Борис Федорович Поршнев – заочный участник дискуссии о формациях и споров о торговом капитализме (начало 1930-х гг.)

Abstract

Охарактеризованы воззрения молодого Б. Ф. Поршнева на актуальную для советской исторической науки конца 1920 -начала 1930-х гг. проблему общественно-экономических формаций и торгового капитализма. Показано, что историк хорошо знал концепцию «торгового капитализма» М. Н. Покровского и ее эволюцию. Он был детально осведомлен о дискуссии между историками-марксистами о формациях, инициированной С. М. Дубровским, и изложил свою точку зрения в докладах и неопубликованных текстах.

The aim of this article is to characterize the views of young Boris Porshnev on the problem of socio-economic formations and merchant capitalism topical for the Soviet historical science of the late 1920s and early 1930s. The research is based on the two editions of his typewritten report "On the Problem of Merchant Capital" that have significant variations and are first introduced in the scientific use and on the published materials on the discussions on the formations of 1928-1930. The author perceives the studied texts, their language and speech constructions as a derivative from the declared and dictated orientations. It is noted that the norma-tivity immanent to the Soviet historiography was at the stage of formation, and the pantheon of unconditional authorities had not yet taken shape. This circumstance generated discussion, could lead to the marginalization of authorities, and simultaneously generate hopes for rapid academic and administrative ennobling. It also predetermined the rapid evolution of the views of historians, and often a complete rejection of the former declared beliefs. Porshnev's texts are interesting for their non-public reaction to the contemporary academic problems. They are explored in the context of existing discussions and clarify the author's position, identify his motives and show the evolution of his views. Porshnev was well acquainted with the discussed problems. However, he never gives a clear definition of the formation, referring to the fact that a constant definition should be considered as a mechanicalism. The historian prefers to talk about the development and inconstancy of formations, each of which has the negated elements of the old formation and the emerging structures of the new formation. In his opinion, merchant capitalism could not be a formation. Merchant capitalism precedes capitalism, but it is not capitalism. In other words, Porshnev did not consider "merchant capitalism" as the initial phase of capitalism, although he did not state this definitely, because merchant capitalism is engaged in unproductive activities and world exchange, which is both deception and robbery. Capitalism, on the other hand, implies productive, industrial activities within the framework of a nation state, which in time acquires a transnational, imperialistic character.