On the eve of the 60th anniversary of Great October, Soviet historical science evaluates what has been achieved and outlines the prospects for developing the history of the heroic path of the peoples of our country. Historiographical works play an important role in the successful implementation of this task, the number of which has recently increased markedly. Studies have been published in which the problems of civil war, socialist and communist construction in the USSR are considered on an all-Union scale .1 At the same time, regional historiography is not always sufficiently active in understanding the entire sum of issues raised in the literature in monographic terms. This applies to both Central Asia and Kazakhstan, where the accumulated extensive historical material on a number of aspects has not yet received an adequate historiographic interpretation. 2
All the more interesting is the first attempt to create a historiographical essay on the history of socialist construction in Uzbekistan.

Associate Professor of the Nizami Tashkent Pedagogical Institute, Candidate of Historical Sciences G. I. Zheltova based her work on the study of historical, economic and socio - political publications of the 20s-30s, focusing mainly on such issues as the coverage of socialist industrialization, agricultural cooperation and the cultural revolution in the republic in literature, that is, on the most important issues in the country. elements of Lenin's plan for the construction of socialism in the USSR. The author emphasizes that the primary task of historical science is "to study and comprehend the complex processes of the grandiose breaking of the old and the emergence of a new, socialist world in the land of Central Asia" (p. 3). The analysis of the formation and further development of the research thought of Soviet Uzbekistan in this thematic and chronological aspect was the subject of G. I. Zheltova's research.

Already in the plot "content" of the monograph, the author's interest in theoretical problems is clearly traced, the specific weight of which in the total volume of work is quite significant. There is no doubt about the legitimacy of addressing the issues of scientific periodization. This criterion, according to G. I. Zheltova, should be determined taking into account objective and

1 See, for example, V. P. Naumov. Chronicle of the heroic struggle. Soviet Historiography of the Civil War and Imperialist Intervention in the USSR, Moscow, 1972; R. M. Savitskaya. V. I. Lenin's activity in the field of economic construction. October 1917-July 1918 Historiographical Sketch, Moscow, 1975; V. I. Pogudin. The path of the Soviet peasantry to socialism. Historiographical Essay, Moscow, 1975; V. S. Lelchuk. Socialist industrialization of the USSR and its coverage in Soviet Historiography, Moscow, 1975. Essay on the historiography of the Working class of the USSR, Moscow, 1975; V. I. Kasyanenko. Developed socialism: historiography and methodology of the problem, Moscow, 1976.

2 The following works can be mentioned: V. P. Sherstobitov, K. K. Orozaliev, D. F. Vinnik. Essay on the History of Historical Science in Soviet Kyrgyzstan (1918-1960). Frunze. 1961; A. I. Zevelev. Historiography of Soviet Turkestan. Tashkent, 1968; G. F. Dakhshleiger, V. I. Lenin and problems of Kazakh historiography. Alma-Ata. 1973.

page 164

subjective characteristics and include: "a) basic factors related to the development of the mode of production; b) political moments that are objective in relation to science, which determine the conditions for its development and the requirements imposed on it; c) internal shifts inherent in historical science itself in the development of basic concepts, expansion of problems, improvement of research methods, and enrichment its documentary basis and in changing the organization of scientific work" (p. 5). This approach is inherent in many works on methodology and historiography 3. But G. I. Zheltova, based on the dialectical relationship between the general and the special in the historiography of Soviet Uzbekistan, successfully applying the proposed aggregate criterion, was able to identify both the main enlarged periods that coincide in general with the development of Soviet historical science, and internal stages associated with specific aspects of the process of socialist transformations in the republic. For the period under study, the author identifies three stages: 1917-1924; 1924-1928; and 1928-the mid-1930s. We can fully agree with this, since these stages reflect the main patterns of development of the historical science of socialist construction in Uzbekistan.

Speaking about the difficulties of the formation of historical science, the author highlights the activities of the Communist Party in consolidating the then small cadre of Marxist researchers, creating scientific and educational institutions in Uzbekistan. The result of the author's meticulous work was a small but very capacious section on the main research centers and the most important areas of their activities. The presence of such a section in the historiographic monograph is welcome.

An interesting attempt at a differentiated approach to the study of cadres who worked out the problems of socialist construction in the 20s and 30s is interesting. Dividing the authors of these works into party publicists, professional historians and active participants in the events, although, according to G. I. Zheltova, and conditionally, allows us to more clearly present the state of affairs in those years on the historical front not only in Uzbekistan, but also in a number of other regions of the country. This raises the question of a historiographical assessment of the works of party publicists. While paying tribute to their work, the author also states that "party publicists, who themselves were participants in the socialist transformations, did not have a real opportunity to work out the history of socialist construction in those years" (p.13). To a certain extent, this thesis is at odds with the following statement. The literature studied by G. I. Zheltova is just evidence of the leading role of party publicists in the study of the topic under consideration, their special place in the struggle for the triumph of Leninist ideas in the historical science of Uzbekistan. It seems that both the general concept of "historiographic source" and the justification of how much and in the system of what criteria journalism can be classified as such sources have not yet been sufficiently developed in Russian historiography .4
The author had to take into account the originality of the analyzed publications, in many respects their dissimilarity with what we understand by scientific works in the modern sense of the word. In their assessment, G. I. Zheltova was guided by V. I. Lenin's indication that " historical merits are judged not by what historical figures did not give in comparison with modern requirements, but by the fact that what they have done that is new in comparison with their predecessors. " 5 While searching in line with the three most important directions of socialist construction in Uzbekistan, the author identified a range of main problems studied in the literature of that period,

3 For more information, see the article by Academician M. V. Nechkina "On the results of the discussion on the periodization of the History of Soviet Historical Science" (Istoriya SSSR, 1962, No. 2).

4 It is very symptomatic that methodological and theoretical problems of historiography have become increasingly included in the programs of scientific symposia and conferences. After all, there is still no consensus on the content of the subject of historiography itself, the concept of "historiographic fact", the typology of historiographic research, etc. is not defined (see, for example, T. A. Ignatenko. In the Scientific Council on the problem "History of Historical Science". Voprosy Istorii, 1976, No. 3, p. 137). The urgent need for special theoretical works in this area was also confirmed by the All-Union Historiographic Conference held in Kalinin in September 1976 (om. T. A. And gnatenko, V. S. Shilov. All-Union Historiographical Conference. Voprosy Istorii, 1977, No. 6).

5 V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 2, p. 178.

page 165

he described the successes and achievements in this area.

Considering the literature coverage of the history of industrialization, the implementation of Lenin's cooperative plan and the cultural revolution, G. I. Zheltova pays special attention to how the problems were changed, its enrichment with new aspects, and how a more in-depth approach to the interpretation of key issues related to the creation of a socialist society in the republic was outlined. Among other issues mentioned in the book are the place of Uzbekistan in the industrial development of the entire Soviet country, the nature and prospects of industrialization, its economic and political aspects in relation to the republic, the implementation of land and water reform, the struggle for the development of cotton growing, the construction of a Soviet school, and the introduction of cultural achievements to the broad working masses.

Much attention is paid to the ideological struggle around the policy of industrialization, agrarian transformation, and cultural revolution in the republic, and the role of Marxist cadres in the ideological defeat of trends hostile to socialism is shown. It is quite reasonable and naturally follows from the entire analysis of publications that the 20-30s were a period of active struggle for the approval of Lenin's concept of the history of the republic for the historical science of Uzbekistan (p.137).

With all the content of her book, G. I. Zheltova answered in the affirmative to the question whether publications of those years can be the object of historiographical research. At the same time, I would like to see a more detailed justification of the specifics of these works (which in some cases may also be of a source study nature) in all their parameters .6 There is also some exaggeration in the book of the value of individual publications, the contribution of their authors to solving certain problems of the history of Uzbekistan (for example, in the articles of G. A. Podvarkov, I. M. Rusak, P. Petukhov, only the factual side is interesting). G. I. Zheltova did not draw a sufficiently clear watershed between historical and economic publications, and did not find out the reasons why historical and economic works often took precedence in Uzbekistan during the period under review. Unfortunately, the monograph hardly touches on the literature on the national question, the ideological and theoretical struggle in this area.

In general, G. I. Zheltova has done a great and important job. The work she successfully started should be continued, brought to our days. This will make it possible to fully demonstrate the progressive and dynamic development of historical knowledge about socialist construction in Uzbekistan.

6 A similar point of view occurs in the literature (see, for example, K. V. Gusev's review of the above-mentioned book by V. I. Pogudin. Voprosy istorii CPSU, 1976, No. 9, p. 126).

page 166

Permanent link to this publication: