националната

Isn't it too inappropriate to open this question again? Haven't we been forced to "originality" for years, which has left us behind in a number of areas of science and life? A number of people have prejudices about the topic itself. But anyone who has followed literary life in recent years will not deny that it is becoming necessary, often dominating the press, criticism, and conversations. These conversations have even acquired the specific hue of self-disclosure and self-knowledge, so complacency and skepticism become inappropriate. This is no longer a dialogue, as it is now fashionable to say, but a kind of public monologism, since we are touching on very intimate matters. Among the many reasons for the maturation of these problems in our literary development in recent years, I will point out the following: The tendencies of socialist development of constant rapprochement of the peoples in the USSR and the gradual erasure of national differences are formulated in the Program of the CPSU. Development in this direction is a complex and lengthy process. Nations, as Marxism teaches, are permanent historical communities, subject to constant change. Their true rapprochement, as well as the elimination of differences between them, must go through a comprehensive socialist flowering of national cultures, through the disclosure of their entire vital and creative potential. ..... The elimination of national differences - says the Program of the CPSU - is a significantly longer process than the elimination of class boundaries... The Party does not allow either ignoring or exaggerating national peculiarities." On the subject of the national question, Lenin warned that "an unconditional requirement of Marxist theory in the consideration of any social question is its formulation within certain historical frameworks, and then... taking into account the specific peculiarities that distinguish a given country from others within the limits of a historical epoch."