should see to it that appropriate programs are prepared in both institutes, laying down the most important political, ideological and research requirements in order to formulate concrete social demands which these institutes should satisfy and which should serve as a standard and basis of further work. (4) The Secretariat will inform other party organizations working in related fields of the position it has taken in this matter so that they may utilize in their own activities the experience gained.
b3.OLUTION HUNGARUN
OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Partial text of the resolution adopted by the Presidium of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in support of the stand taken by the Secretariat of the Hungarian Party Central Committee regarding the Philosophical Institute and the Academy’s Sociological Research Group. It was printed in the March 1969 issue of PARTELET under the title “The Standpoint of the Presidium of the Hungarian Acad-
DOCUMENT$ emy of Sciences on Some Questions of Principle Concerning Research Work in the Social Sciences.” . . . . 1. The Presidium attaches great importance to the principles of scientific policy expressed in the statement of the Secretariat, and considers them as guiding principles for the social sciences as a whole and their individual branches. It lays special emphasis on the fact that the principle of the two-front strugglewhich has been successfuily applied by the party and government to various fields in building a socialist societyholds true for scientific activity as well as for the ideological aspects of sociological research. It completely agrees with the statement: “Just as sectarian views cannot be fought successfully from rightist grounds, so rightist views cannot be defeated from sectarian grounds.” A substantial proof of the truth of this statement is the direction Marxist social sciences have been taking in our country. The development of the unhealthy situation at the Philosophical Institute and the Sociological Research Group is connected, to a considerable extent, with the fact that the principle of the two-front ideological struggle has been neglected. Social sciences are successful and develop in a healthy direction only when they do not offer scope either to revisionist or dogmatic views, whether in their “traditional” or “modernized” versions. 2. The development of our country and the completion of the building of a socialist society require the social sciences to make a thorough analysis of the concrete facts and symptoms of social reality; give special attention to the study of the new questions of our era as well as make a survey of, and offer an answer to, our current problems. The task of the social scientists is not
only the mere repetition or illustration Of well-known general ideological theses, but rather-by means of adequate MarxistLeninist theoretical and methodological training and by relying on a broad exploration of facts by modern methods of research-the disclosure of new relations; the creative study, continued development and enrichment of science with new results. The HSWP has created a favorable socio-political atmosphere for creative work, scientific initiative and pioneering research work. The party and govemment have repeatedly stated that sociological research work aimed at the satisfaction of our real social demands is of great significance and that such work enjoys complete freedom. The Presidium calls on the departments and institutes of the Academy to give particular support to researchers in the social sciences who make the best of these opportunities, who are not arrested in routine, who do not take refuge in the comfort of the lukewarm water of peripheral themes, but who, with a sense of responsibility for the cause of social progress, choose and shoulder the research tasks connected with new, important and difficult problems. 3. The Presidium supports and encourages such principled and scholarly debates-at the plenary meetings in departments of the Academy, as well as in sociological institutes-as offer a wide scope to all positive, progressive and critical forces. Scholars in the social sciences who follow Marxist ideology and methodology are free to choose among different ways of seeking the truth and to survey the same problem in its various aspects leading to different results. The existence of different methods of approach and survey and different results in research is one of the main indicators of the creative character of sociological work; the 151
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
polemics between the schools, the confrontation of different opinions, is one of the main stimuli of the development of the social sciences. But the line must be drawn between this versatility of creative sociological work and the tendency toward a Marxist relativism, which is even inclined to question the basic principles of Marxism. A distinction must also be made between versatility and the pluralization of Marxism, according to which, starting from the platform of Marxism, various true results can be achieved; or, in other words, various forms of Marxism exist. In concrete cases, we consider the presence and clash of different views and results rather a means than an end-as a matter of fact, we consider it as an essential means-which will lead to the most all-around understanding of reality. 4. In the opinion of the Presidium, it is desirable that researchers in the social sciences should react more vigorously and methodically to the ideological-sociological problems which engage the attention of the public and are discussed in our intellectual public life. At the same time it calls for the careful and exacting preparation of debates dealing with significant questions. We should make sure that well-trained Marxist scholars attend, and make an impact on, important sociological discussions. This is partly a question of organization . . . and partly a question of scientific integrity and political responsibility, which require fighting both a comfortable and cautious withdrawal and isolation wrapped in the guise of principles. The discussions should offer an opportunity for a confrontation of ideas, a clash of different views, a demonstration of the elements and points of contact of
152
COMMUNISM
the various methods of approach baaed on Marxism and, at the same time, suggest firm action against ideologically erroneous and perhaps politically harmful views. The point is not the distribution of labels, declarative classifications or arbitrary interpretations. What is necessary is a serious disposition to distance ourselves from bourgeois ideology, a convincing refutation and avoidance of elements or attitudes alien to Marxism, and the defeat of non-Marxist views by ideological means. . . . . 5. The Presidium-while it urges scholars of the social sciences to analyze new symptoms, to disclose new connections and to further the creative development of science and theory--considers it absolutely necessary that in the publication, utilization and application of the results of research, the ideological character and the ideological-political effect of the social sciences should always be taken into consideration. Thus, the Presidium considers it wrong to popularize new hypotheses and semifinished results by publishing them, that they be made public before they have stood the test of professional criticism. Scholars should feel responsible for the scientific level of the propagation of general knowledge. Also, creative sociological work is hampered if professional publication runs into bureaucratic difficulties and has to contend with excessive controls, lengthy planning and delays before it can be printed. Thus, the Presidium considers it necessary that a better and more reasonable method for the publication of sociological works be developed, based on the principle of complete creative freedom in research and a recognition of the great social responsibility for its utilization. . . . . . . .
IN COMPARATIVE
the new questions of our era, real creative work should be carried out at the scientific institutes; dissenting opinions should be confronted with each other in theoretical and scientific debates, and erroneous stands should receive scientitic Marxist criticism. The leaders of the Philosophical Institute, in their official capacity, are responsible for the establishment of the conditions necessary for this. It is incompatible with party policy to resolve theoretical debates by administrative methods. Methods which are designed to turn away people rather than win them over are contrary to the policy of the party. Policy may be enforced only by party-minded, comradely methods aimed at convincing people and appealing to their sense of justice. The sectarian distortions of party policy led to the creation of a false ring of solidarity around the representatives of rightist views at the Philosophical Institute. The Secretariat stresses the great significance of philosophical and sociological research work in the service of our actual social demands, and considers the sectarian and rightist distortions of this work to be harmful. The matter under discussion proves that, just as sectarian views cannot be fought successfully from rightist grounds, so rightist views cannot be defeated from sectarian grounds. The Secretariat considers the earliest possible normalization of the party organization and the scientific activities of the Philosophical Institute and Sociological Research Group to be necessary. In the interest of this: ( 1) The strengthening of party organizations must go forward in both institutes. In the spirit of the struggle on two fronts-presenting a front against both rightist and sectarian views- the clarification of opinions is to be achieved by intellectual means. The scientific, 150
COMMUNISM
educational and cultural department of the CC, as well as the Budapest and district party committees, should pay special attention to the problems of both institutes and both party organizations, and should give all support possible to guarantee the conditions of normal research work and a healthy political life. (2) The Secretariat-starting from the the principle that the state leaders are responsible for the ideological and political condition and work of the institutes entrusted to them-suggests that the competent state agencies should pass the necessary measures for the improvement of the management of the two institutes. (3 ) The communists working at the scientific, educational and cultural department of the CC and in the competent state control agencies should see to it that appropriate programs are prepared in both institutes, laying down the most important political, ideological and research requirements in order to formulate concrete social demands which these institutes should satisfy and which should serve as a standard and basis of further work. (4) The Secretariat will inform other party organizations working in related fields of the position it has taken in this matter so that they may utilize in their own activities the experience gained.
b3.OLUTION HUNGARUN
OF THE PRESIDIUM OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
Partial text of the resolution adopted by the Presidium of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in support of the stand taken by the Secretariat of the Hungarian Party Central Committee regarding the Philosophical Institute and the Academy’s Sociological Research Group. It was printed in the March 1969 issue of PARTELET under the title “The Standpoint of the Presidium of the Hungarian Acad-
DOCUMENT$ emy of Sciences on Some Questions of Principle Concerning Research Work in the Social Sciences.” . . . . 1. The Presidium attaches great importance to the principles of scientific policy expressed in the statement of the Secretariat, and considers them as guiding principles for the social sciences as a whole and their individual branches. It lays special emphasis on the fact that the principle of the two-front strugglewhich has been successfuily applied by the party and government to various fields in building a socialist societyholds true for scientific activity as well as for the ideological aspects of sociological research. It completely agrees with the statement: “Just as sectarian views cannot be fought successfully from rightist grounds, so rightist views cannot be defeated from sectarian grounds.” A substantial proof of the truth of this statement is the direction Marxist social sciences have been taking in our country. The development of the unhealthy situation at the Philosophical Institute and the Sociological Research Group is connected, to a considerable extent, with the fact that the principle of the two-front ideological struggle has been neglected. Social sciences are successful and develop in a healthy direction only when they do not offer scope either to revisionist or dogmatic views, whether in their “traditional” or “modernized” versions. 2. The development of our country and the completion of the building of a socialist society require the social sciences to make a thorough analysis of the concrete facts and symptoms of social reality; give special attention to the study of the new questions of our era as well as make a survey of, and offer an answer to, our current problems. The task of the social scientists is not
only the mere repetition or illustration Of well-known general ideological theses, but rather-by means of adequate MarxistLeninist theoretical and methodological training and by relying on a broad exploration of facts by modern methods of research-the disclosure of new relations; the creative study, continued development and enrichment of science with new results. The HSWP has created a favorable socio-political atmosphere for creative work, scientific initiative and pioneering research work. The party and govemment have repeatedly stated that sociological research work aimed at the satisfaction of our real social demands is of great significance and that such work enjoys complete freedom. The Presidium calls on the departments and institutes of the Academy to give particular support to researchers in the social sciences who make the best of these opportunities, who are not arrested in routine, who do not take refuge in the comfort of the lukewarm water of peripheral themes, but who, with a sense of responsibility for the cause of social progress, choose and shoulder the research tasks connected with new, important and difficult problems. 3. The Presidium supports and encourages such principled and scholarly debates-at the plenary meetings in departments of the Academy, as well as in sociological institutes-as offer a wide scope to all positive, progressive and critical forces. Scholars in the social sciences who follow Marxist ideology and methodology are free to choose among different ways of seeking the truth and to survey the same problem in its various aspects leading to different results. The existence of different methods of approach and survey and different results in research is one of the main indicators of the creative character of sociological work; the 151
STUDIES
IN COMPARATIVE
polemics between the schools, the confrontation of different opinions, is one of the main stimuli of the development of the social sciences. But the line must be drawn between this versatility of creative sociological work and the tendency toward a Marxist relativism, which is even inclined to question the basic principles of Marxism. A distinction must also be made between versatility and the pluralization of Marxism, according to which, starting from the platform of Marxism, various true results can be achieved; or, in other words, various forms of Marxism exist. In concrete cases, we consider the presence and clash of different views and results rather a means than an end-as a matter of fact, we consider it as an essential means-which will lead to the most all-around understanding of reality. 4. In the opinion of the Presidium, it is desirable that researchers in the social sciences should react more vigorously and methodically to the ideological-sociological problems which engage the attention of the public and are discussed in our intellectual public life. At the same time it calls for the careful and exacting preparation of debates dealing with significant questions. We should make sure that well-trained Marxist scholars attend, and make an impact on, important sociological discussions. This is partly a question of organization . . . and partly a question of scientific integrity and political responsibility, which require fighting both a comfortable and cautious withdrawal and isolation wrapped in the guise of principles. The discussions should offer an opportunity for a confrontation of ideas, a clash of different views, a demonstration of the elements and points of contact of
152
COMMUNISM
the various methods of approach baaed on Marxism and, at the same time, suggest firm action against ideologically erroneous and perhaps politically harmful views. The point is not the distribution of labels, declarative classifications or arbitrary interpretations. What is necessary is a serious disposition to distance ourselves from bourgeois ideology, a convincing refutation and avoidance of elements or attitudes alien to Marxism, and the defeat of non-Marxist views by ideological means. . . . . 5. The Presidium-while it urges scholars of the social sciences to analyze new symptoms, to disclose new connections and to further the creative development of science and theory--considers it absolutely necessary that in the publication, utilization and application of the results of research, the ideological character and the ideological-political effect of the social sciences should always be taken into consideration. Thus, the Presidium considers it wrong to popularize new hypotheses and semifinished results by publishing them, that they be made public before they have stood the test of professional criticism. Scholars should feel responsible for the scientific level of the propagation of general knowledge. Also, creative sociological work is hampered if professional publication runs into bureaucratic difficulties and has to contend with excessive controls, lengthy planning and delays before it can be printed. Thus, the Presidium considers it necessary that a better and more reasonable method for the publication of sociological works be developed, based on the principle of complete creative freedom in research and a recognition of the great social responsibility for its utilization. . . . . . . .