Science and the Productive Forces of Society

Yu. S. Nekhoroshev, Yu. A. Tonkikh

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Political Economy).

The development of science in modern society has reached such a level, and its role in human life has grown so much, that there has arisen a need for science to analyze itself, for the creation of a science of science. Modern science not only brings humanity new knowledge; it is becoming an increasingly important factor in the practical transformation of the world.

The sphere of science is developing at higher rates than any other area of human activity. It has been calculated that in the last fifteen years as many scientific discoveries have been made as in the entire preceding history of science. According to UNESCO data, in the capitalist countries of Europe over the last fifty years the number of scientists doubled every fifteen years; in the USA, every ten years; in the USSR, every seven years¹.

Science penetrates all spheres of social life; its application is becoming a decisive factor in the growth of the productive forces.

Undoubtedly, the rapid development of science that we are observing is not simply its increase and ramification, but a certain qualitatively new stage of its growth. In connection with this, science is beginning to be considered broadly in a whole series of aspects: philosophical, social, economic, and so on. Of greatest interest is the process, noted in the Program of the CPSU, of the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society.

There is no doubt that the process of transforming science into a direct productive force includes an entire complex of changes in the sphere of production, the superstructure, and social relations. This is a complex and comprehensive process. But its basis is formed by changes taking place in the sphere of production, in the sphere of the economic structure of society.

In connection with the tendency toward the industrialization of science, scientific research is becoming steadily more expensive. By the mid-1950s, more than two million people throughout the world were employed in science. According to J. Bernal, over the last fifty years expenditures on science increased four hundredfold. Hence the problems of the productivity of the labor of scientists and the economic efficiency of scientific research have become of primary importance. But these problems cannot be solved at all satisfactorily without clarifying the role and place of science in the system of productive forces, without understanding the essence and the paths of the transformation of science

into a direct productive force of society. To this end it is necessary first to examine the structure of the productive forces, the tendency in the development of our conceptions of them, and to determine how we understand science in general.

The productive forces are the material basis of social production, the chief wealth of society. The level of their development indicates the degree of man’s dominion over nature. The conception of the productive forces is constantly being enriched. In recent years there has emerged a tendency to interpret them more extensively and more profoundly. Thus, whereas only a few years ago the productive forces were taken to include instruments of labor and people with their production experience and labor skills, it is now generally accepted that the system of productive forces also includes the objects of labor (at least to the extent that they actively influence the development of production). There are proposals to classify the products of labor as productive forces as well (“...products are not only results of the labor process, but also its conditions...”)². The conception of the individual elements of the productive forces is also changing. Formerly only mechanical means of labor were regarded as instruments of labor; now they must be supplemented by—or the newest methods of using electricity, the application of the achievements of chemistry, ultrasound, and so on must be singled out into a special group. Science, too, is becoming an ever more productive force of society.

Science is a complex social phenomenon. First of all, science is one of the forms of social consciousness, and, unlike other forms of social consciousness, one directly connected with production practice. Science may also be defined as the accumulated system of knowledge about nature, society, and thought. Further, science is a means of discovering the laws of nature for the satisfaction of society’s needs. And, finally, science is a special sphere of human activity, a type of social division of labor, a large social institution with its own system of relations and institutions, with its own material base, a system for training personnel and their specialization, an information service, and so forth. In defining science as a whole, all the characteristics (aspects) of science enumerated above must be inseparably connected with one another; they must exist in unity. However, when one or another aspect of science as a complex social phenomenon is being investigated, one aspect or several aspects come to the fore.

Thus, in order to understand the problems involved in the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society, it is important to single out the connection of science with the material activity of society, the productive purpose of science.

From its very inception science has been connected with the needs of social production, with the needs of sociohistorical practice. Productive practice in general is the driving stimulus of the development of science, for it both sets tasks before science and indicates to it the paths for solving these tasks, and provides the material conditions for their solution. Science is not merely a means of knowing the world, but also a means of changing it. Consequently, the connection of science with practice, above all with production practice, is its most important characteristic feature. Scientific knowledge is undertaken in order to change the world; this gives it meaning, gives it a goal, and determines its content.

But the connection of science with social production is not always direct, immediate, and obvious. Science is connected with production

² K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, 2nd ed., p. 294.

a complex system of interaction and mutual influence, in which the chief factor is the influence of production on science. Science is a relatively independent institution. As Engels noted, scientific theories and concepts can develop out of themselves and obey their own laws. Thus, without any direct connection with the needs of production (the corresponding production did not yet exist), within the walls of scientific laboratories, in a comparatively short time, all the basic laws of electricity and magnetic phenomena were discovered. That is, there is a situation in which, while being ultimately subordinated to social production, science is wholly determined by it and depends on it (for example, different modes of production affect science in different ways), and at the same time, by reflecting the objective world, science has its own logic of development, continuity, and interconnection of ideas.

What conclusions, then, can be drawn from this circumstance for understanding the thesis about the transformation of science into a direct productive force?

The ideal relationship between science and production is, naturally, such a relationship in which the line of production and the line of science completely coincide. In that case science would undoubtedly be a direct force of production, and to say, for example, that production determines the development of science would simply make no sense. But such an ideal coincidence is impossible.

There is a tendency to understand the transformation of science into a direct productive force in such a way that it either leads to a complete merger of science with production, or turns it into some new additional force of production alongside those already existing. The logic of such notions is as follows: production at the present time can no longer develop at all without the new and effective materials that the science of chemistry gives it—therefore chemistry is being transformed into a direct productive force; or the construction of large power complexes is now unthinkable without scientific investigations in production (construction and scientific research proceed simultaneously), while such investigations cannot be carried out in a laboratory—therefore the science of energetics is being transformed into a direct productive force; or economic studies of the problem of the “quality of industrial products” have enormous economic effectiveness, since improving the quality of industrial products is very profitable—therefore economics is being transformed into a direct productive force.

With the same right the first inventor of the steam locomotive could have spoken of the transformation of science into a direct productive force: was not the steam locomotive effective in an economic sense, or without the steam locomotive was progress in transport, and consequently in production in general, conceivable? As for the conjunction in time and place of production and scientific research, it represents only one of the manifestations of the process of rapprochement between science and production at the present time, and not the most important one; it testifies not at all to any special new qualities of science, but only to the character and specificity of the given production. In the construction of the pyramid of Cheops, production tasks were also solved simultaneously with scientific tasks, since there could be no experiment and experience of construction on such a scale.

Science will never merge completely with production to such an extent that it ceases to differ from it. The process of the transformation of science into a direct productive force consists in something else. The conditions of exist-

...the existence of science and production—or, better to say, the conditions of their existence—developed in such a way that science became separated from production much more than is required by the merely natural distinction between science and production.

Let us try to formulate those factors, those mediating links, which lie between science and production and which, to one degree or another, science must overcome in order to become a direct productive force of society.

First of all, these are the socio-economic factors in the separation of science from production. The attitude of any social order toward science is determined primarily by the goal of production, by the basic economic law of the given formation. In this sense we may say that, for example, under the conditions of the capitalist mode of production, the application of science and its development are contradictory, mediated by factors reflecting the antagonistic character of capitalist production. From the very beginning science exists as a social phenomenon, as an institution called upon to serve all society, but under the conditions of its capitalist application it is included in the sphere of action of the well-known antagonistic contradictions of capitalism: between social labor and private appropriation, between workers and capitalists, between capitalist monopolies, etc.; science is placed in the service of militarism. All this, of course, impedes the productive application of scientific ideas.

K. Marx, characterizing the contradictory position of science under capitalism, writes: “In one direction it [capital—Yu. N., Yu. T.], once it has come into being, calls to life all the powers of science and nature, as well as all the powers of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labor time expended on it. In the other direction, however, it wants to measure these gigantic social forces thus created by labor time and to confine them within the limits required in order to preserve the value already created as value.”³

In another place Marx writes: “Science, as the general spiritual product of social development, here [under capitalism—Yu. N., Yu. T.] likewise appears as directly incorporated into capital (its application as science in the material process of production is separated from the knowledge and skill of the individual workers)...”⁴

Thus, under capitalism, science, being incorporated into capital, appears as a means of exploiting wage workers.

The capitalist mode of production—as the Program of the CPSU notes—has now proved incapable of effectively applying all the latest achievements of science. The main reason for this incapacity is the inhibiting effect of the antagonistic socio-economic factors of the separation of science from production under capitalism.

The situation is different under the conditions of a socialist economy. The socialist mode of production, with its social ownership of the instruments and means of production, is free from the action of the above-mentioned group of factors that restrain the application of science in production. Under socialism, science becomes a powerful means for improving production in the interests of all society. We do not have the antagonistic socio-economic contradictions in the application of science in production that are peculiar precisely to capitalism.

³ From the unpublished manuscripts of K. Marx. See Bolshevik, 1939, Nos. 11–12, pp. 62–63.
⁴ K. Marx and F. Engels, Archive, vol. II (VII), p. 157, Moscow, 1933.

Retardation of this kind persists in our science because of foreign-policy conditions. We live in a world divided into two antagonistic camps. The constant aggressiveness of imperialism, arising internally from its very nature, compels us to maintain and support our armed forces at the highest technical level. Hence the inevitability of military-technical secrecy. A considerable number of scientific ideas that are progressive and economically advantageous for society are technically embodied not in civilian production but in military production, and for some time do not spread beyond its limits. Moreover, the more original and new such a scientific idea is, the longer its application remains inaccessible to civilian production.

Another group of factors that mediate the productive application of the achievements of science is connected with the level of development of the productive forces and of science itself, and with the organizational readiness of social production to apply the achievements of science directly. In other words, this group of factors determines the capacity of production and science for maximum convergence, given the particular level of their development.

These factors may slow the application of scientific achievements in production, deform their normal application, or create conditions in which the productive embodiment of individual achievements of science proves temporarily impossible.

To clarify the question of the character and operation of these factors, it is necessary first to note that what is at issue here is chiefly the natural sciences.

The natural sciences are divided into fundamental and applied sciences. The fundamental sciences are the investigation of the laws of nature, realized in the establishment of its essential connections in categories, formulas, hypotheses, laws, and so forth. One typical example of an achievement of fundamental science is the study of the atomic nucleus, which subsequently led to the discovery of thermonuclear energy. Not even traces of a thermonuclear reaction had been found on earth, yet man succeeded in making matter reveal itself.

The application of the achievements of the fundamental theoretical sciences—mathematics, mechanics, physics, chemistry—to the needs of production led to the emergence of applied or technical sciences: applied mechanics, heat engineering, metallurgy, and so on. In the twentieth century, from the corresponding branches of physics there emerged radio engineering, electronics, and automation. Now such new applied sciences as nuclear power engineering, polymer science, and so forth are taking shape.

The fundamental sciences create the foundations for new technology, whose further development is ensured by the corresponding applied science. The applied sciences turn the discoveries of the fundamental sciences into powerful productive forces. In this sense one may say that the fundamental science of today is the technology of tomorrow.

The final product of fundamental science is discovery. In defining a scientific discovery, one must proceed from Marx’s concept of production as an exchange of substances with nature. This exchange consists of two parts: knowledge of the very substances of nature, and the ability to use them to satisfy human needs. By coming to know the lawful connections among the phenomena of nature, people make discoveries. A discovery is the establishment of previously unknown, objectively existing regularities, properties, and phenomena of the material world². Discov—

sometimes may also be the result of accidental observation. The task of science in this case is to give an explanation of the newly discovered regularity and to determine the field of its practical use.

In 1958 the Nobel Prize was awarded to three Soviet scientists—P. A. Cherenkov, I. E. Tamm, and I. M. Frank—for the discovery and interpretation of the Cherenkov effect. As early as 1934 P. A. Cherenkov, while observing the luminescence of liquids under the action of radiation, discovered a new glow. The theory of this glow was developed by I. E. Tamm and I. M. Frank in 1937. This made it possible to create a number of highly sensitive precision measuring instruments.

Only a limited number of scientific discoveries are suitable for direct use in production. To apply such discoveries in productive activity, the adaptations used in scientific research are sufficient. A vivid example of discoveries of this kind is the discovery of terrestrial magnetism and of the properties of the magnetic needle (the compass). If there are no socio-economic obstacles to the application of such discoveries in production, they immediately enrich society materially, increase man’s dominion over nature, and in this respect science can be directly classed among the productive forces.

For the practical use of the absolute majority of discoveries, it is necessary to indicate the methods and techniques of their use; that is, an invention is needed—a product of production practice and applied science. A discovery is the establishment and explanation of objectively existing regularities; an invention is a concrete proposal for practical activity with the aim of achieving a definite production result. An invention always, or in most cases, rests on the data of fundamental science, on one or several discoveries.

Thus, for example, the invention of the telegraph is based on the discovery of electromagnetism; the discovery of the wave nature of the electron and the investigation of the behavior of the electron in electric and magnetic fields served as the basis for creating the electron microscope; fundamental research in the field of aerodynamics served as the basis for creating jet aircraft and rockets, and so on.

V. I. Lenin, noting the connection between the discovery of fundamental laws and technology, wrote: “Mechanical and chemical technology therefore serves the purposes of man because its character (essence) consists in being determined by external conditions (the laws of nature).”^6

But all this does not mean that technology (and production), historically, always follows the development of science. Science and technology, science and production, are far from being one and the same. Technical progress, up to a certain point, can take place even without progress in science.

Progress in technology is directly connected with production, and consequently also with the past experience of production, with its traditions. The development of production technology is one continuous line. A characteristic and distinctive feature of technical progress is that it is very reliable; it transfers into new production the best of the old achievements of technology and adds, bit by bit, what is new and has been tested hundreds of times by experience. As the English scientist J. Bernal rightly notes,^7 technical production traditions cannot be mistaken—in this lies their strength. But the weakness of technical

^6 V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 29, p. 170.
^7 J. Bernal, Science in History. Moscow, 1956, p. 26.

progress consists in the fact that, taken by itself, without connection with scientific progress, it proceeds slowly, as if by touch, at times stumbling and retreating, and above all each time inheriting old experience; technical progress cannot leave the beaten path, but only slowly and evolutionarily improves production.

An example of predominantly technical progress may be progress in the construction of dwellings: the line from the first hut to the modern building is one continuous line.

Scientific progress revolutionizes production, but it does so chiefly through technology. Therefore the task is not to replace technical progress by scientific progress, nor to merge them absolutely, but to use both—the old experience and the new scientific achievements. But since between the one and the other there is not only a connection but also a contradiction, mutual exclusion, the task is to take this complex interaction into account in practical work aimed at transforming science into a direct productive force of society.

Moreover, it is necessary to note that the invention of some machine, or even its creation, does not yet mean technical progress. Technical progress takes place only when this machine appears in production in large numbers, becomes a real fact of production as a whole and the basis for the further progress of science.

The distinction between a discovery and an invention, that is, between the products of fundamental and applied science, is well understood by capitalists. For the use of discoveries they do not share even a small part of their profits with scientists. The legislation of all capitalist countries proceeds from the premise that industry uses the discoveries of scientists only in mediated form, through inventions. Only in the USSR is the right to an incentive reward recognized for the authors of discoveries. This once again emphasizes that in our country, in solving complex technical problems, enormous importance is attached to profound theoretical research.

In our country, for the development of fundamental science, in addition to substantial sums from the state budget, part of the funds of economic organizations intended for scientific research is expended. When a business contract is concluded between a research institute (or a higher educational institution) and an enterprise, the latter must assume part of the expenses for theoretical research as well, even if it expects from the research institute (or higher educational institution) a purely practical result.

True, it still cannot be said that all economic managers properly understand the significance of theoretical research. Often customer enterprises agree to pay only for that part of the work which yields a direct practical result. They do not take into account that this result is achieved on the basis of profound theoretical investigations and that without them practice would revolve in a circle of obsolete notions. At the present time, a shortage of fundamental research may lead to a fruitless loss of time in technical investigations.

Thus, before a scientific discovery becomes a real wealth of society, it usually passes through several stages: scientific discovery (fundamental science)—invention (applied science)—technical embodiment of the invention (a new machine, a method of production, a new technology, etc.)—the penetration of the invention into social production.

On the path of transforming a discovery into a real force of production, into a direct productive force, there are still quite a few obstacles of the most varied character. They are determined by the level

the development of technology and the organization of production; by the degree of development of science itself and its capacity, in the shortest possible time, to bring theoretical achievements to the point where the possibility opens up for their practical application in production; by the availability of personnel in production and in science capable of ensuring the task of maximum rapprochement, and by the level of their training; by the degree of perfection of the organizational links between production and science; by the insufficiency of capital investment in science and in production for the realization of scientific ideas, etc.

For example, between a scientific discovery and an invention, and between an invention and its technical realization, there is a whole series of contradictions. Sometimes a valuable thing is invented, but, proceeding from the real level of development of technology, it is impossible to embody it technically; or technical embodiment is possible, but its cost is so great that society is compelled, for the time being, to prefer satisfying the corresponding need in the old way. Such a discovery or invention will temporarily have no industrial significance.

After an invention has been embodied in some form, it must be made technically feasible. This requires design work.

In order for a discovery or invention to represent material value for society, they must be made in time (neither later nor earlier than the development of production requires). Present-day production has no need of discoveries and inventions corresponding to the technological level of the nineteenth century. But discoveries and inventions should not appear too early either, when production is not yet prepared to receive them. Such discoveries and inventions can have only prospective value. Marx wrote that the steam engine, in the form in which it was invented at the end of the seventeenth century, appeared too early; manufacture production had no need of it. Only Watt’s machine, invented later (the so-called double-acting steam engine), gained recognition and wide dissemination under the conditions of emerging capitalism³.

What, then, is the place and role of this second group of factors? If the factors of the first group, which mediate the application of science, have either already disappeared or must disappear, the situation of the second group is different. All these factors, as is evident even from a simple enumeration of them, both impede the rapprochement of science with production and ensure their connection. More precisely, they impede it if the necessary proportionality between them is absent, and they ensure it if such proportionality exists.

Take, for example, the relation among science, technology, and production with allowance for the level of their development. What does the maximum rapprochement of science with technology and production mean in this sense? It means that science in its development must outstrip technology (otherwise there will be no substantial progress in technology), and technology must outstrip production (otherwise there will be no growth of production). Thus, the condition of proportionality among the three named elements must be not equality, but an excess. The maximum rapprochement of science with technology and, through it, with production means that the indicated proportion is maintained at an optimal level. That is, the level of development of science is not equal to the level of development of technology, but surpasses the latter by some optimal magnitude, and the level of technology is not equal to the level of production, but likewise surpasses it by a definite optimal magnitude.

But how is this coefficient of outstripping to be determined, so that the calculation of the proportionality of science, technology, and production becomes accessible

practice? For this there is an indirect guide: the rates of growth of production set in the plans for the development of the national economy. In order to determine the level of development of science and technology at each given moment within the planned period, one must take the level of development of production planned for that moment and multiply it by a certain coefficient reflecting the optimal excess of technology over production. The resulting value is multiplied by a coefficient reflecting the optimal excess of science over technology. As a result, the level of the necessary development of science is obtained. But since science, technology, and production are not unambiguously commensurable, in this way one can determine, of course, not their absolute ratio, but, for example, the necessary amount of investment in science to ensure the given rates of growth of production. But this is already a matter of practical calculations...

Thus, the main thing in the group of factors under consideration is their improvement in such a way as to eliminate the retarding effect, on the rapprochement of science with production, of their insufficient development or of imperfections in the proportions between them. The directions of improvement depend on the character of each factor, on its nature.

Take, for example, the already characterized disproportion between science, technology, and production in the mining industry. In this branch a situation has now arisen in which scientific achievements lag behind technical ones, while the latter are ahead of production: a significant number of machines are being created, but production is not growing at corresponding rates or, if it is growing, then only with large additional expenditures. What is taking place here is rather extensive than intensive development. The reason is the slow development and introduction of qualitatively new scientific methods for extracting mineral raw materials.

The Soviet state and the Party attach enormous importance to questions of accelerating the introduction of the achievements of science into production practice. The September (1965) Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee affirms this with particular clarity: “At the present time industry has entered such a period of development in which the rates of its growth are determined to an ever-increasing degree by technical progress, by the most rapid introduction of scientific achievements into production”^9).

At the Plenum some of the reasons for the delayed introduction of new scientific achievements into production were also named: the insufficient completion of scientific developments for practical use, the slow assimilation by industry of high-productivity technological processes, machines, and effective materials developed by scientists^10).

One of the striking indicators of the accelerated development of scientific and technical progress in the USSR is the movement of inventors and rationalizers. An invention that has been introduced yields a quite tangible material benefit, which is recorded by statistics. Calculations show that the savings from the introduction of inventions and rationalization proposals are 13–14 times greater than the expenditures on invention and rationalization.

An important role in the development of the country’s productive forces is played by scientific research carried out in higher educational institutions. In 1963, in the country’s higher educational institutions more than 400 of the most important works on individual tasks were being carried out—

^9) A. N. Kosygin, On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planning, and Strengthening the Economic Stimulation of Production. Politizdat, 1965, pp. 7, 13–14.

^10) A. N. Kosygin, On Improving Industrial Management, Perfecting Planning, and Strengthening the Economic Stimulation of Production. Politizdat, 1965, p. 14.

...decisions of the government and about 500 works included in the state plan for the development of the national economy of the USSR⁴).

An example attesting to the creative potentialities of higher educational institutions in the cause of scientific and technical progress may be the activity of the scientific collective of the Tomsk Polytechnic Institute. Of the 1,389 members of the scientific and teaching staff, 1,209 persons were engaged in scientific research in 1966. In that year 143 state-budget and contract works were carried out. The volume of contract work amounted to more than 2 million rubles.

And, finally, the third group of factors. This group reflects the natural difference between science and production. At the basis of this difference lies the fact that, as has already been noted, science is the sphere of ideas, whereas production is the sphere of material activity. Hence also the impossibility of a complete mutual absorption of the one by the other, and the necessity of a certain independence in the existence of both. Science will always be more mobile than production; it will outstrip production and will never merge with it completely, either in essence or organizationally.

Some Soviet authors, writing about the transformation of science into a direct productive force of society, correctly note that at the present time a process of rapprochement between science and production is under way. Having noted this, they conclude that science will be transformed into a direct productive force when this process is completed. They associate the completion of the process mainly with the organizational merging of science and production, with the transformation of the worker into a toiler combining the activity of worker, engineer, and scientist.

Thus, I. I. Kozodoev believes that the formula “science—a direct productive force” means “that science has ceased to be a sphere of human activity separate from production, since an organic union of production with scientific-research institutes, laboratories, and stations has taken place, and such a union makes it possible for enterprises directly and by themselves to solve scientific problems; that scientific research is an integral part of production itself, that is, scientific research organically merges with production activity; elements of physical and scientific labor are organically combined in the very process of labor; that the labor of the scientist-researcher has become a direct component part of productive labor”⁵.

Science is now indeed moving toward production, but the aim of this movement is not to merge completely and organically, but to overcome the historically formed obstacles and disproportions—now unnecessary—between the development of science and production, which are determined not by the natural difference between science and production, but by the character of the social system in which science exists and is applied, or by an insufficient level of economic development. In this sense “science—a direct productive force” is a process, the constant maintenance of an optimal correlation (in the broadest sense) between science and production.

Historically, the fate of science developed in such a way that under the conditions of class society it was the property of the ruling classes and served them primarily. This greatly narrowed the possibilities for the influence of science on production.

Science in our society will become a direct productive force only when the mastery of its fundamental achievements and their application in production become as ordinary a matter as the mastery and use of the implements and tools that surround the worker in production every day.

The steady development of Soviet science, its broad penetration into all spheres of life in Soviet society, and its transformation into a universal and directly acting force of production—this is a natural process of development. It is conditioned by the present level of production and determined by it, but it also actively improves all links of socialist social production.

The contemporary scientific and technological revolution has posed the task of deeply comprehending the phenomena that characterize the interrelation and connection of science with production. It is necessary to create such economic conditions that every scientific institution and every enterprise will be maximally interested in the development of science and in the most rapid introduction of its achievements into production. Only under this condition can the grand task of improving socialist production—the task of creating the material and technical base of communism—be successfully solved.

1. Novyi mir, 1965, No. 3, p. 196. ↩

2. “Regulations on Discoveries, Inventions, and Rationalization Proposals,” Moscow, 1959, p. 5. ↩

3. K. Marx and F. Engels, Works, vol. 23, 2nd ed., pp. 386–389. ↩

4. See Pravda, June 3, 1963 (editorial). ↩

5. I. I. Kozodoev, The Transformation of Science into a Direct Productive Force. IRFON Publishing House, 1965, p. 11. ↩