The status of sociology and philosophy in the Soviet Union is radically different from that of the physical and mathematical sciences. The sociologists and philosophers are still regarded by the government as ideologists, whereas the mathematicians and physicists are considered scientists; and the ideologist is in low repute in the Soviet intellectual community. Thirty years ago, Nikolai Bukharin observed in a remarkable essay that the cultural style of the current Soviet period would be technicism, and that the humanities and historical sciences would be relegated to the background. He believed that this “one-sidedness“ was founded on the economic requirements of the time. Probably, however, the hollowness in the life of the Soviet ideologist is equally responsible for his low estate. The sociologists and philosophers are not regarded as independent thinkers; their job as ideological workers is to provide a documentation and footnoted commentary on the decisions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Young men of ability consequently tend to avoid choosing a life work in the social sciences and philosophy. Why, they say, should they sacrifice their intellectual independence at the outset of their lives?

For the second time in five years, the Russian planners have abandoned a national plan in mid-course in order to substitute a new program which reflects changed priorities and makes less rigorous demands on the country's economic resources. Although no one has announced the official demise of the Seven-Year Plan, it has been superseded, in fact, by the new Two-Year Plan for 1964-65.

Why has the regime found it necessary to draw up this interim plan to replace the last two years of the Seven-Year Plan? What changes does the new plan make in national economic goals? What are the prospects of the new Two-Year Plan, and what problems are likely to be encountered?

When my co-editor, Boris Filippov, and I were preparing our threevolume edition of Boris Pasternak’s Collected Works (published in 1961 by the University of Michigan Press) we were aware that some texts scattered in not easily obtainable publications were bound to elude us. Since then we have been able to lay our hands on some of them. Among them was an interesting short article, a copy of which was recently received by me from Moscow. I had known of its existence but could not find it anywhere in the West. It was published in the Soviet magazine Chitatel’ i pisatel’ (The Reader and the Writer), in No. 4/5, dated February 11, 1928, apparently without a title (at least the copy received by me bore no title), and therefore probably as an answer to a questionnaire addressed to writers about their current work and their relations with their public.