News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
History, Government and Economics professors disagreed last night--although not violently--about the significance of Nikita S. Khrushchev's revision of Karl Marx's thinking. Alexander Gerschenkron, professor of Economics, called the whole affair "downright un-Russian" while Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. '38, professor of History, said that Khruschev's remarks "mark the logical culmination of recent tendencies in Soviet thinking."
Crane Brinton '19, McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History, speculated that "perhaps the Russian Revolution is over, and the two opposing world camps will settle down much as did Christianity and Islam after the Arabs' and Christians' crusading fervor was spent. You can't keep the revolutionary fires buring forever, you know." Brinton said that the Soviets are anxious to have less international "heartburn," but that he does not think they are ready to democratize their regime. "They're not going to become staff writers for LIFE yet," he added.
Gerschenkron, who is also active in the Russian Research Committee, considered the new doctrine "an innovation," but emphasized that the Soviets are presently interested in relaxing tensions to combat spiralling inflationary tendencies within the USSR. He added that Marxism was today merely an empty shell within which the Russians develop opportunist policies, and that Khrushchev had definitely refuted Marxist doctrines in several portions of his speech.
Adam B. Ulam, associate professor of Government, and Martin E. Malia, assistant professor of History, both said that the speech made no fundamental change in Marxian doctrine. Both mentioned that Marx, late in life, envisaged peaceful means of achieving the classless society. Malia emphasized that this was merely another attempt at neutralizing Western Europe and disrupting the NATO alliance. Ulam noted that the new doctrine implied no willingness to make genuine concessions to the West.
City Councillor John D. Lynch called the whole thing "a communist plot to undermine the American Way of Life."
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.