psyhistorik

Greetings for all, psyhistorik.

I had already received much precious informations from you, and more than simple informations, nice clues to (re)construct all a methodological path to think historical process in psychology. But let me ask again about something not so deep, but, at least curious too me, before any causal relationship establishment... It's about the year 1931 again. As we know, it was in this year that we have a decree about reorientation in Educational Politics to all URSS (in van der Veer's understanding), and it was too an year in that an apparently paedology-favorable decree was proclamed (Постановление СНК РСФСР от7 марта 1931 года «Об организации педологической работы в республике) which was posteriorly cancelated by the famous 1936 resolution about paedologists and paedology. But now I will ask you for help, one more time, about another resolution of Central Comity of Communist Party URSS. It's about January, 25 1931. I have some notice about it in Ferenc Fehér (an entry to "Soviet marxism" - in Tom Bottomore "A Dictionary of marxist thought", from Oxford, 1983). I will try to pass from my Portuguese version to English:

" A second phase was marked by destruction of two antagonistic groups, the mechanicists and the Deborinists, which theoretical disputation was around of the fact that the firsts (with who Bukharin had distant relation) denied the independent existence, or the relevance, of a marxist philosophy and considered natural sciences as a materialization of a marxist world view. Deborin an his group, by the other side, orthodox followers of Plekhanov, claimed the orientation of marxist philosophy in all scientific research. The debate, that extended itself for years, gives a good chance to the establishment of the collective authority of the party and of the personal authority of Stalin over the theoretical questions. For the first time, since 1917, a session of the Central Comity of the Party (January, 25, 1931) approved a resolution about purely theoretical questions, condemning the two groups, moving away academics from their positions and adopted new ways of administrative supervision of the intellectual life" (Fehér, 1983/1988 - p. 253)...

Is this correct?

Can you suggest me any way by which I could read the original document from January, 25 1931? I'm specially interested in: what actually was those "new ways of administrative supervision of intellectual life"?

Thank you very, very much.
Achilles.