Izvorni znanstveni članak
On Research of the Structure of Participants of NLW and Socialist Revolution in Croatia from 1941 to 1945
Igor Graovac
Sažetak
The fact is that studying of class and social and other structures, the structure of the participants in NLW and social revolution accordingly, has un-deservingly not been taken proper care of in our contemporraneous historiography, not even in the historiography of the worker movement though, of course, it is universally known that the development of the worker movement had always been closely dependant on the structure of society, as well as that without a complete knowledge of that structure the history of the worker movement in our country cannot be grasped entirely nor explained nor even scientifically researched. With exception of some research results of lesser importance, the interest for this problem field has only appeared through some lonely outcries for the need of such studies; it has been limited to them because the problem has never been approached through a larger scale research work - so much so that it has not been spotted clearly, though perhaps some had thouched the problem verbally at least, that those studies surpass the limits and capabilities of classical historiography, i.e. traditional or classical historical methods, and thus require other methods as well, firstly the social ones. If a method, as a means of research applied to one field of science or many of them, grows one with the theoretical ideas of that field of science, and if owing to that too the choice of the problem is to decide on a choice of a method, then it is understandable that when studying the class, social and other structures of the participants of NLW and revolution in Croatia, the combination of sociological and historical methods should be used; what justifies the use of such methods is the fact that the very essence of every definite given social complex (in this case class and social structure) is discovered by history and other social sciences, sociology first among them as it is studying a very specific society (in this case Croatia from 1941 to 1945).
We are of opinion that the marxist social science unites in itself history and sociology in a way that corresponds exactly to researching of the problems of the above mentioned field and therefore, for us, it has gained the rightful scale of importance. Anyhow it is quite impossible to avoid relationship between history and sociology, as a historical synthesis is not possible without theory and social analysis, un-imaginable without historical basis.
In contemporraneous Yugoslav historiography there is a universally accepted statement that complex occurences in society cannot be studied from a point of view of one science only even less of one of its more restricted branches. On account of that statement the majority of Yugoslav historians is trying their best to change the character of our contemporraneous historiography, to overcome the still remaining ideology in methodological procedures - the so-called traditional historical method - and for the application of methods of other social sciences in research work on newer historical processes. However, in spite of such efforts, in our country this approach is still in its beginners' stage while very present are differences in some theoretical and methodological questions on such an approach (such questions appear in connection with historical sources, team work, i.e. interdisciplinary cooperation, forming of a qualified staff for the research on problems we are talking about now, with applying of some, particularly quantitative, methods and procedures of other sciences in the historiography research - such as questionnaires, statistical data and examining etc, with the use of typical samples and representative examples, etc). Nevertheless, the Yugoslav after-war historiography has offered a number of solutions and has studied a number of problems to be of use in the research work on social and other structures of the participants of our war and revolution (among them the problems of NLW and socialist revolution, those of classes separately taken, as well as of social strata in the revolution, of CPY as the bearer of the revolution, of counter-revolution, of psycho-logical dimensions of occurences and of the role of tradition as a factor in the events of NLW etc). However, these theoretical and methodological reflections and a number of other questions of less great importance represent the least of hypothesis of one possible approach to the researching of the problems the article deals with. Taking a critical view on the whole of this literature, it seems possible to conclude that: the interest for a larger-scale approach to the studying of the new Yugoslav history is really existent in the Yugoslav historiography literature, but that the interest, with respective exceptions, is not followed by corresponding results; this being particularly true for the research on class and social and other structures, with the stress to be laid on the period of NLW and socialist revolution.
In Yugoslav historiography the research on structures of the participants does not virtually exist as a definite systematical work. The researching was in a way more present when it was the question of SAPNLW. But that again does not imply that in the bounds of Yugoslav historiography there had been no attempt to study those problems, though it should be pointed out that the attempts were either not completely orientated to those problems only, or they were encompassing only some of their aspects or even some of their fields, or they were dealing with time-restricted excerpts of war and revolution in Yugoslavia; here also rather lacking was the approach to the problems from the point of view of interdisciplinary cooperation of sociology and history. The greater possibilities of team-work were not used nor were there attempts to apply a number of other activities necessary for deductions on these problems. Apart from all that, one of the essential questions of the research had not been resolved - the question of defining the participants. It was gradually becoming clear that, in the bounds of Yugoslav historiography, a more serious scientific studying of the structure of the participants was the only possible way.
Only recently, in the Yugoslav historiography, the strong stress has been laid on the need to study the problems, especially as it is believed that today such research is not only much needed and necessary but possible as well. The research of structures should be limited to: the area of SRC, the period from 1941 to 1945, the participants of the revolution and perhaps counter-revolution too. The greatest importance in this complex should be attributed to class and national structure of the participants, particularly as through such definite research on the problems of our war and revolution, combined with that on the structures of participants of revolution and counter-revolution, there could be reached the right answer about the importance of all that meant national (on all the fields), liberating, class and revolutionary (social and international) in NLW and socialist revolution in Croatia from 1941 to 1945. It seems logical that the analysis of the national, social and revolutionary facts in the war and revolution in Croatia implies the analysis of those phenomena in the pre-war Croatian society and that it requires defining of that driving force of social development, i.e. revolutionary class, the basis of the entire force, the role of which, in our conditions, is taken by the political organization - CPY (CPC). The limits and problems of the research on structure of the participants inevitably point to the need of interdisciplinary approach to studying of the problem. That is why it is necessary, in such research work, to apply, with the historical methods (work on sources etc), some other methods and procedures of other social sciences (such as indirect witnessing, talks, questionnaires, interviews, studying, methods of sample, typical examples, study of »key« occurences, problems and representative examples and typical »milieu«, statistical methods etc). It is quite understandable that such and approach could be achieved only through team-work, i.e. by work of rationally distributed groups of scientists. As the real possibilities of interdisciplinary cooperation and team-work under our conditions of work are very difficult, the research should be in a way restricted, but so far and so much untill it is generally accepted that the work should be done gradually, in stages (the best seems the year division, but social-categories-of-participants one can be advisable too). It can be logically concluded that in later stages the results of the research, coupled with the results of comparative attempts of such research in other republics of Yugoslavia, could offer a possibility for comparative research on the problem of participants for the whole territory of Yugoslavia - this, of course, would be possible only if the research work should be based on unique theoretical and methodological principles, and, at least, the equal definitions of classes and strata as well as participants.
Ključne riječi
Hrčak ID:
219346
URI
Datum izdavanja:
30.9.1974.
Posjeta: 886 *