Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T09:10:19.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evolving Soviet Debate on Latin America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 October 2022

Jerry F. Hough
Jerry F. Hough*
Affiliation:
Duke University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Traditionally, Western scholars have spoken about “the” Soviet view of this or that question—even about “the” Soviet ideology with respect to it—and hence they have considered it legitimate to draw quotations from a wide range of persons and types of sources in order to assemble a composite summary of that view. Even if it has been recognized that there must be private differences of opinion among Soviet officials and specialists, it has usually been assumed that the censorship prevents any from being expressed in public. This assumption is simply incorrect. In the words of Brezhnev, “a party and state leader. cannot consider himself the sole and indisputable authority in all areas of human activity. ” While jealously guarding their own right of ultimate decision, Soviet leaders now talk about problems being solvable only by “collective reason,” and insist that “it is necessary to listen to specialists and scholars, and, moreover, not only of one orientation or school.”

Information

Type
Research Reports and Notes
Information
Latin American Research Review , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , 1981, pp. 124 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © 1981 by the University of Texas Press

Footnotes

*

I would like to express my deep gratitude to the many Soviet Latin Americanists who discussed their views with me. Of course, none is responsible for any misinterpretations that I may have made. This article draws upon research the author is currently conducting for the Brookings Institution.

References

Notes

1. Leonid I. Brezhnev, Tselina (Moscow: Politizdat, 1978), p. 21.

2. Hither because of censorship or self-censorship, Soviet scholars are also much more cautious in their papers prepared for foreign conferences or conferences that foreigners attend. This practice has greatly strengthened the Western belief that Soviet social science is very simple-minded or that the censorship is totally restrictive.

3. This journal, Latinskaia Amerika, is also translated in substantial part in a Spanish edition, América Latina. For the statement about “the collective search for truth,” see Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1978), p. 119.

4. M. V. Danilevich, Polozhenie i bor'ba rabochego klassa stran latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Akademii Nauk, 1953).

5. V. Ermolaev, S. Semenov, and A. Sivolobov, “Ser'eznye oshibki v knige o rabochem dvizhenii v Latinskoi Amerike,” Kommunist, no. 7 (May 1954), p. 127. See the discussion in Herbert S. Dinerstein, The Making of a Missile Crisis: October 1962 (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press), pp. 3–6, 10–14.

6. Ibid., pp. 119, 121, and 122.

7. Ibid., p. 123.

8. M. V. Danilevich and A. F. Shul'govsky, ed., Problemy sovremennoi latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo instituta mezhdunarodnogo otnosheniia, 1959). The latter statement, by A. I. Kalinin, is on p. 85. The criticism of Shul'govsky is contained in a review by A. N. Glinkin in Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 5 (May 1961), p. 148.

9. See the articles by M. Grechev (the statement on absolutizing is on p. 35) and Iu. G. Onufriev in Problemy sovremennoi latinskoi ameriki. Some of the points are criticized in the Glinkin review.

10. I. N. Zorina, “Narodnoe edinstvo burzhuaznaia demokratiia,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1972), p. 41.

11. These discussions are found in Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 3 (March 1962), pp. 20–49; no. 4 (Apr. 1962), pp. 68–98; no. 5 (May 1962), pp. 85–108; no. 6 (June 1962), pp. 85–105; no. 4 (Apr. 1964), pp. 116–31; no. 6 (June 1964), pp. 62–81; no. 8 (Aug. 1965), pp. 86–103; no. 9 (Sept. 1965), pp. 77–89; no. 10 (Oct. 1965), pp. 105–19; no. 11 (Nov. 1965), pp. 88–97; no. 12 (Dec. 1965), pp. 113–22; no. 4 (Apr. 1967), pp. 106–27; no. 5 (May 1967), pp. 93–108; no. 5 (May 1968), pp. 90–104; no. 8 (Aug. 1968), pp. 82–96.

12. M. V. Danilevich, Rabochii klass v osvoboditel'noi dvizhenii narodov Latinskoi Ameriki (Moscow: Gospolitizdat, 1962); I. K. Sheremetev, ed., Tendentsii ekonomicheskogo razvitiia stran latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Mysl', 1969); B. I. Koval', Proletariat latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Mysl', 1968); Iu. G. Onufriev, ed., Sel'skoe khoziaistvo i agrarnye otnosheniia v stranakh latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Mysl', 1971); A. F. Shul'govsky, ed., Sel'skie trudiashchiesia latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Mysl', 1972); A. F. Shul'govsky, ed., Srednie gorodskie sloi latinskoi ameriki (Moscow: Mysl', 1974). In addition, there were innumerable specialized books and articles.

13. S. Mikoian, “Narodnaia revoliutsiia na Kube,” Politicheskoe samoobrazovanie, no. 3 (Mar. 1961), pp. 21–31, and “Kubinskii narod boretsia za svetloe budushchee,” Politicheskoe samoobrazovanie, no. 5 (May 1961), pp. 10–21. Compare these articles with the much more cautious discussion published months later in “Tekushchie problemy mirovoi politiki,” Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 1 (Jan. 1962), pp. 35–37.

14. V. V. Vol'skii “Leninizm i problemy revoliutsionnogo protsessa, v Latinskoi Amerike,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1970), esp. pp. 8–11, 16–17 and 23 (n. 27).

15. Ibid., pp. 15, 19–23.

16. In the postmortem after the military coup, Vol'skii was the scholar to talk most about American intervention. “Problemy mirnogo puti k sotsializmu,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1974), pp. 42–45.

17. K. Maidanik, “Sotsial'no-politicheskii krizis v Latinskoi Amerike i perspektivy ego predoleniia,” Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 7 (July 1973), pp. 28–29, 30–35; and no. 8 (Aug. 1970), p. 77.

18. Maidanik, “Sotsial'no-politicheskii krizis,” p. 37.

19. K. Maidanik, “Sumerki liberal'nogo reformizma,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1970), p. 60. See also Maidanik, “Sotsial'no-politicheskii krizis,” p. 29, for a similar statement about Latin America passing through a “common epoch of revolution.”

20. Maidanik, “Sumerki liberal'nogo reformizma.”

21. K. I. Maidanik, “Vokrug urokov Chili,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1974), pp. 119–21.

22. B. I. Koval', “Nauchno-tekhnicheskaia revoliutsiia i Latinskaia Amerika,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Oct.–Nov. 1972), esp. pp. 15, 16, and 21.

23. B. I. Koval', S. I. Semenov, and A. F. Shul'govsky, Revoliutsionnye protsessy v Latinskoi Amerike (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), pp. 29–30, 287, and 298.

24. A. F. Shul'govsky (all in Latinskaia Amerika), “Leninskaia teoriia pererastanii revoliutsii v sotsialisticheskuiu i Latinskaia Amerika,” no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1970), pp. 55–80; “Latinskaia Amerika: armiia i politika,” no. 4 (July–Aug. 1971), pp. 7–41; “Armiia i politika v sovremennoi Latinskoi Amerike,” no. 3 (May–June 1977), p. 52.

25. B. I. Koval' (all in Latinskaia Amerika), '“Sotsial'noe souchastie ili bor'ba za demokratiiu?,” no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1973), pp. 33 and 34ff; “Vliianie mirovogo sotsializma na rost politicheskogo soznaniia proletariata Latinskoi Ameriki,” no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1974), pp. 23–38, esp. pp. 32–34.

26. The Asian specialists were A. A. Kutsenkov and S. A. Agaev. Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1974), pp. 139 and 141. The article by the Institute of Marxism-Leninism scholar is A. I. Sobolev, “Revoliutsiia i kontrrevoliutsiia: opyt Chili i problemy klassovoi bor'by,” Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1974), pp. 3–22.

27. Sobolev, “Revoliutsiia i kontrrevoliutsiia,” passim. The quotation is from p. 15.

28. A. A. Galkin of the Institute of the International Workers' Movement, Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1974), p. 133.

29. Maidanik, “Vokrug urokov Chili,” pp. 112–33.

30. E. A. Kosarev, “Ekonomika i mirnyi put' revoliutsii,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1974), pp. 92–100, especially pp. 95, 96, and 99–100.

31. I. N. Zorina and Iu. F. Kariakin, “Politicheskaia khronika chiliiskoi revoliutsii,” Part 2, Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1974), p. 148. Also see Zorina's statement in the discussion published in ibid., no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1974), p. 136.

32. This seems to be the meaning of statements such as the following by Zorina: “The participation of the Christian Democrats would not have hindered the enactment of the planned program of democratic transformation, but could have achieved its full realization and made it really irreversible.” I. N. Zorina, “Revoliutsiia i khristiankodemokraticheskaia partiia,” in M. F. Kudachkin and A. A. Kutsenkov, eds., Uroki Chili (Moscow: Nauka, 1977), p. 197. For a fuller expression of this point of view in a more general setting see S. I. Tiul'panov and V. L. Sheinis, Aktual'nye problemy politicheskoi ekonomii sovremennogo kapitalizma (Leningrad: Izdatel'stvo LGU, 1973), pp. 252–60.

33. For example, the head of the Latin American section of the Party Central Committee, M. F. Kudachkin, began with a fairly straightforward position about the need for more drastic political action under Allende. “Nekotorye uroki revoliutsii,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1975), pp. 59–66. In a subsequent popular book, he moved to the middle position calling for more political action and a strengthening of ties with the middle strata, and, despite the nature of his position and the nature of the book (both of which would have given reason to stress the American role in Allende's overthrow), he gave little enough attention to this factor that he was criticized for it in a review by a scholar at the more conservative Institute of World History. (I. I. Ianchuk in Novaia i noveishaia istoriia, no. 4 [1978], p. 189.)

34. “Armiia i politika v sovremennoi Latinskoi Amerike,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 3 (May–June 1977), pp. 49–85, and no. 4 (July-Aug. 1977), pp. 113–49.

35. “K probleme sovremennykh pravoavtoritarnykh rezhimov,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1975), pp. 97–122, and no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1976), pp. 98–113. V. P. Totskii, “K voprosu o tak nazyvaemvkh pravoavtoritarnvkh rezhimakh,” ibid., no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1979), pp. 115–26. '

36. “Administratsiia Kartera i Latinskaia Amerika, (kruglyi stol),” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 4 (July–Aug. 1979), pp. 100–60.

37. The review, one of the best in a Soviet or any other journal, is found in Latinskaia Amerika, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1975), pp. 196–200. The IMEMO book was Razvivaiushchiesia strany: zakonomernosti, tendentsii, perspektivy (Moscow: Nauka, 1974), and was heavilv influenced bv Maidanik.

38. Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 8 (Aug. 1970), p. 77.

39. In an extremely interesting, day-long discussion held in June 1978 (and published in the first two issues of Latin America in 1979), Lev Klochkovsky, the head of the economics department of the Institute of Latin America, began by denying the appropriateness of the “middle-level capitalism” label for Latin America, but ended the day by supporting Maidanik's suggestion that the term “middle-level dependent capitalism” be applied. Latinskaia Amerika, no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1979), p. 62, and no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), p. 131.

40. Ibid., no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), pp. 86–91.

41. This is the position of Victor Sheinis, a comparativist at IMEMO. “Strany sredenraz-vitogo kapitalizma,” Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 9 (Sept. 1977), pp. 150–57 and “Sotsial'no-ekonomicheskaia differentsiatsiia i problemy tipologii razvivaiushchikhsia stran,” ibid., no. 8 (Aug. 1978), pp. 93–107. Also see his contributions in Latinskaia Amerika, no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1979), pp. 63–73, and no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), pp. 128–30.

42. In particular, see two books by A. I. Levkovsky, Tretii mir v sovremennom mire (Moscow: Nauka, 1979) and Sotsial'naia struktura razvivaiushchikhsia stran (Moscow: Mysl', 1978). Also see the exchange between Levkovsky and “A. U. Roslavlev” (a pseudonym for R. A. Ul'ianovsky, a deputy head of the international department of the Party Central Committee) in Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1974), pp. 103–14; no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1975), pp. 136–50; no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1977), pp. 136–45.

43. V. L. Sheinis, in Latinskaia Amerika, no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), p. 130.

44. L. Klochkovsky and I. Sheremet'ev, “Latinskaia Amerika: krizis zavisimogo kapitalizma,” Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 4 (Apr. 1978), pp. 53–66, and V. Vol'skii, “Otnositel'naia zrelost', bezuslovnaia zavisimost',” Problemy mira i sotsializma, no. 6 (June 1979), pp. 48–53. Also see the debate about Mexico, “O sovremennom etape razvitiia kapitalizma v Meksike,” Latinskaia amerika, no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1978), pp. 70–119, esp. 78–82, and that about dependence and level of development, “Kak otsenivat' osobennosti i uroven' razvitiia kapitalizma v latinskoi amerike,” Latinskaia Amerika, no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1979), pp. 53–100 (esp. pp. 56–62 and 85–89), and no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), pp. 82–131 (esp. pp. 130–31).

45. Ibid., no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), pp. 86–91 and 108–14, and no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1978), pp. 100–5 and 112–14. Also see V. M. Davydov, “O stepeni zrelosti i osobennostiakh kapitalizma ‘latino-amerikanskogo’ tipa,” Mirovaia ekonomiia i mezhdunarodnye otnosheniia, no. 3 (Mar. 1979), pp. 116–29.

46. Latinskaia Amerika, no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1979), pp. 63–77 and 80–84; no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1979), pp. 122–25 and 128–30; no. 5 (Sept. 1978), pp. 114–19.

47. For an interesting matrix analysis of the level of support of different Latin American governments for the United States, see E. V. Levykin, “K voprosu o metodike prog-nozirovaniia mezhgosudarstvennykth otnoshenii,” ibid., no. 1 (Jan.–Feb. 1978), pp. 125–35.

48. I. V. Danilevich, “Mezhdunarodnaia sotsial-demokratiia i latinskaia amerika,” ibid., no. 2 (Mar.–Apr. 1978), p. 81.

49. Ibid., no. 4 (July–Aug. 1978), pp. 89–90.

50. “Mezhdunarodnaia sotsial-demokratiia i latinskaia amerika,” ibid., pp. 88–146.

51. Ibid., no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1975), pp. 107–8. See also ibid., no. 4 (July–Aug. 1978), pp. 106–14.

52. Ibid., no. 6 (Nov.–Dec. 1975, p. 111; no. 4 (July-Aug. 1978), p. 103. See also B. I. Koval' and S. I. Semenov, “Latinskaia amerika i mezhdunarodnaia sotsial-demokratiia,” Rabochii klass i sovremennyi mir, no. 4 (July–Aug. 1978), pp. 115–30.

53. Latinskaia amerika, no. 4 (July–Aug. 1978), p. 101. Also see A. F. Shul'govsky, “Revoliutsiia i kontrrevoliutsiia v latinskoi amerike v svete opyta velikogo oktiabria,” ibid., no. 5 (Sept.–Oct. 1977), p. 44.

54. Unfortunately, only four issues of the Spanish edition are published a year, instead of six for the Russian edition, and hence it does not include all of the material of the original. On the basis of a limited comparative examination, it does not seem that there is a policy of cutting controversial material. For example, the 1974 exchange between Maidanik and Kosarev on the reasons for the overthrow of Allende is published in América Latina, no. 2 (1975) and the discussion of right-wing regimes in no. 3 (1976).

55. B. I. Koval', Rabochee dvizhenie v latinskoi amerike (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), p. 2.