Given the similarities of the work of the two writers in their conception of the necessity, aims, and possibility of a
systemic theory, it seems reasonable to state that both GST and Tektology constitute what we would now call
systems theories. It is difficult to deny that, in many important respects, Bogdanov's work anticipated Bertalanffy's and, in many respects, exceeded it.
Recent work in Russia (notably by Pustylnik, 1993, 1995) and the preliminary findings of Dudley and Pustylnik (1995) suggest that the scope of the Tektology is far broader than was originally believed (e.g., Gorelik, 1980, 1987). In adopting and extending Sadovski's (1992) "macroparadigms" of systems thought, it is postulated that Bogdanov's formulation of the Tektology contains elements characteristic of all three stages of the development of contemporary systems thought. Thus although limited by the stage of the development of the science of his day, Bogdanov's work anticipated thesystems quest of the twentieth century.
The extent to which the Tektology made a direct contribution to the early development ofWestern (i.e., non-Soviet bloc) systems theory is probably limited. This is due mostly to political suppression within the Soviet Union in the early postpublication years (i.e., when the Tektology would have had the quality of uniqueness) and, possibly, ignorance or aCold War or academic chauvinism, following the publication of Bertalanffy's "seminal" paper.
If Bogdanov's work (whether the Tektology or others) was known to Bertalanffy is not known. I have certainly found no reference to it in the works I have consulted. What is certain is that the Tektology was available in German (presumably Bertalanffy's first language) in its complete and revised form by 1929. One can only wonder what the loss of those 30 years cost.
Key words Tektology - general system theory - history of science - East European systems theory