The Thinking Reed

Notes

1

1. A.L. Kroeber and C. Kluckhohn, Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions, Cambridge Mass., p. 357.

2

2. The concept ‘political culture’ was introduced into Soviet sociology by F. Burlatsky, but he gave it an extremely narrow significance: as meaning the aggregate of ‘political knowledge and notions’ (F. Burlatsky, Lenin, gosudarst vo, politika [Lenin, the State and Politics], Moscow 1970, p. 55). In his later work he defined it more precisely as the ‘historical experience’ embedded in culture (F. Burlatsky and A. Galkin, Sotsiologiya. Politika. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. [Sociology. Politics. International Relations], Moscow 1974, p. 113).

3

3. There is a great deal of research material available on ‘political culture’, including the Soviet variety, most of it in English. See Archie Brown and Jack Gray, eds, Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, 2nd edn, 1979; Archie Brown, Soviet Politics and Political Science, 1974, pp. 89-104; L.W. Pye and S. Verba, Political Culture and Political Development, Princeton 1965; Dennis Kavanagh, Political Culture, Indiana 1972; Louis Schneider and C.M. Bonjean, eds, The Idea of Culture in the Social Sciences, Cambridge 1973, pp. 65–76; A, Bauer, A. Inkeles, C. Kluckhohn, How the Soviet System Works: Cultural, Psychological and Social Themes, Cambridge Mass. 1956; R.C. Tucker, ‘Culture, Political Culture and Communist Society’, Political Science Quarterly, vol. 88, no. 2, 1973. See also: R. Fülöp-Miller, The Mind and Face of Bolshevism, New York 1928; R. Solomon, Mao’s Revolution and the Chinese Political Culture, Buckley 1971; R.R. Fagen, The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba, Stanford 1969.

4

4. Brown and Gray, Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, p. 1.

5

5. Tucker, p. 182.

6

6. ‘Writers and Leviathan’, in Selected Writings, ed. George Bolt, 1958, p. 90.

7

7. H.H. Holz, Strömungen und Tendenzen in Neomarxismus, Munich 1972, p. 16.

8

8. Wolfgang Leonhard, ‘In welcher Verfassung ist die Sowjetunion?’, Zukunft, Heft 11, 1980, p. 30.

9

9. Wolfgang Leonhard, ‘Are We Moving Towards A Post-Communist Era? The Soviet Empire in Crisis’, Encounter, November, 1980, pp. 24-5.

10

10. M. Agursky, The New Russian Literature, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Russian Research Centre 1980, Paper No. 40, p. 64.

Notes

1

1. A.I. Herzen, Sobranie Sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, Moscow 1956, vol. 7, p. 198.

2

2. Politicheskii Dnevnik, 1964–1970, Amsterdam 1972, vol. 1, p. 179.

3

3. Strömungen und Tendenzen in Neomarxismus, Munich 1972, p. 7.

4

4. Herzen, vol. 7, p. 68.

5

5. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th edn, English version, vol. 18, p. 48.

6

6. M.N. Pokrovsky, Ocherki po istorii revolyutsionnogo dzheniya v Rossii XIX–XX vv, Moscow 1924, p. 133.

7

7. Nikolai Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, 1947, p. 12.

8

8. P. Milyukov, Intelligentsiya v Rossii, St Petersburg 1910, p. 156.

9

9. Edward Acton, Alexander Herzen and the Role of the Intellectual Revolutionary, Cambridge 1979, p. 9.

10

10. Marshall S. Shatz, Soviet Dissent in Historical Perspective, Cambridge 1981, p. 11.

11

11. Ibid., p. 16.

12

12. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 17.

13

13. Intelligentsia v Rossii, p. 128.

14

14. Israel Getzler, Martov’s biographer, analyses in detail the views of this important Russian Marxist on the problem of the relation between the intelligentsia and the autocracy. He writes that Martov regarded the intelligentsia ‘as the vanguard in the struggle for the modernization of Russia’ (1. Getzler, Martov, Cambridge 1967, p. 34).

15

15. Philip Pomper, The Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia, New York 1970, p. 30.

16

16. Shatz, p. 35.

17

17. N. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism, 1937, p. 17.

18

18. V. Polonsky, Krasnaya Nov'. 1 (18), January-February 1924, p. 190.

19

19. Ibid.

20

20. In my book The Dialectics of Hope I have tried to look more closely at this question (in the chapter entitled ‘The Intelligentsia and the Establishment’).

21

21. Samuel H. Baron, Plekhanov, the Father of Russian Marxism, London 1963, p. 3.

22

22. Robert J. Brym, The Jewish Intelligentsia and Russian Marxism. A Sociological Study of Intellectual Radicalism and Ideological Divergence, London 1978, p. 4.

23

23. This was especially evident in the case of the Jewish intelligentsia, whose members were able to obtain education yet lacked civil rights. Owing to the ‘Pale of Settlement’ and absence of political rights, the Jewish intelligent embodied, so to speak, in concentrated form the contradictions of the Russian intelligent. He was doubly marginal (and if he got his education in the West, doubly a ‘Westerner’). Besides, he had already ceased to feel that he was a Jew and considered himself a Russian intelligent. Clearly the Black Hundreds’ conception, in which ‘Jew’ was a synonym for intelligent, had in its way a certain foundation.

24

24. Shatz, p. 13.

25

25. R. Pipes, Russia under the Old Regime, 1974, p. 280.

26

26. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 254.

27

27. See A. Gramsci, O literature i iskusstve, Moscow 1967, pp. 25–47.

28

28. Jean-Paul Sartre, Between Existentialism and Marxism, London 1983, p. 252.

29

29. Ibid. See also Sartre, Du Rôle de l’intellectuel dans le mouvement révolutionnaire, Paris 1971.

30

30. G. Pomerants, Obshchestvo, elita i byurokratsiya v razvivayushchikhsya stranakh Vostoka, Book 2, Moscow 1974, p. 357.

31

31. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 24.

32

32. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 35.

33

33. P. Ya. Chaadaev, Filosofskie pis' ma, Moscow 1913, pp. 18–19 (Philosophical Letters, Knoxville 1969, p. 43).

34

34. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 25.

35

35. Ibid.

36

36. ‘Zametki ob intelligentsii’, Krasnaya Nov', no.l, 1924, p. 199.

37

37. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 5, p. 375.

38

38. Ibid., vol. 7, p. 45.

39

39. G.V. Plekhanov, Sochineniya, Moscow and Leningrad 1926, vol. 13, p. 125.

40

40. See A. Yanov, ‘Zagadka slavyanofil'skoi kritiki’, Voprosy literatury, no.5, 1969, pp. 91-116. For more details about this article and the discussion around it, see Chapter 5 below.

41

41. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 40.

42

42. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 29.

43

43. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 3

44

44. Herzen, p. 234.

45

45. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 21.

46

46. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 20, p. 245.

47

47. Robert C. Tucker, The Marxian Revolutionary Idea, 1970, pp. 120-21.

48

48. M. Bodkhovsky, ‘Through the Swamp’ [Cherez top’] Samizdatovskii sbornik, Leningrad n.d., p. 23.

49

49. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 235.

50

50. Ibid.

51

51. R. Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia, New York 1961, p. 48.

52

52. Such views were expressed from other quarters as well as from the Menshevik camp. See Berdyaev, The Origin…

53

53. The term was borrowed from Marx but used in quite a different sense. Although Lenin did not employ it, he expressed similar ideas. See the original publication of his speeches in Severnaya Kommuna, no.58 (14 March 1919) and the stenographic reports of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Men’s Deputies, Bulletin 15.

54

54. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 16, p. 128.

55

55. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 127.

56

56. Even in 1919, at the 8th Congress of the RCP (B) Lenin was calling the October Revolution a bourgeois revolution. In 1905-07, but especially in 1917-22, Lenin and the Bolsheviks reconsidered the idea of inevitable bourgeois development for Russia, affirming that in Russia the proletarian revolution fulfilled objectively a number of the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution but did this, of course, not in a bourgeois-democratic way but by other means. This interpretation of the historical process accounts for some important aspects of Bolshevik policy. See Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, pp. 465, 470, etc.

57

57. Similar processes can be observed today in many developing countries, where the local variant of ‘Marxism’ has ousted revolutionary populism. In Russia Marxist ideas fell upon ready-prepared soil. ‘Russian thought will always be concerned with the transformation of the actual state of affairs,’ writes Berdyaev. ‘Recognition of the latter will go hand in hand with the changing of it’ (The Russian Idea, p. 29). This conception of the tasks of social thought corresponds to the very important principle of Marxism: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it’ (Marx and Engels, Sochineniya, vol. 3, p. 4: 11th Thesis on Feuerbach) (Collected Works, English edn, vol. 5, p. 8).

58

58. Pod znamenem marksizma, 1922, no. 5–6, p.5 (Trotsky, Portraits Political and Personal, New York 1977, p. 36).

59

59. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 5, pp. 375-6.

60

60. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 194.

61

61. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 20, p. 247.

62

62. See Vsemirno-istoricheskve znachenie Velikoy Oktyabr'skoy sotsialisticheskoy revolyutsii, Moscow 1957, p. 65.

63

63. Trotsky, Moya Zhizn', Part I, Berlin 1930, p. 147 (My Life, Universal Library, New York 1960, p. 123).

64

64. Brym, p. 1.

65

65. Pokrovsky, Ocherki…, p. 103.

66

66. Ibid.

67

67. Ibid., pp. 107-8.

68

68. Pokrovsky, Brief History of Russia, vol. 2 (1933), p. 245.

69

69. S.A. Tompkins, The Russian Intelligentsia, Makers of the Revolutionary State, Norman 1957, p. 175.

70

70. Pokrovsky, Russkaya Istoriya, pp. 126-7 (Partly given in Brief History of Russia, vol. 2, p. 130).

71

71. The mood of the Russian intelligenty after 1905 is splendidly depicted in Boris Savinkov’s book To, chego ne bylo [‘What Never Happened’], which is above all a most interesting psychological document of the period.

72

72. Martin Malia, ‘What is the Intelligentsia?’, in Tompkins, p. 17.

73

73. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, pp. 52 ff.

74

74. See D. Merezhkovsky, ‘The Boor who is Coming’, Poln. sobr. soch., Moscow 1914, vol. 14, p. 37.

75

75. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 131.

76

76. See VI. Solovev, Sobr. soch., vol. 8, pp. 368 and also 362 (The Justification of the Good, 1918, pp. 327-33).

77

77. M. Agursky, Ideologiya natsional-bol'shevizma, Paris 1980, p. 36.

78

78. Merezhkovsky, ‘The Revolution and Religion’, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 13, p. 96.

79

79. Merezhkovsky, ‘Once more on “Great Russia’”, Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 16, p. 59.

80

80. Berdyaev wrote that Bolshevism ‘adopted primarily not the determinist, evolutionary scientific side of Marxism, but its messianic myth-creating religious side, which gave scope for the stimulation of the revolutionary will, and assigned a foremost place to the proletariat’s revolutionary struggle as controlled by an organized minority, which was inspired by the conscious proletariat [sic] idea’ (The Origin…, p. 125). While this description cannot be applied to such rationalists as Lenin, Sverdlov, Trotsky and Bukharin, it is fully applicable to the rank-and-file Bolsheviks who put the Party line into practice. Even in Bukharin’s case Marxist determinism bears a marked resemblance to religious fatalism; Bukharin himself felt this and tried, not very successfully, to defend his ideas from possible accusations of that sort (see N.I. Bukharin, Historical Materialism, 1926, p. 51).

81

81. Valery Aleksandrovich Kuvakin: not to be confused with Vsevolod Kuvakin, the leader of the Soviet free trade unions!

82

82. V.A. Kuvakin, Religioznaya filosofiya v Rossii: Nachalo XX veka, Moscow 1980, p. 46.

83

83. Ibid., p. 47.

84

84. V. Rozanov, Opavshe list'ya, Korob Vtoroy [‘Fallen Leaves. Bundle Two’], St Petersburg 1915, p. 29 (checked from the edition Vasily Rozanov: Izbrannoe, Munich 1970, p. 230).

85

85. Vekhi, Moscow 1909, p. 17 (Landmarks, ed. B. Shragin and A. Todd, New York 1977, p. 17).

86

86. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 227.

87

87. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 8, p. 106.

88

88. Ibid., p. 448.

89

89. Berdyaev, ‘On the New Religious Consciousness (D. Merezhkovsky)’, Voprosy zhizni, no. 9, 1905, p. 167.

90

90. This leads to the paradoxical conclusion that Marxist philosophy in the exact sense of the word did not exist at all before the 1930s and began to be developed as an independent scientific current in the works of Lukács, Gramsci, Adorno and Marcuse, and then Fromm in the 1930s and 1940s. Berdyaev read Lukács at that time and discovered, along with everyone else, the young Marx, in whose works he found ideas that were important for him — ‘an element of genuine existential philosophy’ (The Origin…, p. 116). We can say, therefore, that Marx influenced Berdyaev twice — first through his economic works and then, much later, through his philosophical works.

91

91. Ibid., p. 128.

92

92. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 246.

93

93. Ibid., p. 221.

94

94. Berdyaev, The Origin…, p. 129.

95

95. Ibid., p. 133.

96

96. The term ‘personalist’ is as a rule unfamiliar to the Soviet reader, and not at all associated with politics. In France, where Berdyaev lived as an émigré, personalism became the ideology of the left-wing Catholics who founded the journal Esprit, an ideology which influenced the programme of the French socialist movement (the Parti Socialiste Unifié, the Parti Socialiste Français and, especially, the trade-union centre associated with the socialists, the Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail). To the French Left Catholics are due some important ideas in the sphere of the theory of property and workers’ self-management which are shared by many Marxists. In Russia Berdyaev’s ideas could serve as an excellent basis for a dialogue between progressive Christians and the Marxist opposition. Unfortunately, many who call themselves admirers of Berdyaev are totally uninterested in what he actually said and thought.

97

97. Vekhi, p. 49 (Landmarks, p. 45).

98

98. Ibid., p. 87 (ibid., p. 79).

99

99. Ibid, p. 21 (ibid., p. 21).

100

100. Ibid., p. 171 (ibid., p. 151).

101

101. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 11 (Gredeskul).

102

102. Leonard Schapiro, ‘The Pre-Revolutionary Intelligentsia and the Legal Order’, in Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia, p. 30.

103

103. S.A. Frank, Biografiya P. V. Struve, New York 1956, pp. 83-4.

104

104. See ‘Vekhi’ kak znamenie vremeni (1910) and Intelligentsiy a v Rossii.

105

105. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 16, p. 123.

106

106. Ibid., p. 125.

107

107. Ibid., p. 123.

108

108. Ibid., p. 131.

109

109. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, pp. 48-9.

110

110. Ibid., p. 50.

111

111. See Vekhi, pp. 171, 172 (Landmarks, pp. 152-4).

112

112. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 119.

113

113. Ibid., p. 170.

114

114. Ibid., p. xii (Petrunkevich).

115

115. Tompkins, p. 223.

116

116. Intelligentsiya v Rossii, p. 3 (K.K. Arsen ev).

117

117. Berdyaev, The Origin…, pp. 129–130.

Notes

1

1. Novaya Zhizn', 25 October (7 November) 1917.

2

2. Ibid., 26 October (8 November) 1917.

3

3. Ibid., 28 October (10 November) 1917. It is amusing that the expression ‘antisocialist activity’, which Soviet propaganda employed in relation to the ‘Solidarity’ movement of 1980-81 in Poland, was first employed by the Mensheviks to describe the policy of the Bolsheviks in 1917-18.

4

4. Saint-Just, Discours et rapports, Paris 1957, p. 145.

5

5. An expression of Rosa Luxemburg’s.

6

6. Severnaya Kommuna, 58, 14 March 1919. In the Collected Works this passage is truncated. [The omitted passage follows the sentence in vol. 29, p. 21, which ends ‘and regulate them in proper time’ — trans.] On the distortion of quotations from Lenin in present-day Soviet publications, see R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, 1971, p. 45.

7

7. M.A. Waters, ed., Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, New York 1970, p. 368.

8

8. Novaya Zhizn', 29 October (11 November) 1917.

9

9. Ibid., 25 April (8 May) 1918.

10

10. M. Gorky, Untimely Thoughts, New York 1968, p. 106. See Novaya Zhizn', 10 (23) December 1917.

11

11. Ibid.

12

12. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th edn, English version, vol. 24, p. 418.

13

13. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, p. 478.

14

14. Ibid.

15

15. Ibid., vol. 27, p. 342; cf. vol. 25, pp. 357-9.

16

16. His dispute with Bukharin is interesting in this connection. See XI s'ezd RKP (B), Stenograficheskii Otchet, Moscow 1961, pp. 139-41; also Krasnaya Nov', 1925, no. 4, p. 265; and Stephen Cohen, Bukharin, 1974, p. 134 ff.

17

17. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 342.

18

18. N. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, 1947, p. 15.

19

19. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 27, p. 340.

20

20. Novaya Zhizn', 26 January (8 February) 1918.

21

21. Ibid., 5 (18) April 1918.

22

22. Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1958.

23

23. G. Boffa, Storia dell’ Unione Soviética, Milan 1976, vol. 1, p. 57.

24

24. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, New York 1945, p. 96.

25

25. Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 394.

26

26. K. Kautsky, Demokratie oder Diktatur, Berlin 1920, p. 38.

27

27. Engels, ‘Contribution to the Critique of the Social-Democratic Programme of 1891 (The Erfurt Programme)’, in Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Moscow n.d. p. 58.

28

28. Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, New York 1957, p. 190.

29

29. Novaya Zhizn', 26 (13) March 1918.

30

30. V.I. Lenin i V Ch K. Sbornik dokumentov (1917-1922gg.), Moscow 1975, p. 53.

31

31. Novaya Zhizn', 20 (7) February 1918.

32

32. Ibid., 2 March (17 February) 1918.

33

33. Vpered! no. 257, 20 December 1917.

34

34. Boris Souvarine, Autour du Congrès de Tours, Paris 1981, p. 13.

35

35. Joel Carmichael, Trotsky, 1975, p. 182.

36

36. Ibid., p. 183.

37

37. Abraham Asher, Pavel Axelrod and the Development of Menshevism, Cambridge Mass. 1972, p. 355.

38

38. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, 1971, p. 274 (quoted from M.Ya. Latsis (Sudrabs), ‘Chrezvychaynye Komissii po bor'be s Kontrevolyutsiei’, Moscow 1921).

39

39. W. Scharndorf, Istoriya KPSS, Moscow 1962.

40

40. Cohen, pp. xvi-xvii.

41

41. Rosa Luxemburg Speaks, p. 91.

42

42. Pamyat', no. 3, Paris 1979, p. 388.

43

43. Ibid., p. 395.

44

44. L. Martov, Doloi smertnuyu kazn'!, Moscow 1918, p. 8.

45

45. Ibid., p. 7.

46

46. Ibid., p. 12.

47

47. Novaya Rossiya, 1922, no. 1, p. 75.

48

48. E.V. Starostin, ‘K istorii izdaniya knigi’, in P.A. Kropotkin, Velikaya Frantsuzskaya Revolyutsiya, Moscow 1979, p. 500.

49

49.

50

50. Ibid.

51

51. Ibid.

52

52. V. Korolenko, Pis'ma Lunacharskomy, Paris 1922, p. 16.

53

53. Vpered! 13 (26) December 1917.

54

54. When we discuss the Red terror we are dealing with one of the principal points of dispute between socialists and Communists. ‘Humane’ revolutions which sought to avoid bloodshed — and especially acts of repression — were crushed by counter-revolutionaries. ‘Harsh’ revolutions which did not shrink from bloodshed and terror, from open political dictatorship, degenerated and were crushed by Thermidorians. The Paris Commune was put down. ‘Popular Unity’ in Chile was put down but Bolshevik Russia degenerated, as also did Castro’s Cuba. The Communards and Allende were killed by reactionaries, while Bukharin, Trotsky and the old Bolsheviks were killed by the punitive organs they themselves had created. This is really a ‘sore subject’. In my view, however, Martov and Allende were right, not Lenin. A revolution that falls under the blows of reaction remains at the very least a moral victory and a new generation retains belief in its ideas, readiness ‘to begin again from the beginning’, ‘to try once more’. Degeneration of a revolution inspires aversion and demoralizes the working people. The death of Allende was glorious; the death of Bukharin shameful. But real history is not reducible to the hard choice, ‘either-or’. If that were so, all revolutions in the world would have ended with counterrevolution or Thermidor. But it is not so. The real problem is to find a ‘middle way’ or, more precisely, a democratic way — a path leading to the new society whereon the Lefts can be both politically strong and morally pure: to ensure the stability of the revolutionary government under conditions of class struggle without restricting democracy and resorting to terror. The humanization of society can be achieved by humanistic means alone, but these means must be effective. What the new society will be like depends on the means we employ in fighting for it, but this question can be answered only in practice. Where and when? Will the Nicaraguan revolution prove an example of such an answer? We shall see. As for theory, the problems of revolution are studied very seriously in the works of Fernando Claudin and of our own G. Vodolazov. In The Dialectics of Hope I have tried to touch on some of these problems, in the chapters entitled ‘The Tragedy of Bolshevism’ and ‘Elements of Hope’.

55

55. Martov, Doloi smertmuyu kazn! p. 9.

56

56. Vpered! 13 (26) December 1917 (in I. Getzler, Martov, 1967, p. 173).

57

57. Ibid.

58

58. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsiya, Moscow 1922, p. 75.

59

59. Zhores Medvedev, Soviet Science, 1978, p. 6.

60

60. Lists of those executed were at that time published in the newspapers. See, for example, Petrogradskaya Pravda, no. 181, 1 September 1921.

61

61. Boffa, vol. 1, p. 281.

62

62. V.B. Stankevich, Vospominaniya 1914–1919, Berlin 1920, pp. 344-5.

63

63. Ibid., pp. 351-2.

64

64. Pechat' i revolyutsiya, 1925, no. 3, p. 3.

65

65. Preface by V. Ivanov, p. xii, to Romain Rolland, Narodny teatr, TEO Narkomprosa, Petrograd and Moscow 1919.

66

66. Vestnik teatra no. 62, 1920, p. 5.

67

67. See V.S. Drachuk. Rasskazyvaet geral' dika, Moscow 1977, p. 226, plate XXXI, design no. 5; also p. 231, plate XXXIV, design no. 1; and the less extravagant project on p. 231, design no. 2, which, however, gave rise to certain ‘suspicions’ with regard to Futurism.

68

68. M. Gorky, Fragments from my Diary, 1924, p. 216.

69

69. Ibid.

70

70. N. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism, 1937, p. 145.

71

71. VI. Orlov, Hamayun: The Life of Alexander Blok, Moscow 1980, p. 459.

72

72. Ibid., p. 459. [The English version abridges the original, in which Orlov writes of the poet having ‘met the revolution with such spiritual courage and civic dignity’ — Trans.]

73

73. Zh. Medvedev, p. 9.

74

74. Ibid., p. 10.

75

75. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsiya, p. 73.

76

76. Stankevich, p. 291.

77

77. Zh. Medvedev, p. 17.

78

78. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1973, p. 10.

79

79. Zh. Medvedev, p. 13.

80

80. Mysl', no. 1, 1922, p. 3.

81

81. A review of prison periodicals was included in the first issue of the historical miscellany Pamyat'.

82

82. See Agursky, Ideologiya natsional-bol'shevizma, Paris 1980, p. 104.

83

83. Novaya Rossiya, no. 1, 1922, p. 63.

84

84. Ibid., p. 57.

85

85. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsiya, p. 51.

86

86. Ibid., p. 90.

87

87. Ibid., p. 92.

88

88. Ibid., p. 80.

89

89. Idealism here, of course, means idealism in the moral, not the philosophical sense.

90

90. M. Levidov, ‘Organizovannoe uproshchenie kul'tury’, Krasnaya Nov! no. 1, January-February 1923, pp. 311, 318.

91

91. P. Kogan, ‘Russkaya literatura v gody Oktyabr'skoy revolyutsii’, Krasnaya Nov', no. 3, 1921, p. 239.

92

92. L. Voytolovsky, ‘Lenin ob intelligentsii’, Pechat' i revolyutsiya, Book 2, 1925, p. 1.

93

93. Ibid.

94

94. N.I. Bukharin, ‘Sud'by’, in ibid., Book 3, p. 8.

95

95. Pravda, 1 October 1924. (Trotsky, On Lenin, 1971, p. 176. In the Pravda version, instead of ‘admiring his boldness’, Trotsky says: ‘for I was fond of this “Piter” proletarian.’).

96

96. Novaya Zhizn', 19 (6) February 1918.

97

97. A. Blok, Sobr.soch., Moscow and Leningrad 1962, vol. 6, p. 16. [He goes on to explain that the Kremlin, etc., continue to live ‘in our hearts and minds’. - Trans.]

98

98. Just like the French ‘new lefts’ who called for the Mona Lisa to be set fire to, while doing nothing to put that idea into practice. What mattered was the ‘renunciation’, not any concrete deed.

99

99. Sovremennik, no. 2, 1923, p. 89.

100

100. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, p. 487.

101

101. Ibid., p. 462.

102

102. Trotsky, Literature and Revolution, pp. 185-6.

103

103. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, p. 179.

104

104. Ibid., p. 181 (in the 1924 preface to Literature and Revolution, p. 14: ‘complete freedom of self-determination in the field of art’. Originally published in Krasnaya Nov', no. 7, 1923, p. 274).

105

105. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed

106

106. Carmichael, p. 322.

107

107. Bukharin, ‘Sud'by’, p. 6.

108

108. I must observe here that in my opinion the ‘Bukharinism’ and the ‘Trotskyism’ of the 1920s were alike both preparations for Stalinism and alternatives to it, and consequently are full of inner contradictions. Bukharin and Trotsky put forward many ideas which Stalin took into his armoury, while at the same time also advancing a number of anti-Stalinist ideas. See The Dialectics of Hope, Part I.

109

109. Pod znamenem marksizma, no. 2, 1924, p. 63.

110

110. Russian Literature Triquarterly, Fall 1973, p.433 (English trans. p.438), ‘Evgeny Zamyatin’s “The Future of the Theatre’’.’

111

111. Ibid., p. 432 (English trans. p. 437).

112

112. Istoria SSSR s drevneishikh vremen do nashikh dnei, Moscow 1968, vol. 8, p. 276.

113

113. Boffa, pp. 289-91.

114

114. Smena Vekh, Prague 1921, p. 170.

115

115. Agursky, pp. 103-4.

116

116. Pravda, 14 October 1921.

117

117. Boffa, p. 283.

118

118. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsiya, p. 117.

119

119. Pravda, 27 October 1921. (Trotsky, How The Revolution Armed, 1981, vol. 4, pp. 43–44. [The last words of the quotation — i chto nuzhno ei pomoch' — do not appear in the book version — Trans.] In connection with Trotsky’s attitude to Smena Vekh, see Agursky, pp. 159–161. It can be objected here that Trotsky is speaking of the Smenovekhovtsy generally, but undoubtedly his interpretation of Smena Vekh is closer to the left wing of the movement.

120

120. Kuvakin, Religioznaya filosofiya v Rossii: Nachalo XX veka, Moscow 1980, p. 121.

121

121. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsii, p. 80.

122

122. Novaya Rossiya, no. 1, 1922, p. 63.

123

123. Krasnaya Nov’, no. 1, 1922, p. 339.

124

124. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsii, p. 115.

125

125. Novaya Rossiya, no. 1, 1922, p. 65.

126

126. Ibid., p. 3.

127

127. Ibid., p. 13.

128

128. Ibid., p. 7.

129

129. Ibid., p. 64.

130

130. Novaya Rossiya, no. 2, 1922, p. 71.

131

131. M. Lewin, Lenin's Last Struggle, 1969, p. 13.

132

132. Mysl' (Kharkov), no. 1–2, 1919, p. 13.

133

133. Cohen, p. 125.

134

134. Intelligentsiya i revolyutsiya, p. 153.

135

135. Ibid., p. 154.

136

136. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, p. 288.

137

137. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, ed. Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith, 1971, p. 189.

138

138. Carmichael, pp. 274-5.

139

139. Trotsky, My Life, Universal Library, New York 1960, pp. 480-81.

140

140. Lewin, p. 124.

141

141. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, pp. 89–90.

142

142. Trotsky, The New Course, 1956, p. 16 (Pravda, 29 December 1923).

143

143. Pod znamenem marksizma, no. 7–8, 1922, p. 65.

144

144. Cohen, p. 142.

145

145. H. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, New York 1958, p. 98.

146

146. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 36, p. 595.

147

147. Pod znamenem marksizma, no. 7–8, 1922, p. 79.

148

148. Ibid., pp. 80–81.

149

149. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 33, p. 488.

150

150. Ibid., p. 288.

151

151. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3, 1975, p. 58.

152

152. Klaus Zetkin, My Recollections of Lenin, Moscow 1956, p. 22.

Notes

1

1. Trotsky, My Life, Universal Library, New York 1960, p. 488.

2

2. An expression of M. Bolkhovsky’s (Cherez top', p. 48).

3

3. Philip Pomper, The Russian Revolutionary Intelligentsia, New York 1970, p. 196.

4

4. Roman Jakobson (1930) in R. Jakobson and D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, Smert' Vladirnira Mayakovskogo, Paris 1975, p. 34.

5

5. Marx and Engels, Sochineniya, 2nd edn, vol. 18, pp. 511-12 (Émigré Publications 1874-75: The Blanquists’ Programme).

6

6. Engels, The Peasant War in Germany (Marx and Engels, Collected Works. vol. 10, pp. 469-70.)

7

7. G.V. Plekhanov, Nashi raznoglasiya, in Izbrannye filosofskie proizvedeniya, Moscow 1956, vol. 1, p. 345.

8

8. Ibid., p. 323.

9

9. See Wolfgang Leonhard, Was ist Kommunismus? Wandlungen einer Ideologie, Munich 1976 (? 1978), pp. 41-2. Cf. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, New York 1945, p. 255.

10

10. Wlodzimierz Brus, Socialist Ownership and Political Systems, 1975, p. 30.

11

11. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th edn, English version, vol. 22, p. 144.

12

12. A somewhat different view is maintained by Roy A. Medvedev. He, of course, regards democracy as one of the distinguishing features of socialism, but says that the absence of one of these features by no means signifies the absence of socialism (see, for example, his interview in Paese Sera, 13 February 1977). To my mind, however, the trouble is not that one of the distinguishing features of socialism is ‘absent’ but that it is hard to find any important distinguishing features that are present. There is no political democracy, there is no workers’ self-management in production, and so, consequently, there is no social ownership. The abolition of illiteracy, the creation of a more or less developed system of social security — not to mention the industrialization and the immense growth of the productive forces in the former colonial borderlands of Russia — are undoubted achievements by the ruling regime which nobody will deny; but what is there in them that is specifically ‘socialist’? In the advanced capitalist countries too, as is well known, there has been economic and social progress in the last sixty years. Besides, what is vitally important is something different: that democracy is not just a distinguishing feature of socialism, but its essence — as Engels, incidentally, pointed out long ago.

13

13. Gianni Sofri, II modo di produzione asiatico: storia di una controversia marxista, Turin 1974 (1969), pp. 104, 105.

14

14. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, pp. 5, 20.

15

15. For a survey of Marxist views on the Soviet bureaucracy, see René Ahlberg, Die sozialistische Bürokratie: Marxistische Kritik am etablierten Sozialismus, Stuttgart 1976.

16

16. Berdyaev, The Origin of Russian Communism, 1937, p. 153.

17

17. See Monty Johnstone, ‘Conflicts between socialist states’, Marxism Today, vol. 23, no. 8, August 1979; W. Granow and M. Krütke, ‘Zwei Stalinismus-Debatten in der K.P. Grossbrittaniens’, Das Argument, 1/8, 1979; J. Elleinstein, ‘Sur le phénomène Stalinien, la démocratie et le socialisme’, Esprit, no. 2, February 1976. For criticism of this type of theoretical notion, see the review of works by Elleinstein, Garaudy and other writers in the special number of the Paris review Critique, no. 392, 1980, under the heading: ‘Le comble du vide’.

18

18. Such views have been expressed by Charles Bettelheim and C. Castoriadis. The best work of this kind, in my opinion, is G. Chaliand’s Mythes révolutionnaires du Tiers Monde, Paris 1979. For an exposition and critique of these ideas, see M. Cheshkov, Kritika predstavlenii o pravyashchikh gruppakh razvivayushchikhsya stran, Moscow 1979.

19

19. Andras Hegedüs, Socialism and Bureaucracy, 1976, pp. 9-10.

20

20. We must define the difference between the terms ‘statocracy’ and ‘bureaucracy’. By a bureaucracy is meant an exclusive apparatus of officials, composed by the method of appointment. A statocracy is a community of the class type, which a bureaucracy may not be. In any case, bureaucracy is found practically everywhere. It exists in present-day Britain and America and it existed in the France of Louis XIV and in the Germany of Marx’s time. Statocracy, however, exists only in societies of the Soviet type and in a number of countries of the Third World (for example Mexico) which have developed their own variety of the statocratic mode of production.

21

21. Hegedus, p. 170.

22

22. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 344.

23

23. Stephen Cohen, Bukharin, 1974, p. 143.

24

24. M. Voslensky, Nomenklatura: Anatomy of the Soviet Ruling Class, 1984, pp. 112, 118.

25

25. Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed, p. 249.

26

26. From Lenin’s notes on Bukharin’s book Economics of the Transformation Period, in Leninsky Sbornik, vol. 11, 1929, p. 357. [This passage is mistranslated in the 1971 New York translation of Bukharin’s book, where — on page 214 — the phrase meaning ‘appropriate the labour’ is rendered as ‘take on the work’ — Trans.]

27

27. It is noteworthy that when he wrote about countries outside the sphere of European capitalism, Marx used these categories with extreme caution.

28

28. See Ahlberg, p. 108.

29

29. Marc Rakovski, Towards an East-European Marxism, 1979, p. 85.

30

30. If this conjecture is valid, then consequently alienation and the social problems connected with it will continue to exist under socialism: alienation in general cannot be completely eliminated. What is involved is merely the elimination of present-day social forms, which threaten total alienation of the personality, in favour of more human forms which will ensure the systematic removal of alienation.

31

31. Rakovski, pp. 47-8.

32

32. M.A. Cheshkov, ‘Metodologicheskie problemy analiza gosuklada: tip obshchestvennogo vosprizvodstva i sotsialnyi nositel’, in Ekonomika razvivayushchikhsya stran: teorii i metody issledovaniya, Moscow 1979, p. 336.

33

33. Ibid.

34

34. Ibid., p. 339.

35

35. L’Express, no. 1532, 1980, p. 27.

36

36. G. Lisichkin, Chto cheloveku nado? p. 120.

37

37. Cheshkov, p. 329.

38

38. We must make clear that in this book ‘ideology’ is not, of course, to be understood in the spirit of Stalinism but also is not to be interpreted as Marx’s ‘false consciousness’. Marx’s interpretation — science is true, ideology is false — is thoroughly polemical. We are well aware that in scientific work, too, some false information can appear (owing to imperfect equipment, inadequate methods, mistakes by oneself and others, and so on). The watershed does not run there. In my view, science is distinguished from ideology by the fact that the former is based upon knowledge and the second upon belief. One and the same scientific fact can be an ideological fact, and vice versa. For some Marxism is a science, for others an ideology, depending on how they understand and perceive Marxism (and so both are right, each in their own way). As for the official Soviet interpretation of ideology, based on Stalin’s interpretation of Lenin’s thesis that there are ‘only two ideologies’ (‘bourgeois’ and ‘Soviet’), its consistent exposition must bring any rationally thinking person to quite absurd conclusions. If the ‘two ideologies’ contradict each other on all points and have nothing in common, then of course peaceful coexistence between ideologies is impossible and dialogue, discussion, debate between them unthinkable. In order to debate one must be agreed on something, otherwise the very subject for debate disappears. But for this same reason (the impossibility of ideological discussion) ideological struggle is also impossible. War between ideologies, therefore, can be concluded only by force of arms — not by ‘the weapon of ideas’ but by real weapons. All this is, of course, unreal. There are not only two classes and there are not only two ideologies. Furthermore, every social class is heterogeneous. The ideology of a class expresses not just its interests but also its illusions, its traditions and its mood at each actual moment. And if being does indeed determine consciousness, then a society’s ideology must be changeable and diverse, like life itself. Finally, the Stalinists recognize only the ideology of blind faith. In real life faith may waver, and may be tested by knowledge. In reality we find both ideological struggle and coexistence between ideologies. For example, semi-official Soviet internationalism has always coexisted peacefully with unofficial Russian chauvinism and anti-Semitism. Ideology, therefore, is to be understood here as the totality of ideas about society which are engendered by certain real interests and conditions. These ideas may, of course, be remote from the truth, especially if that suits somebody’s interest.

39

39. C. Bettelheim and B. Chavance, ‘Le stalinisme en tant qu’idéologie du capitalisme d’état’, Les Temps Modernes, no. 394, May 1979, p. 1736.

40

40. XIII S'ezd R.K.P. (b.), stenografichesky otchet, Moscow 1924, p. 167. (In the 1963 reprint, p. 158.)

41

41. H. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, 1968, p. 132.

42

42. Ibid., p. 131. To be sure, official ideologists do sometimes speak out in defence do criticism and satire. At the Nineteenth Party Congress, in 1952, Malenkov said that we needed Soviet Gogols and Shchedrins. These statements, made in the midst of an antiintellectual and anti-Semitic terror, were for some reason not taken seriously. Moscow wits joked that ‘we need Shchedrins and Gogols all the more so that they’ll leave us alone.’

43

43. Cheshkov, p. 165.

44

44. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3 (1975), pp. 140-41.

45

45. One-Dimensional Man, 1964.

46

46. Jean-Paul Sartre, Situation IX, 1972, p. 235.

47

47. The term ‘totalitarian authority’ is used here only in relation to Stalin’s rule, the period 1928 to 1953. Contrary to the view taken by many Soviet and East European socialists (e.g. Kuron), I do not regard the post-Stalin regimes as being totalitarian. They are, rather, transitional between the totalitarian and the authoritarian type. (This transition was completed in Poland, Hungary and Yugoslavia by the end of the 1970s, and it is ridiculous to speak of totalitarianism in the Poland of 1979.)

48

48. A.L. De Castris, Egemonia e paseismo, Bologna 1981, p. 117.

49

49. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, p. 125.

50

50. Rakovski, p. 46.

51

51. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith, 1971, p. 149. Cf. Gramsci’s Elementi de Politica, Rome 1978, p. 51.

52

52. Robert C. Tucker, The Soviet Political Mind: Stalinism and Post-Stalin Change, 1972, pp. 138-9.

53

53. Ibid., p. 139.

54

54. Shatz, Soviet Dissent in Historical Perspective, Cambridge 1981, p. 1.

55

55. Leopold Labedz, ‘The Structure of the Soviet Intelligentsia’, in Pipes, p. 75.

56

56. Shatz, pp. 1–2.

57

57. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 110.

58

58. Klassovaya bor'ba putem vreditel'stva, Moscow and Leningrad 1930, p. 9.

59

59. Bol'shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 2nd edn, Moscow 1951, vol. 9, p. 262.

60

60. R.A. Medvedev, K sudu istorii, p. 239 [apparently not in Let History Judge — trans].

61

61. Boffa, vol. 1, pp. 447-8.

62

62. The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, 3rd edn, repeats the Stalinist version, according to which ‘an active, organized wrecking campaign’ was carried out in the USSR (vol. 29, Moscow 1978, p. 307). (In the English translation of the Encyclopaedia [1982] this passage appears in vol. 29, p. 530). And in 1976 the journal Chelovek i Zakon, no. 10, published an article by D. Golinkov on the Shakhty case which repeated all the old propagandist fabrications.

63

63. Istoriya KPSS, 4th edn, ed. B.N. Ponomarev, Moscow 1975, p. 383.

64

64. Vecherniy Tbilisi, 18 November 1981, p. 4.

65

65. Istoriya KPSS, p. 383.

66

66. Sovetskaya intelligentsiya. Istoriya formirovaniya i rosta, 1917–1955, Moscow 1968.

67

67. Voprosy istorii, no. 8, 1970, p. 148.

68

68. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 106.

69

69. G. Boffa and G. Marinet, Dialogue sur le stalinisme, Paris 1977, p. 175.

70

70. Shatz, p. 88.

71

71. Protiv istoricheskoy kontseptsii M.N. Pokrovstrogo, Part I, Moscow 1939, p. 5.

72

72. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 224.

73

73. Stephen F. Cohen, ed., An End to Silence, 1982, p. 124.

74

74. N. Bukharin, ‘Proletariat i voprosy khudozhestvennoy politiki’, Krasnaya Nov', no. 4, May 1925, p. 272.

75

75. Ibid.

76

76. Ibid.

77

77. Literaturnaya Entsiklopediya, Moscow 1930, vol. 1, p. 693.

78

78. Kratkaya Literaturnaya Entsiklopediya, Moscow 1968, vol. 5, p. 893.

79

79. See, for fuller discussion of this, Ernst Fischer and Franz Marek, Was Lenin wirklich sagte, Vienna-Munich-Zurich 1969, pp. 174-6.

80

80. Chaké Der Melkonian-Minassian, Politiques littéraires en URSS: Depuis les débuts à nos jours, Montreal 1978, p. 19.

81

81. Literaturnaya Entsiklopediya, Moscow 1935, vol. 9, p. 144.

82

82. Ibid., p. 150.

83

83. Ibid.

84

84. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 231.

85

85. Edward Shils, The Intellectuals and the Powers, and other essays, Chicago and London 1972, pp. 92-3.

86

86. Fernando Claudin, Vida y obra de Marx y Engels, 1979, p. 95.

87

87. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, p. 11.

88

88. Umberto Cerroni, Crisi ideale e transizione al socialismo, Rome 1977, p. 65.

89

89. Marcuse, Soviet Marxism, p. 39.

90

90. Shils, p. 15.

91

91. Mouvement Social, no. 64, July-September 1968, p. 239.

92

92. International Socialist Journal, vol. 5, no. 25, 1968, pp. 42, 43.

93

93. Jean-Paul Sartre, Between Existentialism and Marxism, p. 246.

94

94. Jean-Pierre Chevènement, Le Vieux, la crise, le neuf, Paris 1974, p. 149.

95

95. Pravda, 14 November 1981.

96

96. Ibid.

97

97. Rakovski, p. 44.

98

98. Let me stress that the term ‘illegal’ activity is used in this work conventionally, only in the sense of activity not approved of by the official authorities. ‘Illegal’ activity is not necessarily ‘against the law’. The actions of dissidents are often more legal, even in relation to Soviet laws, than those of the authorities, who continually violate their own ordinances. This is very clear from the documents of the human-rights movement in the USSR.

99

99. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, p. 118.

100

100. A. Nekrich, ‘Rewriting History’, in Index on Censorship, vol. 9, no. 4, 1980, p. 4.

101

101. A. Sinyavsky, ‘Samizdat and the Rebirth of Literature’, in ibid., p. 8.

102

102. An End to Silence, p. 253.

103

103. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 1, p. 354.

104

104. Ibid., p. 119.

105

105. Ibid., pp. 120-21.

106

106. Russian works published abroad are especially difficult to get sight of. A high reputation among historians of the Soviet period is enjoyed by the ‘special store’ of Tartu Library, where pre-war émigré publications are extensively available. (Before the war, Tartu was ‘abroad’.) But even if you manage to find something and read it, a second problem then arises: how can this be communicated to the reader?

107

107. Nekrich, p. 5.

108

108. Herzen, Sobranie Sochinenii v tridtsati tomakh, Moscow 1956, vol. 7, p. 87.

109

109. Sinyavsky, p. 8.

110

110. Ronald Hingley, Russian Writers and Soviet Society, 1917–1978, 1979, p. 210.

111

111. The journal Index on Censorship has published a great deal of information which throws quite a lot of light on the workings of the Soviet censorship. See: L. Vladimirov, ‘Glavlit: How the Soviet Censor Works’ (no. 3–4, 1972); J. Jurasas, ‘Censoring Shakespeare in Moscow’ (no. 3, 1975); M. Jonson, A. Vinograde, ‘Censoring Boll’s books in the USSR’ (no. 2, 1976); ‘Reprisals against Metropol authors and Poiski editors’ (no. 2, 1980).

112

112. Revolution, no. 14, 1980, p. 28.

113

113. More details about the affair of The Sailor’s Rest and of the struggle against censorship in the theatre are given in A. Tamarchenko, ‘Theatre censorship’, in Index on Censorship, vol. 9, no. 4, 1980.

114

114. Novy Mir, no. 4, 1962, p. 35.

115

115. Der Melkonian-Minassian, p. 256.

116

116. Theodor W. Adorno, Zur Dialektik des Engagements, Frankfurt-am-Main 1973, p. 8.

117

117. D.N. Uskakov, ed., Tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka, Moscow 1935, vol. 1, p. 1214.

118

118. Boishaya sovetskaya entsiklopediya, 2nd edn, vol. 18, p. 270.

119

119. Stalin, Speech, 25 November 1936, on the Draft Constitution of the USSR (Leninism, 1940, p. 581).

120

120. Ibid., p. 567.

121

121. Der Melkonian-Minassian, p. 128.

122

122. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 178 [apparently not in An End To Silence — Trans.]

123

123. Novy Mir, no. 12, 1954, p. 219.

124

124. Quoted in Novy Mir, no. 9, 1964, p. 236.

125

125. A.Ya. Gurevich, ‘M. Blok i “Apologiya istorii”’, in M. Blok (Marc Bloch), Apologiya istorii, Moscow 1973, p. 185.

126

126. G. Dadamyan, D. Dondurei, L. Nevler, ‘Vospriyatie monumental'nago iskusstva’, in Voprosy sotsiologii iskusstva. Teoreticheskie i metodologicheskie problemy, Moscow 1979, pp. 218-19.

127

127. Ibid., p. 215.

128

128. Ibid., p. 214.

129

129. Sovremennaya burzhuaznaya estetika, Moscow 1978, p. 201.

130

130. Lunacharsky, ‘Sotsialistichesky realizin’ (1933) in O teatre i dramaturgii, Moscow 1958, vol. 1, pp. 735-6.

131

131. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 42, p. 339 (Letter to E. Varga, 1 September 1921).

132

132. L.S. Vygodsky, Psikhologiya iskusstva, Moscow 1969, p. 26.

133

133. G.V. Plekhanov, Fundamental Problems of Marxism, 1930, p. 73.

134

134. W. Brus notes, for example, that real wages in the USSR ‘according to detailed Western research, reached in 1952 barely 66–68 per cent (depending on the prices used in the calculation) of the 1928 level’. (Brus, p. 107.)

135

135. Teatr, no. 5, 1957, p. 47.

136

136. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1956, p. 248.

137

137. Zh. Medvedev, Soviet Science, p. 55.

138

138. There is an extensive literature on Lysenko. Among the émigrés this subject has been studied with greatest thoroughness by M. Popovsky and Zhores Medvedev. See Zhores Medvedev, The Rise and Fall of T.D. Lysenko, London 1969: also Dominique Lecourt, Proletarian Science? The Case of Lysenko, 1977.

139

139. Graham, p. 214.

140

140. Bol'shevik, 1952, no. 18.

141

141. Graham, p. 15.

142

142. Tucker, in Political Science Quarterly, p. 181.

Notes

1

1. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1966, p. 193

2

2. R.A. Medvedev, On Stalin and Stalinism, Oxford 1979, p. 148.

3

3. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1973, p. 18.

4

4. Boffa, Storia dell’Unione Soviética, Milan 1976, vol. 2, p. 381.

5

5. Ibid.

6

6. R.A. Medvedev, Let History Judge, 1971, p. 483.

7

7. See A. Maksimov, ‘Protiv reaktsionnogo einshteinianstva v fizike’, Krasnyi Flot, 23 June 1952; and ‘Teoriya otnositel'nosti i materializm', Pod znamenem marksizma, no. 4–5, 1923. Also Filosofskie voprosy Sovremennoi fiziki, Moscow 1952, p. 47.

8

8. See G. Naan, ‘Sovremennyi fizicheskii idealizm v S Sh A i Anglii na sluzhbe popovshchiny i reaktsii’, Voprosy filosofii, no. 2, 1948.

9

9. Graham, p. 120.

10

10. Stalin, Concerning Marxism in Linguistics, 1950 (‘Soviet News’ pamphlet, p.21).

11

11. Ibid. Significantly, an intense Russification of the national regions was being carried on at this time. In Moldavia the Latin and in Central Asia the Arabic alphabets were replaced by the Russian alphabet. (After the revolution the Bolsheviks had imposed the Latin alphabet on the Muslim peoples of the USSR, in the name of Europeanization, but Stalin put this down to ‘bourgeois influence’.)

12

12. W. Scharndorf, lstoriya KPPS, Moscow 1962, p. 70.

13

13. Boffa, p. 384.

14

14. Bol'shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya, 2nd edn, Moscow 1953, Vol. 23, p. 567.

15

15. Voprosy Literatury, no. 8, 1981, p. 212.

16

16. Interestingly, this ‘staggering’ story about Kryakutnoy is still repeated nowadays by Russian chauvinists. See V. Pikul, Slovo i delo, Leningrad 1974, p. 250.

17

17. See Kommunist Tadzhikistana, 14 January 1954; 8 January 1955, etc.

18

18. On Marxist and Stalinist interpretations of morality in history, see L. Kolakowski, Elogio dell’incoerenza, Florence 1974 (Milan 1982).

19

19. See N. Yakovlev, ‘O prepodavanii otechestvennoy istorii’, Bol'shevik, no. 22,1947, pp. 22-9.

20

20. See B. Gafurov, Istoriya Tadzhikskogo naroda v kratkom izlozhenii, Moscow, 1955, vol. 1; also ‘O nekotorykh voprosakh istorii narodov Sredney Azii, Voprosy Istorii, no. 4, 1951.

21

21. Pravda, 28 January 1949.

22

22. Ibid.

23

23. Ibid.

24

24. Pravda, 10 February 1949.

25

25. Ibid.

26

26. Ibid.

27

27. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 224.

28

28. Ibid.

29

29. Boffa, vol. 2, p. 394.

30

30. Emmanuel Mounier, Oeuvres, Paris 1961, vol. 1, p. 524.

31

31. Hingley, p. 45.

32

32. Pravda, 13 January 1953.

33

33. Novy Mir, no. 4, 1953, p. 170.

34

34. V. Bukovsky, To Build A Castle, 1978, p. 81.

35

35. Marcuse suggested that the course towards liberalization was already latent while Stalin was still alive, but ‘the leader and teacher’ could not ‘personally’ set it going. Whether that is true or not, an economic and scientific need for liberalization existed, owing to the pressure of rivalry on the world scale.

36

36. R.C. Tucker, The Soviet Political Mind, p. 141.

37

37. Novy Mir, no. 12, 1953, p. 218.

38

38. Ibid., p. 219.

39

39. Ibid.

40

40. Ibid, p. 229.

41

41. Ibid., p. 232.

42

42. Ibid., p. 233.

43

43. Ibid., p. 234.

44

44. Ibid., p. 237.

45

45. Ibid., p. 234.

46

46. Ibid., p. 238.

47

47. Ibid., p. 241.

48

48. Mark Perakh, ‘Contemporary Dissent in Russia’, Partisan Review, no. 2, 1978, pp. 249-51.

49

49. E. Yevtushenko, interview given to the Sofia newspaper Narodna mladezh.

50

50. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1954, p. 5.

51

51. Ibid., p. 3.

52

52. Novy Mir, no, 2, 1954, p. 219.

53

53. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1955, p. 236.

54

54. Ibid.

55

55. Ibid.

56

56. M. Shcheglov, Literaturnaya kritika, Moscow 1971, p. 175.

57

57. Istoriya KPSS, p. 577.

58

58. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 2, p. 68.

59

59. W. Scharndorf, p. 84.

60

60. P. Hollander, Soviet and American Societies: A Comparison, New York 1973, p. 57.

61

61. Tucker, p. 194.

62

62. Ibid., p. 195.

63

63. Boffa, vol. 2, pp. 511-12.

64

64. R.A. Medvedev, On Stalin and Stalinism, p. 168.

65

65. Shatz, p. 99.

66

66. Bukovsky, p. 84.

67

67. An End To Silence, p. 112.

68

68. R.A. Medvedev, Khrushchev, 1982, p. 101.

69

69. Teatr, no. 1, 1963, p. 45.

70

70. Let History Judge, p. xxviii.

71

71. David Burg, ‘Observations on Soviet University Students’, in Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia, p. 90.

72

72 Komosomolskaya Pravda, 9 August 1956.

73

73. Bukovsky, p. 117.

74

74. The Russian Intelligentsia, p. 90.

75

75. Ibid., p. 96.

76

76. Ibid., p. 95.

77

77. Bukovsky, p. 118.

78

78. The Russian Intelligentsia, p. 96.

79

79. Trud, 8 January 1957.

80

80. Zh. Medvedev, p. 101.

81

81. Bukovsky, p. 116.

82

82. Ibid., p. 122.

83

83. Der Spiegel, no. 18, 1968, p. 93.

84

84. R.A. Medvedev, Intervista sul dissenso in USSR [On Soviet Dissent], New York 1980, p. 63.

85

85. Problems of Communism, no. 3, 1980, p. 58.

86

86. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 174.

87

87. O. Andreyev Carlisle, Voices in the Snow: Encounters With Russian Writers, 1963, p. 81.

88

88. Yevtushenko, interview with the newspaper Narodna Mladezh.

89

89. Yevtushenko, Autobiography (samizdat version), p. 41.

90

90. Yevtushenko, A Precocious Autobiography, 1963, p. 104.

91

91. I. Deutscher, Ironies of History, 1966, p. 275.

92

92. Khrushchev on Culture, Encounter pamphlet 9, 1963, p. 38.

93

93. Ibid.

94

94. Ibid.

95

95. Literaturnaya Zhizn', 27 September 1961, p. 3 (D. Starikov, ‘Ob odnom stikhotvorenii’).

96

96. It deserves to be mentioned, though, that the discussion around Babi Yar was, essentially, the only public discussion of anti-Semitism to take place in the postwar period, and the poet’s adversaries did not stress their anti-Semitism. On the contrary, they said that they were not, ‘in general’, hostile to the Jews, but were merely protesting against ‘excessive’ interest in the Jewish question. Under Brezhnev the anti-Semites began to voice their views more openly, under the flag of ‘anti-Zionism’, both in the official press and in samizdat. We need merely recall the statements by Messrs Yevseyev, Begun, Yemel'yanov, Boroday and others (see later chapters).

97

97. Shatz, p. 96.

98

98. Ibid.

99

99. Ibid., p. 100.

100

100. N.S. Khrushchev, Literature, the Arts and the Life of the People, 1957, p. 16.

101

101. Khrushchev on Culture, p. 17.

102

102. Khrushchev, Literature…, p. 16.

103

103. Wolfgang Leonhard, Was ist Kommunismus? Munich 1976, p. 58.

104

104. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, 1980, p. 8.

105

105. Shcheglov, p. 173.

106

106. Ibid.

107

107. Ibid.

108

108. Ibid., p. 177.

109

109. Ibid., p. 225.

110

110. Midway, Winter 1978, p. 21.

111

111. Ibid., p. 24.

112

112. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1956, p. 245.

113

113. Govorit i pokazyvaet Moskva, no. 16, 1981, p. 6.

114

114. Teatr, no. 6, 1957, pp. 11–12.

115

115. Ibid., p. 11.

116

116. Teatr, no. 8, 1957, p. 104.

117

117. Teatr, no. 1, 1963, p. 44.

118

118. G. Tovstonogov, Zerkalo stseny, Leningrad 1980, vol. 1. p. 44.

119

119. Novy Mir, no. 11, 1960, p. 199.

120

120. Novy Mir, no. 12, p. 239.

121

121. Ibid., p. 241.

122

122. Ibid.

123

123. Sergius Yakobson, ‘The State of the Word’, in Problems of Communism, no. 6, November-December, 1974, p. 49.

124

124. R.A. Medvedev, Tvardovsky i Solzhenitsyn (samizdat), p. 7.

125

125. See Pamyat', no. 2: ‘Vospominaniya’, by R. Pimenov.

126

126. Let History Judge, p. 543.

127

127. M. Voslensky, p. 135.

128

128. Novy Mir, no. 12, 1958, p. 87.

129

129. Dudintsev, Not By Bread Alone (trans. Edith Bone), 1957, p. 4.

130

130. Ibid., p. 216.

131

131. Ibid., p. 217.

132

132. J.R. Rubenstein, Soviet Dissidents: Their Struggle For Human Rights, Boston 1980, p. 9.

133

133. Shatz, p. 104.

134

134. Literaturnaya Gazeta, 28 December 1958.

135

135. Khrushchev, Literature…, pp. 22-3.

136

136. Teatr, no. 5, 1957, p. 47.

137

137. Ibid., p. 49.

138

138. Ibid.

139

139. Ibid., p. 50.

140

140. Novy Mir, no. 2, 1954, p. 79.

141

141. Teatr, no. 5, 1957, p. 51.

142

142. Novy Mir, no. 10, 1958, p. 243.

143

143. A.T. Tvardovsky, Izbrannye sochineniya, Moscow 1981, pp. 601-02.

144

144. Rakovski, p. 39.

145

145. Ibid., pp. 42-3.

146

146. Ibid., p. 48.

147

147. M.N. Pokrovsky, Ocherki po istorii revolyutsionnogo dvizheniya v Rossii, p. 107.

148

148. Hegedüs, p. 186.

149

149. Shatz, p. 141.

150

150. Essentially, among all the countries of the Eastern bloc, only Poland, where no collectivization of agriculture took place, retained a hereditary working class, and this led to the rapid growth of the working-class movement expressed in the mass strikes of 1956, 1970, 1976 and 1980-81. In the other countries a hereditary working class was being formed afresh between 1960 and 1980.

151

151. Ernst Fischer, Kunst und Koexistenz, Beitrag zu eines modernen marxistischen Aesthetik’, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1966, p. 63.

152

152. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1965, p. 253.

153

153. Znamya, no. 2, 1965, p. 157.

154

154. Carlisle, p. 139.

155

155. Voprosy literatury, no. 2, 1981, p. 245.

156

156. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 174.

157

157. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, p. 248.

158

158. Ibid., p. 274n.

159

159. V. Lakshin, ‘Solzhenitsyn, Tvardovsky i “Novy Mir”’, Dvadtsatyi vek, London 1977, vol. 2, pp. 200-01.

160

160. R.A. Medvedev, Tvardovsky i Solzhenitsyn, pp. 7–8.

161

161. E. Gnedin, Iz istorii otnoshenii mezhdu SSS i fashistskoy Germaniei, New York 1977, pp. 5–6.

162

162. Novy Mir, no. 4, 1965, p. 234.

163

163. People, Years, Life, vol 2, 1962, p. 73.

164

164. Ibid., p. 61.

165

165. Khrushchev on Culture, p. 24.

166

166. Ibid., p. 12.

167

167. Ibid.

168

168. Novy Mir, no. 12, 1964, p. 228.

169

169. Ibid.

170

170. Ibid., p. 232.　

171

171. Ibid.

172

172. Realizm i khudozhestvennye iskaniya XX veka, Moscow 1969, p. 9.

173

173. Ibid., p. 31.

174

174. Ibid., p. 7.

175

175. Ibid., p. 42.

176

176. V. Sappak, Televidenie i my, Moscow 1963, p. 117.

177

177. Ibid., p. 110.

178

178. Ibid., p. 117.

179

179. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, p. 14.

180

180. Boffa, vol. 2, p. 599. The chapter heading reads, instead of ‘The anti-Stalinist offensive of the Twenty-Second Congress’, ‘The anti-Fascist offensive…’ (p. 813). A significant misprint!

181

181. Khrushchev, Report to the Twenty-Second Congress of the CPSU, Soviet Booklet no. 80, 1961, p. 74.

182

182. N.M. Shvernik, Rech' na XXII s' ezde KPSS, Moscow 1961, p. 5.

183

183. Khrushchev, Report…, p. 76.

184

184. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1964, p. 223.

185

185. Rakovski, p. 53.

186

186. Shatz, p. 111.

187

187. Z. Brzezinski and S.P. Huntingdon, Political Power: USA/USSR, London 1964, p. 272.

188

188. The actual scale of the movement became known only later. See Workers Against Gulag, Indiana 1979; Arbeiter-Opposition in der Sowjetunion, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1980.

189

189. Khrushchev on Culture, p. 28.

190

190. Ibid., pp. 28–29.

191

191. Brzezinski and Huntingdon, p. 113.

192

192. Khrushchev on Culture, p. 30.

193

193. J. Ortega y Gasset, ‘The Dehumanisation of Art’ (1925), in Bernard F. Dukore, ed., Dramatic Theory and Criticism: Greeks to Grotowski, New York 1974, p. 757.

194

194. Khrushchev on Culture, p. 12.

195

195. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1964, p. 239.

196

196. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1964, p. 223.

197

197. Ibid., p. 224.

198

198. Ibid., p. 245.

199

199. Ibid., p. 232.

200

200. Problemy mira i sotsializma, no. 5, 1963, p. 36.

201

201. Solzhenitsyn, One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, 1963, p. 46.

202

202. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1964, p. 235.

203

203. Ibid., p. 236.

204

204. Novy Mir, no. 5, 1965, pp.266-7.

205

205. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1964, p. 237.

206

206. Novy Mir, no. 5, 1965, p. 264.

207

207. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th edn, English Version, vol. 33, p. 489.

208

208. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1964, p. 238.

209

209. Novy Mir, no. 6, 1965, p. 221.

210

210. Rakovski, p. 11.

211

211. R. Pimenov says in his ‘reminiscences’ that Sheynis expressed this view as early as 1956, but could not bring himself to put it on paper even in samizdat. Roy Medvedev refers to early underground studies in which this question was raised, but he himself rejects such an approach in the name of the ideas of the sixties.

212

212. Shatz, p. 115.

213

213. Ibid., p. 116.

Notes

1

1. Zhores Medvedev, ‘U istokov geneticheskoy diskussii’, Novy Mir, no. 4, 1967.

2

2. Shatz, Soviet Dissent in Historical Perspective, Cambridge 1981, pp. 119–120.

3

3. Rubenstein, Soviet Dissidents: Their Struggle for Human Rights, Boston 1980, p. 40.

4

4. E. Gnedin, Novy Mir, no. 3, 1966, p. 51.

5

5. Ibid., p. 54.

6

6. Rubenstein, p. 42.

7

7. R.A. Medvedev, On Stalin and Stalinism, pp. 177-8.

8

8. Ibid., p. 178.

9

9. Novy Mir, no. 8, 1970, p. 167.

10

10. Of most importance were two works which became widely known in the USSR: J. Kornai, Overcentralization in Economic Administration (1959), and O. Šik, Plan a trh za socialismu, Prague 1968.

11

11. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1967, p. 184.

12

12. Ibid., p. 187.

13

13. Novy Mir, no. 2, 1966, p. 206.

14

14. Novy Mir, no. 9, 1965, p. 226.

15

15. Ibid., p. 212.

16

16. Novy Mir, no. 4, 1967, p. 168.

17

17. R.W. Campbell, Soviet-Type Economies: Performance and Evolution, Boston 1974, p. 199.

18

18. G. Lisichkin, Chto cheloveku nado? p. 45.

19

19. Manuel Azcarate, ‘The New Role of Science’, Marxism Today, vol. 17, no. 3, March 1973, p. 79.

20

20. G. Lisichkin, Plan i rynok, Moscow 1966, pp. 11–12.

21

21. Ibid., p. 21.

22

22. Ibid., p. 50.

23

23. Ibid., p. 60.

24

24. Ibid., p. 60–61.

25

25. This idea was first formulated by an Italian economist, Barone, at the beginning of this century.

26

26. Lisichkin, Chto cheloveku nado? p. 173.

27

27. Lisichkin, Plan i rynok, p. 83.

28

28. V. Bukovsky, To Build A Castle, 1978, p. 151.

29

29. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1973, p. 329.

30

30. Šik, p. 78.

31

31. The journals Socialist Czechoslovakia and Czechoslovak Trade Unions were published in Russian, and materials on the ‘Prague spring’ were printed in Problemy mira i sotsializma. Besides this, Czechoslovak publications — periodicals, newspapers and books in Czech, Slovak, German and English — were freely available in our libraries.

32

32. Politichesky Dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 336.

33

33. J. Kalvoda, Czechoslovakia’s Role in Soviet Strategy, Washington 1978, p. 264.

34

34. Rakovski, Towards an East European Marxism, 1979, p. 19.

35

35. An unambiguously pro-reform position was assumed, for instance, by the Novosibirsk journal EKO, which published articles that were honest and bold.

36

36. Rakovski, p. 19.

37

37. V. Mayakovsky, ‘To Comrade Nette’ (1926), in Herbert Marshall, ed., Mayakovsky and his Poetry, 1942 (?), p. 112.

38

38. Problemy Vostochnoy Evropy, no. 1, 1981, p. 10.

39

39. Ibid., p. 8.

40

40. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, 1980, p. 220.

41

41. An End to Silence, pp. 213-14.

42

42. See the symposium From Under the Rubble, 1975.

43

43. Sovetskaya Kultura, 1 December 1981.

44

44. Politichesky dnevnik, vol. 1, p. 270.

45

45. Ibid., p. 186.

46

46. Le Monde, 22 March 1974, p. 17.

47

47. Novy Mir, no. 11, 1971, p. 191.

48

48. Ibid., p. 198.

49

49. Ibid., p. 202.

50

50. Later an article on Suvorin, by I. Solovekova and V. Shitova, was published, with severe cuts by the censor, in Voprosy Literatury. Its conclusions were much the same as Granin’s.

51

51. Novy Mir, no. 11, 1971, p. 203.

52

52. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1968, p. 192 (the book was published in 1969).

53

53. Klaus Mehnert, Moskau und die neue Linke, Suttgart 1973, p 41.

54

54. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1968, p. 179.

55

55. Brzezinski and Huntington, p. 54.

56

56. Ibid., p. 109.

57

57. The experience of Poland in 1981 showed that the development of new, informal bonds threatens the system with complete collapse.

58

58. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1968, p. 188.

59

59. Ibid., pp. 188-9.

60

60. Novy Mir, no. 10, 1970.

61

61. Novy Mir, no. 1, 1968, p. 190.

62

62. Ibid., p. 196.

63

63. A. Lim, ‘Intellektualy i novyi obshchestvennyi dogovor’, in Problemy Vostochnoy Evropy, no. 2, 1981. See also V. Zaslavsky, II consenso organizzato: la societá soviética negli anni di Brezhnev, Bologna 1981.

64

64. The conception of the ‘preventive counter-revolution’ was very aptly applied by Marcuse to the development of the world political situation between 1968 and 1973. See H. Marcuse, Counter-Revolution and Revolt, Boston 1972, p. 2.

65

65. Rakovski, pp. 51-2.

66

66. Problemy Vostochnoy Evropy, no. 2, 1981, p. 53.

67

67. Socialist Register, 1980, p. 281 (G. Bence and J. Kis, ‘On Being a Marxist: a Hungarian View’).

68

68. Rakovski, p. 67.

69

69. Poiski, no. 1, 1978, Moscow (samizdat), p. 43.

70

70. Zh. Medvedev, p. 130.

71

71. Privileges influence the conduct of scientists in two ways. On the one hand, people who have attained a certain position must make some concessions to the statocracy; but on the other, scientists with a world reputation, such as A.D. Sakharov, quickly reach a level at which nothing can be done to them (the exiling of Sakharov to Gorky was more of a gesture of despair by the rulers). And intellectuals of the young generation, who have not yet achieved high position and have made no moral concessions to the rulers, are potentially dangerous. (The most loyal are often those of middle age and middle rank in science.)

72

72. Neues Forum, May-June, 1979, p. 35.

73

73. I refer here to the dissidents in the strict sense — that is, the defenders of civil rights. Among the émigrés there are serious specialists — V. Zaslavsky, M. Voslensky, L. Tykotsky, A. Yanov and others — but they were not dissidents. On political dissidence, as against the movement for the defence of civil rights, see below.

74

74. Elleinstein’s preface to the French edition of Voslensky’s Nomenklatura.

75

75. Rakovski, p. 68.

76

76. A. Yanov, The Russian New Right, Berkeley 1978, p. 12.

77

77. Ibid., p. 6.

78

78. A very important condition for totalitarianism is economic autarky — that is, a country’s maximum independence of the external market. Stalin succeeded in achieving this in the course of seven or eight years:

The present-day Soviet economy is linked closely with the West, and it would be more difficult than in 1928 to break this link because the new level of technology rules out Stalinist ‘simple solutions’.

79

79. L. Batkin, ‘Third Lecture on Leonardo’, Pushkin Museum, Moscow, 24 December 1980.

80

80. Wolfgang Kasack, Lexicon der Literature ab 1917, Stuttgart 1976, p. 254.

81

81. ‘Soviet Authors Question Expansionism’, Soviet Analyst, vol. 10, no. 9, 1981, p. 5.

82

82. For comparison, see the Green Party in West Germany, in which conservatives rub shoulders with Left radicals and neo-Communists like R. Bahro.

83

83. See Oktyabr', no. 4, 1963; no. 4, 1965.

84

84. V. Komarov, Unichtozhenie prirody, Frankfurt-am-Main 1978, p. 208.

85

85. Ibid., p. 109.

86

86. Ibid., p. 113.

87

87. Izvestiya, 8 October 1981.

88

88. Sovetskaya Kultura, 9 October 1981.

89

89. Ibid.

90

90. Izvestiya, 8 October 1981.

91

91. See V.A. Kuvakin, Religioznaya filosofiya v Rossii, p. 296.

92

92. Hollander, Soviet and American Societies: A Comparison, New York 1973.

93

93. Ibid., p. 191.

94

94. Ibid.

95

95. New York Times, 12 November 1978, p. 14.

96

96. Voprosy Literatury, no. 5, 1969, p. 90.

97

97. Studies on Soviet Thought, vol. 20, no. 1, July 1979, p. 33.

98

98. Voprosy Literatury, no. 5, 1969, p. 98.

99

99. Ibid., pp. 115-16.

100

100. Voprosy Literatury, no. 10, 1969, p. 115.

101

101. Ibid., p. 116.

102

102. Ibid., p. 118.

103

103. Studies on Soviet Thought, p. 32.

104

104. Voprosy Literatury, no. 10, 1969, p. 128.

105

105. Nash Sovremennik, no. 11, 1981, p. 155.

106

106. Ibid., p. 159.

107

107. Ibid., pp. 159, 160.

108

108. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, 1947, p. 43.

109

109. J.L.I. Fennell, ed., The Correspondence between Prince A.M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564–1579, Cambridge 1955, p. 189.

110

110. Ibid., p. 19.

111

111. Nash Sovremennik, no. 11, 1981, p. 173.

112

112. Ibid.

113

113. Ibid., p. 164.

114

114. Ibid., p. 169.

115

115. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, pp. 4–5.

116

116. Voprosy Literatury, no. 9, 1980, pp. 223-4.

117

117. Ibid., p. 224.

118

118. See, on Black-Hundred anti-Semitic publications in the USSR, Mikhail Agursky’s paper Contemporary Russian Nationalism. There are, however, some inaccuracies in this valuable work. For instance, V. Turkov and V. Soloukhin are well known for statements opposed to anti-Semitism and among the Neo-Slavophils they are regarded as ‘pro-Jewish’ deviationists, but Agursky does not take this into account. On the whole, I think, he dramatizes the situation somewhat. See M. Agursky, Contemporary Russian Nationalism — History Revised, Research Paper no. 45, Soviet and East European Research Centre, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, January 1982, p. 48.

119

119. Molodaya Gvardiya, no. 4, 1968, p. 299.

120

120. Molodaya Gvardiya, no. 9, 1968, p. 259.

121

121. Ibid., p. 262.

122

122. Ibid., pp. 264-5.

123

123. Ibid., p. 264.

124

124. Ibid., p. 267.

125

125. Ibid., p. 274.

126

126. Ibid., p. 288.

127

127. Ogonyok, no. 30, 1969. For more details see Yanov, pp. 50–52.

128

128. Yanov, p. 51.

129

129. This needs to be emphasized: what matters is the process going on in the intelligentsia and semi-intelligentsia, and not the struggle for the lower orders, as Yanov thinks. We can comfort him — it will not be easy to raise a revolt of the masses with anti-Semitic appeals alone. The poet Joseph Brodsky says that ‘in factories, villages, even in prison, I found surprisingly little anti-Semitism. Where I did find anti-Semitism strongest was among the literati, the intellectuals’ (Observer Magazine, 25 October 1981, p.37). Sociologists sometimes confirm this. Among the workers the degree of nationalistic prejudice declines in proportion to the increase in their degree of education, but among intellectuals it is ‘higher than among workers though still not by any means overwhelming’ (Horace B. Davis, Toward a Marxist Theory of Nationalism, 1978, p. 111). This can be explained by the serious competition among intellectuals and by the general processes of the crisis of consciousness in their milieu, which favour the growth of nationalism, along with other factors. On the whole, according to Davis, sociologists ‘find extreme national chauvinism among 5 to 10 per cent of the Soviet population’ (ibid., p. 112). It is difficult to judge what the American scholar understands by ‘extreme’ national chauvinism, especially as he says nothing about any ‘moderate’ variety. In any case, the percentage mentioned is high enough; all the same, it cannot be regarded as catastrophically high.

130

130. A bloc between a section of the ruling group and the ‘lower depths’ of the people seems to me to afford the only possible social basis for Fascism in Russia, but neither group reads articles of literary criticism.

131

131. Yanov, p. 61.

132

132. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, p. 245.

133

133. Molodaya Gvardiya had published an article by S. Semanov, ‘On Values Relative and Eternal’, which eulogized Stalin. R. Lert called it a treatise on ‘the charms of the whip’ (An End to Silence, p. 189). This caused a scandal. The journal Kommunist launched a direct attack on Molodaya Gvardiya and some organizational changes were made, although these did not go very far.

134

134. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, pp. 246, 247.

135

135. Solzhenitsyn, in the symposium From Under the Rubble, p. 249.

136

136. Ibid., pp. 261-2.

137

137. An idea often voiced by Maxim Gorky.

138

138. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, p. 245.

139

139. Ibid., p. 248.

140

140. Yanov mentions that in the 1920s Berdyaev was strongly influenced by Mussolini, but at that time an attraction to Italian-style Fascism was common to many radical intellectuals, who saw in it a variant of the Left-wing movement. Bernard Shaw was an example of this trend. Fascism had not yet given itself away — Hitler had not yet come to power in Germany. And Berdyaev was never a Fascist. He underwent serious waverings and made serious political mistakes, but he recognized these himself and tried to correct them in his lifetime. If the VSKhSON interpreted Berdyaev’s ideas in a Fascist and anti-Semitic sense, the Russian thinker himself cannot be made responsible for that, any more than Marx can be blamed for the crimes of Stalin.

141

141. Yanov, p. 63.

142

142. Izvestiya, 6 February 1982.

143

143. Ibid.

144

144. Sovetskaya Kultura, 10 March 1982.

145

145. See Voprosy Literatury, no. 9, 1980, pp. 195, 211-13, etc.

146

146. Voprosy Literatury, no. 6, 1980, p. 191.

147

147. From Under the Rubble, p. ix.

148

148. Ibid., p. 4.

149

149. The contributors to the symposium are not all of one mind. On its own stands the technocratic utopia of Mikhail Agursky, which, broadly, reiterates the ideas of reformist Communism (although the reformist Communists go further in the matter of democracy).

150

150. From Under the Rubble, p. 12.

151

151. Ibid., p. 22.

152

152. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, p. 284.

153

153. Ibid., pp. 248, 283.

154

154. Berdyaev, The Russian Idea, p. 2. See also pp. 8, 9.

155

155. M. Agursky. The New Russian Literature, p. 61.

156

156. Ibid., pp. 62-3.

157

157. Vestnik Rossiiskogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya, no. 131, 1980, p. 208.

158

158. Ibid., p. 210. Yanov (p. 36) considers that liberalism can be combined with an authoritarian regime ‘only in the framework of a utopia which is to say an ideological construct, unrealizable in practice’. That is not true. Liberal-authoritarian regimes have existed and succeeded quite well in the twentieth-century. One can enumerate a number of such regimes, from the most authoritarian — Franco’s Spain in the 1960s — to the most liberal — Yugoslavia under Tito, Mexico in the 1960s, K&dcir’s Hungary, and so on. The specific feature of these regimes is that they leave open the possibility of an evolutionary transition to democracy. The problem is not whether such a form of government is possible in general, but whether it is possible in the concrete conditions of Russia. I think it is impossible, for two reasons. The first is that liberal authoritarianism arises in countries with a more developed democratic (and legal) tradition than ours, which influences the ideology of the ruling social strata. The second is that the ideology and psychology of the Russian nationalists is, in itself, too aggressive, too closely linked with Stalinism and the reactionary ideas of the extreme Right. It is not suitable as accompaniment to a liberal policy, it is totalitarian. Solzhenitsyn is not the first to have tried to transform Russia on the basis of humaneness while retaining an authoritarian order. Gogol dreamed of doing that in the period of his Select Passages From Correspondence With My Friends. Berdyaev said of ‘Gogol’s utopia’ that it was ‘abject and slavish’ and was rejected by all thinking people in Russia (The Russian Idea, p. 82).

159

159. In 1979 a left-wing samizdat journal wrote of the possibility of a ‘historic compromise’ between nationalists of the Solzhenitsyn type and the Stalinists. A cry of protest against this suggestion went up in Moscow’s Christian circles, yet both Solzhenitsyn and Veche quite frankly proclaimed such a compromise as their aim. Solzhenitsyn himself acknowledges that the Letter to Soviet Leaders was not a propaganda document but a genuine proposal for dialogue.

160

160. Ernest Mandel, Die Sowjetunion, Solschenizyn und die westliche Linke, Reinbek bei Hamburg 1975, p. 224.

161

161. Commentary, vol. 57, no. 5, May 1974, p. 35.

162

162. Ibid., vol. 58, no. 3, September 1974, p. 12.

163

163. Survey, no. 1, 1979, p. 134.

164

164. Ibid.

165

165. Socialist Register 1980, p. 281.

166

166. Dissent, Winter 1981, p. 66 (‘Solzhenitsyn: Prisoner of Chillon’).

167

167. Survey, no. 1, 1979, p. 134.

168

168. I. Deutscher, Heretics and Renegades, 1955, pp. 14–15.

169

169. Sintaksis, no. 5, 1979, p. 157.

170

170. Ibid., p. 158.

171

171. R.A. and Zh. A. Medvedev, V poiskakh zdravogo smysla, Moscow (samizdat), p. 13.

172

172. Deutscher, p. 14.

173

173. Ibid., p. 13.

174

174. Quoted in Schamdorf, Istoriya KPSS, Moscow 1962, p. 36.

175

175. This problem is discussed in a sensible article by G. Pomerants, ‘A Dream of Just Revenge’, in Sintaksis, no. 6, 1980. It is difficult to estimate the true scale of the White terror, for oppositionist historians do not concern themselves with the subject, having no wish to give pleasure to the authorities, and one cannot rely on the honesty of the Stalinists — who also stay away from the subject. I lack the necessary information, but according to my calculations the number of victims of the White terror was at least three million, while the maximum number of victims of the Red terror has been estimated by Western historians at two million. In any case, one cannot understand the Red terror without studying the White.

176

176. R.A. Medvedev, On Stalin and Stalinism, p. 186.

177

177. Solzhenitsyn, The Oak and the Calf, pp. 526-7. Brodsky, whom nobody will accuse of sympathy with Fascism, declared that, since the USSR is ‘so huge that to accept that its regime is bad is to accept a bigger notion of evil than these people can stomach’, Western public opinion, when desiring to condemn Fascism, turns to ‘more manageable cases — in Latin America or Asia or wherever — where expressing your outrage can bring results’ (Observer Magazine, 25 October 1981, p. 41). One recalls Roger Garaudy’s observation that the dogmatist always sees the world in criteria of absolute good and evil: he fights against nothing less than absolute evil.

178

178. Za rubezhom, no. 10, 1982, quoting Le Monde, states that in Guatemala ‘in recent weeks there have been an average of fifty to sixty killings every day’ (p. 9).

179

179. Sintaksis, no. 6, 1980, p. 19.

180

180. E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful, 1973, p. 75.

181

181. V. Bukovsky, Pis'ma russkogo puteshestvennika, New York 1981, p. 40.

182

182. Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, 1969, Part I, p. 345.

183

183. The examples given were not invented but taken from life.

184

184. Bukovsky, To Build A Castle, p. 108.

185

185. Bukovsky writes that ‘we Russians… listen sadly to all the chatter about Eurocommunism and socialism with a human face. Why is it that nobody speaks of Fascism with a human face?’ (ibid., p. 89). Bukovsky imagines that by this argument he has annihilated the left-wing ‘chatterers’, never suspecting that he has thereby demolished his own arguments. If he had not asked that question himself, we should have asked it of him. Why, indeed? For a very simple reason: the one is possible, the other not. Fascist ideology and psychology leave not the slightest possibility for the existence of democratic ideals, but their Communist counterparts, even in official Soviet form, not only allow but constantly engender a variety of democratic ‘deviations’, because in them the democratic ideal — albeit disfigured and maimed by Stalin, shot down a thousand times or left to rot in the camps — nevertheless lives on. It lives in the illusions of young Ulyanov, in the disappointments of the later Lenin, in the tragic fate of Imre Nagy… precisely because democratic reformism is continually being generated within the framework of official pseudo-Communism. As for those movements which were not much influenced by Stalinism — such as the Italian Communist Party, or the socialist parties which have always combated barracks-Communism — in them the democratic ideal never died. There is one detail on which I in my turn would aski Mr Bukovsky to ponder. What real Fascism do we know, and what ‘real’ socialism? He can hardly give a satisfactory answer, for the simple reason that up to now there has been no real socialism anywhere. Will there be? We shall see.

186

186. See V. Krasnov, Otvet V. Bukovskomu (samizdat).

187

187. Bukovsky, Pis'ma…, p. 204.

188

188. Bukovsky, To Build A Castle, pp. 90, 92ff.

189

189. Yanov, p. 85.

190

190. Oppositional and even liberal dogmatism is no new thing in Russia. A.F. Koni wrote, of the nineteenth-century liberals: ‘It is hard to imagine greater discord, intolerance, and blind liberal orthodoxy than prevailed amongst them’ (Sochineniya, vol. 2, p. 183).

191

191. Problemy Vostochnoy Evropy, no. 2, 1981, p. 46.

192

192. Yanov, p. 98.

193

193. A. Zinoviev, My i zapad, Lausanne 1981, p. 89.

194

194. Corriere della Sera, supplement, 5 November 1977, interview with A. Zinoviev.

195

195. A. Zinoviev, My i zapad, p. 118.

196

196. K. Burdzhuademov, Ocherki rastushchey ideologii, Munich 1974, p. 6.

197

197. E. Il’enkov, Ob idolakh i idealakh, Moscow 1968, p. 183.

198

198. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 6, p. 109 (The Poverty of Philosophy)

199

199. See, for example, the very strange concluding words of Roy Medvedev in his talk with A. Zinoviev and P. Ostellino.

200

200. The Stalinist mentality is the guarantee of Zinoviev’s success. In the West they have not read Stalin and Soviet textbooks, but they read Zinoviev. His seems an original, distinctive way of thinking. But in the USSR it all appears familiar and understandable — ‘our own’!

201

201. Zinoviev in Corriere della Sera.

202

202 Ibid.

203

203 Zinoviev, My i zapad, p. 8.

204

204. Ibid., p. 57 ff.

205

205. Such phrases as these, for instance: ‘It is not enough to say that this conception is stupid. It is stupid in the highest degree, i.e., idiotic’ (ibid., p. 87). Like a bad translation from German. I deliberately refrain from quoting here from Zinoviev’s ‘artistic’ works, lest I resemble those critics who, as Oscar Wilde put it, ‘are apparently reduced to be the reporters of the police-court of literature, the chroniclers of the doings of the habitual criminals of art’ (The Critic As Artist, Utrecht 1957, p. 28).

206

206. Die Zukunft, no. 11, 1980, p. 30.

207

207. Zinoviev, My i zapad, p. 58.

208

208. It is amusing that Zinoviev constantly rebukes the dissidents for their lack of theory, mentioning that they have no sociological training (but has he?). That is not the point. Many discoveries in the social sciences have been made by dilettanti (Marx was a philosopher who wrote a work of genius on political economy; Freud was a doctor who opened a new epoch in philosophy; Marcuse, though not a Sovietologist, wrote the best work of Sovietology; and so on). Contrariwise, A. Amalrik, a professional historian, failed to create a scientific theory. The ideological weakness of the dissidents lies in their inability to transcend the narrow horizon of neo-Stalinist dogmas, but lack of special training explains only a few concrete cases. Furthermore, Zinoviev himself is an example of this weak side of the dissident movement. With many dissidents, personal heroism compensates for lack of theoretical knowledge. Zinoviev has performed no acts of heroism. For this there is, of course, no reason to ‘blame’ him; it was our rulers who decided not to make a martyr of him. Alas, it has to be admitted that our system produces martyrs not only for internal consumption, but for export — in excess of demand.

209

209. Zinoviev, My i zapad, p. 57.

210

210. Zinoviev frankly admits that the results of his ‘scientific investigations’

As to how Zinoviev predicts facts we may judge by his assurance in May 1980, when the Polish revolution was already on the way, that this year could see only something ‘deserving of sneers and contempt’, ‘evoked by apathy and disillusionment, but most improbably by hope. An ordinary, dull year’ (p. 153). As regards ability to explain, in the last analysis all ideologues do is to explain facts in accordance with their preconceived schemas and try to predict them. But facts require not to be ‘explained’ but to be assembled, generalized, studied and analysed; and only then can they be understood.

211

211. It was no accident that the idea of free trade unions began to spread among us even before the Polish events of August 1980. It may be supposed that my personal experience differs markedly from that of Mr Zinoviev (even though I do not build my ‘original’ theories on this ground). But here before me lies a very interesting samizdat document, a long manuscript entitled Repairs, written by some provincial engineer. The author of this paper is not a dissident: indeed, he dislikes dissidents. He reads no opposition literature and gets his information from the official newspapers. He approves of the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and thinks the censorship very useful: ‘Permit wide and open criticism of the negative factors in our life, and within a week anarchy would reign in the country’ (Repairs, copy no. 3–1, p. 4). He explains the suppression of criticism by ‘a sound protective instinct’ (ibid.). He fully supports the official ideology in its school-book version. In the level of his political knowledge he, though an engineer, is much lower than many workers (for during the last three years the workers have put into samizdat a number of rather interesting documents, including some composed in the provinces — see Socialism and the Future, no. 10–11, Summer 1981). He might seem to be the ideal ‘Soviet man’ according to Zinoviev. What made him write for samizdat? The fact that in the entire system there is only one thing he rejects: the one-party principle, in which he sees the cause of all our woes. A second ‘Communist Party’ must be formed, a twin to the first with exactly the same ideology, and then all will come right. The author has not perceived that he has encroached upon the very basis of the statocratic regime. But how did such an idea enter his head? Here it has to be made clear that not only in the works of Lenin but even in the official manuals of ‘Marxism-Leninism’ we fail to find a developed justification for the one-party system. Even fervent Stalinists cannot bring themselves to assert that the one-party system is a ‘law’ or principle of socialism. This is only implied, hinted at, when they talk of the leading role of the Party (but the leading role of one party does not rule out the existence of others). For the official ideology the one-party system is a sort of ‘skeleton in the cupboard’ about which everyone knows but no one ever speaks. True, in Brezhnev’s constitution the one-party system was given a ‘juridical’ basis (for the first time in sixty years!) but it still lacks any theoretical justification. It is not surprising, therefore, that even those loyal to the official ideology more and more often arrive, through their own thinking, at the idea of a multiparty system (which is not yet the same as political pluralism, since that presumes competition between different political and ideological tendencies), without seeing in this a break with Communism. Propaganda for ‘the ideals of October’ is also dangerous to the statocracy, because society has diverged from these ideals. The statocracy would like to put an end to them, but this gets more and more difficult. As for the author of Repairs, he complains that the dream of Soviet people is now ‘the dissolution of the CPSU, a tempting prospect for “unburdening the heart’’ of the non-Party people whom the Party exasperates, but also for the rank-and-file members of the party itself ’ (p. 84; emphasis added). In the same way, while remaining an adherent of the official ideology, the author advocates ‘election to all posts in the economic and technical leadership’ (p. 82) and ‘workers’ control over production’ (p. 86). Neo-Stalinism cannot resolve openly to repudiate these principles, either, but simply refuses to put them into practice.

212

212. Zinoviev, My i zapad, p. 60.

213

213. Voprosy Filosofii, no. 5, 1980, p. 95.

214

214. EKO, no. 7, 1980, p. 80.

215

215. See Erich Fromm, Agression und Charakter: ein Gespräch, Zurich 1975; and his Marx’s Concept of Man, New York 1963.

216

216. L. Kolakowski, ‘Tesi sulla speranza e sulla disperazione’, in Elogio dell’incoerenza.

217

217. Zinoviev himself said that his social ideal is ‘the world as it exists today’ (My i zapad, p. 97).

218

218. A. Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, trans. E.F.J. Payne, Indian Hills (Colorado) 1958, vol. 1, p. 35.

Notes

1

1. Literaturnaya Gazeta, 21 October 1981.

2

2. Ibid.

3

3. Ibid.

4

4. Izvestiya, 10 December 1981.

5

5. Sovetskaya Kultura, 5 March 1982. The visit to the Moscow Art Theatre by the leaders of the CPSU had originally been planned to take place earlier, but was postponed owing to the illness and death of M. Suslov.

6

6. Literaturnaya Gazeta, 20 January 1982, p. 8.

7

7. Ibid.

8

8. R.B. Remnek, ed., Social Scientists and Policy-Making in the USSR, New York 1977, p. vii.

9

9. The experience of Hitlerism showed that rational and effective means can be found even for the realization of irrational ends. The fearful possibility exists, even, that Fascism’s ends would have been realized if the other side had not found effective means of self-defence.

10

10. Rakovski, Towards an East European Marxism, p. 55.

11

11. See B.F. Porshnev, Sotsial'naya psikhologiya i istoriya, Moscow 1966, pp. 3-10.

12

12. F. Burlatsky, Lenin, gosudarstvo, politika, p. 69.

13

13. Ibid., p. 65. '

14

14. Lenin, Collected Works, 4th edn, English version, vol. 32, p. 100.

15

15. F. Burlatsky and A. Galkin, Sotsiologiya. Politika. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya, Moscow 1974, p. 193.

16

16. It is interesting that although Burlatsky transcribed, in the book he wrote jointly with Galkin, whole paragraphs from his book about Lenin and the state, he did not include it in arguments about the Soviet state ‘of the whole people’ and the ‘revisionism’ of 1956 and 1968 in Eastern Europe. It is easy to imagine what his real attitude must be to all that.

17

17. F. Burlatsky, Zagadka i urok Nikkolo Makiavelli, Moscow 1977, p. 57.

18

18. Ibid., p. 67.

19

19. Ibid., p. 248.

20

20. Ibid., p. 249.

21

21. Burlatsky and Galkin, p. 269.

22

22. A. Gel'man, My, nizhepodpisavshiesya, Moscow 1980, p. 40.

23

23. Sovetskaya Kultura, 3 April 1981.

24

24. Ibid.

25

25. Ibid.

26

26. Poiski, no. 1, 1978, p. 30.

27

27. Filosofskie nauki, no. 4, 1968, p. 1–109.

28

28. J.N. Findlay, Hegel: A Re-Examination, New York 1958, p. 59.

29

29. See Voprosy filosofii, no. 4, 1962, pp. 27–65. It is nevertheless noteworthy that in many cases Soviet philosophers, and especially historians, arrived at the same conclusions as Lukács. He considered that the main feature of Stalinism as method was the attempt to leap from a listing of facts to a formulation of abstract laws which ‘explain everything’, avoiding concrete analysis. A similar idea was expressed by M. Gefter. However, under ‘real Stalinism’ it was easy to bring the facts under a general law, because ‘unnecessary’ facts were simply removed from the scene, along with the people who knew them. See G. Lukács, ‘On Stalinism’, Soviet Survey, no. 10, 1956, and ‘Reflections on the Cult of Stalin’, in ibid., no. 47, 1964.

30

30. Il'enkov’s principal works are Dialektika abstraktnogo i konkretnogo v ‘Kapitale’ Marksa, Moscow 1960; Ob idolakh i idealakh, Moscow 1968; K voprosy o prirode myphleniya, Moscow 1968; Dialekticheskaya Logika, Moscow 1974.

31

31. Lenin, Collected Works, vol. 38, p. 212.

32

32. Filosofskie nauki, no. 4, 1968, p. 106.

33

33. Ibid., p. 111.

34

34. Ibid., p. 112.

35

35. Ibid.

36

36 Studies in Soviet Thought, vol. 18, no. 2, May 1978, p. 105.

37

37. Ibid.

38

38. Problema cheloveka u sovremennoy filosofii, Moscow 1969, p. 76.

39

39. Ibid., p. 90.

40

40. Ibid., p. 109

41

41. Ibid., p. 136.

42

42. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 3, 1975, p. 295.

43

43. Problema cheloveka v sovremennoy filosofii, p.138.

44

44. Ibid., p. 119.

45

45. Ibid., p. 124.

46

46. Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, 1973, pp. 3–4.

47

47. Ibid., p. 6.

48

48. Zhores Medvedev, pp. 168-9.

49

49. Graham, pp. 5–6.

50

50. Ibid., p. 9.

51

51. V.S. Bibler, Myshlenie kak tvorchestvo, Moscow 1975, p. 7.

52

52. M.M. Bakhtin, Problemy poetiki Dostoevskogo, Moscow 1963, p. 92.

53

53. Because of their frequent appearances together in public, A. Gurevich, V. Bibler and L. Batkin are regarded by many as a sort of trio — ‘the Moscow virtuosi’. S.S. Averintsev and Yu. Lotman stand somewhat aloof.

54

54. A. Gurevich, in M. Blok (Bloch), Apologiya istorii, p. 179.

55

55. L. Batkin, I lektsiya o Leonardo, A.S. Pushkin Museum, Moscow, 10 December 1980.

56

56. Novy Mir, no. 11, 1970, p. 240.

57

57. Istoricheskaya nauka i nekotorye problemy sovremennosti, Moscow 1969, p. 354.

58

58. Metropol', Paris 1979, p. 751.

59

59. Ibid., p. 747.

60

60. Rakovski, p. 8.

61

61. See R.A. Medvedev, Predislovie k nenapisannoy avtobiografii, Moscow (samizdat); Also R.A. and Zh.A. Medvedev, Vpoiskakh zdravogo smysla.

62

62. Radical Marxists have criticized Roy Medvedev very strongly, and in some socialist circles it is almost considered bon ton to abuse him. I must admit that I went along with this fashion in my book The Dialectics of Hope (see the chapter ‘Orchestra Rehearsal’). That was, of course, a manifestation of our purely Russian intolerance: I reacted too categorically to some of the expressions he used. I should add that I still disagree with him essentially on a number of matters, but the polemic ought to be carried on in a more good-humoured way than it has usually been in Russia. It is interesting, by the way, that the first issue of Varianty opened with a leading article aimed at Roy Medvedev.

63

63. Of the three journals mentioned, Varianty was the least known in the West and, consequently, in our country too. That is why I decided to deal with it in greater detail.

64

64. Problemy Voitochnoy Evropy, no. 2, 1981, p. 137.

65

65. A. Tsipko, Optimizm istorii, Moscow 1974, p. 179.

66

66. A. Tsipko, Ideya sotsializma. Vekha biografii, Moscow 1976, p. 25. See M. Barg, ‘K voprosu o predmete i metode istorii sotsialisticheskikh idey’, in the symposium Istoriya obshchestvennoy mysli, Moscow 1972, p. 432.

67

67. Tsipko, Ideya sotsializma, p. 42.

68

68. Engels, interview with Le Figaro, May 1893. [In the Dietz edition of collected works of Marx and Engels, vol. 22, pp. 538-43. The interview was given on 8 May and published on 13 May — Trans.]

69

69. Tsipko, Ideya sotsializma, p. 38.

70

70. Ibid.

71

71. Ibid., p. 41.

72

72. Ibid., p. 130.

73

73. Marx and Engels, Collected Works, vol. 5, 1976, p. 439.

74

74. Plato’s Laws and Republic are an example of a social utopia.

75

75. Tsipko, Ideya sotsializma, p. 260.

76

76. Ibid.

77

77. G.B. Shaw, Back to Methuselah (preface), 1921, p. lxxix.

78

78. G. Vodolazov, Dialektika i revolyutsiya, Moscow 1975, p. 80.

79

79. Ibid., p. 71.

80

80. Orwell, ‘Looking Back on the Spanish War’ (1942), in Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, Penguin, 1970, vol. 2, p. 296.

81

81. Politicheskii Dnevnik, vol. l,p. 86.

82

82. Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie istorikov, p. 19.

83

83. Ibid., pp. 69–70.

84

84. Ibid., p. 124.

85

85. Ibid., p. 148. Actually, of course, it was not the memoir genre that was killed off, but those who might have written memoirs…

86

86. See Vestnik Akademii Nauk SSSR, no. 1, 1962. This does not mean, in the least, that Great-Russian chauvinism ceased to be utilized officially. Thus in 1982 a book was published in Kazakhstan (!) entitled Thanks Be To You, Russian People. This included ‘passages from the classics of Marxism-Leninism and statements by representatives of many nations and nationalities of our country concerning the great Russian people, the exceptional importance of its historical role and its beneficent influence on the way other peoples developed’ (Knizhnoe obozrenie, no. 6, 5 February 1982, p. 3). The Russian people was again spoken of as ‘the elder brother’. Naturally, none of the critical statements made by Marx and Lenin about the Russians was included in the collection.

87

87. Evropa v novoe i noveyshee vremya, Moscow 1966, p. 513.

88

88. Vsesoyuznoe soveshchanie istorikov, pp. 358-9.

89

89. Ibid., p. 359.

90

90. V.P. Danilov, O kharaktere sotsial'no-ekonomicheskikh otnoshenii sovetskogo krest'yanstva do kollektivizatsii sel'skogo khozyaistva, Moscow 1961, p. 7.

91

91. Marx, Capital, vol. 1, Penguin/NLR, 1976, p. 927.

92

92. Danilov, p. 17.

93

93. Ibid., p. 34.

94

94. Voprosy istorii, no. 3, 1965, p. 20.

95

95. See M.A. Vyltsan, N.I. Ivnitsky, Yu.A. Polyakov, ‘Nekotorie problemy istorii kollektivizatsii v SSSR’, Voprosy istorii, no. 3; 1965, N. Ivnitsky, ‘O kriticheskom analize istochnikov po istorii sploshnoy kollektivizatsii’, Istorichesky Arkhiv, no. 2, 1962.

96

96. R.A. Medvedev, K sudu istorii, p.218.

97

97. Quoted in Novy Mir, no. 1, 1968, p. 259.

98

98. Ibid.

99

99. Istoricheskaya nauka i nekotorye problemy sovremennosti, p. 6.

100

100. Maria Markus and Andras Hegedüs, ‘Tendencies in Marxist Sociology in the Socialist Countries’, in A. Hegedüs et at, The Humanization of Socialism: Writings of the Budapest School, 1976, pp. 124-5.

101

101. Rakovski, p. 17.

102

102. Ibid.

103

103. I have attempted to draw some general conclusions from A. Gurevich’s work in my Dialectics of Hope.

104

104. A.Ya. Gurevich, Problemy genezisa feodalizma v Zapadnoy Evrope, Moscow 1970, p. 184.

105

105. Voprosy istorii, no. 9, 1970, p. 154.

106

106. Istoricheskaya nauka…, p. 10.

107

107. His lecture was delivered in 1966, but not published and made available to wide circles of the intelligentsia until 1969, in Gefter’s symposium.

108

108. ‘“Thermidor?”’, we read in some notes by Lenin. ‘Soberly, that could be, yes? Will it? We’ll see. Let us not boast as we go into battle’ (Polnye sobranie sochineniya, vol. 43, p. 403). But we must remember that he did not expect the danger of Thermidor from the quarter from which it did eventually come, but from the peasantry, seeing this foreboded in the Kronstadt mutiny. See above, Chapter 2.

109

109. Istoricheskaya nauka…, p. 236.

110

110. Ibid., p. 248.

111

111. Ibid., pp. 248-9.

112

112. Ibid., p. 279.

113

113. Voprosy istorii kapitalisticheskoy Rossii: Problema mnogoukladnost’, Sverdlovsk 1972, p. 99.

114

114. Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv, Moscow 1968, p. 456.

115

115. Ibid., p. 478.

116

116. Ibid., pp. 535, 537.

117

117. Ibid., p. 435.

118

118. Ibid., p. 454.

119

119. Ibid., p. 635.

120

120. Ibid., p. 483.

121

121. Another aspect of this matter must be mentioned. In 1969-72 the most important centres for research in the social sciences were given a battering. The Institute of History and the Institute for Concrete Social Research suffered severely. V.P. Danilov and the prominent sociologist Yu.A. Levada were subjected to official criticism. Work on Soviet material became extremely difficult. At the same time, Tvardovsky’s Novy Mir was bashed. As a result, the leading figures in the social sciences moved to such other research centres as the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, the Institute of Oriental Studies and the Institute for the Study of the USA and Canada.

122

122. Proof of this may be found in the way the researchers became immersed in their material. Vasil'ev himself has become so ‘Sinified’ that, for example, he considers that the Yin dynasty ‘was not fated to last long. Already in 1027 B.C., after existing for five centuries, it fell…’ (Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv, p. 460). Here the categories are obviously Confucian.

123

123. Ibid., p. 509.

124

124. Ibid., p. 511.

125

125. Voprosy filosofii, no. 6, 1969, p. 39.

126

126. M.A. Cheshkov, Ocherki istorii feodal'nogo V'etnama, Moscow 1967, pp. 21-2.

127

127. Ibid., p. 135.

128

128. Ibid., p. 137.

129

129. Ibid., pp. 245-6.

130

130. V. Gel'bras, Sotsial' no-politicheskaya struktura KNR 50-60-e gody, Moscow 1980, p. 5.

131

131. Problemy sovetskogo kitaevedeniya, Moscow 1973, p. 31.

132

132. Ibid., p. 187.

133

133. Voprosy filosofii, no. 2, 1980, p. 116.

134

134. Ibid., p. 117.

135

135. F. Burlatsky, Lenin, gosudarstvo, politika, p. 464.

136

136. Voprosy filosofii, no. 2, 1980, p. 119.

137

137. Ibid.

138

138. Ibid., p. 124.

139

139. Ibid., p. 123.

140

140. Ibid.

141

141. Voprosy filosofii, no. 6, 1969, p. 42.

142

142. S. Vodolazov, p. 79.

143

143. Tsipko, Optimizm istorii, pp. 123-4.

144

144. Ibid., p. 125.

145

145. Anti-Dühring, 1936, p. 129.

Notes

1

1. Régis Debray, Teachers, Writers, Celebrities: The Intellectuals of Modern France, 1981, p. 238.

2

2. K. Burdzhuademov, p. 6.

3

3. A. Michnik, Letters from Prison, Berkeley 1985, p. 188.

4

4. Voprosy filosofii, no. 5, 1980, p. 93 (the figures relate to Azerbaijan).

5

5. Mondo operaio, no. 7–8, 1981, p. 10.

6

6. Gespräche mit Ernst Bloch, Frankfurt-am-Main 1975, p. 152.

7

7. Der Spiegel, no. 48, 22 November 1976, p. 46.

Notes

1

1. First published as ‘The Intelligentsia and the Changes’ in New Left Review 164, July-August 1987.

2

2. See Sovetskaya Kultura, 7 February 1987.

3

3. Literaturnaya Gazeta, 18 February 1987.

4

4. Knizhnoe Obozrenie, no. 7, 1987, Yunost', 1987, no. 2.

5

5. Knizhnoe Obozrenie, No. 9, 1987.

6

6. A typical statement is that it is necessary ‘to create something like that, but our own, Russian thing.’ Sovetskaya Kultura, 24 January 1987.

7

7. Twentieth Century and Peace, English-language journal, Moscow, no. 4, 1987, p. 46.

8

8. See ‘War and Peace in Stalin’s Russia’, a review of Life and Fate by Tamara Deutscher, in New Left Review 163, May-June 1987 \Ed. note].

9

9. Twentieth Century and Peace, no. 4, 1987, p. 48.

10

10. Knizhnoe Obozrenie, 1987, no. 9.

11

1 1. See Novy Mir, no. 2, 1987, pp. 196-7.

12

12. One such missive was published in Moskovskie Novosti, with a commentary by Yegor Yakovlev.

13

13. Izvestiya, 3 December 1986.

Note

1

1. From Times Literary Supplement, 25–31 December 1987.

Notes

1

1. From Labour Focus, vol. 9, p. 3; November 1987 — February 1988, p. 9.

2

2. From The Guardian, 12 September 1987.

Note

1

1. From New Statesman, 29 January 1988.

2

2. Although the January Conference took place as scheduled, it did not lead to the Federation being accorded any official or registered status. (Publishers’ note, March 1988)